What does "scripture" mean in NT writing? This is slightly a take-off from:
What does it mean that all scripture is God-Breathed?

The Bible as we know it today wasn't canonized and compiled into a single volume until much later. In particular, I am concerned with the reference to all scripture being "God-breathed" (inspired) in 2 Timothy, as it was written long before (varying, based on which "canonization" we consider) any canonization.

So what was meant/intended by the authors by the term "scripture" at the time of New Testament writings?

The word for "scripture" in the Greek text is (ἡ) γραφή, often occurring in the plural, (τῆς) γραφῆς, which literally means "writing(s)." The word occurs approximately 50 times in the New Testament (depending on the manuscript used it is 50 or 51) and it seems pretty clear to me from a word search that this almost exclusively refers to the Old Testament writings when used by New Testament authors.

The exception is 2 Peter 3:16, which says:

  And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as also our
  dear brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him,
  speaking of these things in all his letters [(ἐπιστολαῖς, epistles)].
  Some things in these letters are hard to understand, things the ignorant
  and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they also do to the rest
  of the scriptures [(γραφὰς, writings)] (2 Peter 3:15-16, NET).

This verse clearly refers to Paul's writings as "scriptures." Everywhere else it refers to the Old Testament (or to specific passages from the Old Testament).

Even by the earliest dating standard for 2 Peter, all of Paul's epistles that are included in the New Testament would have been written by the time this statement was made with the possible exceptions of 2 Timothy (possibly written the same year as 2 Peter, although most likely before as 2 Peter was probably not written until at least 65 and 2 Timothy was almost certainly written in 64) and Hebrews (whose author is disputed anyways). 2 Peter is also considered to be antilegomena, although it has been widely accepted by the Church throughout history.

It is thus my opinion that St. Paul was not referring to New Testament writings when he said that all scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), but rather to Old Testament writings.


Is there any biblical justification for referring to God as Mother? On one occasion, I heard someone prayer, "To God, our Father and Mother." In The Shack, the Trinity is represented as three persons, where God the Father is a woman.

Is there any biblical justification for referring to God as Mother?

Are there any denominations or movements which do call the first person of the trinity 'Mother'?

There is a significant distinction between calling God "mother" and the Bible identifying aspects of motherhood (and fatherhood) as reflecting the glory and character of God.

Both men and women reflect the glory and character of God in different ways, as men and women, fathers and mothers, teachers, judges, etc.

However, God is spirit (John 4:23) and not physical.  In the beginning, God created the physical universe, including genders.  Yet, He Himself was not biological, but is and was outside of creation.

When He entered into creation, He did enter into it as a Man.  In the Lord's prayer, God the Son instructs us to refer to God the Father as "Our Father" (Matthew 6:9-13).  Nowhere in Scripture are we instructed to refer to God as mother.

The example of Paul is of note as well.  He himself indicated that he cared for the Thessalonians like a mother cares for her children:

  But we were gentle[c] among you, like a nursing mother taking care of
  her own children.  1 Thessalonians 2:7 ESV

But no one used that as a basis for calling Paul "Mom".

This in no way disparages women, and both men and women reflect the glory of God.  Yet, God has chosen to reveal Himself in the masculine sense.  If we are devoted believers, we recognize that He is the One who has the right to define how we should refer to Him--not us.


Why is 'putting to death' condoned in the Bible? Death as Judgement

One of the well known commandments is "Thou shalt not kill." However, it seems that death is the single most used judgement for violations of the Leviticus law.

Not only is killing sanctioned as an act of punishment for egregious violations, being put to death is also commanded for less abhorrent crimes, as in Leviticus 20:11;

  If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (NASB)

Death for seemingly unknown reasons

During the Exodus God commanded that Israel slaughter nation after nation. Thousands upon thousands, if not millions, of people were put to death as Israel came in and took over the promised land. Why did God tell Israel to do this?

Can you explain why God commanded Israel to slaughter nation after nation?

To preserve the sanctity of life
Genesis 9:6

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

The Lord commands that those who commit certain sins must die because they have despised those made in His own image. It's also worth noting that one of the reasons for the flood (where all but 8 were killed) was the attempt to pollute mankind and introduce a demonic likeness (see Nephilim).
As punishment for a nation
Isaiah 13

1 The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see. 2 Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt the voice unto them, shake the hand, that they may go into the gates of the nobles. 3 I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness. 4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the Lord of hosts mustereth the host of the battle. 5 They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the Lord, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land

If a nation ignores warnings from God of impending judgment if they fail to repent of their wicked ways then God must then act in judgment, otherwise how could we believe that any of His promises would stand?
In the passage above we also see evidence the God can use a pagan or unrighteous nation as an instrument of judgment. He also used Israel as an instrument of judgment against the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and the Jebusites because of the abominations they had committed.
Rejection of God
Hebrews 10:28

Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

While the physical death might seem severe, the real punishment is reserved until the dead are judged. This is still the case regardless of whether capital punishment is still in occurring. Though "God is not willing that any should perish", those who have rejected His offer of mercy will not only die but be cast into the place "where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched".
Because He is Sovereign
God allowed the sons and daughters of Job to be killed. Our natural inclination might be to protest that God is unjust (like Job's wife), however Job understood that the Lord is sovereign. Despite restoring a larger number of possessions, God blesses Job with exactly the same number of sons and daughters. When we grasp that our existence on this earth is fleeting we may, like Paul, look forward to the day when we can put off this tent.


How does the "church" reconcile breaking the 2nd commandments religiously? I have been seeking after our Lord for many years now, I pray that the Holy Spirit amplify my faith and discerning of truth. Having researched for many years I find myself wondering how has the church fallen so far from truth when truth is found in the teaching of Yeshua? Yeshua says that the law is forever so no idols or graven images. Yet the amount of paintings of Jesus even the works of Leonardo, the masses of Jesus on the cross statues and paintings, the cross itself, the rosiery. These images, symbols and statues are idolized and given holy power. Also is the position of the "Vicar of Christ" not idolitry?....how is this practice reconciled in the church?

For that vast majority of Christians that do not prohibit images, this is an easy question to answer. The original wording of the 10 commandments did not prohibit all images - it was intended to prohibit the creation of idols for worship, i,e, man-made things that were used as Gods, which was the common practice of Israel's neighbours. That it ws not intended to prohibit the making of all likenesses of living beings can be seen from God's instructions for the creation of the Ark of the Covenant, which includes such likenesses.

It is fortunate for us that the creation of images is not completely forbidden, because that would also forbid all photography, movies, drawing etc. - for the commandments do not only apply in churches, they apply to all parts of life.

Images and likenesses in general are not then forbidden by the second commandment. What is forbidden is worshipping these images (or anything else). But Christians in such churches do not in fact worship such images. They are not intended to be worshipped. The images in churches are there to remind the worshipper of God, to focus their thoughts on God or a particular aspect of  him, just as a cross at the front of a church does. Many images illustrate aspects of the gospel, and older ones may date from a time before the majority of the congregation could read, and so pictures were necessary to remind them of the gospel. Assuming that the intentions are followed, there is no problem. It should also be said that many Protestant churches do keep their churches free of human likenesses, so as not to offend those who prefer not to run the risk of the meaning being misunderstood.

Most of the above is written from a Protestant point of view, but apply in general terms to Catholics and Orthodox. I have links above that will give you more details from a Catholic and Orthodox point of view.


Where does the belief the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit come from? My pastor mentioned the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit, through man.

Where does this concept come from (rather than just written by wise or experienced men)?

Other than direct references to Jesus, how do we know the rest is not just man's ideas and are indeed God inspired or "written"?

Is there a chapter in the Bible that states this or is it tradition?

Great question!
The short answer is that Paul made a general statement to this effect:

All Scripture is inspired by God -2 Timothy 3:16

The phrase "inspired by God" is literally translated as "God-breathed".  So the Bible is not merely a collection of wise men's writings, but is actually authored by God, through men, by the Spirit.
Now, on to more specific examples.
Prophecy

no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. -2 Peter 1:20-21

Clearly prophecy is the work of the Holy Spirit.  (Also see Jeremiah 1:1-9, 2 Samuel 23:2, Acts 3:18, and Hebrews 10:15-17.)
However, many people teach that "not all Scripture is prophecy", and they use the division of "Law, Psalms, and Prophets" to signify the three chunks of the Old Testament.
Psalms

“Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David..." -Acts 1:16
“For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his homestead be made desolate, and let no one dwell in it’; and, ‘Let another man take his office.’ -Acts 1:20

The two passages being quoted in verse 20 are Psalms 69:25 and Psalms 109:8.  Although these were "Psalms", clearly they were prophetic utterances by the Holy Spirit, which "had to be fulfilled."
The Psalms were the work of the Holy Spirit, and could also be considered "prophecy."  (See also Matthew 22:41-44.)
Law
We all know that the 10 Commandments were written by the very finger of God, but what about the rest of the Law?
Acts 3:22 and Acts 7:37 show that Moses, the writer of the Law, was also a Prophet!
We have a nice exposition of some "Law" stuff in Hebrews which shows clearly that the things written in the Law also carried the intent of the Holy Spirit:

Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the outer tabernacle performing the divine worship, but into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance. The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. -Hebrews 9:6-10

Gospels
All of Jesus words and His actions were authored by God, and Spirit-led.  But what about the records of them?

“These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.  -John 14:25-26

So yes, the Gospels are also Spirit-written.
Epistles
2 Peter 3:14-16 shows that the epistles are also part of Scripture.
Clearly given the event of Acts 2, explanations of the Spirit's ministry through us (1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12, Ephesians 4, etc.), and constant claims such as the following, it can be safely assumed that the New Testament Scriptures were also Spirit-written.

If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment. -1 Corinthians 14:37

Summary
All Scripture is authored by God via the Holy Spirit.  A case can also be made that all Scripture is prophecy, which makes it even more clear that the Spirit was the instrument of God for authoring Scripture.  Beyond the generic statements, we have a number of specific examples which support this doctrine.


What are the differences between Catholic and Episcopal saints? The title says it all, really.  What is the difference between Catholic and Episcopal saints?

It’s a subtle distinction, no doubt. There is a simplified view that Catholics pray to saints as intercessors, while Episcopalians pray about saints in remembrance. But that's not super accurate.

The Catholic Church bestows the title of Saint upon an individual through a rather lengthy process of canonization, after which the individual is officially and formally recognized as a Saint. At least two posthumous miracles are required by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints at The Vatican.

The Episcopal Church (TEC) does not canonize, though she does recognize most of the Catholic Saints by name (one exception I can think of right now is St. Valentine.) Furthermore, TEC includes all baptized Christians in something we call the Communion of Saints, believing that everyone has the potential to be an influence to another in faith.


When is mormon.org going to be updated? According to the new Style Guide of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, mormon should not be used to refer to the Church or its members, which mormon.org (which is owned by the Church) does in multiple places. Not only that, but the President Nelson has stated that this change is doctrinally important.

So, when is mormon.org going to be updated to reflect this?

I don't believe we know (yet).

As soon as possible?

President Nelson says:

  And some said it couldn’t be done, so why even try?

  ...

  It was the Savior Himself who said, “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

So that's it: The Lord decreed that His Church will be called by that name in the last days, so it will happen, but the revelation from last conference does not seem to indicate a timeline. We will have to wait and see (and do our part as members).

It's likely not just mormon.org that will have to change, but probably Mormon Newsroom, lds.org, and several other significant Church-owned assets.


What is Matt Redman's denominational background? So, I've been learning to love a new (for me) song called 10000 Reasons.  I discovered that he is also the writer of another "modern classic" Blessed Be Your Name.
In writing his music, he takes an approach to infusing Scripture that I find rather fascinating, described here as follows:

This song is Bible-based, but you didn’t use the text word-for-word. Please explain some good practices in capturing Scripture in song.
Redman: My ideal for songwriting is to infuse passion with truth. I love worship songs that are so rich with the word of God, but very obviously exploded out of the heart of the songwriters in a passionate way. You can, of course, take a big chunk of Scripture and keep it word for word, composing a melody for it. I’ve never been very good at that approach and honestly I think it’s a very tricky thing to do, within the style that I tend to write in. The main benefit of that approach is that people can commit the Bible to memory through song, and there’s much to be said that’s very commendable about that (my personal aim has never really been the memorizing of Scripture, as brilliant as that is). But my main aim in songwriting is to see something of Jesus, and then reflect it. So I’ve always taken a different approach.
The best way I can describe it is actually found in Eugene Peterson’s book, Under the Unpredictable Plant. He writes that when Jonah is in the belly of the fish he pours out a prayer of great passion but notes that not one phrase in the prayer is original—it all comes from the Psalms. In fact, it comes not just from one psalm, but many different psalms. So he’s not just reciting a piece of Scripture in that moment. He’s pouring out his heart, and many different phrases from the Psalms are being woven together into his prayer. The point is, Jonah is in an intense situation, and what pours out of him is utterly heartfelt, and yet also utterly full of the Word of God. My ideal is that the same could be true in the writing of worship songs—that we could be so full of the truth of Scripture that in our most intense moments in life, be it joy or sorrow, what pours passionately out of our hearts is infused with the Word of God. It may not be a whole portion of Scripture—perhaps the song contains an essence of something Paul said in one of his letters, with a phrase or two from the Psalms, with an overtone of what Jesus said at one point in the Gospels, and something from the Old Testament in there too. That’s definitely a key to make sure our songs are raw and real—and yet full of life-changing and God-honoring truth.

While obviously not dogma, I'm finding that approach to feel really both authentic and scriptural.  What I am curious about is the tradition that encouraged such an approach.  Does Matt Redman talk about his faith journey somewhere that expresses where this comes from?

Redman started leading worship at St Andrews, Chorleywood, moving to help start up Soul Survivor alongside Mike Pilavachi and was the worship leader for the Soul Survivor Church in Watford. According to founder Mike Pilavachi, the Soul Survivor festivals (which began in 1993) grew out of worship sessions with him and the then 15-year-old Redman. Redman led worship at the early Soul Survivor festivals, returning to lead worship again in 2011.

In 2002, after a sabbatical in America recording Where Angels Fear To Tread, Redman moved to Brighton to work with Terry Virgo at the Newfrontiers church, CCK. He has been involved in their 'Newday' and 'Together on a Mission' conferences.

In 2004 Redman joined a new church plant, The Point, also in West Sussex, led by Will Kemp.

In 2008 Matt and Beth Redman, along with their three children, moved to Atlanta, Georgia, to plant a church with Louie Giglio and Chris Tomlin called Passion City Church. In August 2010 Redman and his family returned to the UK. They have since joined a church plant in Brighton at St Peter's Church, Brighton.

Sources: http://www.passioncitychurch.com/blog/?p=221
http://mattredman.sparrowrecords.com/biography/


Can we at some point take on a Divine Nature? "Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." -http://biblehub.com/2_peter/1-4.htm

My understanding is when the person of Christ became human, he assumed a human nature. Now we have this person of Christ with a human and divine nature. I think of it kind or like having a linux OS(Divine Nature) running a windows virtual OS (human nature).

Now I think this elevates our human nature to a nature that God has. But does this also mean that humans will get a divine nature at some point. Perhaps baptism, or death, or final judgment? I am interested particularly in Catholic theological theories/teachings/camps. So back to the computer analogy if we are all running windows, is there a chance we get to install linux at some point?

PS - can someone please tag this with divine-nature *human-nature* and beatific-vision... I do not have enough points.

Humans can never become God because God alone is (1) inherently immortal (1 Tim. 1:17, 6:16) and (2) uncreated. God created all things (Eph. 3:9); therefore, anything created (which includes humans) is not God nor can it become God.

However, humans (specifically, Christians) can be "sharers in the divine nature" (θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως) when they receive the Holy Spirit, which is both the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, and by means of the Holy Spirit, not only do the Father and Son dwell in the Christian (John 14:23), but the Christian is joined to the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 6:17), who himself is God (John 1:1 cp. 1:14; Rev. 19:13, 22:13), and thus the Christian becomes "one spirit" with God Himself and shares in the divine nature, for God is spirit (John 4:24) in nature (φύσις).

I might also share Heinrich Meyer's remarks on 2 Pet. 1:4, wherein he writes,

  As opposed to the mystic “deification,” it must be remarked, with the older interpreters, that the expression φύσις conveys the thought, not so much of the substantia, as rather of the qualitas.

And thus, the thought is not so much that we are deified and our nature is substantially metamorphosed from humanity into deity, but rather, that we share in God's substantial qualities, for example, holiness (Heb. 12:10). This, again, is by virtue of the Holy Spirit indwelling us.


Were the scriptural readings at Mass ever other than Vulgate read at mass pre-Vatican II? Vatican II allowed vernacular languages for rites. However, the official document about it (Sacrosantum Concilium) doesn't mention anything about Bible readings. Where readings already allowed to be based in vernacular translations of the Bible? There are many Catholic translations of the Bible pre-Vatican II, some quite authoritative (e.g. Douay-Rheims, English, made in 17th century), which could have been used in mass (and were certainly used for personal study or prayer). (However, the real surge of translation is around and after Vatican II; see  here).

So, were non-Vulgate bibles used at mass pre-Vatican II?
Or were all Bible readings in pre-Vatican II masses also in Latin?

Were non-Vulgate Scriptural readings ever used at the pre-Vatican II Mass?

I believe the answer to this question to be yes.

If we count the lawful liturgical variants of the Tridentine Mass such as the Dominican Rite and the Carmelite Rite and permission given to some Religious Orders, we able to see that the Holy See has given various indults for the Tridentine Mass to be celebrated in various languages.

The use of the Greek language Scriptures in itself predates Jerome’s translation of the bible into Latin. The first three or four centuries the Mass at Rome was in Greek not Latin.

I strongly doubt the Hebrew was a Vulgate translation of Scriptures within the following examples:

  Although Latin prevails in the West as a unified liturgical language, in the face of certain circumstances the Roman church has made exceptions to provide a language in the Liturgy more familiar to the people. It is in the ninth century among the Slavic nations that we find a departure from liturgical Latin in divine worship. A privilege was first granted to Sts. Cyril and Methodius, by Pope Hadrian II in 869, and again by Pope John VIII in 880 to use the vernacular (Slavonic) in the Liturgy.

  Another example of the flexibility of which the Roman rite is capable is the privilege granted for the use of Chinese as a liturgical language. History records in the fourteenth century that the first Franciscan missionary to China, John of Monte Corvino, used the vernacular in the Liturgy.26 Pope Paul V, in a brief of June 27, 1615, granted the same privilege to Jesuit missionaries. As recently as 1949, the privilege to use the Chinese literary language in the Liturgy was granted by the Holy Office.

  Still further concessions have been granted:

  a) During the fourteenth century the Roman Liturgy in its Dominican variant was translated into Greek for use by the Dominican missionaries in Greece.

  b) Permission had been granted to celebrate the Dominican Liturgy in the Armenian classical language in Armenia.

  c) At the end of the sixteenth century missionaries of India of the Latin rite were allowed to celebrate Mass in Syriac.

  d) In the seventeenth century the Discalced Carmelites were granted permission to use Arabic in their mission foundation in Persia.

  e) In the seventeenth century the Theatine Clerics were granted permission to use Georgian or Armenian in their mission foundation in Georgia.

  f) In the nineteenth century the Franciscans in the Holy Land were granted permission to use Arabic.

  g) In 1958, an indult was granted India to use Hindi.

  h) Five Latin priests in the Holy Land were granted permission to use Hebrew.

  i) In 1959, the Holy See renewed Germany's privilege to use the vernacular (German) in the Epistle and Gospel after they are recited in Latin. - Liturgical Languages

As noted in point ”i”, Rome renewed Germany’s privilege to use to the German vernacular at Mass, in essence doubling the Epistles and the Gospels. When the original indult first came into effect is unknown (to me) at the moment.

The following may be of interest here:

  After the invention of the printing press, prior to Luther's Bible being published in German, there had been over 20 versions of the whole Bible translated into the various German dialects (High and Low) by Catholics. Similarly, there were several vernacular versions of the Bible published in other languages both before and after the Reformation. The Church did condemn certain vernacular translations because of what it felt were bad translations and anti-Catholic notes (vernacular means native to a region or country). - Did the Catholic Church forbid Bible reading?

What is more is that Missale Romanum of 1965, allowed the vernacular, but did not state it had to be the Vulgate translation. There was no need if it were Greek.

  The official text of the Ordinary is from the Roman Missal with English translations approved by the National Conference of Bishops of the United States, published by authority of the Bishops' Commission on the Liturgical Apostolate.

  NOTE: This was the official English version of the Order of Mass from the 1965 Roman Missal, published directly after the Second Vatican Council ended in 1965. This was the English Mass used from 1965 until 1969-70, when Paul VI promulgated the New Order of Mass (Novus Ordo Missae), and imposed it on the Latin Rite (the Novus Ordo is the current normative Mass of the Latin Rite). This interim Mass is much closer to the intended fruit of Vatican II's Sacrosanctum Concilum than the New Mass of 1970. It is essentially the Tridentine Latin Mass in English with minor modifications.

  Many rubrical similarities exist between the 1965 Missal and the New Mass of 1970. Obviously, an option for use of the vernacular exists in the1965. Furthermore, as in the Novus Ordo, it is at the discretion of the celebrant to either face the East ("ad orientem") or the people ("versus ad populum"). An option for concelebration was also introduced in the 1965 (this was formerly restricted to Ordination Masses).The required Mass vestments were also simplified (e.g., optionality of the maniple).In 1967, the cope was supressed in the Asperges (rite of aspersion at High Mass). The chasuble was worn in its stead. The Canon was still required to be read in Latin until 1967, when it was permitted in the vernacular. - The Interim Missal


Is St. Adalbert venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy? Is Saint Adalbert of Prague venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy? He's listed in this calendar so I understand he's considered an Orthodox saint, but is there a veneration in the Eastern rite? Is there a non-negligible private veneration? Have there been any public acts of veneration by Orthodox bishops?

I'm asking this out of curiosity -- he's one of the patron saints of my country, with a huge veneration in the local Roman Catholic church. I just started wondering if there was any in Eastern Orthodoxy, since his martyrdom took place shortly before the schism.

At least in Polish Autocephalous Orthodox Church saint Adalbert is not venerated. I had a friend that was a member of PAKP from a mixed (catholic-orthodox) family. His mother wanted to name him "Wojciech", but the parish priest disagreed. So he had the name "Wojciech" written in secular documents but was baptised with name "George" and thus he was known for people from orthodox parish in Poznań.
The possible reason why he is not venerated byt PAKP was his negative attitude towards cirylo-methodian tradition. There is an ancient chronicle which states:

zniszczył wiarę prawdziwą i słowiańskie pismo odrzucił i zaprowadził pismo łacińskie i obrządek łaciński; obrazy wiary prawdziwej popalił, biskupów i księży jednychpozabijał, drugich rozegnał
destroyed the true faith and rejected the slavonic script introducing the latin script and latin rite; the icons of true faith he burned, from the bishops and priests, he killed some and banished the others

I don't know if there are any other reasons that Saint Adalbert is not accepted by PAKP. I never read any official declaration of the Holy Council of PAKP about Saint Adalbert.


Difference between wisdom and knowledge in 1 Cor. 12? 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 ESV Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.

What is the practical difference between these two gifts: wisdom vs knowledge? My understanding of the two words is that "wisdom is applied knowledge", but both gifts are talked about in the form of uttering them, which must mean something.

There are different kinds of knowledge, and according to your comment that "wisdom is applied knowledge," I infer that your definition of knowledge might be

  Information that is not yet applied to a situation (for example).

If I'm correct, then I think you're on the right track. Knowledge IS information, and when it comes to spiritual gifts, God is able to give information to the possessor of this gift either prior to the information becoming a fact or at the very moment the word of knowledge is given.

The Gift of Knowledge

The gift of knowledge might be revealed, for example, when a believer tells another believer,

  "God is going to heal you of _____________."

You can fill in the blank, above, with the word cancer, or diabetes, or panic attacks, or whatever infirmity you care to name. The imparter of this utterance could be thousands of miles away from a given situation--one in which a missionary who is in danger of being kidnapped by terrorists, for example. During a time of prayer, the person with the gift of knowledge says to himself, "God is going to prevent missionary Jones from being kidnapped."

If the gift is genuine, not only will missionary Jones not be kidnapped, but the person who uttered that knowledge might have the joy of telling that missionary the "good news" a day (or a week, or a year!) later, and the missionary may (though not necessarily) recount to the glory of God how the deliverance came about!

To be sure, there is wisdom involved in the speaking of knowledge, but that wisdom originates in God, and the speaker of that word of knowledge is but a channel for a supernatural, God-imparted word of knowledge. The "test" for whether this gift is legitimate, of course, is if the word of knowledge turns out to be true! (At this point, I will not dare to venture into how this gift can be perverted whenever Satan seeks to insert his counterfeit word of knowledge into a situation, though I'm sure it does happen on occasion. I will suggest, however, that a person with the gift of wisdom could potentially discern such a satanic counterfeit and expose it for what it is.)

The Word of Wisdom

Now to the word, or utterance, of wisdom. The speaker of wisdom can look at a situation which already exists--say, for example, whether or not a local assembly of Christians should seek to plant a sister church, and takes the knowledge he or she has gleaned from God's revealed will and word in the Bible, and applies it to the situation at hand.

If all goes well, the congregation heeds that word of wisdom and it is confirmed by a unanimity among the entire congregation. Situations are at times far from ideal, however. In other words, wisdom imparted is not always wisdom applied!

In conclusion, whether we're talking about the utterance of knowledge or of wisdom, the source and imparter of the gift is God's Holy Spirit. We His children who are privileged to be indwelt by His Spirit are merely the recipients of His gifts. Moreover, we can also be filled with His Holy Spirit, and when communicating His will and word we are but God's mouthpieces, much like the prophets of old.

  "For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit . . .. [Both] these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills."


Could a cardinal or pope have children if they are a widower? Could it be possible for a cardinal,or even the pope to have children,if he had been married previously,and then taken up holy orders after being widowed?

This would seem to fulfil the requirements of not being married and also being celibate whilst being a priest,but I can't find a definitive answer-all the celibacy guidelines seem to just refer to during the period of the priesthood.

Yes, a pope or cardinal could have children if his wife died before he was ordained a deacon and then priest. This would fulfill the requirements for ordination to the priesthood. It could also conceivably happen that a permanent deacon could go on to become a priest and then bishop, cardinal and finally pope after the death of his wife. I know personally a priest in the Diocese of Tulsa who was a permanent deacon that became a priest after the death of his spouse.

Not totally the best example, but an example nonetheless is the fact that Bishop Jean-François de Hercé (1838-1848) of the Diocese of Nantes was ordained a priest after the death of his wife on December 18,1830 and was consecrated a bishop on April 17, 1836.

After the death of his wife in 1820 and the marriage of his daughter Marie-Lucie with Guillaume-François d'Ozouville in 1825, Jean-François entered the seminary at the age of 54.

As a bishop of the Catholic Church, it would be conceivable (but did not happen) for Bishop Jean-François de Hercé to named a cardinal by the pope and then elected to become the pope in a conclave.

His French biography Père, Maire, Evêque (Father, Mayor, Bishop) is an excellent read.

As we know the Apostle St. Peter became the first pope and that he was married. There are some traditions and legends that he may have had children. The Roman Martyrology seems to acknowledge Saint Peter's paternity:

  "St. Petronilla, Virgin [and Martyr], daughter of the blessed apostle Peter, who refused to marry the nobleman Flaccus. Given three days for consideration, she spent them in fasting and prayer. On the third day, having received Christ sacramentally, she gave up her spirit." Roman Martyrology (May 31).


Why was Jesus able to silence his critics simply by pointing out that the Messiah was both Lord *and* son? In Matthew 22, after basically frustrating the Pharisees and the Saduccees by answering some really tricky questions, Jesus finally turns the tables on them and asks this question:

  41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”
     “The son of David,” they replied.
   43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
     44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
     “Sit at my right hand
  until I put your enemies
     under your feet.”’[e]
   45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”

The response is silence, and apparent victory:

  46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

What I understand is this - Jesus is pointing out that the Messiah is both David's son and David's Lord.  I get that its a good theological point.  But why does it silence his critics?

Earlier on in Mathew 22 the Pharisees are trying to trap Jesus with what they probably considered paradoxes or no-win scenarios (ie Jesus picks one side he'll anger the other side). I've always imagined these questions are the kinds of questions the Pharisees argued over in the internet forums of their day (Should we pay taxes to Caesar? Matt 22:15, Will the Dead will rise again? Matt 22:23, What's the most important commandment? Matt 22:34).

The question Jesus asks the Pharisees in verse 41 is along the same lines. He shows them something that was probably ingrained in them since they were born (that the Messiah is the Son of David) and called it into question. In a way it challenged their thoughts on God and who the Messiah was really going to be. And exactly like you mentioned in your comments the theological implications were not lost of the Pharisees, who as far as I know, never expected the Messiah to be both God and Man. Imagine your own theology being blown out of the water by your own scriptures to the extent of being irrefutable, by virtue of source and being logically sound. This wasn't something Jesus was just saying (something that could be refuted), he instead pointed them to scripture which is something they all held sacred.

Hence the silence.


What Prayer/words are associated with the solemn sign of the cross? With the normal sign of the cross you are supposed to say "In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit/Ghost" as you trace the cross on your body.

The solemn sign of the cross is the triple cross which is made on the forehead, lips and chest. In Catholicism this happens before the priest reads the Gospel during every mass. As we make the solemn sign of the cross we say "Glory to you O lord" in the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form) or "Gloria tibi Domine" in the Traditional Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form), but that is not the prayer which is strictly associated with the motion itself.

I'm wondering what words are supposed to be associated with the solemn sign of the cross, and if there are different words depending on your country?
For example I've heard that the priest is supposed to pray silently to himself "May Christ's words be on my mind, on my lips, and in my heart" as he makes the motion, and I've heard that the congregation is supposed to pray something like "I believe with my mind, confess with my mouth, and live out in my heart, the gospel".

However I can't confirm this because google is giving me nothing and my memory is fuzzy.

Growing up, I was taught that it was tradition to silently say while making the Threefold Sign of the Cross just before the gospel is read with these words: "May the words of the Gospel be on my mind, on my lips, and in my heart."

  The origin of the sign of the cross on the forehead and the heart is Frankish or German, and it probably entered into the Roman liturgy sometime between the years 800 and 1000. The sign of the cross on the lips was added rather later, but it is not clear when it became standard practice.

  The words we are taught accompany the gesture (besides "Gloria tibi, Domine") are "May the words of the Gospel be on my mind, on my lips, and in my heart." The middle element, "on my lips," seems liturgically proper for the minister proclaiming the Gospel, but is it liturgically appropriate for the congregation? EWTN

Here is a little more on this practice:

  Concerning the making the sign of the cross at the proclamation of the Holy Gospel, after the deacon or priest says, “A reading from the Holy Gospel according to ….,” he and the faithful make the sign of the cross with the thumb on the forehead, lips, and breast over the heart.  (The deacon or priest also makes the sign of the cross on the Lectionary or Book of the Gospels.)  The first recorded instance of making the sign of the cross at the proclamation of the gospel is found in the ninth century:  Regimius of Auxerre (d. c. 908) in his Expositio recorded how the people in the congregation would sign their foreheads, and the deacon would sign his forehead and breast.  By the eleventh century, as attested to by Pope Innocent III, the deacon would make the sign of the cross on the Lectionary or Book of Gospels, and then both he and the congregation would sign the forehead, lips, and breast.  The significance of the threefold signing is that we want to hear the Holy Gospel with an open mind, proclaim it with our lips, and cherish and safeguard it in our hearts.  We are imploring the Lord for the grace to receive, acknowledge, and then profess the faith that has been received in the Holy Gospel through our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate. - What is the origin of the sign of the cross at the gospel, bowing at the Creed, and shaking hands for the sign of peace?


How do Roman Catholics explain their change in Eschatology? Gregory I, Pope from 590-605, predicted that the end of the world was imminent in a letter he wrote to Ethelbert, a European monarch. He advised "Further, we also wish your Majesty to know, as we have learned from the words of Almighty God in Holy Scriptures, that the end of the present world is already near and that the unending Kingdom of the Saints is approaching. As this same end of the world is drawing nigh, many unusual things will happen - climatic changes, terrors from heaven... All these things are not to come in our own days, but they will all follow upon our times." (Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End-Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages, Page 64, Published 1979)

Pope Innocent III (died 1216) predicted that the world would end 666 years after the rise of Islam in 618.

How do Roman Catholics explain their change in Eschatology?

The answer is quite simply that the Church has not changed her thoughts on eschatology.

Even within the church, the subject of the Antichrist and the end times is somewhat opinion based as well subject to speculation to say the least.

Two fundamental things that we take into consideration here. One is that no one knows when the end of the world will be. The other is that each (Catholic) generation (popes included) have given their *own personal interpretations and thoughts on this said issue. No pope can teach the he knows for a fact when the end of the world will come about.

Pope Gregory simply gave his personal views on it, when he wrote that he thought the end of the world would occur. (We must also recall that Pope Gregory the Great lived through the Roman Plague of 590). Other popes have done the same. The Church Fathers have expressed their views on it, as well as countless saints and Catholic theologians.

The Church can not determine when the eschatological events will occur because the Scriptures tell us it is impossible.

  No One Knows That Day and Hour

  36 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son,[a] but the Father only. 37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. 42 Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. - Matthew 24:36-44

  The Day of the Lord

  5 Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers,[a] you have no need to have anything written to you. 2 For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. - 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3

  10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies[a] will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. - 2 Peter 3:10

  3 Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. - Revelation 3:3

Nevertheless, some Pontiffs believed that certain event were (are) pertaining to the end times or the antichrist, but that in itself simply remains a personal reflection on the subject.

Even Pope St. John Paul II once stated that we are now nearing the final confrontation. But again, this is not an infallible statement, but rather his personal belief on the matter. Church teachings have not changed, just the personal opinions of various popes, theologians and saints!

  “We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the Church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel.

“We must be prepared to undergo great trials in the not-too-distant future; trials that will require us to be ready to give up even our lives, and a total gift of self to Christ and for Christ. Through your prayers and mine, it is possible to alleviate this tribulation, but it is no longer possible to avert it. . . .How many times has the renewal of the Church been brought about in blood! It will not be different this time.” - The Final Confrontation

Prophecy is usually recognized as true while the thing prophesized have run their course. The anti-church and anti-gospel of Pope John Paul II should be seen as something the against the Church and against the Gospels and not as a counterfeit church or a counterfeit gospel, although the Antichrist will no doubt teach a false gospel of sorts.

For more information about this topic, one may pursue my following article:

What is the Catholic understanding of Antichrist?


Is "Mormon" a disrespectful term? When I was in Utah, I found myself consciously avoiding the term "Mormon," in favor of "LDS."  While I understand the term "LDS" means "Latter Day Saint," what I don't know is either the provance or connotation of the term 'Mormon.'

So, first off, why and how did the term "Mormon" come denote members of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints, and secondly, is it at all offensive to use the term?

The term was originally used as a way to separate Latter-Day Saints from other Christians, due to their belief in the Book of Mormon as well as the Bible.  (Much like the term "Christian", which was first used by Jews in the early Apostolic period to distinguish this sect of Judaism, who believed that Christ had already come, from the more respectable, mainstream Jews.)

(EDIT: Because this apparently confused someone, I'm using the word "Christ" in the original, literal meaning here. Christos is the literal Greek translation of the Hebrew messiah, and was used as a title rather than a name at that time.)

In the early days of the church, the term commonly used by LDS members to refer to each other was "saints".  (This can be seen throughout the Doctrine & Covenants, a collection of modern-day revelations regarding the church received by Joseph Smith and his successors, and in surviving letters from the period.)  But again like the term "Christian," Mormons ended up adopting the term once it became ubiquitous.

The church currently sponsors the well-known Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and runs an official outreach site at www.mormon.org, so it's safe to say that it's not considered offensive, although the official name of the church does not contain the word and it's considered proper to use the full name, or simply "Latter-Day Saints," in any sort of formal context.


Which non LDS Christian denominations believe in baptism after death? The LDS Church believes that it is possible for individuals to be baptized after death (in particular, their descendants can be baptized on their behalf, and if they accept the covenant of baptism they will be able to gain its blessings).

Does any other Christian denomination believe that individuals will have a chance to be baptized after their death if they did not get baptized in life? (This does not necessarily have to be in the form of proxy baptisms, but perhaps after the resurrection, for example.)
 If so, which ones?

As far as I know, most other Christian churches either believe those that were not baptized by the time they die have lost the chance to go to heaven, or do not believe that baptism is necessary (or have no beliefs on the issue), except the LDS Church and the early Christian church.

I love your question and hope others take the time to respond. This is what I found:

Believe in Baptism for the Dead

Early Christian church - Baptisms performed until forbidden by Councils of Cathage in 397 AD (Tvedtnes). See 1 Cor 15:29
Early Judaism - Judas Maccabeus, high priest and commander, performed ordinances in behalf of the dead after the battle of Marisa in 163 BC (Tvedtnes)
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Baptized by proxy to provide opportunity to deceased individual. Mentioned in the question.
Community of Christ - Previously done. Documents referencing practice removed in 1990 world conference.
New Apostolic Church and Old Apostolic Church - Baptized by proxy for unknown number of deceased persons.

Wikipedia

Do not believe in Baptism for the Dead

Catholic - Unbaptized individuals are saved through baptism of desire.
Lutherans and Anglicans - Believe in baptism of desire.
Baptists - Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is traditionally a part of membership, though policies vary (Baptists). Salvation comes from faith alone.

Wikipedia

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Baptism for the Dead

You can learn more about what we believe about Baptism for the Dead below:

ChurchOfJesusChrist.org: Baptisms for the dead
AskGramps.org: Is there scripture that supports baptism for the dead? - Not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Note: If you find out more about what other Christian denominations believed please feel free to edit!


Where can I find the Graduale Romanorum in Latin or Croatian in physical format? I've been looking for the official Graduale Romanorum which sanctions which hymns, chants, etc. are allowed to be performed during Mass.

Unfortunately, I could only find the Latin version in digital format.

Also, if anyone knows a good hymnal in Latin or Croatian or where I can find official documents with texts, it would be much appreciated.

This comment on this article inspired me to look for it.

Check out Benedictine monasteries in your region or other institutes of religious formation, especially for Croatian sources. Then again their is always Amazon.

Graduale Romanum

Addendum:

The Benedictine Order in general and Solemnes Monastery in particular have been asked by Rome to preserve the heritage of Gregorian Chant as the official Sacred Music of the Church in the Latin Rite.


Are modern Amish much more dissimilar from society than the original generations of Amish? I read that the Amish trace their roots back to the late 1600's.

It seems to me that their culture is vastly different than the mainstream, in part because of mostly (but not entirely) rejecting modern technology.      Also modern fashion, music, etc.

However would I be correct to think that in the late 1600's and early 1700's such differences must've been much less pronounced? I mean, I imagine that the level of technology and the fashions, etc which modern Amish have are approximately the same as what most people in the colonial times had? It's not like they are always lagging their technology 200 or 300 years behind whatever is current, and were thus using 1300's tech in the 1600's, right?

When did they decide to freeze their lifestyle? Was that always a part of being Amish or did it come later?

Perhaps at the outset it should be noted that the Amish descended from one of the two main leaders within the Swiss Brethren Anabaptists (soon after called Mennonites) in the 1690s, named Jakob Ammann, who, along with his supporters, eventually split from that body. Most accounts have portrayed Ammann as an abrupt and unyielding leader who demanded a demonstrably pure lifestyle by church members to the point of insisting on applying the "ban" to them when they failed in that regard. This was also known as "social shunning" (based on a scriptural passage) and was viewed as too judgmental by the opposing group within the fellowship.

Consequently, the Amish group withdrew, even being called Amish-Mennonites since they still adhered to the general Mennonite doctrines and continued on their own course even after Ammann died, most of whom emigrated to Pennsylvania, USA, initially in the early 1700s, while yet others from the Alsace-Lorraine area in the mid-1800s emigrated to Southwestern Ontario, Canada, this latter group being my own ancestors. But as it was mentioned in the question above, to this point in time, the Amish would not have stood out nearly as much from the culture surrounding them as they do now because technology wasn't so much the vehicle of their expression of being faithful to their doctrines and to the mindset of their former leader. Surely, their social isolation would have been noted, but as my father told me, it wasn't until the turn of the 20th-century when the automobile and electricity emerged that they then began to make a conscious decision to reject those as being a corrupting influence leading them into unfaithfulness and "worldliness," as my late mother would refer to when informing me about how it was explained to her.

Now, I must say that my direct ancestors did not stay with the Amish who withdrew to an even greater extent in the early 1900s but instead joined with the larger Mennonite body who did not associate technological progress directly with unfaithfulness. And so, it appears that it was during that first decade of the 1900s when the Amish really became earnest about ostensibly "freezing" their lifestyle.


Was the 66 book Bible being used by early Christians? Referring to the most widely used Protestant canon of exactly (and only) the content of these 66 books.

The answer is most certainly no.

The oldest complete Bible that we have is the Codex Vaticanus, dating to between 300 and 325.  It contains 68 books:  45 Old Testament books plus 23 New Testament books.  The Old Testament includes 2 Esdras (sometimes called "Ezra-Nehemiah"), Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach and the Psalms of Solomon.  The New Testament lacks 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation.
The next oldest complete Bible we have is the Codex Sinaiticus, dating to between 330 and 360.  The Old Testament of the Sinaiticus manuscript is not complete, but it includes several deuterocanonical books:  2 Esdras, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1-4 Maccabees.  Assuming the Hebrew canon was complete, the Sinaiticus then would have contained over 45 Old Testament books.  Furthermore, Sinaiticus also included two New Testament books that were later excluded from the canon:  the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.  Together then, New Testament and Old comprised over 74 books.
The first formal Bible canon was set at the 3rd Council of Carthage in 397.  Canon XXXIII of the Council established a 44 book Old Testament and a 27 book New Testament canon, bringing the total to 71 books.
The very first Christian to introduce a New Testament canon was Marcion of Sinope (c 85-160). Marcion essentially rejected the Old Testament and accepted only the Gospel according to Luke and ten Pauline Epistles - essentially defining an 11-book Biblical canon.  Although Marcion was eventually condemned as a heretic and excommunicated, his movement persisted for at least 300 years.

These are a few examples of the discrepancies between the Bibles used by Christians in antiquity, all serving to illustrate that the number of books included was by no means stable.

A work of a 19th century Presbyterian theologian, Archibald Alexander, has been cited as an authority for the argument that early Christians only recognized the 39 books of the modern day Protestant Old Testament canon as authoritative.  In the book, Canon of the Old and New Testaments Ascertained, or The Bible Complete without the Apocrypha and Unwritten Traditions, regarding the deuterocanon, Alexander makes the claim "that these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal".  As evidence of this, he appeals to the authority of several Church Fathers and early Christian writers.  There are many weaknesses in his claims.  For example:

He states that Justin Martyr (100-165) "does not cite a single passage, in all his writings, from any apocryphal book."  By this logic, any book not quoted by Justin would be considered non-canonical.  A review of Schaff's index of Scriptures cited by Justin Martyr (from the Ante-Nicene Fathers series, vol.1) shows that Justin Martyr quoted from 24 Old Testament books and 13 New Testament books.  Does this imply that he held to a 37-book Bible canon?
Having cited Justin Martyr as an authority for ignoring the deuterocanon, he neglects to mention that Ireneaus of Lyon (130-202) - a contemporary of Justin Martyr and perhaps an even more authoritative Church Father - quotes from the Wisdom of Solomon and Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) in Against Heresies.
He quotes a list of Old Testament books given, according to Eusebius1, by Melito of Sardis (d. 180) that appears to exclude Esther, Lamentations (which some say is included in Jeremiah), and Nehemiah (which some say is included in Ezra) and may or may not include the Wisdom of Solomon (some say he was referring to "Proverbs" with the phrase ἣ καὶ Σοφία).  In all, Melito's list implies an Old Testament canon of between 36 and 39 books, depending on whether one considers Wisdom, Lamentations, and/or Nehemiah to have been included in the enumeration - with a total of 39 reached only with the inclusion of Wisdom.
He correctly quotes Origen as saying, "We should not be ignorant, that the canonical books are the same which the Hebrews delivered unto us, and are twenty-two in number, according to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet.”  He neglects to point out that Origen concluded his discussion of the Old Testament canon with the note, "And besides these there are the Maccabees"2 - which meant that Origen recognized between 41 and 44 books in the Old Testament (3 Maccabees and 4 Maccabees are not always enumerated in other Old Testament canons of the early Church).
He attributes a list from a work called The Synopsis of Sacred Scripture to Athanasius, though scholars generally agree that it was written by some clergyman in the 6th century.  This list also excludes Esther from the list of "canonical" books and instead places it with a list of "non-canonical" books. Further, he quotes only a part of the document. "Such are the books belonging to the Old Testament", it states, "including those which are canonical and those which are not canonical."  In addition to Esther, the list of "non-canonical" books given includes the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Judith, and Tobit.  So depending on whether the "non-canonical" books are to be considered as part of the Old Testament or not, the Synopsis describes an Old Testament canon of either 38 or 43 books.
He again selectively quotes the work of another Church Father, Hilary of Poitiers (310-368), omitting the statement, "To this some add Tobit and Judith to make twenty-four books, according to the number of the Greek letters, which is the language used among Hebrews and Greeks gathered in Rome."3  Thus, Hilary describes an Old Testament canon of between 39 and 41 books.
He states that "Jerome, in his Epistle to Paulinus, gives us a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, exactly corresponding with that which Protestants receive: 'Which,' says he, 'we believe agreeably to the tradition of our ancestors, to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.'"  He neglects to point out, however, that Jerome included Tobit, Judith, and Sirach in his Latin translation of the Bible (see "Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament" here)

Alexander goes on to look for support in some other patristic sources.  I have not bothered to go through the rest of these in detail.  Of these, however, his quote from John Chrysostom (c 349-407) is especially preposterous.  He misquotes Chrysostom as saying in his 4th Homily on Genesis:

  That all the divine books of the Old Testament were originally written in the Hebrew tongue, and that no other books were received.

What Chrysostom actually wrote was:

  All the sacred books of the Old Testament were originally written in Hebrew; everyone would agree with us on this.

Furthermore, Chrysostom in this very same Homily quotes the deuterocanonical book of Sirach (25:9), writing:

  Scripture says, remember, Blessed is the one that preaches to willing ears.

He also quotes from Wisdom (13:5) in the same homily.  In his homilies on Matthew alone, Chrysostom quotes 4 times from the Book of Wisdom, 18 times from Sirach, and twice from Baruch - all deuterocanonical books.  To maintain that he did not accept the deuterocanon as Scriptural is simply inexcusable.  In fact, one would be hard-pressed not to find Chrysostom citing the deuterocanon in any one of his 17 commentaries on the New Testament.

Please note that I am not addressing the question of whether the deuterocanon should or should not be included in Scripture.  I am simply pointing out that based on the writings of many respected Church Fathers and early Christian writers, the deuterocanon was generally considered to be part of Scripture, with varying degrees of acceptance (e.g. it was included in the Old Testament, but at a different level from the "Hebrew" Scriptures).  It's standing even among Jews can be called into question, as copies of Sirach and Tobit were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (as was a copy of 1 Enoch).  All this points to the fact that even with the New Testament canon settled, early Christians did not uniformly and consistently - or perhaps not at all - recognize a 66-book Bible.

1. Eusebius, Church History, IV.26
2. Ibid., VI.25
3. Exposition on the Psalms XV


What is the Biblical basis for idolatry being "things" we put higher than God? In at least the Evangelical circles I'm involved in, we often suggest that "modern idolatry" is idols of the heart - things we put before God - and is described as the same as idolatry that is described in the Bible.  Often it is defined as "elevating good things to God things" or "putting something in the place of God."

As an illustrative example, we often say that an "idol" of Americans can be the "American Dream."  Or work.  Or marriage.  Or whatever, you get the picture.  We often say that what we "put our thought toward," "seek comfort from," or "place our trust in" might be signs that we have an idol of the heart.

The supportive explanations I've heard mostly center on commonalities between "modern idolatry" and idolatry of the Bible ("graven images"); both replace God with something (your source of comfort, what you desire, etc).  However, it strikes me as odd that the Bible explicitly talks about graven images... I can't imagine our "modern idolatry" is really new; I'm sure the Israelites had things that they put before God that weren't graven images.  If that (and I'm not saying it is) is the only support; I'm sure we could create commonalities in a lot of things to defined sins if we tried.  I also find it concerning to redefining something if God has defined it a certain way.

My question then is how do we, Biblically, come to the conclusion that this is idolatry?  What is the Biblical basis for it?  Have I overlooked some important verses?

If we face the question squarely this is a loose 'application' of the command against idolatry applied to countries that have for the most part ceased from idolatry due to the high numbers of Christians even within the Government of those countries.  Biblically idolatry is not greed or lust or pride, there are words already for those other sins. Idolatry must direct ones 'worship' and doctrine of God to a concept lower then the dignity of God.

  For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. (NIV, Rom 1:21-24)

As a result of idolatry one may fall into various other shameful sins but putting yourself before God, putting your career, money, leisure, or whatever before God but this is greed, lust, etc. and not idolatry.

If one were to try and apply the command against idolatry more biblically to those who have never practiced any it would be closer to apply it to various cults and groups who substitute false doctrines for the gospel.  However even in this instance although it is very close to the spirit of idolatry they had false teachers back then as well who did not practice idolatry.

I live in Asia and there is a lot of actual idolatry here.  Evangelical circles, which I belong to sometimes pass around cop-out sayings that overly simplify scripture into bit-sized cliches that make it easy for the laziest of preachers to apply everything in the Bible to a middle-class westernized conservative social group, but this is a little silly for a serious person.


Is it possible for an Eastern Rite Catholic to change over to the Roman Rite and become ordained as Latin Rite priest? Is it possible for an Eastern Rite Catholic to change over to the Roman Rite and become ordained as Latin Rite priest?

Is it possible for a layperson of an Eastern Catholic Rite (say the Melkite Rite) to change rites and become a seminarian studying to be a priest in the Roman Rite, I would like to know the process that is involved in changing rites so one can enter the seminary as a Latin Rite seminarian. Perhaps one would have to be bi-ritual? Any resources into this matter would be greatly appreciated.

According to the comment from agapewolf on Roman Catholic children and the Melkite Rite, there is a cursory mention of "paperwork" in reference to the chaldean rite.

However, according to Babies can receive the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church, why do Catholic children have to wait?: the differences between Eastern Rite Churches in commiunion with Rome are merely pastoral and neither doctirnal nor dogmatic.  So I feel there is not much friction in this respect.

But according to this EWTN article: Orthodox priest to Catholic priest, vice versa, it seems to be up to the bishop (based on the 4th answer).

Nothing I have found seems to give a clear answer on this.  Any proper explanation is well appreciated. And feel free to point me toward more credible resources, as I am no expert on this matter.

Any references as to what protocols are in place by Rome would be greatly appreciated.

There has been long-standing tradition of Syrian Catholics of Kerala, Southern India getting ordained as parish priests of churches belonging  to Latin Rite dioceses and  some of them even becoming Bishops of the dioceses within the Roman Rite.


How do Cessationists view "being filled with the Holy Spirit" I'm aware that Cessationists do not believe in spiritual gifts. However, how do they view the process of being filled with the Holy Spirit?

Tozer's How to be filled with the holy spirit defines the process as a very dramatic, sudden process. Do Cessationists also take this view, or do they view it as a more gradual process?

A Cessationists can believe that a person is ‘filled with the Spirit’ in the sense and way described, but generally they do not.  An example of a Cessationist that believed in being filled with the Spirit would be Jonathan Edwards but not exactly as Tozer would explain it.  However, at the time of Tozer, the idea of being filled became viewed as a more of a ‘one time’ experience, after conversion, according to the influence of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movement.  Later on people like Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones argued that a person can be filled ‘many times’ and this was nothing more than a kind of personal Revival that can happen whenever God in his sovereign will allows it, typically in response to praying for revival.

To confuse the issue, various views and distinction of words cropped up, where people distinguished between ‘being filled’ versus having a revival, etc., as ‘a filling’ could be thought more along the lines of general, slow and steady ‘sanctification’, but an ‘outpouring of the Spirit’ was something else. In this confusing time when every theologian had there favorite terms, I thought it was pretty clever of Billy Graham to say ‘I don’t care how you get it, just get.’ (regarding the filling of the Holy Spirit)

For a very insightful view of how a Cessationist describes special fillings or outpourings of the Spirit and how it really happens, I would read this Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of God in the Conversion of Many Hundred Souls, In Northampton and the Neighbouring Towns and Villages in New Hampshire, In New England, by Jonathan Edwards. He also has a very acute sense between real and counterfeit experiences during a revival in the book, Religious Affections.


Does Jesus/God understand uncertainty or sin? I understand that Jesus has experienced the same weaknesses and temptations, but what about uncertainty? Or even sin itself? How can He understand what it is like to not know anything for certain when he has known everything from beginning to end. God has never sinned, so how can he truly understand us without experiencing these two things?

Catholic Perspective

Tackling the sin part

Highlighting a false premise, that one must experience something for one to know/understand it. It is worth noting that experience is a type of knowledge ...

This is actually quite a loaded question philosophically, theologically, etc. Theologically, there is always mystery.

  2 Timothy 2:13
  (RSVCE)

  13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful—
  for he cannot deny himself.

Beginning here we see the reason. The mistake is to view sin as something, while it is actually an absence of something. cf. Evil | New Advent.

Jesus, is God, therefore, ALL Goodness, ALL Truth, ALL Love, etc. Hence St. Paul, for he cannot deny himself.

Not only did Jesus not sin, he could not sin (he was impeccable cf. The Incarnation | New Advent).

Herein is the mystery: Jesus, as Son, moves naturally and necessarily toward the Father, yet also freely.

Note:

Sin understood here as doing one's will in opposition to God's.

[The] Uncertainty part

The Church teaches that Jesus had a three-fold knowledge: acquired, infused, and beatific. Delving into this would answer if Jesus was ever uncertain; too broad a topic to be incorporated in this answer.


What extrabiblical sources support the existence of Jesus in history? What sources outside of the Bible give supporting evidence to the existence of Jesus and any of the events in His life?

In short

Lucian
Pliny the younger
Josephus
St. Ignatius of Antioch
Tacitus
Suetonius
Aristides
Galenus
Lampridius

I tried to get all those that Norman names. Just a problem with spelling those wholly foreign names. You can find all 19 of them in the video though.

It is curious to note that even Tacitus who was a rather big critic of the early church never thought that Jesus was a myth or never existed. When even Christianity's first century opposition talk about Jesus as a historical figure then it really becomes unreasonable to buy into this atheist rhetoric of him being a myth.

Josephus is the account is the most violently opposed because it gives such credence to Christianity. The atheist is left with the burden of proof of proving the text suspect. This again becomes unreasonable seeing as all the extant manuscripts of The Antiquities of the Jews says the same thing.

The Christian when confronted with these attacks need to ask the naysayer what is his / her evidence for these texts being suspect? This will probably get you the response of denial of the burden of proof or if the opponent is honest enough he / she will admit their is none.


What about the "beforelife"? It is a common concern in all humans to know about the afterlife, but what do religions say about the beforelife? Some religions say reincarnation, and I think the vast majority of the rest just takes the subject very tangentially (since practically nothing is said about this too publicly). I would include the Christianity that is commonly taught in this category, since I don't think there is a public (non-academic, at least) discussion about this.
What does the Bible say about this?

The Bible is absolutely silent about any "before life" other than Jeremiah 1:5, which says God knew us even when we were in our mother's Womb.  that doesn't speak so much about our "before life" as God's Omniscience.

The LDS Church teaches about the "Premortal existence" but that's a doctrine unique to them.


Expectation of salvation for the poorly catechized The Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism on Baptism that there are several types of Baptism, one of which is for those fellow eternal-soul-endowed humans who have never heard of Christ.

But, what does the Church say about those who have heard of Jesus; know a little bit of what the Church teaches;  received validly all the sacraments of initiation; but then, because what they know (or think they know) was so shoddily taught they wholly reject every lick of the Catholic Church in favor of Buddhism, Islam or Atheism because they never remotely understood what they had in the Church since it was presented in such an ineffective manner*.

Are they apostates or can we apply the logic, "to whom much is given, much is expected", to posit that this person was given nothing so nothing is expected?

* I'm looking for Catholic doctrine, not criticism of my straw man, I think he or she is the best kind of person. Who, actively seeking the truth was presented with none by a wall of bad Catechesis in the Catholic Church.  As a kid, I had very little notion of a global church and nearly never went to any parish except my home one.  I could have easily been this person having only understood the Church through the easily forgotten texts used during Religious Ed. class had it not been for my mom and one excellent priest.

I believe this concern is explicitly addressed in Lumen Gentium - Chapter 2, paragraph 16:

  Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the  Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

I think we'd only consider an explicit choice to deny God, properly understood (though never fully understood), as a truly damning sin.

Now, we couldn't claim that every atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, or whatever is engaged in a sincere quest for truth. But, those that are engaged in sincere truth-seeking (and conformance) are headed in the right direction.

But, this does not relieve our obligation, nor should it relieve our desire, to deliver the truth as we know it, with all due respect -- and tact! It is much easier to lose interest in the quest for truth, or become perverse in that quest, if one is not actually presented with the truth! (in charity)


Where can I find the Orthodox response to the Augsburg Confession? According to Steven Runciman's The Great Church in Captivity (excerpt), the Orthodox Patriarch Jeremias II wrote a letter detailing the differences between the Orthodox doctrines and Lutheran teachings.

Is an English translation of the letter publicly available, and where can I find it? My searches keep taking me back to the linked book excerpt above.

Is an English translation of the letter publicly available, and where can I find it?

If you are talking about finding it online, you aren't going to have any luck. These letters, as far as I know, are not available to read online.

However, if you are willing to spend some money, an English book compilation of the letters by George Mastrantonis can be bought from Amazon (published by Holy Cross Orthodox Press, however it seems to be more expensive on their website).

Quoting a review on Amazon by Dusk:

  This book is very meaty, but I recommend it strongly to those interested. The letters provide a deeper understanding of both Lutheran and Orthodox beliefs. They provide a window into the age they were written in: the manners used in disagreement are delightful. They also provide a look into human nature itself. Read carefully or you may injure yourself.

I hope this helps! Have fun...


Is God ever said to be a "soul" in the Scriptures? God is said to be πνεῦμα (pneuma) in John 4:24 but is he ever said to be a "soul" ψυχή (psuché) in the Bible?

  God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and
  truth.

  John 4:24 (ESV)

The Greek word ψυχή (psuché) is the root of the English words "psyche," "psychology."

Is God ever said to be a "soul" in the Scriptures?

There's a lot of parts to your question.  It confuses theology proper with anthropology without explicitly showing the connection.  Additionally, you mention a Greek word, which seems to preclude the Old Testament.  Regardless, you might find this verse interesting which includes the word "נֶפֶשׁ/nephesh":

  Isa 42:1 -- Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations.

There are many other verses where the Lord speaks of having a soul.  It really comes down to whether or not you are willing to take them anthropomorphically.  Even your typical trichotomist would deny that God is composed of parts though there may some other sense in which our being is analogous with his.


Where did Moses write about Jesus? Jesus said that Moses wrote about Him:

  If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

John 5:46

Where did Moses write about Jesus? My thoughts were:

  And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

Genesis 3:15

and possibly Deuteronomy 18:15-19.

Are there any other places that Moses wrote about Jesus?

Moses wrote many things that foreshadowed the coming of the Messiah.

Jesus is, indeed, the Passover Lamb, as those who put their faith in His death and the blood He shed are rescued from the judgment that is to come.  (John 3:16-18)
Like the manna in the desert, Jesus is the Bread from Heaven (John 6:51) that satisfies our spiritual hunger and gives us life.
Like the water that sprung from the rock, Jesus is the living water (John 7:37) that satisfies our spiritual thirst.
Like the snake in the desert that was lifted up that those who were bitten by deadly snakes could look upon and be saved, Jesus was lifted up so that we who have been bitten by Satan in our sin can look upon Jesus and be saved from spiritual death.  (John 3:14-15)
Like the rock that was struck the first time, but should never be struck again, Jesus suffered once for all. (1 Peter 3:18)
Jesus is the offspring of the woman spoken of in Genesis 3 that would crush the head of Satan (Genesis 3:15)
Jesus is the fulfillment of the life of Joseph, which foreshadows Him being the beloved Son, being envied by His own, begin rejected by His own, cast down into the pit, resurrected, sent to a distant country where He became lord of all, and who then provided salvation for His own.
Jesus is the Lion of the tribe of Judah: cf. Genesis 49:8ff as interpreted by Revelation 5:5
Moses also said that God would raise up "a prophet like me" (Deuteronomy 18:15), and this is probably the clearest reference to the coming Messiah.


What is the New Testament basis for capital punishment? It is evident that capital punishment is still in vogue in a few Catholic countries, despite the Pope having spoken in favour of abolishing of the penalty. I wish to know how the New Testament is interpreted to permit awarding of capital punishment for criminal offences like murder.

This passage of scripture immediately springs to mind:

  1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. - Romans 13:1-4 NIV [emphasis added]

Elicott comments on this latter verse thus:

  It is clear from this passage that capital punishment is sanctioned by Scripture.

and Barnes:

  It may be remarked that this verse is an "incidental" proof of the propriety of "capital punishment." The sword was undoubtedly an instrument for this purpose, and the apostle mentions its use without any remark of "disapprobation."


In Reformed Covenant Theology, why does the covenant sign of circumcision pass away but the Abrahamic covenant of which it was the sign of does not? Galatians 3:16-18 denies that the Mosaic covenant annulled the promises of the Abrahamic and proceeds to argue the Christian gospel on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant against the idea of salvation by keeping the Mosaic law.

Yet, when the covenant was initially made with Abraham, God gave circumcision as the sign. Circumcision was given to Abraham (Genesis 17), not Moses (Exodus 34). Yet, in Paul especially, circumcision is often associated and even identified with the law of Moses in distinction to salvation by faith.

Paul seems emphatic that circumcision is not necessary and that trusting in circumcision is dangerous. It is easy to see why Paul would warn against trusting in works of the law given through Moses, but it is easy to sympathize with someone who feared the prospect of uncircumcision.

  Genesis 17:14 Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the
  flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken
  my covenant.

(Again, speaking to Abraham, not Moses).

Paul is not alone in his interpretation. It is also the verdict of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, affirmed by none other than Peter himself. In Acts 15, they associate circumcision with a "custom of Moses" (v. 1 and 5 by the pro-circumcision men from Judea and Pharisees, and again in v. 10 when Peter indirectly refers to it as a yoke).

The bow placed in the sky in the Noahic covenant remains because the covenant with creation remains, summer and winter, seedtime and harvest. So it is reasonable to believe that even very ancient covenant signs that came before the advent of Christ could still be in effect if their corresponding covenants remain in effect.

Why is circumcision then associated with Moses and therefore part of the burden of the law? Clearly, Reformed Covenant Theology accepts the New Testament canon containing the Pauline epistles and Acts as scripture, and so we can understand this view to be correct on the basis of authority. I would just like a better explanation than I have for why this sign has passed away or been swallowed up by Moses. For context, I am a Reformed Christian who affirms Reformed Covenant Theology.

The Heidelberg Catechism says that baptism has replaced circumcision. (Emphasis mine).

Q & A 74
Q. Should infants also be baptized?
A. Yes.
Infants as well as adults
are included in God’s covenant and people,
and they, no less than adults, are promised
deliverance from sin through Christ’s blood
and the Holy Spirit who produces faith.
Therefore, by baptism, the sign of the covenant,
they too should be incorporated into the Christian church
and distinguished from the children
of unbelievers.
This was done in the Old Testament by circumcision,
which was replaced in the New Testament by baptism.

Bannerman in The Church of Christ II, p. 98 says the following:

Circumcision was independent either of the introduction or abolition of the law of Moses, and would have continued the standing ordinance for admission into the Church of God as the seal of the covenant of grace, had not baptism been expressly appointed as a substitute for it."

Pierre C.H. Marcel in The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, p. 157 says the following:

One may admit that during the Mosaic period circumcision acquired a certain typical significance. But originally it was a sign and seal of the covenant which was made with Abraham. In so far as it was a type, it naturally vanished with the appearance of the anti-type, and even in so far as it was the seal of the covenant it gave place to an unbloody sacrament expressly instituted by Jesus Christ for the Church, and recognized as such by the Apostles, for, thanks to His work of redemption, Christ put an end once for all to the shedding of blood.

For the second part of the question, namely, why circumcision is associated with the law of Moses by the Judaizers, the answer is simple. Circumcision is part of the Mosaic law! While it is true that circumcision was first inaugurated with Abraham, it is repeated in the law of Moses. Jesus mentions this in John 7:22-23:

Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man's whole body well?

So the Judaizers aren't exactly incorrect to associate circumcision with Moses, even though Moses was not the first to circumcise.


How do adherents to inerrancy reconcile the fact that some part of the bible were added later? The story about Jesus forgiving an adulterous women is not in the original copy, but that's the version we most commonly have. So how does that make the Bible inerrant, given that many important parts were added or removed?

Further reading

The belief in biblical inerrancy does not require that the copies or translations of the Bible be completely inerrant.  It is generally accepted that:

(1) Copies are subject to human error

(2) Translations are subject to human interpretation

Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the original manuscripts are inerrant.  Unfortunately, we do not have many original manuscripts (if we have any), so we study the copies that we have, compare them, and try to determine the text of the original manuscripts.  We may not be able to do so perfectly, and areas of ambiguity are often noted in modern Bibles (John 8, Mark 16).

However, it stands to reason that we have a reasonably accurate representation of the original manuscripts, with the essentials preserved.


Why did Jesus compare the Kingdom of Heaven to leaven? The Gospels according to Matthew and Luke mention the parable of the leaven (Mt:16:6 and Lk 13:20) with  a positive image . Elsewhere, Jesus uses the euphemism of leaven to expose the hypocrisy of the Pharisees ( Lk 12:1, Mt 16:6 , Mk 8:15).

Mt 13:2 (".. and great crowds gathered about him...") suggests that Jesus told the parable of leaven during the days of Passover Feast.

In those days, a housewife would set apart a small portion of the leavened dough at the end of the day for leavening dough on the coming day. In a sense, the leaven would get older and older as days went by. Now, Israelites had a tradition of cleansing the home, of all leaven during Passover, through various means  including sale of the leaven to non-Jews. Food made of leavened dough  was in fact taboo during the  days of Feast of  Passover.

My question is:
Why did Jesus choose to tell the parable of leaven to explain the Kingdom of Heaven, given the negative connotations associated with leaven in the Jewish tradition?
Was it intended to taunt the scrupulosity of the Pharisees?
What do the interpretations of Catholic Church say on the subject ?

There are a couple of reasons Christ used leaven in a positive sense regarding the Kingdom of Heaven.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches

CCC-2832 As leaven in the dough [bread in the Lord's Prayer], the newness of the kingdom should make the earth "rise" by the Spirit of Christ.
CCC-2660 Prayer in the events of each day and each moment is one of the secrets of the kingdom revealed to "little children," to the servants of Christ, to the poor of the Beatitudes. It is right and good to pray so that the coming of the kingdom of justice and peace may influence the march of history, but it is just as important to bring the help of prayer into humble, everyday situations; all forms of prayer can be the leaven to which the Lord compares the kingdom.

The idea behind associating leaven and Spirit and Kingdom was the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost.  Pentecost, unlike Passover where no leaven was present, called specifically for leavened bread.

Ex. 12:8 [at Passover] And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
Lev. 23 17 [on Pentecost] Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD.

With leaven, with the Spirit, the Gospel of the Kingdom would spread from Jerusalem, to Judea, to the ends of the earth.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

So, depending on the context and application, leaven may be see both negatively and positively.


Who was Melchizedek? Melchizedek ("King of Justice" in Hebrew) is mentioned in Genesis 14 as receiving the dime from Abraham, and breaking bread with him:

  18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he
  was the priest of the most high God.

  19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high
  God, possessor of heaven and earth:

  20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine
  enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

Psalm 110:4 depicts Jesus as a priest after the order of Melchizedek:

  4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Paul mentions Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 and associates Jesus to him again:

  1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God,
  who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed
  him;

  2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by
  interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of
  Salem, which is, King of peace;

  3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither
  beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God;
  abideth a priest continually.

  4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch
  Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.

  5 And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office
  of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people
  according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out
  of the loins of Abraham:

  6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of
  Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.

  7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.

  8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them,
  of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

  9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes
  in Abraham.

  10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met
  him.

  11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for
  under it the people received the law,) what further need was there
  that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and
  not be called after the order of Aaron?

  12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a
  change also of the law.

  13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe,
  of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

  14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe
  Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

  15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of
  Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

  16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after
  the power of an endless life.

  17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
  Melchisedec.

  18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before
  for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

  19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better
  hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

  20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

  21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath
  by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou
  art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

So who is Melchizedek? Is he Jesus?

If he is not, how could there be priests of God before God chose himself a nation and defined priesthood after the Hebrews left Egypt?

Melchizedek was the King of Salem and a high priest of God.

Genesis 14:18-20
18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High,
19 and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High,     Creator of heaven and earth.
20 And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

Although he was a priest of God, he was not Jesus.