Are we the result of God's permissive will? After listening to this and learning more about the will of God I'd like to ask the above question.

  The active will of God regards what is in perfect accord with the
  perfect goodness and the order established by God. For instance, the
  active will of God would be that Adam and Eve remain perfectly
  obedient to Him, and never have sinned. source

Now we can say everyone was born not in a way God has intended. We can see this clearly in remarried couples. God didn't want them to get divorced and re-marry and have kids in different marriages. And we can basically always find something with everyone's life and come to a conclusion that our lives aren't the result of his perfect will. According to his perfect will we were meant to live in paradise and be children of who knows what parents or even if we were meant to exist(but let's say yes)... But instead, we live in a sinful world and born to a *family God has never intended but he allowed it through his permissive will. *by this I mean if things would go according to his perfect will our parents might have never met or whatever...

So my question is: Are we(humans in current state) according to the Catholic interpretation the result of God's permissive will rather than his perfect will? Is the world running only on God's permissive will since we don't live in paradise and that was his original plan? God only allows things to happen instead of willing them actively since his original plan was abolished by Adam and Eve.

God is the only necessarily existing being, as St. Thomas Aquinas shows in his third proof for the existence of God (Summa Theologica I q. 2 a. 3 c.; cf. ch. 3, § "The Third Way" of Aquinas: A Beginner's Guide):

  …not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. … we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, … This all men speak of as God.

All creatures are a product of God's free will (Summa Theologica I q. 19 a. 4 "Whether the will of God is the cause of things?" c.):

  We must hold that the will of God is the cause of things; and that He acts by the will, and not, as some have supposed, by a necessity of His nature.

Nothing necessitates or forces God to create the angels, universe, animals, souls, humans, or any other creature. Therefore, we are all accidents; our being/existence is not necessary.

Regarding what you call "permissive will" and "perfect will",* there is only one will in God; He is supremely simple. The will of God is always fulfilled, but a distinction must be made—between absolute necessity and conditional (ex suppositione or "suppositional") necessity—when addressing the question of "Whether whatever God wills He wills necessarily?":

  There are two ways in which a thing is said to be necessary, namely, absolutely, and by supposition. We judge a thing to be absolutely necessary from the relation of the terms, as when the predicate forms part of the definition of the subject: thus it is absolutely necessary that man is an animal. It is the same when the subject forms part of the notion of the predicate; thus it is absolutely necessary that a number must be odd or even. In this way it is not necessary that Socrates sits: wherefore it is not necessary absolutely, though it may be so by supposition; for, granted that he is sitting, he must necessarily sit, as long as he is sitting. Accordingly as to things willed by God, we must observe that He wills something of absolute necessity: but this is not true of all that He wills. For the divine will has a necessary relation to the divine goodness, since that is its proper object. Hence God wills His own goodness necessarily, even as we will our own happiness necessarily, and as any other faculty has necessary relation to its proper and principal object, for instance the sight to color, since it tends to it by its own nature. But God wills things apart from Himself in so far as they are ordered to His own goodness as their end. Now in willing an end we do not necessarily will things that conduce to it, unless they are such that the end cannot be attained without them; as, we will to take food to preserve life, or to take ship in order to cross the sea. But we do not necessarily will things without which the end is attainable, such as a horse for a journey which we can take on foot, for we can make the journey without one. The same applies to other means. Hence, since the goodness of God is perfect, and can exist without other things inasmuch as no perfection can accrue to Him from them, it follows that His willing things apart from Himself is not absolutely necessary. Yet it can be necessary by supposition, for supposing that He wills a thing, then He is unable not to will it, as His will cannot change.

cf. Charles De Koninck's "The Problem of Indeterminism" (also on PDF pp. 366ff. of this) and "Reflections on the Problem of Indeterminism" (ibid. pp. 412ff.)

In other words: God wills that some causes produce their intended effects only some of the time. This is not always due to a defect in the cause but can be due to a defect in the effect (ibid. ad 4):

  that God does not necessarily will some of the things that He wills, does not result from defect in the divine will, but from a defect belonging to the nature of the thing willed, namely, that the perfect goodness of God can be without it; and such defect accompanies all created good.

For another treatment of the question, see St. Thomas's Summa contra Gentiles I cap. 81 "That God Does not Will Other Things in a Necessary Way".

*St. Thomas nowhere uses the term "perfect will", but he does distinguish between "five expressions of will—namely, prohibition, precept, counsel, operation, and permission" (Summa Theologica I q. 19 a. 12).


Has the Lord handed over the souls of the redeemed to St Michael? In Ken Graham's answer to a separate question, he cites a prayer to Saint Michael used in the Catholic rite of  exorcism. The Latin text of the prayer includes the passage:

tibi trádidit Dóminus ánimas redemptórum in supérna felicitáte locándas

which I am reasonably sure translates as:

The Lord has handed over to you the souls of the redeemed, to be placed in supernal happiness

Have I perhaps mistranslated? Does this reflect a Catholic tradition or teaching (of which I have been unaware)? If not, what is the import of the passage?

Has the Lord handed over the souls of the redeemed to St Michael?

Tibi trádidit Dóminus ánimas redemptórum in supérna felicitáte locamdas.

Here follows the Church’s translation taken from the
Exorcismus in Satanam et Angelos Apostaticos (page 40) of Rituale Romanum:

To thee the Lord has entrusted the service of leading the souls of the redeemed into heavenly blessedness.

This passage does reflect an ancient Catholic tradition that St. Michael leads souls to heaven at the moment of death or as they leave purgatory.

In Roman Catholic teachings, Saint Michael has four main roles or offices. His first role is the leader of the Army of God and the leader of heaven's forces in their triumph over the powers of hell.[31] He is viewed as the angelic model for the virtues of the spiritual warrior, with the conflict against evil at times viewed as the battle within.
The second and third roles of Michael in Catholic teachings deal with death. In his second role, Michael is the angel of death, carrying the souls of all the deceased to heaven. In this role Michael descends at the hour of death, and gives each soul the chance to redeem itself before passing; thus consternating the devil and his minions. Catholic prayers often refer to this role of Michael.
In his third role, he weighs souls in his perfectly balanced scales. For this reason, Michael is often depicted holding scales.
In his fourth role, Saint Michael, the special patron of the Chosen People in the Old Testament, is also the guardian of the Church. Saint Michael was revered by the military orders of knights during the Middle Ages. The names of villages around the Bay of Biscay express that history. This role also was why he was considered the patron saint of a number of cities and countries. - Archangel Michael (Wikipedia)

The tradition that St. Michael leads souls to heaven is centuries old.

This is an ancient tradition, in accord with a belief that St. Michael was the angel who weighed the deeds of a deceased person and led them into eternal life. For this reason St. Michael is frequently depicted in statues or paintings holding scales. The liturgy of the Church appears to confirm this role of St. Michael with the following offertory chant said during a Requiem Mass.
O Lord Jesus Christ, King of glory,deliver the souls of all the faithful departed … let the standard-bearer holy Michaellead them into that holy light.
A medieval text known as the Golden Legend relates an encounter Mary had with an angel prior to her death, preparing her for her assumption.

Then behold, an angel stood before her amid a great light and greeted her reverently as the mother of his Lord. “Hail, blessed Mary!” he said, “receive the blessing of him who bestowed salvation on Jacob. See, Lady, I have brought you a palm branch from paradise, and you are to have it carried before your bier. Three days from now you will be assumed from the body, because your Son is waiting for you, his venerable mother.”

The angel’s name is not immediately revealed, but later on when Mary “died,” Jesus comes into the narrative and gives instructions to the holy archangel.

Christ nodded his consent and immediately Michael the Archangel came forward and presented Mary’s soul before the Lord. Then the Savior spoke and said: “Arise, my dear one, my dove, tabernacle of glory, vessel of life, heavenly temple! As you never knew the stain of sin through carnal intercourse, so you shall never suffer dissolution of the flesh in the tomb.” Thereupon Mary’s soul entered her body, and she came forth glorious from the monument and was assumed into the heavenly bridal chamber, a great multitude of angels keeping her company.

While these legendary stories likely have no historical basis, they do provide for us a piece of meditation and invite us to consider how the Virgin Mary was welcomed into heaven by her Son and a company of angels. In particular, it would make sense for the “Prince of All Angels” to be at the forefront of those who welcomed the “Queen of Angels” into heaven. - How St. Michael the Archangel led the Blessed Virgin Mary to heaven

Deacon Guadalupe Rodriguez from Laredo, Texas puts this tradition into clear perspective:

Tradition tells us that St. Michael is the “Guardian of Purgatory” and that he holds “The Keys of Purgatory.”  In the life of mystics St. Michael is often seen sending his angels to console souls in purgatory by sprinkling them with the Precious Blood. St. Michael is also seen escorting souls from purgatory into heaven.  At other times like on First Saturday, Our Lady comes to release souls from purgatory. Three great saints and doctors of the Catholic Church also concur St. Michael’s intercession and consolation of the souls of purgatory.

“It is incontestably recognized since the foundation of Christianity that the souls of the faithful departed are delivered from Purgatory through the intercession of St. Michael the Archangel.” - St. Robert Bellarmine

“The Prince of the Heavenly militia is all-powerful in Purgatory, and he can assist the poor souls whom the justice and sanctity of the Almighty retain in this place of punishment.”  - St. Anselm

St. Michael has received the care of consoling and helping the Souls in Purgatory.” - St. Alphonsus Liguori

This also aligns with one of the early church writings called Apocalypse of Paul which explains how a soul was lifted up in a vision into the heavenly abodes:

“Behold! A river with its waters. I say to the angel, ‘what is it?’ he answers, ‘if anyone is impure or unholy, but repentant, once he has left his body behind, he is led forward first to adore God, and then by the command of the Lord he is handed over to the Angel Michael, who baptizes him in the river and then leads him to the city of God.’” - (Apoc., Paul 22.)

In the book St. Michael and the Angels testimonies from holy monks explain how one holy monk offered mass for a friend recommending his soul to St. Michael and how the priest was able to see the soul escorted from purgatory into heaven by St. Michael the Archangel.  In another testimony a priest offers mass also in honor of St. Michael for several souls but adds the prayer, “May the Prince of Angels, St Michael, lead them into the glory of Heaven,” and he is able to see St. Michael descend from heaven into purgatory to deliver the souls. - St. Michael & All Souls


What do Catholics mean when they talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist? The Catholic Church is one of several denominations that teach the Real Presence, but they don't all have the same understanding of this doctrine. What is the Catholic understanding?

For my part, I can quote the inside flap of the Missal in the pew which says, Catholics believe that the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ (not a symbol, but actual fact).

It goes on to say, the Catholic Church permits eastern Orthodox adherents to come to Catholic Mass, celebrate the Eucharist and receive communion. But Catholics are not permitted to go to their Mass unless necessary.

Other Christians are excluded from reception of the Eucharist, mainly because if they hold strong to their professed belief, they do not believe the Eucharist could be what Catholics say it is.  (They may believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ, but they most certainly don't believe that only a validly ordained Catholic Priest could consecrate the host).

All peoples of all religions are invited to come to Mass and participate in the Liturgy.

Transubstantiation means that the Stuff of the bread and wine is totally replaced with the Body and Blood of Christ.  Catholics don't believe that the wine is His Blood and the bread is His Body, Catholics do believe that what can be seen after consecration is just plain old different, even though there is no perceptible change. In this view, Catholic and Orthodox are the same.

In the Orthodox Church it is common to perform intinction (dip the consecrated bread in the consecrated wine) - but it doesn't change the essential belief.

Both Catholic and Orthodox see each others priests consecrations as valid (on account of a common acceptance of apostolic succession and the Imposition of Hands).


Historical evidence of Slaughter of the Innocents besides St. Matthew's Gospel? Besides Matthew 2:16,

  Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry: and sending killed all the menchildren that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.

What historical evidence is there of the Slaughter of the Innocents?

What historical evidence is there of the Slaughter of the Innocents?

Apart from the Gospel of St. Matthew, it seems that there is a serious lack of any recognized historical evidence for the slaughter of the Holy Innocents.

  “Then Herod, when he saw that he had been outwitted by the wise men, flew into a rage. He gave orders to massacre all the male children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old and under, in keeping with the time he had learned from the wise men.” (Matthew 2:16)

Many historians now seem to be of the opinion that this event mentioned in the Gospel of St. Matthew is of minor importance in the annuals of the deeds of Herod the Great. The Catholic Encyclopedia puts it as follows:

  The Greek Liturgy asserts that Herod killed 14,000 boys (ton hagion id chiliadon Nepion), the Syrians speak of 64,000, many medieval authors of 144,000, according to Apocalypse 14:3. Modern writers reduce the number considerably, since Bethlehem was a rather small town. Knabenbauer brings it down to fifteen or twenty (Evang. S. Matt., I, 104), Bisping to ten or twelve (Evang. S. Matt.), Kellner to about six (Christus and seine Apostel, Freiburg, 1908); cf. "Anzeiger kath. Geistlichk. Deutschl.", 15 Febr., 1909, p. 32. This cruel deed of Herod is not mentioned by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, although he relates quite a number of atrocities committed by the king during the last years of his reign. The number of these children was so small that this crime appeared insignificant amongst the other misdeeds of Herod. Macrobius (Saturn., IV, xiv, de Augusto et jocis ejus) relates that when Augustus heard that amongst the boys of two years and under Herod's own son also had been massacred, he said: "It is better to be Herod's hog [ous], than his son [houios]," alluding to the Jewish law of not eating, and consequently not killing, swine. The Middle Ages gave faith to this story; Abelard inserted it in his hymn for the feast of Holy Innocents:

  “Ad mandatum regis datum generale
  nec ipsius infans tutus est a caede.
  Ad Augustum hoc delatum risum movit,
  et rex mitis de immiti digne lusit:
  malum, inquit, est Herodis esse natum.
  prodest magis talis regis esse porcum.
  (Dreves, "Petri Abaelardi Hymnarius Paracletensis", Paris, 1891, pp. 224, 274.)“

Historians do not always write down every event that has historically happened.

  Sometimes historians choose not to record an event, and their reasons cannot always be determined. In the nineteenth century Pope Leo XIII noted the double standard in critics for whom “a profane book or ancient document is accepted without hesitation, whilst the Scripture, if they only find in it a suspicion of error, is set down with the slightest possible discussion as quite untrustworthy” (Providentissimus Deus, 20).

  We should call out this double standard when critics demand that every event recorded in Scripture, including the massacre of the Holy Innocents, be corroborated in other non-biblical accounts before they can be considered to be historical. - Is the Massacre of the Holy Innocents Historical?


What is the biblical basis to claim that masturbation is a sin? There's definitely two sides to this coin, some people say that masturbation is not a sin that leads to death, others say that it's a sin because Jesus commands us to deny the desires of our flesh.

So my question to you, is multi-faceted: What biblical basis for claiming that masturbation is a sin; and what is the biblical basis to claim it leads to death?

The root of the matter is lust.

  Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with
  lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

I would say that the act itself is not the sin, it's the intent of the act.


According to Catholicism, are we deserving or worthy of God's love in any way? We are just dust in this infinite universe. We are sinners. We do crimes against humanity.

God even sent his only begotten son for us to look over the vineyard. We scourged Him, judged Him and crucified Him.

We harm each other, we hurt each other and God still sends his graces and mana from heaven and endows us with His blessings.

Are we worthy of His love? If no then why does God love us so much and place us above everything after everything we put Him through?

God, in his simplicity, has various perfections.

We know that God possesses various perfections, goodness, wisdom, love, etc.; and not only in the sense that He can create them, but that He Himself, really has them (they really exist in Him), and, they are in Him in the most eminent way (God is infinite). God does not only possess goodness, wisdom, love, etc., but He is Goodness, Wisdom, Love, etc.

However, God is simple (not in the sense that it is easy to understand Him, but in the sense that He is not composed of parts; there is no distinction between His essence and existence). Yet, these various and really distinct perfections (in created order) are not synonymous in God (hence we can not say that God pardons by His justice). In God, these perfections really converge in the most eminent way to one all-encompassing idea of Deity which is God Himself.

Creation is a sharing of the treasure of perfections found in God.

God manifests His infinite plentitude of perfections, His Glory, trough an act of creation. Since no created being can be absolutely simple and capture all that God has in his infinite perfection, God creates many beings to manifest His Glory (of course, no matter how many created things there are, they can not exhaust God's Glory).

Christ's death is concentrated manifestation of His infinite Goodness and mercy toward human beings.

Christ came to the world to save us, He suffered for our sake. Out of his goodness and mercy, He came to redeem us by His salvific love. God offered salvation to mankind (and this is His completely freely given gift to us, which He did not have to offer to us) out of his sheer mercy. There is nothing in us that "deserves" to be loved, we are from ourselves nothing, but by God's mercy, we are able to see His very essence. Why did God choose to manifest his Goodness in this extraordinarily high measure? Because he freely chose so, it is his simple will (which is sufficient reason to itself).


What is the significance of "Zealot" in Acts 1:13? When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. (Acts 1:13 NIV)

What is the significance of calling Simon "the Zealot?" Is this some proper Jewish title, or what?

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry I'll quote an interesting part here.

  The Zealots objected to Roman rule and violently sought to eradicate it by
  generally targeting Romans and Greeks. Zealots engaged in violence against
  other Jews were called the Sicarii.[9] They raided Jewish habitations and
  killed Jews they considered apostate and collaborators, while also urging
  Jews to fight Romans and other Jews for the cause. Josephus paints a very
  bleak picture of their activities as they instituted what he characterized
  as a murderous "reign of terror" prior to the Jewish Temple's destruction.

This says A LOT about what Jesus was able to accomplish in assembling his 12.  Considering he had a tax collector, and a Zealot, who under other circumstances would target such a tax collector as a "collaborator".  Consider the teachings of Jesus, and imagine how much of a life change that this Simon had undergone.  Things like "Love your enemy", and "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's". It doesn't say that Simon was a Sicarii, but there were probably some shared core beliefs.

I am not a Bible scholar, but I think Zealot means more then just being zealous for Jesus.  It is capitalized in the passage you shared.


From the perspective of Roman Catholicism, what do Orthodox churches have to do to become "Eastern Catholic Churches"? Recently I answered a question and included an image that attempts to portray, among other things, the relationship between the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Rite Catholic Churches:

This image shows churches leaving other branches and joining the Catholic Church, specifically, the Eastern Catholic Churches.  I understand from Wikipedia that there are 23 such churches "in full communion with the Pope in Rome," including the Syriac Catholic Church.  Wikipedia is vague on the details, but says that in 1782 the Syriac Patriarch "declared himself Catholic and in unity with the Pope of Rome," which resulted in a division of the Syriac Church into Catholic and Oriental Orthodox wings.

My question relates to how this "in unity" process works, specifically regarding national/ethnic churches of the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Churches.  An overview is fine – I don't need details if it's a complex process – but I'd like to understand what the Catholic Church expects from such church leaders who attempt to bring their Orthodox churches into the Catholic Church.

In case it's helpful, I'll mention some ideas that come into my mind, but I don't know if these examples make sense.  Do these church leaders simply have to declare their unity with the Pope?  Do they have to explicitly reject some other authority?  Does a unification ceremony of some kind have to take place?  Do church leaders have to demonstrate somehow that their action represents the will of their followers?  Have standards changed over the years?

The Vatican II document which talks about the Eastern Churches is Orientalium Ecclesiarium. In it, the Conciliar Fathers turn their attention to these Churches and their Orthodox counterparts.

In particular, the Church deems it very important that the Eastern Churches maintain their own liturgical and spiritual tradition:

  All members of the Eastern Rite should know and be convinced that they can and should always preserve their legitimate liturgical rite and their established way of life, and that these may not be altered except to obtain for themselves an organic improvement. All these, then, must be observed by the members of the Eastern rites themselves. Besides, they should attain to an ever greater knowledge and a more exact use of them, and, if in their regard they have fallen short owing to contingencies of times and persons, they should take steps to return to their ancestral traditions.

In particular, latinisation (and byzantinisation, as well) is to be avoided where possible, and in fact much work has been done to remove accretions to the Eastern Rites that have come from the Western ones, sometimes to the dismay of the people who have grown accustomed with those.

Regarding the requirements for Orthodox Churches to join the Catholic one, they are mentioned in §25:

  If any separated Eastern Christian should, under the guidance of the grace of the Holy Spirit, join himself to the unity of Catholics, no more should be required of him than what a bare profession of the Catholic faith demands. Eastern clerics, seeing that a valid priesthood is preserved among them, are permitted to exercise the Orders they possess on joining the unity of the Catholic Church, in accordance with the regulations established by the competent authority.

To a Chalcedonian Church, this "bare profession of Catholic faith" involves basically recognising the authority of the Holy Father. The Union of Brest, by which the Ruthenian Church came into union with Rome, stipulates that the Eastern Catholics need not insert the filioque clause into the Creed, they need not accept the doctrine of Purgatory (though they may not explicitly deny it), and need not hold fast into any of the elaborations that the Western Church has performed upon Transubstantiation (it is enough to believe in the Real Presence).

To a Miaphysite Church, they need to accept furthermore a Chalcedonian Christology, even if only by accepting that what the Miaphysites call φύσις (physis, nature) the Chalcedonians call ὑπόστασις (hypostasis, being).

Regarding the Church of the East, it's not clear that they have a truly Nestorian Christology, though they honour Nestorius. The records of the Synods of the Bishops of the Sassanid Empire during the fourth and fifth Centuries show a studious silence on the question of the natures and hypostases of Christ, and the schism of the Eastern Church was more a question of the needs of the Persian Church to distance itself from the Roman Emperor than an actual question of theology.

In summary, there is very little that the Orthodox would need to do to restore unity with Rome. Foremost would be to accept the primacy of the Holy Father, and most of the rest can be left to the discretion of each Church. Again from Orientalium Ecclesiarium:

  History, tradition and abundant ecclesiastical institutions bear outstanding witness to the great merit owing to the Eastern Churches by the universal Church. The Sacred Council, therefore, not only accords to this ecclesiastical and spiritual heritage the high regard which is its due and rightful praise, but also unhesitatingly looks on it as the heritage of the universal Church. For this reason it solemnly declares that the Churches of the East, as much as those of the West, have a full right and are in duty bound to rule themselves, each in accordance with its own established disciplines, since all these are praiseworthy by reason of their venerable antiquity, more harmonious with the character of their faithful and more suited to the promotion of the good of souls.

Thus the Churches of the East can and must enjoy a large degree of autonomy.


Are funerals a way to reduce the time of the dead in purgatory I was reading an article on TVTropes and I've found this :

In a way, there's a "Person Needs Prayer Badly" in medieval European Catholicism... in order to go to Heaven (or reduced their time in purgatory) and join the Angels, the soul of the deceased needed to be prayed for. This led to the modern idea of the funeral, as well as other ideas.
It is still part of the Catholic beliefs, but you only pray for the soul in Purgatory as man has no role in deciding the salvation of souls.

According to current Catholic doctine, are funerals (and prayers) a way to "reduce" time of a soul in purgatory?

The short answer is that prayer can help shorten the time someone spends in Purgatory, but, as was pointed out, funerals predated Christianity so it would be incorrect to state that funerals will help shorten the time, in part, because funerals are a way for those that survive to reflect on and to have closure over the loss of a loved one.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church you find this:

  1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the
  dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas
  Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered
  from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the
  memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all
  the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the
  beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving,
  indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

  Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their
  father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead
  bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who
  have died and to offer our prayers for them.611

Scripturally you can look at 2 Maccabees 12, and you may want to read some part of the last section of this chapter for context, but at verse 46 is this:

  46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead,
  that they may be loosed from sins.

We also have Job 1:5

  5 When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make
  arrangements for them to be purified. Early in the morning he would
  sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my
  children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s
  regular custom.

In the RCC those that have died before us are still part of our church, and much as Job made sacrifices to help purify his children, and much as prayers for the dead help them, we continue this tradition to help shorten the time people spend in Purgatory, as you cannot enter the gates of Heaven with any stain on your soul, so if you did not die perfectly in grace, you spend time being purified, then enter Heaven.

Now, this is different than worshiping the dead. Not all prayer is worship, prayer can also just be a way to talk with someone that you care about that isn't with you, for example.  True worship should only be for God.  This is often a point of confusion for non-catholics.

For more on this you can look at:
http://catholicism.about.com/od/thesaints/f/Pray_to_Saints.htm

And for some quotes from early church fathers, and more explanation you can look at:
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap070600.htm

For those that want to argue about the validity of 2 Maccabees you may want to read this first to see what the early church fathers taught about the OT canon, for example that it was quoted by Cyprian of Carthage.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-old-testament-canon


What is the significance of a double cross? What is the significance of a cross with two cross-bars to Christians? Does it carry different symbolism than a normal cross?

The "double" cross is known as a Patriarchal cross and is well described in the Wikipedia article. There's no point in reproducing more than a sample here:

The Patriarchal cross is a variant of the Christian cross, the religious symbol of Christianity. Similar to the familiar Latin cross, the Patriarchal cross possesses a smaller crossbar placed above the main one, so that both crossbars are near the top. Sometimes the patriarchal cross has a short, slanted crosspiece near its foot (Orthodox cross). This slanted, lower crosspiece often appears in Byzantine Greek and Eastern European iconography, as well as Eastern Orthodox churches.
The top beam represents the plaque bearing the inscription "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" (often abbreviated in the Latinate "INRI", and in the Greek as "INBI").

Incidentally, the figure in the second photograph is Saint Stephen, first King of Hungary: this is his statue in Budapest. He has a halo and is wearing St Stephen's Crown, characterised by its crooked cross. This in itself answers the question!


Can an adult be Baptized if they are not Catholic I believe in Jesus but I am not Catholic. Can I still be Baptized?

Definitely.  Many churches (e.g. Baptists) would be glad to welcome you and baptize you.


What do People of Praise believe? There is a charismatic church called People of Praise that is under a good deal of scrutiny at the moment because a member of this church may well be appointed to the US Supreme Court. Wikipedia has little information about the doctrines of People of Praise, calling it

  an independent Christian charismatic "covenant community" with no other ecclesial affiliation
  People of Praise - WikiPedia

yet strongly indicates a relationship with the Catholic church, especially involving its ecumenism.

I normally wouldn't put Charismatic and Catholic in the same sentence, so I'm confused what their core doctrines may be.

Their own official site says

  A majority of People of Praise members are Catholic, and yet the People of Praise is not a Catholic group. We aim to be a witness to the unity Jesus desires for all his followers. Our membership includes not only Catholics but Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Pentecostals and nondenominational Christians. What we share is a common baptism, a commitment to love one another and our teachings, which we hold in common.
  Who We Are - People of Praise

This leaves me with the impression that People of Praise is not a unique church of its own, but a pact of Christians from diverse churches that may have conflicting doctrines, but they seek to do good Christian work together all the same. If this is true, then their list of official doctrines is probably smaller, perhaps only limited to "Jesus is Lord" or something similar.

Even perhaps their official dogma may be non-existent, in light of the following:

  Freedom of conscience is a key to our diversity. People of Praise members are always free to follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, experience and the teachings of their churches.
  ibid

What do People of Praise generally believe; what is their central dogma? If they have none, under what central plan do they congregate (i.e. why do they exist)?

The group seems to take pride that they are hard to understand, but they do proclaim a couple of identity marks and from those, if one follows the trail into their roots, you begin to understand their beliefs.

  We are an ecumenical, charismatic, covenant community. Our model and inspiration is the first Christian community, a small band of disciples who “were of one heart and soul” and “held all things in common.” (Acts 4:33, 2:44). We can be difficult for the public and the press to understand. In truth, we are a community that defies categories.
  -source-

The first Christians were very clear about external categories like worship and baptism between believers and non-believers.  Since then, with 2,000 years of wear and tear, the Body of Christ internally splintered over doctrine, not love, into various denominations like Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, and others.  But, the one thing in common among all, the one basic identifier, if we ignore the original baptism argument between Cyprian, Firmillian and Pope Stephen, was water baptism.  People of Praise believe in a common baptism of a Triune manner in the name of the Father, Son, Spirit.

  What we share is a common baptism, a commitment to love one another and our teachings, which we hold in common.
  -ibid-

And what about the commitment to love and to their teachings?  What are their teachings?  Because once you teach something, you draw a line in the sand.  A triune baptism is a line, are there others?

Ecumenical

Ecumenical is the effort to bring different Christian denominations into a better understanding and relationship with each other.

It is the idea of a visible unity in baptized believers.

Historically, it was ecumenical councils that ruled on doctrine for those baptized.  See the first one recorded in Acts 15.  Later it was Nicea in 325.  Typically the first seven are recognized as ecumenical.  But this approach did not last.

Today the unifying belief may be found at most basic levels like a Triune baptism or a focus on Christ Jesus alone, rather than esoteric doctrine.  Beyond the basics, unity may fracture into power and control and money.  The ecumenical idea itself, however, may be a bit cloudy as it could be captured in the practice of feed and then preach or love and then convert.  In Catholicism, the two-step process is known as dialogue of love and dialogue of truth.

Charismatic

The definition of charismatic is distinct from Pentecostalism.  Charismatic Christianity in any denomination means the common belief that the Spirit still works as it did 2,000 years ago.  There are still today spiritual gifts, miracles, and guidance.

These roots trace back to Azusa Street revivals in 1906.  It was quite ecumenical with different denominations partaking.

This movement made its way into the Catholic Church via Cursillo and is known as Catholic Charismatic.  Cursillo is recognized by the Vatican as a lay organization.

Cursillo itself has led to much cooperation between churches.  For example, the Methodist Church renamed it Walk to Emmaus.

My comment, whether they voice this or not, is that this is a belief that the Spirit still works, still has gifts (charisms), and still does not care about your group's (RC, EO, P) defining dogmas.

Covenant

A covenant is an agreement.  It is also a contract or agreement.  Or an obligation between parties.  For this case, here is how People of Praise define "covenant", as a lifelong commitment from which one may be released.

  After a long period of prayer and discernment, many People of Praise members choose to make a lifelong commitment called a covenant. The covenant of the People of Praise is a promise of love and service to fellow community members and to God. This covenant is not an oath or a vow. We have understood that God can always call a person to another way of life, in which case he or she would be released from the covenant.
  -People of Praise

With this in mind, it appears as a commitment between Christians at their most basic level.  Jesus is Lord.  Known by our love one for another.  Believe on the Lord and you will be saved.  Be baptized.  With that in mind, a covenant is the agreement to work to spread that gospel around the world.

Conclusion

So what exactly does People of Praise believe?  They believe in basic Christianity of unity in the Spirit built on the observable gifts of the Spirit.  Love is the glue binding baptized believers together.  They covenant to bring out this message to the world.


Was Jesus superior to man when he was in flesh? I was asking myself this, while reading the Pauline epistles, was Jesus on earth able to do miracles or he was a man like us with our limits and depending only on God?

Trinitarian Christianity teaches that Jesus is both human and divine (i.e. Hypostatic union affirmed in the AD 451 Council of Chalcedon).  That Jesus is 100% human was already affirmed before the council, for example by Early Church Father Gregory of Nazianzus (d. AD 390) who wrote in a letter to Cledonius against Apollinarism (a heresy saying Jesus has a human body but has only a divine mind without a human soul):

If anyone has put his trust in Him as a Man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind, and quite unworthy of salvation. For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole.

The question then becomes whether in doing miracles Jesus depends only on the Holy Spirit or also on His divine nature?  Remember that St. Peter and St. Paul, who remain 100% human to the end, also could do miracles due to the power of the Holy Spirit.  Also, in the Old Testament, the prophets Elijah and Elisha did a lot of miracles while remaining 100% human.
The article How Did Jesus Do Miracles—His Divine Nature or the Holy Spirit? answers this question by pointing out some miracles that seem to be performed by Jesus's divine nature: Walking on Water (Matt 14:22-33):

But Who Really Walked on Water?
Three clues in this passage, however, point to a different understanding of this miracle.
First, when Jesus reveals to his fearful disciples that “it is I” (Matt. 14:27; Greek ego eimi), this isn’t a call to recognize his human features that mark him out as “Jesus from Nazareth.” Rather, he’s appropriating Yahweh’s name revealed in Exodus 3:14 (I AM: ego eimi). He’s commanding his disciples to take heart and not be afraid because he, the one walking on the water, is Yahweh.
The second clue flows from the first: Jesus is taking over an Old Testament theophany motif. Who tramples the waves of the sea but Yahweh alone (Job 9:8)? Through this and his personal identification with the divine name, Jesus is making clear the who of this miracle: the incarnate second person of the Trinity who, though veiling his heavenly glory in human flesh, didn’t abandon or mute the attributes of his divine nature (as if he ever could!). No, the Creator who first fashioned the sea now masters it through his own power.
The third clue is found in the disciples’ response to this revelation. Initially we see Peter addressing this Yahweh-incarnate-who-walks-on-water as “Lord.” But then, after Jesus gets into the boat and the wind ceases, they worship him: “Truly you are the Son of God” (Matt. 14:33). It’s clear that for the disciples this miracle bears the unmistakable marks of a divine person (cf. Ps. 107:23–32). The disciples didn’t marvel at Jesus’s complete dependence on another, nor did they ascribe praise to the Spirit’s power. Rather, their eyes are drawn to the incarnate Son of God as worthy of praise. For them, the who explained the how and ushered them into worship.

Conclusion
What is important to remember is that Jesus is a human person who possess human nature as well as divine nature.  He does not have to be superhuman to do miracles, because like Paul or Elijah He could have done them by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Therefore we do not really know which nature did the miracles.
But, as the article points out:

It’s not wrong to say that the Spirit is acting in Jesus’s miracles; he is. It is wrong to say that the second person of the Trinity isn’t.


Why do Protestants accept the inerrancy of the canon, while rejecting other decisions of the Roman Church? Why do Protestants accept the inerrancy of the current canon of scripture but reject many of the other decisions made by the Roman Church at the time the Bible was being canonized?

Take the Council of Laodicea, for example. Canon 60 of the Council of Laodicea states the books that are allowed to be read. Revelation was not included at this time, and some books were included then are not included today. Also, the Council of Laodicea stated things like marriages and birthdays are not to be celebrated during lent (canon 52), and Christians should not dance at weddings (canon 53). So it seems like the council's decisions on some things are just simply ignored, while others, especially the canon of Scripture, are readily defended. Why?

To answer your main question: The Council of Laodicea, being a regional council, would only have been binding on the Faithful living in the region (specifically, on areas that were represented by their bishops). Being only a regional, and not an ecumenical council, it is not binding on all the Faithful.

For your question about scripture, the answer is a little complicated. Wikipedia summarizes it well, but the important point is that we have points at time where we know Canon was already considered settled, which was certainly before 400. It is harder to point to the moment where it actually was settled, although the broad strokes clearly had been in agreement for a while.


How do Arminians interpret God's reserving of a remnant in Romans 11:4? Much has been written about Romans 9 and the differing Calvinist/Arminian interpretations of it.  However, Arminians (and I consider myself an Arminian) usually argue that, read in context with the surrounding passages – 8, 10 and 11 – it becomes clear that what is being referred to in 9 is not individual election, but corporate, referring to Israel as a whole.

I note, therefore, Romans 11:4:

  But what saith the answer of God unto him?  I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. (KJV)

The words "I have reserved to myself" do seem, at first glance at least, to represent the personal preservation of these seven thousand Israelites.  Could someone please explain to me the Arminian interpretation of this specific verse?

A general overview of the Romans debate between Arminians and Calvinists would also be welcome, as this is a matter of general interest to me at the moment.

You've mentioned one of the big points of disagreement between Arminians and Calvinists regarding the interpretation of Romans 9–11 – are nations or individuals in view?  Romans 9:6–24 is a crucial text in this regard.  Another related point of contention is who exactly is Israel in various places, culminating in Romans 11:26 – a Jewish remnant only, the church as a whole, or a future mass conversion of Jewish people (see this overview of interpretations for more).
Turning to Romans 11:4 in particular, then, we would expect that Arminians would not see this as a reference to the individual election of seven thousand men, but to God's preserving those who are faithful to him.  And this is what we found when we look at Arminian commentators like Adam Clarke, Jack Cottrell, and R. C. H. Lenski.
Clarke focuses on God's physical preservation of his people who faced persecution:

These [seven thousand] had continued faithful to God; but, because of Jezebel's persecution, they were obliged to conceal their attachment to the true religion; and God, in his providence, preserved them from her sanguinary rage. (Commentary)

Jack Cottrell focuses more on God's spiritual fellowship with this remnant, but unlike the Calvinist, he sees this as a result of their faithfulness to him.  Quoting him at length:

God's statement, "I have reserved for myself," uses the verb [kataleipō], another "remnant" term (see v. 3).  Its usual meaning is "to leave." Those with Calvinist leanings see an oblique reference to unconditional predestination in this world.
But this is not the point.  Certainly this is an act of God regarding these men, but God's act is conditioned on the fact that they "have not bowed the knee to Baal."  God is telling Elijah, "There are more than just you who have remained faithful.  Indeed, I have identified and singled out from the great majority of Israelites a group of seven thousand true worshipers.  I have separated them from the rest; in my sight they are a different group, a remnant.  These are the ones I have kept in my saving grace and in close fellowship with myself."
They are the ones, God says, "I have reserved for myself."  They are "his people" in a special, spiritual sense.  In this spiritual sense only these seven thousand belonged to God; the rest were Baal's.  This remnant alone was the true Israel of 9:6b. (Romans, 395–96)

But what about the use of the word "election" in the next verse (KJV)?  R. C. H. Lenski argues that the sovereignty and grace described by Calvinists does not exist.  Instead,

Grace makes an election in accord with its nature by taking for itself all those whom it wins for faith and for the acceptance of this gift of God's righteousness. (Interpretation of Romans 8–16, 683)

So here too, the "election" of these seven thousand is conditioned on their faithfulness – those won by grace are thereby "elected," whereas the Calvinist would reverse the order, with election leading to conversion and faithfulness.


If a husband wants to recommit to Catholicism but his wife does not want to convert, will they be considered to be adulterers? A couple in which the husband was baptized a Catholic as an infant but the wife was never baptized have married outside of the Catholic Church (but married legally, and in a Christian church). Neither has been married before.

The husband wants to renew his Catholicism, but his wife doesn't wish to convert. According to Catholic Church teaching, are they (will they be) considered to be living in adultery?

"Reversion" is straightforward. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. However, the falling-away from the Church is contrary to Canon Law:

209 §1 Christ's faithful are bound to preserve their communion with the Church at all times, even in their external actions.

This is something which may be confessed and absolved, and that — with the appropriate penance applied by the priest — is sufficient to be reconciled to the Church.
With regard to the marriage, the husband has contracted a marriage with an unbaptised person. The Catechism of the Church recognises that this presents particular difficulties:

1633 In many countries the situation of a mixed marriage (marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) often arises. It requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors. A case of marriage with disparity of cult (between a Catholic and a nonbaptized person) requires even greater circumspection.
1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise.
1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority.135 In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage.136 This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage and the obligations assumed by the Catholic party concerning the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.137
1636 Through ecumenical dialogue Christian communities in many regions have been able to put into effect a common pastoral practice for mixed marriages. Its task is to help such couples live out their particular situation in the light of faith, overcome the tensions between the couple's obligations to each other and towards their ecclesial communities, and encourage the flowering of what is common to them in faith and respect for what separates them.
1637 In marriages with disparity of cult the Catholic spouse has a particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband."138 It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this "consecration" should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to the Christian faith.139 Sincere married love, the humble and patient practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion.

As the Catechism shows in its references, the marriage is subject to Canon Law and the Tribunal, as well the civil authorities:

1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

A baptised person should have been confirmed before marriage (Canon 1065); but being presented with a fait accompli makes that impossible.
Canon 1086 covers the case explicitly:

1086 §1 A marriage is invalid when one of the two persons was baptised in the Catholic Church or received into it, and the other was not baptised. A

Canon 1125 lays down steps which are necessary for validation of a mixed marriage:

1125 The local ordinary [that is, bishop] can grant [permission] if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;

both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.

Part of satisfying (1) may well be to receive confirmation if that hasn't already happened [Cf Canon 1065].
In order to validate a marriage, it will probably be necessary to make the vows which the local Bishops' Conference have mandated. This can normally be done in a relatively private ceremony with the minimum of fuss.
Without a valid marriage, then yes, the couple will be seen as "living in sin," and this could restrict the Catholic party's access to the sacraments. However, the sin is the conjugal act, so living in continence awaiting the validation of the marriage would be the good thing to do, rather like an engaged couple. The Catechism again:

2350 Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.

The "sin" certainly isn't adultery.

2380 Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery.

In this case, the two people are civilly married to each other, so it can't be adultery. I suppose that canonically it's fornication, since the marriage isn't canonically valid. However, as the couple are married to each other, even that is doubtful:

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.

This comes down to the adage "If you think something is a sin, it probably is." Note that I wrote will be seen as "living in sin" — that is, to live together without a valid marriage may cause scandal. This is something where local customs become important and the local clergy's advice will be particularly helpful.

135 Canon 1124
136 Canon 1086
137 Canon 1125
138 1 Corinthians 7:14
139 Cf 1 Cor 7:16
A Note that the online version of Canon 1086 has not been updated to remove the phrase and has not by a formal act defected from it, which was removed by the Motu Proprio Omnium et Mentem in October 2009.


Did Moses Have A Speech Impediment? Did Moses have a speech impediment?  Because Acts 7:22 says he was powerful in speech and action which contradicts Exodus 4:10.

Acts 7:22 And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds.
Exodus 4:10 But Moses said to the Lord, “Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue.”

Exodus 4:10 says that when God asked Moses to speak for him, Moses came up with the excuse that he was “slow of speech and tongue.”  Some Bible commentators have suggested that Moses might have suffered from some sort of speech impediment.  However, it’s more likely that Moses was simply resisting God because he was unwilling to return to Pharaoh’s court and stand up for the Hebrew slaves.

What we do know about Moses is that he was brought up as the adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter and would have benefitted from the finest education.  That’s why Acts 7:22 says Moses was instructed “in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds.”   That is not a contradiction of what Moses said in Exodus 4:10.  The events that led up to the exodus of the Hebrews out of Egypt testify to the fact that God used Moses and his brother in the outworking of His divine plans.  It was God who enabled Moses.  Moses’ feeble excuse that he was “slow of speech and tongue” didn’t work.  In spite of Moses’ failings, God saw fit to use him and to empower him.  Because God was with Moses then no impediment, real or imagined, would stand in God’s way.


Can the human spirit remember anything without a physical body? (LDS perspective) I work doing support work for adults with disabilities. I have a friend who recently graduated with a degree in psychology. One day we got talking about all the ways that brain damage (through accident, injury, age, disease, etc.) can affect a person.

Both of us being Christian as well, the conversation eventually shifted into a more spiritual discussion about the consistent/unchanging nature of the spirit and the inconsistent nature of the body. We got stumped on a couple of question, but they can be summarized into this one: There is no question whether or not the human brain can store memories – but is the human spirit able to store memories (without a physical body)?

My friend is Christian, I am LDS. Despite having access to the vast knowledge of both Christian viewpoints, we couldn't find any answer to the question with just the two of us looking.

The Bible didn't seem to have any answers (it's a big book though with only two people looking) and the only things I could find in the Book of Mormon were references to a person remembering all their guilt or joy at judgement (i. e., after the resurrection). I'm no scholar in other canonized Christian literature or in the other LDS books, but nothing we found seemed to specifically reference a spirit remembering something without a physical brain.

Is there anywhere in scripture or LDS doctrine reference to a spirit, outside of the presence of God (i. e., fallen man, those in spirit prison, or Satan and his followers), remembering something? Or a doctrine that clearly suggests spirits can remember things?

Yes.

Gospel Fundamentals Chapter 35: Life after Death

  In the spirit world our spirits will have the same form as when we lived on the earth with bodies of flesh and bones. We will look as we do here. We will think the same way and believe the same things as we did here. Those who are righteous in this life will still be righteous. Those who were unrighteous will still be unrighteous. We will have the same desires after we die as we had while on this earth.

Pay attention to "We will think the same way and believe the same things as we did here."  What we think and believe stem from our experiences in mortality. Those experiences are stored in our memories. If we couldn't remember until after the resurrection, we wouldn't be the same person as a spirit. We would be a void so to speak until we regained our memories.

Alma 34:34

  34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

The same spirit we have now, will remain with us.  This includes our memories.

I hope this answers your question.


What are the different views regarding the order of events for end-times prophecy? As an example for this question, Jack Chick has put together some stories on the end times, which are a compilation of prophecies in Daniel, Revelation, the gospels, and some other books. However, his Biblical references seem to skip around a bit (for example, from Rev. 19:1 to Zechariah 13:8 to Rev. 16:16).

What are the different viewpoints for the ordering of events for end-times prophecies?  Do all the viewpoints skip around the Bible like this?

I've found a few sources for answering this question.  The one I'm choosing to use as a reference is this one from Clay Watts, as it includes some views that are largely ignored in the other sources I've found.

The Figurative/Idealist view: The order of events is a non-issue because the end-times prophecies are to be taken figuratively, not literally.
The Literal/Preterist view: Most of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century, and that many prophetic details relate to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The Literal/Historicist view: End times prophecy has been in the process of being fulfilled since the time of Christ
The Literal/Pre-millennial views, all hold that the end times events are still in the future. The include:

Pre-tribulation/Dispensationalism: Dispensationalism holds that God deals with man differently in successive covenantal eras.  Once the church dispensation ends with the rapture, Daniel's seventieth week will continue with Israel as a major participant in the tribulation period, culminating in the second coming of Christ and his millennial reign with the saints
Mid-tribulation:  The tribulation is actually the three and one-half year Great Tribulation, and that it commences with the revealing of the Antichrist midway through the seven year peace treaty he has made with Israel. At that point the church is raptured in order to escape the Great Tribulation, which is taken to be God's wrath.
Pre-wrath: The church will experience some of the Great Tribulation period after the mid-point of Daniel's seventieth week, when antichrist is revealed. This would include the natural and man-caused disasters, or wrath, but then the church will be taken out just prior to the wrath of God aimed at the unrepentant. In this view God's wrath includes only the trumpet and bowl judgments, which occur after the sixth seal.
Post-tribulation: The post-tribulation view sees a single second coming of Christ. It says that the church will be kept by God's grace through all of Daniel's seventieth week, and the saints will be given their glorified bodies in order to meet Christ as he comes to earth to defeat the antichrist at Armageddon and establish his millennial reign in Jerusalem

The article linked to at the beginning of this answer offers the arguments for each of the views.

The article does miss Postmillennialism, which teaches that the second coming will come after the 1000 year reign.


How do egalitarians understand male headship? From Ephesians 5 in a complementarian lens, it is understood to be a reflection of how men and women ought to work together in marriage for God's glory - though I am aware that egalitarians and complementarians have opposing views in this matter i.e. complementarians believe roles are complementary, while egalitarians believe roles are equal.
How do egalitarians understand or dismantle the concept of male headship in Ephesians 5?

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the
Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head
of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the
church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their
husbands in everything. Ephesians 5 (NIV)

Summary
Egalitarians emphasize the "one another" meaning of Eph 5:21 ("... submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.") to control the interpretation of Eph 5:21-33 while being silent on Col 3:18 and 1 Pet 3:1.  Secondly, they interpret "head" (kephal) to mean "source" instead of "authority over".
The Longer Answer
It's interesting how several English translations (such as NLT, NIV, NRSV) put Eph 5:21 in the same pericope with Eph 5:21-33 while other English translations (such as ESV,NASB, ASV, NKJV) put Eph 5:21 in the earlier pericope Eph 5:1-21.  Grouping Eph 5:21 with Eph 5:21-33 enables one to apply "submit to one another" to the husband and wife relationship.
An example of a proponent of egalitarian interpretation of Eph 5:21 is in a 2015 blog article Husbands, Crucify Your Privilege: Ephesians 5 & How Men Take the Lead by Kurt Willems, the founding lead pastor of Pangea Church in Seattle, who distinguishes Patriarchy (exemplified by the Roman culture at the time of St. Paul), Complementarianism, and Egalitarianism/Mutuality.  The argument emphasizes the "each other" in 5:21 as two directional submission and paraphrases Eph 5 as:

“Husbands, in this Roman culture men have all the privilege, but in submission out of reverence for Christ, you are invited to take the lead in crucifying your privilege. In doing so, you look like Jesus and can be part of a marriage of mutual image-bearing and kingdom co-leadership.”

Another example is the Junia Project advocating the full inclusion of women in church leadership and for mutuality in marriage.  The website links to a paper The Bible Teaches the Equal Standing of Man and Woman
 by Philip B. Payne holding a PhD in New Testament Studies from Cambridge and who wrote a 2009 book published by Zondervan Man and Woman, One in Christ reviewed here which summarizes his egalitarian exegesis of relevant Bible passages.  From the review:

Therefore, Paul appropriated, according to Payne, the egalitarian vision enunciated in Gen. 1–2 and the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures. Galatians 3:28 proclaims the equality of men and women in Christ, and the text cannot be restricted to soteriology.  Social and cultural implications follow from Paul’s bold declaration in Galatians. The fundamental equality of married couples is confirmed by 1 Cor. 7. Ephesians 5:22–33 in no way contradicts this since the text teaches mutual submission (Eph. 5:21). Furthermore, the word kephal? is understood to mean “source” instead of “authority over.”

Mr. Payne's paper's opening paragraph:

Is the Bible divided on the issue of gender? Many highly respected
evangelical scholars believe there is a tension in the Bible between
affirmations of gender equality and gender roles. Can we arrive at
a consistent biblical position without doing violence to the text?
Need one sacrifice good exegesis at the altar of systematic theology?
Surely, good exegesis and good systematic theology go hand in
hand. I have prayerfully wrestled for forty-one years with the texts’
apparent contradictions on gender and can honestly say that the
biblical texts themselves have transformed my understanding.
From creation to new creation, the Bible’s message about gender in
the church and marriage consistently affirms the equal standing of
man and woman.

With regards to Ephesians as well as the church in Ephesus, Mr. Payne made the following points in the paper:

Paul's affirmations of the equality of husband and wife: after discussing 1 Cor 7 as "Paul's most detailed treatment of marriage" where Paul "repeatedly uses symmetrically-balanced wording to reinforce this equality" he continues:

Similarly, in Eph 5:21–22, the wife’s submission is explicitly
one facet of mutual submission, each voluntarily yielding in love.23
Paul’s call to both wives and husbands is to defer to and nurture
one another. Christ is the model for all believers, wives as well as
husbands (5:2). Paul defines what he means by Christ being “head”
in verse 23 by equating it with “savior” through emphatic apposition:
“Christ the head of the church, he the savior of the body.” What
does Christ do as “savior”? Paul explains: “Christ gives himself”
for the church (5:25) and “nourishes and cherishes” it (5:29).
This shows that Paul is using “head” with the established Greek
meaning “source,” here focusing on Christ as the source of love and
nourishment of the church.24 Paul calls husbands as “head” of the
wife to follow Christ’s example as “head” by loving, nourishing,
and cherishing their wives (5:25–29). This cherishing, nourishing
love, not a hierarchy of authority, motivates her submission (5:23).
The Bible approves women leading in the home. Paul treats
husbands and wives equally in relation to their children (Eph 6:1–2;
Col 3:20) and tells wives to “rule their households” (literally, “be
house despots,” 1 Tim 5:14). If this is not leadership in the home,
what is?

1 Timothy 2:12: he argues that here Paul is not prohibiting women from teaching or having authority over men but "because of the ongoing crisis of false teaching in Ephesus, he prohibits women from unauthorized assumption of authority over a man."  Furthermore, Paul is not prohibiting Priscilla who was present in Ephesus (see 2 Tim 4:19) from assuming properly delegated or recognized authority or how she "explained to [Apollos] the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).

Further study
A 2009 issue of Christian Reflection (a quarterly publication of Baylor University's Center for Christian Ethics): Women and the Church (pdf here) has a book review essay Women in Ministry: Beyond the Impasse by Gretchen E. Ziegenhals covering 3 recent books, one of them is Zondervan's Two Views on Women in Ministry which includes 4 evangelical NT scholars holding seminary faculty positions with 2 arguing for the egalitarian position (Craig S. Keener and Linda L. Belleville) and 2 arguing for the complementarian position (Thomas R. Schreiner and Craig L. Blomberg).


Should a woman cover her head in Christian worship? Traditionally in many Christian churches the women would cover their heads in worship citing 1 Corinthians 11:2-16.  Why has this practice stopped, and why has it stopped mostly in the last 70 years?  Might we be offending the angels because we are not practicing this?

I am looking for biblical support for the answer not just cultural or opinion.

Here's what Matthew Henry says in his short commentary:

  We should, even in our dress and habit, avoid every thing that may dishonour Christ. The woman was made subject to man, because made for his help and comfort. And she should do nothing, in Christian assemblies, which looked like a claim of being equal. She ought to have "power," that is, a veil, on her head, because of the angels. Their presence should keep Christians from all that is wrong while in the worship of God. Nevertheless, the man and the woman were made for one another. They were to be mutual comforts and blessings, not one a slave, and the other a tyrant. God has so settled matters, both in the kingdom of providence and that of grace, that the authority and subjection of each party should be for mutual help and benefit. It was the common usage of the churches, for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was right that they should do so. The Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness; affected singularities receive no countenance from any thing in the Bible.

As Matthew Henry says, the Christian religion sanctions national customs wherever these are not against the great principles of truth and holiness.

70 years or so ago, the wearing of hats was common.  Upon entering a church, or any building for that matter, a man would remove his hat out of respect.

Customs have changed in the United States.  Men wear baseball caps, if they wear a hat, and for the most part, women do not wear hats.  Now, having said that, there are still some southern conservative churches where the women do wear hats to church.

In my church, a congregation of the United Methodist Church, our dress code is: wear clothes.  We're not concerned with what people wear to church, and we even have meetings to discuss whether the church leadership is dressing up too much, and discouraging people from attending.


What is the difference between the names of "Jehovah God" and "The Lord"? I noticed that the American Standard Version of the Bible describes God in a couple different ways.  For example, Genesis 3:8:

  And they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God amongst the trees of the garden.

compared to Genesis 18:30

  And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.

In the Old Testament, what is the difference between the names of "Jehovah God" and "the Lord"?

To definitively answer this question, one would need to know the Bible verses being compared...
"Jehovah God" almost certainly refers to יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהִ֖ים "YHWH elohim".  It is combination of the proper name of God (YHWH, known as the Tetragramaton; rendered in English as Yahweh or Jehovah, but the vocalization is uncertain - see below) and the generic word for god (usually).  The convention followed by most translations is to render the hyphenated "YHWH elohim" as "LORD God" (all caps).
"The Lord" is usually a translation of אֲדֹנָי "Adonai".  It is a special plural form of adon, which means lord or master, used only in reference to God.  The reason that it is plural is because the Hebrew word for God is grammatically plural and Adonai was often substituted for YHWH and/or elohim out of respect for the divine name.  (Eventually Hebrews stopped pronouning the divine name out loud at all). The convention followed by most English translations is to render Adonai as "The Lord" (with only the letter "L" capitalized).
So, the difference between "Jehovah God" and "The Lord" is a lot like the difference between saying "Barack Obama" (name) and "The President" (title).  Both are frequently used in the Old Testament, among dozens of other names and titles, to describe (the only) God of the Hebrews.
Further information
The English word for YHWH is Yahweh or Jehovah.  Because the Israelite stopped saying the name aloud before the third century BC and vocalization (vowels) were not added to the written text until the first millennium AD (finalized in the 9th century), the correct vocalization is uncertain.  The Masoretic (9th century) vowel points suggest Yəhō'wāh, but the word is variously also pronouned yä′wā*, -wĕ; Yah·veh (-vā, -vĕ); Jah·veh (yä′vā, -vĕ); Jah·weh (yä′wā, -wĕ).  YHWH with or without conjunction with the various titles for God occurs more than 6000 times in the Hebrew Bible.
Yahweh is occasionally shortened to Jah or Yah (Hebrew: יהּ Yahu). The short form of the name occurs 50 times in the Hebrew Bible, of which 24 form part of the phrase Hallelu-jah.  Adonai occurs about 450 times.
By the way (and to complicate things even more!), the Hebrew equivalent of the English letter "J" is pronounced as a "Y" in Hebrew, so that the name Jacob, for example, is pronounced Yӓʹ-kōb in Hebrew.


Why are LDS missionaries instructed to stay away from bodies of water? I saw a post recently asserting that LDS missionaries are specifically instructed to stay away from bodies of water and are discouraged from swimming at all.  I had never heard anything like this before.

Is this true?  If it is, is it just applicable while a person is serving as a missionary?  What is the basis for this instruction?

LDS missionaries are instructed to not go swimming. Commonly, this idea is misunderstood to be for the entire Mormon population, which is untrue.

That interpretation is "Mormonlore" which, I believe, spawns from a careless reading of D&C 61 (also see the section heading):

  3 But verily I say unto you, that it is not needful for this whole
  company of mine elders to be moving swiftly upon the waters, whilst
  the inhabitants on either side are perishing in unbelief.

  4 Nevertheless, I suffered it that ye might bear record; behold,
  there are many dangers upon the waters, and more especially hereafter;

  5 For I, the Lord, have decreed in mine anger many destructions upon
  the waters; yea, and especially upon these waters.

  6 Nevertheless, all flesh is in mine hand, and he that is faithful
  among you shall not perish by the waters.

The context is that of early missionaries traveling by boat to their assigned areas of labor. Here the Lord is reminding them that they ought not pass by all the people along the river on their way up, and that instead they should go preach to them on the way. This is not unlike missionaries today who drive from appointment to appointment... most are encouraged to stop and talk to people along the way.

Later in the section:

  14 Behold, I, the Lord, in the beginning blessed the waters; but in
  the last days, by the mouth of my servant John, I cursed the waters.

  15 Wherefore, the days will come that no flesh shall be safe upon the
  waters.

  16 And it shall be said in days to come that none is able to go up to
  the land of Zion upon the waters, but he that is upright in heart.

The Doctrine and Covenents has a footnote in these verses to Rev. 8:10 (8–11).

So really, this is only repeating what is already in the Bible, that the waters will be a means of scourge before the Jesus' second coming, except to those people who are righteous which will be spared.

There is no teaching in the LDS church that says, "You shouldn't go swimming." Yes, they preach modesty even in swimming suits as much as possible and practical, but this isn't to say that swimming is evil or anything of the sort.

Missionaries are given particular instruction to not swim as it isn't consistent with the nature of their call, and there have been accidents -- and the Church doesn't want to have to deal with those issues.

As an aside, and perhaps an interesting corollary, there is the incident with Zion's Camp which happened a couple years after this revelation was received, which typifies the power of God, especially related to these promises given here about destruction with the waters, and protecting His servants.

From the Church History Institute Manual, Chapter 12, "Zion's Camp":

  Instead of reaching their intended destination of Liberty, they camped
  just inside Clay County on a hill between two branches of the Fishing
  River. When Joseph learned that mobs were preparing to attack, he
  knelt and prayed again for divine protection. Joseph’s fears were
  confirmed when five armed Missourians rode into camp, cursing, and
  swore that the Mormons would “see hell before morning.”

  They boasted
  that nearly four hundred men had joined forces from Ray, Lafayette,
  Clay, and Jackson counties and were then preparing to cross the
  Missouri River at Williams Ferry and “utterly destroy the Mormons.”
  Sounds of gunfire were heard, and some of the men wanted to fight, but
  the Prophet promised that the Lord would protect them. He declared,
  “Stand still and see the salvation of God.”

  A few minutes after the
  Missourians left, a small black cloud appeared in the clear western
  sky. It moved eastward, unrolling like a scroll, filling the heavens
  with darkness. As the first ferry load of mobbers crossed the Missouri
  River to the south, a sudden squall made it nearly impossible for the
  boat to return to pick up another load. The storm was so intense that
  Zion’s Camp abandoned their tents and found shelter in an old Baptist
  meetinghouse nearby. When Joseph Smith came in, he exclaimed, “Boys,
  there is some meaning to this. God is in this storm.” It was
  impossible for anyone to sleep, so the group sang hymns and rested on
  the rough benches. One camp member recorded that “during this time the
  whole canopy of the wide horizen was in one complete blaze with
  terrifying claps of thunder.”

  Elsewhere the beleaguered mobbers
  sought any refuge they could. The furious storm broke branches from
  trees and destroyed crops. It soaked and made the mobbers’ ammunition
  useless, frightened and scattered their horses, and raised the level
  of the Fishing River [30 feet], preventing them from attacking Zion’s Camp. The
  Prophet recalled, “It seemed as if the mandate of vengeance had gone
  forth from the God of battles, to protect His servants from the
  destruction of their enemies.”

The whole chapter is interesting history. See this for more information.


If Jesus is "a god" do Jehovah’s Witnesses consider themselves to be polytheists? Isaiah 44:6, Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel And His Redeemer, the Lord of host; I am the first and I am the last, AND THERE IS NO GOD BESIDES ME.
Isaiah 44:24, Thus says the Lord your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I. the Lord, am the maker of all things BY MYSELF, And spreading out the heavens BY MYSELF.
Isaiah 45:5, I am the Lord and THERE IS NO OTHER; BESIDES ME THERE IS NO GOD."

Now that it’s established that there is no other God, then why do Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that Jesus Christ is "a god" according to their NWT of the Bible at John 1:1? They explain their position here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1984647#h=18
So the specific question I'm asking is as follows: is Jesus Christ a true god, or a false god?

John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent." John 5:44, "How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you do not seek the glory that is FROM THE ONLY GOD?"

If there is only one true something, then everything else is false. The Apostle Paul speaks about this at 1 Corinthians 8:5-6:

For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

So in view of the following statement, "Jehovah’s Witnesses do not deny Jesus’ godship, or divinity" "Jesus himself said that he lived in heaven before being born as a human. As a spirit creature in heaven, Jesus had a special relationship with Jehovah." "He is called the firstborn of all creation, for he was God's first creation. "This means that Jesus is the only one directly created by God.
Again, is this first spirit creature created by God and described as "a god" at John 1:1 a true god or a false god, and what is his nature? Galatians 4:8, "However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those WHICH BY NATURE ARE NO gods." Some of the information is from the following site.
https://answersingenesis.org/jesus/jesus-is-god/is-jesus-the-creator-god/

No, of course Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider themselves to be polytheists. That is because they make sure they do not give any worship to Jesus Christ. It is strictly 'taboo' for any JW to pray to Jesus (as prayer is an act of worship), or to bow down on one's knees or to prostrate themselves in the name of Jesus (which is an act of worship). They speak of metaphoric 'bowing down' in Jesus' name, but it must never be literal. They speak of an attitude of respect to Jesus but ensure that that never becomes a worshipful attitude. They speak of obedience to Jesus' commands as a sign of their respect for him but at every point, their respect for, and honour of Jehovah God must always be greater than that which they have for Jesus Christ, because they maintain that Jehovah created Jesus as a separate being, distinct from himself. They know the Bible condemns polytheism, or even worship of more than one God, so they are at pains to stress that they never worship Jesus either as God, or as 'a god'.

To demonstrate their stance on refusing to pray to Jesus, consider their treatment of Acts 7 verse 59 which says, "While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit'." But JWs have been told that no, Stephen was NOT praying to Jesus. That is why their NWT renders this verse as, "And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit'."

Notice how the word 'prayer' is avoided? The Greek word for "calling upon" is in the text used by the JWs. However, all JWs know that Jesus was not physically present when Stephen called upon him after having had a vision of both God and Jesus. They know the resurrected Christ was in heaven. They also know that the only way you can call upon God or Christ, who are not physically present, is to pray to them. Here is what their Insight on the Scriptures says, Vol. II p 667:

  "The entire Scriptural record testifies that Jehovah is the One to
  whom prayer should be directed... Though some claim that prayer may
  properly be addressed to others, such as to God's Son, the evidence is
  emphatically to the contrary. True, there are rare instances in which
  words are addressed to Jesus Christ in heaven. Stephen, when about to
  die, appealed to Jesus, saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." (Ac
  7:59) However, the context reveals a circumstance giving basis for
  this exceptional expression. Stephen at that very time had a vision of
  'Jesus standing at God's right hand,' and evidently reacting as if he
  were in Jesus' presence, he felt free to speak this plea to the one
  whom he recognized as the head of the Christian congregation."

So although the JWs admit Stephen was calling out to Jesus in heaven, they refuse to say it was a prayer to Jesus.

I will not give further quotes on the other points, for I am quietly confident that JWs will be eager to provide ample quotes from their official web-site that will conclusively show that they are confident their refusal to worship Christ to any degree whatsoever does not contradict them giving him a merely titular ascription of being "a god". Although it is worship that differentiates deity from creatures, JWs believe that simply giving Jesus a title of "a god", while ensuring their respect for him always stops short of worship, overcomes this theological problem of the Bible calling Christ "the Mighty God" (Isaiah 9:6) and (in their NWT) "a god" in John 1:1, despite verse 3 stating that he "made everything that was made".

As for the specific question you ask: "is Jesus Christ a true god, or a false god?" - JWs would never say Jesus must therefore be a false god (given your points). They think Jesus is 'a mighty one' and would argue that 'god' in lower case refers to that, without that 'mighty one' requiring any worship. It might be worth asking a further question on why, then, Jehovah God is ALSO called "the Mighty God" in Isaiah 10:21, a few verses on from the Son being given that same accolade.


Can Southern Baptists take communion at home alone? There is an old man in our neighborhood who is a member of a Southern Baptist congregation, though for various reasons he does not attend the local church.

He asked me what I thought about the question, "Might a person read the Scriptures, remembering Jesus and the Cross, and take communion (the wine and the flat bread) alone at home, by one's self?" He reminded me that various wealthy people throughout history had their own chapels, priests and attendants that served the communion supper, "at home alone."

Do the Southern Baptists have a position on private home-communion?

While I am unable to find any evidence that the Southern Baptist Convention definitely supports the practice, there doesn't seem to be any reason for them to do so.  For one thing they/we believe in the "priest-hood" of all believers, so there's no requirement that communion be administered or overseen by an ordained minister.  In their "Basic Beliefs" web page, they state: "The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members … memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming." Here's a link to that page: http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp

Each congregation decides how often they will observe communion as a congregation, and while there is never an implied injunction against extra communion services by "sub-groups," the expectation would be that all who partake are verified members of the church by baptism.
On an anecdotal note, my SB minister of many years would often observe a communion for himself alone before he began bible study.


An image of half a leg on a church wall? A little bit of a random question here - I was at a christening this Sunday just gone and on the wall was an image of half a leg with a passage underneath it (not sure what it said) and I don't have a clue what the whole thing meant.

I've tried Googling about it but got nothing remotely close.

Is it something multiple churches have or could it of been specific to that one church?

-- Added Location --

It's a Roman Catholic Church. The location is St Johns Church in Bridgnorth, United Kingdom - Website

It is very likely what you were seeing was a picture of a relic.

From Wikipedia:

  "A relic usually consists of the physical remains of a saint or the
  personal effects of the saint or venerated person preserved for
  purposes of veneration as a tangible memorial."

If you think seeing a picture of a limb is odd, then you would be really taken back by some churches that actually have a physical leg, or right forearm, or even the skull of a saint on display in a reliquary (a fancy glass display box). The passage beneath the picture likely included the name of the person being venerated.

Reliquary and skull of Saint Ivo of Kermartin (St. Yves or St. Ives), (1253–1303) in Tréguier, Brittany, France:


Who is the great prophet in Luke 7:16? In Luke 7:16, after Jesus raised the widow's son his disciples and the crowd said:

  They were all filled with awe and praised God. “A great prophet has
  appeared among us,” they said.

Who is the great prophet mentioned here? Was it Jesus?

The great prophet they were referring to was Jesus. Deuteronomy 18:15-18 speaks of a prophet greater than Moses whom the people shall listen to. This is likely what Luke is referencing to when he quoted the words of the people who witnessed the miracle.


Washing of feet - Is it a part of Communion? I am asking this with reference to this question about communion.

Does any church practice the "Washing of feet" ceremony before the "eating of bread and drinking of wine"?
If no, what is the justification given for this?

I am looking for biblical reasons why this is not done (if that is the case, as the linked question seemed to indicate)

Washing of feet - Is it a part of Communion?

There are some denominations that practice foot washing as an ordinance. I have heard of some that practice it separate from communion and others that include it with communion.

In the Bible it is a recorded event at the same time as the last supper.

There is speculation that the argument recorded in Luke among the disciples about who was going to be the greatest in the Kingdom was taking place as Jesus began to wash the feet of the disciples (recorded in John). This cannot be specifically proven, but it would fit with a clear answer to the disciples contentions.

To understand foot washing and why is was a necessary job and assigned to the lowest person in the household, one has to appreciate that without motor transport, goods are transported by donkey. The donkey leaves an accumulating reminder of his presence in the streets. Places with infrequent rainfall can accumulate a lot of reminders. If you wear sandals, you will find that you also accumulate reminders.

Jesus tells his disciples that they should do likewise for each other.

  John 13:14-15  If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet;
  ye also ought to wash one another's feet.  For I have given you an
  example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

Some have taken these words as the establishment of a ritual ordinance. Some of those have included this ordinance with communion. Others take this as a general admonition towards a willingness to do even the lowest task for our brothers and sisters in Christ.


What is the Biblical basis for death being the last point for repentance? Death is seen as a point at which our eternal destiny is decided or the last point for repentance, at least in most evangelical circles.

What is the Biblical basis for this belief?

What is the Biblical basis for death being the last point for repentance?

Before death is the time when we do that which can be judged. Judgment of works for punishment is what comes to those who have rejected Jesus.

  Hebrews 9:27  And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after
  this the judgment:

The time to "know" Jesus is while we are alive.

  Matthew 7:22-23  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we
  not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and
  in thy name done many wonderful works?   And then will I profess unto
  them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Judgment of works for reward is what comes to Christians.

  1 Corinthians 3:13-15  Every man's work shall be made manifest: for
  the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and
  the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.   If any man's
  work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
  If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he
  himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

The "repentance" associated with salvation may be more of an effect rather than a cause. The word in Greek means a change of mind. Those who have been saved reflect a mind that has been changed as a result of being born again and having a new nature.

God can offer anyone this salvation at any time even right before death. Salvation requires the action of God.

  John 6:44  No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me
  draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Salvation does not seem to rest solely upon our decision to change our mind (repentance).


According to Seventh Day Advent theology when does the 2300 evenings and mornings in Daniel 8:13-14 begin? Daniel 8:13-14 NIV

13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the Lord’s people?”
14 He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”

I have heard that according to SDA theology that the 2300 evenings and mornings began in 457BC and have been interpreted as years instead of days
My question is how they get to this date?

According to SDA theology, 457 B.C. is the beginning of the 70 weeks prophecy.  The prophecy of Daniel 9:25 was fulfilled in 457 B.C. when Artaxerxes authorized Ezra through a royal decree to go to Jerusalem accompanied by a group of exiles to restore and rebuild the city.  The document below presents historical evidence to support the validity of 457 B.C.  Source: https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/prophecy/70-weeks-and-457-bc  Copyright © Biblical Research Institute General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists®
As I understand it, the principal that one day equals one year in prophetic language is based on the following Scriptures:

According to the number of the days in which you spied out the land, forty days, for each day you shall bear your guilt one year, namely forty years (Numbers 14:34 NKJV).
I have appointed thee each day for a year (Ezekiel 4:6).

On the basis that one day equals one year, then the 70 weeks equate to 490 days or 490 years.  490 years from 457 B.C. brings us to the baptism and ministry of Jesus, the Messiah.

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy (Daniel 9:24).

“Thy people” were God’s chosen people Israel. Seventy weeks resolves into 490 days. Applying the day-year principle, 490 days become 490 years.
There follows another prophetic “week” from the baptism of Jesus, as the Messiah, to his crucifixion, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost when the Gospel was then taken to the Gentile nations, culminating in 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem.  More information here on the Seventh-day Adventist prophetic time chart regarding the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_theology#/media/File:Adventist_1863_chart.jpg
Please note I am NOT a Seventh Day Adventists, but I have done my best to find reliable sources of information in an attempt to answer your question.