According to Protestants, is it sinful to practice Yoga? I know a lot of people who claim to be Christian but practice Yoga.  I always thought (and Wikipedia seems to back me up on this) that Yoga was about meditation in Hinduism or Buddhism.

Is practicing Yoga a sin since you're actually following another religion?  Or is it possible to practice Yoga in a Christian manner?  Also, if you are able to practice Yoga in a Christian manner, is there a conflict with that and the problem with the weaker brother?

Specifically, I'm seeking a mainstream Protestant viewpoint on this.  I suspect that they will all be the same, but if they differ, let me know so that I can refine the scope.

I would say it's impossible to do so without first acknowledging that the historic grounding in and modern implementation of pagan spirituality is real. The next step would be identifying how both Hinduism (or spiritual Indian wisdom or whatever moniker you give it) and Christianity see the intrinsic relation between the spiritual and physical realms. If someone is able to paint at least a general picture of the differences, I would start asking what the purpose of trying to separate them would be. Personally I fail to see any advantages in continuing to dwell in a Dorothy-house removed clean away from it's foundations and now situated on someone else's land.

Before I rant on this, let me start by giving a little ground here. I do think that is possible to have physical exercises perhaps physically modelled after those of some other religions ritual without it necessarily making us participants in a false religion. However several objections remain. Certainly not all situations are equal and I have limited experience in the matter, mostly dating to quite a few years ago and discussions I had with folks who were involved. These included some who embraced the conjunction of spiritual and physical exercise, and some who could care less what religion it came from as long as it left them with better digestion.

Now for my rants.

First of all let us address the often forwarded notion of being able to retain the religious elements, but merely in name not in fact. This seems preposterous to me, sort of like trying to use the gutter language of crime to speak of things fair and beautiful. Without the right diction you are stuck in a little box of your own making. Speaking of boxes, it's also like taking the engine out of a car because it ran on the wrong kind of fuel. Without putting another engine in, it make a really useless vehicle, although I suppose it would be good exercise.*

Secondly, the idea that the religious connection can be lost altogether doesn't sit well with me. My initial objection in the first paragraph was that this discussion does not get past square one until we have come to some agreement about there being a connection. The first things I would bring into the discussion is the historical connection, but I think we then need to continue into a discussion about what modern spirituality is like and what kind of world view thinks there is no connection between the spiritual and physical.

I do not think false religions should have all the best exercises any more than I think we should let them have all the best music. However I don't think our best option is to start a bunch of "christian" bands flooding the market with half baked goods but rather to bring back a theological understanding that we are artistic and creative because we are ourselves made in the image of an artistic and creative God. Those who produce anything good or beautiful do so only use a grace given them on loan and it is our job to point out the source and through an understanding and acknowledgement of that grace turn it into worship.

I think something similar ought to be done for exercise. Instead of trying to separate the physical from the spiritual at all, I think it would behove us to develop a biblical understanding of how these things actually relate, then modeling our exercise lives around this. While the things we do with our bodies might resemble Yoga or Tai Chi, it should be carefully delineated what we believe about our bodies being temples of the Spirit so that it is entirely clear to the world what makes us different than them. It seems to be that this is best done at the instructor level and that an individual participating under an instructor with a different world view who is not actively identifying his spiritual beliefs to himself and those he interacts with runs a great risk of not only muddling his own spiritual life but misleading others.

Our sensibilities and sensitivities ought to lead us to actions and words distinct enough that no-one, whether from Hindu, humanistic, christian or undecided world view, could mistake our participation for tacit acceptance of either the premises of a false religion or the decoupling of physical and spiritual realms.

Sometimes it is suggested that such ritual meditations pre-date Christianity and as such might be able to be considered separately from it rather than in competition with it. I think there is a fallacy here in that Christianity did not begin 2k years ago with Jesus or Paul or John the baptist or anyone else, it began with Christ before he created man. And, since the first Adam, Christianity has always looked forward to the coming of the Christ. Thus I think it is silly to claim that anything is pre-christian in the sense of time. Certainly there are sources and influences so we be careful to consider whether the things we include in our lives and practice of Christianity conforms to the Word. I think some pagan rights are actually perversions of things that originated with us. For example ceremonial washings in Islam do not originate there but are actually adaptions of Mosaic law.

*Forgive the pun.


When did the "upside down cross" become a symbol of anti-Christianity? When did the "upside down cross" become a symbol of anti-Christianity?  I can find no mention of it in the Bible.  However there is, in Christian history, the story of Peter's execution – which really isn't a sign of anti-Christianity but the admiration he had for Jesus.  Is there a line in the sand date when this became an anti-Christian symbol?

Eugène Vintras (1807–1875) may be the first to use the inverted cross in a distinctly anti-Christian way.  He was a Gnostic revivalist operating in France during the middle of the 19th century.  He preached the end of the age, and claimed to have received messages from Michael the Archangel and that he himself was a reincarnation of Elijah.  He was condemned by the Vatican, and subsequently began using an upside-down cross:

Vintras, following further attacks from the Church, adopted the inverted cross as the symbol of the new dispensation of which he was the prophet, inverted because the Reign of the Suffering Christ had been superseded by the Reign of the Holy Spirit of Love.1

His masses reportedly included "chalices magically overflowing with blood," and occultist Eliphas Levi considered the inverted cross that Vintras wore as "indicative of satanic influences":2

The practices of Vintras's followers were even more bizarre, and the symbol thereafter began to be associated with the occult more generally, such as in a 1891 novel, Là-bas:

His costume was a long robe of vermilion cashmere caught up at the waist by a red and white sash. Above this robe he had a white mantle of the same stuff, cut, over the chest, in the form of a cross upside down.3

It's also used in a 1903 depiction of 17th century occultist Étienne Guibourg (link is possibly an occasion for sin). In the (cropped) image below, he is shown wearing an upside-down cross as he performs a Black Mass during the Affair of the Poisons:

I haven't found any indication that Guibourg actually wore an inverted cross, but rather that he was only depicted that way once Vintras's use of it became associated with occultism more generally.
Summary
If one includes Gnosticism within Christianity, then perhaps Vintras's use of the inverted cross would not be considered "anti-Christian." However, at the very least, his use of it and his perceived involvement with the occult caused the symbol to become generally associated with Satanism by the end of the 19th century.

Richard D. E. Burton, Blood in the City: Violence and Revelation in Paris, 1789–1945, 164
James Randall Noblitt, Cult and Ritual Abuse: Narratives, Evidence, and Healing Approaches, 161
Joris-Karl Huysmans, Là-bas, Chapter XX


How to reconcile the Council of Trent and the Apostle John regarding the post-baptismal presence of sin? I am struggling to reconcile a very strong statement from the Council of Trent pronouncing anathema with a very strong statement from the Apostle John pronouncing deception and lie.  Both statements seem very clear and diametrically opposed.  Many of the other Epistles also allude to a continued presence of sin but John is so clear that I need not muddy the waters.

To remove all further doubt on the subject, the Council of Trent, after other Councils had defined this, declared it anew, pronouncing anathema against those who should presume to think otherwise, or should dare to assert that although sin is forgiven in Baptism, it is not entirely removed or totally eradicated, but is cut away in such a manner as to leave its roots still fixed in the soul. To use the words of the same holy Council, God hates nothing in those who are regenerated; for there remains nothing deserving of condemnation in those who are truly buried with Christ by Baptism unto death, "who walk not according to the flesh" but putting off the old man, and putting on the new, who is created according to God, become innocent, spotless, pure, upright, and beloved of God. - The Catechism of the Council of Trent (First Effect of Baptism)

1 John 1:8: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

The Council of Trent, in this section on baptism, so strongly affirms that sin in a person is utterly remitted and removed that anyone who affirms sin's payment to have been made but sin's presence to remain is pronounced anathema!
The Apostle John so strongly affirms the continued presence of sin in himself and his audience that he declares, "If WE say WE have no sin, WE deceive OURSELVES and the truth is not in US."
Are there any options other than the Apostle John is anathema or the Council of Trent has deceived itself?

The Council of Trent, in this section on baptism, so strongly affirms that sin in a person is utterly remitted

The Council of Trent (Session V, Canon 5) declared

if anyone denies by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away, but says that it is only touched in person or is not imputed, let him be anathema.

Trent is here talking specifically about the effects of baptism: remission of original sin (the inherited effect of Adam and Eve's disobedience of God) and that imputed sin is removed ("true and proper nature of sin is not taken away") truly (in other words, not merely isn't "counted"). It is not saying people never fall into sin afterwards (which is what John is referring to). The same Session of Trent goes on to teach that there "remains in the baptized concupiscence of an inclination although this is left to be wrestled with, it cannot harm those who do not consent, but manfully resist by the grace of Jesus Christ"


Considering the Lord's Supper was instituted on the Passover, would the apostles have concluded it was to be an annual celebration like the Passover? When instituting the Lord's Supper, Jesus commands the apostles: "Do this in remembrance of me."

Luke 22:19 reads:

  Then he took bread, and after giving thanks he broke it and gave it to
  them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in
  remembrance of me.”  (NET)

As the Passover was a yearly celebration and the Lord's Supper was instituted during it (apparently to be part of the Passover meal or even a replacement for it), it would seem natural for the apostles to understand the command "Do this" to mean do this annually during or instead of the Passover meal. Additionally, all the major festivals of the Jews were annual.

However, in 1 Corinthians 11 it seems that the Lord's Supper was not merely an annual celebration and distinct from the Passover meal.

Considering the occasion when the Lord's Supper was instituted, why would the early Church not conclude it was an annual celebration, and that it could (or was intended to) be divorced from the Passover meal?

Although there are accounts of the resurrected Jesus eating with his disciples, they are not explicitly celebrations of the Lord's Supper.

I think that the answer lies in how the Church understood the nature of the Eucharist.  Whereas Passover was essentially a commemoration of an event of the Exodus, the Eucharist is something entirely different.  According to the account in Exodus (12:14), Passover was instituted strictly as a memorial. Christ Himself described the nature - and necessity - of the Eucharist:

  John 6:53 (KJV 1900)

    Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have no
    life
    in you.

I am not aware of any early Christians who maintained that the Eucharist should only be celebrated once a year in lieu of the Passover meal (though I am sure there probably were some).  There are writings, however, of certain Church Fathers explaining the need for frequent (i.e. more than once per year) Communion.  John Cassian (5th c.), a western Church Father with an eastern upbringing wrote:

  We must not avoid communion because we deem ourselves to be sinful. On
  the contrary, we must approach it more often for the healing of the
  soul and the purification of the spirit, to show our humility and
  faith, by considering ourselves unworthy and in need … that we desire
  even more the medicine for our wounds. Otherwise it is impossible to
  receive communion once a year, as certain people do … considering the
  sanctification of heavenly Mysteries as available only to saints. It
  is better to think that by giving us grace, the sacrament makes us
  pure and holy. Such people who receive less often manifest more pride
  than humility … for when they receive, they think of themselves as
  worthy. It is much better if, in humility of heart, knowing that we
  are never worthy of the Holy Mysteries we would receive them every
  Sunday for the healing of our diseases, rather than, blinded by pride,
  think that after one year, receiving once or twice yearly, we become
  worthy of receiving them.

  Conferences of John Cassian, Chapter XXI

Similarly, John Chrysostom (4th c.) commenting on those who did not receive the Eucharist at the weekly Liturgy, wrote:

  Look, I entreat you: a royal table is set before you, angels minister
  at that table, the King Himself is there, and yet, you take no account
  of it. Are your garments clean? Then fall down and partake! For
  everyone who does not partakes of the mysteries is standing here in
  shameless falsity. When you behold the curtain drawn, then imagine the
  heavens are let down from above, and that the angels are descending!
  Why stay at liturgy and yet not partake of the table? I am unworthy,
  you say. Then you are also unworthy of that communion you also have in
  prayer. Come!” Holy Father

  Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians, Homily III

These writings, although not by the Apostles themselves, might help to explain why the Eucharist was seen by the early Church as something more than an annual replacement of Passover.


How do you know that you are reborn of Spirit? This is by far one of the most profound questions in Christianity today. We have so many different denominations stating many different things. I know that this is a large debate, but go ahead and post your position alone.

My question revolves around assurance for "born of the spirit." How can somebody be absolutely assured that they have the Holy Spirit living inside of them?

You will know that you are reborn in spirit when people notice a significant change in you. It's like being hit by a large truck, you are never the same afterwards. The same can be said for the spirit of God entering your life, God is unimaginably big. If you have been truly changed and born again, people will take notice.

I know people that get saved and they don't even physically look the same anymore. Instead of hurt, you see love in their eyes.


"καὶ στρατείας κλῆσις" - Cyril, Procatechesis, §1 In Procatechesis, §1, Cyril was talking about events that had occurred before a Christian was baptized.

He wrote,

  Ὀνοματογραφία τέως ὑμῖν γέγονε, καὶ στρατείας κλῆσις· καὶ νυμφαγωγίας λαμπάδες, καὶ οὐρανίου πολιτείας ἐπιθυμία, καὶ πρόθεσις ἀγαθὴ, καὶ ἐλπὶς ἐπακολουθοῦσα·

My translation:

  Hereto, there has been an inscription of your names, and a στρατείας κλῆσις, and torches of a bridal procession, and a desire of a heavenly citizenship, and a good purpose, and an attending hope.

My question is about the στρατείας κλῆσις. The Greek word κλῆσις means "call" (i.e., calling; cp. Rom. 11:29). Philip Schaff described the phrase "as a call to military service."

What event in the life of a Christian does this describe? When does this call to "military service" occur? Do any of the NT authors describe it?

One example of military items in the service of the Lord occurs in the Epistle to the Ephesians:

6 10   Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; 16 besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.  [RSV-2CE]

The helmet of salvation is found in the traditional prayers a priest makes while vesting for Mass, specifically, putting on the amice:

Impone, Domine, capiti meo galeam salutis, ad expugnandos diabolicos incursus.
Lord, set the helmet of salvation on my head to fend off all the assaults of the devil.

The metaphor is carried through to modern times too. The Church of England baptism service introduced in 1980 had:

Name,    I sign you with sign of the cross.
Do not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified.
Fight valiantly under the banner of Christ against sin, the world, and the devil,
and continue his faithful soldier and servant to the end of your life.

The Church is often described as the Church militant, expectant and triumphant, explained by Wikipedia with reference to the above passage from Ephesians:

In Christian theology, the Christian Church, or Church Universal, is traditionally divided into:

the Church Militant (Ecclesia Militans), comprising Christians on earth who are living; Christian militia, who struggle against sin, the devil and "..the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12).
the Church Triumphant (Ecclesia Triumphans), comprising those who are in Heaven, and
the Church Suffering, a.k.a. Church Padecent or Church Penitent (Ecclesia Penitens) or Church Expectant (Ecclesia Expectans), which in Catholic theology comprises those Christians presently in Purgatory.


Why did they choose Barabbas? John 19:38 - 40 (NLT)

  38 “What is truth?” Pilate asked. Then he went out again to the people
  and told them, “He is not guilty of any crime. 39 But you have a
  custom of asking me to release one prisoner each year at Passover.
  Would you like me to release this ‘King of the Jews’?”

  40 But they shouted back, “No! Not this man. We want Barabbas!”
  (Barabbas was a revolutionary.)

Why were they so messed up that they would choose the rebellious, murderous Barabbas over the innocent Son of God?

Mark 15:7-15

  7 And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. 8 And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he usually did for them. 9 And he answered them, saying, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” 10 For he perceived that pit was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. 12 And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man you call the King of the Jews?” 13 And they cried out again, “Crucify him.” 14 And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify him.” 15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

As Mark's version of this event emphasizes, the crowd was driven to cry for Barabbas by the chief priests who were at the root of the push to have Jesus killed. Why would they choose Barabbas as their alternative to prevent Jesus' release? The biggest factor, of course, is that Jesus was a problem for them - he spoke against them repeatedly, criticized their teaching and their ways, and taught many things that contradicted what they taught.

But on the specifics of why the chief priests would choose Barabbas, I think there's a pretty easy answer to reason out, even if the Bible doesn't explicitly detail it. Barabbas, as John mentions, was a revolutionary. That meant he was trouble, but not for the chief priests. He was trouble for the Romans. He wanted to resist Roman occupation and authority in the name of Jewish freedom. It's not hard to get an oppressed people to cheer for someone who wants to end their oppression. This would have been a win-win in the eyes of the chief priests, because they were getting rid of a man who threatened to compromise their authority in exchange for a man who threatened to compromise the authority of their oppressors.


Did CS Lewis see 'pleasure' as being the purpose of our existence? In 'The Great Divorce' a character asks, destraught, why she was born and a spirit replies, "for infinite joy!"
Is that what CS Lewis thought the meaning of life was? Ultimate joy? Is there any other thing he said to back up this idea of what he thought? It would seem odd if such a clever, philosophical man (in my opinion) ignored the BIG 'meaning of life' question entirely!

tl;dr> NO! For Lewis, Pleasure is temporary, Joy reminds us of what is to come
First and foremost, I should admit that if the canon ever gets re-opened, The Great Divorce is my vote for book #67.  :)
That said, C.S. Lewis has a very definite idea in mind when he says "Infinite Joy".  In The Weight of Glory he writes:

“It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.

Contrast this with mere "pleasure" when Lewis writes in Chapter 9:

"Then is no one lost through the undignified vices, Sir? Through mere sensuality?"
"Some are, no doubt. The sensualist, I'll allow ye, begins by pursuing a real pleasure, though a small one. His sin is the less. But the time comes on when, though the pleasure becomes less and less and the craving fiercer and fiercer, and though he knows that joy can never come that way, yet he prefers to joy the mere fondling of unappeasable lust and would not have it taken from him. He'd fight to the death to keep it. He'd like well to be able to scratch: but even when he can scratch no more he'd rather itch than not."

Joy is the end - the purpose - of what God designed us to be.  He sees joy as an "echo of heaven" which "works its way backwards into our memories."  In other words, it is a reminder of the things that are to come.
As he says in The Weight of Glory (again):

The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things—the beauty, the memory of our own past—are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers. For they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune we have not heard, news from a country we have never yet visited.

This idea - that joy is an echo of heaven is more thoroughly developed here, and is often referred to as Sehnsucht.


Protestants and Sola Scriptura adherents: When was scripture alone sufficient? Sola Scriptura is defined as "the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness."

Is the concept of Sola Scriptura only applicable to Christians under the New Covenant, or (in hindsight) would it have also applied to Jews under the Old Covenant (e.g., Mary, David, Moses, etc.)?

In other words, scripture (the written word of God) alone was sufficient for Jews in the Old Covenant, or contrarily, it wasn't sufficient for them but it suddenly became sufficient for Christians in the New Covenant. Which would it be?

Protestants and Sola Scriptura adherents: When was scripture alone sufficient?

There is a picture of the Bible being sufficient given in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

  Luke 16:31  And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the
  prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the
  dead.

We see that even the Old Testament was sufficient for one to be inclined to receive Jesus.

  John 5:46  For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for
  he wrote of me.

The Old Testament was sufficient for people to hear about God and his promise and to trust in that promise.

  Hebrews 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he
  that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder
  of them that diligently seek him.

  Hebrews 11:32  And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me
  to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of
  David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:


Did the church use stories like the Holy Grail to attract pagans? Sorry if this has been asked before, but I am avid watcher of the History Channel series on the Templar Knights. In one episode, the character playing the Pope announces that stories like the Holy Grail were really mysticism invented by the Catholic Church to attract Pagans to Christianity. Is there any evidence of this or was this simply poetic license?

While I know nothing about how the Church perceived the stories concerning the Holy Grail (this answer claims that the Catholic Church has no official opinion), the answer is a solid no, simply because the Holy Grail was not invented by the Church in the first place.

The first appearance of such thing as the Grail was in the romance Perceval, by Chretien de Troyes (c. 1190). This poem mentions a grail and implies that it is some sort of dish or bowl. It is not called "holy" anywhere in the poem, and is not associated to any Christian relic.

This story was left unfinished by Chretien, and four continuations were developed by different writers and, as far as I can tell, the grail is never associated to the Holy Chalice.

Wolfram von Eschenbach adapted Chretien's work into his own romance Parzival (c. 1210), which has a very similar plot to the original story, but now the Grail is a precious stone that is the sanctuary of the angels that remained neutral in Lucifer's rebellion. The backstory of the Grail in Parzival draws heavily from Christian motifs, but, again, the Grail is never associated with the Holy Chalice.

The first time the Grail is associated to the Holy Chalice is in the romance Joseph d'Arimathe by Robert de Boron (c. 1200?), which is supposed to be a prequel to Chretien's Perceval (Boron also allegedly wrote his own version of Perceval's story, that survived in its prose adaptation Didot Perceval). In Boron's story, Joseph of Arimathea receives the Holy Chalice after Jesus was arrested, and his brother-in-law took it to Britain.

Boron's version of the Grail was incorporated into the Arthurian romances in which is called the Vulgate Cycle, with some modifications (for instance, Joseph himself took the Grail to Britain, and the knight associated with the Grail is Galahad instead of Percival), and was later re-adapted into the Post-Vulgate Cycle, whose most relevant and famous version is Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, from which most modern depictions of the Arthurian cycle and the Holy Grail derive from.

In conclusion, the association of the Holy Grail to the Holy Chalice did not originate in the Church, but in medieval romances. Whether the story of the Grail originated from the Chretien's imagination, by an unknown source or by elements of pagan mythology is still debated by scholars. Furthermore, it is worth noticing that the connection between the Holy Grail and to the hypothesized descendants of Jesus is quite recent and has no parallel in medieval literature (in which the Grail was originated).


Did the 1983 Code of Canon Law change the law on celebrating/receiving the Eucharist in a state of serious sin? Canon 916 is the current canon governing each individual's obligation not to celebrate or seek to receive the Eucharist in a state of (unconfessed) serious sin:

916. Qui conscius est peccati gravis, sine praemissa sacramentali confessione Missam ne celebret neve Corpori Domini communicet, nisi adsit gravis ratio et deficiat opportunitas confitendi; quo in casu meminerit se obligatione teneri ad eliciendum actum perfectae contritionis, qui includit propositum quam primum confitendi. [vatican.va]
916. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible. [vatican.va]

It is clearly a unification of two canons from the 1917 Code, canon 807 concerning the celebration of the Eucharist and canon 856 concerning its reception:

807.  Sacerdos sibi conscius peccati mortalis, quantumvis se contritum existimet, sine praemissa sacramentali confessione Missam celebrare ne audeat; quod si, defciente copia confessarii et urgente necessitate, elicito tamen perfectae contritionis actu, celebraverit, quamprimum confiteatur. [via IntraText.com]
856. Nemo quem conscientia peccati mortalis gravat, quantumcunque etiam se contritum existimet, sine praemissa sacramentali confessione ad sacram communionem accedat; quod si urgeat necessitas ac copia confessarii illi desit, actum perfectae contritionis prius eliciat. [via IntraText.com]

Both 1917 canons speak of consciousness of mortal sin (Sacerdos sibi conscius peccati mortalis...; Nemo quem conscientia peccati mortalis...). By contrast, the 1983 canon speaks of consciousness of grave sin (Qui conscius est peccati gravis...).
Does the change in terminology, from "mortal sin" (peccati mortalis) in the 1917 Code to "grave sin" (peccati gravis) in the 1983 Code change the meaning of the canons in any way?

Commentating on the 1917 Code, Dom Augustine writes in his A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law can. 856:

No one who is conscious of a mortal sin, no matter how sorry or contrite he may feel, is allowed to receive Holy Communion without having previously gone to confession. In case of urgent necessity, when no suitable confessor is at hand, such a one must make an act of perfect contrition before approaching the Sacred Table.
This canon we leave to moralists to explain, because it pertains to the court of consequence. We will only add that this law, no matter whether it be regarded as divine [cf. 1 Cor. 11:27,29] or ecclesiastical, is a grave one, as is apparent from the Council of Trent [cf. sess. 6, ch. 15]. Copia confessarii must be understood of any confessor with the necessary faculties who is not an accomplice of the penitent. Theologians say that the repugnance to, or impossibility of going to confession must be such as is not directly connected with the act itself. Urgent necessity of receiving Holy Communion exists when one has to fulfill the paschal obligation, and before contracting marriage.

The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law p. 1170 on the 1983 Code says:

It is not for canon law to determine what sins, including transgressions of the ecclesiastical law itself, are grave and what sins are non-grave or venial.8989. …canonical avoidance of distinctions between "grave" and "mortal" sins…

Thus it seems "grave" and "mortal" sins are synonymous terms in Canon Law.


How do the proponents of the doctrine that salvation can't be lost usually explain Matthew 7:21-23? This question is about one particular kind of Christians (I believe most of such Christians are found among Protestants) - those who:

1) believe that a man receives salvation at his very first prayer to Christ;

2) believe that a man who has received salvation can never lose it;

How do these Christians explain Matthew 7:21-23?

On one hand, the people mentioned there clearly prayed to Christ during their lifetime; on the other hand, the very last words spoken by the Lord ("I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity") may mean that they are either losing their salvation at this moment or have never been saved at all:

  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
  kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
  heaven.

  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. (KJV)

There are several perceived difficulties with this passage.

Equating entering the kingdom with salvation.
Equating saying "Lord, Lord" with salvation.
Equating casting out devils as proof of salvation.

Let's address each one.

Paul wrote to the church saying that the immoral shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:19-21. So it is possible that the church (composed of saved people), can be saved and miss out on receiving glory in the coming kingdom. They will be excluded from honor in the kingdom and will not reign with Christ in it. This part of salvation can be lost without losing other aspects of our salvation. For instance, Romans 8:32-39 is emphatic that those who live according to the Spirit will never be "separated from the love of God." They will be in the new heavens and new earth, but not in the kingdom with honor. For more on this, see Paul N. Benware, The Believer's Payday.
Just calling Jesus "Lord" does not mean that one actually lives with the sense of yielding to Christ's authority in life and conduct. "Lord" may be a title more than a position of honor for some people. This is just common sense.
Judas cast out devils and performed miracles with the other disciples when they went out two by two. Was he saved? Can one be used by God and still be a nominal Christian? Yes; God may use any instrument He wishes, even to borrow the tongue of a donkey as He did in the OT.


How is the apparition in Luke chapter one different from other apparitions, such as in Lourdes? Many people, including me, are confused about apparitions. We read about the apparition of St Gabriel in Luke Chapter 1.
Luke 1:34:

"And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?" (Douay-Rheims).

It seems to me that she never questioned the apparition or that the Church ever had to investigate if this is a real apparition. I am not sure I have even heard about an Angel appearing to anyone after St Mary and St Joseph had their experiences.
How is the apparition in Luke chapter 1 different from other apparitions, such as the  one at Lourdes?

This is one that has an actual biblical backing to it. Remember 2 Timothy 3:16 declares “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.”
God inspired Luke to write about Mary being visited by Gabriel and than a few months later Joseph. These we know to be true for the Word of God says they happened. However, we don’t have that kind of backing for other people claiming to see visions, and hear from God. Instead they must be proved, or be ignored. Colossians 2:18-19 mentions people having “visions” which is of their own imagination, and he condemned them quite strongly in said verses “Don’t let anyone condemn you by insisting on pious self-denial or the worship of angels, saying they have had visions about these things. Their sinful minds have made them proud, and they are not connected to Christ, the head of the body. For he holds the whole body together with its joints and ligaments, and it grows as God nourishes it.”
They are too many people these days who are seeking a spirituality that goes further than the Bible, and will willingly open themselves up to deception, such as Bethel Redding in California, who are bringing occultism into their beliefs, because they are not satisfied with God and His word, and instead seek after experiences instead of Biblical Accuracy.
Edit: To the guy who mentioned “Why even bring up Bethel” I did because Bethel is a perfect example of those who are seeking emotional experience, who are seeking a mystical approach to things, who are consumed in their lust for symbols and signs, to the point that they create their own. AKA the so-called glory cloud of Bethel. We should be very careful about what we trust, a vision of Mary or of an Angel has no standing over the word of God.
Paul in Galatians 1:8-9 writes “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”
Paul also says this in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15 “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.”
There is great danger in putting theological significance in places or people outside of Scripture.


Why did Aquinas place so much credence in Aristotle? Many of Aquinas' proofs are based on Aristotle's writings. But, why did Aquinas rely so heavily on Aristotle? Science proves that Aristotle sometimes erred in his own writings. For example, Aristotle wrote (On the History of Animals, Book I, Sec. 15) that humans had eight ribs on each side,

Common to the upper and lower part of the trunk are the ribs, eight on either side...
Κοινὸν δὲ τοῦ ἄνω καὶ κάτω τοῦ θώρακος πλευραί, ἑκατέρωθεν ὀκτώ...

Thomas Aquinas definitely took advantage of Aristotle (following the lead of Albertus Magnus) but he was not uncritical in his reception. Aristotle's major writings were only recently rediscovered in the West and were the topic of intense scholarly effort. But at the same time, there was a lot of doubt about whether Aristotle was a suitable source
of knowledge for Christians - he was not only a pagan, but his work was also seen as potentially 'contaminated' by its transmission through the Muslim world. As a scholar, then, the aim of Aquinas could not have been to simply parrot the teachings of Aristotle, but to reconcile or absorb them into Christian thought. For example, Aristotle argues in the Physics that the world has always existed, but Aquinas says "that conflicts with our faith" (Sententia super Physicam 8.2).

In any case, for Aquinas and Albertus, the main attraction of Aristotle wasn't just that he was a fertile source of good philosophical material in general. They were really interested in his metaphysics, because of the promise it had for establishing a coherent system of thought covering theology, philosophy, science, ethics, and politics. Thomism includes an understanding of 'natural law' and 'natural theology' that is the bridge between revealed truth on the one hand, and observation and reason on the other. In this way, Scripture and tradition can be brought to bear on philosophical questions that would otherwise be inaccessible, since the Bible is not a book of philosophical propositions. It also allows better engagement with non-Christians, since "Muslims and pagans do not agree with us on the authority of any scripture" and so "one must fall back to natural reason" (Summa contra Gentiles 1.2). Aristotle's ethics were another part of this - Thomas wrote a commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics, and his natural law approach to ethics is very much due to Aristotle's teleological ideas, again resting on his metaphysics. If you look at modern work in the tradition of Thomas, it's all about this kind of thing: the twenty-four theses of Pius X in Postquam sanctissimus (1914) are primarily metaphysical (in re praesertim metaphysica).

It is true that there are problems with Aristotle's science which Thomas did not correct. And the same goes for other philosophers he used. The rib issue is pretty harmless but there are other points, like the nature of women, which are not. He follows Aristotle in assuming that women are imperfect men, suffering from a birth defect caused by excessive moisture in the womb (On the generation of animals; Summa Theologiae 1.92.11) and therefore in a state of subjection (Summa Supplement 39.1). Of course we now know that this is wrong, but it's not reasonable to expect a thirteenth-century man to know what we do. These flaws in Aristotle are evident to us but would not have been so glaring to Aquinas. In any case, Thomas is more interested in the methodology of Aristotle (including his logic and metaphysics) than in his specific data (e.g. that men have more teeth than women, History of Animals 2.3). Again, the modern iteration of Thomism would be able to reject "anything that ill agrees with the discoveries of a later age" (Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, 1879) while still accepting the basic approach.


Who was the first to reject the historicity of Adam? Since the nineteenth century the early chapters of Genesis have been very controversial. For some issues, like the age of the earth, it is well established that there have been many different positions through history. Is it the same for the general historicity of Genesis 1-3? Who was the earliest known Jewish or Christian theologian to explicitly reject the historical existence of Adam?

For this question valid answers would show evidence that someone explicitly taught one of these things:

That there was no man who is the ancestor of all humanity,
That there was no man (or married couple) who sinned, causing the fall,
That Genesis 1-3 tell us nothing about what really happened in history, so that we cannot know if there was a real Adam or not.

If someone taught that certain details, such as the talking serpent, or the first act of sin being eating some fruit, are not historical but are symbolic or allegories for a genuinely historical man and fall, then they would not be a valid answer for this question. Or in other words, I would like answers to distinguish between the historicity of the texts, and the historicity of Adam, no matter how figuratively or allegorically Genesis talks about him.

Philo

The first-century Jewish theologian Philo may not have been the first Jew to reject the literal historicity of the creation stories, as it is my understanding that educated Alexandrian Jews had long understood the creation accounts to be allegories. According to Jean-Louis Ska (The Book of Genesis, page 20), Philo (prior to Josephus and the Talmud) was the first to attribute authorship of Genesis  to Moses.   In Concerning Noah's Work As A Planter, Philo appears to attribute the story of Adam to Moses alone - implicitly without divine guidance or recourse to more ancient records:

  VIII ... For there is absolutely no one at all who is represented as inhabiting the Paradise, since Moses says that God removed the first man who was created out of the earth, by name Adam, from his original place, and placed him here.

In Eve and Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender(page 42), we read that Philo believed that Genesis chapters 1-2 provided two creation stories because there were two creations, and that he explored the allegorical dimensions of chapters 2 and 3 and the symbolism of Adam and Eve.

As to the historicity of the story, Philo says (Concerning Noah's Work As A Planter):

  VIII For it is stated, "God planted a Paradise in Eden, towards the east; and there is placed the man whom he has Made." Now, to think that it is here meant that God planted vines, or olive trees, or apple trees, or pomegranates, or any trees of such kinds, is mere incurable folly. For why should he have done so? any one may ask.
  ...
  IX We must therefore have recourse to allegory, which is a favourite with men capable of seeing through it;

Origen

The Church Father Origen appears to have been the first Christian theologian who explicitly taught that Genesis 1-3 tell us nothing about what really happened in history, so that we cannot know if there was a real Adam:

  De Principiis, Book 4.1.16: as even these do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur. Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally...

Jean Meslier

Jean Meslier,  a French Catholic priest who lived 1664-1729, was discovered, upon his death, to have written a book-length philosophical essay promoting atheism.

In his 'Testament', Meslier said:

  The extravagances recorded in the Bible are no more worthy of credit than the miracles. Hence, to hold with Genesis, the primal paradise, the talking serpent, the story of the apple -- or of the plum, writes Meslier -- the tree of life, of knowledge, a first man and a first woman, an original sin, its transmission to all the descendants of Adam and Eve. Fable, fable, fable . . .


Why is hell more prominent in the NT and not the OT? This question came to me after reading the following excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on Hell:

"Early Judaism had no concept of Hell, although the concept of an afterlife was introduced during the Hellenistic period, apparently from neighboring Hellenistic religions. It occurs for example in Book of Daniel."

Most evidence of Hell is from the NT and not the OT. Could this be because it was a doctrine influenced by adjacent religions like Greek mythology?

The New Testament has Gospels, history (Acts), epistles, and Revelation. It is easy to answer why the New Testament other than the Gospels has this focus: because Jesus in the Gospels often spoke of Heaven, Hell and resurrection. Paul, John, Peter, James, Jude and the author of Hebrews took their lead from their savior, expanding on the topics he covered, as well as additional commentary on the Old Testament.

I once read through all the parables of Jesus and counted how often Jesus spoke of Heaven and how often he spoke of Hell. Slightly over half the parables addressed Hell and eternal judgment, slightly over half addressed Heaven and eternal reward, and many parables mentioned both.

The principal revelation Jesus was working towards, first in riddles and then plainly (in the speeches at the Last Supper in John 13-17), was his coming crucifixion and resurrection. He framed this as a shattering, divisive, determinative event in history. The world was about to be divided in two, and all people needed to make a decision about which side they would be on. This decision would then be ratified by the angels, who wold implement it in some fashion.

The rest of the New Testament showed the beginning of this outworking, as a realignment, as some Jews joined the Church and others did not, as some Greeks joined the church, and others did not, as some Romand joined, and others did not. This ends with Revelation, which describes the final separation of people into two camps.


What is the Ezekiel War Theory? I was watching an Evangelical thriller movie the other night (Jerusalem Countdown) which was an apocalyptic film that centered around the Ezekiel War Theory.

What is this theory exactly? From what I gathered it mentioned something about Russian and Iran nuking Israel? But where in Ezekiel do they support this?

Is this theory regularly taught in some congregations?

John Hagee, the author of the book Jerusalem Countdown that forms the basis of that movie, is a dispensationalist, non-denominational pastor.  His book follows in the tradition of Hal Lindsey's The Late, Great Planet Earth, and both rely on a dispensationalist understanding of the Book of Revelation and OT prophets in order to predict the future.
Most relevant here, the story of Gog and Magog in Ezekiel 38 and 39 plays a significant role.  In it, Israel is attacked by foreign nations, and dispensationalists interpret it as a prophecy that will be fulfilled at the end of the age. Many seek to identify the protagonists with modern nations: like other Cold War-era dispensationalists, Lindsey identified the Soviet Union with Gog and Magog, while more recent authors, like Hagee, see a connection with modern Islamic states.
Hagee has gained some notoriety for some extreme views and how vocally he shares them.  But on this particular point he isn't far out of the mainstream when it comes to modern dispensationalism.  The Moody Bible Commentary, commenting on Ezekiel 38:5–6, takes a similar approach, though it sees less Russian involvement than Hagee does:

Some interpreters, especially during the Cold War period, inaccurately identified Israel's attackers with the USSR.  The interpretation was based more on headlines and hysterics than hermeneutics and history.
All the countries mentioned here by Ezekiel are today Muslim countries.  Assuming their spiritual allegiance does not change, the future invasion of Israel by these nations will not be a Russian invasion, but an Islamic invasion. The coordination of attack on Israel will not come from Moscow, but from the leadership of these Muslim governments.

So yes, it's fair to say that this sort of thing is commonly taught in churches influenced by dispensationalism.  In the US, that's a significant number, especially among the "non-denominational" churches.


Is there a way to help choose a Catholic Church? I would like to join or attend a Catholic Church. Is there any way to find information about area Churches besides simply attending?

One of the oldest sites I've always relied on to find area Masses is masstimes.org.  From there you can find your parishes in your neck of the woods that you might be interested in attending.

I believe every diocese in the USA has a website and from there you can usually find parish websites.  Most parishes (who have a website) post their bulletins to their parish website, so you can get a feel for the parish without attending Mass (if there's fish fries, bingo, euchre tournaments or adoration and confession, etc...)

Furthermore, lots of parishes can be found on https://www.parishesonline.com/ (I think this used to be called "seek and find") much of the information Masstimes.org, as well as the bulletins, can be found there too.

It should be noted that one of the 'rules for Catholics' and I'm not sure how well it is enforced because I violate it almost every week and nobody has told me not to, is that you should attend Mass in your home parish (regardless of how much you dislike the priests's homilies) I believe this is tied to the 5th precept of the Church, which is to provide for the needs of the Church.

In my experience "Church Shopping" isn't something that is a loved practice by Catholic priests. But in general, they want what is best for you spiritually, so if you need to go to a parish with a great community life, that's great and if you prefer a more austere parish with lots of concrete and no padded kneelers, that's probably OK too.


According to Protestants following the Reformation, what did Jesus mean when he said "do this and you will live"? According to the Reformers, man is saved by faith alone in Christ alone, through grace alone, and not by any works- anything they can do. Consider the following passage from Luke.

  Luke 10:25–28 (NASB) And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.”

It seems here that according to Jesus, one lives by doing the Law, since he says the "correct" answer to the Lawyer's question is this commandment of the Law, found in Deuteronomy 6:5. How do the Reformers and Protestants after them who hold to the doctrine of Sola Fide reconcile this verse with that doctrine?

Protestants typically argue that Jesus is explaining how one might be "saved by works," and not suggesting that it is actually possible for the man to accomplish it on his own – on the contrary, he implies that it is impossible.  John Gill's analysis is helpful:

  Our Lord intimates by this, that, according to the tenor of the law, eternal life was not to be had without a complete and perfect performance of the duties of love to God, and to the neighbour, contained in these words; and this he suggests, in order to convict him of the impossibility of obtaining life by the works of the law, since such a performance cannot be made by man.

John Calvin argues that the Law teaches men how they could "obtain righteousness by works" – if someone obeys it perfectly, that person does not need justification.  But no one can obey it.  The lawyer realizes this in verse 29:

  But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (NASB; emphasis added)

Calvin describes his attitude:

  So then, aware that the test of charity would prove unfavorable to him, he seeks concealment under the word neighbor, that he may not be discovered to be a transgressor of the Law.

And in addition to using this statement to make the point that the man was a sinner, Calvin suggests that Jesus intended to rebut the implication that he did not value the Law:

  It was the intention of Christ, in the meantime, to vindicate himself from the calumny which, he knew, was brought against him by the unlearned and ignorant, that he set aside the Law, so far as it is a perpetual rule of righteousness.

Calvin, Commentary
Gill, Exposition

Thomas Constable's treatment is helpful as well.


What is the "Light-Life Movement" I saw this in a user profile, and would just like a description of what the movement is.  Beliefs, how it varies from "the norm" (if it does) history, etc.

So, simply, what is the Light-Life Movement?

The Catholicism tag is completely OK, as well as the link provided in Gilbert Le Blanc's comment. The Light-Life Movement (or "Oasis movement") is Catholic, though oecumenism is one of its priorities and it was influenced by Campus Crusade for Christ, a Protestant evangelist movement. The beliefs of Light-Life Movement don't differ from Catholic norm, and the stress is on topics that gained importance in Catholic Church after Second Vatican Council, such as evangelisation or understanding the liturgy. It belongs to the charismatic current in Catholic Church.

The aim of the movement is to guide (especially young but not only) Christians to "Christian maturity" through its formation. The formation consists of three degrees, typically a year long each (15-days retreat in Summer and meeting in a small group during most of the year). The first degree focuses on prayer (especially Lectio Divina, called "Tent of Meeting" in the movement) and personal relationship with Jesus, the second on liturgy and "Exodus" from slavery of sin and the third on the Church and one's place in it. There are slightly different forms of the formation for the young, for families ("the Domestic Church") and in Poland, where the movement is strongest, there are many other variants too.

The history of the Light-Life Movement starts during Second World War by conversion of a young Polish named Franciszek Blachnicki. As a guerilla fighter against the Nazis, he was caught and sentenced to death. While waiting for execution, he read books including one about conversions of famous people - this (along with the stress from waiting for death) lead him to renounce his former atheist worldview, to accept Jesus as his personal Lord and Saviour and to promise to become a priest if he survives the war. His death sentence was changed to ten years in prison (sort of a miracle) and he survived.

Since 1954, Blachnicki lead some retreats for altar boys, a well composed mixture of prayer, education (especially to help the boys understand liturgy - there is a focus on liturgy in the movement since then) and games, which became the base of later Oases, retreats lead by Blachnicki and his successors in the movement. The retreats offered the participants great spiritual gains and virtually everyone wanted to attend retreats lead by this priest - this is the main root of the movement.

At about the same time, Blachnicki started Crusade for Abstinence, an initiative to encourage people to stop drinking alcohol and to help those who try to recover from their addiction, mostly by prayer and fast (in form of abstinence from alcohol). The original Crusade for Abstinence was banned by communist government, but it was re-established as Crusade for the Liberation of Man in 1977. Abstinence is required for animators (those who guide others through the formation) of the movement in Poland (in Czech Republic, it is just strongly recommended to join the Crusade for the animators, not strictly required).

Second Vatican Council was a big boon for the Oasis movement - the Church as a whole turned in the direction in which Blachnicki already went. Blachnicki translated the Council's documents for the movement even before they were translated oficially and the movement took the true teaching of the Council (in contrast to misunderstanding and misuse of the "spirit of the Council") as one of its goals.

Even later, there were other important events influencing the movement. I don't know the exact year (I have heard about this from a lecture by current General Moderator of the movement, Adam Wodarczyk, and I forgot some details and didn't manage to find any sources for it online and in English; AFAIK it was in late 60s, but I'm not sure, it might have been later) when Blachnicki learnt of Campus Crusade for Christ and met Josh McDowell. This lead to the evangelist and oecumenical focus in the movement and even strenghened focus on Bible, Lectio Divina and spontaneous prayer. The concepts of four spiritual laws and accepting Jesus as one's personal Lord and Saviour, that became crucial to Light-Life movent formation, have Protestant origin.

These were roots of the Light-Life Movement, but it was officially founded in 1973, when it was renamed from “The Movement of the Living Church”. The old name was often criticised ("Does it mean that the rest of the Church is dead?"), so Blachnicki divided those responsible for the movement to ten groups and let each group to propose a new name. All ten groups independently choose "Light-Life", for one of the basic principles taught in the movement (to let the light of God, his revelation and our faith change our life, or the unity of truth we know and the way we live).

The movement still has the most members in Poland, but it is active in many other countries (I've heard 30, but I'm not sure). In some, it has members mostly between Polish minority (such as in Germany), and in others, Oases have local participants mostly (such as in Czech Republic, where I joined the movement).


CS Lewis said time continues in Heaven...Peter Kreeft says that is exists more as a 'point'...which is right? In Letters to Malcolm, CS Lewis says, as we are finite, so time will always exist as progression with the past falling away behind us. Peter Kreeft seems to follow Lewis on most views and yet seems to suggest in both his books on Heaven, that time is more of a 'point' ('all swallowed up as one', if you will) rather than spread out. I find this most peculiar as he quotes Lewis whilst writing these chapters on time! Do I misunderstand Kreeft or Lewis? Or are they genuinely (for surely the first time ever!) on different sides of the debate here?

Whenever I have asked God about this question, a very simple analogy comes to mind of geometry. To begin, I was in a fellowship meeting once, and the question was asked of how God can be three in one. A word of wisdom was then shared where the woman who responded said, "He is not 1 + 1 + 1, but 1 x 1 x 1". God has three dimensions (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), which are 1 squared, or a cube, if you'd like to visualize it.

It is God who defines and limits time. Think for example, of God's conversation with Job where he states that he is the one who puts limits on the sea and waves and has set the boundaries of where they begin and end on the shore (the sea representing the terrestrial world of experience, and the land representing the spiritual realm which emerges higher than the terrestrial). We are in this cube of time - the universe as we know it.

God, however, is also eternal, which means he is both inside and outside of time simultaneously. To that end, He is a sphere, an unending existence without time. Inside that sphere, is the cube that we call time. (For example, the figure of speech a "chunk of time" would nicely fit to explain my context). All light sources on earth emit light energy in a spherical dimension, reflecting on how God as light is spherical, if you'd like to visualize things. So in many ways, time is a point, per se. In other ways, as nothing within God can truly perish, neither can time. We, in uniting with God when all things are renewed, will experience both as He does. So in essence, both authors are correct.

To cap off this idea, the outer darkness Christ speaks of so many times, is the void outside of the sphere of God in which there is no light (understanding) to be found, the weeping and gnashing of teeth being men who weep in remorse for their new abode, the gnashing of teeth them futilely attempting chew on and understand how they got to where they are in the first place. Unfortunately, their hell is eternity never understanding why.


Did Jesus commit suicide? As you might know,  Jesus willingly submitted himself to crucification and therefore death on good friday. If he had not done so,  nobody else would have died. Hence does that mean that Jesus committed suicide and is henceforth sinful as he took his own life and the net loss of life due to his voluntary crucification would always be +1?

I believe your question is focused enough that few of the many sects represented on this site would fundmentally disagree with my answer, so I'll provide it.

Suicide, as you point out, means you take your own life.  It is an active choice (even when mental issues such as depression are involved1).  But where do we draw the line?  If someone sits on train tracks knowing a train will come because they no longer wish to live, it's suicide.  If someone throws themselves on a grenade to protect others, it's not.

In other words, suicide is defined more by the reason for dying than it is the act of dying.

Jesus had no desire to die.  His prayer in Gethsemene proves that.  "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." (Luke 22:42)

Of the many things that made Jesus the Son of God, one is that He had the choice to live.  All other people who have and will live on earth only have the choice to die.  We can, if we so choose, decide the moment of our deaths.  But none of us, facing that moment, can choose to avoid it.  We can choose not to die in that we choose not to raise a gun to our heads today.  But we cannot choose to live once the trigger has been pulled.

But Jesus could choose to live.

At any moment, while hanging on the cross, He could have commanded the angels to lift him down.  He could have commanded his wounds healed.  He could have chosen to live (and was even once tempted by Lucifer to abuse this power, Matt 4:6).  But the atonment required a willing sacrifice — a person willing to throw themselvs upon the proverbial grenade to protect others — and that choice had to be absolute in every possible way.  With his last breath He could have chosen to live, but the rest of us were more important to Him than His own life.  He allowed Himself to die that we may live.  That is the essence of love.

A willing sacrifice is an act of love and respect for others.  Suicide is inherently selfish, an effort to remove oneself from burden or responsibility.2

Why a person chooses to die determines whether or not the act was one of suicide or sacrifice.

Therefore, no, Jesus did not commit suicide.  He remains guilty of no sin.  And having lived a perfect life, He has the privilege of judging all sin.  And while I do not understand all things, I believe I understand this well enough to be content with my faith.

1 As we, today, work to better understand suicide and the influences in a person's life that might lead to it we risk two extremes of opinion.  One extreme is to blame the victim, the person committing suicide, suggesting no influence could have culpability.  The other extreme is to blame the circumstances, suggesting the victim is in no way culpable.  For the sake of simplicity in this answer, since the person had to (e.g.) pick up the gun and no influence could, the victim always has some culpability.  But in my opinion, the greater judgement will be upon those who participate in the influences.  The victim may have stopped loving his or herself — but no scripture says we must do that straight out.  On the other hand, the infuencers stopped loving their neighbor, and there is a scripture that specifically commands that.

2 This is a bold, callous statement that is in many ways lacking in compassion.  I offer my apologies to anyone who has been touched by the tragedy of suicide.  My intent was not to reopen any wound, but only to be clear about the difference between sacrifice and suicide.  In my opinion, only Christ can judge if any person has truly committed suicide.  Only He can know what influences were in any individual's life.


Why are many Christians antagonistic towards the idea that God has a form? Many Christian theologies from the past and present are against the idea that God has a form. The common argument I found is something like this; "God is Spirit and spirit has no form, hence God has no form".

  Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see,
  for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.” (Luke
  24:39, NKJV)

Another popular argument is that Jesus said that spirit has no flesh and bones. However, this left me with another question, "Does the Bible say that spirit has no form?". Jesus didn't mention explicitly that spirit has no form, only that spirit has no flesh and bones.

In contrast to this, there are many verses which compels me to believe that God indeed has a form, having a head, hands and legs - God made us in his image, God sits on a throne, God speaks, God has feet, Moses saw the backside of God, God spoke to Moses as a friend, God laughs etc.

Personally, I have no problem in believing that God has a spiritual form.

1. Why is it difficult for many Christians to believe that God has a form?

2. Is this deemed as heresy by some denominations? If so, why?

Me think the following applies here:

  You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of
  anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
  that is in the water under the earth.

That means (at least), that even if god had a form, we could not know it rightfully, for everyone that would show us how that form is like would violate the 3rd commandment.


How much did Moses and Elijah know about Jesus' Imminent Death? Luke 9:31 (NLT 1996) [Moses and Elijah] were glorious to see. And they were speaking of how [Jesus] was about to fulfill God's plan by dying in Jerusalem.

Shortly before, Jesus had told his apostles about his impending death, and prophecies of it were scattered throughout the Scriptures. Plus, Moses and Elijah were both men that talked with God personally, so He may have told them details about Jesus' death before they joined Him in Heaven. Yet, the tone of the passage makes it seem as if Moses and Elijah knew a good deal about what was to happen and for a reason distinct from the ones I just listed.

What did Moses and Elijah know about Jesus' death and fulfillment of God's plan, and how did they know it? What do the writings of the great Protestant theologians (particularly John Wesley) have to say about this?

I think that the answer to this question must lie with the reason that Moses and Elijah, specifically, are here. From the earliest times, it has been recognized that their role is to point to Jesus as the culmination of Law and Prophecy, since Moses is the pre-eminent figure with respect to the Law, as Elijah is the archetypal prophet. Moreover, there are specific parallels in the lives of all three - John Wesley specifically mentions fasting (his Sermon 27, on Mt 6:16-18), and some others are discussed in Aquinas' Summa Theologica 3.45.3 ad 3. So Augustine writes (Sermon 78, a.k.a. 28, on the Old Testament):

  Here is the Lord, here the Law and the Prophets, but the Lord as the Lord: the Law is in Moses, Prophecy in Elijah, but they are only as servants, as ministers. They are as vessels; he as the fountain. Moses and the Prophets spoke, and wrote: but when they poured out, they were filled from him.1

and likewise Wesley (Explanatory Notes on Matthew 17:3):

  Moses, the giver of the law, Elijah, the most zealous of all the prophets, and God speaking from heaven, all bore witness to him.

Methodist theologian Geoffrey Wainwright says that in Wesleyan thought, the Transfiguration is an "extraordinary manifestation of the identity of the Son of God incarnate [...] a testimony to his divine and cosmic status and an exemplary promise of their glorious destiny to those who find their life in him." 2 Along this line of interpretation, the critical idea is witness or testimony, whereby Moses and Elijah assist in making the nature of Jesus known to the disciples, and they in turn share it with the world. That meshes with the experience-based mode of conversion promoted by Wesley, who encouraged "experience meetings" wherein people would share their testimonies and manifest acts of prayer and devotion.3

In this connection, it's hard not to draw a parallel with a well-known section in Wesley's journal, from the end of April 1738:

  I was much confirmed in the "truth that is after godliness" by hearing the experiences of Mr. Hutchins, of Pembroke College, and Mrs. Fox: two living witnesses that God can (at least, if He does not always) give that faith whereof cometh salvation in a moment, as lightning falling from heaven.

Hutchins and Fox, Moses and Elijah - acting as prophetic witnesses, sharing their own experience of God, and thereby provoking such experiences in others. Wainwright points to some hymns of Charles Wesley for the specific prefiguring role of Moses and Elijah, such as:

  Moses and the prophets speak
  And witness to our Lord,
  Him and only Him we seek
  Throughout the sacred Word:
  When we find the Saviour there,
  The figures and predictions shine,
  Seen with Christ, they all declare
  The majesty Divine. 4

Their knowledge, then, must be prophetic in nature, of the same kind now as it was in their earthly lives. It is not a mere repeating of facts they had been told, but a sharing of "religious experience" in the fullest sense - for Wesley, prophets are by nature miraculous, characterized as people "on whom the Holy Ghost came in an extraordinary manner" (his Sermon 115, on Hebrews 5:4). Both the Law and the Prophets point to Christ, and so both Moses and Elijah are here to continue their witness - presenting a testimony derived from the direct presence of the Holy Spirit. While we do not know exactly what they said, and in how much detail they described the events to come, the point is that they faithfully communicated the transcendence of Christ to the disciples. This is reflected in further Wesleyan hymns on the Luke passage, where the Transfiguration is presented as a model of communion with the divine.

1. "Hic Dominus, hic Lex et Prophetae : sed Dominus tanquam Dominus : Lex in Moyse, Prophetia in Elia; sed ipsi tanquam servi, tanquam ministri. Ipsi tanquam vasa : ipse tanquam fons. Moyses et Prophetae dicebant et scribebant: sed de illo implebantur quando fundebant." In Migne, Patrologia Latina 38.490.
2. "The transfiguration of Jesus in Wesleyan exegesis and application", Geoffrey Wainwright. Ch. 20 in Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice,
ed. S. T. Kimbrough, Jr. (St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2005).
3. Fits, trances and visions: Experiencing religion and explaining experience from Wesley to James, Ann Taves (Princeton University Press, 1999).
4. Hymns on the Four Gospels, no. 431 on Mt 17:3, in The poetical works of John and Charles Wesley, vol. 10.


According to Emanuel Swedenborg, why are there different types of angels? Based on various passages in the Bible, Christian tradition holds that there are many types of angels.

According to Emanuel Swedenborg, if God did not create angels as a separate race, and humans become angels after they die,

Why are there different types of angels?
What kind of person becomes the highest ranking angel?
Does God decide who should become a seraph, cherub, and so on? How does God make the decision?

For instance, Revelation 10 mentions a giant angel. I wonder who was this angel when he was a human.

  Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed
  in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun,
  and his legs were like fiery pillars. He was holding a little
  scroll, which lay open in his hand. He planted his right foot on the
  sea and his left foot on the land, and he gave a loud shout like the
  roar of a lion. When he shouted, the voices of the seven thunders
  spoke. (Revelation 10:1-3, NIV. emphasis added)

In line with his (Swedish) Lutheran roots, Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) gave little weight to the Christian traditions that had grown up over the centuries, including traditions about a hierarchy of angels. He considered the Bible itself to be the only valid authority for Christian doctrine throughout Christianity as a whole.

As outlined in the question's linked Wikipedia article on the Christian angelic hierarchy, the idea of hierarchies of angels was originated by various Christian theologians over the centuries, and is based only loosely on the Bible. For example:

Though figures such as seraphim and cherubim do appear in the Bible, they are never identified as angels in the biblical text.
There is no biblical warrant for interpreting "thrones or powers or rulers or authorities" in Colossians 1:16 and elsewhere as referring to angelic beings, ranked or otherwise.
The Greek word commonly translated "archangel" simply means "lead messenger." The Bible never says anything about "archangels" as a separately created race or rank of angels. It merely implies through this term that some angels have higher authority or are more powerful than others, similar to leaders and followers among human beings.

Swedenborg did, however, draw heavily on his (claimed) experiences in the spiritual world over the last twenty-seven years of his life in interpreting what the Bible means when it refers to angels and heavens.

Based on his reading of the Bible and on his spiritual world experiences, Swedenborg stated that although there are higher and lower angels, there are no archangels, and no separate races of angels. Angels are higher or lower in heaven based on how fully they accept God (or Christ) into their lives. This is a function of how thoroughly, fully, and willingly they undergo the process of rebirth, or regeneration, through believing in God and following God's commandments during their lifetimes on earth.

Swedenborg agreed with Paul (2 Corinthians 12:2) in saying that there are three heavens (see Heaven and Hell #29-40). These heavens are:

The central, highest, third, or "heavenly" (traditionally "celestial") heaven
The middle, second, or "spiritual" heaven
The outmost, lowest, first, or "natural" heaven

The angels in the highest heaven are in that heaven because they receive God's love and truth directly into their hearts, or intentions, and act on it immediately and in complete innocence. They do not have to think about it and consider whether or not it is good and true. They trust in the Lord, and in everything that comes from the Lord, simply and completely--and they have a very clear and instantaneous perception of what does and does not come from the Lord. They are therefore the wisest and most powerful angels. However, at a distance they appear like little children because of their full innocence and trust in the Lord. (Compare Jesus' saying in Matthew 18:3: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.") These angels are the beating heart of heaven.

The angels in the middle heaven are in that heaven because they receive God's love and truth in a more indirect and intellectual fashion. Before they act on some idea or feeling that enters their mind or heart, they must first think about it, examine it in their minds, research it further, and come to a rational conclusion that it is indeed good and true, and therefore from God, based on what they have learned. They are therefore less innocent and trusting in God, and more intellectual in their approach to life. These angels are the teachers and intellectual leaders of heaven.

The angels in the lowest heaven are in that heaven because they are moved neither by a sense of God's love flowing directly into their hearts, nor by an intellectual understanding of God's truth flowing into their minds, but by simple obedience to what they are taught about God, faith, and right living. They have no particular interest in learning about spiritual things or growing in love and innocence as the higher angels do. However, they do believe in God and are willing to follow God's commandments as they are taught. These angels are the working class of heaven.

In Swedenborg's system of angels, then, angels are higher and lower not based on some pre-created nature, but based on how fully and directly they accept God (or Christ) into their lives. This is a factor of how fully they were willing to go through a lifelong process of being born again, or regenerated, into the image and likeness of God during their lifetimes on earth.

Here is a quote about higher and lower angels from one of Swedenborg's unpublished manuscripts, which was an unfinished explanation of the book of Revelation. (He later published a complete explanation of Revelation called Apocalypse Revealed) Unfortunately, the earlier manuscript is available in print only in a rather archaic translation:

As to Michael in particular, it is believed from the sense of the letter that he is one of the archangels; but there is no archangel in the heavens. There are, indeed, higher and lower angels, also wiser and less wise; and in the societies of angels there are governors who are set over the rest; but yet there are no archangels in obedience to whom others are held by any authority. There is no such government in the heavens, for no one there acknowledges in heart anyone above himself except the Lord only; this is what is meant by the Lord's words in Matthew:

Be not ye called teacher, for one is your Teacher, Christ, but all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens. Neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, Christ. He that is greatest among you shall be your minister (Matt. 23:8-11).

But by those angels that are mentioned in the Word, as "Michael" and "Raphael," administrations and functions are meant, and in general, limited and certain departments of the administration and function of all the angels. (*Apocalypse Explained* #735)

In general, Swedenborg interprets the angels mentioned by name in the Bible, such as "Michael" and "Gabriel," not as individual angels, but as whole communities (or "societies") of angels dedicated to particular functions or jobs assigned to them by the Lord. These angelic communities may act through an emissary angel. It is also possible, Swedenborg says, for a whole community of angels to appear as a single powerful angel to human eyes. (A material-world parallel to this is the personification of whole nations as a single figure, such as the figure of "Uncle Sam" representing the USA.)

Swedenborg interprets the mighty angel in Revelation 10:1 as being the Lord (Jesus Christ) himself filling an angel with his divine presence, similar to the angels who spoke for the Lord in various encounters with angels in the Old Testament, such as the three visitors to Abraham, Sarah, and Lot in Genesis 18-19. For Swedenborg's explanation of the mighty angel in Revelation 10:1, see Apocalypse Revealed #465.


How do Continuationists discern between genuine and made-up interpretations of tongues? When someone claiming to have the gift of interpretation of tongues interprets someone else's tongue speaking, how do Continuationists (e.g. Pentecostals, Charismatics, etc.) go about determining whether the interpretation is genuine or made-up? How do they tell whether someone's tongues are genuine and someone else's interpretation is also genuine? What is the biblical basis for their "discernment procedure", if any?

My godmother spent a lot of time in Charismatic churches. She said that anyone who made themselves the center of attention every week was faking it. That's not based on a Biblical passage but it's remarkably useful.


What are the relationships of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost to the beatitudes and virtues? According to Catholic theology, what are the relationships of the seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost to the beatitudes and virtues?

From Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s The Three Ages of the Spiritual Life, part I, article IV, "The Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost" (fn. 39), the relationship between the gifts of the Holy Ghost and the beatitudes, based on St. Thomas Aquinas's doctrine:

Gift of Wisdom → Peacemakers (IIa IIae, q.45, a.6): "it gives peace and allows the soul possessing it to give it to others, at times even to the most troubled"
Gift of Understanding → Clean of Heart (q.8, a.7): "those who possess this cleanness of heart begin here on earth, in a certain way, to see God in all that happens to us"
Gift of Knowledge → Mourners (q.9, a.4): "shows us the gravity of sin" (which is the turning to creatures instead of God)
Gift of Counsel → The Merciful (q.52, a.4): "inclines the soul to mercy"
Gift of Piety → The Meek (q.121, a.2): "makes us see in men not rivals, but children of God and our brothers"
Gift of Fortitude → Those Hungering & Thirsting for Justice (q.139, a.2): they "never become discouraged"
Gift of Fear → The Poor in Spirit (q.19, a.12): "they possess the holy fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom"

The relationship of the gifts to the virtues:

See also Benedict Ashley, O.P.'s "The Gifts of the Holy Spirit."


What is the biblical basis for the Catholic and Eastern doctrines of the Assumption of Mary? Catholic doctrine asserts that Mary the Mother of Jesus was not only without sin and ever-virgin, but that she also ascended into Heaven. Some Eastern traditions hold that she even died, then was raised on the third day.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church States, in paragraph 974:

  The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son's Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of His Body.

From Wikipedia:

  Eastern Christians believe that Mary died a natural death, that her soul was received by Christ upon death, and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her death and that she was taken up into heaven bodily in anticipation of the general resurrection. Her tomb was found empty on the third day. "...Orthodox tradition is clear and unwavering in regard to the central point [of the Dormition]: the Holy Virgin underwent, as did her Son, a physical death, but her body – like His – was afterwards raised from the dead and she was taken up into heaven, in her body as well as in her soul. She has passed beyond death and judgement, and lives wholly in the Age to Come.

What is the biblical basis for this doctrine?

There is no obvious basis for the Assumption of Mary in the Bible. Mary is mentioned a few times outside the birth narratives of Luke and Matthew:

Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary... (Mark 6:3)
Is he not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary ... (Matthew 13:55)
Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother ... (John 19:25)
On the third day there was a wedding in Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. (John 2:1)
His mother and his brothers arrived. (Mark 3:31)
While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers appeared (Matthew 12:46)
Then his mother and his brothers came to him (Luke 8:19)
All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus (Acts 1:14)

Nothing is said about Mary's death specifically. However, it appears from this link given in another answer that the Church traditionally has interpreted the vision of the woman in Revelation 12 as referring to Mary taken up into heaven:

A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. ... The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God ...

(Revelation 12:1,6a)
This may be as close as we get to a biblical basis for the belief in the Assumption.
Since you specifically do not ask about the history, I am not including another review of that.


What is the message of Matthew 9:5? Matthew 9:1-8 (NIV)
  1 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2 Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”
   3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”

  4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.”  7 Then the man got up and went home.
  8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.

What does  Matthew 9:5 mean?

Taken literally, it doesn't seem to make any sense at all. What is the verse trying to say?

Christ is using his ability to perform miracles as evidence that he is God, and therefore has the right and the ability to forgive sins.

He is saying, anyone can say "Your sins are forgiven," without any evidence that they have the authority to do so.  But only God can heal a paralytic.  So by performing such a miracle, Christ is proving that he has the authority of God both to heal and to forgive sin.


Who were the "giants" mentioned in the Bible? I've come across several verses in the Bible that speak of "giants". For example:

Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, [which come] of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Deu 2:10 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims;
Deu 2:11 Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.

However, I haven't been able to understand who exactly the giants were. Does this just refer to a race of men who were unusually large? Or were they not men but actually a separate species, and if so do we know anything of their origins?

Over the years, there have been many theories to explain these Nephilim.  I'm not fond of list answers, but unfortunately, there's no better way to represent all of these wildly varying theories.

Possible theories:

Giants (giantism)

Historically, there have been people who have been over eight feet tall.  Archaeologists have uncovered tombs of these people who were probably in that height range source.

Even a glance at Wikipedia, shows people solidly over eight feet tall.

This theory holds that these people were simply giants--either particularly tall or had giantism.
Offspring of women and fallen angels

Genesis 6:1-2 says the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose (NIV).  If we look at Gen 6:1-4, we see that Nephilim were the children of these "sons of God".

Job 2:1 shows that these sons of God were definitely of the spiritual realm.  In fact, other translations interpret sons of God as angels.

Final support of this (as others have mentioned) is that the Hebrew word that "Nephilim" is based off the Hebrew word "fall" (as in "to fall" or "fallen").

These concepts put together give strong support that Nephilim were children of fallen angels that had sex with human women.
Nephilim were descendants of Cain/Seth (source)

The idea behind this is that godly men--ie "sons of God"--(probably descending from Seth) married descendants of Cain (more specifically, of Enoch).

Enoch was a paganistic society and so the idea that the children of the offspring were "fallen" kind of fits with this as well (per the Hebrew argument above).

Other support for this is based on Matthew 5:9 where Jesus says Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.  This, the theory goes, shows that "sons of God" is a good thing and therefore, the children of Seth were righteous men.

In this theory, however, the Nephilim would have been simply "heroes", not necessarily "giants".
They're completely fictional

If you take the Pentateuch as a history of legends, then clearly the Nephilim are just another part of the legend.

Other theories that are too far-fetched

Nephilim were descendants of Kings (source)

Since "sons of God" can equally be translated as "sons of kings", this theory holds that kings were philandering with common women, creating "heroes of old, men of renown" (Gen 6:4)
Nephilim were extra-terrestrials

Yes, some people believe this.  Yet there is absolutely no biblical or archeological basis for this.
Nephilim were Neanderthals (source)

The idea here is that the Neanderthals were stronger than humans and therefore "giants".  This is a clearly unbiblical theory (we seemed like grasshoppers in their eyes).

Primary Source

Those are some of the theories that have been used throughout time to explain these Nephilim.  The most popular is probably that the "sons of God" were fallen angels, although there are some problems with this theory. (Job seems to indicate that "sons of God" are good, not fallen; Mark and Matthew state that angels don't marry, etc. source.)

Ultimately, this is something we'll probably not know for sure until the end of the world.