Is virginity more meritorious than marriage, according to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7? Is, according to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, the state of virginity more meritorious than that of marriage? Catholics think it is, and some (all?) Protestants think it is not. Why?

For example, the Council of Trent says:

  Canon X.—If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony: let him be anathema.

Short answer - No.
If you are just looking at what Paul is saying, then more 'meritorious' is an incorrect choice of words to describe his encouragement towards choosing celibacy ahead of marriage.  His language that either state comes as a "gift from the Lord" (verse 7) is very much against the sense of either condition attracting any merit.
Bearing in mind that Paul prefaces his instructions in this area with the acknowledgement that he has "no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy" (verse 25 NIV), a more appropriate word to characterize his reasons for his instruction derivable from verses 26 and 29 ("Because of the present crisis..."/"...the time is short") is expediency.
ie. Paul argues that in view of the present circumstances (the prevalance of persecution now and increasing with the expected approach of the Lord's return), celibacy is more expedient for the avoidance of unnecessary suffering than the state of marriage.
Additional weight (via application of the 'scripture interprets scripture' hermeneutic) to a rejection of using 'merit' in the sense proferred, is found by examining another passage of scripture that is commonly interpreted as dealing with this issue:

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” - Matthew 19:10-12 NIV (emphasis added)

Although, some 'choose' the celibate life for the sake of the kingdom, verse 11 states explicitly that they can only do this because it has 'been given' to them to do so - ie. it is a grace gift and therefore the choice or state should not be considered through the lens of merit.


Was the matter of whether the Christians who had renounced their faith under torture should be accepted back considered in the First Council? Was the question of whether to accept back into the Church those who, under torture, renounced their Christian faith, was considered at the First Ecumenical Council of 325?
The wiki page on the First Council only mentions "lapsed Christians", but that could mean those who had willingly renounced their faith or had developed some "wrong" branch in it, thus, becoming heretics, both of which cases are not torture-related.

Short answer
In the pre-Nicaean era, lapsi referred to those who renounced their faith under persecution by Roman authorities.  During the
AD 250 Decian persecution most who lapsed were not tortured, but were required to sacrifice in a court proceeding.  See the wikipedia article Lapsi for the 5 ways of how they lapsed.  Valerian persecution was harsher, ordering bishops to death and senators to lose their title and properties if they would not apostasize.  After about 40 year respite, the most severe persecution happened under Emperor Diocletian in AD 303-306 which included razing churches, burning scriptures, imprisonment of all bishops and priests, and involving torture if they didn't apostasize by offering sacrifice willingly.
With most who didn't lapse died under torture / execution, it makes sense that the AD 325 council didn't specifically use the category of torture as a criteria for accepting back those who lapsed, but instead decreed how to variously deal with different groups of people who lapsed.  About the schismatic groups, they are NOT those who lapsed but in fact those who refused reconciliation with the lapsed.
Here is a summary of how the council dealt with the lapsed:

Canon 8: Allow the separatist clergy & bishops (started AD 250) called the Cathari or the Novationists, who refused forgiveness to those who lapsed during persecution, to re-join the apostolic church provided they accepted those who lapsed
Canon 10: To depose any in the clerical rank who has lapsed
Canon 11: Penance for those who repent after having "fallen without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like" (many were communicants)
Canon 13: Lenience for the lapsed who are dying
Canon 14: Penance for lapsed catechumens
Synodal Letter to the Church of Alexandria: Disciplined the separatist leader (Meletius) of the "Church of Martyrs, a group of fanatical confessors, who thought that their privileges as sufferers for the faith were not sufficiently recognized by the Church", thus indirectly giving leniency to the lapsed.  See also the 1912 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Meletius of Lycopolis.

Reading between the lines, since they dealt mercifully with different groups of people who lapsed, including those who lapsed "without compulsion" (see Canon 11), they must have accepted back those who lapsed under torture, possibly with lesser penance.
Longer answer
The authoritative documents from the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) which consists of:

The Profession of Faith
Canons
Letter of the Synod in Nicaea to the Egyptians

can be read below:

here (source: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series Vol 14, ed. Philip Schaff) or
here (source: Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils ed. Norman P. Tanner)
here (only the Canons portion, but has helpful commentaries)

Another resource is from the 1983 book The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology by Leo Donald Davis, SJ, who wrote the book to fill a lacuna of integrated history + theology of the councils when he taught his students at Weston School of Theology.  He said that the official minutes of the sessions have not survived.  What follows are his explanation of the canons.

...

"Six other canons dealing with the dignity of the clergy:

...
Canon 10 enjoined the deposition from clerical ranks of anyone who had denied his faith, whether he had been ordained in ignorance of this fact or not.
...

"Four other canons dealt with the reconciliation of those who had lapsed from  the faith during the recent persecutions and with their public penance.

Canon 11 provided that those who fell away from the faith without having been threatened must repent and then spend two years among those who could only hear, not participate in the liturgy, seven years among those required to kneel before their fellow Christians on Sundays to beg forgiveness — two classes two classes which with the catechumens were compelled to leave the liturgy before the beginning of the Canon — and for an additional two years continue to remain during the whole liturgy but without receiving the Eucharist.
...
According to canon 13, the lapsed who were dying were allowed to receive the Eucharist, but if they recovered, they were to attend the liturgy only.
In canon 14, catechumens who had lapsed were ordered to remain among the hearers of the liturgy for three years and then take their places as catechumens once again. Severe as these measures were, they were more moderate than any previous synodal decrees, especially in providing that the
lapsed when dying could receive the Eucharist.

"Two canons dealt with the more difficult problem of the readmission
to the Church of schismatics and heretics.

...
Since the Novatianists, who
broke with the Church over the question of penance from 251 on,
differed only in discipline and not in doctrine, they were treated with
great moderation. After having received the imposition of hands and
professed in writing that they would follow the decrees of the Church
and in particular that they would communicate with the twice married
and the reconciled lapsed (two classes of sinners which as Novatianists
they shunned), they might be restored to the clergy at the rank they held
as Novatianists. However, in places where there was a Catholic bishop,
the reconciled Novatianist bishop was to be made only a chorepiscopus,
a rural auxiliary bishop, so that no city would have two bishops.
...

"In a separate declaration,

the Council dealt with the Meletian schism
in Egypt which grew out of the attempt of the priest Meletius to exercise
episcopal functions while the bishop Peter of Alexandria was imprisoned
during the persecution of Diocletian. Since Meletius too had been
imprisoned in the quarries of Egypt, he used his prestige as a confessor
of the faith to put himself at the head of the Church of Martyrs, a group
of fanatical confessors, who thought that their privileges as sufferers for
the faith were not sufficiently recognized by the Church. By 325
Meletius’ church numbered some twenty-eight bishops. Overriding
Alexander of Alexandria’s apprehensions, the Council promised the
Meletians that their ordinations would be recognized when they
returned to the Church, on condition that their bishops cease exercising their functions in favor of those consecrated by Alexander. Meletius
himself was ordered to withdraw to Lycopolis, content himself with his
title of bishop and discontinue further ordinations.


Is there a difference between theology and apologetics? I've heard that it all has to do with knowing the right audience. Perhaps, if the audience be Christian, it would be labelled as "theology", and if the audience is non-Christian, it would be labelled as "apologetics". So, apologetics might be just Christian theology re-packaged to a non-Christian audience.

(There is this book by R.C. Sproul, and I suspect that he is writing to a Christian audience by his usage of "we", making it sound like an ordinary textbook or handbook on theology. However, the term "we" can be re-interpreted as "the author and other orthodox Calvinists", making it sound like proselytism. Either way, it is clear that R.C. Sproul is writing with a specific purpose: to persuade the reader his own view of God, the Holy Trinity, or the Holy Spirit. And if the reader buys it, believes it, is changed by his writing, then he'd fulfill his purpose as a writer. Writing is an art. An art of persuasion.)

"Theology" is the study of God, the gods, and related ideas like angels and demons and heaven and hell.

"Apologetics" is the defense of a theological position.

You could say that apologetics is a subset of theology, that part of theology concerned with proving (or at least, arguing) that the rest is true.


What is seen to actually occur if a female were to be the subject of laying on of the hands in ordination? What is seen to actually occur if a female were to be the subject of laying on of the hands in ordination?

The CCC 1577 states that "...the ordaination of women is not possible".

What (in the Catholic view) would actually happen if a validly ordained Bishop attempted to ordain a female to ministry?

Would the Holy Spirit refuse to flow through and into the women, thus not marking her indelibly with the spiritual character of a priest?

Or would the spirit flow, but be disagreeable to catholic doctrine?

What is seen to actually occur if a female were to be the subject of laying on of the hands in ordinations, according to the Catholic Church?

The short answer is nothing.

The woman in question is not ordained, even after going through the motions of an ordination.

Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is very clear on the matter.

  Priestly ordination, which hands on the office entrusted by Christ to his Apostles of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful, has in the Catholic Church from the beginning always been reserved to men alone. This tradition has also been faithfully maintained by the Oriental Churches.

  Furthermore, the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, received neither the mission proper to the Apostles nor the ministerial priesthood clearly shows that the non-admission of women to priestly ordination cannot mean that women are of lesser dignity, nor can it be construed as discrimination against them. Rather, it is to be seen as the faithful observance of a plan to be ascribed to the wisdom of the Lord of the universe.

  Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

  Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

Thus we see that the ordination of women to the priesthood is not a question or mere Church discipline, but rather that the Church has no true authority (power) from Christ to admit women to Sacred Orders.

In the Catholic Church, a bishop is latae sententiae excommunicated if he  attempts to confer Holy Orders on a woman, alongside the woman who attempted to receive the consecration.

  The "ordination" of a woman to the Sacrament of Holy Orders is prohibited by the Catholic Church. An ordination like this carries automatic excommunication for the person who performs the "ordination" as well as the person who is "ordained."

  "It is important for Catholics to understand that they cannot receive a valid Sacrament such as Baptism, Confession or Eucharist from an excommunicated person. Catholics should never attend a so-called Mass in which an excommunicated person is presiding.

Canon Law states that only baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly (Canon 1024).


What's the source of the "new world religion" memorandum signed in Strasbourg? There is a document which is shared on the internet these days. I saw it in Romanian language and then searching a bit, I found it in English as well: it's a "memorandum" signed in Strasbourg containing a list of weird rules which they say they're going to be implemented in different dates in the future.
I quickly read it, but it looks to me like a non-credible thingy. However, I have many friends who tend to believe it. In our country, this appeared on sites I don't trust.
What I'm wondering is if we can find out if this is a credible (at least official/true) document. If not, I'm also wondering if we can find out who created this and what is the source.
Can we do that?
For reference, I will leave here (downloaded from here):

The document in the question is what is referred to in Wikipedia as 'complete bollocks', i.e. something so far detached from reality as to defy detailed refutation. The claims made in it are completely false.

For a look at reality, you can follow this link to a description of the real Eighth Pan-Orthodox Council, (which happened in Greece, not Strasbourg) and from there read the official documents in several languages.

Apart from the ridiculousness of some of the claims (such as the abolition of all national holidays, the involvement of the Pope and the EU) many of them were claimed to start in September 2016. This has not happened.


Could "The human soul is created at the moment of conception." be defined as dogma? Could the proposition

  The human soul is created at the moment of conception.

be defined as dogma?

(question idea courtesy Peter Turner, who asked "What paths exist in the Catholic Church for a certain theological position to become recognized as dogma?")

For something to be declared a Dogma, two conditions are required:

1) the statement is within the scope of Dogma. This is, it refers to faith or morals.

2) the statement does not contradict other Dogmas (because the Magisterium cannot contradict itself, as it is infallible on matters of faith and morals).

Regarding 1), it seems clear that the creation of the soul is about faith. Footnote 19 of the Declaration on Procured Abortion (1974), by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, discussing the views of the timing of the infusion of the soul, states:

  It is not within the competence of science to decide between these two views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent . . . supposing a later animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed. One finds here two important points: the question of when the soul is infused is not one that can be decided by any empirical means, and even if the soul were to be infused at some later point in embryological development, the zygote that is present at fertilization is surely a human life. As such it deserves the same respect as is due to any other human being.

Thus, in the most crude terms, the issue of the creation of the soul is not within the real of science, and therefore it belongs to the real of faith.

Regarding 2), the Church has not infallibly pronounced on the issue and there is no other infallible teaching related to this, beyond that (i) the soul has no pre-existence (Origen's related heresy; Enchiridion symbolorum, 403, 456) and that (ii) the soul is immortal (doesn't die with the body).

A comprehensive list of official teachings pertaining the soul can be found in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (second edition, 2003). I quote in extenso:

  Solemn Magisterium. Interpreting officially the witness of the Scriptures and tradition concerning the human soul, the teaching authority of the Church solemnly affirms that the Triune God is the creator of the human creature ‘‘constituted, as it were, alike of the spirit and the body’’ (Lateran Council IV in 1215: ibid. 800; cf. Vatican Council I: ibid. 3002); ‘‘that man has one rational and intellectual soul’’ (Council of Constantinople IV in 870: ibid. 657; there the doctrine of the two souls in man was condemned as heretical); ‘‘that the rational or intellective soul is the form of the human body in itself and essentially’’ (Council of Vienne in 1312 against Peter John Olivi: ibid. 902, cf. 900, 1440); and that the human soul is ‘‘immortal and multiple according to the multitude of bodies into which it is infused, multiplied, and to be multiplied . . .’’ (Lateran Council V in 1513 against some humanistic Aristotelians who renewed the Averroistic monopsychism: ibid. 1440).

  Ordinary Magisterium. Man is so substantially one, according to the ordinary teaching authority of the Church, that his unity (which is not accidental) has ontological priority before the real and irreducible plurality of his being. He is one in origin, being, and final destiny (Enchiridion symbolorum 502, 2828, 3005, 3221–22, 3224). Therefore each consideration of a part or one aspect of man implies repercussions concerning all parts and aspects. Any division of man is always inadequate, because as a microcosm (ibid. 3771) he must be considered as a whole. However, since there is an essential difference between matter and SPIRIT (ibid. 3891; cf. 3022–24), there is a real plurality of realities in man which are irreducible to each other. Thus the spiritual soul is not an emanation or a part of man’s matter or body (ibid. 3022, 3220–21, 3896), and it is equally true that the matter cannot be deduced from or reduced to the finite human spiritual soul. Both need a special creative act of God in order to exist, because they are ontologically different (ibid. 360, 3896). Thus man possesses the vital (ibid. 2833) and constitutive principle of his being, i.e., one spiritual, simple, and substantial soul (ibid. 791, 801, 900, 1440), which despite the substantial unity of being in man, is in its being and meaning essentially different and independent of matter (ibid. 1007, 3002, 3022, 3220–24, 3896), and immortal (ibid. 1440). Since the soul is spiritual in itself, man is not composed of three different realities, i.e., body, soul, and spirit, but is a substantial unity in body and spiritual soul only (as opposed to all sorts of trichotomy: ibid. 301, 502, 657, 900, 902, 1440–41, 2828). The approval by the ordinary magisterium of the Thomistic theses concerning the human soul (ibid. 3613–22) must be understood as a favorable reception of them as one of the best illustrations of the mystery of man.

In conclusion, the proposition could be declared as dogma.


Was there a period in the history when all who believed in Christ allowed infant baptism? Martin Luther lived from 1483 – 1546 and John Calvin from 1509 – 1564. Both thse men wrote about the importance of infant baptism which can be read in The Large Catechism by Martin Luther & Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin

Was there a period in the history when all who believed in Christ allowed infant baptism? If it is true who or which sect started/revived "only credo baptism" procedure?

Believer's baptism (aka. credo-baptism) was revived by the Anabaptists on January 21, 1525, when Conrad Grebel baptized George Blaurock. These Anabaptists believed that only believer's baptism was legitimate and effective. There is no agreement on when believer's baptism ceased to be practiced in early Christianity. It continued to be widespread through at least the 4th century. Between early Christianity and the Anabaptists, virtually all Christians practiced infant baptism.

There have been efforts by Baptist and Anabaptist historians to draw connections between Anabaptists and earlier pre-Reformation groups. These connections are generally based on sociological and spiritual similarities, not direct influence or succession. One form of this historiography is Baptist successionism, which claims an unbroken chain of groups who were adhered to Anabaptist-like faith and practice in the face of an evil/wayward dominant Catholic majority. This narrative has been spread especially by the influential Anabaptist Martyrs Mirror (1660) and the Plymouth Brethren The Pilgrim Church (1931). Many such works are historically dubious and are prone to the confirmation bias of finding what they are looking for.

It is difficult to prove the negative claim that no one practiced adult baptism in a given era. However, if you want to find an era without believer's baptism, I'd read one of those and look for the time when they have the weakest case in demonstrating their claimed predecessors practiced believer's baptism.

As a side note, I would presume that practitioners of infant baptism in most eras baptized adult converts.


What is the difference between a church and a social club? There is a popular line that exists in sermons (heck, I've even preached it myself!) that says something to the effect of "a church is not a social club."  A church is not the local Kiwanis, it is not the local Boy Scouts, and it sure as heck isn't supposed to just be another "community center."

But how?

In what concrete ways is a church different than any other faternal or social organization?

The Church is presented as the Body of Christ (an organism, not an organization [e.g., 1 Cor. 12:12+]) and as the household of faith (a family, not a club [e.g., Gal. 6:10]--also sons of God, brothers and sisters).  As the Body of Christ there is an implication of a different kind of life (this may address a spiritual nature), an implication of diversity (different parts), unity (one body), and completeness.  Both the body and family metaphors point to the lack of choice of individual members in who else is part of the collective--one does not choose one's relatives.  Both also point to a fundamental identity in and with the whole (an eye cannot just pop itself out and reject its being part of the body; the parts suffer together and rejoice together).

On a practical level, this should mean that the common boundaries of social status, personal interests, etc. should not be separating factors in the Church as they tend to be in social organizations (e.g., Gal. 3:28).

The fact that the Church is God's (new) creation rather than a human formation (e.g., John 1:12-13) also has implications for persistence(e.g., Phil. 1:6), righteous action (e.g., Eph. 2:10), and ultimate success (e.g., 1 John 3:2).  (This might be analogous to the difference between Scripture and human writings.)  (The Church might also be viewed as something like the Holy Spirit as "earnest" or the resurrection of Christ as a first fruits--a sample of what the new creation in its fullness will be like and an assurance that this fullness is coming.)


The book of revelation as comfort to persecuted early Christians I have heard* that the book of revelation was written to provide comfort to persecuted Christians in the early days during persecution from Rome. And that the contents are best understood as metaphors for the the end of that persecution, the imagery as evocative of certain persons/institutions of the day.

Is this a commonly held belief, or a doctrine of any churches or movements?

*My grandfather was a minister in the United Church of Christ. He discussed this topic with my mother, when she asked him about it. She then related it to me many years later when I asked her about it. (Personal story included to ward off claims of unsourced opinion.)

Sounds like you are talking about Preterism.

Essentially, this is that all the events described in Revelation have already happened, in the first century. Since Revelation was written towards the end of the first century, if this view is true then its readers would have been reading about events that had already happened.


Does the Bible make any allusions to life on other planets? What, if anything, does the Bible say either supporting the theory of life on other planets, or suggesting that there is none?

The Bible really doesn't have anything to say on the subject one way or another.

Historical writings suggest that some of early Christians believed that this world is only one of many that God has created, and particularly among Gnostic sects there were all sorts of interesting ideas on the subject, (for example, that the many worlds that God had created all had free interactions with each other, but not with us because this world was under quarantine, as no other people out of all God's creations were evil enough to murder their own Lord), but whatever the source of these ideas is, it's not found in the Bible.


What does "the Lord opened her heart" (Acts 16:14) mean, according to Calvinists? Acts 16:13 (NIV)
  On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate to the river, where we expected to find a place of prayer. We sat down and began to speak to the women who had gathered there.

I conclude the situation is something like this:
Just before the writer sit down, there are already some women there. This situation I name it, time-frame-1. Time-frame-2 is after the apostles sat down then begin speaking to the women.

  Acts 16:14a (NIV)
  One of those listening was a woman from the city of
  Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper
  of God.

Next, I assume what the writer means (inspired by the Holy Spirit) in the bolded sentence is that Lydia already as a believer in the sight of God at time-frame-1 before time-frame-2.

  Acts 16:14b (NIV)
  The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message.

The event "The Lord opened her heart" is either while Paul is talking (time-frame-2) or after Paul finished his talking. So, this event not happened at time-frame-1.

My question :
What does "The Lord opened her heart" mean according to Calvinists?

Calvinists consistently hold that Lydia, at the time Paul met her, followed the Jewish religion and was not a believer in Christ.  But then God worked in her heart so that she would respond to Paul's teaching of the gospel.

At first, in "time frame 1," as you call it, Lydia "was a Jewess" (Calvin) or "a proselyte to the Jewish faith" (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown).  Whether she is Jew or Gentile is rather uncertain, says John Gill, as her name doesn't clearly indicate her ancestry.  Either way, however, she worshiped "the true God, the God of Israel" (Gill).

However, Gill continues, that even in this state, her heart "was shut and barred, with the bars of ignorance, hardness, and unbelief."  Calvin notes that Luke "commended her godliness" yet shows "that she could not comprehend the doctrine of the gospel, save only through the illumination of the Spirit."

Thus Calvinists argue that she was not saved in "time frame 1," as you suggest, and instead that in "time frame 2," "the Lord opens [her] heart to hear the word which is preached" (Geneva Study Bible).  This passage is seen as evidence for the distinction between the "inward call" of God and the "external call" of the preacher.  Calvin writes:

  We see that not faith alone, but all understanding and knowledge of spiritual things, is the peculiar gift of God, and that the ministers do no good by teaching and speaking unless the inward calling of God be thereunto added.

And in reference to Lydia in verse 14, the Reformation Study Bible (2015) states:

  Divine illumination and persuasion is necessary for the heart blinded by sin to respond to the gospel.  This effectual call of God ensures that all who have been chosen by God will believe.

Calvin on Acts 16:11–15
Geneva Study Bible on Acts 16
Gill on Acts 16
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown on Acts 16


Can a married person be elected as the Pope? What is The Roman Catholic law for electing the Pope in regards to a married person? If a married person is elected, what will happen to his wife after becoming the Pope?

A married person cannot be elected, because the pope is Bishop of Rome and married people cannot be bishops.

Can 1042: The following are simply impeded from receiving orders:

a man who has a wife, unless he is legitimately destined to the permanent diaconate;

Canon law does allow married men to become deacons (as stated there), and also priests with the individual approval of the Holy See, but it does not extend that relaxation of Canon 1042 to bishops.
These restrictions and relaxations are the same as in the Eastern Churches, so as not to rule out eventual reunification.


Harmony in the pseudepigraphal writings? It is not uncommon when talking to someone about the authenticity or composition of the Biblical canon to for the subject of the so-called "lost" gospels to be brought up.  An explanation of the process used to determine canon, specifically the criteria the criterion of cohesion with the rest of the Bible can, among the more skeptical, bring about the claim that the early church was guilty of suppressing documents showing accounts that "show the truth" about the claims of Jesus or show Him in a negative light, etc.

One would expect, if the claims at truth are indeed valid, these pseudepigraphal writings would show some degree of harmony within themselves, both the early (The Gospel of Judas, for instance) and the late (Gospel of Thomas).  This is equally true for Old Testament non-canonical books such as The Book of Enoch.  Harmony within these writings would support the truth claim and make a reasonable argument for their content.  Disharmony amongst themselves would lessen the credence and support those which are harmonious as being true.

Therefore, to what degree is there harmony among the books left out?

tl;dr> Patterson Brown, in particular, has argued the disunity within the Nag Hammadi Corpus.  That's about the best you're going to get without defining a positive corpus, as opposed to the inverse of the canon.

The problem with answering this question is that you are asking a question akin to "Are the books not on the NY Times Best-seller list as unified as the ones that are?"  At a very basic level, of course you can say that the Acts of Thecla doesn't harmonize well with the Gospel of Judas.  One is popular orthodox fiction, the other is Gnostic.

To posit that every other book has some sort of cohesion is problemmatic, because "Gnostics" especially in the time of Paul and the early church, were as diverse as that heterodox entity that became the church. Furthermore, Gnostics weren't the only heterodox "false teachers" out there.  Judaizers, Docetists, Marcionists, and others wrote their own books.  Marcion in particular may or may not have shared Gnostics views - but his existence alone would show there is not unanimity amongst the non-canonical Scriptures.

The real question then, isn't "Do non-canonical books all agree?" but rather are there things present in the canonical ones that aren't in everything else.

There are marks of canonicity that are widely accepted, but the inverse leaves "everything else."  That there should be a presumption of harmony in "everything else" is a hard thesis to make in any endeavour, let alone canonicity.

It is also useful to actually read the supposedly "suppressed" Scriptures.  When you do, the differences become obvious.

To answer your question directly, then, I would invite you to check out one Gnostic "Gospel" - probably the most famous - The Gospel of Thomas. Rather than focusing on its harmony with other Gnostic Gospels (discussed below), it is probably more fruitful to understand the exact nature of its disharmony with canonical Scripture.  By understanding what it does and does not purport to do, anyone should be able to see what message if any is being "Suppressed(TM)" and why.

In reading that Gospel (its short - just 115 verses), a few salient facts will jump out.

Unlike the four canonical Gospels, Thomas does not purport to give any sort of chronology.  It is merely a list of the sayings of Jesus.  To ask "does this line up with the account of the Gospels" is akin to asking if Gen. Custer's shopping list lines up with his battlefield report prior to Little Big Horn.
There is actually substantial overlap between the actual actual sayings that are recorded, and those found in the canonical Gospels.  Rather than showing some kind of conspiracy theory that the early church tried to "Supress(TM)" these, reading it belies the Truth that there isn't anything that is "covered up."  Rather, the wheat is already recorded in the Gospels, and the chaff- those parts peculiar to the Gospel do line up with what the majority of the church did accept.
John - the disciple who most stressed love ("Little Children let us love one another") - actually made the criteria explicit in canonical Scripture. (Again, it's a bit of a chicken and egg, because nobody actually said 'This is good, this isn't quite as good' until much later).  He wrote in 2 John:

  7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what we[a] have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son

This would directly contradict Thomas, who records Jesus as "saying":

  "If the flesh came into being because of the spirit, it is a wonder. But if the spirit (came into being) because of the body, it is a wonder of wonders.

This Gnosticism - that Jesus only appeared to flesh directly countered what the majority had "received and been taught."  It wasn't evil, it was just wrong.  There are "churches" that teach that "God hates fags."  The overwhelming majority of Christians have rejected their writings as well.  This was just an error that the majority of the church rejected. One should not be surprised if the corpus of Republican Presidential platforms is not in harmony with those of the Democrats.  This is exactly why the two corpi are distinct.

The church, holding to what it had been taught and received likewise rejected this notion - and equally preserved their false writings to show it.
The traditional marks of canonicity - apostolic authorship, harmony with the received message, fidelity to the person of Jesus (again as understood by the church at the time) are simply missing in everything Gnostic or Apocraphyal.  As such, these were rejected.

The result, one can show the disharmony between everything that wasn't accepted and everything that was canonical. The most famous compilation of Gnostic Scriptures - the Nag Hammadi Library is available online, and oddly enough, was perserved (once found) through the Coptic church. Other collections in the past have been available to scholars who read them.  Reading them is fruitful to understand the heresies and false teachings against which the church contended in the early centuries.

But to presume everybody who disagreed with the church in exactly the same way is unreasonable.  Patterson Brown, in particular, has argued the disunity within the Nag Hammadi.  He posits the three most famous (Thomas, Peter, and "Truth") actually differ from the others in being closer to accepting the incarnation.  He points to his proof in the linked article.

Still, the skeptic needs to define what the criteria for study is.  There are differences to be sure, but finding universally accepted truths in any of the corpora is difficult indeed.


How do Eastern Christians explain Jesus "sending" the Holy Spirit in John 15:26? One of the issues behind the schism between East and West was the doctrine of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit: does he proceed from the Father, or from the Father and Son?  There doesn't seem to be much biblical data to support either position, so it's rather sad to me that this disagreement ended up being a test of orthodoxy in the first place.  That said, John 15:26 is widely seen to support the Western position:

  "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me."

I'm sure I don't understand all the arguments, but the "sending" that Jesus does seem to indicate that the Spirit proceeds from Jesus as well as from the Father.

What is an overview of Eastern counterarguments to the idea that this verse teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son?  I'm fine with arguments both ancient and modern, but I'd like evidence that they were made by well-known theologians of the Eastern Church.  Quotations from the actual works of the Eastern theologians in question would be ideal.

In reality, John 15:26 supports both the Eastern Orthodox and the (Western) Catholic positions, because (at least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned) both positions are valid and complementary.
(Note that Eastern Catholics—those who follow the same rites as the Eastern Orthodox but are in communion with the Bishop of Rome—continue to favor the Greek approach to Trinitarian theology, and, like the Orthodox, omit the expression “and the Son” when they recite the Creed in their liturgies, for the reasons that I will explain below.)
How the Greek and Latin Fathers understood “procession”
It is important to keep in mind that the Greek and Latin Fathers understand the concept of procession differently. This difference is at the root of the misunderstanding that resulted between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches since the Great Schism.
The Greek Fathers, starting with St. Basil the Great, all agree that the Holy Spirit has its ultimate origin (Greek: ekporeúetai) in the Father. The etymology of that term is important: it is a compound of ek, which means “out of;” and poreúomai, which means “to go” or “to come.” The compound means, therefore, “to come from” or “to come out of,” in such as way as to stress the original source.
The Latin Fathers, on the other hand, developed a Trinitiarian theology that focused on the communication of the Divine Essence from the Father to the Son, and through Him to the Spirit. That communication they called processio (using Tertullian’s terminology). Again, the formation of the term is important: in Latin, the preposition pro means “before” or “in front of;” and the verb cedo means “to go.” Procedo (from which processio is derived), therefore, means “to go forward.” Unlike ekporeúomai, the Latin term does not so clearly stress the original source.
Hence, we can say, when the Eastern Fathers consider of the Holy Spirit, they ask “Where does He come from originally or ultimately (ekporeúetai)?” The answer is “the Father.”
The Western Fathers, however, ask “Whom is the Holy Spirit in front of (i.e, from Whom does he proceed)?” The answer is “both Father and Son.”
The translation of John 15:26 and resulting confusion
There is no fundamental contradiction between the two approaches. What happened historically, however, is that the Latin translations (both the Vetus Latina and St. Jerome’s Vulgate) translated John 15:26 as follows:

τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται
Spiritum veritatis qui a Patre procedit
(The Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father)

Notice that the term ekporeúetai has been translated with procedit—a legitimate translation, if we take the terms in their common, everyday meanings. However, in the technical theological vocabulary of Trinitarian theology, they have very different meanings.
This translation later found its way into the Latin versions of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, a historical accident that caused a false equivalence to be established between the Greek ekpóreusis and the Latin processio, and, as the centuries progressed, increased difficulty for Greek and Latin-speaking Christians to understand one another.
As late as the seventh century, St. Maximus the Confessor was aware of this very difficulty, and attempted to “translate” between the Latin-speaking Roman Church and the Greek-speaking church of Constantinople. He writes, regarding this problem, in an his Epistle to Marianus:

I have asked the Romans to translate what is peculiar to them in such a way that any obscurities that may result from it will be avoided (Epist. ad Marinum, PG 91, 136 C).

Maximus is referring to expressions that can be traced as far back as St. Ambrose, who, in his treatise on the Holy Spirit written in 381 (the same year as the First Council of Constantinople which solemnly defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit) states

Spiritus quoque sanctus cum procedit a Patre et Filio, non separatur a Patre, non separatur a Filio.
Also, the Holy Spirit, when He proceeds from the Father and the Son, is not separated from the Father, nor is He separated from the Son (De Spiritu Sancto I, 11; PL 16, 120).

This affirmation was not controvertial in Ambrose’ day, because Ambrose’s counterparts in Constantinople understood that he was using processio in the Latin sense. Indeed not affirming this would result in a heresy of subordinationism (since the Father would have something that the Son does not).
On the other hand, none of the Greek Fathers would ever have claimed that the Holy Spirit ekporeúetai from the Son—since that would imply that the Son has an origin independent from the Father.
What does it mean for Jesus to “send” the Holy Spirit?
Both the Greek and the Latin Fathers would agree that the Son has the power to communicate His Essence to the Spirit. When Jesus in John 15:26 says that he will send the other Comfortor or Paracelete (i.e., the Holy Spirit), he is referring principally to the temporal mission of the Holy Spirit (the effects that the Holy Spirit in time and history: e.g., when He sanctifies or “divinizes” the faithful and gives them His grace).
However, Jesus would not have the authrity to send the Holy Spirit into the world if the Holy Spirit did not proceed ontologically through Him. This fact no one disputes, neither Eastern nor Western.
The question is what to call the relationship between Son and Holy Spirit. The Eastern Fathers give it a special name, distinct from ekpóreusis: namely proienai. This relationship could not be called ekpóreusis, because such would imply that the Son is the ultimate origin of the Spirit—clearly a heresy.
The Western Fathers, since their notion of processio was generic enough to support it, applied it to the procession of the Holy Spirit both from the Father and from the Son. In so doing they were not claiming that the Son has an origin independent from the Father, because that idea is not contained in the notion of processio.
Conclusion
Both the Greek and Latin approaches to the processon of the Holy Spirit are valid and complementary.
John 15:26 in the original Greek most directly supports the Greek approach, but it does not contradict the Latin approach. The Latin translation of John 15:26, which somewhat inaccurately translated ekporeúetai with procedit, was naturally interpreted in the West in the light of the Latin concept of processio. The translation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed into Latin eventually led Greek and Latin-speaking Christians to misunderstand one another and—when the political situation between the Eastern and Western Churchers grew more tense—even to accuse each other of heresy.
However (at least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned), neither side is guilty of heresy. It is just that they mean slightly different things by “procession.”
(Source for these reflections: The Greek and Latin Traditions regarding the Procesison of the Holy Spirit; see also a version with the full text in electronic form.)


How does the Catholic Magisterium advise the married laity to defend the institution of marriage? Does the Catholic Church have any practical advice for its adherents on ways to exemplify the ideal she sets of marriage between one man and one woman?

Barring any specific discussion of same-sex relationships, what does the Church want us married folks to do as witnesses of Christ's love?

The Magisterium has offered a number of guidelines for how to live the institution of marriage, so as to make it truly life-giving, and indeed a source holiness for married couples. The best “defence” of marriage is the witness of couples who have lived out their vocation in accord with God’s plan for them.

The universal call to holiness

The Church’s recent Magisterium (since Vatican II) has emphasized that all people are called to holiness, not only those who have been called a clerical or consecrated vocation:

  Thus it is evident to everyone, that all the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status, are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of charity; by this holiness as such a more human manner of living is promoted in this earthly society (Lumen Gentium 40).

Married couples are no exception: the Sacrament of Matrimony is their particular path to holiness:

  Furthermore, married couples and Christian parents should follow their own proper path (to holiness) by faithful love. They should sustain one another in grace throughout the entire length of their lives. They should embue their offspring, lovingly welcomed as God’s gift, with Christian doctrine and the evangelical virtues (Lumen Gentium 41)

In other words, the grace received in matrimony is the source of their holiness, and it is fundamentally that grace, and the holiness produced by that grace—not something particular that the couples need to do—that will provide the witness that the Church asks.

The fundamentals in holiness of life

The principle “task” of married couples, therefore, is to live holy lives, and in order to do that, couples must first of all place no obstacle to living holy lives: they must, in other words, obey what the natural law tells them is necessary for a happy marriage.

First of all, the fundamental characteristics of marriage must be respected: marriage is by nature indissoluble (it cannot be ended at the discretion of the spouses), exclusive (it can only be with one spouse at a time), faithful (one cannot permit extramarital affairs), and fruitful (children are always to be welcomed). (See Familiaris Consortio, Part 3, chapter I.)

It must be specified nowadays that true marriage can only be contracted between one man and one woman, always considering the sex that they have “originally” had since birth.

The controversy over who is elegible for marriage is only one of the challenges to marriage today. There is also the relative ease with which couples can obtain civil divorce—which can easily lead couples to think that marriage is inherently transitory, not permanent—and the strong temptation to use contraception as a means to limit childbirth.

(We should note that the Catholic Church does not prohibit limiting childbirth for legitimate reasons; she merely says that actions that destroy or forcibly impede our bodies’ ability to procreate—e.g., using hormonal contraceptives or condoms, and obtaining tubal ligations or vasectomies—is immoral, because it tends to undermine both the unity of the spouses and, evidently, their God-given call to bring forth children. See Humanae Vitae, especially numbers 14-15. It is also worth noting that modern gynecology provides excellent and highly reliable alternatives to oral contraceptives, when regulating birth is necessary. See, for example, http://www.creightonmodel.com/.)

It is also important for couples to realize that they are making a very serious and permanent commitment to one another. Even if something should go wrong—either through illness, or even when one spouse is not faithful—the couple have an obligation to regard themselves as married. Separation and civil divorce can be tolerated when the situation warrants it (and when there is grave danger to one of the spouses or to the children, it might even be obligatory); however, “remarriage” is never a legitimate option, unless there is a way to prove in the external forum that the first marriage was, in fact, not a marriage at all. (See Familiaris Consortio 83.)

The first and most fundamental step, therefore, to being faithful witnesses to married love is to follow the Commandments and the natural law regarding matrimony. Nowadays, simply being faithful to the basics of morality constitutes a heroic witness, and for this a married couple can count on the grace that they receive in the Sacrament of Matrimony.

How to grow in holiness

Living a happly and faithful marriage, however, does not reduce to fulfilling the minimum requirements.

Part Three of Familiaris Consortio gives a number of suggestions in which couples can grow in holiness. Among others,

Married couples participate in a unique way in the creative power of God. The Church encourages couples to take part generously in the gift that God has given them to bring new human beings into the world. It is a common misconception that the Church wants couples to have as many children as physically possible. That is not the case: rather, they should take into account their means and abilities. However, the Church does encourage couples—without obliging them—to be generous, not miserly, since such generosity will bring about happiness and fulfillment. (See Familiaris Consortio 28.)
Married couples have an invaluable role in educating their children. In fact, parents (not the state) are the primary educators of their children, and the institutions that exist for that purpose are meant to be at the service of parents. (Schools and governments that usurp parents’ rights to educate their children, especially as regards sensitive matters such as sexuality, commit a most grave injustice.) It is, moreover, parents who first bring their children in contact with the Church and the Sacraments. (See Familiaris Consortio 36-40.)
Strong, stable families are the bedrock of society. Espcially since there is so much upheaval today, Catholic couples are called to be examples of fidelity, and thus offset some of the ills that plague society today. (See Familiaris Consortio 44.)
The family is an image of the Church (See Eph. 5:32), and moreover, the Church’s efforts to evangelize begin with the family. (See Familiaris Consortio 50 and 52.) For example, family members can help each other to come to the Faith, or to a fuller practice of the Faith, and some familes may even feel called to dedicate themselves full time to missionary apostolate, although this will not, of course, be the norm for most families. (See Familiaris Consortio 50 and 54.)
The Sacrament of Matrimony finds its fulfillment in prayer and the Sacraments, particularly in the Eucharist. Families draw their strength from prayer and participation in the liturgy. (See Familiaris Consortio 56-62.)

TL;DR

All Catholics are called to live holy lives, and married persons will find the source of that holiness in the Sacrament of Matrimony. In order not to place an obstacle to that holiness, at the least they need to obey what the natural law tells us about marriage: in particular, that it is the union of one man and one woman, that it is indissoluble and exclusive, that it entails fidelity, and that it must be open to procreation. This is, as it were, the minimum requirement for a happy and fulfilling marriage. Just living marriage faithfully is a powerful and even heroic witness. This, together with actively participating in the life of the Church as a family, constitutes the best “defence” of marriage that Catholics can offer.


Gospel writers who were not disciples of Jesus Where did Mark and Luke get information about life of Jesus to write Gospel?

Where did Mark and Luke get information about life of Jesus to write Gospel?

There is a very large field of study that attempts to put forth various theories of authorship by writing styles, word usage, and quite a bit of conjecture.

We do know of the twelve immediate disciples of Jesus. We also know of seventy others that were sent out on a particular ministry. It may be that there were even more. The criteria for being a disciple is given by Jesus;

  John 8:31-32  Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If
  ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;  And ye shall
  know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

We also have to consider that what was written was not just recording facts or gathering anecdotes.

  2 Timothy 3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
  profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction
  in righteousness:

Eyewitness accounts may have been collected, but the final authorship depends on the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit.

  1 Thessalonians 2:13  For this cause also thank we God without
  ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of
  us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the
  word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

  2 Peter 1:21  For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of
  man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

  John 14:26  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the
  Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring
  all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


What is the stance of the LDS Church on gender? Gender is a hot topic as of late, with a seemingly small but very vocal minority preaching that gender is fluid, non-binary, and that people may choose to identify with whatever gender they wish.

What is the official stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the matter?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a very clear stance on the topic of gender.

  27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he
  him; male and female created he them. (Gen 1:27)

There are only two genders: MALE and FEMALE, every spirit child of our Father in Heaven (every human being ever born on Earth) is one of these genders, has been one of these genders since before the creation of the Earth, and will remain the same gender for all of eternity.

  ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each
  is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such,
  each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential
  characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity
  and purpose. (The Family: A proclomation to the World)

This stance was recently reaffirmed at the October 2018 General Conference of the Church:

  ...some are troubled by some of our Church’s positions on marriage and
  children. Our knowledge of God’s revealed plan of salvation requires
  us to oppose current social and legal pressures to retreat from
  traditional marriage and to make changes that confuse or alter gender
  or homogenize the differences between men and women. We know that the
  relationships, identities, and functions of men and women are
  essential to accomplish God’s great plan. (Truth and the Plan. 2018)

Gender is eternal and unchangeable. When our spirits were created an eternity ago, before the very foundations of the universe were formed, we were created as either male, or female, and we will remain the same gender throughout all time and eternity.


How do I know that an "Orthodox" theological work is officially Orthodox doctrine? Whenever I read theological works written by Roman Catholics I know that, as long as there is an "Imprimatur" from a legitimate Bishop, I can trust it to be official Catholic doctrine.

On the other hand, whenever I read contemporary Eastern Orthodox writings, I'm not 100% sure how to tell whether or not its trustworthy, or simply rogue theological opinion.

So far I've been clinging to anything recommended by St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary.

Official Orthodox doctrine is covered by Orthodox Dogmatics. The good book on it is Orthodox dogmatic theology by protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky. All except written in the book, could not be treated as a real Orthodox Doctrine, but only as intepretations.

There are no simply rogue theological opinion in Orthodoxy, except that is condamned as a heresy on Councils: ecumenical, or local. There are the opinions that can talk about some things in Orthodox Dogmatics, that inagree with the main course, but not declared as a heresy. They called as individual theologic opinion.

One yet is. St. Nilus of Sinai said (in my retell): "We have the Creed, and for laic people it is enough to trust just in it".


What liturgical languages were used in the worldwide church/broad christiandom around 500 AD? I understand that the western church used Latin, the eastern church used Greek, and the far eastern church was using Syriac.

Was it only those three languages? Or were other languages in use as well in other parts of the church? Eg today the Ethiopian churches have Ge'ez as their liturgical language, and the slavic churches at some point adopted Church Slavonic as their liturgical language.

What did the landscape look like in terms of liturgical languages in use from 400 to 500 AD?

In my studies on Early Church history, I would confirm most of your suspicions describing the broad use of Latin, Greek, and Aramaic/Syriac as the major liturgical languages of Christianity.     But one important issue, is the importance of dialects.  Many world-wide languages start out as a dialect of a major tongue only to grow and develop into eventually being considering being a language in their own right, and the same is true of Holy Languages.

Arabic  Early Arabia had many Christians and Jews living there, many of which came as part of the Diaspora when Rome destroying Israel during "the Jewish Wars".   These people were predominately Aramaic speakers.   Besides that Arabia had been conquered in the Old Testament times by Assyria or Babylon, where the foreign invaders established Aramaic as its native tongue.   In time, however the dialect grew and developed and became what we know as "Arabic".     Depending where you are on the time line of Church History, you might count the Liturgical language of Early Arabs as being Aramaic or Arabic  (500 AD).

Coptic  As an official member of the Church of Alexandria, I can confirm that Coptic also suffers from some of the same category confusion, but does so with koine Greek. In many ways it can be just a dialect of Koine, many things written in Coptic seem identical word for word, and letter for letter. But there are some fine differences, there were two additional letters created for Coptic that go beyond the Koine alphabet (The were borrowed from by an Eastern Orthodox saint, and used for creating the Russian alphabet). But more importantly, certain ancient Egyptian words and phrases were retained. Here is an example from the “Prayer of Hours”, Agpeya.

  Ke nin ke a ee ke ees toos e onas toan e oa noan ameen.

“Now and forever and unto the ages of all ages, Amen.”

But probably the biggest reason why Coptic might be considered its own language is because some Early Church writings were written using the older hieroglyphic alphabet, and the hieroglyphic alphabet is still often taught, alongside the Greek Alphabet if you want to learn Coptic as a Holy Language.

Armenian is an interesting case.   The Armenians were evangelized in New Testament times by Bartholomew and Thaddeus.     But they did not have a written language until 405 AD when saint Mesrob invented their alphabet.   He then began to translate the Bible into their new language (425 AD) and did the same for their liturgy.

I actually attended an Armenian (Oriental Orthodox) church for almost a year and heard a sermon on their history etc.    The priest related that during the transitional time, the Church used Armenian as worship language in church, but when reading from the scriptures, creeds etc. they actually had to use Bibles and other books that were written in Greek or Syriac!      So anyway, Armenian would not really be a full liturgical language until 0425 or so.

Ethiopian tradition

  asserts that Christianity was introduced by the Eunuch who was the Finance Minister of Queen Candace in the beginning of the first century (34 A.D.), the Eunuch being baptized by St. Philip the Apostle. (Acts 8:26-39) He preached the Gospel around the palace in Aksum but the sacrament of Eucharist and Baptism were not performed until the arrival of Frumentius, the first Bishop of Ethiopia.
  The Book of the Contending of St. Tekle Haimanot3 tells us that Frumentius (Sidrakos) and Adesius 4 came from Jerusalem to Ethiopia in the beginning of the fourth century A.D. They were received by the High Priest Anbarom where they grew up learning the life and customs of the country. One day Frumentius expressed how he himself was impressed by the devotional lives of the people towards their God. He then said to Anbarom, ‘My Lord, I admire the life and culture of the people, but you Ethiopians practice neither baptism nor receive communion.” Anbarom replied, “Our Fathers the Levities brought us circumcision and the Finance Minister of Queen Candace (Eunuch) brought us the faith of Christ, yet we do not have an Apostle who can administer the rite of Baptism and the Eucharist, so would you please go to Alexandria.” This he did. Then Patriarch Athanasius consecrated him Bishop and sent him back to Ethiopia. (A.D. 329—356) He was called Abba Selama (Father of Peace). He then administered the sacraments to the people. The High Priest himself, who was after the order of Judaic tradition, was first baptized and ordained Priest. Since then Eucharist and Baptismal sacraments were in practice throughout most of the country.
  There is no clear information on which Liturgy or Anaphora Frumentius had brought with him from Egypt. The Ethiopian Synaxarium states that he translated the Old and New Testaments and other texts from Hebrew, Latin and Arabic into Geez. The Synaxarium continues to say that his work of translation was not completed. It was rather left for the Syrian Monks (Nine Saints) who arrived at Aksum in the 5th century. They are generally audited for the work of translation of the Scriptures and other literature from Greek, Hebrew, Syriac and other languages into Geez, and in propagating the Gospel and setting up the monastic order and schools. There is no clear information concerning the Liturgical work either by Frumentius or by the Nine Monks. Nevertheless the complete work of translation must be attributed to the Nine Monks with respect to the effort made by Bishop Frumentius since the Eucharistic worship was in practice and since the existence of the Liturgy is understood during his time.

The Liturgy of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church

Besides this I thought there existed some possibility of an Indian Christian Holy language (since saint Thomas is said to have evangelized India around AD 52).    But I can't find any hard evidence.    There definitely was a Christian presence from early Aramaic Christians living on the spice and silk trail, and later from Missionary Activity from the Eastern Syriac Church.   But it seems like it wasn't until the middle ages where Malayalam was used as a liturgical language.


When did the Latin Catholic Church begin to generally require fasting only one hour prior to the Eucharist? According to Wikipedia's article on eucharistic discipline, the Latin rite of Catholicism requires only one hour of fasting before the Eucharist (cf. Canon 919 §1), but that prior to 1955, the fasting period was required to be from the previous midnight.

However, I'm not confident in this date.  No reference is given in that Wikipedia article, and just two years prior, Pope Pius XII had written:

  The law of the Eucharistic fast from midnight continues in force for all of those who do not come under the special conditions which We are going to set forth in this Apostolic Letter. (Christus Dominus, January 6, 1953)

The special conditions included reasons like "tiring work" and "long journ[ies]," which made a one-hour fast permissible.  But the general rule was still a fast from midnight.

Did the rule actually change just two years later?  What is the history of the transition to the current practice?  At what point did it become the case that Latin-rite Catholics could, without special exemptions, fast for only one hour prior to the Eucharist?

I attend the older Latin Rite and we still fast from the midnight before. It should be noted that, as a disciplinary measure, to humble the spirit and body, it does not comprise any intrinsic doctrine or 'Tradition'. The Pope could remove the fast altogether if he so chose. It is to remind you that you are to recieve the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. You must fast in order to enter that holy place and celebration where such takes place.
Water and medicine are the only exceptions.
This was modified on by Bl. Pope Paul VI on  November 21, 1964§, and are embodied in the canon (rule) you mentioned (919 [§1] of the New Code of Canon Law).

This practice is really quite ancient, though. It was not began by Pope Pius XII. For example, St. Thomas notes, even in the 12th century:

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 3a Pars, Q80 a.8 Ad5
That this
sacrament ought to enter into the mouth of a Christian before any
other food must not be understood absolutely of all time, otherwise he
who had once eaten or drunk could never afterwards take this
sacrament: but it must be understood of the same day; and although the
beginning of the day varies according to different systems of
reckoning (for some begin their day at noon, some at sunset, others at
midnight, and others at sunrise), the Roman Church begins it at
midnight. Consequently, if any person takes anything by way of food or
drink after midnight, he may not receive this sacrament on that day;
but he can do so if the food was taken before midnight.

Augstine writes in a letter to Januarius, (Letter 54) ~A.D 400:

...for from that time [of the earliest Church] it pleased the Holy
Spirit to appoint, for the honour of so great a sacrament, that the
body of the Lord should take the precedence of all other food entering
the mouth of a Christian; and it is for this reason that the custom
referred to is universally observed.

§ Paul VI, “Concession, on the eucharistic fast,” announced at a public session of Vatican Council II, November 21, 1964: AAS 57 (1965), 186, DOL 272.
You may find this short article useful.

EDIT: The portion of Acta Apostolicae Sedis 57 in question (unfortunately only in Latin) is “Tempus Eucharistici Ieiunii  Servandi Reducitur”—the concession on the Eucharistic fast, and says:

In view of the difficulties felt in many countries concerning the
Eucharistic fast, the Supreme Pontiff, graciously acceding to the
petitions of the Bishops, grants that the fast from solid foods be
reduced to one hour before Communion, for both priests and the
faithful. In this grant is included also the use of alcoholic drinks,
observing, however, due moderation.


What is the Christological difference between the early Church fathers and the Arians? Arius wrote to Eusebius of Nicomedia referring to the eternal Word that, '[B]efore He was begotten ... He was not, for He was not without beginning.'1 Where he qualified his argument on the fact that the Son has an eternal beginning from the Father who alone has no beginning.2 Arius seems trying to say that the Son does not exist apart from being begotten. An idea he claimed to be shared by Church fathers before him.

There is a debate on whether or not precursor to Arianism can be found among the earliest church fathers before the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea. Among the early Christian authors whom the early Church considered authoritative we can find some whose teachings are similar with the Arians that were used by the Arians to assert that their theology is patristic. What then differentiate these Ante Nicene Fathers3 from the Arians in terms of their Christology?

1 Arius' letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, NPNF II:3:41.

2 '[The Son] being begotten apart from time before all things.' NPNF II,4:458.

3 Ante Nicene refer to before the Council of Nicaea in 325. They're early Church fathers who are venerated in the 24 sui juris Catholic churches, 16 canonical Eastern Orthodox churches, 6 canonical Oriental Orthodox churches, and Church of the East. Such as St. Justin Martyr, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian of Carthage, Origen of Alexandria, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and St Lucian of Antioch.

First of all, there was no Arianism prior to Arius because Arianism started with Arius.Arius began to teach a new teaching. He taught that the Logos had a beginning of existence.Although some scholars like Alexander Vasiliev refers to Lucian as the Arius before Arius.This merely shows that Lucian hold onto a proto-Arianism (source).

Arius was condemned while Justin, Theophilus, Dionysius, and pre-Nicene Fathers were considered Orthodox because the former denied consubstantiality (oneness in essence) of the Father and the Son while the latter supported it.

In Dialogue with Trypho Ch. 128 , Justin Martyr said: “this power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father" and  “begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided,”

The Alexandrian Dionysius used the term "same substance," but refused to rely on it theologically because the word was not used in any biblical text (source).

Theophilus of Antioch spoke of the Logos as begotten from the substance (ousia) of the Father (source).

Athenagoras ( A.D. 177) wrote:

  "We acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassable
  [i.e., not subject to suffering], incomprehensible, illimitable … by
  whom the universe has been created through his Logos … We acknowledge
  also a Son of God. Nor let anyone think it ridiculous that God should
  have a Son … the Son of God is the Logos of the Father. If … it occurs
  to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that
  he is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into
  existence, for from the beginning God, who is the eternal mind, had
  theLogos in himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos. (Plea
  for the Christians ch. 10)

Some of the pre-nicene fathers were subordinationists yet they still adhere to Jesus as "God of God." Gregory Thaumaturgus, Irenaeus, Athenagoras and others taught that the Son is eternally begotten from the Father not created from nothing. On the other hand, Arius introduced a completely alien thought to the church by teaching that the Logos had a beginning of existence, created from nothing.


If flesh & blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God how did the Lord Jesus show His "hands and feet" after the resurrection? As blood and flesh can't inherit the Kingdom of God, how could the Lord Jesus be resurrected with same blood and flesh? I mean He showed his hands and feet to the disciples in Luke 24:39. Or is that meaning He was in flesh and blood only 40 days earthly living after his resurrection?

Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” (Luke 24:39, NIV)
I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. (1 Corinthians 15:50, NIV)

What is the meaning of "the perishable inherit the imperishable"? Or will we be resurrected with the same body and flesh?

Man  in  his  present  state  is  mortal,  and  corruptable and  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  God.

1 Corinthians 15;53
For   this  corruptable  must  put  on  incorruption,  and  this  mortal  must  put  on  immortality.

Philippians 3;21
Who  shall  change  our  vile  body,  that  it  may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body,  according  to  the  working  whereby  he  is  able  to  subdue  all  things  unto  himself.


What have Christians taught during past plagues and pandemics? Christians have lived through many major plagues, epidemics, and pandemics over the past two thousand years. Some of the most severe pandemics were the Plague of Justinian and the Black Death, both of which are estimated to have possibly killed up to half of the population of Europe. There were also many smaller localised epidemics of plague, measles, smallpox, and others.

What did Christian pastors and ministers teach during these times, to encourage and reassure their congregations?

This is a special open-ended question that would not normally be allowed here, but during this current pandemic we feel it could be helpful. For more, see this Meta discussion.

Lets please restrict this to past plagues, epidemics, and pandemics. Right now every man and his dog has something to say about COVID-19, and while some of it may pass the test of time and be recognised as inspired Godly wisdom, most won't.

Martin Luther writing to Johann Hass:

  Use medicine;
  take potions which can help you; fumigate house, yard, and
  street; shun persons and places wherever your neighbor does
  not need your presence or has recovered, and act like a man
  who wants to help put out the burning city. What else is the
  epidemic but a fire which instead of consuming wood and
  straw devours life and body? You ought to think this way:

  “Very well, by God’s decree the enemy has sent us poison
  and deadly offal. Therefore I shall ask God mercifully to protect us. Then I shall fumigate, help purify the air, administer medicine, and take it. I shall avoid places and persons where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus perchance infect and pollute others, and so cause their death as a result of my negligence. If God should wish to take me, he will surely find me and I have done what
  he has expected of me and so I am not responsible for either
  my own death or the death of others. If my neighbor needs
  me, however, I shall not avoid place or person but will go
  freely, as stated above. See, this is such a God-fearing faith because it is neither brash nor foolhardy and does not tempt God.

The whole letter is available online and is worth reading.


Do Calvinists believe that Heavenly Rewards are predestined? Assume

doctrine of predestination
Calvinism

Context

10 Talents (Matthew 25):

  For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.
  After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
  His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
  He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
  His lord said unto him, "Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord."
  Then he which had received the one talent came and said, "Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine."
  His lord answered and said unto him, "Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury." "Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents."
  For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

1 Corinthians 3

  According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Question:

Given that salvation is predestined. Are heavenly rewards / crowns that one wins also pre-destined, or is that free will: i.e. God gives you a free ticket into heaven; but the rewards received in heaven is up to you.

Calvinists generally believe that our works and resulting rewards are also predetermined from eternity.

  For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (NIV Ephesians 2:10)

However, the absence of our will is never included in the concept, either in receiving Christ or in doing good works; rather we are predestined to will all those things under God's influence.

To what level our will exists and in what sense we have 'a will', is a little more debatable and Calvinists can vary in this to some degree. In any case, it is usually understood that we are 'not robots' without a will, but that both our will and God's are united according to his eternal plan.  In fact when he saves us he frees our will to do his.

  for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (NIV Philippians 2:13)

There are books devoted on the subject, for example Martin Luther's The Bondage of Will.


Which verse mentions "Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."? It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'

Which verse mentions this?

It is in Deut 8:3, part of an extremely important and the last sermon Moses gave to the 2nd generation of Israelites while they were camping on the Plains of Moab before entering Canaan.  The main theme was reminding them of the importance to follow God's commandments so they would prosper in the promised land.  Otherwise they could end up like the 1st generation after Exodus whom God punished to die in the wilderness (except Caleb and Joshua).  Even God didn't allow Moses to enter Canaan.

The New Testament recorded Jesus quoting Deut 8:3 in response to the temptation of the devil while Jesus was fasting 40 days in the wilderness, similar to how the 1st generation was tested in the wilderness for 40 years.  But unlike the Israelites, Jesus succeeded.  Two passages recorded the quote:

Matt 4:4
Luke 4:4


How many resurrections (raptures) will there be? Revelations 20:4-6 NIV
  4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

It sounds like this is referring to the rapture.  However, it sounds like there will be more than one of these resurrections.

How many will there be?

Looking at the passage you quoted, it seems pretty clear that there are two resurrections.  The first resurrection is the resurrection of the righteous, while "the rest of the dead (the wicked) did not come to life until the thousand years were ended."

It doesn't look to me like it's saying anything about the Rapture; merely that those who were righteous in life will be resurrected quickly and be able to "be priests of God and of Christ and... reign with him for a thousand years," while the wicked remain dead until the second resurrection, at the end of the Millennium.


For what did the quakers win the Nobel Prize? I read that the Friends Service Council (The Quakers) and the American Friends Service Committee (The Quakers) won the Noble Peace prize in 1947. Does anyone know what for exactly. I would think it was for something to do with the second world war, but I'm not sure.

The Friends Service Council (The Quakers) and the American Friends Service Committee (The Quakers) were actually nominated several times for the peace prize prior to winning it in 1947.

  on each occasion the nominations had been influenced by Quaker relief
  work with the victims of war and famine.

In the aftermath of World War II, the Quakers continued their work.

  providing assistance for the needy without discrimination in Germany,
  elsewhere in Europe and in Asia, just as they had in the aftermath of
  World War 1

Source: quaker.org


How far was Peter from Jesus when he denied him? In The Gospel of Luke it says:

  Luke 22: 61- and the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice

Was Jesus next to him? In films I've seen, it portrayed as such that Jesus walks by arrested or is next to him (or within viewing range) that Peter sees him and breaks down in tears. Or was Peter able to see Jesus wherever he was at this point? Luke is the only gospel to mention he "looked upon" him.
The Bible says "looked upon" not "looked on" . Looked upon however was used in 1 John 1:1 which could mean something more heavenly..but a few other verses don't seem to match this meaning. Such as Mark 16:17. In fact looked upon is not used much at all, even by Jesus.

Proximity

  (Luk 22:54) Then took they him, and led him, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off.

This is the question. He followed, from some distance.

  (Luk 22:55) And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them.

The gap is narrowed here. What was the occasion of the fire, the crowd, the spectacle, and Peter with them? Here we are, with Peter, and they, in the midst of the hall. This passage is dedicated to Peter's denial, and his second, and his third; the crow of the cock, which had to come.

  The Lord turned (strapheis ho kurios). Second aorist passive participle of strephō, coming verb. Graphic picture drawn by Luke alone (Robertson).

  G4762
  στρέφω
  strephō
  stref'-o
  Strengthened from the base of G5157; to twist, that is, turn quite around or reverse (literally or figuratively): - convert, turn ((again, back again, self, self about), Strong).

  Looked upon Peter (eneblepsen tōi Petrōi). Ingressive aorist active indicative of enblepō, an old and vivid verb, to glance at (Robertson).

  ἐμβλέπω
  emblepō
  em-blep'-o
  From G1722 and G991; to look on, that is, (relatively) to observe fixedly, or (absolutely) to discern clearly: - behold, gaze up, look upon, (could) see (Strong).

Luke is the only one who gives this account, and in such a way, as it is meant, to convey personal affectation; real in this case. The wording is deliberate, in other words. It would be unnatural, and strenuous, to attempt to interpret this, in any way, other than cause and effect.

I agree, as the comment, I see above, that Jesus knew all things. However, Peter did not. Though Jesus told him beforehand, he would learn his heart like we all do; in the trial of our determination.

He "looked back" on Peter; also how Tertullian reads it, making allusion to this, in terms of a sudden awakening, of that knowledge of sin to be repented of.

  "...the occasion indeed demands that I should note down; but (to do so) may seem to be unnecessary. For when the Lord is known, our spirit, having been” looked back upon” by its own Author, emerges unbidden into the knowledge of the truth (Tertullian On Repentance: Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 3."

How close? Close enough to meet each others eyes. Close enough that Jesus was able to hear the denial? We know that Peter was in the court. Verse sixty-two says that he went (escaped), out (outside, of doors), and wept bitterly. (The morpho. analys. are taking up more room than I would like. I will supply them @ req.).

Mark 11:11? Because, I see no relation in this to Mark 16:17, but 11:11 he looked round upon, different; and 1 John 1:1

  θεάομαι
  theaomai
  theh-ah'-om-ahee
  A prolonged form of a primary verb; to look closely at, that is, (by implication) to perceive (literally or figuratively); by extension to visit: - behold, look (upon), see. Compare G3700 (Strong).

Also different. I feel like Tertullian captured it, in a separate, though not unrelated, context. In an almost mystical, naked, and revealing sense.

Conclusion

It may be conjecture, but, Peter was close enough to hear, to be heard, and to be seen.

  Robertson, Archibald T. Word Pictures in the New Testament Published in 1930-1933; public domain. See Luke 22:61 this commentary.
  Strong, James. S.T.D., LL.D., 1890. W/TVM


Why is it not a sin when God asked Moses to lie to Pharaoh? And how does this expand on our conception of what is sin?

  (Exodus 3:18) ...and you shall say to him, ‘The Lord God of the
  Hebrews has met with us; and now, please, let us go three days’
  journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our
  God.’

God didn't lie

God knew that Pharaoh would say "no" to this request, and since we know the outcome of the story we can think that God intended for Israel to stay put all along and never intended them to journey into the wilderness. But the simple fact of the matter is we cannot assume that. We can assume that God did intend for the Israelites to go into the wilderness to worship him and there's nothing in the text that contradicts that.

Then what about this portion?

  Exodus 3:17,19 ESV "...I promise that I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, ... , a land flowing with milk and honey. ... But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go”

Wouldn't He be deceptive by asking the elders to request leave from Pharaoh for reasons other than the one's he's stated here?

All God is doing is proving his omniscience. He is declaring that He knows what the final result of all this will be. He knows he will lead them out and he knows Pharaoh will resist, but this doesn't change the requests he has for the Israelites or the expectations he has for Pharaoh. One way to look at it is God is giving an opportunity to Pharaoh to say yes and save Egypt a whole lot of trouble (and death). God even gives Pharaoh 9 more opportunities to let them go. God is merciful.

It's best to interpret passages like this with the question "In what reasonable way could I interpret this to be true?"


When did physical Death come to the world? Death is certain. It comes to everybody except to those stated in the bible. But where and when did Death come to the world. Is it a natural phenomenon or something like a curse?

The Bible teaches that death entered into the world because of Adam's sin:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come. (Romans 5:12-14)
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:21-22)

There are debates over what type of death was involved in the fall. I believe that it was holistic death. It clearly involved spiritual death, as Adam was a sinner needing redemption. But earlier in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says that if the resurrection we are hoping for isn't physical then our hope is in vain:

For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (1 Corinthians 15:16-19)

The solution matches the problem, and so if it required the Son of God to be resurrected to give us life, then I believe that physical death is a result of sin too.
Is death natural or a curse? There's a very real sense in which it is natural. So I would say that death's naturalness is a curse. The curse changed the world from a world where death was unnatural to one where it is the most natural thing of all.


How is Samson a witness for the Lord? My choir is singing a spiritual called Witness for my Lord which tells several stories of men who proclaimed God in some manner or other:

Methuselah who lived a long life.
Daniel who survived the lion's den in defiance of the king.
Nicodemus who visited Jesus in the dead of night and learned that he needed to be born again through public baptism.

But one of the verses stands out to me:

  You read in the Bible and you understand
  Samson was the strongest man.
  Samson went out at-a one time
  And he killed about a thousand of the Philistine.
  Delilah fooled Samson, this-a we know
  For the Holy Bible tells us so.
  She shaved off his head just as clean as your hand
  And his strength became the same as any natural man.

(There are other variations of this verse, but all assert that Samson was a witness on the basis of Delilah defeating his strength through trickery.)

How does the Samson story fit with the other examples and in what way is Samson a witness?

I would tell you, but I have not the time:

  Hebrews 11:32-38
  What more shall I say? I have not time to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets,
  who by faith conquered kingdoms, did what was righteous, obtained the promises; they closed the mouths of lions,
  put out raging fires, escaped the devouring sword; out of weakness they were made powerful, became strong in battle, and turned back foreign invaders.
  Women received back their dead through resurrection. Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection.
  Others endured mockery, scourging, even chains and imprisonment.
  They were stoned, sawed in two, put to death at sword’s point; they went about in skins of sheep or goats, needy, afflicted, tormented.
  The world was not worthy of them. They wandered about in deserts and on mountains, in caves and in crevices in the earth.

The song isn't saying that Samson was a witness because he was fooled. It's just a very short story of Samson, followed by a chorus. The biblical reasoning would be more clear if the last line told of how he cried out to God and was made powerful again so that he could avenge himself by bringing down a temple, but the song already told of how he killed many enemies.

It's telling a story and saying that Samson was a witness of some form. It's not being very specific, but then again it's supposed to be more lyrical than theological. It's praising God through the recollection and praise of certain good people.


What is the basis for forbidding prerecorded music in worship services? My church's stated philosophy of music requires that all music used in the worship service be performed live – that is, the use of prerecorded accompaniment tracks or other audio is not permitted.

I was asked about the rationale for this, but I didn't have a good answer.  One idea I had was that public use of recorded music might be a copyright violation, but on further reflection I realize that this is surely not an insurmountable obstacle.  I am therefore left to assume that the rationale is primarily theological.

What are the theological reasons for forbidding the use of prerecorded music in the worship service and requiring live performances?

Clear statements against the use of prerecorded music have been made by the National Association of Pastoral Musicians ("On the Use of Pre-Recorded Music in the Liturgy") and Paul S. Jones (Singing and Making Music).  Both emphasize two arguments:

Authentic worship requires active participation
Recordings are static and inflexible

Authentic worship through participation
The first argument, that recorded music implies inauthentic worship, rests on the idea that both musicians and congregation should be participants in worship.  The NAPM writes:

The liturgy is a complex of signs expressed by living human beings.  Music, being preeminent among those signs, ought to be 'live.' [...] [Recorded music] should, as a general norm, never be used within the liturgy to replace the congregation, the choir, the organist, or the instrumentalist.

Paul Jones sees recordings as a sort of "worship by proxy":

Playing a recording does not truthfully represent the real people in the church who should be offering the music.  It imports commercial players from a static moment in time, from a recording studio that is likely many miles away.  It is like hiring an agency to worship in our stead.

Recordings are static
The second major issue seen with prerecorded music in the worship service is its rigidity.  Jones argues that recordings lack the "flexibility, subtlety, and choice" that makes music "organic" as opposed to a "single performance trapped in time." The NAPM's statement develops the argument further:

Just as the homilist must hear the Word of God and proclaim it with a knowledge and understanding of the community, so too is the musician to lead the assembly's song with a sensitivity both to the text and to the particular assembly that is singing.  Different times and seasons affect the way that a particular piece of music is to be sung.  Tempo and volume or accompaniment may vary according to the size of the assembly.  The different thoughts and moods expressed in a hymn call for different ways of accompanying and leading the congregation from verse to verse.  Pre-recorded music cannot take any of these factors into account.

Develop instead of replace
To those who argue that prerecorded accompaniments are necessary to supplement the live musicians or mask their deficiencies, Jones argues that the worship of God requires that "if we can do better, we should," and therefore calls for an emphasis on development of musicians:

Use your musicians and provide training and encouragement to those who need it.  Do not mask the lack of tone or diction in your choir with backup vocals on an accompaniment CD.  Build up the choir instead.  If you do not know how, consult with someone who does.  Any choir can improve.

Summary
Advocates of live music in worship services argue that authentic worship requires active participation, and that it is hindered by the rigidity of recordings.  Development of musicians, rather than replacement of them, is part of understanding the role of music in the worship service:

Because the liturgy is an encounter between the God of Life and the human beings created in God's image, its modes of expression ought to be authentic expressions of living persons. (NAPM)

National Association of Pastoral Musicians, "On the Use of Pre-Recorded Music in the Liturgy" (July 12, 1991).  Published in Pastoral Music, October–November 1996, 51
Paul S. Jones, Singing and Making Music (2006), 51–55.