What is the biblical basis for modern-day prophets? I've been seeing people lately who have claimed to be recipients of divine revelation from God (if not in that exact language) and that we all need to heed their warnings or -insert consequence here-. They say that essentially, God didn't cover everything that would ever happen in the bible, so he uses people to communicate his will to people today. Is there biblical basis for this being true? If so, how can we verify that it is from God?

The scriptures below show that God speaks through prophets, and that he will always speak through prophets.

  God Speaks Through Prophets

  "... Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established;
  believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper." (2 Chronicles 20:20)

  "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto
  his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7)

  "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but
  fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are
  built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
  himself being the chief corner stone;" (Ephesians 2:19-20;)

  "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." (1 Corinthians 12:28)

  Eternal Nature of God

  "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."
  (Hebrews 13:8)

  "For I am the Lord, I change not; ..." (Malachi 3:6;)

Scripture is the written words of the Prophets, the Bible is the word of God spoken through prophets. God calls prophets to deliver his words to the children of men, but it is important to understand that a man can only be a prophet if he is called of God:

  "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that
  ye should go and bring forth fruit..." (John 15:16)

How to verify a prophet of God

It is wise to be wary of any man that claims to have received revelation from God, especially when he claims to have received it on behalf of someone else.

  ¶Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing,
  but inwardly they are ravening wolves.  (Matt 7:15;)

Just as Christ told his disciples to go and bring forth fruit, he also promised that we can tell a man is a disciple of God by their fruits.

  16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,
  or figs of thistles?

  17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt
  tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

  18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt
  tree bring forth good fruit.

  19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and
  cast into the fire.

  20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matt 7:16-20;)

How shall we know them by their fruits?

  "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the
  Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he
  shall testify of me." (John 15:26)

In Galatians chapter 5, Paul explains that a true disciple of Christ is led by the Spirit, and lists the fruits of the spirit.

  22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
  gentleness, goodness, faith,

  23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. (Gal 5:22;)

To know truth you must pray unto the Lord always, so that he may confirm or deny the words of any supposed prophet. If a man claims to have received a prophecy from God, and you can feel the spirit while you hear his words, then take the matter to prayer. The Spirit will confirm or deny the truthfulness of all things. If a man speaks words that cause fear and doubt, pray to know if he is a false prophet, and again the Spirit will speak the truth. Anyone that preaches fear and doubt is a false prophet.


What does "bowels of mercies" mean? Col 3:12 says "Put on ... bowels of mercies..." (KJV) listing traits Christians should foster.

How do mercies relate to one's intestines (bowels)?  Bowels appear in other Scriptures as well, not talking about digestion and elimination.  Bowels are very important for living beings, but it isn't polite to discuss your bowels/bowel movements in public.  It's an unappetizing subject.

What part of your body is affected in times of great emotion? (whether in sadness and stress or in joy and thanks)?  In our culture we usually speak of our 'hearts' being the seat of emotion. But it was common in greek culture to attribute the seat of emotions to the intestines (σπλάγχνα), since that's where we feel emotions.  Ulcers in times of stress, butterflies in times of joy—they affect our gut far more than our hearts.  One could argue that the ancient understanding was better.
As evidence, here are some citations from common standard greek lexicons on the word:
BDAG:

as often in the ancient world, inner body parts served as referents for psychological aspects (s. καρδία): of the seat of the emotions, in our usage a transference is made to the rendering heart,

“σπλάγχνον,” BDAG, 938.

NIDNTTE:

Because strong emotions produce sensations in the abdomen, the bowels and other organs were regarded as the site of the natural passions (cf. the use of gut in [Vol. 4, p. 352] Eng.). Thus σπλάγχνα came to have the same fig. meaning as heart (see καρδία G2840), referring to the seat of the affections, both negative, such as anger and fear, and positive, such as love and compassion (cf. the use of σπλάγχνα alongside κέαρ [= κῆρ, “heart”] and φρένες [pl. of φρήν G5856, with a sim. meaning] when speaking of fearful premonitions, Aesch. Ag. 995–98).
“σπλάγχνον” NIDNTTE, 4:351-352.

As to the pairing of σπλάγχνον with οἰκτιρμός (compassion), the thought is the full extent and depth of compassion, not a half-hearted effort, but compassion shown from the depth of your heart (or in the original, gut). And that is a truly theological thought, that out of the great compassion that God has shown us in Christ, we extend that same compassion to others.


Did the Israelites/Hebrews have their own slaves or servants? I have been reading in Exodus the Israelites had their own servants or slaves. Exodus also talks about some people almost becoming (?) an Israelite (or Hebrew, not sure if same thing) by performing a circumcision. Exodus 12:44-45, 48-49.

Who were these servants? Or strangers as well as the kJv also mentions? Were they peoples of another region? How did they attain servants if they were slaves themselves at this point..after the Phaorah died in Exodus 1 that didn't know Joseph? Exodus 1:8. Didn't know slaves could have slaves?

I thought the new Phaorah would've stopped any slavery for the slaves if there was anything before that.

Sorry if question is unusual.

The Israelites and Jews had slaves throughout the biblical period, as various passages of the Bible attest. Exodus 12:44 talks of the purchase of slaves and the need for them to be circumcised, which implies that these were non-Hebrew slaves. As the question implies, it seems anachronistic that the fleeing slaves would have had slaves at the start of the Exodus or even at any time during the forty years of wandering, but Exodus 12:44-45 does not necessarily mean that the fleeing Israelites actually had slaves at this stage -- it can be read as a teaching or instruction for when the Israelites would soon have slaves.

More importantly, it is anachronistic that they could even bear to think of enslaving another human as they had so recently been enslaved. God would need to have been incredibly insensitive to bring the subject up at this early stage in the Exodus. However, modern scholarship states that this was not written during the putative Exodus nor for the people of the Exodus: it was written as instructions for the Jews of much later times. According to the Documentary Hypothesis, the Book of Exodus was written by at least three authors at various times during much of the first millennium BCE. If these laws were seen as having the imprimatur of Moses, who received them from God during the Exodus from Egypt, then they must be obeyed by all future generations.


The fall was part of God's plan? @JBH pointed out in the comments within *Could* Adam and Eve have children before the fall? that on the latter day saints website it states that

  The fall is an integral part of Heavenly Father's plan of salvation (see 2 Nephi 2:15–16; 9:6)

I am confused. So the latter day saints are saying that God planned for Adam and Eve to fall from grace and bringing sin into the world?

So the latter day saints are saying that God planned for Adam and Eve to fall from grace and bringing sin into the world?

Yes, basically. The Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi chapter 2, explains this. The whole chapter is fantastic, and quite the sermon of one of the prophets to his sons, so I recommend reading the whole thing because it's hard to pull these verses out of context. Still, this is the best I can do and I think gets at the crux of your question:

  22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have
  fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all
  things which were created must have remained in the same state in
  which they were after they were created; and they must have remained
  forever, and had no end.

  23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have
  remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no
  misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

  24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who
  knoweth all things.

  25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

  26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem
  the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed
  from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil;
  to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the
  punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the
  commandments which God hath given.

I'm going to add Alma 42 as well, and do my best to choose the most relevant excerpt (although the whole chapter is important for this topic):

  11 And now remember, my son, if it were not for the plan of
  redemption, (laying it aside) as soon as they were dead their souls
  were miserable, being cut off from the presence of the Lord.

  12 And now, there was no means to reclaim men from this fallen state,
  which man had brought upon himself because of his own disobedience;

  13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not
  be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this
  probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were
  for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should
  destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be
  destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

  14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the
  grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them
  forever to be cut off from his presence.

  15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an
  atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins
  of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands
  of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God
  also.

  16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a
  punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be,
  affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also
  as the life of the soul.

  17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin
  if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a
  punishment?

  18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which
  brought remorse of conscience unto man.

  19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should
  die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

  20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be
  afraid to sin.

  21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do,
  or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?

  22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a
  repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise,
  justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law
  inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be
  destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

  23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and
  mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to
  pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead
  bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored
  into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to
  the law and justice.

  24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy
  claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent
  are saved.

  25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you,
  Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

  26 And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal purposes, which
  were prepared from the foundation of the world. And thus cometh about
  the salvation and the redemption of men, and also their destruction
  and misery.

Sorry for the wall of text. But you asked a question where the answer is the whole Plan of Salvation, which has a lot of substance to it. These passages are saying that we were consigned to fall out of God's presence, to be tried and tempted, and learn from our own experience, and then to be able to prepare to meet God and become like Him, whereby we'd be redeemed from the fall and from our own sins through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and to be brought back into His presence by the power of the resurrection. Without the Fall, none of that could have happened.

According to this theology, Jesus Christ was not a backup plan, He was always The Plan.


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses have a problem with my relationship with one of their members? Hi I am new here but there is this question that bothers me. It concerns the marriage between JW and another congregation.  I am currently dating a JW member who is also of that background. Everything is been fine until he comes to say we can't get married because I am not from his church and that the church will disfellowship him and that none of his siblings will attend the wedding if he pushes through.

My question is: do Jehovah's Witnesses see other Christians as unbelievers?

I am a Catholic and he is a Witness; why would I be viewed as an unbeliever?

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses he really shouldn't even be dating anyone outside the congregation either since dating is a precursor to marriage.

tacosalad is correct, that is the reason we do not marry outside our faith. The scripture that really elaborates on this is 2 Corinthians 6:14

  "Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness?"

What this means is that our beliefs are not compatible with other religions. A good example from the bible is king Solomon. He married wives that worshiped pagan gods. In time he too started to worship them and was punished for it. By marrying only in the lord we don't have to worry about distractions that may lead us astray.

Our perception and understanding of God and Jesus is different than the Catholic standpoint. We don't believe in the trinity, hell, that most of us will not be going to heaven, so on.

Ask yourself this: What will we teach our children? What are we going to do about holidays? (We don't celebrate the holidays.)

If you were to study with the intent of becoming baptized then it would be OK for you to date. However, you would not be able to get married in a Kingdom Hall until both of you are baptized witnesses.

I am surprised that the elders haven't counselled him about this. Unless that is they don't know.....

You are correct in your last question. 'Do JW see other Christians as unbelievers?', we see other religions as false. 2 Timothy 3:1-5

  "But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2  For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3  having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4  betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5  having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away."

I suggest you both go to your respective spiritual leaders and ask for their advice. The longer you let this play out the more heartache if things go south. I wish you the best in dealing with this situation.


Was Jesus a poor man, in economic sense? I saw a video of Cesar Vidal and he said, that probably, Jesus was a middle-high class in economic sense, during the period of life before public ministry. I need historical references.

While this topic is heavily debated, Scripture records an interesting detail in Luke 2.  When presented at the table, Joseph and Mary bring the appointed sacrifice:

  22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”[b]), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.

In Leviticus 14:21, we understand this was the sacrifice of the poor:

  and two doves or two young pigeons, which he can afford, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.

This, along with the fact that Nazareth was teeny, tiny village outside of Sepphoris together draws a picture of a poor family.

Now, others have taken the gifts of the wise men in Matthew to suggest that Joseph and Mary eventually came into some money.  (Who knows, maybe Joseph pulled a Gary Coleman on Jesus and sold the stuff for himself!)

In any event, by the time of Jesus' ministry, it is pretty apparent that he is poor. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to square a "better off" Jesus with Matthew 8:20:

  Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."

And, considering Jesus' "preference for the poor" in Luke, it all comes together to suggest a less than rich Jesus.

Regardless, these Scriptural clues have made the traditional argument to be that Jesus was poor, although some modern theologians have constructed cases for a richer Jesus.


How did Noah preserve fresh water fish? How did Noah prevent fresh water fish from dying when salt water inundated inland waterways during the claimed floods?  I'm not sure which Christian doctrines take the literalist position but what is their explanation for this aspect of the claim?

I realize that what I'm about to put forward is not conclusively proven, but it is possible.  It's specifically answering from the perspective of young-earth creationists, which isn't the only view out there. (But it is the one you specified you wanted in your question.)

Noah didn't have to save the fish.

Your question makes two assumptions that seem reasonable, but aren't really axiomatic.

That the oceans were salt water at the time of the flood,
That the fish at the time were already adapted to either fresh water or salt water.

It is entirely possible that at that early stage in earth's history (assuming a young-earth time-line) that the oceans were fresh water, or nearly fresh water.  If this were so, there would have been no dichotomy between fresh and saltwater fish.

The oceans gain their salinity because material from land is constantly eroding into the oceans.  Both sea water and fresh water evaporate, but all water eventually ends up in the oceans.  the reason the oceans are more salty than fresh water is that the minerals can't travel back upstream, so when the water evaporates, the salinity increases. (more here if you want it)

Even secular scientists are saying that most salt-water fish evolved from fresh water fish.  Even the young-earth creationists wouldn't argue that.  We see it as a minor variation within the Biblical "kinds"  Turning from a freshwater fish to a saltwater fish is a minor change compared to the transformation from a dinosaur (primarily reptile from what we understand) to a bird, for example.

One popular YEC view is that likely, at the time of the flood, most sea life was able to live in both ocean water and fresh water because the salinity of the ocean was much less than.  During the flood, large amounts of materials would have been deposited rapidly, and as the flood waters receded, the ocean would have been much more salty shortly after the flood than it was before from that fact alone.  Over the remaining years, the oceans have become more salty at a slower rate.

A similar argument can be found here.

And another here, with a story about someone who experimented an was able to get salt and fresh-water fish living together in the same tank.  There's no reference on the story, but it's certainly possible to try it yourself if you'd like to experiment.

This article Fish in the Flood  has this to add:

  As a matter of fact, most of them didn’t survive. Over 95 percent of
  all fossils are marine creatures. They died and are fossilized by the
  trillions. Many are buried in great fossil graveyards, tightly packed
  together, choked with sediments, buried before they had time to decay.
  Obviously, they didn’t live in the environment in which they died.
  They were transported by rapidly moving water and then buried in
  sedimentary deposits.


Exorcism and repentance Exorcism is common in the New Testament, by both Jesus and the disciples.

But the main theme in the Old and New Testaments is to repent and change your ways; then God will heal you and bless you. And when Jesus kicked the demon out He said: Sin no more, so it won't get worse. So you can see that sin is in the picture here, and Jesus did teach the Jews to repent.

But I don't see anyone repenting before the exorcism; there is just a question of faith. Maybe one will see this answer if you study the Law or see the red line from the first book of the Bible until the last. But from just looking at the New Testament, I find it hard to understand.

Do you need to repent to get the demon out, or not?

The short answer is yes. But it is not as simple as that either. From a Catholic view point I am going to let Fr. Gabriele Amorth,the head exorcist for the Diocese of Rome answer your question. Other denominations will see things somewhat differently.

Fr. Gabriele Amorth in his in his book An Exorcist Tells His Story (1999) gives a Catholic viewpoint of how Christians can fall victims to the powers of evil (pages 56-60).

With God's Permission.
When we are subject to an evil spell.
A grave and hardened state of sin.
Association with evil people and places.

"It is almost redundant to say that in all these stages, the way to healing can begin only with a sincere conversion (page 59)." - Fr. Amorth.

"At the root, the true cause is always a lack of faith." (page 58).

In his second book An Exorcist More Stories (2002), chapter 10 (Questions and Answers), page 195, Fr. Gabriele Amorth writes from the viewpoint of the sacrament of confession as being helpful in liberation from evil:

My pastor claims that the best exorcism is confession?

"He is right. It is the most direct means to fight Satan, because it is the sacrament that tears souls from the demon's grasp, strengthens against sin, unites us more closely to God, and helps to conform our souls increasingly to the divine will. I advise frequent confession, possibly weekly, to all victims of evil activities"

Once again this is only a Catholic perspective, as other denomination view this subject differently.


What did Thomas Merton mean by cartesian when it comes to modern christianity? Wikipedia article on Thomas Merton states:

  He believed that for the most part, Christianity had forsaken its
  mystical tradition in favor of Cartesian emphasis on "the reification
  of concepts, idolization of the reflexive consciousness, flight from
  being into verbalism, mathematics, and rationalization.

What did he mean by Cartesian? Why did he use this word?

In a very vague sense in many 19th and 20th century Christian writings when someone talks about "Cartesian" they mean they just mean whatever can be boiled down to the maxim:

I think therefore I am

And like evolution, people get the impression that reading that line gives them all they need to know about Principia philosophiae the same way "Survival of the Fittest" gives them all they need to know about Origin of Species.  And because of this:

It has the fatal quality of leaving on many minds the impression that they do understand it and everything else; just as many of them live under a sort of illusion that they have read the Origin of Species.
G.K. Chesterton - The Everlasting Man

Maybe Thomas Merton was writing about something deeper. He was a popular author writing philosophy for the masses, and this, at least probably lends itself to the idea that describing something or someone as Cartesian means branding them a Materialist Philosophy; one that would be banned in happier times (i.e. the Middle Ages).


Can Catholics eat food offered to idols? Mathew 15:11

  What goes into the mouth does not make anyone unclean; it is what
  comes out of the mouth that makes someone unclean.

Can Catholics eat food offered to idols?

Probably not (I was going to say no, but it's rather nuanced).

St. Paul takes up the issue in 1 Cor:8.  The reason isn't so much that he believed in the idols or that the food in-and-of-itself was bad, but because it gave the appearance (aka scandal) of a follower of Christ participating in a pagan ceremony.  The rule at place is much bigger than just eating, it's mainly about not confusing others who may look up to you as a solid Catholic.

And the Bishops in the footnotes of the Bible make the point :

  Although the problem with which he is dealing is dated, the guidelines for moral decisions that he offers are of lasting validity. Essentially Paul urges them to take a communitarian rather than an individualistic view of their Christian freedom. Many decisions that they consider pertinent only to their private relationship with God have, in fact, social consequences. Nor can moral decisions be determined by merely theoretical considerations; they must be based on concrete circumstances, specifically on the value and needs of other individuals and on mutual responsibility within the community.

(which is interesting that they call it dated, since it's your question entirely!)

And St. Paul makes the point again in Romans where he says that if anyone had a problem with the food you eat, to take it seriously.

And the interpretation from the footnotes says (referencing the passage you cited):

  Since Christ spells termination of the law, which included observance of specific days and festivals as well as dietary instruction, the jettisoning of long-practiced customs was traumatic for many Christians brought up under the Mosaic code. Although Paul acknowledges that in principle no food is a source of moral contamination (Rom 14:14), he recommends that the consciences of Christians who are scrupulous in this regard be respected by other Christians (Rom 14:21). On the other hand, those who have scruples are not to sit in judgment on those who know that the gospel has liberated them from such ordinances

So basically, be sensitive to both the judgement and impressionability of those around you.  Take peoples' opinions seriously and don't do anything that leads another into sin.

On the other hand, James (The Bishop of Jerusalem, not one of the two from the Gospel) said in Acts:

  It is my judgment, therefore, that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God, but tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood. For Moses, for generations now, has had those who proclaim him in every town, as he has been read in the synagogues every sabbath.

And Haydock's commentary says

  In these prohibitions, the Church indulged the particular feelings of the Jews, that the bond of union between them and the Gentiles might be more closely united; the latter in these two instances giving way to the prejudices of the former, who in their turn gave up much, by submitting to the abolition of the ceremonial law of Moses. This prohibition was of course only temporary, and to cease with the reasons, which gave rise to it.

Which is more-or-less in line with what Paul says.  There's no inherent prohibition about eating the food.  Solidarity with other Christians, and the avoidance of scandal is the  main thing.

I don't know a lot about Hindu culture, but in America we have a tradition of shaping our butter for Easter in the shape of a lamb.  If you gave a butter lamb to a Hindu friend to take into their home, wouldn't their kids find that peculiar?


What type of church or Christian would a Rob Bell follower be or attend? I am a Rob Bell follower in the sense that I believe his teaching brings value and are intellectual, and his way of looking at the faith and the Bible make the most sense without just using "that is the way it is" as a scapegoat.

Now I am churchless and having a hard time finding a church.  I think it is because I do follow so closely to the teachings of Rob Bell.  Even the churches that try to be modern and different are just your same old bible thumpers; they just wear jeans and have a coffee shop in the church.

So what types of churches or Christians would Rob Bell followers be today?

According to terminology promolgated by Mark Driscoll and Ed Stetzer, Rob Bell has been identified as part of the Revisionist stream of the Emerging Church movement:

Revisionists are theologically liberal, and openly question whether evangelical doctrine is appropriate for the postmodern world. They look to leaders such as Brian McLaren, Rob Bell and Doug Pagitt. - wikipedia

According to Marcia Ford, in her article The Emerging Church: Ancient Faith for a Postmodern World:

So where can you find examples of the emerging church? Some postmodern-friendly churches have sprung from an intentional and interdenominational effort, such as Brian McLaren’s Cedar Ridge Community Church near Washington, D.C. Pretty much everyone in the emerging church recognizes McLaren as the movement’s elder statesman; his books, with titles like A New Kind of Christian and Adventures in Missing the Point (the latter with Tony Campolo), have helped define the emerging church.
Sometimes, the name of a particular church is a dead giveaway that it’s part of the movement, such as Scum of the Earth in Denver. Little question that it’s not, say, a Southern Baptist congregation. Many, like Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis, which meets in a living room setting in an industrial building, see themselves as an experimental community. Still others aren’t really churches but ministries affiliated with traditional congregations, like The Crucible, a postmodern outreach of the huge Belmont Church in Nashville. Vintage Faith in Santa Cruz, California, Apex in Las Vegas, and Holy Joe’s in London are but a few others.
...
Web sites to visit include www.emergentvillage.com [sic1] and www.theooze.com, both of which provide links to partner ministries.

1 the emergent village website appears to have absolutely nothing to do with the emerging church movement!


Do any Protestant denominations practice meditative or contemplative prayer? Having read David's answer to How much are psalms and other prayers from Bible understood as actual prayer in Protestantism?, I wonder whether any Protestants practice meditative or contemplative forms of prayer, even if not so-called or even considered to be forms of prayer.

  2723 Meditation is a prayerful quest engaging thought,
  imagination, emotion, and desire. Its goal is to make our own in faith
  the subject considered, by confronting it with the reality of our own
  life. 2724 Contemplative prayer is the simple expression of
  the mystery of prayer. It is a gaze of faith fixed on Jesus, an
  attentiveness to the Word of God, a silent love. It achieves real
  union with the prayer of Christ to the extent that it makes us share
  in his mystery. (Expressions of Prayer, In Brief)

Meditation, in Catholic terms, is an focusing of the mind beyond simple verbal, communicative constructs. It's an uplifting of the mind to God on a level beyond that of normal verbal conversation. It's an attempt at focusing thought, emotion, imagination, and desire on scripture, God, God's Truths, and is sometimes aided by a sort of mantra or rote prayer like the rosary, the Name of God, a particular verse, etc..

Contemplation, in Catholic terms, might be accurately thought of as the "falling" part of falling in love with God. It is sometimes the "next step" after a period of meditation. It's considered to be 100% grace -- you can't induce contemplation, you can only be "invited" in by God. The mechanics of focus in meditation are generally lost, and the pray-er submits God's awesome, perfect, unifying dialogue (not generally verbal though).

Do some/any denominations condone meditative and/or contemplative practices? If so, do they tend to refrain from calling these practices prayer -- and if so, why are they not considered prayer?

I am unaware of any protestant denominations that have a special focus on contemplative prayer, but I'm also unaware of any that outright ban it. In my experience it is practiced only by a minority of Protestants, and that they are spread throughout many denominations. Of course it is practiced only by a minority of Catholics too.

A good place to start is the book Celebration of Discipline, by Richard Foster. In many ways its the primary handbook for Protestants not just of contemplative prayer, but other 'neglected' (by Protestant) disciplines such as fasting and confession. It has sold over a million copies and was named by Christianity Today as one of the top ten books of the twentieth century.

The Ignatian Spiritual Exercises are also used by a significant minority of Protestants.


What is the base of the bible as the unique source of revelation? I'm interested in know from where come the fact that, in these times, the bible is the unique source of revelation, even when there are verses in the bible that explicitly says the oppose.
In John 16:12-13:

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

What I understand is that Jesus says that there are things that need to be say and He doesn't say.
In 2 Joh 1:12:

Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

Again, in this letter, John says that there are things that need to be said, but he prefers speak face to face.
I hope somebody may aclare my mind.

Scripture is an aspect of Revelation, but not the whole of it by any means.

The Revelation is Jesus Christ, and Scripture is part of Revelation only because of its relationship to Christ.

Some Protestants might not agree with me on this, but Apostolic Christianity sees unwritten Tradition, prayers, and the Divine Mysteries/Sacraments, especially the Divine Liturgy/ Mass, as Revelation as well as Scripture.

Christi pax,

Lucretius


What are the major differences between evangelical Christianity and Mormonism? I'm looking for concrete theological beliefs and practices on where they differ. Christians say that Mormons aren't Christian and yet Mormons call themselves Christian. So it can be quite hard to tell for a everyday person who is who and what is what.

The "Evangelical" movement spreads across an incredibly wide range of beliefs, so it will be hard to nail this down, but a few things come to mind that ought to have broad acceptance and make at least some form of answer possible. For convenience in the rest of this answer, please treat the word "Evangelical" merely as broadly representing "Most Evangelicals".

Mormons believe men can become Gods, or become like God on this earth. Evangelicals believe God is the singular, unique, and supreme being, and any human transcendence takes place after death or Jesus' return.
Mormons see Jesus as a separate entity from God the Father. Evangelicals view God the Father and Jesus as parts of the same entity. It's hard to understate how important this point is, especially in light of the first point: the Mormon view withholds from Jesus some part of God's place as the unique divinity.
Mormons believe a prophet lead a group of Jews out of Jerusalem to the New World (America) around 600BC, where for a time they flourished. Evangelicals do not.
Mormons believe a prophet to that group created a certain set of gold tablets, which Joseph Smith later translated. Evangelicals believe these tablets are utter bunk.
Mormons believe Jesus incarnate visited the North American Continent. Evangelicals do not.
Mormons believe in the writings and teachings of Joseph Smith, that they are related directly or almost directly from God. Evangelicals believe Joseph Smith to be somewhere in between a deliberate con-artist, charlatan, and mentally unstable, and point to serious concerns over the credibility of Joseph Smith's claim to 8 witnesses.
Mormons believe the Apostle John is still alive. Evangelicals (with some exception) do not.
Yes, Mormons have allowed and supported polygamy. Evangelicals, at this time, do not, but there are places in the world and times in history where this does not hold.
Mormons believe in something called Pre-mortal Life. Evangelicals do not.
Mormons practice Baptism for the Dead. Evangelicals do not.
Mormons practice a ritual known as "Endowments". Evangelicals do not.
Mormons believe all men will come to glory, but non-believers will come to less glory than practicing Christians... but there is no hell. Evangelicals believe in eternal punishment for non-believers and all those who refuse to submit to the will of God.

The root question here, though, is whether or not Mormons are themselves even Christian. To understand this, you need to look at it from both sides. In a broad sense, for our purpose here one is a Christian when one acknowledges the person of Christ as their creator, savior, and Lord. Everything else — all the denominations, splits, and arguments — are just details.

With that in mind, the Non-mormon Christian perspective is that Mormons have been lead astray, and have allowed the teachings of Joseph Smith and his successors to supersede and in many cases replace those of Christ... and so they no longer follow Christ supremely, but (perhaps unwittingly) follow the teachings of Joseph Smith instead. Moreover, since Mormons refuse to grant Jesus full unity with God the Father, but hold him separate from God the Father, it is offensive to mainline Christians to watch Mormons hold up the teachings of Joseph Smith above or before the level of Christ, yet still use the name of Christ to describe themselves.

The Mormon perspective is Joseph Smith's teachings are Christ's teachings; Joseph Smith was merely His mouthpiece. They hold both the Old and New Testaments to be scripture (just not all scripture). To be considered "not Christian" is offensive to Mormons, because they still believe Christ died for their sins, just as "regular" Christians do.


Why Don't Christians Accept the Oral Torah? Why do Christians accept the Jewish belief that the Hebrew Bible is the Word of God,
but not accept the Oral Torah which the Jewish people believe also represents the Word of God?

  "According to traditional Judaism, the Oral Law must have been disseminated at the same time as the Written Torah because certain Torah commandments contained in the Pentateuch would be indecipherable without a separate explanatory codex and, presumably, God would not demand adherence to commandments that could not be understood." - Excerpt from the Wikipedia page

At the time of Christ, the largest proponents of the Oral Law were the Pharisees.  On multiple occasions, the Pharisees caught Jesus breaking some of the Oral Laws and confronted Him about it in order to discredit His ministry.  Jesus responded by calling the Oral Law "traditions of men".  He taught that they were not only unnecessary to follow, since they were not from God, but that some of them were actually counter-productive.  He said that some of their Oral Laws contradicted God's laws which are enshrined in the Torah.  Since Jesus, himself, denounced the Oral Law, it should be unsurprising that Christians would do so as well.

For instance, in the following two passages, the Pharisees confronted Jesus because he was breaking the Oral Laws regarding the washing of your hands before eating (these oral hand-washing laws were written down, a couple of centuries later, in the Mishnah).

Matt 15:1-9 (NASB)

  Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:‘This people honors Me with their lips,But their heart is far away from Me.‘But in vain do they worship Me,Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”

Mk 7:1-13 (NASB)

  The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.) The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:‘This people honors Me with their lips,But their heart is far away from Me.‘But in vain do they worship Me,Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”


Why would God allow man to test Him? Gideon was faithful enough among all the Israelites, to find grace in God's eyes. Presumably, he thought that God had forsaken them so he had to test the Lord's angel to be sure he was sent from Him.

  "And he said unto him, If now I have found grace in thy sight, then
  shew me a sign that thou talkest with me." (Judges 6:17).

Becoming certain of the angel's mission should have been enough to have complete faith and trust in God, availing himself for whatever purpose God had for him. As if he was satisfied,

  "And when Gideon perceived that he was an angel of the LORD, Gideon
  said, Alas, O Lord GOD! for because I have seen an angel of the LORD
  face to face." (Judges 6:22).

The Lord then begins to talk with him directly after the angel had gone.
But then, he tests the Lord again.

  "And Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as
  thou hast said, Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and
  if the dew be on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth
  beside, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as
  thou hast said." (Judges 6:36-37).

God responds to him proving that He will act upon His word. Gideon goes on further again asking for another sign.

  "And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and
  I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once
  with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all
  the ground let there be dew. And God did so that night: for it was dry
  upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground." (Judges
  6:39-40).

In fact, from the last verse I notice that Gideon knew he wasn't supposed to test God. He knew that according to law,

  "Do not put the LORD your God to the test as you did at Massah."
  Deuteronomy 6:16

Why would God allow Himself to go through series of tests? Was the 2nd and 3rd tests necessary?

There are two ways to look at this. The first is that Gideon is testing God. The second is that Gideon is reluctant and doubting, but ultimately willing to accept.

From my understanding, 'testing God' is when a person makes a demand of God just to see if he will fulfill it, not so much to get assurance that God really means for the person to do what it seems like he does. This is treating God like a genie or essentially, controlling God for your own pleasure. Not only does this not benefit God or fulfill his will, it also does not benefit the person, encouraging them to be manipulative and self-willed instead of obedient and courageous.

Since God knows the heart, he can kind of cheat on this - he may let one person seemingly test him a hundred times, but another person he rejects even a single test. But this is because he knows the disposition and the intent which may be hidden from the observer and even potentially the person themselves. Therefore, it may be that Gideon's original motivation was not so good, but God knew he'd come around.

Note, this does not contradict the notion that 'God is not a respecter of persons' - that refers to God treating people differently based on their rank or situation in life. It is clear many times that God treats people differently based on the disposition of their heart. The Psalmist says, 'To the pure I will be pure, to the deceiving I will be deceptive.'


What should a priest who commits a mortal sin just before Holy Mass do, if confession is not available? Imagine following situation. There is a parish in a small village. There is only one priest in that parish (let's call him Fr. Nomen Nescio). It is Easter Sunday (or some important day on which laity expect mass and surely many of the faithful will come to the mass). Mass that will be celebrated on that day is the only one in that village and it will be celebrated in the evening (say 7:30 pm or 8:00 pm). Fr. N.N. prepares for the mass, there is 15 more minutes till mass begins and Church is already almost full. Now, God forbid this awful and monstrous situation; Fr. N.N. commits mortal sin just 5 minutes before mass. He is only priest in that parish (there is no other priest where he could go to confession). Because he is in a small village, the closest priest which could confess him is at least 1 hour of driving away. He  is very sorry for his sin that he just committed, however, he has only imperfect contrition; he is unable to move himself to perfect contrition.

What should Fr. N.N. do in that situation?

If he goes to celebrate mass then he is obliged to partake of Body and Blood of Christ, which would for Fr. N.N. be one of the worst mortal sins.

On the other hand, if he does not go to celebrate mass then there is a great evil, every faithful in that village will not get to go on mass on Easter Sunday and everyone already came to mass. If he does not go to celebrate mass, faithful will expect some good reason from Fr. N.N. why there will be no mass.

What course of action should Fr. N.N. take?

I am not sure (that is why I am asking this question) what should Fr. N.N. do, however it seems to me that there is no situation in which one should commit mortal sin; therefore it seems to me that Fr. N.N. should not celebrate mass.

Has the Church foreseen such awful situations and when these situations occur, is the priest somehow not obliged to partake of Body and Blood of Christ during Mass?

What should a priest who commits a mortal sin just before Holy Mass do, if confession is not available?

The priest in question must make a perfect act of contrition as best he can and must go to confession as soon as possible. He may under some circumstances still say Mass. The Church has very clear guidelines on this subject:

  When receiving or celebrating the sacraments, the priest is subject to the same requirements of sanctity and state of grace as every other Catholic; that is, the state of grace is required for fruitful reception of all sacraments except those that actually forgive sins.

  Therefore a priest who is in a state of mortal sin should seek to confess as soon as possible and refrain from celebrating the sacraments until he has done so.

  Normally, to celebrate Mass or receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin would be to commit a sacrilege. Yet, the sacrament would be valid; that is, there would be a true consecration and a true sacrifice.

  The reason is: Christ is the principal actor of the sacraments, so they are efficacious even when performed by an unworthy minister. As St. Thomas Aquinas says: Christ may act even through a minister who is spiritually dead.

  However, a priest who has fallen into mortal sin, but who is unable to make his confession despite his desire to do so, may celebrate Mass for the benefit of the faithful without adding a further sin of sacrilege.

  Thus, as Canon 916 of the Code of Canon Law states: "A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible (see also Canon 1335)."

  Note that the code requires a grave reason in order to avail of this exception.

  One such grave reason is based on the principle of the good of souls. If a priest is required to celebrate Mass or a soul requests the sacrament of reconciliation, the anointing of the sick, or indeed any other sacrament from this priest that would have to be performed before he can avail of confession, then he may, and usually must, administer the sacrament.

  A second grave reason stems from the danger of infamy by publicly revealing the state of one's soul.

  This can occur in the case of a priest in isolated circumstances when there is no one else to perform the usual celebrations. There is no need for him to do anything that might lead people to suspect his lack of a state of grace.

  Even in the case that the priest, or any other person, has secretly committed a grave crime, which would normally lead to his or her being automatically forbidden to receive the sacraments, Church law (Canon 1352) foresees the possibility of the penalty being suspended to avoid infamy or scandal, to wit:

  "§1. If a penalty prohibits the reception of the sacraments or sacramentals, the prohibition is suspended as long as the offender is in danger of death.

  "§2. The obligation to observe an undeclared 'latae sententiae' penalty which is not notorious in the place where the offender is present, is suspended totally or partially whenever the offender cannot observe it without danger of grave scandal or infamy."

  While the possibilities of a layperson or a religious in a state of mortal sin being placed in a similar dilemma as the priest are far rarer, the same basic principles would apply should they occur.

  Furthermore, while it is nobody else's business why somebody does not approach Communion, pastors should do all that they can to avoid creating public pressures that might induce a person in a state of mortal sin — or otherwise unable to receive Communion — to receive out of an objective fear of infamy or even out of human respect.

  For example, when parish ushers move down the aisles during Communion to assure an orderly procession, it becomes very difficult for someone, especially if well known to the other parishioners and who for some hidden reason cannot receive Communion, not to go forward with the others because staying in the pew is often the equivalent of making a public self-denunciation.

  In such cases, a less organized procession at Communion allows such people to pass unnoticed. - When a Priest Is in Mortal Sin

As a side note: I have known of cases in the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass (as we now call it) where a priest had forgotten to fast in the morning before Mass and did not say Mass that day because the fast was not observed.


What is the difference between icons and idols in churches that permit icons? There are a number of Protestants that say the use of the images and statues in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is idolatry. I know that these churches call certain images "icons", but I don't really know what that means, and I personally have trouble seeing the difference.

Some answers on this closed question are helpful but I think the poor delivery of the question is causing confusion. Same here.

Catholic and Orthodox perspectives are welcome. What would be helpful is the definition of both terms and why the use of icons is not idolatry.

Why do churches like the Catholic Church permit icons when idolatry is forbidden?
The simple answer is that they do not consider all images to be idols (just think of photographs), and believe that members of the Church are able to distinguish between a work of art and God without the need for direct enforcement: after all, Catholics believe that the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us, and still dwells among us in the form of the Blessed Eucharist, literally God present before us, as He was present before Thomas, who doubted.
Some possible definitions:

An idol is something worshipped as divine under the mistaken belief that it contains something divine or is itself God.
An icon is an image that reminds us of good people and events, sometimes viewed during prayer. Some particular images have sentimental value within a culture, and a rich history.

(Some people worship false gods using icons or images. This is idolatry not because they use icons or images, but because give worship to something in place of God.)
Idolatry is an especially internal sin, so the words of Matthew 7:1 are especially pertinent. If someone starts yelling "this is our god", then perhaps we would have good reason to believe that idolatry is being committed. Compared to the typical Catholic who merely looks at something religious to inspire prayer and worship to God.
The objections to using images seem to be:

that creating an image of God would be sacrilegious or spiritually improper. There are stories of native tribes that thought photographs stole a person's soul. Tales about vampires present them as having no reflection in a mirror, and as being invisible in pictures. Such views are not of God. They suggest that Jesus was not fully human, and that physical objects can even in principle be used to "trap" the divine. It is sinful and idolatrous to believe that a physical object has this sort of spiritual effect on God.

that it is confusing to humans to imagine God so closely tied to the world around us. But Jesus became true man, and was described as being very human in almost everything He did. Furthermore, the Bible depicts God as wrestling with Jacob in Genesis 32.

that images in particular are "disrespectful". There is no biblical basis for this point. Humans tell stories and draw pictures. These activities can be directed towards the praise of God, and it seems incoherent to suggest that communicating something through writing featuring God is fine, while images featuring God have something wrong with them (the only basis I can see for such a view is what I describe very negatively in point #1).

that there is something wrong with giving any attention to the "physical" world during worship. But this is absurd, because God made the world, and said that it was good. We believe in the resurrection of the body, and the body is "physical" in this way: it is a temple of God. We don't worship our own bodies because of that, but we do believe that physical things are in fact good and can be directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God.

that if the images remind us too much of other people, we will then turn attention away from God. But the whole of Hebrews 11 is a remembrance of good people. We must put God first, but we must also keep a second place open for people (both living and dead). The Bible on the subject of giving attention to other people:

Matthew 22:37-40
37
He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

This is a Catholic perspective from a very devout Catholic.


What does it mean to pray in Jesus' Name? A few times in the book of John, Jesus instructs us to pray "in His Name".  What does this mean?  How do we know if we are praying in His name?  How would we not be praying in His name?

I don't believe this is using "In Jesus' Name, Amen" as the closing line of our prayers.

  Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may
  be glorified in the Son.  If you ask me anything in my name, I
  will do it.  John 14:13-14 ESV

  You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you
  should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that
  whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.  John
  15:16 ESV

  In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you,
  whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.
  Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will
  receive, that your joy may be full.  "I have said these things to you
  in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak
  to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the
  Father. In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to
  you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; for the Father himself
  loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came
  from God.  John 16:23-27 ESV

Interestingly, there are other things that refer to "in Jesus' name':

  Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me  Matthew 18:5
  ESV

  For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.
  Matthew 18:20 ESV

  Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and they will lead many
  astray.  Mark 13:6 ESV

This can be answered by answering a more general question: what does "in someone's (anyone's) name" mean?  It means to act by proxy, on the authority of something or someone greater than yourself. It's a concept that our culture has kind of lost, though it still exists as a storytelling trope.  When a medieval herald reads a proclamation "in the name of the king," or a cop yells at a fleeing thief to "stop in the name of the law!" this is what they mean.  It's a convenient shorthand for "I'm not just saying this of myself; I'm speaking with the authority of a higher power."

So how does this apply to acting (and praying) in the name of Christ?  It means to act in his place.  To pray in the name of Jesus is to pray what Jesus would pray if he were in your position.  When we understand this in the context of Christ as the Perfect Man and our Exemplar, it means to pray for the right things, to seek the will of God and not our own desires.  And whatever we ask the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, that will be given to us.


What does giving up free will and giving it to Jesus mean? Is there a majority opinion as to what giving up free will and giving it to Jesus means? What does this action look like? Are there any real life examples?

I hope that I can help here.

A couple months ago I got engaged. I prayed a lot about the decision and felt like it was a good move in my life. One that would be hard but would be worth it. Well, 2 weeks ago my fiancee broke up with me. That was one of the hardest days of my life. And it would of been so easy to say, "I prayed; it felt like a good choice, I was doing everything right, why did God allow this to happen?"

I could have blamed God and Jesus for all the pain I felt. Instead because of experiences I have had in the past I turned to Jesus and God and relied upon their love and grace. I have in the last two weeks learned more about my relationship with my Savior then I think I have in the rest of my life. I still hurt, true, but I have comfort in the knowledge that my Savior and my Heavenly Father love me and have a plan for me that will lead to even more happiness then I had with my fiancee.

So to me turning your will over to the Savior means trusting Him in those hardest parts of your life. Knowing that it will strengthen you and that Christ has other plans for you.

Scripture reference was asked for so here goes:

  (KJV) Matt 16:24-25 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

Applying this to my story above. I could have ignored Christ and tried anything and everything to get my fiancee back. That may or may not of worked but I would not of drawn as close to my Savior as I have in the last couple weeks.
So I see it as literal; I think my burden or cross sucks, but I accept that Christ has a plan for me and I trust in Him and because I do I have found a measure of comfort and peace that I could not have found anywhere else, given the situation.


What is an overview of Jesus' ministry during Holy Week? Starting with his arrival in Jerusalem, what is an overview of events in the final week before his resurrection as they occurred on specific days of Holy Week?

Note: I'm looking for an answer that cites sources in Catholic and Orthodox traditions and compares them if necessary, and most importantly presents the events in the context of the Jewish Passover festival calendar.

This comes from the Douay-Rheims Holy Bible p. 967, "An Historical and Chronological Table of the New Testament":(with minor updating of scriptural reference style and proper name spellings)

A.D. 33
His transfiguration, Matt. 17.

Sunday of Holy Week (Palm Sunday):(Jesus makes the Jews' annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem.)

The Sunday, or first day of the week, in riding upon an ass into Jerusalem, Matt. 21.
In the beginning of the that week he went daily into the Temple, and in the evenings retired to Bethany, to pray in the garden of Gethsemane, Luke 21:38 etc.

Fig Monday:
"Holy Monday is also called Fig Monday because Our Lord cursed the fig tree this day (Matthew 21: 18-22). In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the gospel tells the story of Mary anointing Jesus' feet (John 12: 1-9), which also occurred on this day" (courtesy: Ken Graham)
Spy Wednesday:

On Wednesday Judas made a bargain with the chief priests, to deliver him up to them for a sum of money, Matt. 26:15.

Maundy Thursday:(Thursday evening was for the Jews the "First day of the Azymes," the beginning of Friday; azymes = feast of unleavened bread)

On Thursday he sent his disciples in the afternoon to bring the paschal lamb, offered in the temple, which after sunset he ate with his twelve Apostles, Matt. 26.
He washed their feet, John 13.
After supper he instituted the Blessed Sacrament and Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, Matt. 26.
He gave his Apostle those excellent instructions set down by St. John, 14-17.
Christ's prayer in the garden three times repeated.
He is there seized, being betrayed by Judas.
He is led away to Annas, and then to Caiphas.
He is condemned as guilty of blasphemy to death, for owning imself the Son of God. He is spit upon, buffeted, etc.

Good Friday:(a Sabbath Day for the Jews, when they sacrificed their Pascal Lamb according to Exodus 12:1-11 and, at the same moment, crucified Jesus; the Jews called the evening Parasceve)

On Friday morning they deliver him up to the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, who sees and declares him innocent, yet fearing not to be thought a friend to Cœsar, condemns him to the death of the Cross.
He dies on the Cross, and is buried. For the history of his Passion, see Matt. 26, 27, 28; Mark 14, 15, 16; Luke 22, 23, 24; John 18, 19, 20.
The miracles at his death, ibid.

Easter Sunday:

He riseth from the dead the third day, ibid.
His different apparitions that very day; and others afterwards, ibid.

Before his Ascension forty days later:

He gives his Apostles power to forgive sins, John 20:23.
He gives to St. Peter the charge over his whole Church, John 21.
He promiseth to be with his Church to the end of the world, Matt. 23.


What did St. John Chrysostom mean by saying there is no difference between what is demanded from the monastics and the laity? "You greatly delude yourself and err, if you think that one thing is
  demanded from the layman and another from the monk; since the
  difference between them is in that whether one is married or not,
  while in everything else they have the same responsibilities...
  Because all must rise to the same height; and what has turned the
  world upside down is that we think only the monk must live rigorously,
  while the rest are allowed to live a life of indolence"
  + St. John Chrysostom

What is St. John Chrysostom trying to say here about the lifestyle of the laity?  It's apparent that not everyone is called to the life of St. Anthony the Great to live in a cave in the desert (even among monastics).  So what is the commonality, here?  How does one find their path in adopting the correct lifestyle for themselves that leads to salvation?

Most people, even Orthodox I know, would say that wearing sackcloth under your clothes and keeping a rigorous fast is extreme and meant for the monastics, but then I often read in the lives of the Saints of laity that were commended (though not mentioned by name) for doing just that.

So, what is it that is expected in lifestyle that St. John Chrysostom is saying is the same for laity and monastics?  I ask because my intuition tells me, this must be the thing that helps you discern, with the help of a spiritual father, the measure of asceticism that is appropriate for each person, individually.

My understanding of this statement (and it has simply developed organically through practice in the Church - I cannot quote a definitive answer from anyone) ... is that laymen, just as monastics, are responsible for entering spiritual battles with the passions, developing virtues, resisting temptations, praying regularly, doing good to others, and all the rest that goes into forming us into the likeness of Christ (by the grace of God).

I don't think it is intended to say that a layman should keep the exact same prayer rule or fasting rule, attend as many services, etc. as a monk any more than it is saying that a monk should have children and sacrifice himself for the spiritual development and good of his family. It is not in the particular details that we are exactly the same, but in the overall goal and, where applicable, to the general responsibilities, though perhaps not the exact method or quantity of practice.

There can be an idea that "only monks struggle with the flesh/demons" and the rest of us are somehow "off the hook" for these efforts, and I believe that is what we must realize is really the same for both of us. Whatever life a person finds themselves in, they are to seek God and be formed in His image through that life.

I hope that makes sense. :) Lord forgive me if I've made any error there.


Were ALL 1st century Christians called “saints” by saints Paul, Jude, John etc, as they addressed all believers reading their NT writings as ‘saints’ My Q is concerned purely with how the NT seems to address all 1st century Christians as “saints” even while they were living. Of course, it also addresses martyred saints e.g. in Revelation 6:9-11: “the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held,” speaking from under Heaven’s altar. They must wait till the full number of their fellow-servants and brethren should be killed as had they. Revelation 20:4 also specifically mentions those who had been “beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God”, and that they had not received the mark of the beast”, therefore I am very happy to speak of martyred saints. My Q is about the NT use of the word translated “saints” when applied to living believers in the 1st century, and, by implication, to all believers thereafter.
The Greek word in question is ‘hagios’ and I consulted the Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament (Bagster, London, 9th ed. 1903). I ascertained that there are some 58 times in the NT where believers are addressed as “saints”, the vast majority still being alive at time of writing. But modern translations seem to use other words, such as “holy ones”, or “God’s people” or “the believers”, as well as “the saints”. There seems to be no consistency in modern translations, whereas the A.V. and other older translations seem to stick consistently to “the saints”. For example, Young’s Literal Translation, 1898 (YLT) reads, “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, to all the saints who are in Ephesus, to the faithful in Christ Jesus… I also, having heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and the love to all the saints, do not cease giving thanks for you…  the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints… ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints…” (Ephesians 1:1, 15, 18 & 2:19).
I ask about why other translations use words other than ‘saints’.  Does the Greek ‘hagios’ lend itself to a variety of meanings when it applies to living people (as opposed to objects or things, such as Jerusalem or covenants)?  I know that Catholics speak of “the Saints” (such as the Apostles) and wonder if their translations confine ‘hagios’ to them alone, in the Bible?  I seek the views of Catholics as I have a fair idea of the Protestant view, but I am NOT looking for anything about Canon Law – I seek a purely scriptural explanation about the scriptures themselves.

According to Catholicism, were all 1st century Christians called “saints” by saints Paul, Jude, John etc, as they addressed all believers reading their New Testament writings as “saints”?
The short answer is yes, however he applied other terms to 1st century Christians as well.
Saint Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles employed several terms by which the Followers of the Way were addressed, either by himself or employed by other including the term of saints.
In Acts 11:26, we see that the followers of Christ were called Christians.

The first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11 after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year, the text says: "[...] the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26). The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26, where Herod Agrippa II replied to Paul the Apostle, "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." (Acts 26:28). The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4, which exhorts believers: "Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." (1 Peter 4:16)

Then there are the disciples.

[A] disciple primarily refers to a dedicated follower of Jesus. This term is found in the New Testament only in the Gospels and Acts. In the ancient world, a disciple is a follower or adherent of a teacher. A disciple in the ancient biblical world actively imitated both the life and teaching of the master. It was a deliberate apprenticeship which made the fully formed disciple a living copy of the master.
The term "disciple" represents the Koine Greek word mathētḗs (μαθητής),3 which generally means "one who engages in learning through instruction from another, pupil, apprentice" 4 or in religious contexts such as the Bible, "one who is rather constantly associated with someone who has a pedagogical reputation or a particular set of views, disciple, adherent."

St. Paul frequently addresses the faithful as Brothers or Brethren.
The term brother occurs in verses like Acts 18:27. The King James Version renders the plural form used here as "brethren", while modern English versions have "brothers" (ESV) or "brothers and sisters" (NIV). The term comes from the theological concept of adoption, which says that believers are made part of God's family, and become his children.

1Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. - 2 Thessalonians 2

We can se the the Scriptures of the New Testament as well as St. Paul employed different titles to the believers in Jesus Christ. He equally employed the term Saint(s) to those who followed The Way.
The Epistle to the Ephesians is written to the "saints at Ephesus" (Ephesians 1:1). In the New Testament the word is used to refer to Christians generally, but Robert S. Rayburn notes that "the name survived as a general title for Christians only through the second century." Rayburn suggests that the "juxtaposition of sainthood and martyrdom" in Revelation 17:6 may have resulted in the word becoming an "honorific title for confessors, martyrs and ascetics."

All believers, living and dead are a part of the Communion of Saints. The Catechism says, "We believe in the communion of all the faithful of Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are being purified, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church; and we believe that in this communion, the merciful love of God and his saints is always [attentive] to our prayers" (CCC 962).

The saints are exemplars of how to follow Christ; they teach us how to live faithful and holy lives. The saints are our advocates and intercessors, and they are also friends and mentors.
The Saints in Scripture
In scripture, Paul addresses many of his letters to the various local communities under the title of “saints:” Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Ephesians, etc. The term “saints” was also applied to those whom Christians served. In 1 Corinthians we read that Paul made a collection in Corinth for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem.
Paul also talks about the Communion of Saints in that each of us participates by baptism in the one Body of Christ. In his letter to the Romans, Paul tells us

“For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ and individually parts of one another. Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us” (Romans 12:4-6).

Paul is very clear that members of this common body had obligations to build up the community – these members were called “saints.” This is connected with the Jewish idea of being a holy nation, a covenanted people. The “saints” are those who have inherited the covenant. - Saints
There are many biblical saints named in the New Testament that are recognized as
Saints in the sense that both Catholics  and Orthodox recognize them as being in heaven. St. Paul is obviously is using this title in a honorific sense in reference to all believers as those set apart from the rest of mankind. Does this mean that all believers were saved? Perhaps, but it could be called into question, especially when we read about what happened to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:5-10

5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Although Ananias and Sapphira were possibly numbered amongst the saints of Jerusalem, they have never been venerated as saints by the Catholic Church in the sense of being  honoured as saints in heaven.
Saints in the mind of St. Paul are those set apart and are worthy of being called saints. Even Strong’s term in Greek (ἅγιος) or hagios reaffirms this interpretation.

ἅγιος, , (from τό ἀγός religious awe, reverence; ἄζω, ἅζομαι, to venerate, revere, especially the gods, parents (Curtius, § 118)), rare in secular authors; very frequent in the sacred writings; in the Sept. for קָדושׁ;

properly reverend, worthy of veneration: τό ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ, Luke 1:49; God, on account of his incomparable majesty, Revelation 4:8 (Isaiah 6:3, etc.), equivalent to ἔνδοξος. Hence, used:

a. of things which on account of some connection with God possess a certain distinction and claim to reverence, as places sacred to God which are not to be profaned, Acts 7:33; τόπος ἅγιος the temple, Matthew 24:15 (on which passage see βδέλυγμα, c.); Acts 6:13; Acts 21:28; the holy land or Palestine, 2 Macc. 1:29 2Macc. 2:18; τό ἅγιον and τά ἅγια (Winer's Grammar, 177 (167)) the temple, Hebrews 9:1, 24 (cf. Bleek on Heb. vol. ii. 2, p. 477f); specifically that part of the temple or tabernacle which is called 'the holy place' (מִקְדָּשׁ, Ezekiel 37:28; Ezekiel 45:18), Hebrews 9:2 (here Rec.st reads ἅγια); ἅγια ἁγίων (Winer's Grammar, 246 (231), cf. Exodus 29:37; Exodus 30:10, etc.) the most hallowed portion of the temple, 'the holy of holies,' (Exodus 26:33 (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 3, 6, 4)), Hebrews 9:3, in reference to which the simple τά ἅγια is also used: Hebrews 9:8, 25; Hebrews 10:19; Hebrews 13:11; figuratively of heaven, Hebrews 8:2; Hebrews 9:8, 12; Hebrews 10:19; ἅγια πόλις Jerusalem, on account of the temple there, Matthew 4:5; Matthew 27:53; Revelation 11:2; Revelation 21:2; Revelation 22:19 (Isaiah 48:2; Nehemiah 11:1, 18 (Complutensian LXX), etc.); τό ὄρος τό ἅγιον, because Christ's transfiguration occurred there, 2 Peter 1:18; ἡ (Θεοῦ) ἅγια διαθήκη i. e. which is the more sacred because made by God himself, Luke 1:72; τό ἅγιον, that worshipful offspring of divine power, Luke 1:35; the blessing of the gospel, Matthew 7:6; ἁγιωτάτῃ πίστις, faith (quae creditur i. e. the object of faith) which came from God and is therefore to be heeded most sacredly, Jude 1:20; in the same sense ἅγια ἐντολή, 2 Peter 2:21; κλῆσις ἅγια, because it is the invitation of God and claims us as his, 2 Timothy 1:9; ἅγιαι γραφαί (τά βιβλία τά ἅγια, 1 Macc. 12:9), which came from God and contain his Words, Romans 1:2.
b. of persons whose services God employs; as for example, apostles, Ephesians 3:5; angels, 1 Thessalonians 3:13; Matthew 25:31 (Rec.); Revelation 14:10; Jude 1:14; prophets, Acts 3:21; Luke 1:70 (Wis. 11:1); (οἱ) ἅγιοι (τοῦ) Θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι, 2 Peter 1:21 (R G L Tr text); worthies of the O. T. accepted by God for their piety, Matthew 27:52; 1 Peter 3:5.

set apart for God, to be, as it were, exclusively his; followed by a genitive or a dative: τῷ κυρίῳ, Luke 2:23; τοῦ Θεοῦ (equivalent to ἐκλεκτός τοῦ Θεοῦ) of Christ, Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34, and according to the true reading in John 6:69, cf. John 10:36; he is called also ὁ ἅγιος παῖς τοῦ Θεοῦ, Acts 4:30, and simply ὁ ἅγιος, 1 John 2:20. Just as the Israelites claimed for themselves the title οἱ ἅγιοι, because God selected them from the other nations to lead a life acceptable to him and rejoice in his favor and protection (Daniel 7:18, 22; 2 Esdr. 8:28), so this appellation is very often in the N. T. transferred to Christians, as those whom God has selected ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου (John 17:14, 16), that under the influence of the Holy Spirit they may be rendered, through holiness, partakers of salvation in the kingdom of God: 1 Peter 2:9 (Exodus 19:6), cf. Exodus 19:5; Acts 9:13, 32, 41; Acts 26:10; Romans 1:7; Romans 8:27; Romans 12:13; Romans 16:15; 1 Corinthians 6:1, 2; Philippians 4:21; Colossians 1:12; Hebrews 6:10; Jude 1:3; Revelation 5:8, etc.; (cf. B. D. American edition under the word).


Was Jesus Circumcised for the Romans to nail the plaque 'King of the Jews' above his head on the Cross? Historically, checking for circumcision was the surest way to determine who is a Jew or a Gentile. So does the plaque nailed to the cross by the Romans confirm that Jesus was circumcised?

We know that Jesus was circumcised because we are told that he was in the book of Luke:

Luke 2:21  KJV

  And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

As Jesus said to the Sadducees:

Matthew 22:29  KJV

  Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

The Covenant requiring circumcision was with Abraham, and the Jews are the descendants of Israel, but they are only one of the  Nations descended from Abraham, others include the descendants of Ishmael, of Esau, and that includes most of the Arabian peninsula nations.


What does it really mean to leave parents after the marriage? Many references in Bible points out that Man must leave his parents after marriage. Does it really mean that the parents and wife cannot live together in a common house ?

Mat 19:5  And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mat 19:6  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Eph 5:31  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Gen 2:24  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Gen 24:67  And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.
...
Gen 25:5  And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.

No its specifically referring to sex but some including my maternal grandparents would disagree. Before the advent of modern technology many people did not move far from their place of birth in their lifetime. For instance Isaac did not leave "home" when he married Rebekah. I'm certain there are other examples but caring for relatives especially widows is something which is required of believers. Communal dwellings are common for the very poor and very rich.


According to Roman Catholic doctrine, does the incorruptible body possess blood? In my translation of a work by John of Damascus entitled Περὶ τοῦ ἀχράντου σώματος, οὗ μεταλαμβάνομεν, it is my understanding that John wrote,

  Even as his body prior to the resurrection of the dead was corruptible, broken, eaten, and drunk, nevertheless, [it was] not corrupted. Then why has he not done this after the resurrection, but before the resurrection? Because the body that is incorruptible by the resurrection is neither broken, nor eaten, nor drunk. Neither does the incorruptible body possess blood, nor would it be rightly called "flesh" (σὰρξ), just as Gregory the Theologian stated in the Oration for Baptism: "Believe Christ, the Son of God, shall come again with his glorious presence to judge the living and the death. No longer flesh, yet not bodiless, of a more God-like body (for which things [God] Himself knows the reasons), so that he may also be seen by those who pierced him and remain God without passibility."

Greek text:

  Ὥσπερ ἦν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ πρὸ τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως φθαρτὸν, κλώμενον, ἐσθιόμενον καὶ πινόμενον, ἀδιάφθορον μέντοι· ἐπεὶ τίνος ἕνεκεν οὐ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦτο πεποίηκεν, ἀλλὰ πρὸ τῆς ἀναστάσεως; Ὅτι τὸ διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἄφθαρτον σῶμα οὐ κλᾶται, οὔτε ἐσθίεται, οὔτε πίνεται· οὔτε αἷμα τὸ ἄφθαρτον κέκτηται σῶμα, ἀλλ' οὔτε σὰρξ ἂν δικαίως ὀνομάζοιτο, καθώς φησιν ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος Γρηγόριος ἐν τῷ εἰς βάπτισμα λόγῳ· «Πίστευε Χριστὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥξειν πάλιν μετὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου αὐτοῦ παρουσίας κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· οὐκέτι μὲν σάρκα, οὐκ ἀσώματον δὲ, οἷς οἶδεν αὐτὸς λόγους, θεοειδεστέρου σώματος, ἵνα καὶ ὀφθῇ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκκεντησάντων, καὶ μείνῃ Θεὸς ἔξω παχύτητος.»

John explicitly states that the incorruptible body does not possess blood (οὔτε αἷμα τὸ ἄφθαρτον κέκτηται σῶμα). If this is true, how can Roman Catholics drink Jesus' blood during the Eucharist if indeed Jesus, presently with an incorruptible body, does not possess blood?

The issue is the use of the words substance and substantial, and applying a modern meaning to them.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following the doctrine expounded at the Council of Trent, says

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

But just because the "substance" of the bread is changed into the "substance" of the Body, and the "substance" of the wine is changed into the "substance" of the Blood, it doesn't mean that the species of the bread has changed.
St Cyril of Jerusalem (313–386) wrote in his Catecheses, quoted by Pope Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei:

Instructed as you are in these matters, and filled with an unshakeable faith that what seems to be bread is not bread — though it tastes like it — but rather the Body of Christ; and that what seems to be wine is not wine — even though it too tastes like it — but rather the Blood of Christ … draw strength from receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.
Catecheses, 22.9 [myst. 4] PG 33.1103

All the documents of the Church are written in Latin and then translated into other languages. In recent years, there has been a tendency to use Latinate words in English which are cognate with the original Latin text, even though their meaning has shifted since they were originally adopted in English. This particularly afflicts substance which came to English from Norman French, where it had already acquired a different nuance of meaning from Classical Latin. OED has, in its etymology:

physical existence, matter, (in theology) essence (all late 12th cent.)
classical Latin substantia ... underlying or essential nature ...

By the late twelfth century, substance had a meaning very close to its modern English meaning. But the Latin substantia, which is translated as substance, means something different. Thus it's wrong to impute a physicality of flesh to the bread, or of blood to the wine. But even though the bread remains in its species of bread, it nevertheless becomes, in its underlying or essential nature, the Body of Christ (perhaps it might even be said to have two natures in much the same way as Jesus himself had two natures in hypostatic union). The Church teaches transubstantiation; it does not teach transpeciation, where bread is changed into meat.
It is in this way that

The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207
CCC 1377

The Eucharistic presence of Christ is not derived from his glorious body (which may or may not have blood): it's derived from his earthly body, which definitely was flesh and blood.

CCC 1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different."190

It is Christ's offering of his earthly self on the Cross which is united with the offering on the altar.
Now, this may not actually answer the question "Does the incorruptible body possess blood?" but that's because it answers the secondary question "How can Roman Catholics drink Jesus' blood in the Eucharist?" The Eucharist does not depend on the nature of the incorruptible body.

190 Council of Trent (1562) Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, c. 2: DS 1743; cf. Heb 9:14,27.
206 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1642; cf. Mt 26:26 ff.; Mk 14:22 ff.; Lk 22:19 ff.; 1 Cor 11:24 ff.
207 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641.