Did St. Francis pray the Rosary? My wife is dressing my son Francis up as... St. Francis for an All Saints party.  I think the timeline is thus that St. Francis could have prayed the Rosary, but it was more of a Dominican thing to do.  Would he have prayed the Rosary or would he have avoided it as being something the distinguished his order from St. Dominic's?

It is doubtful that St. Francis would have prayed what we know now as the contemporary rosary consisting of five decades of Hail Marys.  The two saints were contemporaries as St. Dominick lived  AD 1170- AD 1221 and St. Francis lived AD 1181- AD 1226. St. Dominick was a Spanish Priest and founder of the Dominican orders. St. Francis of Assisi was the son of a very wealthy Italian merchant who heard a call to "Rebuild My Church" and lived his life in poverty.  He enjoyed preaching in the countryside, avoiding the parish churches and preached the Gospel in common Latin rather than ecclesiastical or church Latin. (REF: "Roaming Catholics: ending the wandering to embrace the wonder" by Kenneth Behr, Xpyria Press 2015 page 155)

Based on historical research, the development of the practice of using beads in prayer has a very significant connection to the practice of the early monks in their Liturgy of the Hours that included reading through the 150 Psalms. This practice was abbreviated into the Breviary (from the Latin 'brevis' meaning short or concise) and associated with knots in a cord and ultimately prayer beads.  The 150 knots or beads were reduced to multiple decades of tens.  For the common people that could neither speak nor read Latin, a poor man's Breviary was introduced to keep track of their chants, and the difficult-to-memorize Psalms were changed to that of the Paternoster (Our Father).

The modern day rosary was most likely introduced in the 14th century by groups of Christians who had a deep devotion to the Virgin and modified the poor man's Breviary into five decades of Hail Marys rather than the Our Fathers.  (REF: "Roaming Catholics, page 82)

The association of St. Dominick, the rosary and the Virgin Mary, while retold often has really no historically verifiable basis.  The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent comes to a similar conclusion (REF: H. Thurston and A. Shipman, the Rosary, in The Catholic
Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Co., 1912), New Advent http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13184b.htm.)


Would an actual Christian (in the 1920s or today) actually make a "prayer sign" like this in this context? In the Charlie Chaplin film "The Kid" (1921), there is a scene where his character, who is apparently supposed to be Christian, is being threatened with violence by a thug. As he walks backwards, dodging the swings from the thug, they appear under a sign that says "BEDS 10 CENTS".
When the thug swings at Charlie's character underneath the sign, it starts swinging back and forth from its hinges. Charlie's character notices this and makes the Christian "prayer hands" sign while looking up at the sign.
Here is the YouTube video clip showing it: The Kid, Charlie Chaplin fight scene one of the funniest scenes in kid.
Can this be explained somehow, other than simply being a fun visual gag? I mean, is it based on something? Would a Christian make such a prayer sign at a sign because it swings? Because the thug missed him? As if God saved him from the punch hitting him?
Is that "prayer sign" with the hands against each other something that Christians do/did to basically say: "Thanks for saving me from that danger, God!"?

In silent movies, actors had to do things in an exaggerated way in order to communicate the idea to the audience:

People made that praying-hands gesture to indicate "thank God".
Women put the back of their arms to their foreheads to show that they were about to faint.
Gangsters pumped their guns forward each time they fired.
Heads were tipped back to indicate swallowing a pill.

But even in modern film and TV, the actors still do this, though far less melodramatically:

Remote controls are pumped at the TV to indicate they are being used.
Mobile phones are disabled by being snapping in two and thrown out a window.
Computer accounts have all-upper-case passwords.
Concealed listening devices have a red light, and bombs have a flashing red light.
Guns and rifles are repeatedly used to make threatening "chicka" sounds.
Bullets make sparks whenever they ricochet off something.
Seatbelts are blatantly fastened, but only when the chase scene is about to get even more ridiculous.

These all are movie memes that we see and take for granted without realizing that it doesn't match real life.


Will there be "new people" or reproduction in heaven or "the next life?" I'm looking for a Biblical answer to this question: will there be any new people in heaven? An equivalent question: are the people created in this life (on Earth) the only people who will ever exist?

I'm aware that Jesus said:

  When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

But that is all that I can find, except a clue in Revelation 21:5: “I am making everything new!”

First off, eschatology (the study of last things) is rarely subject to a definitive answer, because there is simply a wide range of opinion on how to interpret these things.  The best that I can do is repeat theories I have seen before.  The answer below presumes a pre-milennial dispensationalist reading, meaning that the timeline is what Tim LaHaye popularized in the Left Behind series / the dispensationalist view promulgated by Charles Ryrie / Darby / Chafee / etc.  I'm going to restrict myself to the biblical references, however, so bear in mind this isn't the answer, but rather an answer.

Revelation 20

In Revelation 20, the devil is cast into a pit for 1000 years.  At the end of that time, he and cohorts are released to see whom they can deceive - and the speculation is that those who were born during this milennium will compose a portion of that deceived cohort.  The idea that there would be new people who could be believed presupposes then, that new people are someone born in the milennium. This isn't heaven, but being a different "dispensation," it is nonetheless suggestive that reproduction continues.

The theory would then be extended to suggest that if in this age there are new people, then there would be nothing to suggest that heaven would be different.

Genesis 1:22 / Genesis 9:7

In the beginning of creation, the first injuction was that man should continue God's creative work by "be[ing] fruitful and multiply[ing]". After the Flood - the end of the first "dispensation" and the beginning of the second, this injunction is repeated.  Clearly in the remaining periods ("dispensations") the injunction continues, so the proof of "procreation stops in heaven" would be on the one making the claim.

Isaiah 65:20

Speaking of the end times,

  Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

and continuing into verse 24

  They will not labor in vain,
     nor will they bear children doomed to misfortune;
  for they will be a people blessed by the LORD

This seems to suggest that these blessed people who's children live a very, very long time will be having children.  One could question if this is heaven, but again, some people will apply it that way.

Here the implication is that (a) there are infants and even (b) death.

1 Corinthians 13:11-12

What we can say with a little more assurance (and here I'm leaving dispensationalism behind) is that in heaven, "We shall know fully, even as I am fully known."  In other words, the closeness reserved for earthly marriage (which as you pointed out doesn't exist in heaven) is the level of intimacy we all will have in heaven*.  As a present progressive, there seems to be an implication that we will be continually knowing and growing, which to me would imply new people to be known by. And, in the absence of sin, we would be able to know people much more fully than now

*(One could ask, does that mean you can have sex with anyone you want in heaven, and since there is no shame in it, you could at least make a case. I'm not suggesting anything, just pointing out how speculative eschatology gets!).

So, is this a definitive "Yes?" No. It is a speculative theology hopefully just extending existing theology.  In the end, my only guess is that all of heaven is "exceedingly, abundantly, more than we could ever ask or imagine." (Eph 3:20.)  That's theology I can support!


Why did the conclave elect Pope Stephen I, when he died prior to taking office? According to Wikipedia, Pope Stephen I was elected to the papacy in March of 752 A.D., but died a few days later, prior to being installed.  As I understand it, Catholic teaching indicates that God's will is accomplished through the voting of the papal conclave.

This, however, brings up a question with regard to Pope Stephen I.  Why was he elected as pope if was going to die prior to taking office?  What purpose did God have in working through the conclave to elect him?  What is the Catholic understanding of this?  Did he, after being elected, somehow become unworthy?

I don't see the problem, and the Church sees no problem worth explaining, because:

Unlike some groups, Catholics don't think that death is a sign from God that a person is unworthy.
Being elected pope makes a man infallible under certain conditions. It doesn't make him sinless or immortal.
It was God's plan to have a man unanimously elected, and then to have him die of a stroke. I don't understand what the problem could be. For all I know of God's plan, which is nothing, Stephen died so that you could ask and learn the answer to this question. We try not to speculate on God's will, because we can't, and we don't need to. We just trust God.

Man elected unanimously, dies like everyone else. What's the problem? The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord! There is no problem.


What does "witness" refer to in Matthew 24:14? And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matt 24:14, KJV)

What does "witness" refer to in this verse? Is it a native believer, or any believer, or something else?

According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, the sense of witness in this passage is "that persons may get knowledge of something the knowledge of which will be good for their benefit" (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3142&t=KJV)

So Jesus is saying that the gospel will pass on knowledge of sin and redemption to its hearers; it will provide the supporting knowledge, perhaps resulting in a conviction of the heart, that allows a sinner to come to God for salvation.


What's the source of "I can only give what I have"? Right now, I'm reading When Heaven Invades Earth by Bill Johnson. I just came across this sentence: "If I am filled with anxiety in any given situation, it becomes hard for me to release peace--because I can only give what I have." (Emphasis mine.)

The phrase by itself is a good and noteworthy one, but the reason I'm posting this question is that I've heard this phrase used before, spoken by Mike Cavanaugh. Both Bill Johnson and Mike Cavanaugh have done many great things by following the Lord, both are senior pastors, and both have used this phrase. This suggests to me that there's an earlier source that both have read and drawn from. Hence, I ask: does this earlier source exist, and if so, what is it?

I kept reading and I came across "As glorious as the gift of tongues is, it is an entrance point to a lifestyle of power.", which is another thing Mike Cavanaugh said. The answer to this question may very well be a negative in that Mike may have drawn from this book, not an earlier source. If this is the case, an answer should show this.

I don't know the original source, but if it is based on Scripture (which certainly seems plausible), here are some passages which may relate:

  When [the beggar] saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he began asking to receive alms. ...But Peter said, “I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene—walk!” - Acts 3:3-6

Peter and John had a command from Jesus to give to anyone who asked of them - but they couldn't give the beggar alms because they didn't have any money.  (NOTE: Not having it and thinking you can't afford it are two different things.)

  And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, ...various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? ...All do not speak with tongues, do they? - 1 Corinthians 12:28-30

We are only capable of moving in the "Spiritual Gifts" which we have been given.

  You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. - Matthew 12:34-35

We are only capable of verbalizing that which we already have in our heart.

  For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so - Romans 8:6-7

The mind set on the Spirit has peace.  The fruit of walking by the Spirit is peace.  The result is making peace through peaceful means.  Alternatively, if you set your mind on the flesh, you will experience death instead of peace, and the result will be the opposite of peace.  In other words, if you have peace you can impart peace, but if you don't have peace, you can't impart peace.


Will mankind on earth reattain the original state of Adam and Eve? Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and
  justice".250 This grace of original holiness was "to share in. .
  .divine life" CCC375

Now, I've heard a priest say that through Christ's death on the cross all of humanity will go back to the original state. I imagine this as if mankind's goal was to return back to Adam's original state of holiness. And when looking at history, we can see that societies are becoming softer and more authentic despite all the evil happening around us. Thanks to new technologies, humans are more open and transparent, which changes our mentality.

My question is: Will this happen on Earth, or is it meant for after the Second Coming and Resurrection? What Catholic teaching is the priest referring to?

No, all of mankind will not return to the original state of Adam and Eve.

The Origenists' heresy of apokatastasis or doctrinal universalism claimed "that hell is essentially a kind of purgatory in which sins are expiated, so that eventually everyone will be saved."

The following proposition was condemned as heretical in 543 A.D. (Denzinger 411):

  the punishment of devils and wicked men is temporary and will eventually cease, that is to say, that devils or the ungodly will be completely restored to their original state

Evolutionists like the heretic Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., think mankind naturally evolves toward greater perfection, but this is a denial of original sin. Adam and Eve started out in a state of perfection and devolved after they sinned, the opposite of what evolutionists claim. God's supernatural grace is necessary for restoring the original order, but not everyone corresponds with His grace.


On what basis do some denominations prohibit Christians from drinking alcohol? From my understanding the bible is quite clear that Christians should not get drunk. However some denominations seem to go a step further and say that Christians shouldn't drink at all. From what I can work out the Old Testament Law doesn't prohibit drinking, and I can't find a record in the NT banning it.

How do any of these denominations support their belief that Christians shouldn't drink at all?

My denomination is one that is very strongly in the "Christians shouldn't drink - at all" camp.  Very strongly.  And my Pastor, whom I love and respect, is very strongly in that camp as well.  Yet even he, in his sermons, will tell you that nowhere in the Bible is drinking explicitly called a sin.

However, in many places, drunkenness and even alcohol consumption is called foolish.  And to him, and every other Baptist Pastor I've heard preach on the subject (and that's quite a few), the problem isn't so much that drinking alcohol is a sin, it's that drinking alcohol lowers our inhibitions, and sinful behavior often follows.  It's really easy to give into temptation if you're under the influence of alcohol.

That said, there are other theories about the prohibition against drinking.

From http://www.brucesabin.com/alcohol.html

  In the history of Christianity, alcoholic prohibition is a relatively
  new idea. In fact, alcohol was a normal part of life. In Colonial
  America, the Puritans expected Christians to drink (Hearn, 1943). In
  the 1700s, a Baptist minister created the formula for bourbon whiskey
  (Hailey, 1992). During the 1800s, many Southern ministers operated
  stills, and sold alcohol (Hearn, 1943). Parishioners who owned stills
  would tithe their alcohol; and preachers' salaries often included
  whiskey. All this began to change, however, as the Temperance movement
  took shape (Hailey, 1992).

So even in Baptist Churches, it hasn't always been that big a deal.

However, the article does go on to echo some of the reasons for abstaining altogether.

One that I've heard from the pulpit, and that I personally can't argue with is echoed here:

  For some Christians, a sense of love and justice leads them to abstain
  from alcohol. Seeing alcohol's devastating effects on society, these
  Christians feel compelled to act. Taking a strong stand against
  alcohol and its consequences is a tangible way that they can
  demonstrate their faith. These Christians believe that abstaining from
  alcohol is the best, possibly the only, solution to this societal
  problem. In addition, abstaining from alcohol guarantees that one will
  never fall prey to alcoholism (Hancock, 1999).

Quite frankly, even though most people never have a problem with alcohol, it can ruin lives.  And in the spirit of 1 Corinthians 8:9 (King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.))

  But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a
  stumblingblock to them that are weak

It's just considered a good idea to set a good example. As my Pastor often says: "People are always watching you.  The lost are always looking for an excuse to say, 'He's not a real Christian - I see him down at the bar all the time  Who is he to try to act all holier-than-thou?'".  In the interest of maintaining a good witness, and staying credible, it's simply more constructive to abstain.

As an added list of reasons some Christians believe that it's wrong, I'll include this link: http://www.scionofzion.com/drinking.htm

I am not saying I agree or disagree with any point on the list.  I'm also not debating what my Church preaches is Truth. I'm just presenting it, like the rest of this answer to address why some believe drinking is wrong, not addressing whether drinking is wrong. My own views aside, this isn't the place to determine such things.


Why is it so much easier to sin than follow Jesus? How is it possible, that it is harder to follow Jesus, than to sin? I really want to follow Jesus, and I'm trying to. But every day again I fail again, because short term desires which withdraw me from God and Jesus.
How is it possible, that the devil can still catch my attention and make me sin? I pray each day again, and ask for Jesus to lead my way, the Holy Spirit to live in me, and the devil to leave my life.

Pious Christians tend to overlook a very simple truth about sin.   In the short term, it is fun.

And why is it fun?  Because as Jesus said (John 3:19):

  Men love darkness, rather than the light.

And why do men love darkness rather than light?  Solomon noted (Proverbs 14:12):

  There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death

Simply put:

It is fun to be the one in charge.
It is fun to get your own way.
It is fun to experience sensations that are new - even if they are not what God intended.

But in the end, it's not worth it.

Ultimately, all sin comes down to one question - Will you trust God or yourself?  And tell me - who wouldn't naturally - absent God's direct intervention - choose one's self?

The very first temptation that the Serpent told Eve was that the apple was good.

  When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

In this, and this may be shocking - the Serpent did not lie.  He merely omitted the long term consequences.  In the short term, all sin seems to have a positive reinforcement.

Ecclesiastes 8 says it well:

  11When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, people’s hearts are filled with schemes to do wrong. 12Although a wicked person who commits a hundred crimes may live a long time, I know that it will go better with those who fear God, who are reverent before him. 13Yet because the wicked do not fear God, it will not go well with them, and their days will not lengthen like a shadow.

Finally, it should be understood that sin is not a defect of will - it is a defect of love.  John 14 15 says:

  If you love me, keep my comamndments.


Is "Christ" a title of Jesus, or a name? I was at Bible Study the other night where we watched the new Bible Series that was aired on TV. Someone had asked a question (sorry I forget what), and my Pastor responded by saying something along the lines of "Christ is a title not a name", and then went on to give his reason as to why this is. Now I believe it, but I was sitting just the other day, thinking about what he had said, and wondered about when people say "Christ the Lord". This didn't seem to fit his explanation of Christ being used as a title rather than a name, and I could not find anything anywhere else. So if someone could please explain this to me that would be great.

"Christ" is from the Greek "christos," which means anointed - it's the same as the Hebrew Messiah. "Christ" as such is solely a title, though it has come to be both a title and a name; you can see it rather clearly in some of Paul's writings. Jesus is not just a christ but is the Christ. It identifies Him, and is therefore a name.


According to Reformed theology, does God show special favor to some believers? I am looking for answer from a reformed theology perspective. I know that there are verses in the Bible that God does not show favor. But at the same time there has been many instances where the son was blessed because of the father. In some cases the children are cursed for sins of the father's when the children had not committed any wrong. Their family is put to death.

People quote that all our curses where nailed on the Cross so if we believe in Christ we will be free from these. But the reality in some cases doesn't confirm this. I see that some believers are chosen to suffer all the time for no fault while others in faith are shown favor most of the time. This is more discouraging when it's in the ministry and you don't have any results to show.

It is not encouraging as a child of God, as this is like a human parents favorite child. A child has to learn to trust the Father but is not given a chance. The most common answer I get is you are not praying enough or probably in heaven you will be rewarded. Reality here is some how different from Theology and the question of a righteous God.

Friend:   Lets start in scripture:

First, Anything good that we have from God is by His grace, not because we can earn it.  Matthew 5:45 says “He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”

God gives good gifts to all people, regardless of their righteous deeds.  Think about the “goods” you possess: life, sight, friendships, your relationship with God, water, food, etc.  Which of these things could you have possessed if God had not supplied them?  All good things are from God (James 1:17).  Nothing God gives us is earned.

Paul was inflicted with a Thorn in his side,    Some of the Disciples suffered and were killed ...

Romans 8:18 says “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.”  But sadly, people pass up eternal blessings because of their focus on the temporal.

The blessings some believers have vs others is not what God wants us to focus on.

In fact - All Things Come to the Good of those who Love the LORD and are called according to HIS purpose.

If His purpose is for you to suffer like Paul did with a thorn in his side - so be it.

If His purpose is for you to have more wealth than anyone can imagine - so be it.

The Key is - what is His Purpose?

Rev. 4:11 says, "You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being."

You might find comfort in knowing you are not the first to wonder about this...

Centuries ago the prophet Habakkuk complained to God, “Why do you tolerate wrongdoing? … Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves?” (Habakkuk 1:3, 13).

Perhaps we really need to examine what a blessing is:

Is it riches?
Is it tons of people in the pews if you're a pastor?
? ? ?

Jesus said, “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled” (Matthew 5:6).

Perhaps the Greatest Blessing my friend is simply Knowing Christ and resting in the Eternal Promise that his Grace is Sufficient to be the propitiation for our sins.

There is Nothing in scripture - when Read in full context that states that we as Christians are going to live a full Life abundant and free from persecution, from hardship and trials. . .  Nothing.

Sadly - there are those who teach this "prosperity gospel" stating God wants you to be Rich and its a sign of Gods blessing on your life.

I call fiddlesticks:

Galations 3:14 is often used by folks to show God wants you to be rich and reference the "blessings of Abraham" . . .  of course they only use the first 1/2 of the verse.   If we examine the second half we read  “that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” Paul is clearly reminding the Galatians of the spiritual blessing of salvation, not the material blessing of wealth.

Using Paul again - we can jump over to 2 Corinthians 8:9, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that you through his poverty might become rich.”

Sounds awesome right -    FOR YOUR SAKE he became poor so you might become rich...

How awesome -   until you read the text in its entirety.  Paul was teachign that since Christ did so much by being the propitiation for our sins - the Sacrificial lamb that each should empty themselves of their riches in Service to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords -    just 5 verses later we see where Paul was urging the Corinthians to give their wealth away to their needy brothers, writing “that now at this time your abundance may supply their lack” (2 Cor. 8:14).

God's blessings have nothing to do with money, fame etc. . .

The blessing of Eternal Life in Service to the Father is the true reward.


Has the Church of England responded on the latest comment of its "Head"? In a brief speech recorded on first April and televised on the fifth, the "Head" of the Church of England (that is to say its professed "Head" Queen Elizabeth II) mentioned 'prayer and meditation' but did not specify to whom prayer should be addressed in the present global crisis.

Since prayer has become critical, with the Prime Minister of the UK now in intensive care, has any comment arisen from the Church of England which might guide would-be praying citizens as to the direction of their petitions ?

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's 'coronavirus' speech

Edit (upon comment): The title of 'Head' (which I deliberately put in quotation marks) is that commonly used, for example see the recent headline in the Daily Telegraph 'the Queen's role as the Head of the Church of England'. The repeal of the Act of Supremacy, 1534, and its subsequent revamping in 1558 (with the substitution of 'Governor' for 'Head') is treated by many as a mere technicality which they (such as the Daily Telegraph) choose to ignore.

Michael Nazir-Ali, former Anglican Bishop of Rochester, published a Comment on page 16 in today's Daily Telegraph regarding the Queen's speech.  He made a plea for Churches to reopen for Easter in order to give people hope and to allow Holy Week processions.

With regard to prayer, he said this:

  Numerous studies have shown the importance of the spiritual in the healing process.  Prayer is known to increase confidence in the possibility of being healed, and others praying for us gives us a sense of a social net when we are feeling alone and threatened.  At this time of stress, the presence of chaplains in hospitals, visiting wards, is most important."

No mention from the Anglican Church that I can find as to the specific direction of prayers and petitions.


If Noah's Flood was a historical global flood then how is the evidence that Egypt was founded before the Flood explained? The common consensus is that Noah's flood occurred around the 2200-2300 BCE. If this is so, then how could Egypt have been founded by Narmer in 3100 BCE? Is Mizraim the founder of Egypt? Or is Mizraim simply a descendant of Noah who inhabited alongside the earlier peoples?

This question is directed at people who believe that Noah's Flood was a historical global event, including Young Earth Creationists.

Like Young Earth Creationists do with most things, they believe that the conventional dating systems are wrong.

In the case of Egypt this involves saying that what are normally thought to be sequential dynasties are actually concurrent dynasties. The most extreme accounts propose that the First and Second Intermediate Periods are actually one period, a time of chaos caused by the Exodus. Some identify the Hyksos with the Amelekites who the Israelites fought just after the Exodus (chapter 17). Note that while almost all YECs would say the chronologies need revising, there are many proposed alternatives, and specific theories like the following image are controversial.

Here's a long article from Creation.com: Egyptian chronology and the Bible—framing the issues


How does LDS handle doctrine changes? Starting from this question, I'm curious how the LDS church handles the doctrine changes.

I saw a similar question (What is the LDS position on changing doctrine), but what I'm wondering is how this works in practice:

Let's assume a new idea comes. Who validates that the new idea is right or wrong? Is there a vote?
Where are these changes published?
What are some examples of doctrine changes? I expect to see them reflected in the archives of the conferences (or other official archives).

Let's assume a new idea comes. Who validates that the new idea is right or wrong? Is there a vote?

Doctrine comes today as it did anciently-through divine revelations to prophets.1

Revelation may come by:

His own person
His own voice
The voice of the Holy Ghost
Messenger (Moses, Elias, and Elijah)

Revelation [for the church] may come to:

The President of the Church individually
Prophets acting in Council

  Where are these changes published?

Modern doctrine can be found:

  ...in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations2,3, and the Articles of Faith.4 cite-not AoF

Mormonnewsroom will publish any official statements the LDS church makes. These statements are also commonly read in ward (local congregations) meetings. These are not doctrine changes but: official church stances, policies, practices, and/or warnings about certain matters that arise in modern times.

  What are some examples of doctrine changes? I expect to see them reflected in the archives of the conferences (or other official archives).

Word of Wisdom(1833) -the Lord revealed which foods are good for us to eat and which substances are not good for the human body.
Official Declaration 1(1890) -led to the end of the practice of plural marriage in the Church.
Official Declaration 2(1978) -removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

Joseph Smith said:

  The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.

(Some doctrine is more important than others...there has not been many major doctrine changes within the LDS church since it has been restored.)4

1 https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/09/how-is-doctrine-established?lang=eng

2 http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Proclamations_of_the_First_Presidency_and_the_Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles the 4th one is available to watch https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1980/04/media/session_4_talk_2/2819783447001?lang=eng the first 3 are before the invention of TV

3 https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true

4 https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine


What is the biblical basis for and against the "filioque"? In order to contextualize the question I add the following quote from the wikipedia article concerning Filioque clause:

  Filioque, Latin for "and (from) the Son", is a phrase found in the
  form of Nicene Creed in use in the Latin Church. It is not present in
  the Greek text of the Nicene Creed as originally formulated at the
  First Council of Constantinople, which says only that the Holy Spirit
  proceeds "from the Father"

I've been reading about this issue and cannot find a clear biblical basis either for or against the Filioque clause. However, I think there are some verses that can be applied either for or against.

For example, John 20:22 can be applied for by saying that the Spirit is proceeding from Christ. On the other hand, it can be applied against by saying that the Spirit is actually proceeding from the Father but through the Son.

For that reason I am asking if somebody knows more biblical arguments for and against the Filioque.

So Jesus sent the Holy Spirit:

  John 15:26 NIV 26“When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from
  the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will
  testify about me.

And here you see that Jesus needs to go away before the Holy Spirit can come:

  John 16:7 NIV 7But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am
  going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but
  if I go, I will send him to you.

Jesus received the Holy Spirit from God the Father and then gave it to us:

  Acts 2:32-33 NIV 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all
  witnesses of it. 33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received
  from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you
  now see and hear.

And here the Holy Spirit came to us through Christ:

  Titus 3:5-7 NIV 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had
  done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of
  rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us
  generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been
  justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of
  eternal life.

So, some of the early fathers, such as Augustine, took these and other threads, and started to weave a tapestry, to make it into a coherent belief.

So the Holy Spirit came from the Father and the Son.


What is the official Catholic view of a feminine element within the Trinity? A recent question on Christianity Stack (about monotheism and the Trinity) suggested that since Christians present the Trinity as a “family” it must contain a feminine element.  This came as news to me, so I started to look into it.

Gender of God

I would appreciate an overview on any official Catholic position on this subject.  This question is directed at both Western and Eastern Catholic Churches.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church #239 states that God is called "Father", while his love for man may also be depicted as motherhood, but he ultimately transcends the human concept of sex, and that "God is neither man nor woman: he is God".

Does the Catholic Church subscribe to the view that the Trinity is a family and does it contain a feminine element? I would appreciate quotes from the Bible to support official teachings along with other Church sources.

What is the Catholic view of the Trinity and does it contain a feminine element?

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Catholic religion, the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Catholics are baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". Before receiving the sacrament, they respond to a three-part question when asked to confess the Father, the Son and the Spirit: "I do." "The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity."

What is the Trinity?

  A term used since A.D. 200 to denote the central doctrine of the Christian religion. God, who is one and unique in his infinite substance or nature, is three really distinct persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The one and only God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Yet God the Father is not God the Son, by generates the Son eternally, as the Son is eternally begotten. The Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, but a distinct person having the divine nature from the Father and the Son by eternal procession. The three divine persons are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial and deserve co-equal glory and adoration. - The Holy Trinity

In essence there is no feminine principle in the Trinity. Nevertheless some have expressed a feminine element so to speak in regards to the person of God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that God is called "Father", while his love for man may also be depicted as motherhood, but he ultimately transcends the human concept of sex, and that "God is neither man nor woman: he is God".

  The Father revealed by the Son

  238 Many religions invoke God as "Father". The deity is often considered the "father of gods and of men". In Israel, God is called "Father" inasmuch as he is Creator of the world.59 Even more, God is Father because of the covenant and the gift of the law to Israel, "his first-born son".60 God is also called the Father of the king of Israel. Most especially he is "the Father of the poor", of the orphaned and the widowed, who are under his loving protection.61

  239 By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood, which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father.

  240 Jesus revealed that God is Father in an unheard-of sense: he is Father not only in being Creator; he is eternally Father in relation to his only Son, who is eternally Son only in relation to his Father: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

Of the thirty or so parables in the canonical Gospels, the Prodigal Son was one of the four that were shown in medieval art almost to the exclusion of the others, but not mixed in with the narrative scenes of the Life of Christ (the others were the Wise and Foolish Virgins, Dives and Lazarus, and the Good Samaritan. The Labourers in the Vineyard also appears in Early Medieval works).

God the Father will never forget his children here on earth, just as a mother would never forget the child of her womb.

  Can a woman forget her infant, so as not to have pity on the son of her womb? and if she should forget, yet will not I forget thee. - Isaiah 49:15

  This painting is perhaps the most famous, dramatic and beautiful presentation of the forgiving and accepting grace of God the Father. As was Rembrandt’s custom, he presents the figures in this piece primarily in darkness, with the primary light being on the face of the father, his embracing hands upon the back of his returned son, as well as upon the face of the jealous and judgmental older brother.  Notice how Rembrandt has the son positioned between the arms of the father. These arms are both receiving and protectively outlining the son. In this tender embrace, we can wonder if Rembrandt had John 1:18 in mind where we are told that God the Son dwelt in the bosom of God the Father.

  Roger Scruton comments in session 9 of The Family Project, “These are hands that are not in the business of judging or scolding.”  Henri Nouwen, in his wonderful devotional on this painting, asks a question about these hands which are distinctly different from one another. One, the left, is large, strong and masculine. The right is smaller, more slender. Perhaps feminine? Could they represent both fathering and mothering nature of God? Nouwen tells of one of his friends pointing out to him how these two hands correspond with the difference in the son’s feet. He explains,

  “…the caressing feminine hand of the father parallels the bare, wounded foot of the son, while the strong masculine hand parallels the foot dressed in a sandal. Is it too much to think that the one hand protects the vulnerable side of the son, while the other hand reinforces the son’s strength and desire to go and get on with his life.” (p. 99)

  It is very possible, as this is God’s heart and nature toward each of us. - Rembrandt’s “Return of the Prodigal Son”

Further food for though may be obtain with the following(s):

What the ‘Early Church Parents’ said about God’s gender


According to Catholicism what is meant by living in a state of obstinate sin? About a week a go I heard about something called obstinate sin. What is obstinate sin? Is it the same as not listening to God?

According to Catholicism what is meant by living in a state of obstinate sin?

Obstinacy in sin is one of six sins against the Holy Spirit and can only be absolved by a priest when the obstinacy in sin stops and the sinner is truly ready to amend his way of obstinacy.

What Are The Sins Against The Holy Spirit?

  1) Despair,
   "By despair, we cease to hope for our personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of our sins.  Despair is contrary to God's goodness, to his justice - for the Lord is faithful to his promises and to his mercy." (CCC  # 2091)

  (2) Presumption of God's mercy,
   "There are two kinds of presumption. Either we presume upon our own capacities, (hoping to be able to save ourselves without help from God), or we presumes upon God's almighty power or His mercy (hoping to obtain his forgiveness without conversion and glory without merit)." (C.C.C. # 2092)

  (3) Watering down the known truth
   To water down the known truth means to weaken it by making all religious truths subjective (claiming that there is no objective truth), to attack it by word or argument, to resist it, to contradict it, or even to oppose the known truth or to challenge it as false.

  (4) Envy the spiritual good of another
   Regarding the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians states, "All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually as the Spirit chooses."  To envy the spiritual good of another is to question the Divine judgment of the Holy Spirit in His distribution of spiritual gifts.  It is to be jealous of another person who has a gift different than one's own gift.  Through envy, one rejects the gift that they have received from the Holy Spirit, determining in their own minds that the gift they have received is not good enough for them and they want someone else's gift.

  (5) Obstinacy in sin
   To be "obstinate" means to resist the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, to be stubborn, to persist in sin, to be unyielding.

  (6) Final impenitence
   "Impenitence" means to be uncontrite, unrepentant, hardened, unconverted, to be without regret, shame or remorse.


Will all that are lost be saved? In Luke 15, Jesus gives one parable of a man that lost 1/100 sheep, and rejoiced when that sheep was found. And another parable of a woman who lost 1/10 silver coins, and rejoices much when she finds her lost coin.

In order for something to be "lost", it must be in one's possession at some point beforehand; and these parables confirm that in the sense of salvation. So, in regards to this, I have a two part question: Will all that are "lost" be saved? And in what sense were we previously in the Father's possession? Is there any scripture that talks about this?

I know my 2nd question could mean those who had previously come to God, but have fallen away, and came to God again, but I think He is particularly talking about those who have not yet come to God. I think this could be clarified when Jesus says He came to seek that which was lost in relation to a Chief tax collector.

Christ's parables can be dangerous to interpret outside of the interpretation given in the context.  In almost every case there is one thing taught in a parable and everything else is just filler.  The term "parable" can be loosely translated "to throw alongside", the idea is that a story is thrown alongside a single truth.  In this context the teaching is:

  Luke 15:10 There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner
  who repents.

I do not believe that the 99 or the 9 can be tied to any specific group.  What Christ is teaching is that even the most "insignificant" sinner is worth everything in the eyes of God.


What traditions include "dearly departed" Christians as participants in communion? I've seen some treatments of communion that encourage one to celebrate that their dearly departed relatives are coming up to an invisible railing behind the wall. This seemed to be a great sentiment but I was unclear on what Biblical or catechismal support they were using for this practice.

What Christian traditions specifically teach this sort of including the departed in communion? Is this practice something common to all Christian sects that profess a "real presence" of Christ in communion (i.e. does it have a place in the Catholic catechism, Presbyterian Common Book of Prayer, Book of Concord, etc.?) or is it isolated to a more specific doctrinal tradition? Can anyone trace the origin of this tradition?

Catholic's believe that each time Mass is celebrated it is done with the entire Communion of Saints. it would just be ones imagination at work seeing dead relatives at Communion, but in effect I think that is what Catholics believe.

To the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also those already in the glory of heaven. In communion with and commemorating the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. In the Eucharist the Church is as it were at the foot of the cross with Mary, united with the offering and intercession of Christ.
CCC 1370

and one of the names for the Eucharist (Communion) comes from the "Communion of Saints"

Holy Communion, because by this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body and Blood to form a single body. We also call it: the holy things (ta hagia; sancta) - the first meaning of the phrase "communion of saints" in the Apostles' Creed - the bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality, viaticum.
CCC 1331

So that takes care of the Church Triumphant, but the Church Suffering (the Holy Souls in Purgatory) can also be remembered and had the Sacrifice of Mass offered for their salvation

The Eucharistic sacrifice is also offered for the faithful departed who "have died in Christ but are not yet wholly purified," so that they may be able to enter into the light and peace of Christ:
CCC 1371

I believe Orthodox Christians believe the same thing since this is not a point of contention between the churches.


What is the biblical basis/justification for requiring a pastor be educated? As a Baptist, while I don't know of any specific requirements for a pastor, it is generally accepted that a head pastor would have some sort of seminary education, be it a Masters or even a Doctorate degree. That is certainly the way that it has been at all of the churches I have attended in America.

I understand that the notion of a seminary, at least the sort of seminary that we have today, didn't exist when the Bible was written. But is there any biblical basis for requiring that a pastor or other leader have some level of training or education? I can appreciate the fact that people can serve in different ways regardless of their education or background, but in what ways does the Bible support the pastor or leader being educated?

1 Timothy 3 spells out some requirements for being bishops (and deacons). For example, verse 6:

  Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

So it's evident that a bishop (or pastor, from episcopos, meaning "overseer") should be trained or experienced such that he is not "a novice" (from the Greek neophyton, referring to one who is newly converted).

Paul lists similar and other requirements to Titus, in Titus 1:5-9. Interestingly, most of the requirements described by Paul are related to worthiness, not intelligence or education.

There are several instances of scripture where the seemingly less-qualified men were chosen as leaders. Old Testament prophets such as David and Amos were called by God in their simplicity. (See 1 Sam. 16:1-13 and Amos 7:14-15.)

Not all prophets, pastors/bishops, and leaders have been poor or simple, however. Moses was raised by Pharoah's daughter and almost certainly had access to the royal libraries. (This is one reason I've heard for explaining how Moses knew he would be the one to deliver Israel, as mentioned in Acts 7:25. He was educated and knew the prophecies of Joseph.)

In the verses in Titus I mentioned, Paul tells Titus to "set in order ... and ordain elders." Paul also recalls that He was "ordained" in 1 Tim. 2:7 to be a teacher, preacher, and in his case, an apostle. (Jeremiah was also, see Jer. 1:5.)

We will recall that Christ found fishermen and other common laborers, invited them to follow Him, and He and ordained them to be leaders, as in John 15:16:

  Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Church leaders continued to call local leaders in a similar manner, as mentioned in Acts 14:23. Similar ordinations to positions of leadership, seemingly regardless of educational level, happened in the Old Testament from Samuel, Moses, and Isaac.

After having done a little bit of research now, I can't seem to find any real consistency in the Biblical text about the need for pastors to be educated. It's apparent that they ought to be experienced, have a sure testimony of the gospel, and meet standards for worthiness, but in ancient texts it's not easy to find any need for formal, or even informal, education: something uniquely common in our era. The Lord prepares whom He will to serve in those capacities: with or without formal education. (Though I'm sure He encourages learning and studying!)

I suppose there's an emphasis on it today because our society demands that those who instruct us be scholars and have a degree.


Are there any Christian churches or groups which teach that all religions are inherently good? Are there any Christian churches or groups which teach that all religions are inherently good and that one need not convert to Christianity and that it is enough for an adherent to remain in their non-Christian religion provided that they live faithfully by it?

Yes.

All Christian churches and groups that base their beliefs on the teachings of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) believe that people of all religions can be saved if they believe in God and live a good life according to the teachings of their own religion. This belief is not a recent development, but has been part of New Church (Swedenborgian) doctrine since the church was first organized as a distinct sect in the late 18th century, a decade and a half after Swedenborg's death.

Here is an example of Swedenborg's teaching on this subject:

  It is an insane heresy to believe that only those born in the church
  are saved. People born outside the church are just as human as people
  born within it. They come from the same heavenly source. They are
  equally living and immortal souls. They have religions as well,
  religions that enable them to believe that God exists and that they
  should lead good lives; and all of them who do believe in God and lead
  good lives become spiritual on their own level and are saved. (Divine Providence #330.5)

By "the church" in this context Swedenborg means the Christian church as a whole, including all denominations and branches.

Swedenborg taught that all religions are provided by God, and that there are different religions because religion must be adapted to the culture and character of the different nations and peoples of the world. For more on this subject from a Swedenborgian perspective, see: If there’s One God, Why All the Different Religions?

Swedenborgians hold to this belief while themselves believing in a strongly Christian theology. Swedenborg taught that the salvation accomplished by Jesus Christ through his life, death, resurrection, and ascension made salvation possible for all people, not only Christians, and that those who believe in God are in fact believing in Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is God, and there is no other God to believe in. For more on this, see Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What about that Holy Spirit? and Is Jesus Christ the Only Way to Heaven?


Is the “dark night of the soul” mentioned in the Bible? I saw a documentary where a priest said that the “dark night of the soul” is mentioned in the Bible, but I was not able to find where.

Is the “dark night of the soul” mentioned directly or indirectly in the Bible?

The phrase “dark night of the soul” comes from a poem by St. John of the Cross (1542-1591), a Spanish Carmelite monk and mystic, whose Noche obscura del alma is translated “The Dark Night of the Soul.”

Its meant to be synonymous with traveling the “narrow way” that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 7:13-14.

So no, it is not mentioned in the Bible.

Sources:

Wikipedia entry for the peom in general

As well as this book from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.


What is depicted on this small piece of artwork with Mary and the Apostles? Another piece in the belongings of my late grandmother may she rest in peace.

This particular piece is a very beautiful piece in my opinion. This is a part of 7 pieces in total.

Can anyone tell me what is depicted here?

This is a (very typical) depiction of Pentecost.

  Acts 1:12-14; 2:1-4 (DRB)  Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day's journey. 13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. 14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. ...  And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them: 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.


Can a Christian have clinical depression? God can grant an amazing peace of mind to a person. Many Christians have been totally calm and prayed for their persecutors while being tortured and killed -- like Stephen, the first martyr.

But do all Christians (I mean those who are saved) have the same kind of peace, or any kind of peace at all? I'd thought a Christian can be completely desperate and hopeless, even to the point of committing suicide. I came across an answer with another point of view, which made me question first the answer, then my own views.

What does the Bible say about this, and what do churches teach?
Can a Christian be desperate and hopeless?
What about clinically depressed?

Has anyone thought about Job?
Anyway...Paul wrote to Corinthians;

  2 Corinthians 1:8-11 (NKJV)
  8  For we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, of our trouble which came to us in Asia: that we were burdened beyond measure, above strength, so that we despaired even of life. 9  Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead, 10  who delivered us from so great a death, and does deliver us; in whom we trust that He will still deliver us, 11  you also helping together in prayer for us, that thanks may be given by many persons on our behalf for the gift granted to us through many.

Certainly Paul was expressing a sense of depression when he wrote that he was "burdened beyond measure" and "above strength". So it would seem that, yes, Christians can be depressed.

We won't know why many of us are burdened to the limits of our endurance until God chooses to enlighten us. There is one scripture, however, that has helped me during dark times. Jesus tells us in Matthew 10:22;
..."But he who endures to the end will be saved."


Am I still Catholic? I would like to find out, I was confirmed in my Catholic Church, and used to go often. However as I got older, I could never get to church, as my parents did not wish to take me. I then went overseas for a year, came home and moved to another town. I have not been back to a Catholic Church until this past Sunday.

I want to know, since I have been gone for so long, what can I do to enter the Church properly? I love being Catholic and when asked I let people know that I am Catholic. I want to enter the Church correctly. If someone can please give me guidance.

Yes! You're Catholic.
Quick follow-up question though: did you receive a first Communion when you were younger?  If so, you probably just need to go to Confession before you can get in the Communion line again at Mass.  (That's true of any practicing Catholic who hasn't been in a while.)

If you never received Communion as a child, you may be required to attend an RCIA class ("rite of Christian initiation for adults") to re-learn the faith and get ready for a first Communion.  In most parishes, RCIA starts in the fall and runs through the next Easter, so don't dilly-dally and they will probably be happy to let you join this year's class late.

In either case, go talk to a priest before you take the advice of some guy on the Internet.


Are there documented reports about Jews around the time of Jesus? And what did they say about the first christians? Are there any reliable documented reports of Jewish individuals, leaders or groups, around the time of Jesus?

Who were they?

And what did they say about Jesus and/or the first Christians?

Josephus, a Jewish scholar, and historian wrote Antiquities of the Jews, around 93–94 AD. In book 18 Chapter 3 verse 3(Jesus Christ) says:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

In Book 18 5:2 (John the Baptist)

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

And in book 20 9:1 (Jesus Christ)

AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Tacitus a Roman historian wrote Annals in 116 AD in book 15 wrote (Jesus Christ)

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Mara Bar-Serapion a philosopher in ~70 AD wrote to his son (Jesus Christ):

What are we to say, when the wise are dragged by force by the hands of tyrants, and their wisdom is deprived of its freedom by slander, and they are plundered for their superior intelligence, without the opportunity of making a defence? They are not wholly to be pitied. For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death, seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour the. whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into Every land. Nay, Socrates did "not" die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he enacted.

Phlegon, a historian, wrote Contra Celsus Origen in about 140 AD. In book 2 chapter 14, 33, and 59 writes (Jesus Christ)

Celsus, however, accepting or granting that Jesus foreknew what would befall Him, might think to make light of the admission, as he did in the case of the miracles, when he alleged that they were wrought by means of sorcery; for he might say that many persons by means of divination, either by auspices, or auguries, or sacrifices, or nativities, have come to the knowledge of what was to happen. But this concession he would not make, as being too great a one; and although he somehow granted that Jesus worked miracles, he thought to weaken the force of this by the charge of sorcery. Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions. So that he also, by these very admissions regarding foreknowledge, as if against his will, expressed his opinion that the doctrines taught by the fathers of our system were not devoid of divine power.
But, continues Celsus, what great deeds did Jesus perform as being a God? Did he put his enemies to shame, or bring to a ridiculous conclusion what was designed against him? Now to this question, although we are able to show the striking and miraculous character of the events which befell Him, yet from what other source can we furnish an answer than from the Gospel narratives, which state that there was an earthquake, and that the rocks were split asunder, and the tombs opened, and the veil of the temple rent in two from top to bottom, and that darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give light? But if Celsus believe the Gospel accounts when he thinks that he can find in them matter of charge against the Christians, and refuse to believe them when they establish the divinity of Jesus, our answer to him is: Sir, either disbelieve all the Gospel narratives, and then no longer imagine that you can found charges upon them; or, in yielding your belief to their statements, look in admiration on the Logos of God, who became incarnate, and who desired to confer benefits upon the whole human race. And this feature evinces the nobility of the work of Jesus, that, down to the present time, those whom God wills are healed by His name. And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Cæsar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles.
He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an invention; but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages, made our defence, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our Saviour suffered. And he goes on to say, that Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails. We ask him what he means by the expression, was of no assistance to himself? For if he means it to refer to want of virtue, we reply that He was of very great assistance. For He neither uttered nor committed anything that was improper, but was truly led as a sheep to the slaughter, and was dumb as a lamb before the shearer; and the Gospel testifies that He opened not His mouth. But if Celsus applies the expression to things indifferent and corporeal, (meaning that in such Jesus could render no help to Himself,) we say that we have proved from the Gospels that He went voluntarily to encounter His sufferings. Speaking next of the statements in the Gospels, that after His resurrection He showed the marks of His punishment, and how His hands had been pierced, he asks, Who beheld this? And discrediting the narrative of Mary Magdalene, who is related to have seen Him, he replies, A half-frantic woman, as you state. And because she is not the only one who is recorded to have seen the Saviour after His resurrection, but others also are mentioned, this Jew of Celsus calumniates these statements also in adding, And some one else of those engaged in the same system of deception!


What is the biblical basis for “the Sinner’s Prayer” and do Protestants believe that saying the prayer make one a Christian? I came across a similar question asking about the Protestant view that when you first believe on Jesus Christ you become a Born Again Christian.  Here is the link to the question:

How did the Born Again teaching be associated with one first believing in Jesus Christ?

Please note that I am not asking about how a Christian is born-again.  I am asking about the claim that Protestants think if you say "the Sinner’s Prayer” then you become a Christian.  I’ve been a Protestant for a long time but have never subscribed to any notion that simply repeating some words will automatically make a person a Christian.  That is clearly unbiblical because there must be evidence of a life transformed by the Holy Spirit at work in the believer.

  "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation: the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corinthians 5:17).

My understanding is that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts sinners of their need to repent and turn, in faith, to what God has done, in Christ Jesus, and seek forgiveness.  A “Prayer of Repentance” might better express what sinners need to do in order to be saved.

It seems to me that there are some commonly held misconceptions about this “Sinner’s Prayer”.  My question is therefore aimed at Protestants in order to give them an opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings and to show, from the Bible, what it is that makes a person a Christian.

There is an example in scripture, spoken by Jesus, of the prayer of a sinner :

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Luke 18:13,14 [KJV]

I think this is the reason for the saying 'The Sinner's Prayer' and I think this is the reason that Protestantism, largely, advocates that those who genuinely feel their distance from God, their proneness to sin and their burden of past sins, should pray to God in penitence.
There is another saying :

What must I do to be saved ?
Acts 16:30 [KJV]

said by the Philippian jailor who was ready to commit suicide.
A prayer, in a way, but not exactly addressed to God, rather addressed (as many do, in their first approaches of repentance) to someone who represents God - an 'ambassador of Jesus Christ'.
The publican was in the temple, praying. The jailor was trembling and had already thrown himself down at the feet of the apostle. These men were at an extremity. They had reached the lowest ebb. They were distraught.
These prayers were wrung from them at the lowest point of their lives. They were far off from God : and they knew it. And these prayers were answered, and that immediately, in  both cases, without delay.
The publican went down to his house, justified, without further ado. Just as Abel received a witness (from God) that he was righteous (in God's sight) after he offered the firstling of his flock, and the fat thereof, Hebrews 11:4.
Protestantism exists because justification by faith was preached by the Reformers. They taught that justification is by faith and that justification is a matter of the righteousness of God, not the righteousness of the law or the righteousness of humanity.
And they taught that genuine, penitent prayer receives an answer from God Almighty to the sinner who approaches in confession and repentance and faith. No works are required. Good works (in abundance) will, undoubtedly, follow. But no works of any kind can ever justify from sin. For that, blood must be shed - and that, from a clean sacrifice.
What is completely removed from this, is the practice of putting words into the mouths of people who are, largely, quite happy in sin, quite happy with life, quite content to be ungodly - and then promising them eternal salvation by the performance of a solitary, brief ritual.
There is no comparison between this objectionable modern practice and these examples of real repentance recorded in scripture.


Are Seraphim and Cherubim angels? When considering if angels really have wings, I have decided to read some comments on Christianity SE and came across lots of users assuming that cherubim and seraphim are angels:

• Lesley:

  There are definitely two types of angels mentioned in the Bible that
  have wings - cherubim and seraphim  [read full answer here]

• Narnian:

  The Bible actually does indicate that angels have wings, as both cherubim and seraphim are angels.  [read full answer here]

I know that they are all spiritual beings, but can we assume that cherubim and seraphim are angels?

I came across a similar question, that only addresses seraphim but it seems that there is space for discussion and further clarifications.

In the meantime, to further discuss what is a seraphim and how do they relate with cherubim I have opened this thread.

Are Seraphim and Cherubim angels?

The short answer is yes.

Angels appear on numerous occasions in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. However, the Scriptures do not always reveal their angelic rank on each occasion. Traditionally, there are Nine choirs of angels. This question deals with the biblical basis of the two highest choir of angels: the Seraphim and the Cherubim.

The Apostle St. Peter dealt with angels when he was freed from the prison of King Herod Agrippa. You can read about  St. Peter’s Miraculous Escape From Prison here.

St. Paul was encouraged by an angel, just before his shipwreck on Malta (Acts 27: 21-24)

An angel sometimes would stir the waters in the pool of Bethesda.

  4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. - John 1: 9

Thus we can conclude that angels do exist.

Now let us see if there are any references to Seraphs and Cherubs being angels in the Scriptures.

St. Paul definitely believe in an angelic hierarchy.

  16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. - Colossians 1:16

  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. -  Ephesians 6:12

Cherubs are the most commonly name angel beings named in the bible.

  The cherubim are the most frequently occurring heavenly creature in the Hebrew Bible, with the Hebrew word appearing 91 times. The first occurrence is in the Book of Genesis 3:24. Despite these many references, the role of the cherubim is never explicitly elucidated. While Hebrew tradition must have conceived of the cherubim as guardians of the Garden of Eden (in which they guard the way to the Tree of life), they are often depicted as performing other roles; for example in the Book of Ezekiel, they transport Yahweh's throne. The cherub who appears in the "Song of David", a poem which occurs twice in the Hebrew Bible, in 2 Samuel 22 and Psalm 18, participates in Yahweh's theophany and is imagined as a vehicle upon which the deity descends to earth from heaven in order to rescue the speaker (see 2 Samuel 22:11, Psalm 18:10).

  In Exodus 25:18–22, God tells Moses to make multiple images of cherubim at specific points around the Ark of the Covenant. Many appearances of the words cherub and cherubim in the Bible refer to the gold cherubim images on the mercy seat of the Ark, as well as images on the curtains of the Tabernacle and in Solomon's Temple, including two measuring ten cubits high.

  In Isaiah 37:16, Hezekiah prays, addressing God as "enthroned above the cherubim" (referring to the mercy seat). In regard's to Solomon's Temple as described in 1 Kings, Eichler renders the phrase yoshev ha-keruvim as “who dwells among the cherubim”. This phrase is the same in 1 Kings and Isaiah. Eichler's interpretation in contrast to common translations for many years that rendered it as “who sits upon the cherubim”. This has implications for the understanding of whether the ark of the covenant in the Temple was literally YHWH's throne or simply an indicator of YHWH's immanence.

  Cherubim feature at some length in the Book of Ezekiel. While they first appear in chapter one, in which they are transporting the throne of God by the river Chebar, they are not called cherubim until chapter 10.[21] In Ezekiel 1:5–11 they are described as having the likeness of a man, and having four faces: that of a man, a lion (on the right side), and ox (on the left side), and an eagle. The four faces represent the four domains of God's rule: the man represents humanity; the lion, wild animals; the ox, domestic animals; and the eagle, birds. These faces peer out from the center of an array of four wings; these wings are joined to each other, two of these are stretched upward, and the other two cover their bodies. Under their wings are human hands; their legs are described as straight, and their feet like those of a calf, shining like polished brass. Between the creatures glowing coals that moved between them could be seen, their fire "went up and down", and lightning burst forth from it. The cherubs also moved like flashes of lightning.

  In Ezekiel chapter 10, another full description of the cherubim appears with slight differences in details. Three of the four faces are the same – man, lion and eagle – but where chapter one has the face of an ox, Ezekiel 10:14 says "face of a cherub". Ezekiel equates the cherubim of chapter ten with the living creatures of chapter one: "They were the same creatures (חיה) I had seen by the river Chebar" (Ezekiel 10:15) and "These were the living creatures I had seen under the God of Israel on the banks of the river Chebar" (Ezekiel 10:20). In Ezekiel 41:18–20, they are portrayed as having two faces, although this is probably because they are depicted in profile. - Cherub (Wikipedia)

As for Seraphs, they are named less frequently in Scripture, but nonetheless are of the angelic Orders.

  There is emerging consensus that the motifs used to display seraphs in Hyksos-era Palestine had their original sources in Egyptian uraeus iconography.

  The word saraph/seraphim appears three times in the Torah (Numbers 21:6–8, Deuteronomy 8:15) and four times in the Book of Isaiah (6:2–6, 14:29, 30:6). In Isaiah 6:2–6 the term is used to describe a type of celestial being or angel. The other five uses of the word refer to serpents.

  The vision in Isaiah Chapter 6 of seraphim in an idealized version of Solomon's Temple represents the sole instance in the Hebrew Bible of this word being used to describe celestial beings. "... I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly." (Isaiah 6:1–3) And one cried to another, "Holy, holy, holy, is YHWH of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory." (verses 2–3) One seraph carries out an act of ritual purification for the prophet by touching his lips with a live coal from the altar (verses 6–7).

  The text describes the "seraphim" as winged celestial beings with a fiery passion for doing God's good work.8 Notwithstanding the wording of the text itself, at least one Hebrew scholar claims that in the Hebrew Bible the seraphim do not have the status of angels, and that it is only in later sources (like De Coelesti Hierarchia or Summa Theologiae) that they are considered to be a division of the divine messengers.

  Seraphim appear in the 2nd-century BC Book of Enoch, where they are mentioned, in conjunction with cherubim, as the heavenly creatures standing nearest to the throne of God. They are also called the Akyəst (Ge'ez: አክይስት "serpents", "dragons"; an alternate term for Hell).

  In the Second Book of Enoch, two classes of celestial beings are mentioned alongside the seraphim and cherubim, known as the phoenixes and the chalkydri (Ancient Greek: χαλκύδραι khalkýdrai, compd. of χαλκός khalkós "brass, copper" + ὕδρα hýdra "hydra", "water-serpent" — lit. "brazen hydras", "copper serpents"). Both are described as "flying elements of the sun" that reside in either the 4th or 6th heaven, who have twelve wings and burst into song at sunrise.

  In the Book of Revelation (4:4–8), the beasts are described as being forever in God's presence and praising him: "[A]nd they rest not day and night, saying, 'Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." This account differs slightly from the account of Isaiah, stating in the eighth verse, "And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within". They appear also in the Gnostic text, On the Origin of the World. - Seraph (Wikipedia)

There can be little doubt that both Seraphims and Cherubims are angels.


Is the popular image of the Puritan as purveyor of an intolerant monoculture accurate? Recently I listened to the introduction of Russell Shorto's The Island at the Center of the World: The Epic Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Forgotten Colony That Shaped America.  When he talks about the New England colonies, he uses language such as:

  Something was happening that was quite unlike the unfolding of society at the two English colonies to their north, where the rigid Puritans, who arrived in 1630, and the even more rigid Pilgrims maintained, in their wide-brimmed piety, monocultures in the wild.—p. 61 (emphasis mine)

Given that the Puritan movement was escaping religious persecution in England, it's surprising that in they persecuted Quakers (including executing four martyrs).    Further, especially in New England, they largely dedicated themselves to pious amusements and hard work rather than a broad range of culture.

On the other hand, they universally rejected the principle of Erastianism, which justified placing the church under the authority of the government.  Many Puritans were Calvinists, but by no means were all.  The very name, "Puritan", began as an insult bestowed by outsiders.

Did Puritans see themselves as "rigid"?  Was their mission to create an island of monoculture on the edge of the American wilderness?

As this question does not seem to be eliciting many responses I will add my own view. My perspective comes from reading many books written by Puritans, in fact this has been my main diet as a Christian.  Unfortunately my view is limited by my knowledge of the history of the early colonies in America.

From my own perspective the Puritans as a group of more or less independent Calvinists, settling among the early colonies of America, were nothing more than Christians getting caught up in a part of the world seeking opportunity and wealth in a new frontier.  Among the population of the general crowd, filled with ambition and greed over the many new opportunities, the Puritans would have been seen as intolerant for sure.  Also it would have been no surprise that some Puritans were truly judgmental and even racists, as we would still find people in churches today with that disposition.  On the other hand, among the colonies there would have been many brave and regular 'good folk' who have taken a chance at a better life and would not have been caught up with the greed of the industries, but would have been simply wanted a quite life and kinship among townsmen, etc.  Here there were probably be less of a contrast with the Puritans among them, for this simple life of hard work and honest living is somewhat Puritanical. These sorts of people would have many things in common with the Puritans and the churches in those communities would have probably been less criticized.

Aside from the typical stage that a movie might present the old west and the little church within in it, when reading the actual writings of the Puritans what I find is a big emphasis of love and charity which opposes the concept of casting an intolerant monoculture. Among the Puritans there was also efforts to bring salvation to the native Americans.  I think this is where the picture has its truth on both sides.  Some in the name of religion tried to eliminate native culture and stole the children to be 'educated' etc. Possibly even sexually molesting some of them. However, I think this trend was not so much the Puritans but other denominations, especially Catholic as we find similar things today.  Yet considering the great racist and vile attitudes of the colonies against the natives, some of that prejudice and racism and rigid monoculture values of the British, that plagued many parts of the world, would have also infected even loving and holy British men to some degree.

I find this specifically true of the accounts that Jonathan Edwards has in his diary of attempts to be a missionary to the natives.  You can tell he loved them but there was some monoculture and rigidity in his words. I perceive them as trace elements reflecting the wicked arrogant white-man society in which he lived, not his own sentiments. In fact when trying to understand how to show liberal compassion and love, I like to read Jonathan Edwards.

To answer the question, I think the new frontier for many Europeans was a place to force their rigid and mono-cultural ideals upon weaker races and this would have stained, to a degree, even the good hearted puritans that sought a simple life to honor God.  Among these groups some Europeans especially those who were physically attracted to other races would have probably spent their liberal days in local saloons and would have cursed the Puritans just as party goers curse holy people today.  Sinners often feel judged by holy people even when they are not judged. Drunkards and fornicators would have been more 'easy going' and less ridged, yet also the most ridged when facing races where no attraction or mutual financial benefits existed, such as with the natives.  So really we have many aspects to the answer that are probably not that different than how things are today. Are we rigid and trying to force a monoculture today? In some ways people would say we are but in many ways, especially in our love, we are truly not. Many people would think Jesus was rigid and monocultural in that he required every nation to repent of their idols, but that does not make the insult true.


Samaritans, the Jubilee and Jesus In the Wikipedia page about Jubilee, an anonymous writer added the following text:

  "Jesus declared a Yovel by referencing Isaiah in 27 A.D., i.e. the 1666 year of entry into Canaan and the 34th 49 year Yovel Cycle according to the present day Samaritan Calendar."

I would like to know whether this claim has any evidence, so that I know whether to keep it in that page or remove it.

I think the anonymous contributor is referring to Luke 4.

16 [Jesus] went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
           because he has anointed me
           to proclaim good news to the poor.
      He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
           and recovery of sight for the blind,
      to set the oppressed free,
19       to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”
Luke 4:16-20 (NIV)

A Yovel, I assume is a Jubilee, and if this is the story that the contributor is referring to, then he is saying that Jesus was declaring a Jubilee (probably in verse 19), along with other significant theological points. However, saying confidently that this occurred in AD27 is quite tenuous. We don't know exactly when this story happened (if at all) because we don't know how old Jesus was at the time and we aren't even sure what year he was born (though most scholars agree on 4BC).
I found an article that discusses the theological significance, according to the Catholic perspective, on this verse and that it mentions Jubilee.
In light of this, the information in general is relevant, and somewhat interesting to the topic of that Wikipedia article, but it needs to be completely rewritten to include that this is not a universal understanding of these verses (I've never heard that Jesus was proclaiming a literal Jubilee) and especially that the year is unknown, but we could guess it within about a six year window (based on theories for Jesus' birth year and how old he was at this point).


What is the hope in Roman Catholicism? I'm coming at this from the evangelical reform side of salvation. For the evangelical, salvation is made for us by Jesus on the cross. There is nothing else we can add to make us more saved, or less saved (I know those who believe in losing your salvation). So my hope is in the fact that Jesus paid for me, and that God raised him from the dead.

But from my understanding, Roman Catholics believe that salvation must be earned, although Jesus made the way possible. If there is a part involve from me in my salvation, I find it hard to believe where is the hope in all of it.

Could someone explain to me how they see the hope in the Roman faith?

EDIT
I want to extend an apology if this question has insulted anyone. I tried to asked it in a way that was neutral, trying to understand my catholics friends. Since there were many sincere catholic on this site I though I would get a to answer to this genuine question.

So here again I ask your forgiveness if I offended anyone. It was not my intention in any way.

To answer your question, I finally got to reading pope Benedict's spe salvi and it was totally worth it.

First of all, it is "in hope we are saved"

  The one who has hope lives differently; the one who hopes has been granted the gift of a new life

-Spe Salvi

A person who hopes has been led out of darkness. Hope gives our works meaning and our life direction. We work to bring about and build up the Kingdom of God here on earth, all the while hoping for a share in it in the next.

The pope relates the story of St Josephine Bakhita, an African saint whose life was almost pure hope.

  She was known and loved and she was awaited. What is more, this master had himself accepted the destiny of being flogged and now he was waiting for her “at the Father's right hand”. Now she had “hope” —no longer simply the modest hope of finding masters who would be less cruel, but the great hope: “I am definitively loved and whatever happens to me—I am awaited by this Love. And so my life is good.” Through the knowledge of this hope she was “redeemed”, no longer a slave, but a free child of God.

Her hope was simply God Himself.  That is Catholic hope, what else could you say the substance of which is Faith?

You do point out some true doctrinal differences between our sects. We don't say that a person can lose their salvation because we don't presume that we had it to begin with.

A person can't become unbaptized, but through intentional evil acts can put themselves outside a state of grace. If one dies outside a state of grace they will go to hell. Don't do this!

But, as Jesus says, the only unforgivable sin is the offense against the Holy Spirit, which is quite simply denying that He has the power to save.  This despair is the virtue which is the opposite of hope.

So I think I wrote enough, maybe someone else will touch on faith and works.  But we believe that if a person has faith they'll show it in the way they live their lives. As the pope says our hope is "performative" not just "informative" it directs our path, it doesn't just fill our brains with lofty notions.  And it is communitive, not individualistic, our hope is to seek the kingdom as a people. Even though we must die alone like Christ, we can help carry each others crosses.  It's not that we do it to earn salvation, we do it in imitation of Jesus and the hope of what lies beyond sends us forth


How is a 30 days novena to St. Joseph different from a consecration to St. Joseph? How is a 30 days novena to St. Joseph different from a consecration to St. Joseph?
Do they have different purposes?

A great question for the Year of St. Joseph.
Conescraton to St. Joseph
Fr. Donald Calloway's book Consecration to St. Joseph essentially is a 33 day Novena ending in a Consecration.  He's the priest who is also wrote 33 Days to Morning Glory, which is an updated version of a the works of St. Louis DeMontfort leading to Total Marian Consecration.
According to the Militia Immaculata Marian Consecration is:

an invocation;
a request that she may deign to accept us as her property;
a supplication that she may deign to make use of us to conquer other souls to her.

Consecration to St. Joseph is in the same vein, except with a special emphasis on St. Joseph qualities which complements his wife The Blessed Virgin Mary.
There are a number of formulations of consecration to St. Joseph in the book, reading the book and doing the 33-day's of spiritual exercises leading up to the consecration makes it all them more understandable to you when you get there.

St. Josephs' Thirty Day Novena
The 30-Day Novena to St. Joseph, which my wife's done an number of times for lots of reasons is a great novena, I think most pious folks consider it an inflatable novena.  But basically it is just 30-days of prayers that reflect on the life and virtues of St. Joseph.
There are some wonderful insights in that book (and Fr. Calloway's book) so I'd recommend doing both this year!

They do have different purposes though, the novena is for a particular purpose (a prayer of petition) and the consecration is for interior conversion (a prayer of supplication).