What is the significance of position of fingers in Jesus' hand as shown in his images? In most of the visual images of Jesus – both in picture and sculpture forms – fingers of His right hand, raised in blessing, follow a particular arrangement. Is there any significance to that arrangement? Have different Churches including the Catholic Church given official recognition to its  interpretation?

From: What does this hand gesture mean in Icons? (Wordpress.com)

  The fingers spell out “IC XC”, a widely used four letter abbreviation
  of the Greek for Jesus (IHCOYC) Christ (XPICTOC). It is by the name of
  Jesus that we are saved and receive blessings: “At the name of Jesus
  every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and
  things under the earth;” (Phil 2:10).

I am not Orthodox but have learned a lot about that faith, the local priest here has said the same thing.

From the Orthodox Church of America site, "Placement of fingers in icons," I would assume an authoritative source.

You see this in a lot of Eastern Orthodox icons:


How would the Bible advise a Christian to cope with fear? At what part of the Bible is fear referenced, in a story? Or quote? If you know of any, an example of any quotes or stories would be ideal. It doesn't necessarily have to be about dealing with fear, it could just be a tale of overcoming fear/phobias/lack of confidence. Thanks.

In Joshua 1:7-9, faith in God coupled with obedience is said to produce courage and overcome fear and discouragement.

  “Be strong and very courageous. Be careful to obey all the law my servant Moses gave you; do not turn from it to the right or to the left, that you may be successful wherever you go. Keep this Book of the Law always on your lips; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful. Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.”

Proverbs 29:25 warns us to Fear God and not man:

  Fear of man will prove to be a snare,
    but whoever trusts in the Lord is kept safe.

Psalm 56 relates an episode where David was afraid but trusted in God:

  Be merciful to me, my God,
    for my enemies are in hot pursuit;
    all day long they press their attack.
  My adversaries pursue me all day long;
    in their pride many are attacking me.

  When I am afraid, I put my trust in you.
    In God, whose word I praise—
    in God I trust and am not afraid.
  What can mere mortals do to me?

Indeed, if you open Psalms up at random and read a chapter, the odds are that the psalmist is dealing with fear.

Jesus advised people not to worry in Matthew 6:25-27:

  “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Can any one of you by worrying add a single hour to your life ?"

In Luke 12:4-7, Jesus tells us whom we should fear and why:

  “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

It is also instructive to read about Gideon in Judges 6, who started out with very little courage, but because he obeyed the Lord, the Lord showed him things that increased his courage.

In 2 Kings 6:15-17, Elisha's faith permits him to trust that he is well defended by God, while his servant is terrified:

  When the servant of the man of God got up and went out early the next morning, an army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city. “Oh no, my lord! What shall we do?” the servant asked.

  “Don’t be afraid,” the prophet answered. “Those who are with us are more than those who are with them.”

  And Elisha prayed, “Open his eyes, Lord, so that he may see.” Then the Lord opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

Other stories that show fearful people learning courage from God are Moses in Exodus (at the burning bush) and Jacob in Genesis (when he is returning to his homeland and fears that his brother will kill him). But perhaps the most remarkable story is the entire Book of Acts, where a group of terrified fisherman and tax collectors who deserted their Lord stand up to Jerusalem and Rome to the point of death.

I must stop, because almost every Bible story that I can think of deals with courage: Mary agreeing to be the handmaid of the Lord, Joseph marrying her, and the Son of God consenting to be hung on a cross. Truly "The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom."


What did the early church fathers have to say about “eternal security” or “assurance of salvation” I am trying to find out what the early church fathers had to say about “eternal security” or “assurance of salvation”.  By that, I refer to the following Bible verses:

To Him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy... (Jude 24)

...whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16)

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.  I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no-one can snatch them out of my hand (John 10:27-28).

And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30)

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38-39).

From verses such as these, Protestants understand that our eternal security is purchased by Christ, promised by the Father, and sealed by the Holy Spirit.  This assurance is experienced by Christians who have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whose lives have been transformed as evidence of the new birth and who live for Christ Jesus and who are prepared to die for Him – born-again Christians.
I say this not to promote a particular belief but to clarify what I mean by expressions like “eternal security” and “assurance of salvation”.  Neither do I wish to enter into a discussion on the theology.  I simply want to know what the early church fathers had to say on this subject.

Below is a summary from an article I found on the subject of 'Once saved, always saved' which is as close as I could find to the terms above in regard to the early fathers.
The whole article quotes from :

Justin Martyr 100-165
Shepherd of Hermas 155-180
Irenaeus 120-200
Tertullian 150-220
Origen 185-254
Cyprian 200-258
Augustine 354-430

Based on the quotes listed in the article, the writer comes to this conclusion (and it is my own conclusion also, from what is quoted) :

These men wrote from about A.D. 100 – 250. We do not find any statements to the effect that once a Christian is saved, he or she is always saved. But we do find a consistent belief, except for a few instances, that faith and works go together. This is consistent with the teachings of the Bible.

The earliest statement regarding “once saved always saved” comes from Augustine (A.D. 354-430).

It was left to Augustine to speak a clear word for perseverance in pre-Reformation times. Starting with predestination, he saw that election to eternal life inevitably involves final perseverance. Since salvation is always God’s gift, he entitled his work on perseverance On the Gift of Perseverance. He denied, however, that the believer can have any assurance of his final salvation. Carl F. Henry. Basic Christian Doctrines. Baker Book House, 1962.

It is important to note that the doctrine of “Once Saved Always Saved” did not appear in the literature of the church until the Reformation period. A review of the existing literature from the early church fathers suggests that most of them believed faith and works must both exist for a person to be a true Christian. While no person is perfect, the pattern of life must be present. Only a few seem to believe that a person can lose his or her salvation by disobedience. But it is also possible that they are only observing the biblical truth stated in James 2:17 and 1 John 2:19.

What is most important is, “Does the Bible teach, ‘Once Saved Always Saved.?'” The opinion of the early church fathers does not constitute truth. The early church fathers were not inspired authors. But Jesus and the apostles were. Jesus did not teach and the Bible does not teach that once a person believes in Jesus Christ he or she is going to heaven regardless of what he or she does in the future. James 2:26 captures the truth that faith and works go together. A true Christian will believe and obey. A true Christian will not leave the faith. Someone who claims to believe and lives like the world or leaves the faith is a liar, and 1 John 2:4 says the truth is not in him or her. However, we must remember that only God knows if one has actually left the faith. We do not see as God sees. The statement “Once Saved Always Saved” is misleading. It should be worded as follows, “Saved Only Once” or “Once Truly Saved Always Saved.” Once God selects people for salvation they have been selected and they will not depart from the faith. Those who have been truly saved will never depart from the faith.

The Nicean Creed does not address this subject.

The Primitive Church - from NeverThirsty.org


How did Paul learn the gospel? Is there any account of how Paul learnt Jesus teachings after he converted? In Galatians 1:11-12 Paul states:

  But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ"

Was he saying that Christ revealed gospel to him directly or should we assume that he was mentored by another christian?

Yes, Paul gives an account of how he learned his gospel several times:
2 Corinthians 12:1 1

"It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord."

1 Corinthians 11:23

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: that the Lord Jesus, on the night He was betrayed, took bread,

Ephesians 3:3-4

How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Romans 16:25

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

The whole first chapter of Galatians should really be gone through, but I'll pick out the significant parts. Right from the beginning Paul affirms he is an apostle sent directly from Yeshua the Messiah, and not from men:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Paul begins to talk about certain men that seem to be teaching a different gospel than his.2 To affirm his authority, he again claims he was taught his gospel by none other than Messiah in Galatians 1:11-12

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

After giving his account of his conversion,3 Paul says in Galatians 1:16-17 that even immediately after his conversion, he did not speak to any man, including the Apostles:

To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

The translation of this verse is controversial. Here are a few different ways it's been translated
For more details about who these men were and why it was so crucial for Paul to convince the Galatians that he received his gospel directly from Yeshua, please see What role did James have in Paul's conflict with Peter
For a comparison of Paul's conversion accounts, please see Why are the three accounts of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus different


Was removing one's shoes a special sign of respect? In Exodus 3:5 KJV God tells Moses to remove his shoes:

  And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

There is no doubt that God deserves and should be given every respect we can offer.

I can find no information as to why Moses was to remove his shoes at the burning bush, other than as a form of respect.

While I understand that the ground was Holy because of the presence of God, I have wondered if removing our shoes in the presence of God shows a higher form of respect.

Regarding the importance of shoes:

Taking off your shoe and giving it to someone was a sign of redeeming and changing in the ancient world.

You can find more in

Ruth 4:7 KJV

  Now this was the manner in former time in Israel concerning redeeming
  and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off
  his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in
  Israel.

Regarding being barefoot:

Being barefoot actually had a lot of different meaning in ancient times.

As a sign of mourning:

2 Samuel 15:30 KJV

  And David went up by the ascent of mount Olivet, and wept as he went
  up , and had his head covered, and he went barefoot: and all the
  people that was with him covered every man his head, and they went up,
  weeping as they went up .

As a sign of humility:

Isaiah 20 KJV

  In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of
  Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it; At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go
  and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from
  thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.And the Lord said,
  Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years
  for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia; So shall the king
  of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians
  captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks
  uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.  And they shall be afraid and
  ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation, and of Egypt their glory.  And
  the inhabitant of this isle shall say in that day, Behold, such is our
  expectation, whither we flee for help to be delivered from the king of
  Assyria: and how shall we escape?

Please consider reading this regarding The Role of the Shoe in the Bible.


Jesus' divinity among denominations Are there any current Protestant denominations which do not believe that Jesus was born divine (i.e. that Jesus was God at birth)?  Even if they consider Christ's spirit as divine, are there any that believe that Christ's spirit united with Jesus at some point after his birth?

The doctrine you are describing is called Adoptionism.  It is one of many Nontrinitarian doctrines.  Nontrinitarianism is a catch-all category for all forms of Christology which do not agree with orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.  Although some forms of Nontrinitarianism are adhered to by some mainstream denominations today, such as LDS and Jehova's Witnesses, adoptionism is not.  There are no modern mainstream denominations that teach adoptionism.

The particular form of adoptionism which you mentioned (in which the divine Christ was united with Jesus at some point after his birth) was first popularized by Theodotus of Byzantium during the second century.


Why we do we "know" that Joseph wasn't Hyksos? According to the ancient historian, Mantheo, the fifteenth dynasty of Egypt were a people known as the Hyksos, literally the "rulers of foreign countries" or, as sometimes been translated "the Shepherd Kings."

These Hyksos were the rulers of Egypt roughly 1700 BC, were clearly not Egyptian, and centered in and around Goshen - all facts that line up with the time period and story of Joseph.

Still, scholars do not think this is archeological "proof" of Joseph.  Why is this the case?

Boy is that wikipedia article riddle with citation needed around the part mentioning Joseph.

The thing that points to Joseph being of the Hyksos, looks to be what I thought was the best evidence against it. If you didn't think of this yourself, permit me to state the obvious, The evidence is in where the bones went. Joseph wanted his bones buried where they came from, so unless they, and everyone else, forgot where they came from, they buried him in the wrong place.  But if they came from Canaan and went back to Canaan then that's rather appropriate.

However, and with the help of the only reference to Hyksos on Vatican.va translated into English, the key is in the revulsion that the Egyptians felt towards Joseph and his brothers.

  Genesis 43:32 (DRA)
   32 And when it was set on, for Joseph apart, and for his brethren apart, for the Egyptians also that ate with him, apart, (for it is unlawful for the Egyptians to eat with the Hebrews, and they think such a feast profane:)

If there is evidence of revulsion (or evidence of future subjugation) then yeah, that could be the historical Joseph story.  But if there's no evidence for this, then they're separate folks.

Which may be the reason some are hesitant to jump on the Joseph as Hyskos bandwagon.


What is the Christian Reformed Church in North America's views about Luke 14:32 with regard to the doctrine of discipleship? Luke 14:25Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned
  and said to them, 26“If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own
  father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes,
  and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27“Whoever does not
  carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple. 28“For
  which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit
  down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it?
  29“Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish,
  all who observe it begin to ridicule him, 30saying, ‘This man began to
  build and was not able to finish.’ 31“Or what king, when he sets out
  to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider
  whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one
  coming against him with twenty thousand? 32“Or else, while the other
  is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.
  33“So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all
  his own possessions.

In the above passage, loving God more than anything else is the same as carrying a cross, is the same as paying a huge cost, for the privilege of being a disciple of Christ.

The privilege of being a disciple of Christ is in turn the same as completing a tower, is the same as defeating a strong king. It could be salvation, receiving eternal life or entry to heaven.

The puzzling verse is v32.

Are terms of peace asking for extensions of deadline? Is it delaying the receiving of the benefits of Gospel? Why should the negotiations be with the enemy king?

Similarly, if a person doesn’t have enough money to complete the tower, which can be interpreted to mean courage to face persecution, since Protestants believe paying a cost means facing persecution,  does it mean he loses the claim to be a disciple of Christ, which is required for salvation/eternal life/entry to heaven?

  Matthew 7:21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the
  kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in
  heaven will enter.

What is the Reformed Church's views about Luke 14:32?

All Scripture from the NASB.

PS I checked the commentaries on the Biblehub site.

Protestant Commentaries

They are very contradictory. I may answer my own question with a coherent post if nothing is forthcoming from Reformed Church members.

Note: By Reformed, I mean the Christian Reformed Church in North America, the CRCNA, Modified-Presbyterians  with a largely Calvinist Theology.

Pulpit Commentary
Your BibleHub link missed the Pulpit Commentary which treats verse 32 together with verse 31.  While the Pulpit Commentary editor is Anglican, I think the answer is applicable to the Reformed tradition as well.
After relating a possible historical background of the war simile (which Jesus may have used) and relating a modern version with Swiss contemplating war against France, the interpretation is as follows:

The first of these two little similes rather points to the building up of the Christian life in the heart and life. The second is an image of the warfare which' every Christian man must wage against the world, its passions, and its lusts. If we cannot brace ourselves up to the' sacrifice necessary for the completion of the building up of the life we know the Master loves; if we shrink from the cost involved in the warfare against sin and evil - a warfare which will only end with life - better for us not to begin the building or risk the war. It will be a wretched alternative, but still it will be best for us to make our submission at once to the world and its prince; at least, by so doing we shall avoid the scandal and the shame of injuring a cause which we adopted only to forsake.

My paraphrase of the commentary
As we contemplate whether to follow Jesus or not, the decision has to be all or nothing.  Halfway only causes embarrassment to those who decide to choose all (choosing all means to potentially suffer and die as disciple while warring against the devil).  In other words, if you can only do halfway, you shouldn't be a disciple.  Of course, choosing nothing means making peace with the devil, which is a "wretched" alternative.
Calculating the cost here means weighing our options: do we want to suffer as disciple of Jesus but with eternal life as a reward, or do we want to be comfortable in the world but with eternal damnation as punishment?  Jesus presents the only two honorable options.  Don't go halfway and bring bad name to other Jesus's followers by trying to be saints but quit in the middle.
The Pulpit commentary on Luke 14:28-30 about the builder made a similar point:

So in the spiritual life, the would-be professor finds such living harder than he supposed, and so gives up trying after the nobler way of living altogether; and the world, who watched his feeble efforts and listened with an incredulous smile when he proclaimed his intentions, now ridicules him, and pours scorn upon what it considers an unattainable ideal. Such an attempt and failure injure the cause of God.

Non Reformed Interpretations
The OP disagrees with this interpretation, saying that the other King with 20,000 troops represents God, so making peace to the OP means completely different:

"don't start following Jesus if you are not confident, but negotiate with Him", and sooner rather than later, when He is still far away, rather than when He is near, and notices you don't have wedding garments, or oil for your lamp, or faith.

I cannot find support for that interpretation from a Reformed source.  However, I did find a 1908 Catholic commentary on Luke mentioning how St. Gregory (unlike St. Cyril) thinks that the double army King is Christ:

But S. Gregory (Hom. 37) gives another interpretation. “The king that is about to come against us is Christ, who will come with a double army against a single one. For while we are scarcely prepared in deeds only, He will discomfit us at once, both in thought and deed. Let us send Him therefore an embassy; our tears, our works of mercy, and propitiatory victim.”

I also find a very interesting research article on this parable from the 2nd Temple perspective, with focus on the Hebrew idioms current at the time, plus a redaction theory of how the parable came to the final version in Luke.  (Warning: the website's project is not Christian, it's an attempt to uncover the Hebraism within the Synoptic gospels.  See rebuttal in the next section below.).
One of the 2 goals of the article is to precisely address the question:

What is the meaning of ἐρωτᾷ εἰς εἰρήνην (“he asks for peace”) in the King Going to War simile (Luke 14:32; L18)?

Their conclusion is:

It therefore appears that the original meaning of Jesus’ simile was not that the weaker king negotiated terms of peace, but that his submission to his stronger adversary was expressed in offering a humble salutation. Luke preserved this Hebraism which he found in his pre-synoptic source, but its meaning was not understood by later copyists of Luke’s Gospel. They therefore attempted to make Luke’s sentence intelligible by improving the Greek, which accounts for the variant readings in New Testament manuscripts.
We believe that the Tower Builder and King Going to War similes are an attempt to explain why full-time discipleship is not suitable for everyone. Not everyone had the freedom and the ability to give up their livelihoods and leave their families in order to travel with Jesus from place to place, obligations that were incumbent upon Jesus’ full-time disciples. We believe that these historical circumstances must be recognized in order to appreciate Jesus’ teaching on this issue.
Jesus did not equate becoming a full-time disciple with salvation, nor did he regard non-disciples as hostile to his mission or exclude them from the benefits of his ministry. To the contrary, Jesus recognized that for the vast majority of people it was better that they enjoy his words and deeds as observers and beneficiaries and that they put his teachings into practice in their daily lives—like the crowds who listened to Jesus’ teachings and who held him in high regard—than to leave their homes and communities in order to become full-time disciples with absolute commitments and obligations to Jesus’ mission. Full-time discipleship was for the select few who could set aside their ordinary activities and engagements for a time in order to master Jesus’ message in order that they, in turn, might accurately pass it on to others.
In the Tower Builder and King Going to War similes it is not the willingness or the desire of the men to set about their tasks, but their ability to successfully execute their intentions. Similarly, we believe that the situation the similes address does not pertain to the sympathy of would-be disciples to Jesus’ message, but to their ability to do their job well. Jesus was willing to take on as disciples only those whom he believed were up to the task.

Personal assessment from the Reformed tradition
As we can see from the above, this parable has been interpreted in many different ways corresponding to one's faith tradition / principles of interpretation.  Unfortunately I couldn't find a clear & certifiably Reformed interpretation for the "peace" that the OP wants to interpret.
The 2nd Temple research article is definitely not suitable for Reformed consumption because the Jerusalem school hypothesis has received decisive rebuttal and "discommendation" (his word) in a very well researched and well written 1992 article by Michael L. Brown, an expert in Near Eastern languages and a conservative Bible college faculty member.  The article points out how the Jerusalem School project turns out to advance a theory that the Greek canonized gospels we possess today are corrupted in such a way that they can no longer be considered inspired.  The article discussed at length how the project has deep flaws in their assumptions as well as their bias in NOT presenting a more likely theory based on the widespread use of Septuagint in the time that the gospels were written.  So by extension, their interpretation of the simile should be discarded from the Reformed perspective.
As a side note, I highly recommend studying Michael Brown's 1992 article (pdf version here) in depth to arm believers with critical thinking against the rising tide of attempts (some very subtle) to discredit the trustworthiness of the gospels in the form that we possess today.  This includes other past attempts like the Jesus Seminar or the still influential Bart Ehrman project.  All conservative Christians from all denominations believe that the gospels present faithfully the teaching of Jesus, despite some difficulties in understanding some of the parables.
Reformed tradition is strongly saying that God will provide everything an elect's need for salvation and that the elect is supposed to receive everything with gratitude.  At the same time, the elect has to work hard to discern and defeat any temptation to sin with the grace that God will faithfully provide continuously until we enter heaven.  The elect has to be a disciple, there is no choice.  As long as the elect sides with God by completely trusting Jesus and receiving all grace with gratitude, there is no bargaining for peace needed.  Therefore, it is unlikely that the 20,000 troops King represents God, and to me the Pulpit commentary is quite congruent with the Reformed overall theology.  Therefore, the king with 20,000 troops represents the king of the world, the Devil, and the elect has to engage war with the Devil, with God's help of course.
The Reformed tradition moral lesson is thus: we cannot win against the Devil on our own, we need Jesus to save us.  And please don't embarrass the cause by going halfway because it will damage the "brand".
Then the "halfway believer", the farmer who started the tower or the king who initiated the war but who quit in the middle probably represents someone who isn't one of the elect because God doesn't give him/her the grace to persevere to the end (the "P" in TULIP) while the elect will be able to win against the devil (even if the elect has to die prematurely) and receive the eternal inheritance.


Where is the text of Pope Pius IX, "To the Easterners"? I have seen Wikipedia discussion of Pope Pius IX's 1848 Epistle to the Easterners, and while the discussion mentions a now removed link to catholicencyclicals.net which apparently was a resource on the encyclical but did not include its text, I haven't been able to obtain the Latin wording of the encyclical's title, nor pin down the text.

What is a URL to the full text of the encyclical, preferably on vatican.va?

Thanks,

The document that @depperm located at archive.org IS the one you're looking for, pdf here.  As Andrew Leach said, the Vatican website doesn't list this document.
The 44 page PDF document contains:

One page of context, from the Orthocath Nov 3, 2010 blog article Pope & Patriacts: The 1848 Letters of Pope Pius IX and the Orthodox Patriachs about the origin of the English translation of the Pope's letter (i.e. from the French journal Irenikon in 1929).
Pope Pius IX letter, dated 6 January 1848 (pages 2-13)
Orthodox Bishops's reply, dated May 1848 (pages 14-44)

In the English translation, the title says

On the Supreme Throne of Peter the Apostle
Apostolic Letter of Pope Pius IX, dated 6 January 1848

But in the French language Irenikon version (pdf here), the title says

Lettre de N. S. P. le Pape Pie IX aux chrétiens de l'Orient.
Le Pape Pie IX aux Orientaux

Google translated:

Letter from N. S. P. Pope Pius IX to the Christians of the East.
Pope Pius IX to the Orientals

which is close enough to either the Wikipedia title Epistle to the Easterners or the title of the English translation of the reply A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns".
When I compare the French text and the English text using Google translate of the first and last paragraphs, they are the same.


Has a pope ever been corrected publicly by a non-cleric in the presence of cardinals because of his immoral conduct? Has a pope ever been corrected publicly by a non-cleric in the presence of cardinals because of his immoral behavior?

As we all know, popes are not immune to living sinful lives. In fact, several have lived in serious sin for many years. The Church has had many holy popes, but there have been some very bad and sinful popes also.

What I mean by a non-cleric is a Catholic faithful who is not a deacon, priest, bishop or cardinal, but may be a layperson, nun or religious brother (not ordained).

According to Wikipedia, Antipope John XVI was captured, mutilated, and then was publicly degraded in the presence of the Emperor and also of Pope Gregory V. The pope was rebuked by St. Nilus the Younger (an abbot, but as far as I know not a cleric) for his cruelty. Although it was the Emperor's troops that actually committed such horrendous deeds, Pope Gregory V effectively gave his consent by doing nothing to stop it.

While I'm not sure if other cardinals were present, it seems somewhat probable given that the Pope and Emperor were both there.


Does anyone have a good definition of "Evangelical"? I know the word itself means "of or related to the gospel."  That's not what I'm talking about.  I mean, when the term is used to refer to a subset of Christians, what are the characteristics being implied?  What is the criteria used to determine what Christians are "Evangelicals" and which ones aren't?

Here are some statements of beliefs from some evangelical fellowships: The Gospel Coalition, IFES, Wycliffe.

Evangelicalism is a branch of protestantism, so it involves a protestant understanding of the gospel. But not all protestants are evangelical.

I think the biggest distinctive is what they say about the Bible. They reject those who say the Bible is flawed in some way, not relevant for today, that you need the authority of church leaders to understand it, or that God gives new relevations today that take priority over the Bible. To quote from the Gospel Coalition:

  Revelation God has graciously disclosed his existence and power in the created order, and has supremely revealed himself to fallen human beings in the person of his Son, the incarnate Word. Moreover, this God is a speaking God who by his Spirit has graciously disclosed himself in human words: we believe that God has inspired the words preserved in the Scriptures, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, which are both record and means of his saving work in the world. These writings alone constitute the verbally inspired Word of God, which is utterly authoritative and without error in the original writings, complete in its revelation of his will for salvation, sufficient for all that God requires us to believe and do, and final in its authority over every domain of knowledge to which it speaks. We confess that both our finitude and our sinfulness preclude the possibility of knowing God’s truth exhaustively, but we affirm that, enlightened by the Spirit of God, we can know God’s revealed truth truly. The Bible is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it teaches; obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; and trusted, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises. As God’s people hear, believe, and do the Word, they are equipped as disciples of Christ and witnesses to the gospel.

Why is the movement called evangelicalism when it's primary distinctive isn't about the gospel? I think because historically the people they were reacting against neglected the gospel because they neglected the Bible. Promoting the authority of the Bible is a safeguard to ensure the gospel keeps first importance.


Does being a "state church" give the Church of Scotland any doctrinal distinctive? Does it's status as a "state church" have any affect the beliefs or practices of the Church of Scotland? Are there any doctrinal distinctives that make it unique (particularly among Presbyterian churches) that can be traced to it's unique relationship with the state?

Regarding belief, the Church of Scotland is entirely independent of the state in matters spiritual (and is a "national church" not a state church). Regarding practices, the call to be a "national church" means a self-understanding not to neglect areas of the country which are less prosperous or populous. The Church of Scotland is struggling to maintain a system of parishes, with ministers serving every parish (including very rural parts of the Scottish Highlands and Islands).

The Church of Scotland has, at times, criticised the policies of the British or Scottish Governments. The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland has, for example, regularly approved "deliverances" calling for nuclear disarmament - contrary to British Government policy.


How is the Book of Mormon different from the Bible? What are the differences between the Book of Mormon and the Bible? How are they similar? What do they have in common?

Please provide an overview of the major differences. I prefer a Mormon perspective.

To understand the differences between the BOM and the Holy Bible, we first must look at these two volumes of scripture within the context of their similarities. So here is what they have in common:

They are both volumes of scripture written by prophets.
Millions of people study (and believe in) each, though manifestly at least 100X more people accept the Bible than the BOM.
They both have similar objectives: persuade people to believe in God and live peaceful/productive lives.
In terms of theology and doctrine, most of what is in the Bible and the Book of Mormon is unproveable and must be taken on faith.
Both were written over a very large span of time.

Here are the significant points of difference between the Bible and the Book of Mormon:

The Book of Mormon contains a consistent theme from start to finish: persuading people to believe and follow Jesus Christ. In the Bible, a similar theme exists in the New Testament, but it's often harder to detect in the Old Testament, and our Jewish friends would presumably conclude that there is no such theme in the Old Testament (Torah/Talmud).
The Bible has numerous sections that are non-doctrinal in nature, such as historical, proverbial, and legalistic. The Book of Mormon has elements of these as well, but is mostly either doctrinal on the surface, or contains doctrinal undertones.
Nearly all Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelicals believe that the Bible is the word of God and the BOM is not. Nearly all Mormons believe that both are the word of God.
BOM prophetic writers frequently make reference to the Bible, especially to the writings of Isaiah. The Bible makes no direct reference to the Book of Mormon, but Mormons believe there is a veiled reference to BOM peoples in John 10:16..."And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." Mormons believe that Jesus visited the people on the American continent shortly after His ascension spoken of in the Bible.
Nearly everything in the Bible takes place in the Middle East. While the Book of Mormon begins in Jerusalem, describing a family that flees the city into the desert, the vast majority takes place on the ancient American continent (long before the term "America" existed).
The Book of Mormon was translated from a single collection of ancient metal plates, and all within a single year. The Bible was pieced together over thousands of years and translated by many different people.


Were there other people with camel hoof knees from praying? A reformer whose life was based on prayer and his body bore the marks to prove it. His knees were like those of a camel's hoof as a result of continuous kneeling to pray. Anyone else besides St. James?

St. Emiliana was said to have skin as hard as the hide of a camel at her death.

  St. Gregory the Great had three aunts, sisters to his father, Gordian the regionarius, who led an ascetic religious life in their father's house. Their names were Tarsilla, who was the eldest, Emiliana and Gordiana. Tarsilla and Emiliana were more united by the fervor of their hearts and the bond of charity than by blood. They lived in their father's house on the Clivus Scauri as in a monastery and, encouraging one another to virtue by discourse and example, made great progress in spiritual life. Gordiana joined them, but she was often impatient of silence and retirement and, being called to another way of living, married her guardian. Tarsilla and Emiliana persevered in the path they had chosen, enjoying divine peace and love until they were called to receive the recompense of their fidelity. St. Gregory tells us that Tarsilla was visited one night with a vision of her great-grandfather, Pope St. Felix II (III), who showed a place prepared for her in heaven, saying, "Come; I will receive you into this habitation of light". She fell sick soon after, and as her friends were crowding round her bed, she cried out, "Away! Away! My Saviour Jesus is coming!" After these words she breathed out her soul into the hands of God on the vigil of Christmas. The skin of her knees and elbows was found to be hardened, "like the hide of a camel", by her continual prayer. A few days later she appeared to Emiliana, and called her to celebrate the Epiphany in heaven. Emiliana in fact, died on January 5. Both are named, on the respective days of their death, in the Roman Martyrology. Her feast day is December 24th. - St. Emiliana


According to the Catholic Church, why does God hurt others to punish David in 2 Samuel:24? Why does God hurt innocent people to punish King David? Moreover, even David doesn't understand it, raising the additional problem of why God would give a punishment not understood by the person supposed to be punished.

From the lectionary - January 31, 2018 :

  He asked: "Do you want a three years' famine to come upon your land, or to flee from your enemy three months while he pursues you, or to have a three days' pestilence in your land? Now consider and decide what I must reply to him who sent me." David answered Gad: "I am in very serious difficulty. Let us fall by the hand of God, for he is most merciful; but let me not fall by the hand of man." Thus David chose the pestilence. Now it was the time of the wheat harvest when the plague broke out among the people. The LORD then sent a pestilence over Israel from morning until the time appointed, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beer-sheba died. But when the angel stretched forth his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD regretted the calamity and said to the angel causing the destruction among the people, "Enough now! Stay your hand." The angel of the LORD was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. When David saw the angel who was striking the people, he said to the LORD: "It is I who have sinned; it is I, the shepherd, who have done wrong. But these are sheep; what have they done?

Why does God hurt innocent people to punish King David?
The people were not innocent. According to the Law,

Exodus 30:12 (KJV)
12 When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.

The mandate is an individual one, so during a census, each person is responsible to give a sacrafice to account for his soul (life). No such sacrifice was undertaken during David's census, and so while David was the king and elected to undertake the census contrary to the Law, it was not only he that broke the law, but he led the whole nation into sin.

2 Chronicles 12:3 And Joab answered, The Lord make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?
ibid. v.7
And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.

Why God would give a punishment not understood by the person supposed to be punished.
According to the covenant of the Law into which Israel entered with Yahweh, ignorance and innocence are not synonymous, even -perhaps especially, for the nation as a whole. Sins due to ignorance must still be atoned for.

Leviticus 4: 13-15 KJV
And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty: When the sin, which they have sinned against it, is known, then the congregation shall offer a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the tabernacle of the congregation. And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the Lord: and the bullock shall be killed before the Lord.

In short, they should have known. The fact that they did not, if they did not, does not excuse their trespass. It appears, however, that at least Joab of the king's officers was aware, and warned David, and David continued with his command to take the census in a manner not ordained by the Law.


Was Martin Luther a Rosicrucian? The rose together with the cross is the sign of the Rosicrucian Order as seen below:

The cross symbolizes Christianity and the rose often symbolizes secrecy (Sub Rosa).  Martin Luther's seal is also the rose and cross united (but differently):

It would be difficult to imagine that the Rosicrucians were not aware of Martin Luther or Martin Luther of them (whoever came first) and even more difficult that the similarities would happen by chance.  Therefore is there a link between the Rosicrucian Order and the Protestant Reformation?

Both Luther and the Rosicrucians have written about what the emblems represent, and the explanations differ quite a bit.

In a 1530 letter to Lazarus Spengler, Luther wrote:

  Such a heart should stand in the middle of a white rose, to show that faith gives joy, comfort, and peace. In other words, it places the believer into a white, joyous rose, for this faith does not give peace and joy like the world gives (John 14:27). That is why the rose should be white and not red, for white is the color of the spirits and the angels (cf. Matthew 28:3; John 20:12).

Conversely, the AMORC's website says:

  There is no religious connotation associated with this symbol; the Rose Cross symbol predates Christianity. The cross symbolically represents the human body and the rose represents the individual's unfolding consciousness.

Most scholars believe that a Lutheran named Johannes Valentinus Andreae (1586-1654) authored the Rosicrucian Manifestos. He also admitted to have done so, but claimed they were satirical, and his later works made occultism and alchemy objects of ridicule. There is also no direct evidence for the existence of Rosicrucianim prior to the manifestos' publication, but that could be attributed to the fact that it was a secret society. But if we read the direct evidence (the manifestos) straight-forwardly, then two conclusions emerge:

Rosicrucianism was founded after Luther's death.
The founding documents were written in German by a Lutheran.

It's not hard, then, to conclude that the shared symbolism is due to the influence of Lutheranism on Rosicrucianism. That, or it could be a coincidence.

Whether you accept these conclusions or not depends on how much weight you give to the direct documentary evidence, as opposed to hypothetical and secret histories and legends.


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Mary and/or other saints are in heaven? The Assumption of Mary states that after she died on Earth she went to Heaven.

What is the Biblical basis for the idea that she, or any other person who died after Jesus' resurrection, is already in Heaven?

There are some confusion among Christians regarding Paradise, Heaven, Hell, lake of fire and Sheol. Already many questions are asked on these topics like; this, this,this and this.

I would like to explain what I understand about Heaven.

I believe that Paradise was a place where the Old Testament saints were waiting for Jesus to defeat Satan and bring them to Heaven. The first person to enter Paradise would be Abel and the last would possibly be the thief crucified at the right hand side of Jesus on the cross. Abraham was a notable figure there in paradise as we see in Luke 16:19-31. Now, all OT saints and anyone who believes in Jesus are now in Heaven with Jesus Christ as we can see in Rev 6:9-11, Rev 7:9-17 and more.

Heaven is not the permanent place where the believers will stay. God has a greater plan for all believers. God will create a New Earth for his holy people. Apostle John saw this future planet Earth in his vision.

Revelation 21:1-4 (NIV)

  1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven
  and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.
  2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven
  from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3
  And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling
  place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will
  be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4
  ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more
  death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things
  has passed away.”

Thus, there are 3 places appointed for the saints.

Paradise (past)
Heaven (present)
New Earth (future)

Let's talk about Hell.

Paradise and Hell (Sheol) were very close to each other as we see in Luke 16:19-31. Any one who disobeys God in the OT times were in Hell. Now everyone who rejects Jesus Christ as their savior are in Hell. We don't know the first one to enter Hell but one of the first would be Cain. After the judgment day, all the people in Hell will be thrown into the Lake of Fire.

Revelation 20:11-15 (NIV)

  11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The
  earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place
  for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the
  throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the
  book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as
  recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it,
  and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each
  person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and
  Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the
  second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book
  of life was thrown into the lake of fire.


According to SDA can all pastors forgive sin, or just the original twelve apostles? I have a question relating to Matthew 18:18. I want to specifically ask the Seventh-day Adventist church about this.

It says:

  "I can assure you that when you speak judgment here on earth, it will
  be God's judgment. And when you promise forgiveness here on earth, it
  will be God's forgiveness." Matthew 18:18 ERV

Does this verse apply only to the twelve apostles that Jesus spoke at that time, or does it also apply to all pastors and ministers, that they can forgive sin, and/or does it also apply to churches today that whoever they "loose" from their churches would be "loosed" from heaven? So if a church today (let's suppose it's the one true church) excommunicate a member does that mean that that person is excommunicated in heaven?

Does Seventh-day Adventism vary from mainstream Christianity on this topic?

I'm not of the SDA church, but because you ask about SDA opinion specifically. I can tell you adventists cite Mt. 9:3 || Lk. 5:21 to demonstrate that the Catholic Church's claims to forgive sins constitutes "blasphemy":

Jesus. . said to the paralytic, ‘Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.’ Then some of the scribes said to themselves, ‘This man is blaspheming.’ (Mt. 9:2-3)

Then the scribes and the Pharisees began to question, ‘Who is this who is speaking blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ (Lk. 5:21)


Do Protestants believe that "Our Father" is on par with "Our Mother," or is Jesus strictly invoking a male symbol only? According to some people calling God 'Father', without adding that God is also Mother, unfairly exalts one image for God above all others and ignores the culturally conditioned nature of all our images of God, but Ratzinger said:

  Christianity is not a philosophical speculation; it is not a construction of our mind. Christianity is not 'our' work; it is a Revelation; it is a message that has been consigned to us, and we have no right to reconstruct it as we like or choose. Consequently, we are not authorized to change the Our Father into an Our Mother: the symbolism employed by Jesus is irreversible; it is based on the same Man-God relationship he came to reveal to us.

My question is: Do Protestant churches have the same or a different perspective on this matter?

While I cannot and would not be so bold as to try to answer your question as it asks about a generalization of protestant belief, I wish to point out that Jesus in the LORD's prayer; as translated in the King James version, used the original word:

πατήρ pater (pat-ayr') n.
1. a "father"
{literally or figuratively, near or more remote}
[apparently a primary word]
KJV: father, parent

which can be translated as the genderless word "parent" as opposed to the word:

Ἀββᾶ Abba (ab-bah`) n/p.
1. (vocatively) father
{referring to or addressing one's father}
[of Chaldee origin (H2)]
KJV: Abba

Which is a definitive reference to the male parent.


What is the role of a "Methodist lay pastor"? This site makes mention of a "Methodist lay pastor." What does this person do? How is this role different from the "pastor" in the Methodist Church? What type of religious training or education does this person have?

In the United Methodist Church, a lay pastor is a church member who has received training and can assist with preaching and care ministries, but does not have a formal seminary education.

The lay pastor can perform most of the duties of ordained ministers:

  The certified lay minister shall preach the Word, provide a care ministry to the congregation, assist in program leadership, and be a witness in the community for the growth, missional and connectional thrust of The United Methodist Church as part of a ministry team with the supervision and support of a clergy person.

However, lay pastors cannot lead Holy Communion unless they receive special ordination to do so.


What did Brigham Young teach regarding Blood Atonement, and is that doctrine still held today in the LDS/Mormon Church? Brigham Young taught the doctrine of Blood Atonement that indicated the blood of Christ was insufficient to provide forgiveness for some sins.  What are the specifics regarding the doctrine of Blood Atonement that Brigham Young taught?  Where is this teaching found?  What sins could be atoned for by the cross of Christ and which could not?

Is this doctrine still believed today?

I found this article at Desert News concerning the topic:

  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released this
  statement Wednesday:

  In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was
  common, some church members and leaders used strong language that
  included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving
  up their own lives.

  However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be
  required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a
  doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We
  believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of
  Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible
  for all people.

That same site states the date of this announcement as June 18, 2010.


Does the Evangelical Lutheran church see Mormons as Christian? Does the Evangelical Lutheran church see Mormons as Christian?

Do they need salvation or are they Christian/saved?

The Lutheran denomination, "The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America", which is just one of many bodies using the word "Evangelical" in its name (and it should be noted that there are denominations, mainly in Europe, which adhere to the teachings of Martin Luther which do not include that word in their name) publishes a document available for free download at download.elca.org under the title "Do Lutherans re-baptize former Mormons who are joining the congregation", in which it is noted that belief in the doctrine of the Trinity—that there is one God comprised of three independent, but inseparable and coequal persons—is considered by Lutherans to be a fundamental, essential tenet of the Christian faith, so that one cannot reject the doctrine of the Trinity and be Christian. By contrast, Mormons are said in the document not to accept the doctrine of the Trinity, as they hold that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, are three separate entities. On that ground (probably among others), the ELCA, in common with most other "Evangelical Lutherans", would deny that Mormons are Christian.


How was 'a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger' a sign? The angels told the shepherds:

  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you:you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger. (Luke 2:11-12, ESV)

The question is how would this scene that they found serve to be a sign? Also a sign of what?

Signs in tradition and scripture, can have two basic senses. In the first sense, they are often miraculous indicators of the speaker's trustworthiness, which encourage the listener to believe. In the second sense, they embody or represent a larger or more transcendent truth. The general formula for signs in my first sense is that the speaker first delivers a message, then performs a sign to reassure the listeners of his authority. We can see this by considering a couple other signs in scripture that follow the format.

First, let's consider the interaction between Moses and God as God prepares Moses to speak with Pharaoh for the first time.

  1 “But,” objected Moses, “suppose they do not believe me or
  listen to me? For they may say, ‘The LORD did not appear to you.’”
  2 The LORD said to him: What is in your hand? “A staff,” he
  answered. 3 God said: Throw it on the ground. So he threw
  it on the ground and it became a snake,a and Moses backed away from
  it. 4 Then the LORD said to Moses: Now stretch out your
  hand and take hold of its tail. So he stretched out his hand and took
  hold of it, and it became a staff in his hand. 5 That is so
  they will believe that the LORD, the God of their ancestors, the God
  of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, did appear to you.
  6 Again the LORD said to him: Put your hand into the fold
  of your garment. So he put his hand into the fold of his garment, and
  when he drew it out, there was his hand covered with scales, like
  snowflakes. 7 Then God said: Put your hand back into the
  fold of your garment. So he put his hand back into the fold of his
  garment, and when he drew it out, there it was again like his own
  flesh. 8 If they do not believe you or pay attention to the
  message of the first sign, they should believe the message of the
  second sign. 9 And if they do not believe even these two
  signs and do not listen to you, take some water from the Nile and pour
  it on the dry land. The water you take from the Nile will become blood
  on the dry land. (Exodus 4:1-8)

Now, smarter or more patient men than me can likely read some meaning into both signs. But, on the surface of it, Moses is given several miracles he can perform in front of Pharaoh to attest to his authority, or to the fact that he has been sent by God with his message. And, unless my memory is foggy, Moses appears before Pharaoh, first with his message, and then displays the signs of his authority and mission.

Then, let's consider Jesus' first "sign" according to John.

  1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana in
  Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus and his
  disciples were also invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine
  ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.”
  4 [And] Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern
  affect me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to
  the servers, “Do whatever he tells you.” 6 Now there were
  six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each
  holding twenty to thirty gallons. 7 Jesus told them, “Fill
  the jars with water.” So they filled them to the brim. 8
  Then he told them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.”
  So they took it. 9 And when the headwaiter tasted the water
  that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the
  servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the
  bridegroom 10 and said to him, “Everyone serves good wine
  first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but
  you have kept the good wine until now.” 11 Jesus did this
  as the beginning of his signs in Cana in Galilee and so revealed his
  glory, and his disciples began to believe in him. 12 After
  this, he and his mother, [his] brothers, and his disciples went down
  to Capernaum and stayed there only a few days. (John 2:1-12)

Admittedly, I feel like I'm contorting John's first sign a little to fit the format, but if notice the portions I've emphasized, the message is clear: do whatever he tells you. If His mother would not have given the message, "do whatever he tells you," the miracle would have been neat, but it would not have been a sign. It would have been a magic trick. And without the sign, the message lacks authority. The wedding guests would have no reason to heed Mary's command to submit fully to Jesus.

This particular sign is also packed full with pretty obvious symbolism, meaning, and power. And in those respects, the sign is a sign in other senses. The miracle extends a wedding celebration, likely indicating that Jesus' mission is about completing our joy (something He explicitly tells us later). It is significant that the jars used are ceremonial jars. Jesus commands that the ceremonial jars be filled with ordinary water, and by His miracle, he reveals them to be significant or holy -- he condones and makes holy the Jewish ceremony.

Now, I don't think the context of your initial quote needs to be broadened, but let's widen the context a little anyway:

  8 Now there were shepherds in that region living in the fields and
  keeping the night watch over their flock. 9 The angel of
  the Lord appeared to them and the glory of the Lord shone around them,
  and they were struck with great fear. 10 The angel said to
  them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim to you good news of
  great joy that will be for all the people. 11 For today in
  the city of David a savior has been born for you who is Messiah and
  Lord. 12 And this will be a sign for you: you will find an
  infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.”
  13 And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host
  with the angel, praising God and saying: 14 “Glory to God
  in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” (Luke 2:1-14)

First, the angels deliver a message. (That is their purpose, after all!) The message is that the savior and Messiah has been born. And as I understand it, the message above suggests that this savior is both God and man, Messiah and Lord. And then, to lend credence to their message, they basically tell the shepherds, "Go and see for yourself! This is probably the first and last time you'll see a baby in a food trough!"

Admittedly, I don't know how often Jews laid their infants in food troughs. But, these angels make the pretty incredible claim that the Messiah has not only been born, but is God Himself. And as a sign that they're telling the truth, they tell the shepherds where to find Him.

Now, as a Catholic, there's a great deal of additional sign and symbolism here. God is born in Bethlehem (the house of bread), wrapped in swaddling clothes (He is fully human), and has been laid in a food trough, a sign that He has been offered up for consumption -- and not just any consumption, and not even implying reverent consumption, but animalistic, carnal, beastly consumption.

So, the sign of the infant, I think, hits on both senses of a sign. It testifies to the accuracy of the angel's message. And it signals Jesus whole mission: to "condescend" into humanity, thereby making humanity holy, and to submissively offer Himself as the fundamental food for our immortal bodies as regular bread would have been for our mortal bodies. I.e., Jesus' first "act" is to signal (be a sign of) the Eucharist. And we are meant to devour Him, as hungry beasts from a food trough.


What is the significance of shouting "Hosanna" by the people of Jerusalem? The word Hosanna has many meanings: "help", "save, I pray", "Save, now!" or Praising etc.

If the people shouted "Hosanna" in order to praise Jesus merely as a great Prophet, it would be easier to shout "Crucify him!" later when they were disappointed by his acts.

If the intention of the people of Jerusalem was to say "Save us from the hands of Rome", it means they accepted Jesus as the Messiah after seeing all the miracles he performed. But in less than a week they became impatient and shouted "Crucify him!", thereby rushing to a conclusion that Jesus was actually not the Messiah.

What was the intention of the people of Jerusalem when they shouted Hosanna?

Many of the people of Jerusalem indeed thought that Jesus was the Messiah. There were so many prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus, and the common person at least had knowledge of some of these prophecies, as they were what many of them had to look forward to.
On Palm Sunday, Jesus fulfilled one more prophecy (Zechariah 9:9) that many would not have missed:

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your king is coming to you;
He is just and endowed with salvation,
Humble, and mounted on a donkey,
Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

When the Jewish people shouted "Hosanna", regardless of which specific meaning the word had, the intent of the people was clear. They wanted a political or military Messiah, not a religious one. They wanted an earthly King.The article here goes into this in a little more detail, but in summary:

[There was a] switch in public opinion. At the Triumphal Entry, Jerusalem rejoiced. But then Jesus failed their expectations. He had come to defeat sin and death, not Rome. His kingdom was in hearts, not on a throne (at least not yet). They began to reject Jesus as the campaign of lies by the religious leaders had its effect. Finally, by the time Jesus stood before Pilate, there had been a dramatic shift in public opinion.


What is the new understanding that emerged about the death penalty that recently entered the Catechism? What the heck does this sentence added to the Catechism mean?

In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802a.html
What new understanding?  What significance?  What sanctions? Is this even a complete sentence?

The strange thing about death penalty is that there is no uniformity across the nations on the crimes to which it is applicable, level of the court which is competent to award it, different authorities to whom appeal can be made, and the manner by which the convict is put to death in execution  of the  penalty. India, for instance, is a secular nation where death penalty is in vogue, but is to be awarded in  rarest of the rare ' cases. The convict is given a fair trail, and is mandated to appeal to the Apex Court and then to seek mercy from the President . It takes years together to complete the legal process and to execute the convict, so that nothing is left to speculation that he/she had not been given a fair chance to prove innocence, or to seek a lesser penalty. Unfortunately, that is not the case with all nations across the world.  A visit to the website of Amnesty International is enough to convince one that death penalty which once executed is irreversible, that many innocent people have gone to the gallows for lack of fair trial, and that a number of  nations prescribe death penalty for  crimes such as smuggling of drugs for which other penalties could be given. Now, one cannot expect the draft-makers of Catechism to have  a quintessential summary of all the arguments for and against imposition of death penalty . Naturally, they may have chosen to limit the arguments to a few words viz. ``new understanding."


Who goes to hell in LDS theology? According to LDS teaching, who goes to hell, and why?

I've heard that only really bad people and ex-Mormons will go to hell.  Is this true?

From http://www.lds.org/topics/hell?lang=eng

  Latter-day revelations speak of hell in at least two ways. First, it
  is another name for spirit prison, a temporary place in the postmortal
  world for those who died without a knowledge of the truth or those who
  were disobedient in mortality. Second, it is the permanent location of
  Satan and his followers and the sons of perdition, who are not
  redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

LDS official teaching is that all who have died without the knowledge of truth (LDS doctrine), or that rejected the truth will go to Hell, which is very different than the widely accepted  concept of Hell.

Instead of a place of suffering and torment, it's a temporary prison where they will get a chance to learn about the Truth, and if they are willing, repent and embrace the Truth.

Those who reject it are cast into outer darkness with Satan and his angels, and the "sons of Perdition".


Is every Roman Catholic Church saint also an Eastern Catholic Church saint (and viceversa)? I was recently reading about Isaac the Syrian. I learned that he is considered a Saint in the Eastern Catholic Church (EC), but, it seems, not in the Latin Catholic Church (LC). He is not listed here, and he does not have a YES in this list either. Actually, from the latter, you can see that a lot of saints in the EC are not saints in the LC, and vice versa.

So, if this is really the case, why is it? I could imagine this disparity does not mean disagreement about the merits of sainthood, but rather a type of specific tradition or relevance to the respective church. In effect, many LC-only saints were "members" of the now called LC (for example, Rose of Lima, from Peru), whereas many EC-only saints were "members" of the now called Orthodox Church (for example, Clement of Ohrid, from now Bulgaria).

Yes, recognised in the sense that they can never be rejected as a saint.

A saint is someone in heaven.

Therefore St. Isaac of Nineveh is either in heaven or not. The Catholic church is "one", that would mean that St. Isaac of Nineveh cannot be a saint in the Catholic Church in Damascus and cease to be a saint in Paris.

St. Isaac of Nineveh is either in heaven or not, and if one part of the one Church declares an individual in heaven, it would make no sense for a church to call itself "one" and have conflicting irreversible supernatural declarations.


Did the teachings of Buddha influence Jesus? I have heard that Buddha preceded Christ by approximately 500 years and that it may have been possible for the teachings of Buddha to have reached the ears of the young Christ and inspired his revelation. The parallels in their lives, teachings, and even metaphors are uncanny.

Further reading that supports the claim:

"Living Buddha Living Christ" - Thich Nat Han
"Was Jesus a Buddhist?" - this document flows in a way to support the Idea of Jesus knowing about Buddhism.
The movie The man from Earth. Scene script: (man-from-earth-jesus-is-cro-magnum-man)

That said, I'm looking for definitive points of similarity or disagreement between the two.  If direct historical lineage can be proved, or fundamentally definitive points of departure could be pointed out to disprove the link, that would help any answers.

While the Ba'hai might make such a claim, Nicene Christianity would not.  Most Christians have sufficiently fundamental differences with Buddhism over how to live that calling one a disciple of another would not capture the relationship well. Leaving aside radically different notions of the afterlife (Jesus did not believe in reincarnation!), there are fundamentally different perscriptions in how to handle life's vicissitudes.

The Buddha's first noble truth, for example teaches that joy should be avoided, in order to avoid the pain that comes with it.

In contrast, Hebrews 12 says of Jesus:

  ..looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.

Whether or not their understanding of how one should live a "good" life is similar, and whether or not they conveyed their messages using simiar metaphors would not be as great as such a fundamental difference of opinion on how to live a life.  Given this great dichotomy, even if one could plausibly make a case that a Jewish rabbi 500 years after Buddha in a country very, very far away, somehow was aware of him, it would be difficult to call him a major influencer.


Are Lutherans the "adversaries" of Catholics, according to the Catholic Church? I have heard that in the 16th century Lutherans were referred to as "adversaries" by theologians like St. Robert Bellarmine. As far as I know, this goes against Church teaching. Lutherans are always said to be "our fellow Christians" by recent Popes.
Perhaps non-Catholics are always "adversaries" according to the Church?
According to the Church, are Lutherans the "adversaries" of Catholics?

Bellarmine wrote arguing the Catholic position and attempted to demonstrate that the Lutheran position, on a range of matters, was incorrect. He frequently did this along the lines of "our adversaries argument is this, but I think they are mistaken because..".
In that contest "adversaries" means those on the other side of the question, those putting an alternative opinion.
He was not saying he regarded Lutherans as his enemies. There were no  unfriendly, pejorative, hostile or even impolite intent in referring to a person on the other side of a debate as an adversary.


According to the Assembly of God, must a person love God to get into heaven, if he believes in Christ? I was always taught, and my reading of the Bible (admittedly it has holes) tell me that the requirement to get into heaven is to accept Jesus as one's savior; that is, one must acknowledge one's status as a sinner, one must acknowledge Jesus is the Son of God, and one must accept the offer of grace and salvation through Jesus's shed blood.

I notice that in there, there is nothing about loving God, or even liking Him. Is there anything in the Bible that says we are actually required to love God to get into heaven? Or, like the begrudging taxpayer, can we avoid punishment from someone we're not endeared to simply by 'following the rules'?

I am looking for the Evangelical perspective on this, Assembly of God, if possible, with the scriptural basis for their view.

Here are several scripture reference for your reflection and possibly, revelation:

John 3:3 - Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

John 3:16 - “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:36 - Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Romans 10:9-10 - Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

These scripture references shown above align with your known and accepted perspective above. Additionally, you will fine a couple of statements made by Jesus that must also be considered, in Matthew as follows:

Matthew 22:

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Matthew 5:

14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.
15 Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.
16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that[b] they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

In Closing:
Numbers 6:24-26
24 “The Lord bless you and keep you;
25 The Lord make His face shine upon you, And be gracious to you;
26 The Lord lift up His countenance upon you, And give you peace.”’

Peace


Are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to marry outside the faith? Some Christian denominations allow their members to marry whomever they please, others discourage it, and others just don't allow it (you are either disfellowshipped or the church refuses to perform the marriage).

What position do Jehovah's Witnesses hold on interfaith marriage?

If it is allowed, is the ceremony different in any way?
If it is discouraged, is it for social reasons (interfaith marriage
is hard) or doctrinal reasons (the Bible says...)?

I feel that the previous answer might be a bit one sided.

0) First of all, persons who are not baptised as a JW, but only raised as a JW, are free to live their lives as they see fit (there is no infant baptism among JW's). They are not considered as JW's and the society can not officially sanction any of their life style choices. The same goes for disfellowshipped persons or persons who disassociated themselves from the JW's.

So many persons who are raised as a JW, do not consider themselves JW's (although the outside world might perceive them this way) and they live with partners whom they choose 'freely' (of course one has to take into account some pressure from family, peer pressure and pressure from society in general, which limits the free choice of most persons).

1) Since many JW's are married and belong to a different religion before they get baptized as a Jehovah's Witness, interfaith marriages are not so rare among JW's (typically only the wife converts to JW's).
In those situations Paul's advice to the Corinthians apply. Basically he advises to stick with your partner (1 Cor. 7:10-16). So in that case, JW's are married with non-witnesses and have to do everything in their power to make the marriage work.

2) Persons who are unmarried adults and baptised as a JW, are encouraged to marry only other baptised JW's (of a different gender). Again this is based on the advise of Paul to the Corinthians.

1 Cor. 7:39: '...she is free to be married to whom she wants, only in (the) Lord'.
2 Cor. 6:14-15: 'Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness? (...) Or what portion does a faithful person have with an unbeliever?'

Baptised male JW's who do not follow this advise, might lose some 'privileges' (e.g. they may not teach the audience in public anymore).
It is however not a disfellowshipping offence to date or marry a non-JW.

I do not know if there are any official sanctions against female JW's who marry non JW-men (the position against women is more relaxed, I think).
When they do marry, the same advice as given in 1 Cor. 7:10-16 apply.

3) Many persons who are baptised as a JW, fade away and become inactive (this means they do not go knocking on doors anymore for a period of 6 months or more).
According to some studies 2/3 of the children who are raised as a JW, do not consider themselves as a JW when they reach adulthood (this is apparently the lowest retention rate of all the religions).

Most of time, the inactive single persons are also free to do whatever they like, because the congregation of JW's will probably not keep track of what they are doing.

It is also possible that two partners are baptised and only one of them (very often the husband) becomes inactive (and has a different outlook on life, becomes agnostic, atheistic,...). In that case, the same advice as given in 1 Cor. 7:10-16 applies.
Often the JW partner is quite disappointed in the decision of the partner and this can put a strain on the marriage, but in many cases the relationship continues as usual. Also the relationship with other JW's can continue as usual, however some JW members might not be so cordial anymore with a person who has become inactive. So sometimes situations might arrive where e.g. JW's give a party and only invite the JW partner and not the 'inactive' mate.

It is also not very uncommon that young persons who are raised as a JW (and baptised) marry each other and once they are married both stop practising the religion.

So in these cases you have relationships between real JW's (who go door to door and to all the meetings) and only 'name' JW's (inactive ones who do basically nothing).

The bottom line is that JW's are allowed to marry outside the faith, but it is discouraged.


I've heard it said that Pope St. John Paul II wrote in front of the blessed sacrament. Is this true? I occasionally get the dirty look from people in the adoration chapel, when writing, and was wondering if it's true that Pope St. John Paul II wrote in the adoration chapel.

Yes, it is true.
Chapter 9 ("The Blessed Sacrament") from Jason Evert's 2014 book Saint John Paul the Great: His Five Loves reproduced here has this quote:

The Holy Father often spent hours at a time writing before the Blessed Sacrament.  He explained:

I have always been convinced that the chapel is a place of special inspiration.  What a privilege to be able to live and work in the shadow of His Presence. . . . It is not always necessary to enter physically into the chapel in order to enter spiritually into the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.  I have always sensed that Christ was the real owner of my episcopal residence, and that we bishops were just short-term tenants.  That's how it was in Franciszkanska Street for almost twenty years, and that's how it is here in the Vatican.  In his chapel in Kraków, the kneeler was more of a prayer desk, with a desktop large enough so that he could write while kneeling or sitting before the Eucharist.  A lamp was installed nearby so he could work at any time of night as well.  As pope, he spent time in adoration before every Wednesday audience, and always made a short visit before and after every meal.  He also spent long amounts of time before the Blessed Sacrament before and after his pilgrimages.  Marathons of prayer were not unusual for him.  One papal photographer recalled, "I remember that in Vilnius he prayed for six hours in a row . . ."


Is the al-Hallaj of the Yazidi religion Jesus? I am a follower of Christ and am going to be a missionary. I am studying the culture and religion of the Yazidi (also spelled Yezidi) and I don't understand al-Hallaj. According to the Yazidi, is al-Hallaj Jesus or is he like Jesus?

Al-Hallaj (AD 858–922) was a Sufi mystic from ~900 years after the time of Jesus. He was enamored of the Jesus he knew of, but his own sources and influence were primarily Islamic and his idea of who Jesus was matches the non-divine prophet of Islamic teaching rather that the divine savior of Christianity. He tried to live after the pattern of the stories he had and used some terminology from Christianity, but his self proclaimed identity is that of a follower of Jesus, not a re-incarnation of him.

Strictly speaking, al-Hallaj was not a Yazidi, although they share some relationship to Sufism. Yazidi beliefs do incorporate some Islamic mystic ideas similar to al-Hallaj's, but other beliefs are incorporated as well into a syncretistic blend of beliefs that is deeply animistic. Stories, lingo, and a not a few theological concepts are borrowed from both Islam and Christianity.

For their part, both Islam and Christianity deny any affiliation. Neither recognize him or his legacy as anything but that of a Sufi mystic.


What is the biblical basis for the eternal existence of the lost in hell? I've heard particular denominations claim that although hell is definitely a real place and hell itself will burn forever, people who are condemned to hell don't actually exist forever in hell but instead are eventually destroyed, wiped out of existence. They claim that the soul being naturally immortal is a pagan idea, and that only those given eternal life will live forever.

As far as I know most mainline denominations affirm that if you are not saved then you will indeed exist forever in Hell.

My question is, what is the biblical basis to support the doctrine that people who are condemned to hell will actually continue to exist in hell for eternity (as opposed to being annihilated)? Alternatively, what is the biblical support for the soul itself being naturally immortal?

There are indeed many verses that speak of Hell as being eternal although there aren't so many that make the clear that the punishment is also eternal. Here are a couple:

Matthew 25:46 (NIV)
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 (NIV)
8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might

(Emphasis mine.)
A look at Matthew 25:46 on Blue Letter Bible shows that the same word is used for both usages of "eternal" (and for "everlasting").  This word is also used in all the instances of "eternal life", of which there are about 40. Hence, one can safely infer that the two verses I referenced above make it clear that Hell is not a temporary suffering, but that anyone who is sent to Hell will burn forever.


Refutations of, or Thoughts on How Jesus Became God (Bart D. Ehrman) Are there any published, written or recorded (audio or video) responses to the claims Bart D Ehrman makes in  How Jesus Became God?

I'm currently reading this and Misquoting Jesus as part of an ongoing examination of what I believe and, as someone raised in the Christian tradition, I am finding Ehrman's arguments to be both eye-opening and disturbing.

I want to make sure that my research includes information from a diverse range of source material so that I can make informed decisions, which is why I pose this question

I have not read either of the books, How Jesus Became God or  Misquoting Jesus, but I have read another of his books, Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (HarperCollins, 2011). In Forged, Ehman condensed a lot of challenging conclusions into a single volume, but I found nothing that many other scholars have not stated in other publications.

Ben Witherington sets out to refute some of Ehrman's arguments here, along with an link to Witherington's book, Bart Interrupted. Given that this article sets out to be a refutation, not a peer review, it is reasonably objective. Witherington says Ehrman is a a gifted writer and a gifted lecturer, with the ability to distil difficult and complex material down to a level that undergraduates and ordinary lay folk can understand. Against this, he says that Ehrman is not writing from a position of long study and knowledge of New Testament Studies, and has never written a scholarly monograph on NT theology or exegesis. In fairness to Ehrman, it should be pointed out that he is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and that he has written three college textbooks, so he is hardly an intellectual novice.

This site is more extreme, accusing Ehrman of lacking intellectual honesty. It says that Ehrman should not write on ethics, as this is outside his area of expertise. To help you judge his discussion on Christian ethics, a conservative, but thorough review of Christian ethics can be found in Christian Ethics:Options and Issues, by Norman L. Geisler.

The title of your question asks about thoughts on and refutations of the arguments of Bart D Ehrman,but the question in total seems to be broader than this. You mention an ongoing examination of what you believe, and I assume this will be based on more than what Ehrman says, or any refutations of what he says. In fact, you want to make sure that your research includes information from a diverse range of source material. A quite neutral introductory text by Raymond E. Brown is An Introduction to the New Testament. Burton L. Mack's Who Wrote the New Testament covers some of the ground covered by Ehrman, allowing you to see whether Ehrman is an ideosyncratic outsider, as sometimes portrayed. Mark as Story, by David Rhoads, Joanna Dewey and Donald Michie, discusses nothing of what Ehrman says, but will give a fresh look at the earliest of the New Testament gospels, how it was written and how it influenced its intended audience.


Is Jesus saying "God willing" the same as "Insallah", said by Muslims before doing anything? Is Jesus saying "God willing" the same as "Insallah" said by Muslims before doing anything?

Inshallah is simply the Arabic for 'God willing' or 'if God wills'. If any person of any religion were to say "God willing" in Arabic, they would say "Inshallah". The word 'Allah' just means 'God' in Arabic, and is used by Arabic Christians to refer to the Christian God. 'Inshallah' is used by Christians to express the concept of "If God wills" (which is found in James 4: 13-15, and is not spoken by Jesus). Although widely associated with Islam, it is not specifically an Islamic expression.

So the concept of things happening only 'if God wills' exist both in Christianity and Islam, and the same word is used for both in Arabic, which is 'Inshallah'. Deducing from that support by the New Testament writers for Islam (which post-dated the New Testament by hundreds of years) would be unwarranted.


Is there any reference regarding the use of these extra-biblical sources in Mennonite congregations? Background

A few years ago, a concern was raised by a member of a local Mennonite congregation about the use of citations from the Shepherd of Hermas. At the time, the concern was alleviated when it was mentioned that the Mennonite council endorsed its use as a secondary text.

Recently, the concern was raised again. This time the member would like a citation or reference in order to substantiate either the endorsement, repudiation, or neutrality toward this text by Mennonite Bretheren.

Question

Does anyone have a cite or reference that discusses whether and to what extent the following extra-biblical sources are considered appropriate for teaching and instruction for Mennonite congregations?

Epistle of Barnabas,
The Shepherd of Hermas
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,

Any citation or reference either supporting or repudiating these texts from a Mennonite denomination or organization is requested.

Having been a Mennonite for all my adult life, and attending a Mennonite Brethren church for the last 8 years or so, I have never heard of The Shepherd of Hermas, or any of the other books you mentioned.

However, Mennonites, and many other denominations, often use written resources in sermons, corporate worship (recitations, hymns, songs), etc, that are extra-Biblical.

The official stand of the U.S. Mennonite Brethren Church on the use of such teachings is summed up in Article 2 of the Confession of Faith:

  The Holy Spirit continues to make God known to individuals and the church; this revelation is always consistent with the Scriptures.

According to this, any extra-Biblical teaching which claims to be revelation of God ought to be permitted, so long as it is consistent with the Scriptures.


What is Book of Esthers purpose? As a Christian, how should I understand the book of Esther?

Meaning, what does it tell me, and what should I take from it to make me a better Christians, or even not to make me a better Christian what should I take from it?

Or maybe, as quoted from this answer?

  Anyway, Esther is in the Christian Bible because it is in the Jewish Bible. Why would the Jews include it in their Bible? Chiefly because it tells the story for one of their feasts, that of Purim. Purim is a joyous festival in which they act out the story of Esther by reading through the book of Esther.

The main purpose of the Book of Esther (written between 460 and 350 B.C.) is to celebrate the providence of God, especially in regard to His chosen people, Israel.  Interestingly, it’s the only biblical book that does not mention God by name, yet throughout it reveals how God works behind the scenes to deliver the Jews in Persia.  God uses Esther to help his people (Esther 4:14) and through her faithfulness, Haman is finally defeated and the Jews enjoy rest from their enemies.

The Book of Esther records the institution of the Feast of Purim and the obligation of its perpetual observation:

  ”Then Queen Esther, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew gave full written authority, confirming this second letter about Purim.  Letters were sent to all the Jews, to the 127 provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, in words of peace and truth, that these days of Purim should be observed at their appointed seasons, as Mordecai the Jew and Queen Esther obligated them, and as they had obligated themselves and their offspring, with regard to their fasts and their lamenting.  The command of Queen Esther confirmed these practices of Purim and it was recorded in writing” (Esther 10:29-32).

The word Purim is derived from the Persian word pur (“lot”) and recalls how Haman, the enemy of the Jews, cast lots to determine the best day to carry our his plan to exterminate them (Esther 3:7).  Of all the Jewish festivals, Purim is the most secular in flavor, and one of the most joyful.  It is celebrated on the fourteenth of Adar (February/March), preceded by a day of fasting.

It is read at the Feast of Purim to commemorate the great deliverance of the Jewish nation brought about by God through Esther.  Jews today still read Esther during Purim.

So what does it have to do with Christians?

The story of Esther is a lesson to Christians to trust God and allow God to use us in the outworking of his divine purpose.  Christians don't need to celebrate Purim but they do need to pay heed to the history of God's dealings with his chosen people.  It's a lesson in how God is Sovereign, and how worldly rulers can't have it all their own way.  We learn from the mistakes of those who oppose God and the victories of those who trust God

Sources: New International Version and English Standard Version Study Bible Notes.


Are there gender requirements for Sponsors for a Catholic baptism? In the Catholic Church, do sponsors for baptism need to be male and female, or are you able to have two females or two males as sponsors?

The Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite Catholic Church states that there may be one or two sponsors for the sacrament of baptism. However, if there are two sponsors, one must be male and the other must be female. Thus two sponsors of the same sex is not permitted according to the laws of the Church.

  Can.  873 There is to be only one male sponsor or one female sponsor or one of each.

Here is a more readable way of reading the same thing from the GUIDELINES FOR SPONSORS FOR BAPTISM & CONFIRMATION of the Diocese of Rockford:

  A person who is to be baptized or confirmed is to have a sponsor. While it has become a tradition to have two sponsors at Baptism, having only one sponsor is acceptable. No more than two sponsors are permitted, however, and the two sponsors may not be of the same sex.

I am unaware of any possibility of someone obtaining a dispensation of the norm for allowing two sponsors of the same sex. One would have to contact the local ordinary (bishop) at the Chancery Office of your particular bishop and ask this question to those in authority for an answer.