How can panentheism be reconciled with Satan? Some Christians hold that the universe or creation are part of God (panentheism). More often than not, God is said to be both immanent and transcendental in relation to the universe. How can those be accepted if Satan is to be treated as a real entity? While immanence may allow you to say that God pervades being but is external to it, panentheism allows no such move. It would imply there is no "other" in relation to God, only but God and parts of God. And as soon as you introduce parts, you immediately wreck the supposed simplicity of God.

I find the idea of Christian panentheism problematic because I can't see how Satan, a part of creation, can exist if he is encompassed by God, implying that God is privated in some way.

Please be careful not to confuse PANtheism with PANENtheism. Both are very different. Pantheism identifies the universe with God (like Spinoza) while panentheism situates the universe within God, as it were (a bit like immanence, but without being fully distinct). That the universe is created does not contradict panentheism necessarily. The reason I bring this up is because a number of theologians such as Peacocke and Zycinski (the last of which is an archbishop of the RCC) do propose a panentheistic understanding of God because they reject not revelation but neo-scholasticism.

They also wish to account for God's immanence in the world given the current science. I'm not sure I agree with them (I can imagine other ways God could be immanent), but this is what's been put on the table. Here's a link to more information.

The theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) is sometimes identified as panentheistic. Swedenborg rejected the idea that the universe is part of God. However, he saw God as pervading the universe and continually maintaining its existence from within and above. Thus God is present throughout the universe, from its tiniest to its largest parts. Here is a succinct statement of this principle, from True Christianity #33:

Every created thing is finite. The Infinite is in finite objects the way something is present in a vessel that receives it.

Swedenborg therefore saw God as present in everything in the created universe, both spiritual and material, as a continually creative inflow that maintains everything in existence each instant.
"Satan," in Swedenborg's theology, is not an individual being, such as an angel of light who fell away from God and became an evil angel and the ruler of hell. Rather, in Swedenborg's theology, Satan is a personification of evil, and in more practical terms, is the combined operation and presence of all of hell, which consists of all human beings who have chosen evil over good during their lifetimes on earth.
So in Swedenborg's theology, the problem of God's immanence vs. the existence of Satan is the same as the problem of God's immanence vs. the existence of evil. Put simply, if God pervades the universe, and God is good, how can evil exist anywhere in the universe?
Swedenborg's answer to this question incorporates the classical answer that human free will requires the possibility of the existence of evil. He states that although God does not create evil, God does create human beings with free will, which makes it possible for humans to bring evil into existence.
In a sense, evil is the rejection and absence of God. However, in Swedenborg's theology, it is not possible for anything to be entirely separated from God, because, according to the principle stated above, everything in the universe depends on God for its ongoing existence from moment to moment.
Swedenborg's solution to this is somewhat complex. A full exposition of it would require presentation of several principles he articulated, including "correspondences" (the precise way in which God is expressed in spirit, and spirit in nature), distinct and continuous levels of reality, and the interaction of human free will in relation to these.
However, here is a simplified version:
Evil exists only in the human spirit. No part of nature can truly be considered evil, though it may provide images that reflect human evil, such as the predator-prey relationship if projected into human relationships. But fundamentally, evil exists only in the human spirit.
This means that from the perspective of Swedenborg's theology, the problem of evil, or Satan, in relation to God's immanence is a problem of how God can be present in evil people, maintaining their existence from within, even while there is no evil in God's own nature.
This is possible, Swedenborg says, because even in the most evil of human beings and evil spirits, there is an uncorrupted and incorruptible part at the core of that human being's or evil spirit's self, or spirit. This part is above the consciousness of that human being or evil spirit, where it cannot be corrupted by that person's or spirit's evil desires. Swedenborg identifies this part as "the soul," in a restricted and technical sense. ("The soul" is also used more generally as a synonym for "the spirit.") God flows into this highest, incorruptible part of the evil human being or evil spirit, maintaining his or her existence from within.
In other words, God directly touches and flows into that inmost part of the evil being—a part that is not evil, but good. Therefore the infinite good that is God does not directly touch or interact with the evil in the evil person or evil spirit. If God were to touch the evil directly, it would be instantly destroyed.
However, as that inflow from God flows further down into the "spirit" or the conscious part of the evil human being or evil spirit, the evil character that that person or spirit has adopted twists that inflow from God, which in itself is good and true, into evil and falsity. This takes place in the finite, created, human part of the human being, and is therefore not a part of God's being, even though it is sustained from within by the life force of God's love and wisdom flowing into the inmost soul of that created being.
Swedenborg uses illustrations from nature to provide a picture of this flowing of God, who is pure love and wisdom, into human evil and falsity, maintaining their existence while not being evil and false itself:

God granted freedom not just to human beings but also to every type of animal; he even granted to inanimate things something analogous to freedom. Each entity receives that gift in accordance with its own nature. He also provides them all with what is good, but the entities themselves turn it into evil.
This can be illustrated by comparisons: The atmosphere gives every human being the ability to breathe, and does the same for every animal, whether domesticated or wild, and also for every bird, whether it is an owl or a dove; it also gives birds the ability to fly. Yet the atmosphere is not responsible for the fact that what it offers is taken up by creatures that are opposite to each other in nature and character.
The ocean offers itself to every type of fish as a place to live and also provides them all with food, yet the ocean is not responsible for the fact that one type of fish eats another, or that a crocodile turns the ocean's generosity into poison that it uses to kill people.
The sun supplies light and heat to all things, but its objects, which are the various types of vegetation on earth, use them in different ways. A good kind of tree or bush uses that heat and light one way; a thorn or a bramble uses them another way. A harmless plant does something very different with them than a poisonous plant does.
Rain from high up in the atmosphere falls everywhere on the ground. The ground then distributes that water to every bush, plant, and blade of grass, and each of them takes up as much of it as it needs. This is what I meant by something analogous to free choice, because these plants freely drink the water in through orifices, pores, and passageways that are open when it is warm. The earth does no more than offer moisture and nutrients; the plants take them in according to their thirst and hunger, so to speak.
It is similar with human beings. The Lord flows into every one of us with spiritual heat, which is essentially the goodness of love, and spiritual light, which is essentially the truth of wisdom. How open we are to these qualities depends on which way we are turned, either toward God or toward ourselves. Therefore in teaching us about loving our neighbor, the Lord says, "You are to be children of your Father, who makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:45). Elsewhere we read that "he wills the salvation of all" [1 Timothy 2:4; Ezekiel 18:23, 32]. (True Christianity #491)


What problems, if any, do Oneness Pentecostals have with the Apostles' Creed? As a follow-up to previous questions, I'd like to know: Do Oneness Pentecostals disagree with or "reinterpret" any phrases in the Apostles' Creed?

Here's the context: I'm listening to an audio series in which the Apostles' Creed is used as the framework for "Christian theology," implying that those who believe the Apostles' Creed are orthodox.  But in this series, non-trinitarians are not considered orthodox.

This makes me wonder – how do certain non-trinitarian groups understand the Apostles' Creed?  Do they accept it as written, or simply reject it?  Or perhaps they accept it, but interpret particular phrases in ways that trinitarians don't?

Here, I'm most interested in how notable Oneness Pentecostal theologians view the creed (in overview style, if there is disagreement).

Related: Same question for Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Swedenborgians.

Like many other non-trinitarian groups, Oneness Pentecostals tend to be hesitant to align themselves too closely with any ancient creed, even one like the Apostles' Creed that is less clearly trinitarian than others (like the Nicene or Athanasian creeds).  Still, some, like Steve Joel Moffett, apparently find trinitarianism within the creed:

  [The] common creed known as the apostles Creed is the unifying factor of all the Christian religions of the United States except the Oneness Pentecostal churches.  The Apostles Creed has as a part of the creed that those churches believe in God in three persons. (Oneness Pentecostal Theology, v2)

Others, however, on closer analysis, are not convinced that there is anything specifically objectionable in the creed.  David Bernard, a leading Oneness theologian, argues that the creed does not teach trinitarianism. Reviewing the various versions of the Apostles' Creed, he writes:

  For the most part they follow biblical language very closely.  They describe the Son of God only in terms of the Incarnation, nowhere hinting that the Son is a separate person in the Godhead or that the Son is eternal.  They affirm belief in the Holy Ghost, but not as a separate person of the Godhead.  Instead they place this affirmation together with other statements relating to salvation, leading us to believe that they are talking about the gift or baptism of the Holy Ghost and to the working of the Holy Ghost in the church.  Thus, there is nothing really objectionable in the language if we define the terms in the same way the Bible uses them. (The Oneness of God, 281)

Even so, Bernard does not advocate the use of the creed, in part because of its strong association with trinitarianism.


Can any sin be forgiven? (According to the teaching of the Catholic Church) I was trying to research the influence Christianity had on Hitler and Nazism, when I came across this:

Hans Frank
Frank acted as lawyer and senior official for the Nazi party and legal advisor for Hitler. He also served a tenure as Governor-General of occupied Poland for which he was convicted during the Nuremberg trials for his role in perpetrating the Jewish holocaust and found guilty of complicity in the murder of millions of Poles and Polish Jews. A former Protestant (his father was a Protestant and his mother a Catholic), he converted to Roman Catholicism after his arrest where he felt relieved at the prospect of atoning for his evil deeds.

and following this, the author mentions:

The belief that one can be saved for any atrocious act demonstrates the moral flaw of Christian doctrine.

Quotes from Hitler's Henchmen and Nazi Sympathizers
I myself am a 17 year old, and I belong to the Syrian Christian Church. Now I don't really think this issue of 'forgiving-just-about-any-sin' ever arose whenever I attended church [I was surprised actually, I'd thought the pastor would've touched that topic at some point, but apparently he hasn't), so I was kinda clueless as to where to begin. I thought of asking a few Catholic friends of mine about this, and they were like:

Well, as long as you honestly didn't realize you were doing something (terribly) wrong, and if you repent and quit doing it once you do realize it, then you'd be forgiven.

Now that may seem a little...oversimplified, but hey, we're still teenagers trying to grasp as much as possible from the Bible.
Now I don't seem to recall any direct reference to this 'ultimate absolution' anywhere in the New Testament, and as I'm not able to make any headway here, I resorted to SE.
This issue just keeps gnawing at the back of my mind.
Note-
I did read up on 'similar' questions that were asked earlier here, but none of them specify the extent to which the sins they've conjectured goes. Perhaps murdering one person would've been the limit they've envisioned; but this question deals with a far more horrific sin...the systematic murder of millions, and I'm pretty sure that might elicit a different answer. Hence a request to the Mods here: Please don't close this question, at least not yet.
EDIT 1-
I'd prefer an answer limited to the teachings of the Catholic Church towards this issue.
EDIT 2-
Now if it is true that any sin can be forgiven (In the manner as my friends have stated it); now I'm just trying to look at this from every possible (and extreme) angle, so if the following (add-on) question might seem outrageous, pardon:
Q- Having read (portions of) the Mein Kampf and coming across an endless selection of Hitler's speeches on NatGeo, the History Channel and the like, the kind of rhetoric he employs, and that too with such conviction (eg: Who says I am not under the special protection of God?) gives me the feeling that the man truly felt God 'approved' of his actions. So, assuming the man truly, truly, did not believe he was committing genocide...could someone like Hitler even be forgiven?

The Catholic Church does indeed believe that if the sinner fulfills certain conditions, any sin can indeed be forgiven. Paragraph 982 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. "There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest." Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin.

The quotation is from the Church's first universal catechism, the Roman Catechism, which states in Article X:

No crime, however heinous, can be committed or even conceived which the Church has not power to forgive, just as there is no sinner, however abandoned, however depraved, who should not confidently hope for pardon, provided he sincerely repent of his past transgressions.

(emphasis added)
We are told to forgive and keep forgiving (Matthew 18:21–22); how much more can God forgive! And just as God can forgive any sin, so the Church, to whom He has delegated this power, has the ability to do the same.
However, the process isn't as simple as just saying "I'm sorry" and leaving it at that. The Catechism explains:

Jesus' call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, "sackcloth and ashes," fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart, interior conversion. ...  a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one's life, with hope in God's mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).

(paragraphs 1430–31)
The beginning of conversion is a rejection of one's previous life—not because one feels that one ought, or because one is afraid of consequences (secular or sacred), but because one sees how sin affects one's relationship with God. This rejection and sorrow for one's sins, and determination not to sin again, is called contrition; without it one cannot be forgiven of serious sins (such as the ones you describe).
Beyond contrition, the sinner must also recognize that his actions have injured others—perhaps emotionally, or physically, or spiritually. In order to completely repair his relationship with them and with God, he is required to expiate his sin; that is, to do something to make up for the harm he has caused.

Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."
The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent's personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all.

(Catechism paragraphs 1459–60)
In a case such as you suggest, I suppose that a prison sentence imposed by secular authorities might be part of penance for this sin. It will also involve prayer and perhaps other works of mercy aimed at helping re-establish the sinner's relationship with God.
Given the presence of contrition, though, and a humble willingness to perform the imposed penance, any sin can be forgiven by God and thus by His Church. This is true even if the sinner knew for certain that what they were doing was sinful. God's mercy extends not just to those who did wrong out of ignorance, but to those who knew what they were doing—provided they are contrite and sincerely desire to amend their life.


When was the name of Sinai first applied to the Sinai peninsular? When was the name of Sinai first applied to what we now know as the 'Sinai peninsular'? Some modern scholars maintain that Mt Sinai = Mt Horeb = 'the Mountain of God' which is located in northwest Saudi Arabia. The volcanic phenomena described in Genesis support this hypothesis. So was the Sinai Peninsular so named on the possibly incorrect assumption that this is where the Exodus events took place, or was it already known as Sinai before the Exodus?

According to R. El. Pirke, Sinai received its' name "only after God had appeared to Moses in the bush."

  Different Names.

  —In Rabbinical Literature:

  The Rabbis consider "Sinai" and "Horeb" to be two names of the same mountain, which had besides three other names: (1) "Har ha-Elohim" (= "the mountain of God"), the Israelites having received there the knowledge of the divinity of God; (2) "Har Bashan," the latter word being interpreted as though it were "beshen" (= "with the teeth"), that is to say, mankind through the virtue of this mountain obtains its sustenance; and (3) "Har Gabnunim" (= "a mountain pure as cheese"). The names "Horeb" and "Sinai" are interpreted to mean, respectively, "the mountain of the sword," because through this mountain the Sanhedrin acquired the right to sentence a man to capital punishment, and "hostility," inasmuch as the mountain was hostile to the heathen (Ex. R. ii. 6). Shab. 89a, b gives the following four additional names of Sinai: "Ẓin," "Ḳadesh," "Ḳedomot," and "Paran," but declares that its original name was "Horeb" (comp. Midr. Abkir, quoted in Yalḳ., Ex. 169); according to Pirḳe R. El. xli., it acquired the name "Sinai" only after God had appeared to Moses in the bush ("seneh"; comp. Sinai, Biblical Data).

What does the Bible say:

  Mount Horeb.

  —Biblical Data:

  Mountain situated in the desert of Sinai, famous for its connection with the promulgation of the Law by God through Moses (Ex. xix. 1-xx. 18). The general opinion of modern scholars is that the name "Sinai" is derived from the name of the Babylonian moon-god Sin. Mount Sinai is often referred to as "the mountain" (that is, the mountain par excellence), "the mountain of Elohim" (Hebr.), and "the mountain of Yhwh" (Hebr.; Ex. iii. 1, iv. 27, xviii. 5, xix. 2, et passim; Num. x. 33), and in many other passages it is called "Horeb" (Ex. iii. 1; Deut. i. 2 et passim). The Biblical text, indeed, seems to indicate that this last was its proper name, while "Sinai" was applied to the desert. According to one theory, Sinai and Horeb are the names of two eminences belonging to the same range; if this be so the range became prominent in the history of the Hebrews some time before the promulgation of the Law. When Moses led the flocks of his father-in-law to the desert and came "to the mountain of God, even to Horeb," an angel appeared to him from a flaming bush, and then God Himself spoke to Moses, telling him that where he stood was holy ground, thus foreshadowing the great event that was to occur there. From that mountain God persuaded Moses to go to Pharaoh and deliver the Israelites from his yoke. After the Exodus, when the Israelites who had encamped at Rephidim were suffering with thirst, Moses, by command of God, smote water from a rock in Horeb (Ex. xvii. 6).

As for as the etymology is concerned here is what some scholars say:

  According to biblical scholars, Sinai most likely derives from the name of Sin, the Semitic lunar deity.2[3] In the Hasidic tradition, the name Sinai derives from "sin-ah," (meaning hatred), in reference to the other nations hating the Jews out of jealousy, due to the Jews being the ones to receive the divine laws.[4]

  Additionally, classical rabbinical literature also mentions the mountain having other names:

  Har ha-Elohim, meaning the mountain of God or the mountain of the gods[3]

  Har Bashan, meaning the mountain of Bashan; however, Bashan is interpreted in rabbinical literature as here being a corruption of beshen, meaning with the teeth, and argued to refer to the sustenance of mankind through the virtue of the mountain[3]

There is nothing written in stone on this subject!


Does "gospel-preaching church" have a shared meaning? Does "gospel-preaching church" have a shared meaning among Christians? What is it supposed to mean, and what are the signs of this "gospel-preaching church"? Is the term a tautology? Or is the negation of the term a way to criticize and slight other types of Christians or denominations that one group of Christians may disapprove of or dislike? If possible, where did this phrase come from, and by whom is this phrase typically used?

The term is not one that has an official definition across the board.  However, there are two meanings that are generally implied by the phrase.  One is a bit.. inflammatory, even if it's not really "meant to be taken that way".  It is tied up with the idea (common to most Christians) that some Churches are preaching a false "gospel".  (I say it's common to most Christians because if it weren't, we wouldn't have so much division within the umbrella of what's called "Christianity".)  The other is less inflammatory.

Starting with the inflammatory meaning, to get it out of the way:

It's something usually said by mainstream evangelicals, and in typical usage, it means "A church that preaches what my Church preaches.

To clarify that, most denominations agree on the central tenets of Christianity, but there are disagreements on certain points.
 - Some denominations teach a works-based salvation, or faith+works salvation.
 - Others are perhaps unfairly accused of teaching a works+faith salvation message.
 - Some denominations preach a Gospel message at the end of every service, and may include an invitation, while others don't.  (I don't recall any such thing ever occurring in a Catholic or Lutheran service, come to think of it.  Just the fiercely evangelical denominations.)

But typically, when you hear this phrase, it's a standard Evangelical protestant, who is a strong believer in salvation by faith alone.  And they're saying, in effect, "Go ahead and go to a Baptist Church, or an Evangelical Free, or an Assembly of God, even, they all differ in some ways, but they all have the right message on what it takes to be saved.  But don't go to that Catholic Church, they teach that you're saved by obedience to the Church, ordinances, and believe all kinds of wacky stuff like praying to saints and Transubstantiation.  Steer clear of them and stick to the churches that teach the real Gospel message.  And don't even get me started on them Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.  Go find you a Church that teaches that you're a sinner, that you need to repent and put your faith in Jesus, and trust in that alone!  Don't go to some Church that teaches anything not found in the Bible".

(Again, shorter version, "Go to a Church that teaches what I believe.")

It can also have a less "I'm right, those heathens are wrong" meaning.  It can also simply mean, a Church whose focus is evangelism.

As noted above, I don't recall ever hearing a message about having to repent, put my faith in Christ, and get saved in a Catholic Church.  (They may preach that, but I've just missed it...)  By contrast, every Baptist service, wedding, funeral, or pot-luck I've ever attended has a message, or at least a prayer that does this.  Also, you don't see a lot of Catholics going door-to-door handing out tracts, inviting people out to Church.  I see that in Baptist and other strongly Evangelical Churches (As well as with LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses) all the time.  So in that context, "Gospel Preaching Church" can simply mean a Church whose focus is on sharing the Gospel.


The Names of the Individual Sundays of Lent I'm not an expert, I read the rules of the community but please go easy on me if I got this wrong.

I've been reading etymologies for a few years now and I have a question about the Sundays in lent. In an archaic dictionary I found this:

  PASE-DAY. Easter-day. The following pro verbial lines refer to the Sundays in Lent : Tid, mid, misera, Carl, Paum, good Pose-day.

But if I'm correct we can look at it like:
1st Sunday, Tid; 2nd Sunday, mid; 3rd Sunday, misera; 4th Sunday (Laetare), Carl; 5th Sunday, Paum (Palm); 6th Sunday, good Pose-day (Easter?)

I think there's a Sunday missing.

And this question is wide open to different names of the same dates. I'm just using the Archaic etymology to develop an understanding of their meanings. So names outside of Archaic are encouraged

In the rhyme quoted:

Tid,  Mid, Misera,
Carl, Paum, Good Pose-Day

the Carl, Paum and Good Pose-Day refer to the 5th Sunday in Lent (14 days before Easter), the 6th Sunday in lent(7 days before Easter) and Easter Day itself.
Carl Sunday or Carling Sunday is more commonly called Passion Sunday, the first day of the two-week season of Passiontide. It is traditional in Northern England to eat cakes made out of brown peas, called carlings. Although many say the food gave the name to the day (rather like Pancake Tuesday), others (including Rev Hudson Baker quoted by @Marc) say it was the other way round. Carl comes from the Old English word cearu meaning suffering, sorrow and grief, relating to the beginning of the Commemoration of the Lord's Passion on that day. This is possibly also related to the German name for Good Friday, karfreitag.
The day after Carling Sunday is known to schoolchildren as Farting Monday, due to the effects of the peas.
Paum, or Palm, Sunday is known throughout the Christian world as the commemoration of the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem during which palm branches were waved.
Good Pose-Day, is in some versions of the rhyme Paste-Egg Day and in some Pace-Egg Day. In all cases it is probably a form of pascha, from where the word paschal, pertaining to Easter, also comes. Paste-Egg relates to the custom of colouring eggs, and Pace-Egg relates to the custom of rolling eggs, both Easter customs.
The first line: Tid, Mid, Misera is very obscure. They are usually regarded as the second, third and fourth Sundays in Lent respectively. This is said in the Gentleman's Magazine of 1788, quoted here. The origins of these names are obscure.  Reverend Brady in 1812 said some suggested they related to the old pre-Reformation hymns sung on particular days. The Ambrosian hymn "Te Deum" sung on the second Sunday of Lent, another hymn "Mi Deus" on the third,  and Misera Mei (Psalm 51) on the fourth. However the scholar  J M Neale suggested Misera was a corruption of Reminiscere Sunday, which as Ken points out is a name for the Second Sunday in Lent. He was an expert on pre-Reformation English liturgy but knew of nothing that could explain the "Tid Mid Misera" line.    The Te Deum Laudamus theory is apparently unlikely because the Te Deum was sung all year round except in Advent and Lent, so hardly likely to give its name to any Sunday, least of all one in Lent.
Baker suggests that Tid referred originally to the Second Sunday, it occurring after ten days of fasting, and tid being related to tithe or ten. Mid and Misera were, according to him one name referring to the fourth Sunday and meaning mid-Lent.
Another  explanation is that they may be obsolete counting words. Misera, the fourth Sunday in Lent, bears a slight similarity to methera, a Cumbrian word for fourth.
There is no commonly-accepted derivation for tid mid misera.
The fifth Sunday before Christmas, the Sunday before Advent, is known as Stir-up Sunday, partly because it is the traditional day to stir Christmas Puddings and partly because the Collect for that Sunday begins "Stir up, O Lord, the hearts of thy faithful people ...". The Collect reminding people of the need to stir the puddings.


What does the 'will' of St. Paul mean? In Rom. 7:18 is stated: "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not."

Does this mean that for Paul 'free will' exists but only to perform it is impossible.

Does this verse present a similar point of view as what Rudolf Steiner says that: ' Steiner (1861–1925) initially divides this into the two aspects of freedom: freedom of thought and freedom of action.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Other_views

Or would this verse of Paul be closer to other forms of (in)comptabilism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Western_philosophy

What does St. Paul mean by 'will'?

Romans 7:18 (DRB)
For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good. For to will, is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not.

This is essentially a theological discussion on concupiscence (or, that which prevents the fallen sinner from doing what he ought, because of the inclinations of the flesh).
Its essence is: what I want/intend/purpose/ought to do, I cannot do, because of my fallen nature.

Wisdom 9:15 (DRB)
For the corruptible body is a load upon the soul, and the earthly habitation presseth down the mind that museth upon many things.

What St. Paul is here digging deeper into, Jesus mentions in passing to His Apostles:

Matthew 26:41 (DRB)
Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak.

The teaching is that what is willed is 'thwarted' by the fallen human nature (simply called 'the flesh' in Biblical terminology).

Galatians 5:17 (DRB)
For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would.

Does this verse present a similar point of view as that of Rudolf Steiner?
No, St. Paul does not teach that 'outer freedom is attained by permeating our deeds with moral imagination,' (Steiner's view) but only "by the Spirit, [putting] to death the deeds of the flesh" (Romans 8:13—i.e. he does teach it's possible to overcome concupiscence by the Holy Spirit, not the unaided fallen flesh).
Or would this verse of Paul be closer to other forms of (in)comptabilism?
This passage has nothing to do with his will being free or not free, or anything of the sort. This is about the flesh warring against the spirit. We do not say that one is not free because another free agent is thwarting their actions. Freedom to will and other freedom doesn't necessitate the freedom to be able to accompish all that is willed—which is what St. Paul is here discussing.


To JWs, how is Jesus Christ "the same yesterday and today, and forever"? I'm referring, of course, to Hebrews 13:8. The Jehovah's Witnesses' preferred translation, the New World Translation, translates it in basically the same way as all other translations:

  Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever.

Many trinitarians see this verse as a reference to immutability, which is unquestionably an attribute of God and not of creatures. What do JWs see this verse as referring to? How can Jesus be "the same yesterday and today, and forever" if he is a creature?

Pretty simply, actually.  His pre-existence (yesterday) is explained as a special case:

  Unlike any other human, Jesus lived in heaven as a spirit person before he was born on earth. (John 8:23) He was God’s first creation, and he helped in the creation of all other things. He is the only one created directly by Jehovah and is therefore appropriately called God’s “only-begotten” Son.

Jesus' resurrection returned him to his spirit-being (today and forever):

  After Jesus died, God restored him to life as a spirit person. (1 Peter 3:18) Jesus then waited at God’s right hand until Jehovah gave him power to rule as King over all the earth. (Hebrews 10:12, 13) Now Jesus is ruling as King in heaven, and his followers are announcing that good news worldwide

The quotes above are taken from the JW website and a publication titled "Who is Jesus Christ?"


Is the entire Bible read at mass? I'm not a Catholic, but I have attended Catholic Mass and I've been acquainted with the practice of regular mass- that a certain week of the year has the same readings each year.

Is the entirety of the Bible read throughout the year during mass? If not, what passages (or books) are never included?

The Revised Common Lectionary (by far the most common, used by Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, and others) is a three year cycle, and if you attend every Sunday, you are guaranteed to hear selections from every book of the canon, but not necessarily the entirety of each book.

That said, there are several texts you will hear repeated, either for their suitability to certain parts of the church year, or because of their relative importance.

Finally, if you read the daily lectionary (a 2-year cycle), you will cover much more of the bible, but there will still be some parts (1 Chronicles 1-10, I'm looking at you!) that will still be missed.

As a Baptist turned Episcopalian turned back Baptist, I can say that I was surprised at how much more Scripture one hears in a lectionary setting. It is a nice discipline, but it is not exactly the same as reading the Bible through in a year.


When did the angel archetype change from masculine to feminine? Throughout the bible, angels typically appear as men or a masculin form. They're often described as warriors, engaging in battle.

(Source)

However, in modern, generally Western (or at least American) culture, angels are thought of as feminine figures, often portrayed by women (or Victoria Secret models).

(Source)

When (about) did this change occur?

I realize this may not be a very well-developed question (please, feel free to modify/enhance it), but I think I'm on to something here - even if it is merely a curiosity.

I get the feeling that one of the reasons for angels being thought as feminine has something to do with the New Age movement and their concept (and often worship of) Guardian Angels, but it's just a gut feeling or sorts.

According to this websitesite, the change occurred gradually over time, as the representation of the human form in art changed. In the middle ages, artists rarely painted distinctly masculine characteristics on their subjects:

…what modern viewers and artists perceive as “feminine” angels in many famous medieval European paintings were not intended by the artists to be females at all. Particularly during the Medieval period, the overt “sexuality” of much classic Greek and Roman art was almost totally repressed. Bodies were totally covered, both male and female, in long robes.
…
But artists of the time seldom painted overtly “chiseled,” square-jawed, masculine features on the faces of men. So unless a male was bearded, and particularly if he was represented as a young man, it wasn’t all that easy to sort out the vaguely uni-sex heads in pictures by gender.

In the 1800s, a move toward more realistic depiction of the human form in art coincided with a growing interest in angels apart from their original biblical context:

They may have a “spiritual aura” connected to them, which makes them look otherworldly, but without any special link to a Heaven where God’s throne is. They are viewed by many as being benevolent supernatural beings whose primary interest is helping out people—not necessarily because they have been sent by God to do so, but because it is just “their nature.”
And as this “new” kind of angel has taken shape in the past century or two, the emphasis has shifted more and more to a sort of gentle, nurturing, “motherly” (or “big sisterly”) role for angels—hence the trend toward almost entirely representing them as female.


Following the Doctrine in Council of Trent, does God give a soul to human at conception deprived of sanctifying grace? The Catholic Church teaches, as St. Thomas Aquinas explained, that God intended our first parents to give their descendants the blessings of original justice. When they lost the gifts, however, they could not give them to their posterity. Thus, the 5th session of the Council of Trent (1546) teaches that original sin is transmitted by propagation and not imitation.

However, the contention arises in, if original sin is transmitted by propagation not by imitation. Somehow understanding it biologically implied that the transmission would be thru sexual procreation.. but the Council implied only a metaphysical transmission since the soul is immaterial being...
I will quote the interpretation of Rev. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, O.P.
 (Thomistic Evolution site):

  Now, some may read this statement by the Council of Trent – that original sin is transmitted by propagation and not by imitation – as a claim that original sin is transmitted biologically. However, the consequences of original sin are privations in the soul of the human being. Because of the original sin, his soul lacks grace and the preternatural gifts. Thus, when the Council of Trent teaches that the consequences of the original sin are transmitted by propagation and not by imitation, we should understand this as a metaphysical and not a biological claim. As an immaterial spirit, our soul and its properties are not determined by our genes. Instead, when God creates our souls when we are conceived, He creates them without the graces and gifts that we should have inherited from our original parents.

In view of the Catholic Church Teaching defined in Council of Trent: Does God give a human soul deprived of sanctifying grace at conception?

St. Thomas Aquinas writes in Summa Theologica I-II q. 81 a. 1 ad 2:

  Although the soul is not transmitted, because the power in the semen is not able to cause the rational soul [cf. I q. 118 a. 2], nevertheless the motion of the semen is a disposition to the transmission of the rational soul [which God creates ex nihilo]: so that the semen by its own power transmits the human nature from parent to child, and with that nature, the stain which infects it

So, it's the human nature (body+soul composite) that is infected, and semen is only an instrumental cause of bringing about a particular human nature. The corrupted body infects the soul, the rational soul being "the subject of sin" (ibid. arg. 2).

This will shed some light on your question:

Pedro Lumbreras O.P., "Saint Thomas and the Immaculate Conception," Homiletic and Pastoral Review 24, no. 3 (1923): 253-63.


Has the prohibition against construction and veneration of statues and images been abrogated? I'm Catholic, so I subscribe to the idea that constructing and venerating images and statues is permissible and encouraged as a matter of Church dogma. However I must admit that I find it hard to square this position with the explicit command NOT to construct and venerate statues found in scripture.

  4 “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

I understand that Christ "fulfilled the law" and as such there are large portions of the law which no longer apply (for example the dietary laws, sacrifice laws, ritual cleanliness laws) while other parts of the law still apply (ie, the moral component of the law).

Does the prohibition against constructing and venerating images fall under the "abrogated" category of the law, or the still in force "moral" component of the law?

I've heard many arguments in defence of venerating images and statues, and I reckon they are all great arguments with much merit and insight, nevertheless I still get the feeling that they can all be easily shot down in one go with a quick quote of the proof text above. It's causing me some annoying cognitive dissonance which I would love to resolve...

Stuff which is great but doesn't really answer my question:

Constructing images of angels, saints and Christ is permissible due
to the incarnation. Christ is the perfect image of God/Christ is a
"living icon" of God. Therefore by becoming man God demonstrated
that it is ok to make images of Divine things. That's all well and
good, but it just results in a contradiction with the above
scripture quote, unless Christ abrogated that particular
commandment.
When we pray to statues, we are not worshipping the statue, we are
merely venerating what the statue represents: in other words
"veneration given to an image travels to the prototype". Again, I
follow the logic, but it still doesn't explain why we are allowed to
construct these images in the first place, in light of the explicit
prohibition in the 10 commandments.
Elsewhere in scripture God explicitly commands us to construct
religious statues. Eg the bronze serpent, the Cherubim on the Ark of
the covenant. Therefore the prohibition against statues can't be
absolute. That's great, but these things seem to be very specific
exceptions to a general rule, and the general rule forbids us from
constructing and venerating images.
"Statues of Jesus and Mary are just like having a photograph of your
spouse and Children in your wallet. They help you to remember them
and keep them in mind". Again I follow the argument and agree in
principle, however I still don't understand how we can construct
these images in the first place considering we have been explicitly
forbidden from doing so, even if the reason for constructing them is
as benevolent as desiring a visual reminder of our Lord and Lady.

The only way I can find to square this scripture quote with the Catholic/Orthodox use of images and statues is to assume that this particular commandment was abrogated by Christ after he fulfilled the law. Is that right?

This is about correct teaching and the meanings of latria and worship.

TL;DR(1): if the bishops do not ensure proper teaching regarding
religious images, they let the faithful down.  That's where the problem started both during the Iconoclast Movements and during the Reformation where some of your points were raised.
TL;DR(2): was a commandment abrogated?  Yes and no. (See below).
Per the Catholicism tag, answered from that PoV.  This is an example of
a question where teachings between denominations varies considerably.

The crux of the matter, as far back as the Second Ecumenical Council in Nicaea, was whether proper teaching was getting to the faithful.  In some places, it was not since the Iconoclast movement was a response to a trend toward syncretism with pagan Greek religions.  That "getting the teaching across effectively" isn't as easy as it sounds.  Even after the second council of Nicaea, up to the 11th Century France for example, there was difficulty in effectively communicating the teaching that derived from that Ecumenical Council.   (Of course, the Reformation gave two fingers to the teaching, in arguments that resemble your four points).

This question was answered about 1300 years ago.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 787 was convened as a direct response to the Iconoclast movement and the destruction of images in the Eastern Roman Empire.

The Council's Proclamation

  "We define that the holy icons, whether in color, mosaic, or some
  other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on
  the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls,
  furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of
  our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos,
  those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people.
  Whenever these representations are contemplated, they will cause those
  who look at them to commemorate and love their prototype. We define
  also that they should be kissed and that they are an object of
  veneration and honor (timitiki proskynisis), but not of real worship
  (latreia), which is reserved for Him Who is the subject of our faith
  and is proper for the divine nature, ... which is in effect
  transmitted to the prototype; he who venerates the icon, venerated in
  it the reality for which it stands."

For more on the Iconoclast Movement, the Catholic Encyclopedia has an extensive entry.

Confirmed at the Council of Trent, where some of your points were addressed.

From the Council of Trent(page 170 of that link)

  The holy Synod enjoins on all bishops, and others who sustain the
  office and charge of teaching, that, agreeably to the usage of the
  Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of
  the Christian religion, and agreeably to the consent of the holy
  Fathers, and to the decrees of sacred Councils, they especially
  instruct the faithful diligently concerning the intercession and
  invocation of saints; the honour (paid) to [Page 234] relics; and
  the legitimate use of images: teaching them, that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men;
  that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have
  recourse to their prayers, aid, (and) help for obtaining benefits from
  God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer
  and Saviour; but that they think impiously, who deny that the saints,
  who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invocated; or who
  assert either that they do not pray for men; or, that the invocation
  of them to pray for each of us even in particular, is idolatry; or,
  that it is repugnant to the word of God; and is opposed to the honour
  of the one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus; or, that it is
  foolish to supplicate, vocally, or mentally, those who reign in
  heaven. Also, that the holy bodies of holy martyrs, and of others now
  living with Christ,-which bodies were the living members of Christ,
  and the temple of the Holy Ghost, and which are by Him to be raised
  unto eternal life, and to be glorified,--are to be venerated by the
  faithful; through which (bodies) many benefits are bestowed by God on
  men; so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to
  the relics of saints; or, that these, and other sacred monuments, are
  uselessly honoured by the faithful; and that the places dedicated to
  the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of
  obtaining their aid; are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has
  already long since condemned, and now also condemns them.

  Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and
  of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in
  temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them;
  not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on
  account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be
  asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of
  old done by the Gentiles who placed [Page 235] their hope in idols;
  but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the
  prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the
  images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and
  prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints,
  whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and
  especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the
  opponents of images.

  And the bishops shall carefully teach this,-that, by means of the histories of the mysteries of our Redemption, portrayed by paintings
  or other representations, the people is instructed, and confirmed in
  (the habit of) remembering, and continually revolving in mind the
  articles of faith; as also that great profit is derived from all
  sacred images, not only because the people are thereby admonished of
  the benefits and gifts bestowed upon them by Christ, but also because
  the miracles which God has performed by means of the saints, and their
  salutary examples, are set before the eyes of the faithful; that so
  they may give God thanks for those things; may order their own lives
  and manners in imitation of the saints; and may be excited to adore
  and love God, and to cultivate piety. But if any one shall teach, or
  entertain sentiments, contrary to these decrees; let him be
  anathema.

The Council recognized the problem of incorrect usage, and incorrect teaching, and declared that it was a serious error to teach it wrong, and to do it wrong.

Both councils are cited as sources in CCC 2132

  2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first
  commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an
  image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image
  venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred
  images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God
  alone:

  Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered
  as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading
  us on to God incarnate. the movement toward the image does not
  terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

The distinction between "latria" and other "worship" or rendering of honor and veneration

From St Thomas Aquinas:  (Question 94)

  Reply to Objection 1. Neither in the Tabernacle or Temple of the Old
  Law, nor again now in the Church are images set up that the worship of
  latria may be paid to them, but for the purpose of signification, in
  order that belief in the excellence of angels and saints may be
  impressed and confirmed in the mind of man.

St Thomas Aquinas, question 81 (cited in the Catechsim (2132) as a source for that article)

  Objection 3. Further, seemingly "latria" pertains to religion. Now
  "latria signifies servitude," as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei x, 1).
  And we are bound to serve not only God, but also our neighbor,
  according to Galatians 5:13, "By charity of the spirit serve one
  another." Therefore religion includes a relation to one's neighbor
  also.

  Reply to Objection 3. Since servant implies relation to a lord,
  wherever there is a special kind of lordship there must needs be a
  special kind of service. Now it is evident that lordship belongs to
  God in a special and singular way, because He made all things, and has
  supreme dominion over all. Consequently a special kind of service is
  due to Him, which is known as "latria" in Greek; and therefore it
  belongs to religion.

All of the above boils down to the following: there is a correct and incorrect use of religious images.  Bishops, and the Church in general, must ensure correct teaching or people (as in the olden days) may well pay more respect than is due to something other than God.  That can lead to sin, which in the case of teachers falls into "an act of omission" which may lead the faithful into sin via "acts of commission."  (St Thomas Aquinas provides commentary of idolatry as superstition and sin in the Summa Theologica). It's a serious matter for the Church to teach the faithful properly.

The key: true worship, latria, is to be reserved for God.

Offering true worship to anything or anyone else violates the Commandment.  In that regard, it appears that the Greek Orthodox, the Catholics, and the Reformation descended churches are in general accord.

A commandment abrogated?  Yes and no.

As noted in this Catholic Encyclopedia article, the Old testament holds multiple examples of images and physical items associated with worship, referred to by St Thomas Aquinas above, so your dismissal of that factor in point 3 represents a dismissal of 1300 years of Catholic teaching.  (No few of the faithful have difficulty with any number of catholic teachings, so you are not alone).  The position taken is that the "natural law" was not abrogated in the New Covenant, but the "positive law" was abrogated by the New Covenant.

  We note in the first place that the First Commandment (except inasmuch
  as it forbids adoration and service of images) does not affect us at
  all. The Old Law — including the ten commandments — as far as it only
  promulgates natural law is of course eternal. No possible
  circumstances can ever abrogate, for instance the Fifth, Sixth, and
  Seventh Commandments.  On the other hand, as far as it is positive law,
  it was once for all abrogated by the promulgation of the Gospel
  (Romans 8:1-2; Galatians 3:23-5, etc.; Acts 15:28-9).

  Christians are not bound to circumcise, to abstain from levitically unclean food and so on.

  The Third Commandment that ordered the Jews to keep Saturday
  holy is a typical case of a positive law abrogated and replaced by
  another by the Christian Church.  So in the First Commandment we must
  distinguish the clauses — "Thou shalt not have strange gods before
  me", "Thou shall not adore them nor serve them" — which are eternal
  natural law (prohibitum quia malum), from the clause: "Thou shalt not
  make to thyself any graven image", etc.  In whatever sense the
  archaeologist may understand this, it is clearly not natural law, nor
  can anyone prove the inherent wickedness of making a graven thing;
  therefore it is Divine positive law (malum quia prohibitum) of the Old
  Dispensation that no more applies to Christians than the law of
  marrying one's brother's widow.

  Since there is no Divine positive law in the New Testament on the
  subject, Christians are bound firstly by the natural law that forbids
  us to give to any creature the honour due to God alone, and forbids
  the obvious absurdity of addressing prayers or any sort of absolute
  worship to a manufactured image; secondly, by whatever ecclesiastical
  laws may have been made on this subject by the authority of the Church
  The situation was defined quite clearly by the Second Council of
  Nicaea in 787. In its seventh session the Fathers drew up the
  essential decision (horos) of the synod. In this, after repeating the
  Nicene Creed and the condemnation of former heretics, they come to the
  burning question of the treatment of holy images. They speak of real
  adoration, supreme worship paid to a being for its own sake only,
  acknowledgment of absolute dependence on some one who can grant
  favours without reference to any one else. This is what they mean by
  latreia and they declare emphatically that this kind of worship must
  be given to God only. It is sheer idolatry to pay latreia to any
  creature at all. In Latin, adoratio is generally (though not always;
  see e.g. in the Vulgate, 2 Samuel 1:2, etc.) used in this sense. Since
  the council especially there is a tendency to restrict it to this
  sense only, so that adorare sanctos certainly now sounds scandalous.
  So in English by adoration we now always understand the latreia of the
  Fathers of the Second Nicaean Council.

The commandment in the natural law sense is not abrogated, but old law in the other sense about images (positive law) is abrogated in accordance with the New Covenant established by Christ.   Part of the issue here is that the Catholics have that as all one commandment, while some of the Protestant traditions break it into two and roll the "covets" into one.  (If you look at the table here, Greek Orthodox and Reformed break it into 2, while Catholic leaves it as one).  This underlines why this question is denomination dependent for the answer.

Note: latreia and latria are Latin forms of Greek (λατρεία).

Experience with this teaching

In the RCIA ministry, we often encountered people whose cultural upbringing was informed by over four centuries of syncretism in Mexico.  (I live in Texas).  The dialogue typically went like this.

RCIA: It is appropriate to show veneration to the saints, with or without
the presence of a picture or a statue.  {Apostle's Creed, belief in the communion of saints, intercessory prayers, etc}.  Worship {in the latria sense}
is reserved for God {the Holy Trinity}.
Candidate: But I was raised to worship the Virgin.
RCIA: We have told you the teaching of the Church.  What you actually do,
in your heart and in your prayers, is between you and God.  We encourage you to follow the teachings of the church.

At this point, our deacon would usually follow up with this (paraphrased)

  When you pray, and when you go to confession, you should speak from
  the heart.  In your heart there is truth between you and God.  If you
  go to confession, and you try to be untruthful to God ... good luck
  with that.  God knows the truth in our heart.

So what's a Catholic to do?

Reserve true worship, latria, for God (The Holy Trinity).  If an image or a statue inspires you to contemplate on the divine, that's fine.  Just remember that the image isn't worthy of true worship, only God is.

I recommend reading the extended treatment of "Veneration of Images" at the Catholic Encyclopedia online.

I had brought to my attention by @anonymouswho in comments on another question that the rendering of various Greek terms into 'worship' isn't as simple as I've presented it, and that the Greek proskuneó is a related term for this element of the answer regarding latria.

  proskuneós means to bow (properly, to kiss or to do obeisance to), like the Israelites did to YHVH and King David in 1 Chronicles 29:20.  Latria is the Latin form of the Greek (λατρεία)(latreuó / latreia) meaing to serve. Like in Luke 4:8

  "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for
  it is written, Thou shalt worship (proskuneó) the Lord thy God, and
  him only shalt thou serve (latreuó)."


First Occurrence of "Sea of Forgetfulness" in Christian Literature Apparently "Sea of Forgetfulness" is a well known example of Christian jargon.  This is news to me, as I have never heard this phrase before today (perhaps because I am relatively young, and this phrase was more prevalent among the older generations).  The phrase appears to be an embellished derivative of Micah 7:19, "You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea."

I am curious to know when the first instance of this phrase occurred, specifically in the Christian sense.

Here is a graph of instances of the phrase, using Google's Ngram viewer.  The first spike appears around 1817.  This might be an artifact resulting from the algorithm, however. (Google's literary database only extends from 1800 to today, with a highly irregular sample rate)

The first published use of this phrase can be attributed to Cardinal Pole, in a speech given to the English Parliament in 1554, regarding England's return to Roman Catholicism under Queen Mary:

  This I protest before you, my commission is not of prejudice to any person. I come not to destroy, but to build: I come to reconcile, not to condemn: I am not come to compel,
  but to call again: I am not come to call any thing in question already done, but my commission is of grace and clemency, to such as will receive it. For touching all matters that be past, they shall be as things cast into the sea of forgetfulness.

The speech was recorded and published in 1555, but the rise to fame of "sea of forgetfulness" can be attributed to the speech being reprinted in the first edition of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, published in 1563.

The influence of Foxe's work was huge: it was placed alongside the Bible in many English churches in the 16th century, and was republished in many forms over the following centuries.  As one of the most popular works in the early English-speaking Protestant world, it's not surprising that this phrase would be picked up and used widely.

The original text in Foxe's work can be found in this critical edition.  The critical apparatus notes Foxe's source for the text.

There's also an early 18th century edition, and many cleaned up text versions.  The speech is also recorded in histories of the English parliament.


When did the prohibition of marriage for priests in the Catholic church originate? The Bible mentions that one of the miracles Jesus performed was the healing of Peter's mother-in-law.  This makes it quite clear that Peter himself was married, and Peter is the considered the first Pope by Roman Catholics.  I've also heard that many if not all of the first popes were married and had families.

So, my question is this:

When was it that marriage first became prohibited for priests and popes in the Catholic church (for Latin Rite priests)?

  And immediately he left the synagogue and entered the house of
  Simon and Andrew, with James and John.  Now Simon’s mother-in-law lay
  ill with a fever, and immediately they told him about her.  Mark
  1:29-30 ESV

This article gives an overview of the history of celibacy in the clergy. Even the Catholic church would admit that celibacy was not enforced on clergy in New Testament times, but would point out that those who chose celibacy were held in high honour, even in that period. There is dispute over how early the rules of celibacy came to be enforced. The earliest enactment of a rule was around 300AD at the Spanish Council of Elvira. This was not a universal rule. The rules appear to have been gradually tightened over the next few centuries,:

  [...] the synods of the sixth and seventh centuries, while fully recognizing the position of these former wives and according them even the formal designation of bishopess, priestess, deaconess, and subdeaconess (episcopissa, presbytera, diaconissa, subdiaconissa), laid down some very strict rules to guide their relations with their former husbands.

Even centuries after that the practice was not universal.


At the greater emergence of democracy in Europe during the 'Enlightenment' did the papacy support democracy? I was just wondering how did the papacy respond to democracy when it first arose in Europe?  On one hand, in a country that was, according to its sovereign, a Catholic country, democracy would be very dangerous as it might replace the sovereign due to the popular religion recently affected by the reformation. However, another country that had a populace largely Catholic  but it's sovereign recently aligned  as Protestant, democracy would be a great way to maintain papal control. Then again democracy was related to real separation of church and state, at least as established in the American Constitution, so this makes a papal response to democracy even more unpredictable.

So how did the papacy respond to the emergence of democracy? Was it in favor, opposition or some mixture of both? Did a succession of popes have the same response or was their a lot of flip-flops among succeeding popes over the subject of democracy?

One short answer: 1892

The "Ralliement" of the Catholic Church to democracy is often related to the Encyclical "Inter innumeras sollicitudines" (20 Feb 1892) inciting French Catholics to stop trying to restore a King ruling by divine right. France as the biggest Catholic Nation played a great role. However, during the Enlightenment, since the ideas of universal democracy were mainly carried by Libertines, their scriptures were often forbidden.

Two explanations:  The meaning of democracy has evolved, and it is only a political system.

"Democracy" was seen (until the eve of the 20th century) as what we call nowadays direct democracy, i.e. the Greek model, with a direct imperative mandate. While considered a very nice model by all (including the church), it was seen as inapplicable to modern nations. How would you gather each week several millions of citizens to make public decisions?  How would you use illiterate men elected by their fellow peasants to make a wartime decision?

In Monarchy-ruled France the ultimate national consultative assembly (which also had some power over the Parliaments), the Etats Generaux had not been summoned since 1684 and it took more than a year to gather them in 1788 (the members were elected with an imperative mandate through the "cahiers de doléances" (lists of grievances). A democracy as we know it today seemed very unrealistic, even if it seemed a very good form of government for free cities like the Italian cities).

The famous and very influential Savoyard writer Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) had previously opposed the stammering democracy of France and the United States as a treacherous form of oligarchy.

The expression of a "General Will" could not be made through votes according to him. Maistre thus attacked the base of the Republic; the French theory of "Représentation Nationale" (no need to translate) which forbid every form of Imperative mandate (the origin of the French rejection of lobbyism). He took the example of the French "Terror" (1793-1795) during which the young Republic obviously failed. He hailed instead the Papal electoral system as the best form of "democracy".

So there was no consensus on "democracy" in Europe until the 20th century (if you consider England a monarchy at that time).

To put it together it is a political question which the church did not really debate (which system is the better? Personally I see no reason to be a fan of democracy -specially if you separate it from the state of law- since it favours corruption and short term politics, but it buys social peace and it enables people to fully enjoy their dignity). But the Church always stressed the equal human dignity at least since the medieval time.

I would separate this from the question of papal control, since the popes had been struggling since ever to maintain control over the Catholic Churchs themselves in Europe (most notably England, France, and the Holy Roman Empire).

For example in France a lot of clergymen rallied the Revolution for their own purposes in this struggle, on all sides (the struggle for the control of the church in France since the 17th century opposed mainly the King backed by some French noble bishops, the Pope and his jesuit supporters as well as noblemen opposed to the King, and the Jansenists reformators backed by some noblemen and bourgeois). Catholics seen as overly favouring the Pope over the French Bishops were called ultramontains (looking over the mountains i.e. over the Alps to Rome) and the ones on the other sides were called gallicans (as in Anglican, Gallica beeing the Latin geographical name for France).


Were celebrations for the 400th Anniversary of the Reformation held in Germany during World War I? The 400th anniversary of Luther posting his 95 Theses was October 31, 1917. At this point, Germany was suffering heavy losses in World War I, and the war would continue until November 11th of the following year.

Were celebrations for the 400th anniversary held in Germany during World War I?

In 1917, Reformation Day was on a Wednesday. The German theologian Hermann Sasse, a sergeant in the German army at the time, spoke about that day in 1942. His glasses are too amazing for my conscience to allow me to answer without including this picture, taken the year before he died:

In any case, the troops celebrated communion. Given that it was a Wednesday, not a Sunday, we can assume it was in celebration of Reformation Day. Here's what Sasse said:

  I still remember that cloudy, misty Autumn morning in northern Germany. The Divine Service in the open air would be for many of those present their last celebration of holy communion. Straight after the celebration, we were plunged into one of the bloodiest battles of Flanders..Surely that Jubilee deserved something better. But with it there arose a new appreciation of the central article of faith of the Lutheran Reformation. It is as though the tremendous gravity of war, the encounter with death and the experience of God's judgment that it brought, were needed for modern man to grasp again the message of the Reformation: the justification of the ungodly by faith alone.

In an interview, Hartmut Lehmann talked about how the German government used Reformation Day as a political tool:

  The later anniversaries, 1817, 1883 and 1917, were guided by nationalism. Luther's heroisation was mainly directed against Catholic France. Luther was depicted as the typical German, the one who had made possible the national unification and the rise of Germany to a superpower...

  The motivations have changed, but the degree of instrumentalisation has always been extraordinarily high. For example, in 1917, during the final phase of WW1, no phrase was too strong to exploit Luther's memory for the purpose of propaganda in order to make the Germans continue to believe in gaining victory over their enemies.

There was also a different take on the situation. Historian Max Lenz gave a lecture on Reformation Day 1917 in Hamburg, Germany titled "Luther and the German Spirit." He questioned whether the war really was in keeping with the legacy of Luther. Here's what he had to say:

  Would Luther recognize our war as his own? Is there a bridge that leads from Luther's religion to the new Germany, to the life interests and ideals we are fighting for, to the things we hold sacred?


What should one do who was baptised twice in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches? I just found out my parents baptized me twice as a baby in two Christian Churches: Catholic and Orthodox. I am concerned, is it bad to be baptized twice? What can I do to sort this out?

I'll answer from the Catholic point of view, because I'm Catholic, but I think the Orthodox would agree (just interchange "Catholic" and "Orthodox" in the rest of this answer). Your first baptism is presumably valid (unless it was done in some weird way --- it's possible to mess up a baptism to the point of invalidity, but that very rarely happens). The sacrament of baptism can only be received once, so your second baptism is invalid, i.e., it's not really a baptism at all. The Catholic Church regards Orthodox baptisms as valid (and vice versa, as far as I know). So from the Catholic point of view, you're validly baptized, no matter which of your two baptisms came first.  If you've been practicing the Catholic faith (attending mass, receiving communion, going to confession, etc.) all along, you have nothing to worry about. If you haven't been practicing the Catholic faith but want to begin, you should consult a priest about what you need to do.  That may involve receiving instruction in the faith, it may involve making a general confession, or it may involve other things that don't occur to me just now. It should not involve baptism unless there's reason to suspect that both of your previous baptisms were invalid.

Edit: A comment requested sources for this information. The one I have handy is "Moral Theology" by Fr. Heribert Jone, which I consider reliable because it was recommended to me by a traditional Catholic priest and because no one has given me any reason to doubt it. Baptism is treated in detail in Sections 464 to 486. In particular, see Section 472 concerning validity of baptism by non-Catholics and Section 473 for the impossibility of being validly baptized twice.


Where are the manuscripts of Dean John Burgon? Dean John Burgon (1813-1888) says in his book 'Revisions Revised' that he had catalogued 96,000 references to the scriptures in the early church fathers (such as Jerome, Eusebius, Augustine etc) in order to collate them in regard to Textual Criticism.
These 96,000 'Patristic Citations', as they are known, must be held somewhere but I could not find them at the British Library in London where I would have expected them to be documented.
Where else would these be catalogued ?

Worldcat is an excellent resource for locating rare books in libraries. Once you select a title, it lists different libraries that have it in their collections.

This search shows all works of Dean John William Burgon in any library. There isn’t a way to search by location, so you may need to look through a good number of them to find which specific titles are nearby. You may also need to do some digging and see if you can request the book from a library that’s a bit farther off.


What exactly is a liber ordinarius? I presume a liber ordinarius contains texts and/or chants used during masses.

Does it cover the entire liturgical year?
Do I remember correctly that it may contain only incipits of the to be used texts/chants?
If so, are there ones that contain the full texts/chants?
Are they still in use today or did they get replaced by something else?

The Catholic Encyclopedia reports:

  In the Middle Ages, and indeed almost down to the invention of printing, the books used in the service of the Church were much more divided up than they are at present. Instead of one book, our modern Breviary for example, containing the whole Office, we find at least four books — the Psalterium, the Hymnarium, the Antiphonarium, and the Legendarium, or book of lessons, all in separate volumes. Rubrics or ritual directions were rarely written down in connexion with the text to which they belonged...

The Encyclopedia starts by explaining the situation regarding Liturgical books (that is to say, for Holy Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours) through the Low Middle Ages. Since both parchment and manpower was expensive, liturgical books usually ommitted the rubricated directions for priests and only recorded the words for reciting, and were also split into smaller volumes, easier to copy.

  However, about the eleventh century there grew up a tendency towards greater elaboration and precision in rubrical directions for the services, and at the same time we notice the beginning of a more or less strongly marked division of these directions into two classes, which in the case of the Sarum Use are conveniently distinguished as the Customary and the Ordinal.

Eventually, as Europe recovered from the Dark Ages, as well as the Carolingian imperative towards more uniformity in worship, these rubrics were collected and spelled out in Liturgical books which simplified the preparation work for the priest, as well as minimised the possibility that a less well trained priest might mix up directions and celebrate wrongly. These compendia of Liturgical directions were collected into two classes, one more general ("Customary" in the case of the Sarum Use) and one more specific ("Ordinal" in the same Use).

  It is out of the latter of these books, i.e. the Ordinal (often called Ordinarium and Liber Ordinarius), that the "Directorium", or "Pye", and eventually also our own modern "Ordo recitandi" were in due time evolved.

Here we see the connection between your term Liber Ordinarius and the Sarum Ordinal (which was not limited to Sarum, and was produced by other dioceses), which eventually evolved into "our own modern" (that is, pre-Vatican II, because by "modern" we mean "1913") Ordo recitandi.

As for how the Ordo recitandi is laid out:

  It consists simply of a calendar for the year, in which there are printed against each day concise directions concerning the Office and Mass to be said on that day. The calendar is usually provided with some indication of fast days, special indulgences, days of devotion, and other items of information which it may be convenient for the clergy to be reminded of as they occur.

The Liber Ordinarius seems to have taken much the same shape, a calendar where the priest looks up all the special rubrics which must be followed in a given day.

Note that nowadays the Mass of Paul VI seems to take a different approach, letting the priests queue up the correct readings for the day by using a system of several bookmarks out of the same single book, either the Ordo Missae for Holy Mass or the Breviarium for the Liturgy of the Hours, which are prepared beforehand before starting Liturgy.

In conclusion, regarding your points:

Does it cover the entire liturgical year?

Yes, libri ordinarii were conceived to be a handy reference to the rubrics which were to be used in a given diocese or group of dioceses for a single year.
Do I remember correctly that it may contain only incipits of the to be used texts/chants?

Yes, they had (as the Encyclopedia puts it) "concise directions" regarding Office and Mass, which means the text was generally abbreviated, though enough of the text was given that a priest would have no doubt as to which specific forms were to be used, whenever there was a choice of two or more.
If so, are there ones that contain the full texts/chants?

Not libri ordinarii, although there were other books, like the Ordo missae, legendaria, which together were able to specify the entirety of the Liturgy in those times. It's important to remember that this is pre-printing press, so these books were extremely expensive to produce; therefore a single, "all in one" version of the books was prohibitively expensive. This eventually changed from the 15th Century on, though.
Are they still in use today or did they get replaced by something else?

They eventually evolved into the Ordines recitandi which were used until the general reforms in 1970 after Vatican II, and were basically the same thing — a book with an entry for each day of the year and which specific readings, antiphons, psalms, and proper prayers were due for that day.

However, when the most recent Liturgical reform was promulgated, the rubrics were collected into single books, the Ordo missae for Holy Mass and the Breviarium for the Liturgy of the Hours. Note, however, that a Traditionalist group under a company called Saint Lawrence Press produces Ordines Recitandi for the current year, according to the pre-Vatican II Missal.


Why does the throne in Daniel 7:9 have wheels and are they literally wheels? Daniel 7:9

  He sat on a fiery throne with wheels of blazing fire.

There are also references to wheels in Ezekiel Chapter 10 (which may or may not be related).

Is there a significance to the throne having wheels?

Are they actually wheels?  Why are they on fire?

I read the Wikipedia article on Ophanim  and it almost led be to believe that these "wheels" were actually beings that enabled the thrones to move.

David Pawson has an interesting answer, referring to a similar vision in Ezekiel 1. First, bear in mind that the Israelites were at that time in captivity in Babylon. Then:

Clearly, the throne can travel in any direction. This symbolizes the omnipresence of God, who is able to be anywhere and everywhere. He is a mobile God. This is significant because, until this point, every vision of God’s throne in the Bible had portrayed it as static, fixed in Jerusalem. So it was a comfort for Ezekiel to learn that God’s throne was mobile, for it meant that he could move to Babylon. This was an important truth to communicate to the exiles, who may have believed that God lived in one place, hundreds of miles away in Jerusalem.
Furthermore, the ‘eyes’ on the rims of the wheels tell us that God can see everything, everywhere. It’s a very meaningful picture. No wonder Ezekiel was overwhelmed with the vision and fell to the ground.

Summary: yes the throne has wheels to symbolise that God is with His people, even when they are not near the temple. But, no, they are not literal. God is speaking to Ezekiel in a vision which he and the people he preached it to would immediately understand and draw comfort from.
For more information see this page which quotes directly from David Pawson's Unlocking the Bible Omnibus.


Why was it so special that John the baptist was not called Zechariah? After reading 2 chronicles 1-8 (many, many names) I was surprised that noone had the same name as their father, or grand father.

I remembered the story of Zechariah not being able to talk until he told the name of his son, John. The people who heard the name were surprised because no one in the family had the name John.

Why was this so surprising, because in the lists of names in the bible, I do not find people having the same name as their father?

I'd like to suggest it has much deeper meaning than most have considered.  Names are, indeed, very important in the Bible. When one hears the name "John" in terms of the Bible, there are 2 John's that come to mind instantly. This conection, I believe, must be intended.  It is interesting that John, the apostle, quotes many times from the Book of Zechariah...now where have I heard that name before? ;) Why does it matter?  Well, for eschatological reasons, as John the apostle was chosen to write the Book of Revelation in which he describes the events leading up to Christ's second advent. Who was it that spoke of Christ's first advent?  Yes, the other John. One more connection and I will leave you to prayerfully consider what I have shared.  John Baptist was the "Elijah forerunner" of Christ's first advent, and there is another "Elijah" forerunner expected "before the great and terrible day of YHVH"...in the Book of Rev., John states, "I John, your brother and fellow participant in THE [emphasis mine] Tribulation..."  "Word play" is common throughout the Scriptures, and it seems to me this can't be "coincidence." The John-John link was intentional to connect the "Elijah forerunner" to the Book of Revelation.  My thoughts. shalom


Why are the Gospels silent on the physical appearance of Jesus? We have four books which describe the life of Jesus Christ from His birth to His death and resurrection. All the four Gospels are silent about the physical appearance of Jesus. It won't take much words to describe the appearance of Jesus. At least some few words for His height, complexion, hair color, hair length, hair style, ugly or handsome, voice and body size will suffice.

Is there any explicit/implicit reason why the Gospels are silent on the physical appearance of Jesus Christ?

The prophecy of Isaiah 53 asserts that Jesus would not have any extraordinary physical attributes.

  For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
  And like a root out of parched ground;
  He has no stately form or majesty
  That we should look upon Him,
  Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.  Isaiah 53:2 NAS

Thus, this affirms that there was nothing extraordinary in His physical appearance, so He was not likely seven feet tall nor did He likely have the physique of Arnold Schwarzenegger.

As to why this was the case, the second of the Ten Commandments asserts that we are not to even make any images that could be used in worship.  The lack of description of Jesus' appearance seems to have a preventative effect to this end.

  “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them... Exodus 20:4-5a NAS


What Biblical scripture is used to support the concept of waiting for God to give direction? I am curious about the core idea of some Christians that they insist on waiting before "doing good".  What does scripture say about waiting for direction from God?

This is not a pro/con list or an attempt to evaluate the validity of the scripture or the concept of waiting for God.  I'd just like help identifying the scripture that supports the concept of waiting to act.

Lamentations 3:25-27 (NIV)

  25 The Lord is good to those whose hope is in him,
      to the one who seeks him;
  26 it is good to wait quietly
      for the salvation of the Lord.

Micah 7:7 (NIV)

  7 But as for me, I watch in hope for the Lord,
      I wait for God my Savior;
      my God will hear me.

Luke 12:36 (NIV)

  36 like servants waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him.

Galatians 5:5 (NIV)

  5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope.


According to Catholicism, did Jesus really use wine at the Last Supper? We see a part of the institution Holy Eucharist at Mtt 26: 27-28 (NRSVCE):

Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you;  for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Jesus goes on to say  at Mt 26: 29:

I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.

Remember that Jesus was celebrating the  the Passover which was the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
Now, we see Yahweh ,  while preparing Israel for the first Passover,giving stern instructions on the use of leaven at Ex 12:14-15:

This day shall be a day of remembrance for you. You shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord; throughout your generations you shall observe it as a perpetual ordinance.   Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses, for whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day shall be cut off from Israel

Connecting the two, one wonders whether Jesus really used wine in the Last Supper, which was a commemoration of Passover. In fact, wine which is the product of fermentation does not go hand-in-hand  with the unleavened bread ,and Jesus would be the last the break the instructions at Exodus!
But then, if Jesus did not drink wine, what did he drink ? Simple: fresh grape juice. We see at Song of Solomon  8:12 that drinking of fresh juice had been  prevalent since ancient times:

I would give you spiced wine to drink,
the juice of my pomegranates.

Now, the Catholic Church all across the world has traditionally been using bread  and wine to commemorate the Last Supper . Of course, wine has much higher  shelf-life than has fresh grape juice , and it may be impossible for the sacristan to prepare fresh grape juice day after day for the Eucharist especially during the lean season of grapes. But,  one really wonders if what Jesus drank at the Last Supper was wine or  fresh grape juice .
My question therefore is: Did Jesus really use wine at the Last Supper? Has the Catholic Church made any research into the prospects of Jesus having used fresh grape juice?

Did Jesus really use wine at the Last Supper? Has the Catholic Church made any research into the prospects of Jesus having used fresh grape juice?
Tradition holds that according to the Catholic Church, Christ used real wine at the Last Supper and not fresh grape juice.
This has been the constant tradition for centuries within both Catholic and Orthodox Churches. No Church Father suggests that Christ ever used grape juice in lieu of wine at the Last Supper.
Let us remember that Jesus’ first public miracle was to turn water into wine at the Wedding Feast at Cana. His last miracle was to change the bread and wine into his flesh and blood!
For example, St. Cyril of Jerusalem(c. 313 – 386 AD) speaks to us as Jesus using wine for the Eucharist.

"The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]).
"Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ…[Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so,…partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9). - The Church Fathers on the Holy Eucharist

To this day, during the Passover Feast the Jewish faithful drink wine. In fact, they serve four cups of wine.

The four cups of wine, known in Hebrew as arba kosot, are drunk by each participant at the Passover seder service.
This ceremony is prescribed by the Mishnah as a duty to be observed by even the poorest man (Pes. 10: 1). The four cups are drunk in the following order: (1) the Kiddush at the start of the seder; (2) at the conclusion of the main part of the Haggadah which ends with the Ge'ullah ("Redemption") benediction; (3) at the end of the Grace after Meals; and (4) at the conclusion of the Nishmat hymn ("Birkat ha-Shir"). Only the second and fourth cups were added for the seder meal since the drinking of the two other cups forms part of every meal on Sabbaths and holidays. The reason for four cups is based by the rabbis upon the midrashic interpretation of Exodus 6:6–7, where four different terms of deliverance are employed: "I will bring you out … deliver you … redeem you … and will take you to Me for a people," etc. (Ex. R. 6:4). Other symbolic explanations for the four cups are that they correspond to the four cups of Pharaoh mentioned in Genesis, ch. 40, or to the four ancient kingdoms which oppressed Israel and for which God requites Israel with four cups of consolation (TJ, Pes. 10:1, 37b–c).
Other examples of the special symbolic significance of the number four in the Haggadah are the Four Questions ("Mah Nishtannah"). Four Sons, and the four types of food at the seder meal: unleavened bread (matzah), lamb, bitter herbs, and ḥaroset. Some rabbis in the Talmud required a fifth cup of wine for the fifth expression of redemption "I shall bring you" (Pes. 118a, according to the text found in R. Hananel and Alfasi); this became symbolized in the cup of Elijah on the seder table. The four cups of wine should be drunk in a reclined position, as in Roman times reclining was a sign of freedom. Each cup has to contain at least a ¼ log (0.137 liter; Sh. Ar, OḤ 472:9). Red wine is to be preferred but because of the blood accusations in Europe, white wine was often used (see Blood Libel ). - Passover: Four Cups of Wine

Freshly pressed grapes do not remain as such in warmer climates. Freshly pressed grapes will ferment quite naturally on it’s own.
It is simply impossible to keep the juice from crushed grapes from fermenting without modern refrigeration and pasteurization techniques. So yes, the wine was alcoholic.
Besides that the Passover is held in March or April! That is not the time for grape harvesting in the northern hemisphere. You have to wait about six months more for that in Israel. Thus another indication that it was indeed wine used at the Last Supper.

All fruit when crushed or rotten will have naturally occurring alcohol. As long as there is sugar, yeast and water alcohol will happen. Most commercially purchased fruit juice has a small amount of alcohol in it when you purchase it.

Low-alcoholic beverage Sparkling cider, sodas, and juices naturally contain trace amounts or no alcohol. Some fresh orange juices are above the UK 'alcohol free' limit of 0.05% ABV, as are some yogurts and rye bread.

Ethanol distillation is used to separate alcoholic beverages into what are advertised as non-alcoholic beverages and spirits; distilled wine produces low alcohol wine and brandy (from brandywine, derived from Dutch brandewijn, "burning wine"),1 distilled beer may be used to produce low-alcohol beer and whisky.

However alcoholic beverages cannot be further purified to 0.00% alcohol by volume by distillation. In fact, most beverages labeled non-alcoholic contain 0.5% ABV as it is more profitable than distilling it to 0.05% ABV often found in products sold by companies specializing in non-alcoholic beverages. - Can alcohol (ethanol) exist in nature without the intervention of man?

Some get into the subject matter of yeast in the Passover Feast because the Ancient Jews ate unleavened bread. That is to say without yeast in the making of Matzo. However, Moses makes to such prohibition in the use of grape juice for wine, whether by natural means or manually added by man to aid fermentation. The Ancient Jews ate Matzo because they ate in haste.


What are the meaning of and the biblical basis for the practice of pleading the blood of Jesus in prayer? I've heard people say this phrase in prayer many times. A simple Google search for the exact phrase "plead the blood of Jesus" confirms that this is the case, returning about 280,000 hits (as of April 2021). My superficial understanding is that people usually plead the blood of Jesus expecting some kind of special spiritual protection against the dark forces, maybe it has something to do with spiritual warfare, I'm not sure.
Questions:

What do Christians mean when they plead the blood of Jesus in prayer? Is there a canonical definition of the phrase? What do they expect will happen when they say it?

What is the biblical basis? Are there scriptural examples in which an apostle or a disciple pleaded the blood of Jesus for protection or any other purpose?

Questions:

What do Christians mean when they plead the blood of Jesus in prayer? Is there a canonical definition of the phrase? What do they expect will happen when they say it?

What is the biblical basis? Are there scriptural examples in which an apostle or a disciple pleaded the blood of Jesus for protection or any other purpose?

KB: I have heard Christians plead the blood of Jesus or the blood of the Lamb in prayer. In common usage, it's fairly simple. People seem to use this phrase to mean they are praying sincerely and in the name of Jesus. I am not disparaging anyone who prays with this phrase, just pointing out what I believe is the thought behind use of this phrase.
As used in the Bible this phrase certainly does have to do with spiritual warfare as we can see in this passage below.
Revelation 12:10-11 NIV:

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation
and the power
and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down. 11 They triumphed over him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.

Another use is in Revelation 7:14 NIV

And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great
tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the
blood of the Lamb.

I do not know of any Biblical example of someone praying by the blood of the Lamb. The phrase is used in various ways in the Bible as shown above, but it is not used Biblically in prayer as far as I know.


What is home and visiting teaching in LDS tradition? What is the LDS practice of home/visiting teaching? Are they the same thing? Where did this originate, as I don't know of other sects which have the same practice... at least with those terms.

Home and visiting teaching are assignments given to church members to visit with one another, in order to uplift and strengthen each other, and to identify needs which each members may have.

The basis for this can be found in LDS scripture, Doctrine & Covenants 20:46-47:

  The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament, and visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties.

Generally, during a home teaching visit, the home teacher will talk with the family, find out what's going in their lives, and usually share some spiritual message.

Most men in the church are given this responsibility.

The difference between home and visiting teaching is that home teaching is done by the men, and they visit with the whole family, while visiting teaching is done by the women, and they only visit with other women.


Of what date is the oldest inscription of Yahweh found? Is it true that there is an inscription of Yahweh found that is older than when Moses was revealed the name of God in the Bible?

Tradition holds that Moses lived sometime around the 15th century B.C. This would put the oldest use of the tetragrammaton (the Hebrew word "YHWH", anglicized to "Yahweh") to the same time frame, as Moses wrote the oldest portions of the Bible.

Outside the Bible, the oldest known inscription of the tetragrammaton appears on the Mesha stele, which has been dated to around 840 B.C. You can read more about the Mesha stele here.