What are the arguments for the Exodus occuring in 1440BC or 1290BC? There are two schools of thought on when the Exodus occurred, the "early" date of 1440BC, and the "later" date of 1290BC.  How was each date arrived at, and what is the evidence for each?

The method of deducing each date, along with the difficulties associated with each method, are documented at cresourcei.org

In short:

The older date (1440 BC) is primarily based on the assumption that the Bible is a reliable historical document, with the passage of time based solely upon dates and time periods given from within Scripture.  Example:

  1) 1 Kings 6:1

  6:1 In the four hundred eightieth year after the Israelites came out
  of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over
  Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to
  build the house of the LORD.

  This verse gives a time period of 480 years between the exodus and the
  beginning of Solomon’s work on the Jerusalem temple. From John
  Bright’s chronology, Solomon ascended the throne around 961 BC, which
  would make the fourth year of his reign and the beginning of temple
  construction about 959-957 BC (see Israelite Kings). If we assume that
  the number 480 is to be taken as a precise number of years much as we
  would count years on a calendar today, working backward from this date
  we arrive at a date around 1440 BC for the exodus.

The more recent date (1290 BC) is primarily based on external archaeological and external evidence.

Excerpt:

  1) Edom and Moab

  Archaeology surveys and excavations on the eastern side of the Jordan
  river (Transjordan), pioneered by N. Gleuck, reveal that there was no
  settled civilization in the Edomite and Moabite areas of the southern
  Transjordan until about the late 14th or early 13th century BC. Also,
  the earliest record referring to the Edomites is an Egyptian letter
  dating to the 13th century. There is scarcely any evidence of
  settlement in these areas in the 15th century BC. Since we know from
  the traditions that Israel encountered settled people in this area
  (e.g., Num 20:14), it seems that a 13th century date for the exodus is
  more likely and less problematic than a 15th century date. Also, the
  Moabite city of Heshbon was the first city taken by the Israelites in
  the Transjordan area, becoming a part of the tribal territory of
  Reuben (Num 21:21-24, 32:37). Thorough excavations at what has been
  identified as this site reveal that the city was not occupied until
  around 1250 to 1200 BC. Allowing for the 40 years in the desert, this
  suggests a date for the exodus at the beginning of the 13th century.

These are not the only evidences for each date. It should be noted that there are various assumptions and difficulties with either date.  I am not about to list them here, as they are all well documented on the page I linked to above.  Suffice it to say that the evidence for each is seen as tenuous, at best by those that hold the opposite belief.

Also, in the sections above, note that I said that each position is based primarily on either internal Biblical evidence or external evidence.  That does not mean the position is based only on those two things.  Each position is just as much based on an understanding of the difficulties of the opposing view.

Which date we hold to is likely to fall along the lines of how much we trust the Bible for historical accuracy, and how much we trust our interpretation of it, as well as where we draw the line on literalism. (Many of the arguments for a more recent date point out scenarios where a given time span can be interpreted as something other than the direct literal reading.  Sounds like another debate about dating certain events that we're all quite familiar with.)


According to Mormons, what is the Holy Spirit of Promise mentioned in Ephesians? Ephesians 1:13 (KJV) mentions being sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise:

  In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

I can't find that term anywhere else in the Bible. So what is the Holy Spirit of Promise?

It does appear several times in the Doctrine and Covenants so I welcome answers with an LDS perspective. (For example, the D&C passages are about marriage; how does that relate to the context in Ephesians where one is sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise after hearing the word of truth?)

The Holy Ghost is the Holy Spirit of Promise.

  "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received
  of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this,
  which ye now see and hear." (Acts 2:33)

He confirms as acceptable to God the righteous acts, ordinances, and covenants of men. The Holy Spirit of Promise witnesses to the Father that the saving ordinances have been performed properly and that the covenants associated with them have been kept. 1

When Paul wrote that the Saints had been “sealed with that holy Spirit of promise”, he meant that they had been promised eternal life even though they were still living in mortality. When people are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, the Holy Ghost ratifies them as celestial inheritors even though they are mortal. This doctrine is sometimes referred to as having one’s calling and election made sure or receiving the Second Comforter (see 2 Peter 1:4–19; D&C 132:6–7; Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 2:493–95; History of the Church, 3:379–80).2

1 The Guide to the Scriptures: Holy Spirit of Promise2 Chapter 44: Ephesians. New Testament Student Manual, 2014


Isn't CS Lewis's idea that time is still successive in Heaven frustrating? C.S. Lewis:

  If that [to travel hopefully is better than to arrive] were true, and
  known to be true, how could anyone travel hopefully? There would be
  nothing to hope for.

Am I missing something here? To paraphrase his own words in rejection to the idea that it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive, if it were known that there was nothing to arrive at how could you travel hopefully?
If time continues, we would never reach a complete 'end' but our experiences would ever be evolving and changing. And if there were no time that would be inhuman.

Lewis is pointing out that if the object of hope can never be attained as a better state (i.e., it is better to seek with anticipation than to find), then true hope is impossible (with the exclusion of false perception, i.e., "and known to be true"). One cannot hope for a worse state.

One could say that in the glorified state hope is no longer significant. "Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?" (Romans 8:24, ESV) Passing beyond hope does not end joy (but, in this case, makes the joy complete).

With respect to frustration, I am reminded of a comment in G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy in a rather different context:

  Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, "Do it again"; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening, "Do it again" to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.


According to Catholicism, when exactly were the souls of those who died before Christ conducted to heaven? My understanding of Catholic teaching is that after the original sin, man was not only kicked out of paradise, but heaven was closed to him so that the after death, the souls of the just were in limbo awaiting liberation by Christ.

On Good Friday, Jesus promises the good thief that he will be with him that day in Paradise1.

In the Apostles' Creed, it is recited in the 4th thru 6th articles:

  He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was  crucified, died, and was
  buried.

  He descended into hell. On the third day  he rose again.

  He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

Here is my question:

On Good Friday, did Jesus descend into hell (limbo), free the just souls who went before him, who then accompanied him with great joy into heaven?

Or did he free them, place them into paradise - the one Adam forfeited for him and us - rise on Easter Sunday, and then conduct the souls into heaven when he ascended on ascension Thursday? Or was it at some other time?

According to Catholicism, when exactly were the souls of those who died before Christ conducted to heaven?

1. Cf. Luke 23:43 (RSVCE).

The souls of those who died before Christ (who were in the Limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum) or "Bosom of Abraham") were conducted to heaven at Christ's Ascension.
Addressing the question of "Whether Christ's Ascension is the cause of our salvation?," St. Thomas Aquinas writes:

…He took to heaven the souls of the saints delivered from hell, according to Ps. 67:19 (Cf. Eph. 4:8*): "Ascending on high, He led captivity captive," because He took with Him to heaven those who had been held captives by the devil—to heaven, as to a place strange to human nature, captives in deed of a happy taking, since they were acquired by His victory.
*["For the which he saith, Ascending on high, he led captivity captive: he gave gifts to men."]

See also "Does the Catholic Church teach that some who died before Christ are still in Limbo? Why?."


Why do Pentecostalists often use the word "fire" during exorcisms? In the Pentecostal Church you often see people use the word "fire" during exorcisms. Why? To burn the demon out?

I would like to see some scripture that can back up the doctrine or culture.

There are two basic analogies for fire in the NT: first is the everlasting
fire the condemned souls are cast into; the second one is the purifying
fire associated with the Holy Spirit. Mt 25:41 is an example of the former:

  Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me,
  ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Also Luke 9:54:

  And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou
  that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as
  Elias did?

Of the second, there's Mt 3:11:

  I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh
  after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear:
  he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

And obviously, the famous Pentecost narrative from Acts 2:

  1 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.
  2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven
  and filled the whole house where they were sitting.
  3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came
  to rest on each of them.

Now, the thing about Pentecostalism is that there isn't a Catechism or
some sort of definitive compendium of doctrine, but in general, a pastor
will invoke fire as a combination of the two metaphors: the fire that
purifies the possessed person from the unclean spirit, and the fire that
punishes the same unclean spirit in the “place prepared for the devil and
his angels.”


What major views are there on the question of whether God shares moral responsibility for our deeds, good and bad? I am looking for an overview of the major historical approaches to the following question/group of questions:

Since God has given us this body to do good or bad, then does he share at all in the praise or blame we incur for particular acts? And if he does, why is it that we are judged to heaven or hell based on those acts?

I realize the general philosophical nature of this question, but I assume that there will be a relatively small number of historically well-represented or well-supported approaches to the question. An overview of the top two or three approaches would suffice.

You say "our deeds". What are our deeds?

My nose is mine but I did not create it because God created all things. I inherited my D.N.A. which made my nose. So things become ours not because we create them but because we are given them. We inherit our nurture and nature

they make us who we are
we don't choose them.

  1 Pet 4v5 we give back[apodo] an account of the life He first gave us.

If I give an account of the 1st World War that does not make me responsible for it.  So far I have been describing a Determinist way of reading the Bible in which there is no free will and no human responsibility.

A chair does not have to make itself to be a chair. We choose. We
choose on the basis of who we are. We do not choose who we are.
Choose you this day whom you will serve is a choice which we will
make solely on the basis on how God first made us.

On the other hand the Libertarian view is that Adam disobeyed God only because he had the free will to do so, and all human behaviour is down to free will. Here we need to think about whether God's Laws are given to be obeyed or to prove that we can't.
Compatibilism says that Determinism {God is sovereign} is compatible with free will.
Pelagius was a Libertarian and Augustine inclined towards determinism I understand. So these positions have been under scrutiny for a long time. Responsibility has two aspects:

Instrumental.e.g. who betrayed Jesus? Judas or someone else? Who did
it?
Ultimate responsibility. Why did Judas betray Jesus? Was it because
he had free will or because this destiny was given him by God who
determined his actions?

Luke 22:22 says Jesus went as it was determined but "woe unto that man" that betrayed Him. This means that Judas would be punished even though his actions were determined for him.
We are instrumentally responsible for all our deeds. If I sit in a chair I have done it.
But that does not make me ultimately responsible if God decided before it happened that He would make me do that. So two sorts of responsibility exist and in my experience of Christianity these are frequently treated as one.  I am not sure your question strictly defines in which sense you use the word.


Should a wife of permanent deacon candidate be a Catholic? Should a wife of permanent deacon candidate be a Catholic?

Can she belong to some schismatic (non-Catholic) church, like Eastern Orthodox, for instance?

According to the St. Joseph Foumdation posting on EWTN forums, there is no universal rule.

There is no requirement in the universal Church that a deacon's wife be baptized.
St. Joseph Foundation via EWTN forums

But like many other rules concerning the permenant diaconate, the family commitment to the deacons ordination process is up to the diocesan bishop.  Furthermore, a wife must be give her consent that her husband become a deacon.

A candidate for the permanent diaconate who is not married may be admitted to the diaconate only when he has completed at least his twenty-fifth year; if he is married, not until he has completed at least his thirty-fifth year, and then with the consent of his wife.
Can. 1031 §2

So, presumably, the wife is not going to be a dyed in the wool devil worshipper.


What is this Bible with red printing? I want to buy this Bible, does anyone know what the title of this version of the Bible is, or know any versions which has highlighted text? Only ESV. Thank you.

Normally these bibles are called red-letter or Dominical words bibles (Dominical meaning "of the Lord" — it's the words of Jesus which are printed in red).

There used to be an ESV red-letter bible but it's out of print. I can't find whether they currently print a red-letter version, but there are some of that leather-bound red-letter edition available via Amazon at the moment.

Two-colour printing is far more expensive than single-colour, so it tends to go with high-end features like leather binding. The end result is sold in such low volumes that it becomes uneconomical to maintain and even second-hand prices remain quite high.

The image you provided is of the New King James Version which obviously also had printed red-letter editions. There's an imitation-leather NKJV edition available quite cheaply at the moment.


Why appoint Matthias to replace Judas only to later appoint Paul as a thirteenth Apostle? It seems that twelve is a number with a lot of meaning in the Bible, and thirteen not so much.  So why not make Paul the twelfth Apostle and just skip Matthias?

Later in Revelation the church seems to be still presented as based on twelve as a complete number:

  And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Revelation 21:14, ESV)

So why thirteen? Or why are there twelve Apostles to Israel and only one to the rest of the world?

Note: I am not doubting that Matthias was an Apostle. This question assumes he was. I am also assuming the restricted sense of Apostle as not just 'bearers of the NT message' or 'commissioned representative of a congregation' but those inner circle of Apostles whose offices were directly appointed by Christ in the flesh, Matthias being a replacement of one of those. Therefore, I am excluding Barnabas, James, etc. from the question.

Please see also the related (but not duplicate) question Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthais or Paul? That question asked if Paul replaced Matthias, or not. This question assumes he did NOT and then asks 'What is the meaning of twelve Apostles to Israel and one to the Gentiles?' What is the meaning of 12 + 1?

Matthias was appointed for a very specific purpose: to fill the void in the Twelve once Judas had died.  We have no record of when or under what circumstances Paul was called as an apostle, but we do know that his ministry coincided with a period of very heavy persecution for the church.  So it's not at all unreasonable to assume, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that Paul was appointed, as Matthias was, once one of the other existing apostles was killed.


During communion, when does the wafer stop being Jesus' body? So according to Catholicism, the wafer/wine becomes Jesus' body/blood instantly when the priest says so, but when does it stop being Jesus' body/blood?

When it is chewed up, or when it is in the throat, or when it reaches the stomach, or when it passes through the intestines, or when it is evacuated out of the body? Or does it never stop being Jesus' body?

To complement Belinda’s answer, although the Church does not descend in so much detail, St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa theologiae makes the following commentary in III Pars, q. 77, a. 4, responsum.

  But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.

In other words, once the Eucharistic species suffer a change sufficiently great that they no longer have the properties of bread or wine, then the sacramental presence ceases.

Hence, in essence, for the host, the Presence remains until it has been dissolved into a paste or divided into minuscule particles; for the wine, the Presence remains until it is diluted or divided into minuscule droplets.

(That is why, for example, the priest, deacon, or acolyte uses water to purify the vessels after Communion: this action dissolves any remaining particles of the host and dilutes any remaining drops of the Precious Blood. Although minuscule particles of the Host technically do not retain the Presence, out of reverence for the Presence that was once there, care should be taken lest these fall to the floor. Thus, for example, any breaking of the host should always be done over the corporal—the white cloth on which the species are consecrated—and when Communion is given out, someone should generally hold a paten or other receptacle underneath to catch any falling hosts or particles.)

It is hard to pinpoint the exact moment after receiving Communion that the Presence ceases, but these reflections should give the general idea.


Were there any saints who criticized the church? Pope Francis has said that those who constantly criticize the Catholic
  church are “friends of the devil”.

My question is: were there any saints in history who repeatedly criticized the church or the church leaders?

I know there was St. Catherine who was urging popes move to Rome

  spent twenty years trying to convince popes to move back to the
  Eternal City

But I wouldn't consider this as a criticism, it's more of a strategical guidance. I'm more interested in public moral criticism.

Note: I mean the saints who were already living their life of sainthood. After their conversion and through their mystical life were instructed or led by the Holy Spirit to criticize certain immorality of the Church's leaders.

There were some early examples of bishops criticizing the church at Rome, which typically is considered by some as "the church".  Saint Polycarp disagreed with Rome over its observance of Pascha (or Easter).  This in turn led to Saint Polycratus' disagreement with Pope Victor circa CE 190.  Saint Firmilian and Saint Cyprian disagreed with Rome over its observance of baptism.

The following is from Eusebius' recording of the criticism.

  But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:
  “We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.
  He fell asleep at Ephesus.
  And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna.
  Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?
  All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.
  I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’”
  He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did. His words are as follows:
  “I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire;1705 whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus.”
  Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.
  -source-

Polycrates is basically criticizing Victor of Rome for not following apostolic teaching.

This next example is a letter from Firmilian to Cyprian criticizing Pope Stephen's allowance of heretical baptism as equal to Christian baptism.  In his letter, he references the aforementioned Easter controversy, saying Rome feigns apostolic authority.

  But, moreover, you have well answered that part where Stephen said in his letter that heretics themselves also are of one mind in respect of baptism; and that they do not baptize such as come to them from one another, but only communicate with them; as if we also ought to do this. In which place, although you have already proved that it is sufficiently ridiculous for any one to follow those that are in error, yet we add this moreover, over and above, that it is not wonderful for heretics to act thus, who, although in some lesser matters they differ, yet in that which is greatest they hold one and the same agreement to blaspheme the Creator, figuring for themselves certain dreams and phantasms of an unknown God. Assuredly it is but natural that these should agree in having a baptism which is unreal, in the same way as they agree in repudiating the truth of the divinity. Of whom, since it is tedious to reply to their several statements, either wicked or foolish, it is sufficient shortly to say in sum, that they who do not hold the true Lord the Father cannot hold the truth either of the Son or of the Holy Spirit; according to which also they who are called Cataphrygians, and endeavour to claim to themselves new prophecies, can have neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, of whom, if we ask what Christ they announce, they will reply that they preach Him who sent the Spirit that speaks by Montanus and Prisca.
  -source-

They continue in their criticism.

  And as Stephen and those who agree with him contend that putting away of sins and second birth may result from the baptism of heretics, among whom they themselves confess that the Holy Spirit is not; let them consider and understand that spiritual birth cannot be without the Spirit; in conformity with which also the blessed Apostle Paul baptized anew with a spiritual baptism those who had already been baptized by John before the Holy Spirit had been sent by the Lord, and so laid hands on them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. But what kind of a thing is it, that when we see that Paul, after John’s baptism, baptized his disciples again, we are hesitating to baptize those who come to the Church from heresy after their unhallowed and profane dipping. Unless, perchance, Paul was inferior to the bishops of these times, so that these indeed can by imposition of hands alone give the Holy Spirit to those heretics who come (to the Church), while Paul was not fitted to give the Holy Spirit by imposition of hands to those who had been baptized by John, unless he had first baptized them also with the baptism of the Church.
  -ibid-

His letter is a very interesting read, especially given that the Catholic Church finally recognizes in LDS baptism the same problem that Stephen failed to grasp.

So yes to the OP, there have been saints who have criticized what is known as the Catholic Church.


What is the endgame for sedevacantists? "Sedevacantism" is the belief that the See of Rome is currently vacant; that is, there is no current Pope.  There are not very many people who believe it, but they do seem to be pretty vocal on the Internet. One thing that I don't understand about it is: What do they think will or should happen in the future in order to resolve the situation? (Of course, the non-sedevacantist majority don't think there's a situation to be resolved at all.) The bulk of what I've read consists of their detailed complaints about recent Popes, along with some wrangling about election procedures and the like; but I haven't seen much that's about the future.

I understand that some of these groups have tried to elect their own Popes. Do they think that the global Church will/should come around to their position? Is there any kind of plan for how this might happen? Or are they content to remain as an elite minority while everybody else is condemned?

I ask partly because I have a sense that there is an eschatological dimension. The contemporary movement reminds me of the late mediaeval apocalyptic theory of an usurping pseudo-papal antichrist and his battle with the true Pope, this being one of the signs of the end of history. (See for example Bernard McGinn, Apocalypticism and Church Reform 1100-1500, in vol. 2 of The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, 2000.) I have seen sedevacantists talking about the so-called Prophecy of the Popes, which has quite an end-of-the-world flavour.

There are, unfortunately, numerous sedevacantist groups that disagree with each other. As indicated in the question, there are some that have tried to elect their own popes. There are also the Feeneyites, particularly associated with Most Holy Family Monastery, who deny the doctrines of baptism of desire (and, I believe, also of baptism of blood).  For another viewpoint, one with which I agree, I strongly recommend that you look at some of the material at the web site http://www.traditionalmass.org/ and particularly the link "Key Issues".  You might also listen to some of the sermons at http://www.traditionalcatholicsermons.org particularly those of Bishop Sanborn.  (You'll be able to tell from the titles which ones are relevant to your question about sedevacantism and which ones are general Catholic doctrine).

One example of how these groups could see the issue resolving is  Bishop Sanborn's position, which is essentially that the administrative structure of the Catholic Church continues, despite heresy, so that the modernist popes have valid elections (and the cardinals valid appointments) but are impeded from having the authority of the papacy by their lack of the Catholic faith. So the crisis would be ended if one of these popes were to abjure heresy and profess the Catholic faith (and, I suppose, receive ordination and episcopal consecration in traditional rites).


What different acts do Catholic priests require of people who go to confession? I understand that when people go to confessional in the Catholic Church, the priest will often prescribe certain things for them to do for penance in order for their sins to be forgiven.

I have heard people in passing mention doing "Hail Mary's", and I'm pretty sure they weren't talking about long desperation passes at the end of a football game.  I've also heard mention of "Our Father's".  I assume these refer to a prayer to Mary and recitation of the Lord's Prayer.

So, are these the most common thing a priest will prescribe?  Are there any others?  Fasting?  Is there a set pattern prescribed by the Catholic Church?

99% of the time that seems to be the case, even for mortal sins.  I've had a few "take your wife on a dates" but the most prayers I've ever been assigned was a Rosary. Generally it's just a few Hail Mary's.  I think there's a recent historical precedent for this practice, but I don't know off hand what it is, hopefully someone can expand on that.   I've heard of some pretty awesome penances in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

One thing that I think is required is restitution, if possible, of stolen goods.  I'm not certain if that's in some rubric or just a teaching, but to be truly penitent it would be assumed that you'd be resolved to try and make good and you usually see that in an examination of conscience following the 10 commandments under the "thou shalt not steal" section.


How was the Catholic Easter calendar established, despite this passage? Matthew 12:40
For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

If Jesus said he would be three days and three nights, why are the events of his death and resurrection commemorated on Friday afternoon and Sunday morning, a span of one day and two nights; specifically, how were the memorial services for those events established?
Note that I'm not asking for the teachings on when the events of that week happened, but how the Easter weekend masses were established and why they occur when they do among the Catholic and Orthodox churches, and about the differences among the two.

The Days of the Week

First, note that according to the Jewish calendar that the "day" begins in the evening, so that the "day" of "Friday" would comprise Thursday night, Friday morning, and Friday afternoon; "Saturday" would comprise what we call Friday night, Saturday morning, and Saturday afternoon; and "Sunday" would comprise Saturday night, Sunday morning, and Sunday afternoon.  This is why, for example, Jewish synagogues hold Sabbath services on Friday evening.  When I was in Israel (in Haifa), I heard horns throughout the city announcing the end of the Sabbath on Saturday night, not Sunday morning.

This still doesn't completely reconcile your question regarding three days and three nights.  Theophylact's commentary on this passage (11th century Byzantine) implies that "three days and three nights" did not imply three complete days and three complete nights, but rather that the event would take place over the course of three (Jewish) "days", as defined above.

The early Church observed the same scheme and the Orthodox Churches continue to do so.  The troparia and kontakia (Byzantine-style hymns) that are sung in commemoration of the saints during the evening Vesper services are for those commemorated on the following calendar day.

 Day on Which Easter is Celebrated

When I started to research the answer to your question, I thought that it would be fairly straightforward.  It was anything but.

The day on which Easter was celebrated - called Pascha by the early Church (and still - even in English - in the Orthodox Church) was not consistent throughout the Church until the 1st Ecumenical Council at Nicaea came to agreement in 325 AD.  Very early on, it seems that Easter may have been celebrated on the same day as Passover, but at one point this was forbidden by the Apostolic Canons:

  If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon celebrate the holy day of
  Easter before the vernal equinox with the Jews, let him be deposed
  (Apostolic Canon VII).

Up to the Council, it seems that the Sees of Rome and Alexandria had one formula, while those of Constantinople and Antioch had another.  Constantine I, in a letter to those not present at the Council, wrote:

  By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the most
  holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one and the
  same day

Although the method to be employed seems not to have been explicitly included in the Acts and Canons of the Council, it was documented elsewhere by Eusebius, Chrysostom and others and is described in a deceptively simple formula:

  Pascha [Easter] is the Sunday immediately following the first full
  moon after the vernal equinox.

How the precise date was determined each year in antiquity, however, was a very complicated process, described in detail by James Campbell in an article he published in St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly (Vol. 28, No. 4), "The Paschalion: An Icon of Time".

The situation was further complicated by the introduction of a new calendar in the Christian west by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582, which resulted in a completely different calculation of the date of Easter by the Roman Catholic Church.  The Orthodox east declined to adopt the new calendar for a number of reasons, one of which was the fact that it violated Apostolic Canon VII, since it allowed Easter to occasionally coincide with the Jewish Passover.

Due to the introduction of the Gregorian calendar, Orthodox and Roman Catholic Easter now only coincide once every several years.  Most Orthodox jurisdictions that have adopted the Gregorian calendar for practical, civil reasons still celebrate Great Lent, Pascha (Easter), and Pentecost on the same dates as those on the Julian calendar, in order to comply with the decision of the 1st Nicene Council.


Lutherans: Shells, baptism, why? Since I am almost certain someone will come in and think the title of this question needs editing, I'm going to request that you leave it as it stands.

The full/expanded question:

I have seen shells used in Lutheran imagery in relation to infant baptism.    What is the Scriptural basis for this practice of using a shell?  If knowledgeable -- additionally, what is the historical basis for Lutherans to do this in their denominational history?

I realize there other Catholic spinoff denominations may use the same imagery, but for the scope of this question I'm only asking about the Lutherans.

Faith Lutheran Church - Symbols and Meaning on Page 12
The Scallop Shell – (at six points around the edge of the
bowl). John is said to have baptized Jesus with water
from a scallop shell and it has been used as a symbol of
baptism since then.
I can find no biblical evidence for the scallop shell to be associated with it but did find sermons where a pastor actually said the following showing that its mostly because the art depicts the shell even though the text shows Paul said Jesus was baptised by immersion.

.  All of the earliest art that I have seen shows Jesus and John standing in knee deep water with John pouring water over Jesus' head from a scallop shell. Did you know that that shell is the Christian symbol for baptism?
I have to admit that the symbolism of baptism by immersion is amazing. In Romans 6:8 we hear Paul tell us that if we died with Christ, we have faith that we will also live with him. When we are baptized by immersion we enter into the world of water where we cannot survive for long. When we are raised from the water and we take that first breath we have a new appreciation for the air we breathe. So dying to Christ and living to Christ have new meaning and significance for us. But that is the symbolism from a human perspective.
The Baptism of Jesus

I find a couple verses that support immersion over pouring as well as the quote by Paul in Romans...

Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. Mar 1:10
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. Mat 3:16
Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. Act 8:38-39

These verses lead me to believe that the shell may have originally just been a convienient way to "iconize" or "symbolize" baptism as it would be difficult to create a simple symbol to represent immersion.  Also it would have been common that many baptisms took place in desert regions where standing water or rivers were not common so in those areas baptisms likely were "poured" and scallop shells were preserved by the person performing the baptism for continual use. However, the scripture still supports Jesus being baptised by immersion.


Religious justification for creating a large angry scene with the ostensible purpose of making people not gay Yesterday, as I imagine happens at many places, a person came to my university, and for 6 hours or so, talked about "thousands of ex-homosexuals experiencing the love of Jesus Christ" and about how one can not be gay.

It was probably one of the most ugly scenes I have ever seen, with people yelling, screaming (both sides) cursing, etc.

My question is as follows: It is my understanding that an important christian ideal is love (i.e. not hate at minimum) one's fellow man, and that this is ace tenet of the religion.

Making a small assumption, I would assume that many people that were protesting, cursing at, yelling at, etc, the person that came to say his piece were incited to hate the individual that came.

While I am not making light of the way that both the new and old testament speak about homosexuality, at the same time, it prompts the question: Why is causing so many people to hate (something that is a core tenet, and a basic principle found throughout the gospels) worth what is honestly a very slight chance of changing their sexuality (something that is not mentioned in the gospels at all as far as I can tell)?

Am I missing something, or is this behavior not religiously justifiable?

Disclaimer: I don't know very much about Christianity, and therefore might be making false assumptions. Please correct me if that is the case.

The motivations for protests against homosexuality differ based on the group, and as such the answers must be tailored to the groups.  It should also be mentioned that overall (meaning as a percentage) relatively few Christians tend to take part in these protests, for precisely the reason you state.

Furthermore, there are several Christian denominations that actively support homosexuality. The Metropolitan Community Church, for example, is a denomination that is in many ways founded on the idea idea of being gay positive.  Other denominations, such as the more liberal parts of the Anglican Communion (i.e. the Episcopal Church in the US) actively support and encourage the lifestyle, although this splits the church.

Because I do not know what group is doing the protest at your school, let me break down the motivations of a few that do.

Hate (e.g. Non-Reflective Christians)

I would argue the largest body of gay-haters are, as you say, Christians who haven't read the Scripture. Remember that for many people, Christianity is a cultural thing, not a spiritual thing. Homosexuals are different (if you'll forgive the pun.) For many people, homosexuality represents a threat to the established order, and if there is one thing many people hate, it is change. For centuries, many "Christians" also "knew" that white people were better than black people. There were even sermons that pointed out how Ham and Caanan (who I guess must have been black) was cursed by God (well, Noah really, but Noah speaking for God, I guess).  As such, by reading verses out of context, one could conveniently ignore texts like "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek,"... etc...

But what such hatred did do is to serve the preservation of the culture. People who don't want to change will naturally seek to preserve it by any means possible. There are "scientific," "cultural," and "historical" arguments.  Note: They may even be valid. But the motivation is important, and if it is not done out of a God given spirit, despite the veneer of Christianity, it is not Christian.

It should be said here that Jesus never claimed that "preserving the culture" was his mission.  His mother (in Luke 1) exults in the fact that old order will be turned upside down. He himself also says in Luke 12:

  49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Fear (e.g. Westboro Baptist Church)

Fred Phelps is a minister who believes that the judgment of God is being visited on the world because of homosexuals. He and his church are almost universally condemned across the Christian spectrum. Their preferred method of "being faithful to the Gospel" as they see it is to find high profile, sad events, like military funerals or the funerals of well known people, and hold up signs tht say things like "God hates fags."  These people protest out of fear - not necessarily of homosexuals per se - but out of fear that a totally just God will visit punishment on the country.  They misread texts like Luke 11:31 saying that the USA is worse than Sodom, and that in the final judgement, God will visit destruction upon us all.

Again, it should be made clear that this is not biblical.  As 1 John states (ch 4)

  Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love ... God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17 This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

In Ancient Rome, there were laws against atheism for this exact same reason - fear that a vengeful god would destroy the town for gross acts of sacriliege by any who would deny the gods' existence. Initially, because Jews and Christians only believed in one God, they were branded atheists and punished accordingly.

Love (e.g. Exodus International)

Finally, there is a Christian motivation for the sentiment, if not the tactic (sorry, protests don't change minds) of persuading people "not to be gay."  From the website of Exodus International:

  Many settle for so much less than what God intended. Perhaps you are one of them. But the Good News of the Gospel is we can be restored and reconciled to the MORE we were created to experience. God came to bring us life and life MORE abundantly

First off, please understand that Exodus International is extremely controversial. Many, many Christians would disavow it**, but it is worth looking at a motivation that really is grounded biblically.  In their estimation, homosexuality damages the individual - it is an oppression from which an individual can and should be freed.  Much like an alcoholic should be freed from the prison of drink, so a homosexual, in their estimation, should be freed from the "stunted growth" of a homosexual lifestyle.

**Update:  Recently, Exodus International has disavowed itself of any conversion therapy approaches, meaning that it does not believe that any proclivities will necessarily disappear.  They continue to stand with gays, however, in resisting the impulse to act on the desires, and do so with love, compassion, and empathy.

Love, it should be remembered, does that which is in the best interests of its target.  It is more than being nice. When I stop my son and my daughter from doing things that hurt them, that is love. That is the motivation out of which Exodus International operates, and I argue, the real reason why people hate it so much - because it actually is trying to be Christian. It isn't borne out of fear or hate, nor is it a caricature of faith - it is people who genuinely want to be Christian. People don't hate counterfeit three dollar bills - they hate the genuine thing.

Finally, a personal note. I was engaged in a homosexual relationship for many months after college. I do not claim to speak on behalf of all gays, and I won't even argue that my experience was typical. I will tell you that for me (and I repeat FOR ME) homosexuality was ultimately a trap.  I liked the companionship, and the relationship was actually quite positive. For a young man to be involved in a deep romantic relationship for the first time in my life, it was highly pleasurable.

But I am glad I was not allowed to stay in that relationship. I eventually had a heterosexual relationship and even children. The joy of those relationships is, frankly, far more than I could have imagined when I was "stuck" in that homosexual one. Most people go through a homosexual phase, but continue to grow. I, personally, believe that phase holds many people - or at least held me - back.  If I can help a person grow, I will.

Tatically speaking, a protest is not the way to do that.  Jesus did command Christians to love everyone, and holding a sign is not love. I do not advocate for laws banning homosexuality (whether or not marriage is state thing or a church thing is not this question in any event). And if you ask me, do I hate homosexuals? I can clearly answer no.  But will I do everything in my power to help someone who is, in my estimation, trapped? Love compels me to say, Of Course.


What is "the spirit of this world." referred to by John-Paul II The Wikipedia article on the "Prayer to Saint Michael" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_to_Saint_Michael) says that Pope John-Paul II referred to "the spirit of this world" when recommending the prayer be used by Catholics.

Here is the quote from the article: "Although this prayer is no longer recited at the end of Mass, I ask everyone not to forget it and to recite it to obtain help in the battle against the forces of darkness and against the spirit of this world."

What did JP II mean when he used this expression "spirit of this world"?  The Saint Michael prayer mentions "the devil", "Satan", and "evil spirits".  Are they all different?  Does "spirit of this world" mean "the devil", "Satan", or "evil spirits" ?

The "spirit of this world" refers to the unrepentant sinfulness of people, especially those inclinations that lead people to rally against and undermine the Church. The "acting body" of the spirit of this world seems to be primarily human (human impiety, malice, and so on), though it is certainly stoked and sustained by the forces of darkness and the devil in particular. This "spirit of the world" does not specifically refer to the devil, who would be first among the forces of darkness.

A bit of history is now in order (at least for those interested in the details).

Blessed John Paul II is speaking about the prayer to St Michael the Archangel. This prayer was composed by Pope Leo XIII, and it is fairly reasonable to assume that Bl John Paul understands the background well enough to know what his predecessor was getting at. The prayer is a plea for aid in defending the Catholic Church from her enemies (a prayer similar to, for example, Lamentations 3). It was added at the end of the Mass in 1886. Here is a relevant excerpt from the longer version of this prayer:

  [...] That cruel, ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels. Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage. Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.
  Be favorable to Thy Church, the Bride of the Lamb without spot, whose enemies have filled to overflowing with gall and inebriated with wormwood.  [...]

Pope Leo XIII issued 85 Encyclicals. If you look at that list, you'll see that a fair number of them are vocal against various secular evils, which took root as Communism, Freemasonry, Nihilism, Socialism, and so on. The first of these encyclicals was Inscrutabili Dei Consilio, On the Evils of Society, which closely mirrors the above prayer:

  [...] For, from the very beginning of Our pontificate, the sad sight has presented itself to Us of the evils by which the human race is oppressed on every side: the widespread subversion of the primary truths on which, as on its foundations, human society is based; the obstinacy of mind that will not brook any authority however lawful; the endless sources of disagreement, whence arrive civil strife, and ruthless war and bloodshed; the contempt of law which molds characters and is the shield of righteousness; the insatiable craving for things perishable, with complete forgetfulness of things eternal, leading up to the desperate madness whereby so many wretched beings, in all directions, scruple not to lay violent hands upon themselves; the reckless mismanagement, waste, and misappropriation of the public funds; the shamelessness of those who, full of treachery, make semblance of being champions of country, of freedom, and every kind of right; in fine, the deadly kind of plague which infects in its inmost recesses, allowing it no respite and foreboding ever fresh disturbances and final disaster.  3. Now, the source of these evils lies chiefly, We are convinced, in this, that the holy and venerable authority of the Church, which in God's name rules mankind, upholding and defending all lawful authority, has been despised and set aside. The enemies of public order, being fully aware of this, have thought nothing better suited to destroy the foundations of society than to make an unflagging attack upon the Church of God, to bring her into discredit and odium by spreading infamous calumnies and accusing her of being opposed to genuine progress. [...]

Sound familiar? Well, it does to Catholics, and of course to all who would rightly call themselves Christians, as we will soon see. Note that this was written in 1878. This was before the first World War, before anti-religious Communism as we tend to remember it. Now, later in this same encyclical, Pope Leo XIII directly references Col 2:8, and we find ourselves going further back in history, to Paul:

  See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.

And here is 1 Corinthians 2:

  6 Yet we do speak a wisdom to those who are mature, but not a wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away. [...] 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God.

Of course, "world" has a number of meanings throughout the Bible (creation, fallen humanity as in John 3:17). Here, it refers to the ideas expressed vividly by Jesus in John 15:18--:

  The World’s Hatred: “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first.
  If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you.
  Remember the word I spoke to you, ‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours.
  And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because [...]

This is what the prayer by Pope Leo XIII refers to, and what Bl John Paul II is speaking of when he says "the spirit of this world".

When we say the Prayer to St Michael the Archangel (defend us in battle, be our protection against...), many of us may have in mind the more-personal evils that we are worried are arrayed against us (which is good and right, since it serves to keep us on the narrow way, as God intends). When the Pope says the prayer, he has evils more vast in mind; he says it as a plea to God for the protection of the entire Church and world.


How did the "wise men" become known as 3 kings? In Matt 2, the men from east who came to visit Baby Jesus are referred to as wise men.

However, now they are also known as three kings. When did they become known as "kings" rather than "wise men" and what is the basis for the description?

Additionally, they are often referred to as the 3 magi. What is the basis for each of these descriptors?

It is mentioned from The Catholic Encyclopedia website:
In reference to there being three kings:

No Father of the Church holds the Magi to have been kings. Tertullian
("Adv. Marcion.", III, xiii) says that they were wellnigh kings (fere
reges), and so agrees with what we have concluded from non-Biblical
evidence. The [Catholic] Church, indeed, in her liturgy, applies to the Magi the
words: "The kings of Tharsis and the islands shall offer presents; the
kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall bring him gifts: and all the
kings of the earth shall adore him" (Psalm 71:10). But this use of the
text in reference to them no more proves that they were kings than it
traces their journey from Tharsis, Arabia, and Saba.
...
[About there being three]
Among the Latins, from the seventh century, we find slight variants of
the names, Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthasar; the Martyrology mentions
St. Gaspar, on the first, St. Melchior, on the sixth, and St.
Balthasar, on the eleventh of January.

Another reason that there are traditionally Three wise men / Magi is because there were three gifts brought (Gold, Frankincense, Myrrh).
It should also be considered, the significance of the number three in scripture:

In some cases the number three may signify completeness or finality. Thus Pope observes that the number three “naturally suggests the idea of completeness—beginning, middle, end.”34 Beyond this natural expectation, however, is the realization that “the figure three is an evocative image, filled with connotations” so that “three consecutive occurrences of an event serves as a rhetorical signal indicating special significance.


In Canada, is it true that when Mormons first arrived (1887) they weren't allowed to settle within 50km of Lethbridge? In 1886, a Mormon named Charles Card was directed by the then President on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, John Taylor, to go north and find a suitable settlement site in Canada. In 1887 he chose an area which later became the town of Cardston, then began recruiting settlers from Utah. Apparently the Canadian government was thrilled that so many skilled agricultural workers were settling in an area where the mining industry was settling down.

According to the LDS Church website:

  The favorable reception of the Canadian government to the member-settlers was a reflection on the times. At a moment when Ottawa’s national policy was to seek new settlers to populate the almost endless stretches of the Canadian West, immigration—particularly of skilled and seasoned farmers—was strongly encouraged. With both Church directives and government incentives as impetus, President Card returned to Alberta and in time organized the villages of Mountain View, Beazer, Leavitt, and Kimball.

And the Canadian Encyclopedia:

  Irrigation played an important role in the evolution of Lethbridge as agriculture displaced coal as the key local resource and the main source of jobs. Between 1898 and 1900, Mormon migrants from Utah built a 185-kilometre long system of canals to divert the St Mary River, the first large-scale irrigation system in Western Canada.

With that background in mind, here is a rumour I often hear floating around about later settlements of Mormons that moved both east and west:
Near all of these settlements was the new and growing town of Lethbridge (which now has a massive Mormon population). According to the rumour, when Mormons started arriving nearby, a law was passed that no Mormon was allowed to settle within 50km of Lethbridge.

This is used as an explanation as to why there are so many little, predominantly Mormon settlements surrounding Lethbridge. I've heard this rumour for years. I've even said it to people before. However, the only source I've ever been able to find that this may have been true is this quote from the LDS website (same link as above):

  What animosities nearby neighbors and fellow settlers may once have harbored against the Mormons gradually gave way in the face of the Manifesto of 1890 and the growing reputation of the Latter-day Saints for industry, thrift, integrity, obedience to law, temperance, strong family ties, and an enthusiastic loyalty to Canadian institutions and traditions.

"The Manifesto" is a name that has been given to the LDS Church's direction to its members to stop practicing polygamy.

So my question is: Is this rumour about Lethbridge true?

It seems to be somewhat true that there was some hostility to the arrival of Mormons to the city of Lethbridge, Alberta!

Lethbridge became a town on November 29, 1890 and a city on May 6,1906.

  "The first permanent LDS residents of Lethbridge were encouraged to settle there by A. C. Magrath, the first mayor of the city." - Land of the Second Chance, page 146.

This however was not always the case.

  "Mormons who grew up in Lethbridge, at that time remember that there was some hostility towards them. At one time there was an effort by a women's group to keep Mormons from buying land within ten miles of the city. But this attempt was not successful, and relations began to improve as the townspeople came to know the Mormons." - Land of the Second Chance, page 147.


What is the Southern Baptist belief regarding speaking in tongues? I have yet to see anyone speaking in tongues in a Southern Baptist church.  Having said that, the lack of speaking in tongues does not necessarily mean that Southern Baptists never speak in tongues or that they do not believe in it as a general rule.  Clearly they seem to avoid it.

Nonetheless, what is the Southern Baptist belief regarding speaking in tongues?

The Southern Baptist denomination doesn't hold any particular stance regarding the gift of speaking in tongues.

If you took a survey of all the different Southern Baptist churches, you would come up with a variety of beliefs on the subject.

From their FAQ regarding speaking in tongues:

  Probably most believe that the "gift of tongues" as described in the Bible ceased upon the completion of the Bible. Some may view speaking in tongues as a spiritual gift given to some Christians enabling them to communicate the Gospel to foreign cultures in a language the speaker had not known previously.  A very small minority might accept what is commonly practiced today in charismatic churches as valid.

There has been some debate among Southern Baptists regarding speaking in tongues, with varying views mentioned above.


What method can we consistently use to identify the literal verses from the non literal? Is there any consistent method by which theologians can disambiguate literal bible verses from non literal verses? Taking a plain reading of the following verses it appears that yahweh is plainly telling us he is willing and able to deceive and delude.  If we accept that yahweh is a maximally great being then we must accept that there is no greater deceiver than himself, meaning yahweh is a greater deceiver than satan otherwise He is not maximally great.  Yet yahweh claims he does not lie AND openly admits to deluding, we have to reconcile his deception claim with his not lying claim.  We need a better methodology than cherry picking favourite verses and dismissing others on a whim.

What methodology produces a consistent and coherent means of identifying non literal scriptures?  (i have quoted verses and outlined a problem to solve in the hope of receiving facts and citations)

2 Thessalonians 2:11
For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,

1 Kings 22:22
"The LORD said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.'

1 Kings 22:23
"Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you

Jeremiah 20:7
O LORD, You have deceived me and I was deceived; You have overcome me and prevailed I have become a laughingstock all day long; Everyone mocks me.

Jeremiah 4:10
Then I said, "Ah, Lord GOD! Surely You have utterly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, 'You will have peace'; whereas a sword touches the throat."

There is no surefire, mechanical, grammatical method, because Scripture was constructed so as to require patience, wisdom, personal holiness, the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and personal experience in order for one to understand it fully.

  Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say
  anything to them without using a parable. (Matthew 13:34)

To his disciples, Jesus explained the sense of things and the deeper meaning. To the crowds, he spoke in parables. If you want to move from tripping over parables with the rest of the crowd towards understanding the Bible plainly, you must become a disciple.

Taking your 1 Kings example, yes, God did send the deluding spirits to the king. He did deceive the king. And yet God did not lie. Both are true and there is no contradiction or paradox.

The demons are a writhing mass of evil and vile volition, constantly seeking to advance on the world and bring destruction and torment. God perpetually restrains them. When he sees a situation where punishment must be meted out to fulfill his will, he temporarily releases his grip on a few demons that specialize in a certain type of mayhem and lets them loose. He sets up fences to keep them from attacking anyone who is not His target. Then those demons use their normal means - in this case lying -  to address the many false prophets. The demons are responsible for their lies - not God. God's responsibility here is passive - for the results of the lying that he permitted, which is the just punishment of a wicked king. God's active response is to send a true message to a true prophet. God is merciful because the king is given a choice, a way out. But the King had the habit of surrounding himself with false prophets, so his bad habits stacked the deck against him.

Thus God can set up situations where he permits a person to be deceived. The immediate cause of the deception is not God, but instead the free actors that participate in the drama. The ultimate cause is subject to God's sovereignty, so you can say that God deceived, because he permitted the strong deception to be opposed by a weaker advocate for truth. Isn't that our world? Lies are broadcast on TV and in the papers and in our schools all the time, and the truth is whispered by a few. God is permitting it, as judgment against those who refuse to listen to the truth, but he makes sure that truth is broadcast so that some will hear and believe.


Did the atonement end on the Cross? John 19:30  When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

When Jesus said it is finished did he mean that the atonement for sin had ended? if so what about His ministry as a High Priest what happens to it?

That is certainly how that is interpreted by a large percentage of Christian groups, and it's how the author of Hebrews interpreted it.

  Hebrews 10:10 KJV By the which will we are sanctified through the
  offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

I assume the second part of the question deals with the fact the high priest offers sacrifices for sins. In Hebrews 5:1-3 we read...

  Hebrews 5:1-3 New International Version (NIV)

  5 Every high priest is selected from among the people and is appointed
  to represent the people in matters related to God, to offer gifts and
  sacrifices for sins. 2 He is able to deal gently with those who are
  ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to
  weakness. 3 This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins,
  as well as for the sins of the people.

Also

  Hebrews 10 1-18 NIV

  Christ’s Sacrifice Once for All

  10 The law is only a shadow of the
  good things that are coming—not the realities
  themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices
  repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near
  to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered?
  For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no
  longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an
  annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and
  goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world,
  he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
      but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
      you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
      I have come to do your will, my God.’”[a] 8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did
  not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered
  in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to
  do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And
  by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body
  of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 Day after day every priest stands and
  performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same
  sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest
  had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the
  right hand of God, 13 and since that time he waits for his enemies to
  be made his footstool. 14 For by one sacrifice he has made perfect
  forever those who are being made holy. 15 The Holy Spirit also
  testifies to us about this. First he says: 16 “This is the covenant I
  will make with them
      after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts,
      and I will write them on their minds.”[b] 17 Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts
      I will remember no more.”[c] 18 And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

This is referring to a human priest, who must sacrifice "for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people". Jesus, as the sinless Son of God, was sinless, so He would not have to sacrifice for His own sins.

This means that these sacrifices are ordinary sacrifices offered by sinful humans. Offering animals - the best animals, spotless, presumably, if they were following the Law, but animals nonetheless.

Jesus' sacrifice was unique.  It was offered by a preist who was sinless (Christ) and the offering was perfect - something unlike any other offering that ever had, or could, be offered (The sinless Son of God).

So His sacrifice only needed to be a one-time sacrifice.

And the Priestly title?  His work as Priest, at least as far as sacrifice is concerned, is finished, but He still retains the title, because it describes an aspect of who He is. The author of the passage above was showing that Jesus was greater than any other High Priest.

Much more can be found here: http://www.mycrandall.ca/courses/NTIntro/Melch8.htm

Excerpt:

  Finally, in Heb 7:18, the author argues that, if there is a new High
  Priest, there must be a setting aside (athetêtis) of the (old)
  commandment (regarding priesthood) because it was weak and useless
  (asthenês kai anôpheles) (see "fleshly commandment" in Heb 7:16). As
  he already indicated, a new priesthood would not have neen necessary
  if the old priesthood was effective. So, according to the author, the
  promise of a perpetual Levitical priesthood in Exod 29:9 ("And they
  shall have the priesthood by a perpetual statute") and 40:14 ("Their
  anointing will qualify them for a perpetual priesthood throughout
  their generations") should be interpreted to mean until the time of
  the eschaton, when the greater High Priest appears. The author
  denigrates the Law further by saying that it made nothing “perfect”
  (eteleiosen) (Heb 7:19a). Actually, according to the author, the Law
  was not intended to be eternal but only preparatory for something
  better and perfect. When he says that the Law did not make perfect, he
  means that the Law as pertaining to the priesthood and the Temple cult
  did not serve to make anyone acceptable to God. As a result a better
  hope is introduced (through a better High Priest), which allows for a
  new approach to God (7:19b).


Does the Catholic Church teach that modern churches have guardian angels? Revelation chapters 2 and 3 involve John being instructed to write letters to the angels of particular churches. For instance:

  To the angel of the church in Ephesus write…

In Scott Hahn’s Book The Lamb’s Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth, he states in Part 2, Chapter 2 that this is evidence that modern churches have guardian angels assigned to them too:

  Chapters 2 and 3 [of Revelation] make clear that each particular church has a guardian angel. This should reassure us, who belong to particular churches, and who can call for help from our particular church’s angel.

Does the Catholic Church teach that modern churches (i.e. those that have been recently constructed) also have guardian angels assigned to them, as Scott Hahn States? And if so, do they teach that they are assigned to parishes or more general areas (e.g. the Church of New York)?

Does the Catholic Church teach that modern churches have guardian angels?
We even have a Feast of the Guardian Angels. But as such, it has never been defined by the Church, and is, consequently, not an article of faith.

That every individual soul has a guardian angel has never been defined by the Church, and is, consequently, not an article of faith; but it is the "mind of the Church", as St. Jerome expressed it: "how great the dignity of the soul, since each one has from his birth an angel commissioned to guard it." (Comm. in Matt., xviii, lib. II).
In the Bible this doctrine is clearly discernible and its development is well marked. In Genesis 28-29, angels not only act as the executors of God's wrath against the cities of the plain, but they deliver Lot from danger; in Exodus 12-13, an angel is the appointed leader of the host of Israel, and in 32:34, God says to Moses: "my angel shall go before thee." At a much later period we have the story of Tobias, which might serve for a commentary on the words of Psalm 90:11: "For he hath given his angels charge over thee; to keep thee in all thy ways." (Cf. Psalm 33:8 and 34:5) Lastly, in Daniel 10 angels are entrusted with the care of particular districts; one is called "prince of the kingdom of the Persians", and Michael is termed "one of the chief princes"; cf. Deuteronomy 32:8 (Septuagint); and Ecclesiasticus 17:17 (Septuagint).
But in the New Testament the doctrine is stated with greater precision. Angels are everywhere the intermediaries between God and man; and Christ set a seal upon the Old Testament teaching: "See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 18:10). A twofold aspect of the doctrine is here put before us: even little children have guardian angels, and these same angels lose not the vision of God by the fact that they have a mission to fulfill on earth.
Without dwelling on the various passages in the New Testament where the doctrine of guardian angels is suggested, it may suffice to mention the angel who succored Christ in the garden, and the angel who delivered St. Peter from prison. Hebrews 1:14 puts the doctrine in its clearest light: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them, who shall receive the inheritance of salvation?" This is the function of the guardian angels; they are to lead us, if we wish it, to the Kingdom of Heaven. - Guardian Angel (Catholic Church)

If various nations have a Guardian Angel, I would think that various parish churches (communities) have a Guardian Angel also.

It is taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as many Fathers and Doctors of the Church, that every country has its own Guardian Angel. In fact, St. Clement of Alexandria goes so far as to state that whole "regiments of angels are distributed over nations and cities" (cf. Fr. Pascal Parente, The Angels, p. 119).
It should be noted in particular that Portugal has had a strong and deep devotion to its Guardian Angel for centuries. In fact, that nation was given approval by Pope Leo X in the sixteenth century to introduce a special feast day in order to honor its Guardian Angel. The feast day falls on June 10th of each year. France, similarly has consecrated itself over the centuries to St. Michael the Archangel as her patron. This consecration goes back to King Charlemagne in the early years of the 9th Century.
What's more, all Americans should be aware of the fact that a statue has been erected at the National Shrine of the World Apostolate of Fatima in Washington, NJ, in honor of the Guardian Angel of the United States. The statue stands ten feet tall and weighs five tons. It is carved out of carrara marble by a world famous Portuguese sculptor. It was consecrated on July 4th, 1982. - Do individual countries and nations have their own Guardian Angel?

Portugal has a Guardian Angel and as such, it would follow that other nations would have a Guardian Angel likewise.

The Guardian Angel of Portugal is also referred to as the Angel of Portugal, the Holy Guardian Angel of Portugal, the Custodian Angel or the Angel of Peace. All of these designations are attributed to Saint Michael the Archangel representing "Portugal", that is, the spiritual essence in the figure of an archangel who protects the Portuguese nation.
History
In 1504, by request of King Manuel I of Portugal, Pope Julius II created the feast of the Custodian Angel of the Kingdom (Anjo Custódio do Reino), whose cult would already be ancient in Portugal. The request having been made to Pope Leo X, he authorized the feast, celebrated on the third Sunday of July.[citation needed]
Devotion to the Guardian Angel of Portugal almost disappeared after the 17th century but was restored in 1952, being inserted into the Portuguese Liturgical Calendar by Pius XII.
The angel made his first appearance in the Battle of Ourique, and its devotion gave such a victory to D. Afonso Henriques's forces on the Muslim invaders that gave him the opportunity to self-proclaim himself King of Portugal.
Apparitions in Fátima, 1916
In her Memoirs, the Portuguese Carmelite nun Sister Lúcia, seer of Our Lady of Fátima, tells that, between April and October, 1916, an angel, identifying himself as the Angel of Portugal (or Angel of Peace) appeared three times to her and to Francisco and Jacinta Marto, in Fátima, Portugal, inviting them to prayer and penitence. One could say that this Angel is none other than Saint Michael himself since the titles used in honour of the Archangel mention him as "The Angel of Peace" and "The Guardian Angel of the Holy Eucharist and the Holy Father". - Guardian Angel of Portugal

The Feast of Angel of Portugal (Memorial) is on June 10 as seen in Wikipedia's General Roman Calendar for Portugal.

Representation of the Angel of Portugal (or Angel of Peace) in the apparitions to the three children in Fátima.
For those Catholics that adhere to the belief in Guardian Angels, there is no problem in believing that each Catholic Church has it's own Guardian Angel for that community.
We can see by the prayer in the Rite of Asperses in the Extraordinary Rite of the Mass that each church does indeed have an Guardian Angel that looks after the community dwelling there.

Oremus.
Exaudi nos, Domine sancte, Pater omnipotens, æterne Deus; et mittere digneris sanctum Angelum tuum de cœlis, qui custodiat, foveat, protegat, visitet, atque defendat omnes habitantes in hoc habitaculo. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
 Hear us, O holy Lord, almighty Father, everlasting God, and vouchsafe to send Thy holy Angel from heaven, who guards, cherishes, protects, visits and defends all that are assembled in this place: through Christ our Lord. Amen.

This prayer asks God the Almighty Father to send the Holy Angel from Heaven who guards  this community!  Thus recently constructed Catholic Churches would have a patron saint as well as a Guardian Angel to aid all it's parishioners in all that they do.
Blessed Catherine Emmerich, in her visions also confirms this in the affirmative:

She saw that each parish and diocese, each city and country has its own particular and powerful guardian angel.


Has the Catholic Church ever excommunicated someone based on their ideology? I know the Catholic Church excommunicates Catholics who join Freemasonic lodges, as well as Catholics who the Church judges to be willful heretics. But has the Church ever excommunicated a Catholic purely for being a member of a Communist or National Socialist party? The Church has never excommunicated Adolf Hitler, and some other Catholics who belong to Marxists groups, so I'm curious.

The Church has technically never reversed the decree excommunicating communists.

More

However, it is no longer common practice to excommunicate individuals based on their political beliefs, and even directly after the decree was made, it was rarely enforced. Membership in Communist organizations or holding communist political beliefs is still considered a heterodoxy because it has been explicitly condemned by the Church, but it is no longer considered grounds for excommunication.

By the way, there were bishops who were excommunicated because they cooperated with the communists. You can read more about Chineses bishops.


Has a papyrus been found that was written by a disciple of Jesus? My list of papyri discoveries is a little dated. Has any new papyrus been found from the 1st. cent. that one of the immediate disciples of Jesus wrote? It would be in Aramaic, I expect. There was a mention of a Gospel by Matthew, made by one of the Church Fathers that was in Aramaic. but it has not been found.

Nope. The earliest manuscript fragment we have is p52. It dates to about 20 years after John wrote it.

And, while it is likely that the apostles spoke Aramaic, there is nothing to conclusively prove they wrote in it.

In any event, the apostles wouldn't have written it in their own hands. Most writing was done by an amanuensis - a guy who made the paper and ink, and wrote down what he said.

The one exception to the amanuensis is most likely when Paul writes "See what large letters I write in my own hand".


Why would Zachariah doubt Angel Gabriel? My point is:
Were they used to seeing false angels such that he'd doubt one even in the place of the incense?

As a priest, he'd probably know a lot of Jewish history and the numerous appearances of Angels from God

Zechariah had a number of precedents which would have been an example to him.
Firstly, Abraham had been visited by three 'men' and the narrative is written in a mysterious way, indicating the nature of that 'visitation' :

And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, And said, My Lord . . . .  [Genesis 18 2,3 KJV]
And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife?  [verse 9]
And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. [verse 10]

Manoah's wife was barren and an angel visited them and a promise was made and Manoah said :

Now let thy words come to pass.  [Judges 13:12 KJV]

Manoah believed the angel. And so did Abraham believe the visitation he had received :

And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
[Romans 4: 19-22, KJV ]

When Zechariah prevaricates and says :

Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years ?
[Luke 1:18 KJV] . . .

. . . . the angel Gabriel responds :

I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, [Luke 1: 19b, KJV]

One imagines the mighty Archangel drawing himself up in a slightly frosty response, somewhat indignant at the unbelief of the Levite priest. 'I am Gabriel . . . '
And Gabriel uses just a tiny fraction of his immense powers to chasten the Levite with dumbness for the next nine months.
Later, Mary shows no such unbelief and accepts a far, far greater message, only asking the perfectly legitimate question (there being no precedent to the import of the angelic revelation) 'How shall it be, seeing I know not a man ?'
Not, how shall I know this (for she has already been made aware of the fact) but she asks 'how' as to the means of the staggering miracle with which she is being presented.
So, in summary 'Why would he doubt ?' : well, he should not doubt, for there was ample precedent and example for him to believe and follow.
So why did he doubt ?
Maybe because for four hundred years there had been no further scripture written after Malachi's prophecy. Only there had been the translation of Hebrew into Greek (LXX).
Maybe because of what was going on in the temple, if the things that Jesus corrected, physically, had already begun.
Maybe because of his age and the weariness of waiting for the redemption of Israel.
Maybe because of the activities of scribes and Pharisees and doctors of the law and the Herodians and the relatives of the High Priest : again, assuming that what we see in the days of Jesus' ministry had already become established in Zechariah's day.
Maybe because of discouragement.
Maybe because of age.
Maybe because of weariness.
(I speak as a man of sixty eight years myself.)
Maybe all of this.
And who, then, shall point the finger and condemn ?
Not I.
=============================================================
There is no evidence in scripture that 'false angels' were seen, either regularly or at all. And I can see no reason, therefore, for that to be a factor in Zechariah's mind as to doubting what had been said to him.
Had that been the case, the narrative would surely have informed us of that factor.


What is the theological justification for the British monarch worshipping in the Church of Scotland, rather than the Scottish Episcopal Church? When Queen Elizabeth II is in Scotland, she worships in the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland, rather than in the Scottish Episcopal Church, which is in full communion with the Church of England.

The political reason for this is obvious, but how is this theologically justified?  (Or alternately, does no justification exist, with politics overriding theology?) How can the Queen believe in apostolic succession and episcopal governance south of the Tweed, and in Presbyterianism north of the Tweed?

There's no inherent incompatibility. Both denominations believe in forms of apostolic succession (though not the kind asserted by the Catholic Church.) Wikipedia explains:

The Anglican Communion "has never officially endorsed any one particular theory of the origin of the historic episcopate, its exact relation to the apostolate, and the sense in which it should be thought of as God given, and in fact tolerates a wide variety of views on these points". Its claim to apostolic succession is rooted in the Church of England's evolution as part of the Western Church. Apostolic succession is viewed not so much as conveyed mechanically through an unbroken chain of the laying-on of hands, but as expressing continuity with the unbroken chain of commitment, beliefs and mission starting with the first apostles; and as hence emphasising the enduring yet evolving nature of the Church.
Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici (English translation: The Divine Right of Church Government), which was promulgated by Presbyterian clergy in 1646, holds that historic ministerial succession is necessary for legitimate ministerial authority. It states that ministerial succession is conferred by elders through the laying on of hands, in accordance with 1 Timothy 4:14. The Westminster Assembly held that "There is one general church visible" and that "every minister of the word is to be ordained by imposition of hands, and prayer, with fasting, by those preaching presbyters to whom it doth belong".

From the Presbyterian perspective, all Presbyterian elders are actually bishops. Pressies have the most bishops! The biggest difference between Anglicanism and Presbyterianism is that wherever Anglicans have one leader, Presbyterians will have a plurality. This happens at basically all structural levels.
The formal definition of the Presbyterian church structure that we know today was developed by the Westminster Assembly of 1643-1653. The Assembly was called by the English Parliament and was intended to bridge the divisions between puritans, the Church of Scotland (who already had a form of Presbyterianism), and the more traditional Church of England episcopalians. James VI & I had said that he wanted to push episcopalian government on the Church of Scotland, which they, naturally, were not happy with. This conflict actually devolved into a couple of small wars (and arguably resulted in the English Civil Wars and the execution of Charles.) Against the wishes of Charles, the English Parliament called the assembly, and the majority of the assembly were Church of England clergy, though a few Scots were also sent. In return for a military alliance, the Scottish Parliament had required the English Parliament to bring its church government in line with the Scottish Presbyterian model. The majority of the people selected for the Assembly did support Presbyterian governance, and that's the conclusion they reached.
But Cromwell won the civil war before the Assembly could finish its work. His parliament established religious tolerance, and the Westminster Standards were not formally adopted in English. Individual parishes could adopt Presbyterianism, and 64 out of London's 108 did. But when the monarchy was restored the Assembly was repudiated, and laws were passed that returned the Church of England to a strict episcopalian structure. As a result, as many as 2500 ministers left the Church of England.
I think the theological justification is that the Church of England has never seen itself as the only legitimate church. It has always recognised its sister church in Scotland, even before the Westminster Assembly when the initial form of Presbyterian polity was in place. The Church of England has its own theological arguments for episcopalian polity, but it can't deny that Presbyterianism has strong Biblical and theological backing, and that it has a long history in England and could have become the official position of the Church of England had some battles turned out differently. For the British monarch to worship in different denominations is natural given that the English and Scottish crowns are separate. It would also be appropriate for the monarch to worship in other unestablished Protestant denominations in recognition of the centuries old (and hard won) principle of religious nonconformity.


Matt 15: What penalty for not washing hands? In Matthew 15:2, the Pharisees accuse the disciples of Jesus of not properly washing their hands before eating.

  “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do
  not wash their hands when they eat.”

What, if any, penalty or punishment could the disciples have incurred from the Pharisees had Jesus not refuted this accusation?

According to the rabbinical interpretation of Ex. 34:27,34 (and others) God gave to Moses other laws and maxims orally, as well as verbal explanations of the written law, enjoining him not to record these teachings, but to deliver them to the people by word of mouth. Most modern Jewish traditions descend from the Pharisees with the notable exception of Karaite Judaism. There were many Jewish sects at the time of Christ with the main branches being Sadducee, Pharisees, Essene and Zealot. A close examination of Jesus's teachings would place him somewhere between the Pharisee and Essene with an apocalyptic emphasis -- or maybe the Gandi of the Zealot movement, where he would agree with their apocalyptic beliefs while abhorring their violent tendencies.

According to the Gospels, he upbraided the Pharisees for their oral traditions and even went so far as to say their oral law was a rejection, breaking or voiding of the written law. As Christianity and rabbinical Judaism shaped each other during the first few centuries of the common era, the rabbinical interpretations of the oral law eventually came to be written down, in spite of the fact that during Second Temple Judaism many Pharisees believed it was against God's law for them to be put into writing.

Ritual hand-washing is from these "added" laws from the oral tradition. Using asmachta, (a Biblical hint, rather than an explicit requirement) the Talmud used the requirement of washing the hands in Leviticus 15:11 as a hint for hand-washing in general. Leviticus 15:11 only speaks about washing the hands after they have been in contact with an issue of bodily fluid and the only penalty or punishment mentioned is being considered ritually impure until sundown. Ritual purity was important to many Jews to the extent of breaking the second commandment which we often call the Golden Rule. This is the reason Jesus praises the actions of a Samaritan to implicate the priest and Levite (same thing, two different people and never mind that most Second Temple Levitical priests were Sadducee, not Pharisee) who would not show compassion for the victim of the robbery who was lying bleeding on the side of the road in the parable, because his blood would have make them ritually unclean.

So, other than social ostracism, the disgust and disdain of the Pharisees and being temporarily barred from attendance at the Temple, there is no recorded punishment or penalty to be meted out for the offense.


What does the Bible say about tithing? Do we have to tithe? Why does God need us to tithe? What are the results of NOT tithing?

The strongest words with respect to the benefits of paying tithing, and the consequences for not doing so, can be found in Malachi 3: 8-12:

  8 Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have
  we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

  9 Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole
  nation.

  10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be
  meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of
  hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out
  a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

  11 And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not
  destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her
  fruit before the time in the field, saith the Lord of hosts.

  12 And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a
  delightsome land, saith the Lord of hosts.

However, it appears that in the Christian period, just as with many other provisions of the Law, tithing was superseded by a higher law.  Towards the end of both Acts 2 and Acts 4 it explains that the Christian community had all things in common, consecrating not a tithe (tenth) of their belongings but instead everything they owned to the general welfare of the church in order to do away with poverty.  (It's worth noting that, while there are many obvious differences and incompatibilities between Christianity and communism, Karl Marx's famous "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was inspired by this part of Acts.)

The location of the chapter break between Acts 4 and Acts 5 is unfortunate, as Acts 5 begins with a direct continuation of the discussion of the treatment of the consecration of property that Acts 4 ended with.  Here we see the story of a man and his wife who sold their property and gave part of the money to the Apostles, but kept back part of it to enrich themselves.  Apparently the Lord takes this very seriously, (Galatians 6: 7--God is not mocked,) as He struck both of them dead when they tried to reaffirm their lie when questioned by Peter!

I'm not aware of any church today that practices this doctrine of total consecration, but the principle is still there.  At the very least, a true believer should be willing to give up all that he posesses if it is needed to further the Lord's cause.  (See Matthew 13: 44-46, Luke 18: 18-25, and especially Luke 18: 29-30 for the Savior's own words on this matter.  See also Luke 12: 34/Matthew 6: 21--"Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."  The entire point of the Gospel is to improve our hearts and turn them towards heaven instead of the things of this world.)


When Christians say "the Lord" in everyday speech, do they mean Jesus or the Father? It's very common to hear Christians say "Lord" or "the Lord" in different contexts: everyday conversations, prayer, testimonies, sermons, etc. Some example sentences that come to mind: if the Lord wills, I love the Lord, etc. When Christians say the Lord, whom are they exactly picturing in their heads? Do they mean Jesus (as in "Lord Jesus"), or the Father?

For most Christians "The Lord" or "Lord" will usually mean either God the Father or Jesus. Sometimes they may mean the Holy Spirit or just "God", meaning (for Trinitarians) any or all three of the above.
There are many occasions in the Bible where Jesus is referred to as "Lord", and also God the Father is frequently referred to in that way. (I have not specifically found one where the Spirit is referred to as Lord, but "Spirit of the Lord" is found frequently.) For groups that hold to the Athanasian Creed the equivalence is defined there. " So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. "