Does suffering in this life really matter? So, recently I had the thought: suffering is irrelevant. I arrived at this conclusion using the idea of limits in Math.

Say that suffering could be measured in units as a function of time (frowns per second? Level of pain * frowns / consolation???. It doesn't really matter how it is measured though).
In heaven, suffering is 0, meaning that once someone is in heaven, suffering becomes a constant.
Heaven is also eternal (time approaches infinity).
Therefore, since the suffering is a constant, and it is being expressed in terms of an infinite value, it follows that all suffering normalizes to 0 (even if we do care about suffering in heaven... which we won't).

While this thought makes sense, I can't help but feel that somehow this is too simplistic of an explanation. Have I missed some piece of logic? Is this a heretical thought somehow?

Deriving some formula on your own then trying to figure out whether it "fits" somehow is a dangerous way to live your life. You'll get yourself into all sorts of scrapes of your own making and miss out on most of the blessings God has in store.

Instead, you should learn to use Scripture as a sort of lens or framework by which to understand the world. If you had approached the issue of suffering by starting with the Scriptures then applying what you found there to the world, you would come to a different conclusion about the importance of suffering. Most significatly, I think you would find that it has meaning / purpose.

In Scripture, suffering is not a divide by zero equation, it produces something:

  Romans 5:3-5 (ESV)
  3  Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering  produces endurance, 4  and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5  and  hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

Furthermore we know that besides just some end product, the actual process has value:

  1 Peter 2:19 (ESV)
  19  For this is a gracious thing, when,  mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.

In summary, making suffering out to be of no consequence would clearly conflict with Scripture.

On the math issue, it's probably worth noting the kind of time based math we currently operate in is not the same order that God operates in or that we will eventually be ushered into. This creation (and it's timeline) are just a created capsule sustained by God's will for a purpose for a time. It will have an end. The economy of what survives and is of eternal value and what will perish and will "not matter" is defined by God's rules. Physics, chemistry and even theoretical math do not govern what does and does not have eternal consequences. Neither do any philosophies of men.


When did the practice of Confession in the Catholic Church begin? Confession, specifically the practice of confessing one's sins to a priest, is a quite common practice in the Catholic Church.  When and how did this sacrament first originate and become codified as standard Catholic practice?

The "ear confession" as we know it today is an invention of Irish monks (some 6th century? I'm not sure). Before that time, only heavy sins (especially renouncing Christ) were confessed in front of whole congregation. Private confession allowed to confess all sins.
This practice spread with Irish missionaries quickly. It was codified as mandatory (at least once a year) on IVth Lateran council (1215).

EDIT: wikipedia on the Sacrament of Penance (Catholic Church) focuses on penance, so the beginning of the practice of confession is bit obscured, but it gives further details and approves the codification in 1215.

EDIT 2: wikipedia article on Celtic Christianity gives more details and cites Medieval Handbooks of Penance.


According to Catholicism, why is the Holy Spirit never spoken of as the Father of Jesus? The sixth article of the creed recites:

  He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the
  Virgin Mary.

Now a woman conceives by the agency of a man who becomes the father of that child.

What is the Catholic theological explanation as to why the Holy Spirit is never spoken of as the Father of Jesus? In Catholicism it is always understood that God the Father is and always is the Father of Jesus.

Moreover, one of Mary's title within the Catholic Church is Spouse of the Holy Spirit. [cf. Enyciclical Redemptoris Mater, 26 | Pope St. John Paul II].

Please note the two natures in Jesus, the nature of God and the nature of man. This question is more interested in his nature as man.

To make things complicated, Joseph is referred to as the father of Jesus and Jesus as the Son of David.

Asking another way,  why isn't the title "father" even remotely applied to the Holy Spirit when it is by his power that Jesus, God the Son made man was conceived in Mary?

Jesus had two fathers. One was Joseph, his earthly adoptive father. The other is the Father, his heavenly father (and ours as well). He had no earthly biological father.

That is the distinction. The Father is not Jesus' earthly father in any sense whatsoever. The person of Christ is eternally begotten of the person of the Father. That doesn't and didn't change when he became a man, but it doesn't mean he was temporally or humanly begotten by the Father. A father is a father of a person, not of that person's nature.

But of course, "When [Jesus] came into the world, he said, 'Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me.'" In what sense did the Father "prepare" a body for Jesus? Was it in his capacity as a father? No. His "fatherhood" is not in view at all in Hebrews 10, nor in Psalm 40, which is being referenced. Haydock paraphrases the verse by saying, "Thou didst decree I should be made man." What's in view is God's decree, not his begetting. Haydock emphasizes that Hebrews is speaking of Jesus' willingly becoming man, which Pope Benedict XVI agrees with in this homily: "In this double yes the obedience of the Son is embodied, and Mary gives him that body." I'm sure Jesus prayed with the psalmist, "You knit me in my mother's womb," but that's because that's what God does for all men, not because he begat him.

Mary conceived Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, but this was miraculous, virginal, nonsexual, and nonmarital. On one website, I found an argument that she had to be wed to the Holy Spirit or else the conception was fornication -- but fornication requires sex! There was no sex, that was the whole point of calling it "miraculous." So the Father is not Jesus' father in the same sense that we have fathers, and neither is the Spirit.

Rather, the "Spouse of the Holy Spirit" title is metaphorical, as Pope Paul VI indicated in Marialis Cultus: "Examining more deeply still the mystery of the Incarnation, [the church fathers] saw in the mysterious relationship between the Spirit and Mary an aspect redolent [i.e. suggestive] of marriage, poetically portrayed by Prudentius: 'The unwed Virgin espoused [i.e. married] the Spirit.'"

Could the Holy Spirit be called Jesus' father in a metaphorical sense? I don't see why not -- in theory -- other than that it hasn't happened yet. It also could be confusing, since obviously Jesus' father is the Father, and the doctrine of the trinity is confusing enough without two of its persons having the same title (albeit in different senses). So will it happen in reality? It seems doubtful.


Why does Jesus say "Why have you forsaken me?" Why does Jesus say "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is from the ESV version. It just seems so out of character.

Its a quotation of the first verse of Psalm 22 (Read the whole Psalm), which is a Psalm about a righteous man suffering at the hands of the ungodly, and is traditionally understood within Christianity as being a graphic prophecy of the crucifixion.  Hence Jesus would be quoting it to sort of point that out.

Of particular interest is verse 16 (KJV) "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet."

Also verse 21, "Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."  Unicorns simply means a one-horned animal, maybe an extinct one-horned rhino, not the mythical unicorn. Anyway, its being used figuratively.  Justin Martyr (around 150 AD) in his Dialogue with Trypho, in chapter 91, understood this as symbolizing the cross by the figure of intersecting unicorn horns:

  Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an unicorn represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross. For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns.


What is the source of the belief that the deceased become angels? An associate wrote an open letter (email) of condolence to a friend who'd lost a child. The letter stated that that deceased was now an angel in heaven with wings.  What is the ultimate source of this belief?

Within Christianity, the belief that humans become angels seems to stem from a misinterpretation of Jesus' words:

  For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Matthew 22:30)
  And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36)

It seems many people incorrectly interpret "like" and "equal to" to mean "identical to."

Mainstream Christianity has never taught this; the early church fathers argued over many things concerning angels (whether they are only spirit or have material bodies, what categories of angels exist, etc.), but it doesn't look like they had to argue against the idea that men became angels. Not one of the thirteen commentaries I've read make the claim (or even leave open the possibility).

Outside mainstream Christianity, a few groups do teach that humans become angels:

According to the Latter Day Saints:

  Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
  For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever. (D&C 132:16-17)

And LDS teaching on angels:

  There are two kinds of beings in heaven who are called angels: those who are spirits and those who have bodies of flesh and bone. Angels who are spirits have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone, or they are spirits who have once had a mortal body and are awaiting resurrection. Angels who have bodies of flesh and bone have either been resurrected from the dead or translated.

The Swedish philosopher/scientist-turned revelator Emanuel Swedenborg, in his book Heaven and Hell published in 1758, wrote that angels are man's perfect form (they are the same race; angels are pure/purified humans).

  ... heaven is a communion -- sharing all it has with each one, and each one sharing all he has from this communion. An angel is a recipient, and is thus heaven in least form... Man, too, as far as he receives heaven, is so far a recipient, a heaven, and an angel. This is described in the Apocalypse in the words, He measured the wall of the holy Jerusalem a hundred and forty and four cubits, the measure of a man, that is of an angel (xxi, 17). [NKJV, ESV]


Do any Early Church Fathers ever argue that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2:9) is the Law/ Torah? Did any early Church fathers ever reason that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gen. 2:9) either is or symbolizes the Torah/ Law?

I have found this discussed in a couple of places. It is compared to Romans 7:5-7.

An excerpt from the third century father Methodius:

  Read a compendious interpretation of some apostolic words from the same discourse. Let us see, then, what it is that we have endeavoured to say respecting the apostle. For this saying of his, “I was alive without the law once,” [Rom. vii. 9.] refers to the life which was lived in paradise before the law, not without a body, but with a body, by our first parents, as we have shown above; for we lived without concupiscence, being altogether ignorant of its assaults. For not to have a law according to which we ought to live, nor a power of establishing what manner of life we ought to adopt, so that we might justly be approved or blamed, is considered to exempt a person from accusation. Because one cannot lust after those things from which he is not restrained, and even if he lusted after them, he would not be blamed. For lust is not directed to things which are before us, and subject to our power, but to those which are before us, and not in our power. For how should one care for a thing which is neither forbidden nor necessary to him? And for this reason it is said, “I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” [ Rom. vii. 7.] For when (our first parents) heard, “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” [Gen. ii. 17.] then they conceived lust, and gathered it. Therefore was it said, I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet;” nor would they have desired to eat, except it had been said, “Thou shalt not eat of it.” For it was thence that sin took occasion to deceive me. For when the law was given, the devil had it in his power to work lust in me; “for without the law, sin was dead;”  [Rom. vii. 8.] which means “when the law was not given, sin could not be committed.” But I was alive and blameless before the law, having no commandment in accordance with which it was necessary to live; “but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.”[Rom. vii. 9, 10.] For after God had given the law, and had commanded me what I ought to do, and what I ought not to do, the devil wrought lust in me. For the promise of God which was given to me, this was for life and incorruption, so that obeying it I might have ever-blooming life and joy unto incorruption; but to him who disobeyed it, it would issue in death. But the devil, whom he calls sin, because he is the author of sin, taking occasion by the commandment to deceive me to disobedience, deceived and slew me, thus rendering me subject to the condemnation, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”[ Gen. ii. 17.] “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good;” [  Rom. vii. 12.] because it was given, not for injury, but for safety; for let us not suppose that God makes anything useless or hurtful. What then? “Was then that which is good made death unto me?” [Rom. vii. 13.] namely, that which was given as a law, that it might be the cause of the greatest good? “God forbid.” For it was not the law of God that became the cause of my being brought into subjection to corruption, but the devil; that he might be made manifested who, through that which is good, wrought evil; that the inventor of evil might become and be proved the greatest of all sinners. “For we know that the law is spiritual;” [ Rom. vii. 14.] and therefore it can in no respect be injurious to any one; for spiritual things are far removed from irrational lust and sin. “But I am carnal, sold under sin;” [  Rom. vii. 14.] which means: But I being carnal, and being placed between good and evil as a voluntary agent, am so that I may have it in my power to choose what I will. For “behold I set before thee life and death;”[ Jer. xxi. 8; Ecclus. xv. 8; Deut. xxx. 15.] meaning that death would result from disobedience of the spiritual law, that is of the commandment; and from obedience to the carnal law, that is the counsel of the serpent; for by such a choice “I am sold” to the devil, fallen under sin. Hence evil, as though besieging me, cleaves to me and dwells in me, justice giving me up to be sold to the Evil One, in consequence of having violated the law. Therefore also the expressions: “That which I do, I allow not,” and “what I hate, that do I,”[ Rom. vii. 15.] are not to be understood of doing evil, but of only thinking it. For it is not in our power to think or not to think of improper things, but to act or not to act upon our thoughts. For we cannot hinder thoughts from coming into our minds, since we receive them when they are inspired into us from without; but we are able to abstain from obeying them and acting upon them. Therefore it is in our power to will not to think these things; but not to bring it about that they shall pass away, so as not to come into the mind again; for this does not lie in our power, as I said; which is the meaning of that statement, “The good that I would, I do not;”  [ Rom. vii. 19.] for I do not will to think the things which injure me; for this good is altogether innocent. But “the good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do;” not willing to think, and yet thinking what I do not will. And consider whether it was not for these very things that David entreated God, grieving that he thought of those things which he did not will: “O cleanse Thou me from my secret faults. Keep Thy servant also from presumptuous sins, lest they get the dominion over me; so shall I be undefiled, and innocent from the great offence.” [Ps. xix. 12, 13.] And the apostle too, in another place: “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” [2 Cor. x. 5.]

Methodius, Part III. From the Discourse on the Resurrection.
A Synopsis of Some Apostolic Words from the Same Discourse.

also check, The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, Chapter XII.—The importance of knowledge to true spiritual life.

The tree of life is mentioned in Proverbs:

Pro 3:18, 11:30, 13:12; 15:4

and in the Apocrypha

  Sir_19:19  The knowledge of the commandments of the Lord is the doctrine of life: and they that do things that please him shall receive the fruit of the tree of immortality.


What basis is there for defining sin as "rebellion"? Many popular Protestant gospel explanations and frameworks define the essence of sin as rebellion against God.
Two Ways to Live:

The sad truth is that, from the very beginning, men and women everywhere have rejected God by doing things their own way. We all do this. We don’t like someone telling us what to do or how to live—least of all God—and so we rebel against him in lots of different ways. We ignore him and just get on with our own lives; or we disobey his instructions for living in his world; or we shake our puny fists in his face and tell him to get lost.
How ever we do it, we are all rebels, because we don’t live God’s way. We prefer to follow our own desires, and to run things our own way, without God. This rebellious, self-sufficient attitude is what the Bible calls ‘sin’.

Knowing God Personally:

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Man was created to have fellowship with God; but, because of his own stubborn self-will, he chose to go his own independent way and fellowship with God was broken. This self-will, characterized by an attitude of active rebellion or passive indifference, is an evidence of what the Bible calls sin.

Christianity Explored:

But many people rejected Jesus. They thought they’d be happier making their own rules and living outside his kingdom. This rejection of the King is something we all do. Jesus called it sin.

But the Hebrew and Greek words for sin have the senses of failure, error, and evil.
What basis is there for defining sin as "rebellion"?

Is there any lexical support for such a definition (either through a sub-sense of those words, or through other words)?
Are there any passages which define or equate sin and rebellion?

I would like to add to the answers already posted a few observations about the theological lexical register of the Biblical writers that may bear on the OP's question.

  Is there any lexical support for [sin as rebellion] (either through a sub-sense of those words, or through other words)?

Yes. This is true both in the OT and the NT. The NT understanding of sin is the development of a Hebrew concept, and the vocabulary follows suit. Thus, although, as pointed out by the OP, the Greek ἁμαρτία (and a slurry of cognates) in Ancient Greek denoted "missing the mark", they are frequently used in the LXX to represent the particular Jewish notion of sin.1  In the NT these words are never used without these moral connotations (NIDTTE). This Hebrew background is therefore of primary importance in understanding the meaning of the NT authors.

In Hebrew, there are indeed other words conveying the notion of sin.  The OP mentions חטא (ḥṭʾ), which can be used outside the moral realm to mean "to be mistaken" or "to miss". (See, for instance, Judg 20:16, of archers who could sling stones and not "miss" (ḥṭʾ).) The term is also used to express interpersonal ethical lapses (e.g. 2 Kings 18:14). The most common use in Biblical Hebrew, however, is in the theological sphere, where it denotes failure in one's obligations toward God, particularly in the legal and cultic domain. This is the most common word used for sin, used ~595 times. It contains no a priori notion of rebellion.

However, there are many other words that express related concepts of human evil sometimes translated "sin".2  The most relevant here is the term פשע (pšʿ) (~145 times). Unlike ḥṭʾ which can refer to a mere mistake (primarily cultic inadvertences), pšʿ essentially means "rebel", also sometimes translated "revolt" or "transgress".3   In interpersonal relationships, it means "willful violations by an inferior against a superior" (Luc; see, e.g., Gen 31:36, Prov 28:24). In man's relationship with God, this sense is preserved:

  In biblical theology, the term refers to an open and brazen defiance of God by humans.

This, then, is the word that denotes the aspect of sin that comes closest to the notion of rebellion. Not surprisingly, it is a favorite of the (latter) prophets, where the role of Israel's pšʿ in their broken relationship with Yahweh is relentlessly rehearsed.

  These prophets...make repeated use of pšʿ because their ministries devote significant attention to Israel’s past or present covenant treachery. They indict Israel for disrupting their covenant relationship with Yahweh. Isaiah begins his prophecy by depicting Yahweh’s relationship with Israel in terms of a father-son relationship. Israel, although a recipient of Yahweh’s abundant, tender care, has rebelled against her father (suzerain) (Isa 1:2) and faces severe judgment (1:28) (Carpenter).

A few (of many available) examples that well illustrate this theme:

Hos 7:13:

  Woe to them, for they have strayed (or fled) from me!

          Destruction to them, for they have rebelled (pšʿ) against me!

Hos 8:1:

  because they have transgressed (lit. passed by) my covenant

          and rebelled (pšʿ)  against my law.

Isa 1:2:

  Children have I reared and brought up,

          but they have rebelled (pšʿ) against me.

Rebellion is thus central to pšʿ.

The OP further asks:

  Are there any passages which define or equate sin and rebellion?

Other answers have given many relevant conceptual parallels, the connection with Genesis 3 (which uses neither of these terms!4 ) being the strongest in my mind. This is summarized by Bloesch:

  It should be acknowledged that sin entails both privation and positive rebellion, but the latter is prior to the former. "The origin of pride," says the prophet, "is to forsake the Lord, man's heart revolting against his Maker" (Ecclesiasticus 10:12 NEB).

To expand on this idea with a bit of lexical precision, I will just point out that, although they certainly emphasize different aspects of sin, the Biblical writers recognized close connections between ḥṭʾ, pšʿ, and other terms in this semantic domain (most prominently ʿwn). Isaiah states this directly in terms of their common end (1:28):

  But rebels (pšʿ) and sinners (ḥṭʾ) shall be broken together,

          and those who forsake the LORD shall be consumed.

The Psalms include repeated rehearsals of synonymous parallelism using these two terms. This is often formulated in terms of Yahweh's grace, which, as with his punishment, applies "together" to every brand of evil entertained among men:

  I acknowledged my sin (ḥṭʾ) to you,
                 and I did not cover my iniquity (ʿwn);
       I said, “I will confess my transgressions (pšʿ) to the LORD,”
                and you forgave the iniquity (ʿwn) of my sin (ḥṭʾ). (Psalm 32:5)

Notes

 All English is ESV unless otherwise stated.

1. There are, of course, many other terms. See, Trench, "Synonyms of the New Testament",  p. 239ff, for an extensive discussion. As pointed out by Silva (NIDTTE) and undoubtedly many others with modern linguistic sensitivities, the etymological distinctions drawn out there are not necessarily meaningful with respect to NT usage. Silva, regarding the dominance of ἁμαρτία + cognates:

  [U]sing the language of semantic hierarchy, ἁμαρτία may be viewed, with some qualifications, as the superordinate of the other nouns, which are its hyponyms... But more important, within a theological framework, ἁμαρτία becomes for the NT writers the key term to express the fallen human condition.

2. Excerpted from NIDOTTE's index of semantic fields:  אָוֶן (mischief, iniquity, deception, H224); חָטָא (sin, commit a sin, purify, H2627...); עָוָה (do wrong, pervert, H6390...); עָוַל (act wrongly, H6401...); פָּשַׁע (rebel, violate, transgress, H7321...)

3. Like ḥṭʾ, pšʿ has both noun and verb forms that are both very common. Both also can be used as participles: "sinner", "rebel", etc. I have represented all of these with the root consonants here.

4. In fact, none of the common words for "sin" is used in the Gen 1-11 saga that is so formative for the Hebrew notion of sin, with the single exception of Gen 4:7 (as if we needed another source of obscurity in that verse).

References

"ἁμαρτάνω". New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. Ed. Moises Silva. Zondervan, 2014.

Donald G. Bloesch. Essentials of Evangelical Theology. Prince Press, 1978; 1:93.

Eugene Carpenter, Michael Grisanti. "פשע", New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Ed. Willem A. Wangemeren. Zondervan, 1992; 3:705.

Robin C. Cover. "Sin", Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, Ed. David Noel Freedman. YUP, 1992.

Alex Luc. "חטא", New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis.  Ed. Willem A. Wangemeren. Zondervan, 1992; 2:90ff.


Is it just Christian Ministers who are Watchmen, or are we all...Ezekiel 3 In Ezekiel 3, the prophet is made a watchman to Israel. A similar passage is also found in Ezekiel 33.
e.g.  “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me...."

Some commentaries apply the watchman idea to Christian Ministers.
Is it a stretch to say that all Christians, not just ministers, are watchmen from this passage in Ezekiel 3 or 33?

This is something I am currently wrestling with. What strikes me is that every Christian has far more knowledge than Ezekiel had. We know what the plans of the the Lord are for the future of every individual we meet - that he has appointed a day when he will judge the world by the man he has appointed, and that he has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead (Acts 17). And we know that the only hope for anyone on at that day is to come to Jesus as Lord and Saviour now before we meet him as our judge.

It is correct that there is little in the New Testament setting out a positive obligation on Christians to evangelise and tell people about the coming judgement. However, that is not as surprising as it might seem because the Bible of the early church was the Old Testament. It was the Old Testament that they went to for training, correction and rebuke so that they were fully equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3), and the Old Testament through Ezekiel sets out that those who have knowledge from God about the future destiny of a person are responsible for sharing that knowledge.

So, it seems to me that the obligation Ezekiel had to warn people to repent and believe is an obligation that every Christian has, and like every obligation that Christians have, we need to bring our daily failures to carry them out to the Lord, receive his forgiveness and ask for strength to keep going.


Does the Mormon Church endorse the children of narcissistic parents breaking off contact with them (not necessarily permanently/forever)? Same question as here but Mormon instead of Catholic.

Edit: Okay fine I'll try to make this self-contained.
There's this article about narcissists, written from a Christian perspective, ending with claims about how ACONS can honor their nparents. One is:

We honor them by insisting that they get the professional help that they need, before they have anymore contact with us & our family members.

Would the LDS/Mormon Church agree with that? Google (probably) shows a lot of articles about LDS/Mormon Church and narcissism, but I didn't bother to check because I already checked for Catholicism and narcissism, and someone in the other question has an answer for the LDS/Mormon Church.
More context: Based on the deleted Mormon answer provided (by JBH, iirc) in the other post, it seems the answer is likely

In general, yes, but the precise actions to be taken during estrangement (EDIT: the estrangement is not necessarily permanently/forever) or steps to be taken to become estranged or, in the first  place, whether or not to become estranged must be decided with advice from a religious or mental health professional/s such as priests, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc.

Or simply

Probably yes, but definitely seek professional advice.

My guess then is that this question instead falls under a broader range of questions to which the answer is either of the above. What range of questions could this be? I'm thinking now of some church document or section entitled 'On matters pertaining to mental health, etc'

Before I begin, please forgive my tardy response. While the Coronavirus has not touched my family, it has touched members of our community and we own and operate a store considered essential. It's been a lot of work and very distracting. Thank you for your patience. (And you should post a complete question here, not just a link back to the old one. Cheers!)
Your question piqued my interest on two levels.

I've been a pastor and had to deal with families suffering abusively manipulative relationships.

While not suffering full-blown NPD, my own father has some of the attributes, which allows me to relate.

My first reaction to your excerpted statement was that it seemed silly, but that's because I absorbed the information "backwards."  (*sigh*)  I hate imperfection, it's a pain in the neck.  As I thought about it more and read through the links you provided, I could comprehend something of the pain the ACoNs suffer and the difficulty they have trying to fulfill that necessary fifth commandment.
To begin, the Bible teaches a simple truth:

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting. (Luke 18:29-30)

Christians are specifically required to separate themselves from the ungodly and follow Jesus. At first glance this would seem to be at odds with the commandment to honor our parents (Exodus 20:12), but this isn't so. Let's introduce the difference between forgiveness and consequence.

Of course, society needs to be protected from hardened criminals, because mercy cannot rob justice. Bishop1 [Christopher] Williams addressed this concept so well when he said, “Forgiveness is a source of power. But it does not relieve us of consequences.”  When tragedy strikes, we should not respond by seeking personal revenge but rather let justice take its course and then let go. It is not easy to let go and empty our hearts of festering resentment. The Savior has offered to all of us a precious peace through His Atonement, but this can come only as we are willing to cast out negative feelings of anger, spite, or revenge. For all of us who forgive “those who trespass against us,” even those who have committed serious crimes, the Atonement brings a measure of peace and comfort.  (Apostle James E. Faust, emphasis mine)

The reason forgiveness vs. consequence must be understood is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not believe mortal humans are on this Earth to suffer.  Quite the opposite, we believe that we "are, that [we] might have joy" (2 Nephi 2:25). It is difficult for a child to find joy when that child is not honored and respected by a parent. It is my opinion that this idea is reflected by 2 Corinthians 6:14, which happens to reflect the previous verses in Luke quite well.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

While Paul originally intended that verse to apply to a married couple, I personally see no difference between that and the parent-child relationship.2  Children are not slaves to their parents.  Indeed, we very much believe it is the responsibility of parents to properly train, care for, and raise their children in a Godly manner.

And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents. … And they shall also teach their children to pray, and to walk uprightly before the Lord. (Doctrine & Covenants 68:25-28)

Basically, the gospel of Christ is not served if someone as an individual, or even society in general, lives in danger due to an unrepentant person.  My job as the victim of a crime or abuse is to forgive, to let the resentment pass, to love (meaning to seek the best welfare of the other, even before my own) — but this does not absolve the perpetrator of the crime.
Consider this, the Lord taught that we should forgive "seventy times seven" (Matt 18:21-22), which is usually interpreted as "always."  This is strengthened by Doctrine & Covenants 64:10-11,

I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. And ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds.

But verses 12-14 read,

And him that repenteth not of his sins, and confesseth them not, ye shall bring before the church, and do with him as the scripture saith unto you, either by commandment or by revelation. And this ye shall do that God may be glorified—not because ye forgive not, having not compassion, but that ye may be justified in the eyes of the law, that ye may not offend him who is your lawgiver—verily I say, for this cause ye shall do these things.

The Lord, above all, is no fool and knows that there can and will be situations that are simply untenable. What, then, should happen if the sinner never repents?  It is for this cause that the Lord also taught in Doctrine & Covenants 98:39-46 that we are always to forgive people who repent, even if they repent over and over.  But if they do not repent, we are to forgive through three transgressions, but on the fourth, no. I strongly recommend taking the time to read those verses, but here's the salient part:

But if he trespass against thee the fourth time thou shalt not forgive him, but shalt bring these testimonies before the Lord; and they shall not be blotted out until he repent and reward thee four-fold in all things wherewith he has trespassed against thee. And if he do this, thou shalt forgive him with all thine heart; and if he do not this, I, the Lord, will avenge thee of thine enemy an hundred-fold; and upon his children, and upon his children’s children of all them that hate me, unto the third and fourth generation.3

Therefore (and with a MASSIVE disclaimer I'm going to make presently), the answer is yes, given that the child has made at least three sincere attempts to forgive and reconcile with the abusive parent, if the parent remains abusive (a transgressor), then the child is not dishonoring the parent by severing the relationship. That is the consequence of the parent's refusal to repent.

DISCLAIMER:
This answer, and the question itself, skirts dangerously close to this site's rules about offering pastoral advice (i.e., that we do not). Indeed, if I recall correctly, you had to rewrite your original post to get under that bar. I have provided an answer that reflects LDS theology—but there are two other aspects of that theology that must be considered.

LDS Bishops are common judges in Israel (Doctrine & Covenants 107:72, 74) and are authorized under Priesthood authority to judge a victim-child's actions and decisions in relation to the parents. No decision like this should be taken lightly or without counsel. Telling you "yes" without you realizing that no one can (or should) make that decision alone would be very irresponsible on my part. Obviously, I do not and cannot know enough about any situation you might be aware of to provide a one-size-fits-all answer.

A common question is "why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?" This is a spectacularly good question.  One answer is that He doesn't in all cases. For example, when asked if the dead workers under a fallen tower were sinners, the Lord responded (paraphrasing) "No, they died because the tower fell on them" (Luke 13:1-5).  Another is that good people are allowed to suffer to ensure judgement both for the good and the evil (Alma 14:8-11). The "right" decision in any situation like that posed in the question is complicated, but it can be thought of this way: if you personally choose to honor your parent, no matter how it hurts you and those around you, and your parent never repents, then you will be blessed in Heaven for your suffering and your parent judged for his/her wickedness.  On the other hand, if you follow the Lord's admonition and conclude that it's right to leave, you will be blessed in Heaven for that, too. The Lord respects responsible decisions, but usually doesn't quick (usually selfish) decisions.

Therefore, while LDS theology permits separation in the case you've presented, it does not encourage it.  Rather, the Lord has provideded authoritative counsel to help the victim of these circumstances make a responsible decision.4 To liken another scripture unto us… such a person would in no wise lose his/her reward.

Answers to Comment Questions
It appears you're looking for a clear-cut answer to a question that isn't clear-cut. Every situation involving emotional instability and abuse will be different and the presumptive solution will change. For some, the right answer will be to sever (and quickly!). For others, the right answer will be to not sever and bear the burden. For yet others, the right answer will be something in between. This is one of the reasons why counseling with both ecclesiastical leaders and professionals is so important — because in most instances involving narcissism, the answer will have more to do with the emotional, physical, and spiritual stability of the child-victim than it will the abusive parent.
At the risk of wresting the scriptures (2 Peter 3:15-16, Doctrine & Covenants 10:62-63, Alma 41:1), let me speak briefly about love—which is the basis for honoring one's parents.
The Lord commanded something very much contrary to the natural man: He commanded us to love everyone; our neighbors, strangers, even our enemies. Indeed, the apostle Paul taught that brotherly love should continue, suggesting that it's something we should always do. One of the fundamental doctrines of Christ's gospel is that to be disciples, we must love.
But, to use what I think is the simplest case, how does one love an enemy? What does it even mean to love an enemy? There are a lot of definitions of "love" out there and most of them are, frankly, wrong. Love is not sexual intimacy, though such intimacy may be a part of the experience of love.  Love is not blind devotion, though having faith in another may also be part of the experience of love.
It is my opinion (and it's important that you understand this, it is my opinion) that love is a choice. Usually, the choice to put the welfare (spiritual, emotional, and physical) of another before your own.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

But when it comes to the victims of abuse, that choice becomes complicated. Choosing to preserve the relationship doesn't benefit the abuser in any way Christianity would recognize. I could certainly complicate the discussion (what if the victim-child is the bread-winner for the abusive parent? Severing the relationship may have severe consequences for the physical welfare of the parent). But that's why the need for counseling is so great—to be sure the needs of the child are balanced against the honors deserved by the parent in a Christ-centered way.
A student of the Bible would point out that I didn't reference the entire passage from Matthew 5.  Here it is:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

In my opinion, a lot of people have lived their lives filled with unjustified feelings of guilt due to taking that last sentence out of context. It is obviously impossible to be as perfect as a resurrected, sanctified, exalted being like our Heavenly Father until we, ourselves, become resurrected, sanctified, and exalted. But remember the context: It's easy to love people who already love you.  You need to learn important skills.  You need to train important strengths. You need to learn to love people who do not love you. Doing this, you learn to live your life in a way our Heavenly Father lives His.  Doing this, you become perfected in (and justified by) the Gospel.
Hopefully, this helps you understand my second disclaimer.  Does our Heavenly Father choose not to love disobedient children? Of course He loves them—even when they make choices that push Him, His Son, and the Holy Ghost out of their lives.

Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.  If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. (Romans 12:17-21(17-18), take a moment to read the entire passage.)

No one is expected to live with a burden they cannot bear. Paul taught:

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (1 Corinthians 10:13)

In summary, for some, the path out is to let God judge the abuser and sever the relationship—but for all, if someone has made a responsible choice based on his/her love for their parent weighted against their right to have (Christian) joy in their lives, then the parent has been honored and the the victim-child is justified before the Lord.
Finally, I might be wrong, but you appear to be pressing me for a single, definitive answer.  If that's the case, you're not going to get one. There are people in the world with strong enough personalities that they can and should preserve the relationship in the hope of bringing the abusive parent to Christ (or assuring their judgement if the parent doesn't)—just as there are some who are not strong enough and must sever the relationship or risk cursing God and losing their own salvation. Where any specific victim-child sits in that spectrum is beyond the scope of this site.

1 LDS bishops and branch presidents are pastors.  Bishops preside over the common congregational units of the church.  Branch presidents over small, often rural congregations.  I was a branch president.
2 This kind of cross-interpretation is permissible based on 1 Nephi 19:23, "For I did liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning."
3 I respect the irony that this verse, if applied without likening the scriptures (see footnote #2) means that the victim-child would be cursed by God for acting as directed. I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest that interpreting the Lord's commandments as "the blessings of the Lord will be removed and remain removed even if it affects later generations until repentance occurs" is fair. My colleagues will correct me if I'm wrong.
4 LDS Theology is strongly influenced by the idea of councils and counseling (e.g., compare Alma 37:37 with Doctrine & Covenants 1:38), both ecclesiastical and professional. However, a discussion about councils and counseling in the LDS Church is beyond the scope of this answer.


Do Christians Believe Persecution is a Part of Their Identity? Matthew 5:11-12 states that persecution is an expectation of those who follow Christ.

  Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and
  shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
  Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven:
  for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Can persecution identify the true church of Christ?  Or can it only identify a disciple of Christ?  If no one has ever "reviled" you or said "all manner of evil against you" because of the church you belong to, does that mean you're not a good follower of your church or Christ, or that your church is wrong?

The Catholic Church believes that those who truly follow Christ will encounter all manners of hardship and persecution, but that persecution is not simply for persecution's sake; it is instead an effect of Original Sin and its effects upon the world: because true disciples fight for justice and right, those who hate justice will hate its bearers. See John 3:19–21:

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

In fact, the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes says, in its paragraph 38:

To those, therefore, who believe in divine love, He gives assurance that the way of love lies open to men and that the effort to establish a universal brotherhood is not a hopeless one. He cautions them at the same time that this charity is not something to be reserved for important matters, but must be pursued chiefly in the ordinary circumstances of life. Undergoing death itself for all of us sinners,(12) He taught us by example that we too must shoulder that cross which the world and the flesh inflict upon those who search after peace and justice.

EDIT: Korvin Starmast mentions in a comment the Beatitudes (Mt 5:10–11;Lk:22–23):

10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

In these passages, as well, Christ promises suffering for his disciples, but suffering for the Son of man's sake, or for righteousness's sake. Here, as well, the key is righteousness (which is Christ). The suffering comes, but it is a means, not an end.  Bruce Alderman, too, quoted 2nd Century theologian Tertullian in an answer:

[I]t is quite true that it is our desire to suffer, but it is in the way that the soldier longs for war. No one indeed suffers willingly, since suffering necessarily implies fear and danger. Yet the man who objected to the conflict, both fights with all his strength, and when victorious, he rejoices in the battle, because he reaps from it glory and spoil. It is our battle to be summoned to your tribunals that there, under fear of execution, we may battle for the truth. But the day is won when the object of the struggle is gained. This victory of ours gives us the glory of pleasing God, and the spoil of life eternal. But we are overcome. Yes, when we have obtained our wishes. Therefore we conquer in dying; we go forth victorious at the very time we are subdued. … The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed.


Scriptural reference to explain what the word "gospel" means? Would someone explain what the word gospel means and give a biblical reference which contains the word?

The definition of the Greek word euangelizō is "good news." (Koiné Greek is the original language of the New Testament.) A familiar verse with euangelizō in it is Luke 2:10, which reads,

  But the angel said [to the shepherds], "Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news [i.e., euangelizō] of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (including v.11).

Interestingly, an evangelist, a person who is empowered by the Holy Spirit of God and then given to the church, is one who is gifted to spread the glad tidings that Jesus is both Savior and Lord (see Ephesians 4:11-12).

Evangelists are like obstetricians (so-called "baby doctors") who are gifted by God to help bring spiritual newborns into the kingdom of Jesus Christ and his universal church. When evangelists preach the good news, people get saved by believing on and receiving Jesus into their lives as their rescuer and boss.

I encourage you to use a concordance to look up the word news, which appears numerous times in the New Testament (at least 43 times in the New International Version of the Bible) in order to get a well-rounded view of what the gospel of Jesus Christ is.


What explanations have been offered for the "messianic secret" passages? In a number of places in the Gospel accounts, Jesus performs a miracle and then tells the healed person and others who witnessed it not to spread the word.  For example,

After healing a leper,

  And Jesus sternly charged him and sent him away at once, and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, for a proof to them.” (Mark 1:43-44, ESV)

After curing a deaf and dumb man,

  And Jesus charged them to tell no one. But the more he charged them, the more zealously they proclaimed it. (Mark 7:36)

After curing two blind men,

  And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, “See that no one knows about it. (Matthew 9:30)

Likewise, in several places Jesus tells people, especially his disciples, not the share that he is the Messiah.  For example,

After Peter's declaration,

  Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. (Matthew 16:20)

After the transfiguration,

  And as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. (Mark 9:9)

And in addition, Jesus also told demons not to reveal his identity:

  “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
  “Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!”
  ...
  and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was. (Mark 1:24-25, 34, NIV)

What is an overview of explanations offered for these passages?  That is, why does Jesus make these commands according to notable scholars and Biblical commentators?

Logically, there are two possibilities: either Jesus himself said such things or they were added to the tradition at a later date.  Neither view offers a clear-cut explanation, so a wide variety of ideas for the "secretive" passages have been offered by Christian commentators and Bible scholars over the years.
Jesus did not tell anyone to remain quiet
Wrede's theory
In 1901,  William Wrede was the first modern scholar to tackle the question.  He decided the words, couldn't have come from Jesus because it was unreasonable to expect people to keep quiet and thus a historical Jesus couldn't have made the command.  Observing that the secrecy theme occurs primarily in Mark, he hypothesized that the passages were written to explain why Jesus had not been recognized as the Messiah during his life. (The lead to explain this was based on the supposition that the earliest belief in Jesus' Messiahship began after his death.)1
Although Wrede's paper was a landmark in Biblical scholarship (the translated name of the paper gives us the "Messianic secret" name by which the passage are still described in scholarship), the ideas were attacked pretty much from their proposal.1  The idea gained currency in the 1920s, but has steadily fallen out of favor among Biblical scholars since then.  By the 1970s, the theory was essentially dead, as it raised many more problems than it solved.  In the words of G. E. Ladd, it "is a clever theory, but utterly lacking in evidence."2
Other historical explanations
Since Wrede, a number of other redactional explanations have been offered.  In the view of Ulrich Lutz, Mark is using the motif to redefine what the Messiah is, by tying it to the cross & resurrection instead of the life of Jesus.  Eugene Boring proposed that the motif grew out of an attempt to combine views that emphasized Jesus' power with views that emphasized his suffering and death.1
Literary explanations
Others have suggested it is some sort of literary device, perhaps to let readers understand that God's revelation is a secret reserved for the elect, or to explain why many Jews rejected Jesus and the Gospel message was then spread to Gentiles instead.1
Jesus did sometimes tell people to remain quiet
Avoid hindrances
Among those who see the words as coming from Jesus, a popular explanation is that public disclosure would hinder Jesus' mission.  Large crowds, for example, would inhibit his ability to move about from town to town.  Too much attention would attract the attention of authority figures - Jewish and/or Roman - and cause a confrontation before the time was right.1
Mold the 12
A related idea is the Jesus wanted to mold the 12 primarily through his teaching, allowing them to gradually come to accept him as Messiah.  His primary mission was not to teach the public, but rather to teach the future leaders of the new Church.
The Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary takes this view, saying that Matt 12:18-21, which quotes Isaiah 42:14, is perhaps "the best explanation of Jesus' secrecy:

Behold, my servant whom I have chosen,
my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased.
I will put my Spirit upon him,
and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
He will not quarrel or cry aloud,
nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets;
a bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not quench,
until he brings justice to victory;
and in his name the Gentiles will hope.”  (ESV)

In other words, Jesus' secrecy is part of his "gentle teaching" that will mold the minds of his disciples as Jesus moved "toward the cross and avoided the kind of public presence that would be more suitable to building an earthly kingdom."3
Avoid misconceptions
Other scholars such as Albert Schweitzer and James Dunn see the secrecy as an attempt to avoid Jewish preconceptions of what the Messiah was going to be.  One of the most common expectations was that the Messiah would be a political and/or military leader.  Jesus did not want to be that kind of Messiah and so didn't want people following him with that expectation only to be disappointed later.  Dunn further states that Jesus was avoiding the temptation of taking that power and disavowing the false view of Messiahship.1  Zondervan's Exegetical Commentary also supports this view.4
Delay death
Another possibility is that Jesus asked people to remain quiet in an effort to delay his own death.  Messianic claims could cause the authorities to classify Jesus as revolutionary and execute him.  In this view, Jesus had to wait until it was the "right time" to die and thus sought to reduce publicity (not just through the secrecy requests but also in various other ways).  This view has the benefit of explaining why, in the climatic chapters of Mark's Gospel, Jesus directly declares his Messiahship for the first time - death is imminent.5
An element of both?
Despite the seemingly contradictory nature, some scholars have argued that both views ave an element of truth.  Robert Stein, for instance, argued that Jesus did try to maintain a level of secrecy to avoid confrontation with the Romans.  However, Mark then used these commands to show that the secret could not really be kept - the Messiah and Son of God titles of Jesus cannot be hidden, they are inescapable.1
Analysis
The historical apologetic reasons, such as Werde's theory, seem implausible.  Other historical-critical methods, while better than Werde's idea, generally suffer from the same problem - they disregard too much of the data.  Quite often Mark follows the command to keep silent directly by a statement that the person did not do so.  For example, 1:43-44 is followed by:

But he went out and began to talk freely about it, and to spread the news (ESV)

If Mark is responding to a critique that people didn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah during his lifetime, then it doesn't make much sense that he would also say people disobeyed the command.
Larry Richards further notes that in Mark 5:19, Jesus does tell a man he healed to "Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you" (ESV).  The difference between the this instance and other can perhaps give us some insight on Jesus/Mark's reason for secrecy: in Mark 5:1-20, Jesus is in "the country of the Gerasenes," a pagan land.  This difference could support a "redefining the Messiah" type theory (the people here not sharing the Jewish expectations) or could support views related to delaying Jesus death (there would be minimal threat of a Messianic insurrection in the foreign land, as compared to in Israel.)6
In has been suggestion that Mark himself provides a partial explanation in 8:27-33.  In this passage Jesus first asks the 12 what people are saying about him, to which they offer various ideas - John the Baptist, a prophet, etc.  He then asks who they say He is and Peter replies "You are the Christ."  Jesus tells them tell no one about this, and then starts teaching that he must suffer and die.  Peter rebukes Jesus, to which Jesus replies:

Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man. (Mark 8:33, ESV)

This could play into several theories - the expectation of man (earthly leader) is not a "thing of God"; the disciples learned his destiny so they could later comprehend what had happened (i.e. part of a teaching scheme); when the time was right, Jesus would reveal his Messiahship and die, but that time hadn't yet arrived.  The Tyndale Commentary as this passage remarks:3

His destiny to die was revealed to them that they might understand the significance.  The unveiling of the secret of Jesus' identity as the Messiah paved the way for the unveiling of the mystery of his destiny to die on the cross.  The death of Jesus, which Peter so adamantly rejected, the church was called on the embrace.

Conclusion
Historical-critical explanations inadequately explain the data and can be dismissed. The literary device vs. actual words of Jesus distinction is generally harder to decide.  In principle, most of the explanations could originate with Jesus to actually accomplish said aim; or they could originate with Mark to make the same point.  To me, it seems that the "creation" of secrecy passages would be more likely to cause problems for the church than help it.  A guy who is always telling people not to reveal his Messianic identity allows critics to say "even Jesus didn't claim to be the Messiah."  Thus by the criterion of embarrassment  I am inclined to think the words more likely originate with Jesus than the Gospel writers.  Furthermore, if Mark was employing a literary device, he certainly didn't make it obvious (hence the large amount of debate on the subject).
Why, exactly, Jesus asked people to keep quiet (knowing full well they wouldn't) is hard to say.  "To delay His death", "to teach to disciples", or "to redefine the Messiah" all make sense, but none provide a completely satisfactory explanation.  Perhaps the best explanation is then that it was done for a combination of all three.

1Honor Among Christians: The Cultural Key to the Messianic Secret by David F. Watson
2A Theology of the New Testament by George Eldon Ladd, via Wikipedia.
3Tyndale Concise Bible Commentary by Robert B. Hughes & J. Carl Laney
4Matthew (Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series) by Grant R. Osborne & Clinton E. Arnol
5A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew by Craig S. Keener
6Baffling Bible Questions Answered by Larry Richards


Is Cecil B. DeMille's narration of Moses in the desert based on the Bible? In Cecil B. DeMille's classic 1956 movie "The Ten Commandments", there is a scene where Moses is wandering through the desert.  Demille provides the following narration:

  Into the blistering wilderness, the man who walked with kings now walks alone. Torn from the pinnacle of royal power, stripped of all rank and earthly wealth, a forsaken man without a country and without a hope, his soul in turmoil. Like the hot winds and raging sands that lash him with the fury of a taskmaster’s whip, he is driven forward, always forward, by a God unknown for a land unseen into the molten wilderness, where granite sentinels stand as towers of living death to bar his way. Each night brings the black embrace of loneliness. In the mocking whisper of the wind, he hears the echoing voices of the dark. His tortured mind wonders if they call the memory of past triumphs or wail forebodings of disasters yet to come, or whether the desert’s hot breath has melted his reason into madness. He cannot cool the burning kiss of thirst upon his lips, or shade the scorching fury of the sun. All about is desolation. He can neither bless nor curse the Power that moves him, for he does not know from where it comes. Learning that it can be more terrible to live than to die, he is driven onward, through the burning crucible of desert, where holy men and prophets are cleansed and purged for God’s great purpose. Until at last, at the end of human strength, beaten into the dust from which he came, the metal is ready for the Maker’s Hand.

My question is, is this narration a paraphrase from the book of Exodus, or is it just something DeMille made up whole cloth?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You in Advance.

No.

This is simply dramatic prose to summarize what what assumes Moses was feeling. It is completely made up by DeMille.

The full extent of Moses' flight to Midian is a few verses in Exodus 2

  15 Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well. ... (an interlude about Moses' father-in-law) ... 21 And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. 22 And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.

The closest thing to getting to the text is that the interlude has Moses drawing water for Jethro's livestock and talking to his daughters. And that's just about it.  Perhaps also, one could surmise Moses' state from knowing what God was concerned about:

  23 And it came to pass in process of time, that the king of Egypt died: and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, and they cried, and their cry came up unto God by reason of the bondage. 24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.

The 10 Commandments takes much liberty with the text - naming Pharoah as Ramses, creating a love affair with a royal courtier, and the like.  This dramatic insertion is no different.

<snark>
All that said, however, Charelton Heston matches every picture of Moses we were given in the Bible to a T.  The inspired illustrations of Heston parting the Red Sea and starting the plagues matches the film precisely.
</snark>

In all seriousness, whenever I preach Moses, I know half the congregation has his picture in their minds.


What denominations/people don't take Genesis 1 as a historical event and why? I read somewhere here on Christianity.SE that the Genesis 1 is not taken literally by some people and considered more like a parable than a real historical event ?

So what Christian denominations don't take Genesis 1 as a historical event, if there are any ?

And why people take it as a parable/metaphor ? and is it just Genesis 1 ?

The issue here is not the whole book of Genesis, but just the first few chapters. The book is actually a compilation of several writings preserved and assembled at various points. It is widely believed across most Christian traditions that most of the book is literal historical fact.

The issue you've heard rumblings of stems from the first couple chapters, specifically the creation story. There are several major views on this and how it is interpreted depends on how different factors are weighed. The issue is certainly large enough that it would be impossible to generalize across all of Christianity.

However, the breakdown is not quite as easy as your question makes out, because it isn't a split over history vs. parable. Those are two ends of the spectrum, but most of the major denominations are going to fall somewhere between those two extremes.

I am not going to detail the positions of all the views, but I want to give you a few terms and groupings that will help any further research you do on this issue. First you have your Young Earth Creationists. These folks are going to be roughly what you would classify as "literal historical" in that they read words like "day" at face value as something equivalent to our 24 hours. You also have Old Earth Creationists who believe that the creation account is literal history but that "day" might mean "age" and so we don't have a frame of reference for how long each thing took. Please understand I'm painting with very broad stokes here. In between those, you also have something called the Framework view that takes the Genesis account quite literally, but does some textual gymnastics, classifies the writing as a kind of poetry that we've lost the key to, and puts it all back together in a different order. In a way you could call this "parable" in that the text is trying to give us the gist of what happened without being scientific about the details. However this view is actually not the extreme that you probably hear rumored. Farther out lies the Theistic Evolution view that really discounts the entire creation process except for allowing that God put some sort of evolution in motion and possibly kept it on track. This sort of view must necessarily discount the text as a fictional rendering inspired for some purpose other than to tell us about the actual origins of the universe.

Given those major viewpoints (and bearing in mind that there are lots of minor modifications), some generalizations can be drawn about denominations and their views, but it is remarkably hard to do so with any level of meaning when most of the major denominations are actually showing fracture lines along the issue. Some openly embrace multiple positions, some are fighting a loosing battle to claim a single position. Only in smaller (and thus kind of too specific to list here) denominations are there consistently held positions on this matter.


When was the New Testament divided into sentences and paragraphs? I know that the New Testament was given chapter numberings around 1227 AD, and verse numberings in 1555 (Source).

But apparently, the earliest manuscripts didn't have punctuation, spaces, or paragraphs either. They were just an unbroken string of letters.

When was the New Testament first written with spaces, sentences, and paragraphs? Do we know who accomplished this?

Spaces
Originally, NT texts were written without spaces or any explicit indicator of word division. Such writing is known as scriptio continua. On page 31 of Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, Professor Bruce Metzger says, "Occasionally the grouping of syllables into words is ambiguous. ... It must not be thought, however, that such ambiguities occur frequently. In Greek it is the rule, with very few exceptions, that native Greek words can terminate only in a vowel (or dipthong) or in one of three consonants." So translators could for the most part tell when words began and ended. Wikipedia claims without a source that, "By around AD 1000, European texts were written with spaces between words." My gut is that this somewhat unhelpful figure is basically true, but I wouldn't put it in a paper or anything unless I located a source.
Sentences and paragraphs
In a 2006 article ("Chapters, Verses, Punctuation, Spelling, and Italics in the King James Version") in the BYU publication The Religious Educator, it says that paragraph divisions originated in the fifth century:

New Testament Paragraphs
As with the Old Testament, we do not have any original New Testament texts. But we do have very early textual evidence of the New Testament from the beginning of the second century, and those earliest manuscripts were written in the tradition of Greek texts of their day, in all capital letters, with no division between the words or sections. Although the modern reader may be bewildered by a text that has no apparent breaks, the ancient Greek has a set of rhetorical particles that indicate natural pauses and breaks in the text. Most New Testament texts were written on parchment or papyrus, and by the second century, they began to be written in codices (books with leaves bound together—singular, codex) rather than on scrolls.
Just as in the Hebrew tradition, the first system of division in the New Testament text was the paragraph, which naturally followed the rhetorical and grammatical particles in the text. One of the earliest systems of division in the New Testament is attested in the Greek Bible manuscript Vaticanus, dating from the fifth century AD. In Vaticanus, the scribes used a system of unknown origin in which the text was divided into sections corresponding to the break in sense. Those divisions were called in Greek kephalaia, which means “heads” or “principals.” They were named and numbered in the margins and are the first attested form of a sort of chapter division in the New Testament. In Vaticanus, for example, the Gospel of Matthew was divided into 170 such units—62 in Mark, 152 in Luke, and 50 in John. The kephalaia were much smaller in length than the present-day chapters and are much closer to the paragraphs. In other Greek manuscripts, Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation were similarly divided into chapters and smaller sections.
As they did with the Old Testament, the King James translators indicated paragraph divisions in the New Testament with paragraph markers ( ¶ ). Often, but not always, their paragraph divisions coincide with ancient kephalaia and chapter divisions known from early manuscripts, but for some reason that mystifies scholars to the present day, they end at Acts 20:36.
At the same time the kephalaia divisions in the New Testament were being made, rudimentary smaller divisions, indicated by simple forms of punctuation (sixth through eighth centuries), were beginning to be marked in the Greek texts; these divisions would eventually be reflected in the chapter and verse divisions after the thirteenth century.


Do any Christian denominations consider it not sinful to commit suicide in order to donate organs? If so, why? Here is my understanding of Christianity and the Bible's teaching on this question:

Suicide is bad.
Giving up your life to save someone is good.

So, if you commit suicide but at the same time donate your organs to save others, is that sinful or not?

Do any christian groups think this is not sinful? Why?

I'm adressing the following question :

If you commit suicide but at the same time donate your organs to save others, is that sinful or not?

For the Catholic Church, this is very sinful. Below are some exerpts of the Cathechism on the moralty of human acts :

A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

"An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

This teaching is in accordance with saint Paul's writtings :

And not rather (as we are slandered, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil, that there may come good? whose damnation is just. (Romans 3:8)


Is a Catholic canon a prebendary? According to Mark Burkholder, the three types of members of a cathedral chapter that weren't dignitaries were canons, prebendaries (racioneros), and half prebendaries (medios racioneros).

I am studying the appointment of a particular canon in Durango in 1821. He was entitled in writing to a prebend (una ración) from the cathedral. Donald Cutter in Writings of Mariano Payeras later described him in English as "Lord Prebendary Don X".

Is a canon also a prebendary and vice-versa, or are these different categories on the same payscale?

Historically there was a type of canon known as a prebendary canon.

  Kinds of canons

  Canons are divided in the following manner: (1) Cathedral canons, who, attached to the cathedral church, form the senate or council of the bishop; collegiate canons, who perform the canonical office in the church to which they are attached, but are not connected by reason of their office with the government of the diocese. (2) Prebendary canons, who have a prebend or fixed income attached to the canonry; simple canons, who have no prebend. (3) Canons de numero, i.e. those of a church the number of whose canons can neither be diminished nor increased; (4) supernumerary canons, who are assistants to the canons de numero. The supernumerary canons are subdivided into three classes, viz. (a) those whom the Holy Father appoints and who will receive the first vacant prebend (expectant canons); (b) honorary canons (for these see the Constitution of Leo XIII "Illud est proprium", 21 Jan., 1894, and the recent decree of the Congr. of Rites, 14 Nov., 1902), and (c) canons who are added on the founding of a new prebend. Formerly the chief distinction was that made between the secular and regular canons. Regular canons, as forming the council of the bishop, are now almost obsolete, and the special regulations by which they are bound, their rights, privileges, and duties, are treated fully in works on canon law. The special status of canons in English-speaking countries will be considered later.

Wikipedia has the following to say about what a prebendary canon is:

  A prebendary is a member of the Anglican or Roman Catholic clergy, a form of canon with a role in the administration of a cathedral or collegiate church. When attending services, prebendaries sit in particular seats, usually at the back of the choir stalls, known as prebendal stalls.

  A prebend is the form of benefice held by a prebendary: historically, the stipend attached to it was usually drawn from specific sources in the income of a cathedral's estates. In the 21st century, many remaining prebendaries hold an honorary position which does not carry an income with it. - Prebendary

Not finding a proper definition of demi-prebendary canon, I would believe that they are simply honorary prebendary canon, who do not get an income from this honorary position.

Similarly, a claustral prior is a demi-prelate. Under certain circumstances, he may perform some of the duties of an abbot, following the absence or death of his superior, yet is not an abbot. Thus his actions are very limited.


If the Holy Trinity is defined as three distinct faces, people or persons of God, does this not directly contradict the first commandment? THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS ON MY FACE.

One of the most common explanations I've seen floating around in the Internet is a picture:

It denotes the 'Godhead'. In my understanding, heads, and persons, are distinctly unique because of their face. If this Godhead has 3 distinct faces, does the idea of the trinity not completely contradict the very notion of the first commandment?  The Father IS NOT The Son, The Son IS NOT The Holy Ghost, And the Holy Ghost IS NOT The Father. Each entity here represents a distinct face of God. How does this not explicitly contradict the very first commandment?

Further, the second commandment also states that THOU SHALT NOT CREATE ANY GRAVEN IMAGES IN THE LIKENESS OF ANYTHING IN THE HEAVENS ABOVE or ON THE EARTH BELOW or beneath it.

Taken from https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/idolatry:
Idolatry, [N] [T] [E]
strictly speaking denotes the worship of deity in a visible form...

Do these two items, side by side, not explicitly condemn our notion of trinitarianism AND God-Incarnation? Does this also explain why we cannot find any of our church fathers or primary sources in the first 300 years of our tradition expounding upon this clearly? My wife quoted 2 lines for citing the trinity: baptise in the name of the father ..., and there are 3 that bear witness in heaven. The former doesn't explicitly denote the doctrine to me and the latter was actually thrown out from many versions that are currently being published in the bible as a known fabrication.  I guess the question is, besides Athansian Creed, from where did this idea come from? How can people tamper with the word of God so easily without conscience? This is my first question (or first few questions) here and I'd just like people to be somewhat sensitive to the matter if my knowledge-base just isn't there. I think this is why forums like this exist. Thank you!

PS I think I have considered myself a Unitarian for the greater part of 10 years now but my wife continues to urge me to ask questions so, here I am. She is Protestant.

PSS I've read quite a few answers here so I'd like to exclude anyone from citing Jesus as saying "I am the first and the last, the alpha and the omega" since, by ALL accounts, Jesus did not speak Greek so I don't know why the Bible authors quote him as claiming to be the first and the last character in the Greek Alphabet.

If God is un-created and infinitely and eternally perfect then it is reasonable that He possesses uncreated, infinite, eternal integrity.  If this is so then there can be no ontological difference between who He is, what He says, and what He does.  He has revealed Himself to us in this fashion in Scripture.

God the Father is who He is

  Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
  yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. - 1 Corinthians 8:4-6

God the Son is what He says

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
  - John 1:1

  And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. - John 1:14

God the Spirit is what He does

  Then he said to me, “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts. - Zechariah 4:6

Being, saying, and doing are distinct and separate for us created, finite, temporal creatures.  These three are distinct in God but not separate because he is infinite and eternal.  One God...3 distinct yet inseparable expressions.

I hope this helps.


Transition from a natural to a sacramental marriage Please note: This question is not based on a real world case. I am not looking for pastoral advice but for a clearer understanding of the catholic position on marriage.

As far as I understand the catholic church's teaching there are two "kinds" of marriage: The sacramental marriage according to divine law which can be found among a christian couple and the non-sacramental marriage according to natural law which can for example be found among a non-christian couple.

Now let's imagine a non-christian couple marries (here in Germany you would go to some registry office for what we call a civil marriage): In the eyes of the church these two are now married in a non-sacramental way according to natural law.

Let's further imagine these spouses convert to christianity and are getting baptized. At what point in that process (if at all) does their marriage become sacramental?

I would imagine the following scenarios:

The easy one: They are getting baptized in the catholic church. The natural proceding now would be a standard catholic wedding to administer the sacrament. [Here in Germany that is in fact not unusual as we catholics have to first get a civil marriage and later, probably at the same or following day, marry sacramentally in the church.]
The more complicated one: They are getting baptized in some other (e.g. protestant) church. The RCC holds marriages between protestant christians as sacramental even if not administered in church. But as most protestant churches don't see matrimony as a sacrament they probably won't marry in church as they would have done in the first scenario. So when (if at all) does their marriage become sacramental in the eyes of the RCC?

Please note that I'm interested in two things: Is my general understanding of sacramental and non-sacramental marriages as laid down here correct according to RCC teaching? And if so how will the marriage of the mentioned couple become sacramental (according to RCC teaching) during their conversion to christianity?

I would especially like to have answers citing canon law or the catechism (whichever is applicable).

Clarification

I am indeed interested in what the RCC teaches about the sacramentality of the marriage of a non-baptized civil-married couple becoming (1) catholic or (2) protestant christians. Indeed for scenario (2) I am interested in the RCC teaching about within-protestant affairs. That one is sparked by my understanding that the RCC considers the typical protestant marriage as sacramental although most protestants do not.

A valid natural marriage becomes sacramental as soon as both parties are baptised. There is no need to do anything else after being baptised, either as a Catholic or in a denomination that observes the Catholic form of baptism (water and the trinitarian formula). If the baptism is not valid the marriage remains natural. The parties are the ministers of the Sacrament and exchange of consent is the essential element.

  1621 In the Latin Rite the celebration of marriage between two Catholic faithful normally takes place during Holy Mass, because of the connection of all the sacraments with the Paschal mystery of Christ. In the Eucharist the memorial of the New Covenant is realized, the New Covenant in which Christ has united himself for ever to the Church, his beloved bride for whom he gave himself up. It is therefore fitting that the spouses should seal their consent to give themselves to each other through the offering of their own lives by uniting it to the offering of Christ for his Church made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice, and by receiving the Eucharist so that, communicating in the same Body and the same Blood of Christ, they may form but "one body" in Christ.

  1622 "In as much as it is a sacramental action of sanctification, the liturgical celebration of marriage . . . must be, per se, valid, worthy, and fruitful." It is therefore appropriate for the bride and groom to prepare themselves for the celebration of their marriage by receiving the sacrament of penance.

  1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses, but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.

  1624 The various liturgies abound in prayers of blessing and epiclesis asking God's grace and blessing on the new couple, especially the bride. In the epiclesis of this sacrament the spouses receive the Holy Spirit as the communion of love of Christ and the Church. The Holy Spirit is the seal of their covenant, the ever available source of their love and the strength to renew their fidelity.

  III. MATRIMONIAL CONSENT

  1625 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; "to be free" means:

  not being under constraint;
  not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.

  1626 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage." If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

  1627 The consent consists in a "human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other": "I take you to be my wife" - "I take you to be my husband." This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."

CCC on Marriage

  Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

  §2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.

Jimmy Akin

While Catholics are required to follow the required form of marriage non Catholic's are not

  A defect of form case can only come into play if one of the parties to the marriage is a Catholic (who has not left the Church by a formal act).  In a case involving a defect of canonical form due to a wedding taking place “outside” the Catholic Church, the Tribunal must be able to establish certain facts including the following: that the Catholic party was bound by canonical form; that the Catholic party had not left the Church by a formal act prior to or at the time of the wedding; and that the marriage was never subsequently convalidated or otherwise rendered valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

Defect of form


What's the normal term for a Catholic priest that works in a parish under another one? I am trying to learn about Catholic clerical posts called "cura" and "cura teniente" in rural 1700s Mexico. "Teniente" generally means second-in-command, like lieutenant. I am tempted to translate the title as "assistant priest" but this specific term refers to priests of the cathedral chapter, so I'm not sure of its correct name in English.

So in a parish with both sorts of priests, one would outrank the other? If so, I would like to know what to call those positions. Thank you!

What's the normal term for a Catholic priest that works in a parish under another one?

In Catholic parishes the priest in charge is commonly known as the pastor. He is normally addresses as Father in everyday conversation. The priests that aid a pastor in the administration of a parish are called either assistant pastors or associate pastors.

Years ago, the term assistant pastor for a priest helping in the administration of a parish was universally the only term used. Nowadays, associate pastor is quite common in certain regions. In everyday conversation, they simply called Father.

Sometimes, assistant pastors are called parochial vicars.

A priest who is residing at a parish and who on occasion helps out in the administration of a parish is known as a priest in residence. These priests are not pastors or assistant pastors because they normally will have some sort of ministry that takes up a large portion of their day. They often are ministering to hospitals or prisons and are called Chaplains.


What year did the Hebrew nation with Joshua cross the Jordan river into the promised land? In terms of our current and modern dating system, what year did Joshua and the Hebrew nation cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan? Also, based on this what year would the first Jubilee year have occurred as described in Leviticus 25:1-4,8,9

  When you come into the land which I give you, then the land shall keep a sabbath to the LORD. 3 Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard, and gather its fruit; 4 but in the seventh year there shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a sabbath to the LORD. You shall neither sow your field nor prune your vineyard.’ 8 “And you shall count seven sabbaths of years for yourself, seven times seven years; and the time of the seven sabbaths of years shall be to you forty-nine years. 9 Then you shall cause the trumpet of the Jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the Day of Atonement you shall make the trumpet to sound.”

The dates for these events, as with most biblical chronological estimates, are debated. Scholars cited in this answer date the crossing of the Jordan at 1406 BCE, 1260 BCE, or 1451 BCE, and the first year of Jubilee to be immediately after or some time soon after those respective dates.
Here is a (lightly edited) elucidation on the method of the calculation of the date of 1406 BCE from The Pattern of Prophecy:

We know this [date of 1406 BCE] from a key chronological marker recorded in the book of Kings. The year Solomon began to build the Temple is given both in terms of the exodus from Egypt as well as the year of Solomon’s reign:
1 Kings 6:1  And it came to pass in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.
It was established in Thiele’s Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings that the fourth year of Solomon corresponds to 966 BCE.  Therefore the date of the Exodus must be 480 years prior to 966 BCE, or 1446 BCE. Since the Crossing of the Jordan took place 40 years later, that dates it to 1406 BCE.

This commenter on the Seder Olam, a traditional Rabbinic text of chronology, disagrees with that date. He also gives a date of 1268 BCE for the first year of Jubilee. Bracketed comment's are this author's, and the text has been reformatted:

When did these counts start? The Biblical text states: When you come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the Lord. This means that the first cycle to be counted was when they will come into the land and this first count was a Sabbatical year. This first Sabbatical took place when the first tribes took possession of their inheritance, East from the Jordan River, when Moses was still alive. He gave that territory to the tribes of Reuven, Gad and half of the tribe of Manasseh (Numbers 32:33). This took place before the death of Aaron (Numbers 33:38-39) in Hebrew year 2494 [1266 BCE].
After the conquest, the land of Canaan was also divided and given as inheritance to the other tribes. The final inheritance was given to Caleb from the tribe of Judah after he made a plea to Joshua: Caleb was then 85 years old. He must have made his plea just after the end of the first Jubilee, so that a count of 50 years will be fully available to him and his tribe. Therefore the First Jubilee was counted when Caleb was 84 years old. This was in Hebrew year 2500. And the first Sabbatical year was counted 8 years earlier (1 year as the Jubilee year + 7 years for a full Sabbatical cycle), therefore this was in Hebrew year 2500-8= 2492. This indeed was at a time when Aaron was still alive and he performed the first celebrated Sabbatical year. But both he and Moses died before they could celebrate the first Jubilee year in 2500 [which corresponds to 1260 BCE].

In a more Scholarly approach in his book Old Testament Chronology: A Return to the Basics (pdf), Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones gives yet a different date for the crossing of the Jordan supported by previous scholars, and also identifies the first year of Jubilee as 1395 BCE (parenthetical notes are Jones'):

The year Moses died and Joshua entered the land was long ago determined by Ussher, Bishop Loyd, Nicholas Toinard, William Wiston, and now independently confirmed by this author [Jones] as 1451 BC. However, the year of Jubilee did not have to do with merely being in the land but  with its actual possession and cultivation (Lev. 25).
After seven years of conflict with the Canaanites, the wars ended at the close of 1445 BC (c. April 1451 - 1445 = 7 years inclusive). From the base camp at Gilgal, Joshua then gave the tribes of Judah and Joseph their portions. Early in 1444, the tabernacle was moved to Shiloh. The rest of the land west of the Jordan was then divided among the remaining seven tribes, and the men from the two-and-a-half tribes east of the Jordan returned home.
Until this, Israel had lived off of the crops of the Canaanites, volunteer crops and supplies from the eastern two-and-a-half tribes (Josh. 24:13). Israel's tillage thus began in 1444. Hence, fom this year are reckoned the Sabbatic and Jubilee years (1444- 49 = 1395 BC, the first Jubilee. See p. 289 ff).