What is the most important tradition in the Catholic Church? I am doing a school project on Sacred Tradition and was wondering what Catholics view the most important Sacred Tradition to be. I was thinking that it would be Eucharist because it is the actual body and blood of our Lord. But then since tradition is equal to scripture in terms of authority, they all are equally important right?

What is the most important tradition in the Catholic Church?
The important Tradition is the Seven Sacraments as it is the Church instituted means to attain salvation of souls.

Seven sacraments of the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church teaches that there are seven sacraments or rites through which God can communicate his grace to an individual. Catholic Christians believe that the sacraments are channels for God’s grace - every time they take part in a sacrament, they receive more grace.https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zh4f3k7/revision/1

But in light of schism that happened post Vatican II, the most important tradition will be the very powerful words of Jesus to St.Peter and Apostles united to Peter.
What is that Tradition based on the gospel coming from the very words of Jesus Himself? The Apostles or College of Bishops united to the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Truth it cannot err.

The Promise of the Holy Spirit
…12I still have much to tell you, but you cannot yet bear to hear it. 13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come. 14He will glorify Me by taking from what is Mine and disclosing it to you.-John16:12-14

And with regards to schism, the schismatic who are saying and spreading that a Pope is teaching errors as they continue to accuse Pope Francis of heresy. Based on Jesus powerful promised of protection, the Pope cannot teach errors or commit heresies when teaching "faith & morals". Believing the Dubia Cardinals and Schismatic Bishops and their followers that a Pope can teach heresy will make Jesus a liar in Luke22:32.

"But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”-Luke22:32

More on this teachings on PASTOR AETERNUS.

THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER
IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19981031_primato-successore-pietro_en.html


Proverbs 1:14 compared to John 13:29 Proverbs 1:14 says

  Throw in your lot with us, we shall all have one purse

but John 13:29 says Judas had the common purse.  Surely Jesus would not have allowed a common purse among the disciples if Proverbs says not to!

In context, Proverbs 1 here is talking about joining with sinful men, plundering and gambling. It is a completely unrelated passage of Scripture.

Here it is in-context with the surrounding passages:

  Warning Against the Invitation of Sinful Men

  8 Listen, my son, to your father’s instruction
      and do not forsake your mother’s teaching. 9 They are a garland to grace your head
      and a chain to adorn your neck.

  10 My son, if sinful men entice you,
      do not give in to them. 11 If they say, “Come along with us;
      let’s lie in wait for innocent blood,
      let’s ambush some harmless soul; 12 let’s swallow them alive, like the grave,
      and whole, like those who go down to the pit; 13 we will get all sorts of valuable things
      and fill our houses with plunder; 14 cast lots with us;
      we will all share the loot”— 15 my son, do not go along with them,
      do not set foot on their paths; 16 for their feet rush into evil,
      they are swift to shed blood. 17 How useless to spread a net
      where every bird can see it! 18 These men lie in wait for their own blood;
      they ambush only themselves! 19 Such are the paths of all who go after ill-gotten gain;
      it takes away the life of those who get it.

Clearly, the condemnation is in pooling your resources with sinful people, not just pooling your resources altogether.

To try to link the two is a logic flaw. It would be like claiming that 2 Corinthians 6:14 says not to be yoked to (joined to, in a partnership with) anyone.

  Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness
  and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with
  darkness?

2 Corinthians 6:14 is speaking only of being yoked to unbelievers, just as the Proverb you cited is clearly about joining with evil.

There are some basic, commonly accepted rules for reading, understanding, and applying Scripture. One of them is not taking a single verse out of context with the surrounding text, intended audience, and meanings of words/statements at the time it was written. In context, it's clear there is no conflict here.


How many times does the New Testament quote the Old Testament? I found this resource [1] that lists all the references to Genesis found in the New Testament, and it made me curious if there is a list of all Old Testament quotes found in the New Testament. Have you come across any such list?

[1] Quotations from or Allustions to Genesis in the New Testament

No authoritative answer to this question can be given, because New Testament authors did not explicitly mark all the places where they quoted or alluded to the Old Testament.  Indeed, many of them probably would not have been able to do so even if they tried, since they had internalized the Old Testament text so thoroughly, and thus they adopted its language as their own.

As a result, researchers have broken down New Testament uses of the OT into categories like "direct quotation," "indirect quotation," "allusion," and "possible allusion," and, not surprisingly, they disagree on what fits into each category.  So in the end, no two lists are the same.

That said, there are still some helpful resources that begin to tackle the question.  The first one I'll mention is a free project from the Blue Letter Bible, "Parallel Passages in New Testament Quoted from Old Testament," which has the following goal:

  The list contains not only the direct or indirect citations, but also the allusions which are particularly worthy of attention

Thus it will not necessarily contain all the quotes/allusions, just ones considered particularly noteworthy.  A quick analysis of this list gives the following totals:

Quotes: 302
Allusions: 493
Possible allusions: 138
Total: 933

The second resource, a more in-depth one, is the book Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, edited by Beale and Carson.  It works through the entire New Testament, calling out many parallels between the NT and OT texts.  Depending on your locale, you may be able to preview parts of this work for free on Google Books.

One final caveat: Besides the aforementioned difficulty in compiling such a list, both of the resources mentioned here come from Protestant sources, and thus will not typically take note of references to any deuterocanonical books recognized as part of the Old Testament by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.  Thus if such references are also desired, these sources will be incomplete in that respect as well.


How do you know you are perceiving the same God? Is there a unique concept of God (within Christianity)?
If so, since different people probably have their own interpretation on Bible/Christianity/God (albeit the differences between different interpretations could be subtle), how can you (i.e. the Christian community) know that the God you have in mind are the same?

I'm sure you're familiar of the story of the three blind men and the elephant. One of them finds the tail and concludes the elephant is soft, long and round. One of them finds the tusk and concludes the elephant is hard. One finds the side and concludes the elephant is like a wall.

They are all describing the same elephant, but they have caught on to different aspects of it. There is truth in each description of the elephant, but there is error if they assume their description is complete.

So the trick is not to assume your understanding is complete, and this explains the disagreements over the details. But you are all "pointing to" the same thing.


Reconciling Peter in Acts with Deuteronomy/Psalms on the burden of the Law? Peter is cited in Acts 15:10-11 as saying to the Jerusalem Council, "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?". And yet, in Deuteronomy 30:9-14:

  The Lord will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he
  delighted in your ancestors, if you obey the Lord your God and keep
  his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and
  turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
  Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or
  beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask,
  “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may
  obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will
  cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No,
  the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so
  you may obey it.

God states that not only is it possible for the average Israelite to obey the Mosaic Law, but implies that the Israelites' ancestors successfully did it (cf. Genesis 26:5, where God says that Abraham obeyed "My commandments, My statutes and My laws").

In addition, the author of Psalm 119 appears to assume that it's possible for a person to follow the Law properly (vv.88, 145, 146) and praises such a person (vv.1-2, 33-34, 55), then claims to properly follow the Law himself (vv.14, 22, 31-32, 69, 129, 157, 167-168).
In Deuteronomy 11:13 (and v.22), God says ("if you faithfully obey the commands I am giving you today — to love the Lord your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul") that the Greatest Commandment (Matthew 22:36-38) is one of, or a shorthand for, the legal requirements of the Mosaic Law.
Two people in the Gospels are recorded as asking Jesus what to do to inherit "eternal life". Each time, he responds by asking what is written in "the Law" or "the commandments", several examples are quoted from the Pentateuch and then Jesus says to the person to go and do them and "live" (Luke 10:25-38; Matthew 19:16-20).

So on what basis does Peter make the claim that the Mosaic Law is impossible to bear?

Peter was referring to the same laws Jesus condemned in Matt. 23:4, "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."

All of your quotes were from the OT and referred to the OT laws. Peter and Jesus were talking about the man-made laws added on top of those. See Mark 7:7, "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

As a result, Jesus said in Matt. 11:28-30, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

If they were not burdened, then why would He give this invitation? His "yoke" is indeed light, but the man-made laws the Israelites submitted to were not.


(LDS perspective) How would people before Mormonism have entered heaven since they would not have known the masonic handshakes? Related question here discusses the secret passwords and handshakes that are, according to LDS church, required in order to gain entrance to heaven. This question and this Wikipedia article discusses their relationship/similarity with Masonic rituals.

Even if we accepted the view that Masonic symbolism originated before early Christianity (among the builders of Solomons's temple), I have not yet found any reference in the Bible to specific handshake(s) as a requirement to enter heaven.

Unless this is mentioned somewhere in the Bible canon, it looks like early Christians or people living before that did not know of this requirement.

How would worshipers of God who died before Joseph Smith have entered heaven since they would not have known the secret passwords or handshakes?

The whole point of having temples is to receive saving and exalting ordinances for ourselves and for our ancestors. After one has received temple ordinances for themselves, he/she goes back to the temple and does ordinances by proxy for those who have died. Then the person who has died can choose to accept it or not.

President David O. McKay wrote about the purpose of the temple in 1972:

  Where did Christ’s spirit go while his body lay in the tomb? The apostle Peter tells us that he went to preach to the spirits who were in prison, who were once disobedient in the days of Noah when the ark was being prepared. (See 1 Pet. 3:19–20.) Those who died thousands of years ago were still living in the spirit world, and the gospel was taken to them as it will be taken to all of our Father’s children.

  This, then, is another purpose of the temple. You may have the opportunity of gathering the names of your ancestors, who, being baptized by proxy, may become members of the kingdom of God in the other world as we are members here.

Each time an ordinance is performed by proxy, the name of the individual for whom the ordinance is being performed is assigned/given to the proxy on a piece of paper and that proxy does the ordinance for that person, keeping the paper with them until complete. It is then recorded on the computer. It's one-by-one and very individual (efficiency is not the purpose or the goal). It doesn't matter how that person lived; their work is done nonetheless, and everyone -- every person who ever lived -- will eventually have the opportunity to accept the ordinances if they choose to.


What is the Biblical basis for accepting Feminist Christian Theology which says we should use female pronouns for God? Feminist Philosophy of Religion: Feminist philosophy of religion is a recent development within Western philosophy that poses feminist questions about religious texts, traditions, and practices, often with the aim of critiquing, redefining, or reconstructing the entire field in light of gender studies... And because it is feminist, it must promote the elimination of gender inequality and take into account the multiplicity of human bodies, desires, and differences that are mapped onto the site of religion. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-religion/

Christian feminism is an aspect of feminist theology which seeks to advance and understand the equality of men and women morally, socially, spiritually, and in leadership from a Christian perspective... These theologians believe that God does not discriminate on the basis of biologically determined characteristics, such as sex and race. Their major issues include the ordination of women, male dominance in Christian marriage, recognition of equal spiritual and moral abilities, reproductive rights, and the search for a feminine or gender-transcendent divine... The term Christian egalitarianism is sometimes preferred by those advocating gender equality and equity among Christians who do not wish to associate themselves with the feminist movement. Women apologists have become more visible in Christian academia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theology#Christianity

What is the Biblical basis for accepting Feminist Theology with regard to the following topic:
Replacing male pronouns for God with gender-neutral terms: Feminist theology often criticizes the use of male pronouns for God; referring to God as “He,” “Him,” or “Father” degrades the status of women. The alternative is to refer to God only using gender-neutral terms such as the Divine or to balance the offending terms with female equivalents such as She, Her, and Mother.
Linked:  What is the Biblical basis for rejecting Feminist Christian Theology which says we should use female pronouns for God?

What is the Biblical basis for accepting Feminist Christian Theology which says we should use female pronouns for God?
Pope Francis answers this question in Querida Amazonia;

“Jesus Christ appears as the Spouse of the community that celebrates the Eucharist through the figure of a man who presides as a sign of the one Priest. This dialogue between the Spouse and his Bride, which arises in adoration and sanctifies the community, should not trap us in partial conceptions of power in the Church. The Lord chose to reveal his power and his love through two human faces: the face of his divine Son made man and the face of a creature, a woman, Mary. Women make their contribution to the Church in a way that is properly theirs, by making present the tender strength of Mary, the Mother. As a result, we do not limit ourselves to a functional approach, but enter instead into the inmost structure of the Church. In this way, we will fundamentally realize why, without women, the Church breaks down”
https://wherepeteris.com/which-pope-said-this-136/

The Church Fathers also teaches God the Wisdom or the Holy Spirit as feminine;

The grammatical gender of the word for "spirit" is feminine in Hebrew (רוּחַ, rūaḥ),1 neuter in Greek (πνεῦμα, pneûma) and masculine in Latin (spiritus). The neuter Greek πνεῦμα is used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew רוּחַ. The pronouns used to address the Holy Spirit, however, are masculine.

The Holy Spirit was furthermore equated with the (grammatically feminine) Wisdom of God by two early Church fathers, Theophilus of Antioch (d. 180) and by Irenaeus (d. 202/3).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_the_Holy_Spirit

BIBLICAL BASIS
St. Louis de Monfort in his book "Love of Eternal Wisdom" cited scriptural passages personifying God as Mother;

I am the mother of pure love, of fear, of knowledge and of holy hope.
In me is all grace of the way and of the truth; in me is all hope of life and strength.
Come to me, all you who desire for me, and be filled with my fruits.

Divine Wisdom shows himself to be the mother and source of all good and he exhorts all men to
give up everything and desire him alone.

Eternal Wisdom began to manifest himself "outside the bosom of God the Father" when, after a whole eternity, he made light, heaven and earth. St John tells us that everything was made through the Word, that
is eternal Wisdom: "All things were made by him" (Jn. 1:3; cf. Heb. 1:2; Col. 1:16-17).

Solomon says that eternal Wisdom is the mother and maker of all things. Notice that Solomon does not call him simply the maker of the universe but also its mother because the maker does not love and care for the work of his hands like a mother does for her child (Wisd. 7: 12,21).

Source: Love of Eternal Wisdom. http://www.montfort.org/content/uploads/pdf/PDF_EN_25_1.pdf
But to understand, this mystery, one needs to ponder God's Will in eternity and St.Maximillian Kolbe and Ven. Ab. Fulton Sheen and the wisdom of the Three Great Marian Saints like St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Louis de Montfort and St. Liguori will help us see Pope Francis wisdom behind his teachings in Amazonia Querida, saying God reveals two human faces, Son of Man in Jesus Christ and the Woman in Divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
God the Father sees the image of His Begotten Son the Second Person of the Holy Trinity as the "Son of Man" existing in the "bosom of the Father" in eternity. This image was incarnated in the womb of a Woman to become flesh as Jesus Christ the Divine Mercy made flesh was incarnated and dwelt among us.
The Blessed Virgin Mary offered Her body & blood and gave face to the Logos the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
God the Father sees the image of the Holy Spirit the Third Person of the Holy Trinity in the perfect image of a Mother, a Consoler , a Comforter and Advocate. But, unlike the Logos, the Holy Spirit will be "quasi-incarnated" in the body,blood,and soul of the chosen Woman. The Holy Spirit was quasi-incarnated and perfectly and mystically indwelt the Theotokos in the Upper Room.
The Blessed Virgin Mary offered Her Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart and gave face to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.
God the Father has two image, one image is the Begotten Son Jesus Christ, and the other image is a Woman. a Mother which is the perfect image of the Holy Spirit. The child in the arms of a loving Mother, is the perfect image and likeness of God, and this two human faces is the image of God shown to humanity as the image of salvation.
The icon of the Madonna, is the image God the Father looked upon in eternity, and when God the Father created "Man & Woman", it is created in the perfect image of Jesus and Mary, while the "male & female" was created in the image & likeness as "Adam and Eve" progeny, a fallen mankind.

That's why scholars had seen two creation, having Man & Woman created and the image and likeness of God, and another set of creation creating mankind both "male and female".
More biblical passages on a Feminine attribution to God in this article written by Fr. James Martin who controversially uploaded a pronoun of God using "Her".
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/03/08/is-god-a-man-or-a-woman-catholic-240173


Does the Bible say when the day of the Lord (as described in 2 Peter 3:10) will occur, and does it go into more detail about this particular event? I have been reading about the Bible and saw this passage:

  But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the
  night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the
  elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works
  that are in it will be burned up. (2 Peter 3:10)

But I cannot find when this is supposed to happen. I am assuming that this is referring to some kind of a war. Does the Bible say when this event will occur, or even hint at a period of time when it may occur?

But something tells me that this may not be about war, or at least not about any of our own wars. "But the day of the Lord..." - that makes me think that this is referring to something like Judgement day?

The Bible doesn't say exactly when this Day will occur. Furthermore, Jesus said:

  Mark 13:32 says, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

Updated Information: The "Day of the Lord" is not about some kind of war; rather, is is about the Second Advent of Jesus Christ. I suggest you first read Mark's Gospel (or any of the other three Gospels) to aid you in your interpretation of what is written in the Epistles.


Why is the Lord's Passion read on Palm Sunday (in the Roman Catholic tradition)? At Palm Sunday, there are two gospel readings:

Palm Sunday of the Lord’s Passion

The gospel which describes the Procession with Palms
The gospel which described the Lord's passion

Why is the Lord's Passion read on Palm Sunday? Shouldn't the Palm Sunday be a time for joy and rejoicing and the reading of the Passion reserved for the Paschal Triduum?

My question concerns the Roman Catholic tradition.

The Passion is read "by anticipation" on Palm Sunday. Although that day begins joyfully with the ceremony of the palms, it ends with a "character of sacred gloom," as the liturgist Dom Prosper Guérenger, O.S.B., puts it in his The Liturgical Year (vol. 6), p. 200:

  The third part of to-day's service [for Palm Sunday] is the offering of the holy Sacrifice. The portions that are sung by the choir¹ are expressive of the deepest desolation; and the history of our Lord's Passion, which is now to be read by anticipation, gives to the rest of the day that character of sacred gloom, which we all know so well. For the last five or six centuries, the Church has adopted a special chant² for this narrative of the holy Gospel. The historian, or the evangelist, relates the events in a tone that is at once grave and pathetic; the words of our Saviour are sung to a solemn yet sweet melody, which strikingly contrasts with the high dominant³ of the several other interlocutors and the Jewish populace. During the singing of the Passion, the faithful should hold their palms in their hands, and, by this emblem of triumph, protest against the insults offered to Jesus by His enemies. As we listen to each humiliation and suffering, all of which were endured out of love for us, let us offer Him our palm as to our dearest Lord and King. When should we be more adoring, than when He is most suffering?

¹See the "Palm Sunday" section here.²cf. pp. 30-40 of this 1957 guide by Solesmes.³i.e., a high-pitched fifth


What problems, if any, do Mormons have with the Apostles' Creed? As a follow-up to a previous question, I'd like to know: Does the LDS church disagree with or "reinterpret" any phrases in the Apostles' Creed?

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

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

Here, I'd like to know how the LDS church handles this – answers will ideally cite official LDS sources, or at least theologians who are recognized members of the LDS.

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

Latter-day Saints reject the doctrines of the Trinity as taught by most Christian churches today. These creeds were canonized in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. and do not reflect the thinking or beliefs of the New Testament church.1

That said there isn't too much with the Apostles Creed(in bold) that LDS beliefs differ from.

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

The LDS believe:

Under the direction of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth2

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,

The LDS believe Jesus to be the Only Begotten Son of God and that we, mankind, are all children of God.3

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.

The LDS believe he went to Spirit Paradise(only some of the dead) to start missionary work to those in Spirit Prison.4

On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,

The biggest point of disagreement. The LDS believe:

After the deaths of the Savior and His Apostles, men corrupted the principles of the gospel and made unauthorized changes in Church organization and priesthood ordinances. Because of this widespread apostasy, the Lord withdrew the authority of the priesthood from the earth. This apostasy lasted until Heavenly Father and His Beloved Son appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and initiated the restoration of the fulness of the gospel.5

the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

1 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/03/comparing-lds-beliefs-with-first-century-christianity?lang=eng
2 https://www.lds.org/topics/creation?lang=eng
3 https://www.google.com/search?q=lds+child+of+god&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS754US754&oq=lds+child+of+g&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.2879j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 and https://www.lds.org/ensign/2010/12/jesus-christ-is-the-only-begotten-son-of-god?lang=eng
4 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/138.12,18-21?lang=eng#p12
5 https://www.lds.org/topics/apostasy?lang=eng


Who was Thomas's twin? The sainted apostle "Doubting" Thomas is called Didymus, the Twin. Indeed, Thomas also means Twin.

  Thomas, called Didymus  /  Θωμᾶς ὁ λεγόμενος Δίδυμος (John 11:16; 20:24; 21:2)

There is no clear indication in the Bible of who his twin might have been, but it seems that several extra-Biblical traditions exist that try to fill in the gap.

Can anyone run through the different possibilities, and their level of support and acceptance?

It seems to me that since a lot of this comes from the NT Apocrypha, there's a greater than usual density of Internet rubbish around the topic. Thanks in advance to anyone who can wade through it, or find more reliable sources instead!

It's likely that Thomas was a nickname rather than his given name. Parents of twins would not name one of them "Twin". Yet by translating "Thomas" to "Didymus" three times, the Gospel of John makes it clear that as an adult Thomas was known—even among Greek speakers—as "the twin".

We don't know exactly where or why he got this nickname, or what his given name was. The apocryphal Acts of Thomas, written in the early third century, identifies him as "Judas Thomas", and fourth century historian Eusebius refers to him once as "Judas, who was also called Thomas".

The gnostic scolls found at Nag Hammadi include a text called The Book of Thomas the Contender, (most likely dating to the late second or early third century) which claims to record "the secret words that the savior spoke to Judas Thomas," and includes this statement:

  Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself, and learn who you are, in what way you exist, and how you will come to be. Since you will be called my brother, it is not fitting that you be ignorant of yourself.

A few scholars have understood this to mean that Thomas and Jesus were very similar in appearance. Some have gone so far as to suggest that Thomas is the brother of Jesus and the author of the book of Jude. The majority, however, believe this text is using "brother" and "twin" metaphorically.

At any rate, all of these texts are too late to be considered primary sources.

Most of the early Christians offered no suggestions or speculations about who Thomas' twin might have been. When they mentioned Thomas at all, it was only in passing.

Second century apologist Justin Martyr gives the earliest extra-biblical mention of Thomas that I have been able to find. While discussing the numerological system of a gnostic sect known as the Marcosians, Justin says:

  and the ten apostles to whom the Lord appeared after His resurrection,—Thomas being absent,—represented, according to them, the invisible Decad.

Third century apologist Tertullian, arguing against the docetic teachings of Marcion, says:

  Now, not even to His apostles was His nature ever a matter of deception. He was truly both seen and heard upon the mount; true and real was the draught of that wine at the marriage of (Cana in) Galilee; true and real also was the touch of the then believing Thomas.

The fact that Thomas was called the twin seems not to have been important to the early Christians. John Chrysostom, for example, composed nearly 90 homilies on the Gospel of John, but never mentioned Thomas being called the twin.

We simply do not have enough information to answer this question. Pope Benedict, in a reflection on Thomas in 2006, mentioned the etymology of the name but added, "The reason for this nickname is unclear."

One recent speculation is that Thomas' name was not actually derived from the Aramaic word for twin, but sounded enough like it that it became a nickname.

  Judea had long been part of the Seleucid Empire, and a very common Macedonian name was Ptolemy, which, in Aramaic, was rendered as Talmai or Talmais. That might explain why he was also known as Judas , which basically identified him as Judean; because there was a desire to make it clear that he was of Judaic rather than Greek descent. Note that Bartholomew, the name of the Apostle who may have traveled to India with Thomas after Jesus' crucifixion, is believed to derive from bar Talmai, meaning "son of Ptolemy".

This explanation depends on the later texts that identify him as Judas Thomas, so it has not won much support.

At least one minister has suggested that in his doubts, Thomas is the twin of all of us.

  So, back to the question, who is Thomas’ twin? Could be me, could be you. Could be each of us and all of us together, as we summon the courage to doubt our doubts, as we read and study the gospel seeking answers to questions. Could be each of us and all of us together when we join the confession of faith: “My Lord and my God.”


Can a priest make disclosure of sin a part of penance? Let us imagine that a priest is hearing confession and that a penitent confesses to a major crime, such as murder.

Can the priest tell the penitent to turn himself in as part of the penance?

Can a priest make disclosure of sin a part of penance?

Response: Yes and no, but generally no as part of the penance itself.

Let me explain.

Several things must be looked at here. A confessor can impose such a penance but there is always a caveat.

  Should Abusers Be Encouraged To Report Themselves?

  A priest who confesses sexual abuse in the sacrament of penance should be absolved and should generally not be encouraged by the confessor to disclose his acts publicly or to his superiors, a Vatican official said.

  Likewise, the confessor should not make the contents of such a confession public, said Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary, a Vatican court that handles issues related to the sacrament of penance. . . .

  When a priest confesses such acts, “the confession can only have absolution as a consequence,” he said.

It is true that Canon Law states that a confessor must impose a salutary penance:

  Can. 981 The confessor is to impose salutary and suitable penances in accord with the quality and number of sins, taking into account the condition of the penitent. The penitent is obliged to fulfill these personally.

Penancing an offender to turning himself could certainly would be a salutary penance for someone who breaks a civil law, but it also poses some problems for the confessor in the confessional. Rome is very serious about the integrity of the seal, and to keep anybody from even thinking about ways to circumvent it, the Code of Canon Law bluntly states:

  Can.  983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

  §2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.

  Can.  984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.

  §2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

Although a confessor can not betray the seal of confession even in it's penance, it seems the most the confessor would be able to do would be to implore, encourage, urge, etc., the penitent to self-incriminate, either before Church or civil authorities.

There is still room for debate on this issue.


Where in the Catholic Church is red wine used for mass? In any Catholic Mass I attended (in Germany) white wine was used for the holy Eucharist. There are some plausible practical reasons for that. Are there regions of the world where mostly red wine is used?

Where in the Catholic Church is red wine used for mass?

In those areas in which the local community and/or parish priest's choice is to use red wine over white wine for Mass.

Where I live (British Columbia, Canada) red wine is quite popular. Some priests use white wine for Mass here, but most here use the red. A lot will depend on the availability of the Altar wine offered in  a particular area, as well to the personal choice or the priest saying Mass. I have never heard of any bishop insisting on a particular colour for his diocese. I have, one the other hand, known of some religious communities that grow their own grapes and will keep separate the coloured grapes for a particular usage. For example the red wine will be for table wine and the white wine will be for the altar wine or vise versa. I have seen this in French Benedictine communities.

  Regarding the Wine Used for Mass

  Red or White?

  Nothing is specified canonically as to whether the wine is to be a red, a white or a blush. This determination is left to the individual community. The general consensus, however, is that most people prefer a wine that is a bit sweet and fruity. What is indicated is that to be considered valid sacramental matter the wine is to be natural and made from grapes (cf. Canon 924 §3). Wine made from any fruit other than grapes is considered invalid matter.

  Alcohol Content

  A minimum or maximum level has never been specified in canonical literature since the revision of the Code of Canon Law in 1983; however, in the estimation of canonists, it usually falls somewhere below 20%. Generally speaking, the alcohol content for most commercially produced wines is between 8% and 17%.

  If mustum were to be used it cannot have an alcohol content of less than 1%. Mustum is grape juice in which the fermentation process has begun, but has been suspended. Mustum is reserved for those who suffer from alcohol intolerance and permission to use mustum must be given by the local Ordinary on a case-by-case basis.

  Additives

  Canon 924 §3 states the wine must not be corrupt, i.e. it is to be pure and natural. In the United States there are state-mandated additives to all commercially produced wines to act as an anti-oxidant which preserves the natural good condition of the wine and retards spoilage. Sulfides are added in such small amounts that the Holy See has had no objection to them, since their presence does not corrupt the wine.

  Conclusion

  Any commercially produced wine (red, white or blush) may be used for sacramental wine so long as it falls within the parameters of being naturally made of grapes and having an alcohol content between 8% and 20%. The labeling of wine as “sacramental” or “altar” wine is a marketing strategy similar to that of “organic.” Any good house wine is fine and there are many good wines available in boxes or cubitainers, these have the advantage of lasting several weeks after opening because air is expelled and spoilage is retarded. Bottom line: the finer quality of wine, the better it is. This is an important consideration since the wine selected will become the Body and Blood of Christ.

Of further interest:

What is the largest winery that supplies sacramental wine to the Catholic Church?

Since when is white wine used in the Catholic mass?

A little note for "mustum" usage at Mass:

  Grape juice is not allowed for the Catholic Mass, but the use of "mustum" can be permitted. Mustum is a kind of wine that has an extremely low alcohol content. It's made by beginning the fermentation process in grape juice, but then suspending the process such that the alcohol content generally remains below 1 percent, far lower than the levels found in most table wines. (See: Q-and-A on the Vatican's recent instruction on bread, wine for Communion).


Is God's sovereignty a term associated with Reformed theology? Is the concept of God's sovereignty disputed outside of Reformed theology, and is God's sovereignty a label for God that is exclusively used in the context of Reformed theology?

While the idea of God's sovereignty is closely associated with Reformed theology, other traditions also deal with it.  Here are a few examples from prominent authors from various traditions.
Lutheran: Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, 170:

Scripture describes God a) in His supreme majesty, as independent of anything outside Himself, or as absolutely sovereign in Himself, Rom. 11, 36  Viewed in this manner, God is not moved by anything but by Himself; or we may say, in Him cause and effect coincide.

Arminian: Miley, Systematic Theology, v1, 340:

God, who commands our prayer and promises the answer, is sovereign in the natural as in the spiritual realm.

But Miley argues that in Arminianism, "the principle of freedom" takes a central place, instead of sovereignty as in Calvinism (522).
Dispensational: Chafer, Major Bible Themes, 4, "The Sovereignty of God":

God is supreme over all.  He yields to no power, authority, or glory. [...] When the history of the universe is completed, God's purpose and plan will have been wrought out according to His will even to the last degree.

Catholic:  Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 183:

In the narrower liturgical sense one takes sacrifice to mean an external religious act, in which a gift perceptible to the senses is offered by an ordained servant of God in recognition of the absolute sovereignty and majesty of God.

Admittedly, Ott and Denzinger (The Sources of Catholic Dogma) seem to limit their use of the word sovereign, and often apply it when discussing the Catholic Church, not God.
Eastern Orthodox:  Vladimir Lossky, in Ware, The Orthodox Way:

The Holy Spirit is the sovereign unction upon the Christ and upon all the Christians called to reign with him in the Age to come.

Search reveals no other uses of the term in Ware's book.  I also checked Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, but didn't find this term applied to God.
Modern/liberal:  Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, 278:

In order to the realization of our personal continuance in union with him and, at the same time, of the perfection of the church, there is predicated an exercise of the sovereign power of Christ that puts and end to the propagation of the race and to the mingling of the good and bad, so that by one sudden leap the church, heretofore subject to a wavering growth, becomes perfect.

No other uses in this book, and none in Ritschl's Instruction in the Christian Religion.
Summary
The term sovereignty is of course extensively used in Reformed theology, but it's also used in other traditions.  The authors cited above disagree on what God's sovereignty actually means, but for the most part they are willing to use the word.
That said, it seems to be used more in traditions more closely associated with Calvinism, whether because of shared history or because of historical debates – the Lutheran and Arminian authors cited above use the term more extensively than the others.


Do divorced non-Catholics need an annulment to marry in the Catholic Church? Here's something I've got no idea about. In the case where one party is married in a Baptist Church but divorced and the other party has no encumbrances. Barring quarrelsome arguments I can't answer concerning grounds for annulment, is the first party even required to do anything to prove that their first marriage is null and void?

Code of Canon Law Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law;
  therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be
  upheld until the contrary is proven.

Thus the Church  recognizes the marriages of non-Catholics as well and considers them valid until proven otherwise.

Answering assuming the party with no encumbrances is Catholic

No marriage can occur until the marriage of the party previously married in the Baptist Church and now divorced is examined by the Church and a decree of nullity issued (i.e. in the eyes of the Church, that marriage never existed to begin with).
Once that decree has been issued, the requirements for a mixed marriage must be met for there to be a valid marriage in the Catholic Church.

Addendum

  Why does the Catholic Church require an intended spouse, who is divorced but not Catholic, to obtain an annulment before marrying in
  the Catholic Church?

  The Catholic Church respects all marriages and presumes that they are
  valid. Thus, for example, it considers the marriages of two
  Protestant, Jewish, or even nonbelieving persons to be binding for
  life. The Church requires a declaration of nullity to establish that
  an essential element was missing in that previous union preventing it
  from being a valid marriage.

  This is often a difficult and emotional issue. If the intended spouse
  comes from a faith tradition that accepts divorce and remarriage, it
  may be hard for them to understand why they must go through the
  Catholic tribunal process. Couples in this situation may find it
  helpful to talk with a priest or deacon. To go through the process can
  be a sign of great love of the non-Catholic for their intended spouse.

Source:  Annulments | FOR YOUR MARRIAGE | An initiative of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Please see also: What are the stipulations for a mixed marriage to be valid in the Catholic Church?.

It is my belief that the following are also pertinent:

MATRIMONIA MIXTA
INSTRUCTION ON MIXED MARRIAGES


How does Mormonism (the LDS Church) answer "the problem of evil"? My question this evening is:

How does Mormonism (the LDS Church) answer "the problem of evil": if God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and completely good and benevolent, why does evil exist in the world? (The premise is that a God with these attributes should know about the evil, be capable of stopping it, and be benevolent and good enough that he would necessarily act on that capability.)

I would appreciate it if answers would also explain whether the LDS view on God explains whether or not He knew humans would fall into sin. If so, why would He allow such a thing?

The problem with the Problem of Evil is that aside from the stated points, it also includes an unspoken premise that this life is all that matters.  If that premise is true, then the Problem of Evil exposes a very serious flaw in Christian theology: the very concept of the Christian God is self-contradictory, and therefore invalid.

Christianity, however, is fundamentally opposed to that concept, rejecting it in favor of what's known as "an eternal perspective": we believe that this life is a step along our eternal journey, that what truly matters is the afterlife, and that the most basic purpose of this life is to give us each a way to determine the state of our afterlife.

The Book of Mormon actually makes this explicit in various places.  For example, Alma 34: 32-34 states:

  32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God;
  yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their
  labors.

  33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many
  witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate
  the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life,
  which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not
  improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness
  wherein there can be no labor performed.

  34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I
  will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this;
  for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that
  ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess
  your body in that eternal world.

This passage establishes that this life is "the time for men to prepare to meet God," and that a person's fundamental character will have been established by the point of death.  This is a recurring theme; the Book of Mormon refers to mortal life as "[day/days/state] of probation" in nine different places.

The prophet Lehi explains the basic concept in 2 Nephi 2:11-27:

  11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

  12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

  13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

  14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

  15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

  16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

  17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.

  18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

  19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.

  20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.

  21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.

  22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

  23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

  24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

  25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

  26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

  27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

Important points found here:

There must be an opposition in all things, in order for meaningful distinctions between things to exist
Good and evil exist in opposition to each other
This life is a state of probation in which we are free to make meaningful choices between good and evil, and to repent of our sins when we choose evil
Satan entices mankind to choose evil, and Christ (the Messiah, the great Mediator) entices mankind to choose good
"Men are that they might have joy," which can only be meaningful if they also have an understanding of misery
Our moral choices have eternal consequences on the destiny of our souls

Therefore, if God were to do away with all evil, as the Problem of Evil suggests ought to be the case, there would be no meaningful moral choices to make, which would nullify the entire plan.


What did Pilate mean by asking "What is truth?" When Jesus is brought before Pilate, he asks him if he is a king. When Jesus admits that he is Pilate says

“You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
“What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him. (John 18:37-38)

Does Pilate actually believe Jesus, or is he simply being dismissive of Jesus' "naivite" in assuming there is such a thing as truth?
I'd like answers that pull from the tradition of mainstream Christian factions and scripture.

History records that Pilate was not the most even tempered of men. Considering this, I find that it is quite probable that the words would have been intended more as mockery than anything else.

Traditions related to Pilate are a good deal more vague. While the apocryphal "Passion (or Gospel) according to St. Peter" exonerates him, the majority of writings which come from the post-apostolic writers suggest that the writings of Philo may very well be correct as to the nature of his character.

Of course, there is no way to know, but it seems far more probable that he was not acting as Christ's friend in that conversation.


Is there a name for when Jesus was baptized? I thought I remembered hearing once a name for when Jesus was baptized. Specifically it was referencing the miracle that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all directly observed at that time (voice of the Father, physical appearance of both the Son and Holy Spirit).  My internet search is unusually ineffective (perhaps I misheard and there isn’t a special name for it). I believe it was “the miracle of ______”.  I found that it is celebrated during a feast of epiphany, but that doesn’t sound right.

The answer to your question possibly is in fact linked to the Feast of the Epiphany. For on the Feast of the Epiphany we celebrate three mysteries of Our Lord's life. The [Catholic] Church calls Jesus' changing water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana his first miracle.

  The Feast of the Epiphany is the continuation of the mystery of Christmas; but it appears on the Calendar of the Church with its own special character. Its very name, which signifies  Manifestation, implies that it celebrates the apparition of God to his creatures.

  For several centuries, the Nativity of our Lord was kept on this day; and when, in the year 376, the decree of the Holy See obliged all Churches to keep the Nativity on the 25th December, as Rome did - the Sixth of January was not robbed of all its ancient glory. It was still to be called the  Epiphany,  and the Baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ was also commemorated on this same Feast, which Tradition had marked as the day on which that Baptism took place.

  The Greek Church gives this Feast the venerable and mysterious name of  Theophania, which is of such frequent recurrence in the early Fathers, as signifying a  divine Apparition.  We find this name applied to this Feast by Eusebius, St. Gregory Nazianzum, and St. Isidore of Pelusium. In the liturgical books of the Melchite Church the Feast goes under no other name.

  The Sixth of January, therefore, restored the celebration of our Lord’s Birth to the Twenty-Fifth of December; but, in return, there were united in the one same  Epiphany, three manifestations of Jesus’ Glory: the mystery of the Magi coming from the East, under the guidance of a star, and adoring the Infant of Bethlehem as the Divine King; the mystery of the Baptism of Christ, who, whilst standing in the waters of the Jordan, was proclaimed by the Eternal Father as Son of God; and thirdly, the mystery of the divine power of this same Jesus, when he changed the water into wine at the marriage-feast of Cana. - The Epiphany of Our Lord

What can we notice at the Feast of the Epiphany and its' Manifestations:

On this day, the Magi appeared to Jesus barring gifts of gold, frankincense and Myrrh.
On this day Jesus was baptized and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him.
On this day Christ performed his first miracle by changing water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana.

At Christ's baptism the Holy Spirit descended upon Him; at our Baptism the Trinity took its abode in our soul. At His baptism Christ was proclaimed the "Beloved Son" of the Father; at our Baptism we become the adopted sons of God. At Christ's baptism the heavens were opened; at our Baptism heaven was opened to us. At His baptism Jesus prayed; after our Baptism we must pray to avoid actual sin.

  But, did these three Mysteries really take place on this day? Is the Sixth of January the real anniversary of these great events? As the chief object of this work is to assist the devotion of the Faithful, we purposely avoid everything which would savour of critical discussion; and with regard to the present question, we think it enough to state, that Baronius, Suarez, Theophilus Raynaldus, Honorius De Sancta-Maria, Cardinal Gotti, Sandini, Benedict 14th, and an almost endless list of other writers, assert that the Adoration of the Magi happened on this very day. That the Baptism of our Lord, also, happened on the sixth of January, is admitted by the severest historical critics, even by Tillemont himself; and has been denied by only two or three. The precise day of the miracle at the marriage-feast of Cana is far from being as certain as the other two mysteries, though it is impossible to prove that the sixth of January was not the day. For us the children of the Church, it is sufficient that our Holy Mother has assigned the commemoration of these three manifestations for this Feast; we need nothing more to make us rejoice in the triple triumph of the Son of Mary. - The Epiphany of Our Lord


Why do we have to make the Sign of the Cross physically? Every time we go to the church, we can make like multiple signs of the cross during the mass. Is it wrong if I make my sign of the cross by just speaking or with my mind other than doing it repeatedly with my hand?

The reason a Catholic does physical acts of devotion, and not simply mental ones, is because he is composed of a body and a soul. Bodily acts affect one's soul.

St. Thomas Aquinas writes in Summa Theologica II-II q. 84 a. 2 co.:

  As Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv, 12*), since we are composed of a twofold nature, intellectual and sensible, we offer God a twofold adoration; namely, a spiritual adoration, consisting in the internal devotion of the mind; and a bodily adoration, which consists in an exterior humbling of the body. And since in all acts of latria* that which is without is referred to that which is within as being of greater import, it follows that exterior adoration is offered on account of interior adoration, in other words we exhibit signs of humility in our bodies in order to incite our affections to submit to God, since it is connatural to us to proceed from the sensible to the intelligible.

*"Concerning Worship towards the East" (ad orientem)**worship due to God alone


What is the history of the concept of a "personal relationship with Jesus"? It is common these days to hear questions like:

  Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?

Or...

  The most important thing is your personal relationship with Jesus.

The Bible never uses this phrase.  Jesus certainly had personal relationships with his disciples, but after his death, Paul never tells the churches in Corinth or Rome that they need better "personal relationships with Jesus."  The other epistles don't talk about ways to "strengthen" that "personal relationship," etc.

How long has a "personal relationship" with Jesus been talked about in Christian culture?  Where did this term and related language originate, and what is its history?

EDIT Please note I'm not specifically looking for Biblical references to support this concept (although that could certainly be part of a good answer!)  I'm asking about the cultural history of this concept.  And while I can appreciate that even Jesus made statements that can be easily interpreted as supporting a personal relationship, he definitely did not emphasize this aspect of Christian culture.  When, where, how did the concept of a "personal relationship with Jesus" enter Christian culture as a prominent theme?

Summary:  As you noted, the concept of a "personal relationship with Jesus" could be argued from Scripture, but it is certainly not emphasized in any way.  Relationship with God is almost exclusively described in Scripture as a communal experience.  The emphasis on "personal relationship" is a modern emphasis, and is rooted more in Enlightenment thinking than in Scripture.

The Biblical Emphasis

An Individual Death

Every last person matters to God; He wants everyone to be saved, no matter how "bad" they are.  So there is certainly an open invitation to every person - and this has always been emphasized.

However, what many people do not understand is what God is inviting us into.  He is inviting us to die to our self, and live for Him.  This is the "cost" of following Jesus.  This is not "the real you", or "a better you"... this is "a dead you"!  In other words, we are called to shift our focus from ourselves to others.

Most of the individualistic language in Scripture is either used to describe the entry of sinners into the Kingdom, or the rebellion of heretics against the Kingdom, but not life in the kingdom.  (example)

A Communal Life

When we join the Kingdom of God, we become a part of something special.  There are many ways this "something" is described in Scripture.  Here are a few:

A body of interdependent members, with Christ as the head.
A spiritual house made up of many living stones, with Christ as the cornerstone.
A vine with many branches
A fellowship - with one another and with God.

The Biblical picture of life in the Kingdom is far from individualistic; it is one of interdependency - we grow in our relationship with God through one another and with one another.  (example)

The Enlightenment Emphasis

The Rise of Individualism

The Enlightenment drastically changed the way people viewed the world.  One of the most significant shifts in thinking was from a communal focus to an individualistic focus.

  three fundamental ideas ... encompassed everything the Enlightenment would stand for. First among these was individualism, which emphasized the importance of the individual -source

In the secular realm, this shift in focus led to a new emphasis on "individual rights".

"My Personal Relationship"

This global shift in thinking from communal to individualistic also led to a new emphasis in the teaching and evangelism in the churches.  No longer was the believer merely a part of something bigger, suddenly the believer was the central focus.  This minister summarizes it well:

  The spirit of the Enlightenment has blossomed in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries... In the church this individualism translates to: "All I need is my Bible and my God. Anything and anyone else is a threat to my freedom." -source

Nowadays, all that matter is "my personal relationship with Jesus."  As long as I have that, I'm OK.

Clarifications

I am not claiming that believers are disconnected from God in any way, or that God is not a "Person" who loves His people intimately.  God is "personal" in many senses of the word, and we are each "individually" invited to come to Him.  However, the individualistic emphasis on "personal relationship" is not rooted in Scripture; The emphasis in Scripture is on an integral, interdependent, communal fellowship with God and all His people.  We grow in Christ together.

I am also not claiming that there never lived a person prior to the Enlightenment who emphasized individualism in the Church... I am simply saying that we can thank the Enlightenment for the prominence of this theme in churches today.


What is the Baptist response to 1 Corinthians 7:14 if the children are believers but the parents are not? "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." (1 Corinthians 7:14 KJV)

"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." (1 Cor 7:14 NIV).

Taking these two assumptions about Baptist theology:

that young children must either believe in the Gospel and are saved, or not believe in the Gospel and are not saved, without there being any 3rd option

that the belief of young children is 100% independent of the belief of their parents; it is entirely up to them whether they believe or not

Therefore,

given a situation where a young child comes to believe in the gospel through a family friend, though his parents do not, how can this be reconciled with 1 Cor. 7:14? It is a contradiction of "salvation by faith alone" (made clear throughout the NT) to be "unholy" ("unclean," depending on translation) and a believer at the same time.

One Baptist with whom I spoke said that Paul is using the word "holy" to mean "having been somehow influenced by someone who is holy." But as far as I know the word "holy" throughout the Bible always refers to "being of good standing with God" and not just "influenced." If Paul had meant that, I feel he would have used different wording.
There are some answers here: Does Christianity allow for believing on someone else's behalf?,
but none of them are specifically from a Baptist perspective.
I also already looked through these: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/7-14.htm

What does not appear to be taken into your question is the age of consent. That is a strict belief in the Baptist Denomination. While a child is under the age of consent they are covered by the Grace of God (or in other words they are not judged by their not accepting Jesus as their Savior. They are accepted as were Adam and Eve prior to the fall).

Later when they are of age it is taken into consideration whether or not their parents of someone else have presented the path of Salvation with them.

  Matthew 18:10 KJV Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

Here we see that prior to the Crucifixion these little ones received special consideration in the face of God.

  Matthew 24:14 KJV  And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Here we see that judgment of the World will not come until all of the World has seen the opportunity to accept Christ as their Savior. This requirement is that those capable of making that decision must elect Salvation. We also believe that God is love and would not condemn anyone who for any reason was incapable of making that decision, to the outer darkness (or what is better known as the lake of fire).

There is of course much more included in the Baptist Denomination about eligibility for Salvation than this, but I hope this gives you the basic understanding of the Baptist concept of your question.


How are John 18:36 and Matthew 13:41 reconciled according to Protestants? John 18:36:

  My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.

Matthew 13:41:

  The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.

In John he states that his kingdom is not of this world but in Matthew he talks about his angels weeding out of his kingdom all who do evil. So if his kingdom is not of this world, how are these two verses reconciled?

This can be reconciled, like many other apparent contradictions by understanding the context of the passages.  See Rules behind resolving alleged Biblical discrepancies.

  ...the vast majority of "contradictions" can be attributed to one of
  two possible causes.

  Copyist errors
  A misunderstanding of the context. (Historical context, cultural context, taking a verse out of context with related passages of
  Scripture, different meanings for words used at the time a translation
  was written compared to the meaning of the words today, etc.)

The passage from John, as covered in many commentaries is in the context of an accusation that Jesus is some threat to the existing rule.  Sample:

  Barnes' Notes on the Bible

  My kingdom ... - The charge on which Jesus was arraigned was that of
  laying claim to the office of a king. He here substantially admits
  that he did claim to be a king, but not in the sense in which the Jews
  understood it. They charged him with attempting to set up an earthly
  kingdom, and of exciting sedition against Caesar. In reply to this,
  Jesus says that his kingdom is not of this world - that is, it is not
  of the same nature as earthly kingdoms. It was not originated for the
  same purpose, or conducted on the same plan. He immediately adds a
  circumstance in which they differ. The kingdoms of the world are
  defended by arms; they maintain armies and engage in wars. If the
  kingdom of Jesus had been of this kind, he would have excited the
  multitudes that followed him to prepare for battle. He would have
  armed the hosts that attended him to Jerusalem. He would not have been
  alone and unarmed in the garden of Gethsemane. But though he was a
  king, yet his dominion was over the heart, subduing evil passions and
  corrupt desires, and bringing the soul to the love of peace and unity.

  Not from hence - That is, not from this world.

The passage from Matthew, on the other hand, is part of a parable where he is using the sample of weeds and wheat in the same field to illustrate that righteous and evil will be living together on this earth.  He is referring to His spiritual Kingdom, or the Church. Example from another commentary: (Emphasis added by me)

  Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

  The Son of man shall send forth his angels,.... Meaning himself, whose
  ministers the angels are; who wait upon him, and are at his beck and
  command; even the thousand thousands that minister unto him; these
  will be sent forth by his orders, into the several parts of the world,
  where he has any churches, or an interest,

  and they shall gather out of his kingdom: the Gospel church, over
  which Christ is king, where he rules and governs in the hearts of his
  people; and who are cheerfully and willingly obedient to his laws,
  under the influence of his Spirit and grace: but all who are in the
  visible Gospel church state, are not such; some are wicked and
  rebellious, and though they are suffered to continue, yet not always;
  for if not removed by censures and excommunications, they will be at
  last by angels; who will separate them from the saints:

  even all things that offend; who are scandals to Christ, his church,
  and Gospel, by their wicked principles, or infamous practices; and who
  give offence, not only to God, and his righteous law, but lay
  stumbling blocks in the way of the children of God, and are the
  authors of divisions and offences among them:

  and them that do iniquity; that do nothing else but iniquity; and who,
  though they profess to be religious persons, are secretly, or openly,
  workers of iniquity; and are even doing iniquity, in and whilst they
  are professing religion.

As with almost any word in the English language, the context helps to define the meaning of the word, so when taken in context, the apparent discrepancy goes away.


Did the Lord God agree with "an eye for an eye"? In the Old Testament there is a scripture about an eye for an eye law:

[Exodus 21:23~25] And if [any] mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

However, things changed in the New Testament:

[Mat 5:38~42]Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

So it seems the 'an eye for an eye' law was agreed in the Old Testament, but disagreed in the New Testament, a contradiction!

It confused me. What was the genuine opinion of the Lord God in the end? Or did his mind get changed?

The distinction between the Old Testament and New is that the Old Testament laws were given to the nation of Israel as part of the covenant between God and the people of Israel.  The "eye for an eye" seems harsh to many people, but it was actually a law of restraint.  One eye for one eye--NOT two eyes, one arm and a foot for one eye.  "Burn for burn"--not "whole villages aflame".  The idea was to put the punishment into congruence with the actual offense.  Vengeance would most often greatly exceed this standard.

In the New Testament, Jesus is speaking not to the nation of Israel with regard to the covenant, but to individuals.  He was also speaking while the entire world was on the brink of the inception of the new covenant.

So, Old Testament Covenant applies to the nation of Israel as long as that covenant is in effect.  That means between God and the nation of Israel between the time of Moses and the inception of the new and better covenant--roughly 1600 B.C. to 33 A.D.

Questions like this come up fairly often on this site.  People ask, "Should I sacrifice a lamb or not eat pork or not wear clothing with mixed fabrics?"  The answer is, "Yes, if you are Jewish and are living between 1600 B.C. and 33 A.D."  However, if you are non-Jewish or are alive today, the Old Testament Convent Laws are not binding on you.


According to reformed theology, does reformed theology fall apart if one removes the doctrine of predestination? Context:

I was recently pondering on why it took me so long to discover reformed theology, and how my beliefs changed before/after reading reformed theology -- and as I traced my thoughts, it seems like a key point I hit was the doctrine of predestination.

Before believing in predestination, my notion of Christianity was something like: God vs Satan is fighting in some huge battle. I get to play a part. I'm important. I choose who to serve, and I can influence other humans in either direction.

After understanding predestination, it was something like: wow, I'm absolutely useless. There's all these angelic beings worshipping God, God really doesn't need me, and I don't have much influence over whether God or Satan wins, and I don't have much influence even other whether people ultimately get saved.

This realization then somehow paved the door for understanding reformed theology -- i.e. the focus of the Bible is about God, rather than humans.

Question:

Thus, is the doctirne of predestination considered a core pillar of reformed theology? Are there any well known doctrines / documents (accepted by reformed theologists) that argue against predestination?

I found this summary of reformed theology very helpful:
http://www.reformedreader.org/t.u.l.i.p.htm

Reformed theology emphasizes the doctrines of grace, best known by the acronym TULIP, though this does not correspond to the best possible names for the five doctrines.
...
U stands for unconditional election. An emphasis on election bothers many people, but the problem they feel is not actually with election; it is with depravity. If sinners are as helpless in their depravity as the Bible says they are, unable to know and unwilling to seek God, then the only way they could possibly be saved is for God to take the initiative to change and save them. This is what election means. It is God choosing to save those who, apart from His sovereign choice and subsequent action, certainly would perish.
...

As you can see, one of the "pillars" of reformed theology is Unconditional Election (aka predestination).  If you remove that pillar, I don't believe the theological system you have left could be fairly called "reformed."
For a more verbose introduction to reformed theology, see this series by R.C. Sproul:
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what_is_reformed_theology/


What's the proof for the existence of Angels as well as angelic hierarchy? It's said that most influential medieval work on angelic order was written by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. How much authority do his works still hold and what's the metaphysical foundation and necessity for the existence of Angels?

St. Thomas's angelology based on Holy Scriptures
Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., discussing St. Thomas Aquinas's sources in Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought ch. 22, writes:

It is sometimes thought that the treatise of St. Thomas on the angels is an a priori construction, having as its sole foundation the book of Pseudo-Dionysius, called De coelesti hierarchia. This is a misconception. Scripture itself is the foundation on which St. Thomas rests.

Pohle, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural: A Dogmatic Treatise, pt. 2, ch. 3, §1, Article 1 "Existence & Nature of the Angels":

The existence of Angels is a truth so obviously founded in Scripture, Tradition, and the teaching of the Church that it seems superfluous to undertake a formal demonstration of it. We therefore merely indicate some of the many Scriptural texts in which it is expressly taught: Ps. 90:11; 102:20; 148:2; Matth. 4:11; 18:10; 22:30; 25:31; John 1:51; Heb. 1:4.

Proofs he's not a "pseudo"
Mgr. Darboy famously argued, in the beginning of his Œuvres de Saint Denys l'Aréopagite (1845), that "pseudo-"Dionysius is the actual St. Dionysius that St. Paul baptized in Acts 17:34:

Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

Mgr. Darboy has so much data, both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, in support of his position that the author whom for centuries councils (even heretics!), doctors of the Church, etc., considered authentic is not a "pseudo".
Opponents of his being St. Dionynius base their arguments on one data-point:According to Stiglmayr's Catholic Encyclopedia entry Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, Stiglmayr & Koch (end of 19th cen.), after Mgr. Darboy (1845), allegedly discovered some Proclus verbatim in On the Divine Names! Well, how do they know Proclus (6th cen.) didn't plagiarize St. Dionysius?


How do different denominations defend their interpretations of Daniel 2's prophecy? The second chapter of the book of Daniel talks about Nebuchadnezzar II's dream of a statue made of several metals and its prophetic significance for the future. I've heard people claim that this is a prophecy that accurately predicts a sequence of civilizations and empires over history that came after Babylonia - which if true would be fascinating - but I'm not sure if all denominations agree on the exact interpretation, and I've never read an overview on this topic.
Did Daniel 2 accurately predict a sequence of empires after Babylonia in accordance with secular history, and if so, which empires? What is the evidence that justifies this interpretation? Can we confidently rule out postdiction?
What is an overview of how Christian denominations answer these questions?

The prophecy of the great image in Dan 2:31-35 is one of the few Bible prophecies about which there is broad agreement, largely because it is explicitly interpreted in Dan 2:37-45.  In outline, there are five kingdoms depicted:

The head of gold is Babylon, Dan 2:37, 38.  This is agreed by Ellicott, Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Gill, Poole, Cambridge Commentary, Pulpit commentary, Geneva Bible, etc.  The Neo-Babylonian empire was founded by Nabopolassar in 626 BC, inherited by Nebuchadnezzar the Great in 605 BC but ended with the capture of Babylon by the Persians in 539 BC.
The Chest & arms of silver is Medo-Persia, Dan 2:39.  This is agreed by Ellicott, Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Gill, Poole, Cambridge Commentary, Geneva Bible, etc.  The Medo-Persians conquered Babylon in 539 BC, and were themselves overthrown by Alexander the Great in about 330 BC.
The Belly of Bronze is Greece, Dan 2:39.  This is agreed by Ellicott, Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Gill, Poole, Cambridge Commentary, Geneva Bible, etc.  The Greeks over-ran the great world powers at the time but finally were overtaken by Rom in the middle of the second century BC.
The legs of Iron are Rome, Dan 2:40.  This is agreed by Ellicott, Bension, Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Poole, Gill, Geneva Bible, Pulpit Commentary, etc.  The Roman empire lasted, united, until the late 5th century AD, whereupon it collapsed and broke up u=into the various independent sates that now surround the Mediterranean sea, namely, Europe, North Africa and the middle east; this is depicted by the feet of ion and clay that will not mix or "cleave" to each other.
The Great Rock cut out without hands is the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ, Dan 2:44, 45.  Thus all commentaries agree again.

The place at which most commentators diverge is the point where the Kingdom of Christ is established.  There are two schools of thought:

The Kingdom of Christ was established by Jesus Christ during His first advent (as the Christian church) and will continue and be subsumed by Jesus at His second advent
The Kingdom of Christ will be established by Jesus at His second advent (Rev 11:15) and will last eternally.

Both views have their ardent supporters and both can be defended.  I personally have trouble selecting either as I believe both are correct, but that is a topic for another question.


What is the biblical basis for concluding that 'all moral works' done without grace are sinful? Jonathan Edwards, a renowned Christian thinker and past president of Princeton University said:

  So long as men are in their natural state, they not only have no good thing, but it is impossible they should have, or do any good thing. (Jonathan Edwards [1758], Original Sin (Vol. 3), Ed. Clyde A. Holbrook, P280)

It may seem that saying 'a man can't do good' means a man could do neutral things, but further reading of Edwards makes it clear he does not think so. By 'no good' he actually means sin, or actions springing from a sinful nature.

Luther says even works from grace (let alone apart from grace) has not just 'human weakness' and 'defect' in them but 'sin in them'. Therefore, according to Luther even all the saints' works are sins in the sense that there is some evil deserving of eternal wrath in them (brackets mine):

  Now, if there is such a thing as a good work without sin... God forbid! ... Why then do they [papists] condemn my article...But if they [papists] say here, as they always do, “Yes, but this impurity is not sin but rather an imperfection, or weakness, or defect,” my reply is that it is indeed a defect and a weakness, but if that is not sin I am prepared to say that murder and adultery are not sins either but only defects and weaknesses. (Works of Martin Luther, Vol 32.83)

The 'Thirty Nine Articles of Religion' of the Church of England is more explicit. This article is rejected by the Roman Catholic church as heresy. More simply put I am looking for the biblical justification of this article:

  XIII. Of Works before Justification. WORKS done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

As opposed to a Catholic view of grace, what is the Protestant biblical basis for those concluding that 'all works' without grace have no real good in them? In other words, all works by unbelievers are more or less sinful, according to many in the Protestant Reformation.

See also the reverse question, here.

Note that in the Edwards quote you gave:

So long as men are in their natural state, they not only have no good thing, but it is impossible they should have, or do any good thing. (Jonathan Edwards [1758], Original Sin ( Vol. 3) , Ed. Clyde A. Holbrook, P280)

You left off the end of the sentence: as appears by Romans 8:8, which says:

Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

If you look here, you see that a number of commentators agree that this verse is saying that:

Unregenerate man cannot please God because they lack faith and they don't have the inherent ability to please Him.

So in this instance, Edwards is clearly saying that men in their natural state have no innate ability to do any good thing (i.e. pleasing God). Note that Edwards does not say that men in sin have no ability to appear outwardly to be good, indeed in another work, he says the opposite (commentary sourced here)

By true religion consisting in great part in the affections, Edwards means that though religion must have good deeds attending the affections, "there can be no true religion without the affections". Therefore, if a person has an unaffected will, he can do all the external showings of religion while remaining dead in his sins.

However, your question was asking the Biblical basis behind the idea that works without grace are not good, not what Edwards was saying in that passage. Essentially, this question is about the concept of Total Depravity. John Piper, I think, summarized this best in a article on Total Depravity. Piper writes:

There is no doubt that man could perform more evil acts toward his fellow man than he does. But if he is restrained from performing more evil acts by motives that are not owing to his glad submission to God, then even his "virtue" is evil in the sight of God.

Piper gives four ways man's depravity is total:

Our rebellion against God is total.
In his total rebellion everything man does is sin.
Man's inability to submit to God and do good is total.
Our rebellion is totally deserving of eternal punishment.

You are interested in point #2, and here is what he says on that point:

In Romans 14:23 Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin." Therefore, if all men are in total rebellion, everything they do is the product of rebellion and cannot be an honor to God, but only part of their sinful rebellion. If a king teaches his subjects how to fight well and then those subjects rebel against their king and use the very skill he taught them to resist him, then even those skills become evil.
Thus man does many things which he can only do because he is created in the image of God and which in the service of God could be praised. But in the service of man's self-justifying rebellion, these very things are sinful.
In Romans 7:18 Paul says, "I know that no good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh." This is a radical confession of the truth that in our rebellion nothing we think or feel is good. It is all part of our rebellion. The fact that Paul qualifies his depravity with the words, "that is, in my flesh," shows that he is willing to affirm the good of anything that the Spirit of God produces in him (Romans 15:18). "Flesh" refers to man in his natural state apart from the work of God's Spirit. So what Paul is saying in Romans 7:18 is that apart from the work of God's Spirit all we think and feel and do is not good.
NOTE: We recognize that the word "good" has a broad range of meanings. We will have to use it in a restricted sense to refer to many actions of fallen people which in relation are in fact not good.
For example we will have to say that it is good that most unbelievers do not kill and that some unbelievers perform acts of benevolence. What we mean when we call such actions good is that they more or less conform to the external pattern of life that God has commanded in Scripture.
However, such outward conformity to the revealed will of God is not righteousness in relation to God. It is not done out of reliance on him or for his glory. He is not trusted for the resources, though he gives them all. Nor is his honor exalted, even though that's his will in all things (1 Corinthians 10:31). Therefore even these "good" acts are part of our rebellion and are not "good" in the sense that really counts in the end -- in relation to God.

Thus, everything the unregenerate do apart from God is not good because the indwelling desires of the heart are against God, and are done still in rebellion to him.


The difference between how the Holy Spirit and Son "proceed" from the Father The Nicene Creed states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father:

and [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, who proceeds from the Father.
καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ Κύριον καὶ Ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον,

The word ἐκπορευόμενον is a participle derived from the Greek verb ἐκπορεύομαι. I'm assuming that the authors of the Nicene Creed derived that statement of faith from John 15:26 which states,

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (KJV)
ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ

The point is that the Holy Spirit is said to "proceed" from the Father.
Now, concerning the Son, in John 8:42, it is written,

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. (KJV)
εἶπεν οὖν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰ ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ ὑμῶν ἦν ἠγαπᾶτε ἂν ἐμέ ἐγὼ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἥκω οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ἐλήλυθα ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνός με ἀπέστειλεν

There, the author uses a conjugation of the Greek verb ἐξέρχομαι.

What is the difference between the manner in which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the manner in which the Son proceeds from the Father, between ἐκπορεύομαι and ἐξέρχομαι, respectively?

Why is it commonly confessed (e.g., in the Nicene Creed) that the Holy Spirit, but not the Son, "proceeds" from the Father?

(There's also at least one verse, totally unrelated context, mind you, that features both verbs: Matt. 15:18.)

Regarding the term ἐκπορεύομαι

We have to keep in mind that Trinitarian doctrine and the technical terminology surrounding it did not stabilize until the Fourth Century A.D. The creed commonly called the Nicene Creed would be better termed the “Nicene-Constantinopolitan” Creed, since it incorporates material that was elaborated not only in the first Council of Nicaea (held in 325) but also in the first Council of Constantinople (381).

Although the term ἐκπορεύομαι is certainly inspired by John 15:26, St. John is not using it in the technical sense that the Greek Fathers applied to it (especially St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory Nazianzen). This is important to keep in mind, because the Latin versions of the Gospel of John (both the so-called Vetus Latina and St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate) translated the word ἐκπορευόμενον in that passage with qui procedit. However, the Latin verb procedo is slightly different in meaning from the Greek verb ἐκπορεύομαι (albeit sufficiently similar to be a correct translation when the terms are used in their common, non-technical senses).

I think it would be a mistake, therefore, to infer from the fact that St. John uses the verb ἐξέρχομαι instead of ἐκπορεύομαι in John 8:42 that he is making a theologically precise distinction between his own procession and that of the Holy Spirit. (Etymologically, both verbs mean essentially the same thing: to come from something. See below.)

The technical meaning of ἐκπόρευσις and τὸ προϊέναι

Greek Trinitarian theology makes a distinction between ἐκπόρευσις and something that the Greek Fathers call τὸ προϊέναι.

The difference can actually be seen from the way the terms are formed: ἐκπόρευσις comes from ἐκ (from, out of) and πορεύομαι (to go or come), and thus means “coming from something.” On the other hand, τὸ προϊέναι comes from πρό (forward or before) and εἶμι (to go—not to be confused with εἰμί, to be, which lacks the circumflex accent) and means “going forth.”

Hence the notion of ἐκπόρευσις always contains a reference to the original sender, so to speak, whereas τὸ προϊέναι makes no such reference.

I like to make the following analogy: suppose that the President of the United States sends a letter to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Naturally, he sends it though his secretary of state. Who is the original sender of the letter (from whom does it “ἐκπόρευται”)? The President alone. But who did the sending (τὸ προϊέναι)? Both the President and the Secretary of State.

What can be (and historically has been) a source of confusion, especially between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, is that the Latin Fathers (for various historical and linguistic reasons) generally fused the two concepts of ἐκπόρευσις and τὸ προϊέναι into a single generic notion that they called processio (from which the English term comes, evidently).

For a good and accessible overview of the distinction between ἐκπόρευσις and τὸ προϊέναι and the Latin processio, see a document called “the Greek and Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit.”

Procession in the Holy Trinity

The theological problem that gave rise to Trinitarian dogma is that the Scriptures make it clear that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct subjects: in the terminology of Trinitarian dogma, distinct Persons or Hypostases.

On the other hand, the Scriptures also make it clear that all three Persons are perfectly and equally God. (I realize that there have been important challenges to this view, but it is the one that the Church Fathers were working with when they were formulating Trinitarian dogma.)

The Scriptures are also unequivocally monotheistic, and the Church Fathers knew from philosophy that God‘s essence or substance must be utterly unique, simple, undivided, and indivisible. To use the technical term, the Son and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father.

Jesus, whom John identifies as the Divine Word or Son (see John 1:1-15), claims to come from the Father, as we saw, and sent from the Father (see., e.g., John 20:21). How can the Divine Word be consubstantial with the Father and yet also be from the Father? Because the Father communicates His Divine Essence to the Son. (And the Son receives the very same Essence as the Father, entirely, and without division.)

The Greek Fathers (especially those in Alexandria of Egypt) termed this communication of the Divine Essence τὸ προϊέναι.

The Father, through the Son, also eternally communicates His Essence to the Holy Spirit; hence that communication may also be termed τὸ προϊέναι.

The Greek Fathers (in order to combat Manichaeism and similar dualistic systems) made a great effort to emphasize the so-called monarchy of the Father: the fact the He is the unique and ultimate Principle or Cause. That idea is connected with the term ἐκπόρευσις, which concerns these same communications of the Divine Essence, but always refers to their ultimate origin: namely, the Father.

As I mentioned, the Latin Fathers essentially fused the notions of τὸ προϊέναι and ἐκπόρευσις into the single concept of processio, but the same thing can be said: the Son proceeds eternally from the Father alone, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (or, equivalently, from the Father through the Son).

(Note that it is incorrect to say that the Holy Spirit ἐκπόρευται—i.e., has His ultimate origin in—the Father and the Son. It is, however, correct to speak of a τὸ προϊέναι of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.)

The short answer

The short answer to the original poster‘s question is that the Son does indeed proceed from the Father (whether you mean ἐκπόρευσις or τὸ προϊέναι), just as the Holy Spirit does. The difference is that the Son receives the Divine Essence from the Father alone, whereas the Holy Spirit receives the Divine Essence from the Father through the Son.

If by “procession” we mean what the Greek Fathers termed ἐκπόρευσις, then we must affirm that the Holy Spirit has His ultimate origin (ἐκπόρευται) in the Father alone. (This is what the Greek version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed affirms: τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον.)

If, however, we mean τὸ προϊέναι, then we must affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds (πρόεισι or procedit) from the Father and the Son. (This is what the Latin version of the Creed affirms: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.)