Is there any ancient or modern connection between the word "sin" and the sport of archery? I recently learned that in the Bible, the word "sin" comes from Hebrew and Greek words that mean "missing the mark".

In the Faith section of my local newspaper, a minister recently said:

  The word “sin” is an archery term in the ancient Greek. It means, “you missed”. It’s what a slave boy might have said to his master during target practise. “Sin” means we have missed the mark when it comes to making right moral choices in life.

I mildly enjoy word studies, and that one seemed cool, so I dug in a bit to find out more about that.

After digging through some of the mountain of blog posts written by Christians and Christian archers on the saying, I learned about the Greek word "hamartia" (means "to miss the mark"). However, although every blogger said something similar to what the pastor in my newspaper said, and there were a lot of cool stories, in all of the blogs I read I couldn't find any link or reference to the phrase ever having actually been used in archery anciently or modernly. It was just stated as if it was true. So I took a look at the Wikipedia article for Hamartia.

After reviewing that and a couple other sources, it seems that sin is not actually an archery term. But I can't get through the mountain of blog posts to confirm if I'm on track. There's too much information - I don't want to spend days on only a mildly interesting word study.

So I thought I'd ask here if anyone happens to know more or might happen to ask Google a better question. Is there actually a connection between the word "sin" and the sport of archery? Or did some excited Christian or Christian archers just connect these dots between the definition of the word and their sport, decide it was true, share it, and it caught on?

If this question is more appropriate for another site, I'm happy to move it there. The Sports SE just didn't seem like the right place, there is no Etymology SE, and beyond that the question's topic seems it might be at home in Christianity SE, History SE, and Linguistics SE fairly equally. I thought I'd ask here first since Christians are the ones that actually use the comment.

Idioms are notoriously difficult to translate, since they are specific to the language of origin and may cause confusion when translated literally. One example is the expression “to miss the mark” (from the meaning of the Greek word hamartia in Luke 1:77; John 1:29; 1 John 3:4). It is worth noting what 1 John 3:4 says about sin:  “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness” (NIV).  True, the Greek word ‘hamartia’ has been linked to the expression “to miss the mark”:

Strong's Concordance: hamartia: a sin, failure:
Original Word: ἁμαρτία, ας, ἡ
Definition: a sin, failure
Usage: prop: missing the mark; hence: (a) guilt, sin, (b) a fault, failure (in an ethical sense), sinful deed.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon: STRONGS NT 266: ἁμαρτία: ἁμαρτία, (ας, ἡ (from 2 aorist ἁμαρτεῖν, as ἀποτυχία from ἀποτύχειν), a failing to hit the mark (see ἁμαρτάνω. In Greek writings (from Aeschylus and Thucydides down). 1st, an error of the understanding (cf. Ackermann, Das Christl. im Plato, p. 59 Anm. 3 (English translation (S. R. Asbury, 1861), p. 57 n. 99)). 2nd, a bad action, evil deed. In the N. T. always in an ethical sense   https://biblehub.com/greek/266.htm

However, we do well to go further back in time and take a quick look at the Hebrew meaning of sin.  During the Greek Mycenean Period Moses was attributed as being the author/compiler of the Pentateuch, which includes the book of Genesis where the first mention of sin as a noun is recorded:

The first mention of sin as a noun is a zoomorphism, with sin (hattath) crouching at Cain's door (Genesis 4:7). The first as a verb is Abimelech being prevented from sinning (khata) against God in a dream.
Hebrew has several other words for sin beyond hata, each with its own specific meaning. The word pesha, or "trespass", means a sin done out of rebelliousness. The word aveira means "transgression". And the word avone, or "iniquity", means a sin done out of moral failing. The word most commonly translated simply as "sin", hata, literally means "to go astray." Just as Jewish law, halakha, provides the proper "way" (or path) to live, sin involves straying from that path.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_sin

The generic Hebrew word for any kind of sin is ‘avera’ which literally means “transgression.”  The article goes on to describe the three levels of sin and is well worth reading.
I mention this to emphasise the point that biblical sin means a transgression against the law of God.  The Greek idiom not only “misses the mark” but it doesn’t even get close to the target!  As a description of biblical sin, it is wholly inept.
Back to your question asking if the Greek word ‘hamartia’ can be linked to archery.  You have discovered that “Hamartia as it pertains to dramatic literature was first used by Aristotle in his Poetics.”   I have to agree with your conclusion that “it seems that sin is not actually an archery term.”  The Greek word may lend itself to “missing the mark” but not so with the Hebrew.  Interesting word search, though.


The chronology of Genesis in relation to language Based on the following verses...

Genesis 10:5
(From these the maritime peoples spread out into their territories by their clans within their nations, each with its own language.) The Hamites

Genesis 10:31
These are the sons of Shem by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations.

Genesis 11:1
Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.

...can we assume (or is it simply a fact) that Genesis is not chronological?

Genesis 10, called the Table of Nations, gives a long list of the various descendants of Noah and his sons. Christians debate whether we are to understand the various nations as actually being named after Noah's grandsons and great-grandsons or whether they're just representative, but as a whole that's what it indicates. Chapter 10 is not a narrative, it is a genealogy, like chapter 5 before it, and chapter 11:10-32 after it, and more after that.

Chapter 11:1-9, the story of the tower of Babel, is a narrative explaining how the languages were confused and the descendants of Noah dispersed.

Each genealogical section in Genesis is in order, as are all its narrative sections, however these different genres overlap in what they cover. Whether you want to call that "non-chronological" is up to you.


What "fundamentalist" beliefs are most commonly rejected by "moderate" Christians? On this site there is plenty of information about what the "official" doctrines of various denominations are, but I doubt that the majority of Christians follow all of these to the letter.

Have there been any studies done to identify beliefs taught by a denomination, but which are widely ignored or not given much weight by its members?

An example would be self-identifying Catholics who use contraception.

To avoid the "no true scotsman" fallacy, consider a member of a denomination to be anyone who identifies themselves as such.

I'm mostly interested in protestant views, but interesting examples from other groups are also welcome.

The hardest part in this answer is to distinguish Evangelicals from Fundamentalists, who share the same doctrines, but a different culture.

The Fundamentalist movement itself takes it's name from a set of books called "The Fundamentals," published in 1925 as a reaction to modern liberalism in church polity. It basically called for a return to literal interpretation of the Bible and an increased focus on holiness. After the humiliating press from William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes Monkey Trial in the same year, the movement also advocated a complete separation from and rejection of the culture. This has the practical result of demphasizing missions in most truly fundamentalist churches.

In the 1950s, Carl Henry, Billy Graham, and others reacted to this gap by telling fundamentalists they needed to reenage the culture- the foundation of evangelicalism. And, with Roe v Wade in the 1970s most remaining fundamentalists came to believe that engagement in politics was necessary.

Since Fundamemtalism itself is a movement and not a denomination, it is not possible to speak of doctrines or polity (though in effect most are Baptists in these matters) but rather culture and emphasis.

Primary distinctives are thus Literal Interpretation of the Bible, a rejection of theologically liberal learning (especially of the late 1800s) and a call to be separate from the culture.


In Common Priesthood, what will be our sacrifice? In Catholicism, we believe every baptized Christian participates in the common priesthood (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1547). A priest offers sacrifice to God. In that case what will be the sacrifice in common priesthood?

While it's true that it's the role and prerogative of the ordained priest to offer the sacrifice of Calvary on behalf of the people, the Mass is full of instances showing that it is also the people's Sacrifice (in the context of the Mass, the Sacrifice is Christ's once-for-all Sacrifice, mingled together, or rather offered together, for the greatest effect, the sacrifice(s) of believers consciously united with His): what makes the ordained priest unique is the exclusive ability to confect the Eucharist, something laity cannot ever do, in addition to his right as priest to perform the Sacraments (excepting Baptism and Matrimony, only a priest can perform the Sacraments technically speaking).

A representative example of this concept of the 'united effort' of priest as leader, and laity as united with him as their representative head, is found in the old Latin Rite (essentially Mass in the West for most people for most centuries in the history of the Western part of the Church, up to around 60 years ago and the introduction of the new Mass, with slightly different wording): "Pray, brethren, that my sacrifice and yours [ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium] may be acceptible to God the Father Almighty."

In this sense, laity, all believers, are also priests!

Except you perhaps mean outside the context of the Mass (the Sacrifice).

The priesthood of all believers refers to the fact that offering to God in sacrifice is inherently and historically a priestly act (and not only within Christianity). It is in this context that our prayers and personal penances, good works, and anything which can be "offered up" to God, essentially, is viewed as sacrifice.

  Hebrews 13:10-16 (DRB) We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle. 11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the holies by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. 12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate. 13 Let us go forth therefore to him without the camp, bearing his reproach. 14 For we have not here a lasting city, but we seek one that is to come. 15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise always to God, that is to say, the fruit of lips confessing to his name. 16 And do not forget to do good, and to impart; for by such sacrifices God's favour is obtained.


Is it possible to describe Christian lifestyle? I just finished reading the book "Living a Jewish Life," which explains the lifestyle practices that Jewish people generally follow, regardless of their faith or beliefs. It discusses the holidays and the milestones in ones life without any reference to liturgy.

For example, it explains that, in the lead-up to Rosh Hashana (Jewish New Year), people send cards, resolve conflicts, and reflect on the past year. Then, during the holiday, people eat apples and honey to symbolize the hope for a sweet new year.

I have searched for a similar look at Christianity, without reference to liturgy, but haven't found anything.

Is it possible to describe Christian lifestyle, values, and practices without emphasis on faith? If not, why not?

Given that there are over 2 billion Christians and only 14 million Jews, there is considerably more diversity in Christian lifestyle and practice compared to Jewish lifestyle. That said, the Wikipedia article on Christianity summarizes the commonalities that most Christians practice in their life, which identify them as Christian.

Belief in the statements of faith described in one or more creeds. The Apostle's Creed is the most commonly accepted, which includes statements about:

The Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)
Jesus Christ, who died and was resurrected
Life after death

Reverence for the Bible as the inspired word of God
Participation in communal worship, most commonly every week on Sundays (the day of the week that Jesus was resurrected)
Participation in sacraments, the two most commonly recognized being baptism and holy communion
Celebration of holidays in relation to faith, such as Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost (some have these as part of a liturgical calendar)
Reverence for symbols, such as the cross (Christian aniconism is rare)
Prayer, with the Lord's Prayer being archetypical since Jesus gave it as an example of how to pray

There are certain exceptions to these traits (e.g. New England Puritans considered themselves Christian, but did not celebrate Christmas). However, I would say that the vast majority of active Christians would follow these aspects in their lifestyle, thus it can broadly be considered a "Christian" lifestyle.


Did Paul recognize Peter as the earthly leader of the Church? By suggestion this is a re-posting of one part of a multipart question.

Paul appears (under inspiration of the Spirit) indifferent to whatever reputation may have been ascribed to James, Peter, and John. Galatians 2:6 - "And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me."

If Paul recognized Peter as the highest authority why say 'seemed to be influential' and 'makes no difference to me'?

Galatians chapter 1 is a declaration supporting the authenticity of Paul as a servant of Christ (verse 10) sent by God to preach Christ to the Gentiles (verse 16).  Three years after Paul’s dramatic conversion, he went to Jerusalem and stayed with Peter for fifteen days (verse18).   Fourteen years later Paul returned to Jerusalem to speak with “those who seemed to be leaders” about his revelation to preach to the Gentiles (Chapter 2, verse 2).

Galatians 2:7-9 shows that Paul recognised Peter as an apostle and a servant of God:

  For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.  James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognised the grace given to me.

However, he nowhere suggests that Peter has the highest authority within the church.  Later, when Peter came to Antioch, there was a serious difference of opinion between Peter and Paul.  Had Paul recognised Peter as the earthly leader of the Church it seems unlikely that he would have opposed him to his face (verse 11).  But no, he accused Peter of hypocrisy.

The conclusion of the matter is that Paul did not give in to Peter.  In Galatians 6:12 Paul condemns the Judaisers of trying to make a good impression outwardly in order to avoid being persecuted.  The only authority Paul recognised and submitted to was the authority of Christ Jesus, who is the one and the only head of his church:

  And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.


According to Catholic doctrine, do our fallen, finite nature and our relationship with God set us up for abusive relationships in this life? We are created in the image and likeness of God, and are therefore acting in accordance with our true nature when we strive for self-emptying love, as we imitate God and Christ in so striving.

However, because we are finite and fallen, and subject to original sin, it is impossible for us to love in the way that God, who is infinite, loves. We suffer terribly because of this inadequacy.

According to Catholic doctrine, does our continuing to try to give in this way predispose us to abuse by others in this life because we give too much of ourselves, even when our intention is to give to God by giving to others? Abused partners caught in abusive relationships have a quality of never turning from the abuser, despite all of the pain given by the abuser to the abused. There is a great danger of seeing an abusive relationship as a sort of martyrdom.

What is the Catholic Church's position on abusive relationships? Does the Catholic Church teach that partners should stay in abusive relationships and continue to love the abuser because we are called to find God (the Other) in the other, and as a martyrdom in the footsteps of Christ? Or are abusive relationships manifestations of our trying to love another person as though that person were God, which is some form of idolatry?

I would appreciate an insightful answer on this topic, to see if Catholic doctrine can clarify things.

The Original Poster raises a number of related questions, which have to do with the nature of love and how that applies to human relationships (in particular when they are abusive).

From the outset, it is important to note, as freethinker26 states, that the Catholic Church does not condone or otherwise encourage abusive relationships. In reality, such relationships are a distortion of authentic love, and indeed, authentic supernatural love tends away from such relationships, not toward them. Anyone who finds himself in a situation that places either himself or others (e.g., children) in danger is perfectly within his rights to separate from his spouse, and—if the danger is grave enough—may even be obligated to do so.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states candidly:

  Yet there are some situations in which living together becomes practically impossible for a variety of reasons. In such cases the Church permits the physical separation of the couple and their living apart. The spouses do not cease to be husband and wife before God and so are not free to contract a new union. In this difficult situation, the best solution would be, if possible, reconciliation. The Christian community is called to help these persons live out their situation in a Christian manner and in fidelity to their marriage bond which remains indissoluble (No. 1649).

In this same passage, however, the Church teaches that a valid marriage—however abusive one of the spouses has become—remains a marriage, and so the victim should not regard himself as free to marry someone else. (He may, of course, begin the process to investigate the marriage’s nullity: more often than not, the emergence of abusive behavior is a sign of a deeper problem, one likely to have produced circumstances that rendered the exchange of matrimonial consent impossible.)

(Note that reconciliation is recommended when that is possible; in the case of grave and persistent abuse, it is generally not possible.)

The effects of the Fall on married love

To answer the O.P.’s other questions, it is important to understand the effects of the Fall of Adam on mankind. Our First Parents enjoyed sanctifying grace—the gift of friendship with God and adoptive sonship—as well as various praeternatural gifts, including precociousness of the intellect, strength of the will, immortality, and freedom from suffering. The principal effect of the Fall was the rupture of man’s friendship with God—that is, the privation of sanctifying grace. This rupture is by far the most grievous effect of Adam’s sin, and it continues to be what constitutes so-called Original Sin nowadays.

The effect of this rupture with God is that they could no longer love supernaturally: either God or each other. In other words, together with sanctifying grace, they lost the theological virtue of charity.

Moreover, our First Parents also lost the praeternatual gifts: their intellects were darkened, their wills became weaker, and they became particularly prone to sin.

In Baptism, Christians regain sanctifying grace, friendship with God, and the ability to love supernaturally—hence Baptism is the remedy for Original Sin. However, they retain the loss of the praeternatural sin and the tendency to sin.

(Regarding the Fall of Man, see CCC 396-409; regarding sanctifying grace, see CCC 1996-2005.)

The effects of the Fall on marital love

The combination of these losses is at the root of all disorders in marital love. We can see the First Parents began to have marital trouble immediately after their Fall:

  Your desire shall be for your husband,
      and he shall rule over you (Gen. 3, ESV).

Although the Scriptures speak of obedience of a wife to her husband, the authority exercised by the husband was never intended to be tyrannical—the husband is not supposed to rule his wife. Consider, for example

  Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Eph. 5:22-25).

and also

  For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does (1 Cor. 7:4).

In this last passage St. Paul is speaking about the marital act, and recommends that, generally speaking, spouses should generously give each other their conjugal rights. More broadly, however, it establishes the principle that, although there is a difference in authority between the spouses, it is never an absolute or tyrannical authority, but one founded on Christ’s love for the Church. Indeed, the spouses have, in a certain respects, a reciprocal authority over each other.

Clearly, abuse of any kind is out of the question; it is inimical to marriage as God intended it. Abusive relationships, in fact, arise when marital love is lived out in a disordered way; in no way do they stem from authentic Christian love.

(Regarding marriage under the regime of sin, see CCC 1606-1608.)

Authentic supernatural love, and how it should be lived out in marriage

Fallen man is conceived and born, as I mentioned, deprived of sanctifying grace. That deprivation not only makes it impossible for him to love supernaturally, it produces a tendency in him to sin. In short, fallen man is unable to control his appetities—his tendency towards things that are good in and of themselves—which leads him to neglect greater and more important goods.

Thus, for example, an unfaithful spouse might seek the thrill and pleasure of a new love affair, while sacrificing the far greater good of faithful marriage.

Baptism remedies the privation of sanctifying grace and restores us to friendship with God. Hence, although it does not remove all the effects of that privation (we will retain the troublesome tendency to sin all our lives), the baptized have the strength they need to overcome their sinful tendencies and, more importantly, acquire the ability to love God supernaturally and to love their neighbor for His sake.

It is important to understand, therefore, that authentic Christian love does not consist in a self-emptying for its own sake. It entails self-emptying, certainly, but for the sake of allowing God to act in our souls. In the words of St. Paul,

  I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me (Gal. 2:20).

That is the goal that we strive for. Indeed, Christian love consists not so much in giving ourselves to others (certainly not “too much of ourselves”) as in giving Christ to others. And we do not have the strength to do that under our own power: it is something that only God can do in us when we have sanctifying grace. (Regarding Christian love, or charity, see CCC 1822-1829.)

Marital love is no different. Christian spouses are called to love one another with supernatural charity. That certainly entail some self-emptying on the part of each spouse, as the spouses will inevitably have differences in tastes, opinion, and habits, and—more importantly—each spouse will inevitably offend the other in some way, hence requiring loving forgiveness from the other spouse.

A marriage lived out in this way does not lead, as such, to an abusive relationship. Both spouses have a responsibility to love the other with the love of Christ (even if, as Paul reminds us, the husband has a special responsibility to love his wife as Christ loves his church; and the wife has a special responsibility to obey her husband as the Church obeys Christ). Neither spouse is free to take advantage of the other selfishly.

A marriage lived out in faith and authentic love is hence the greatest protection against abusive relationships that we have.

How this squares with abusive relationships

What happens, however, when—because of the free choices of one or both of the spouses—there is a breakdown in marital love? What happens when one spouse begins to abuse the other?

It is important to realize that authentic Christian love does not oblige a person to endure dangers to his own safety or to the safety of others. On the contrary: grace and supernatural love exist in order to protect the integrity of the person. If a person is living in a situation that is objectively and gravely harmful to himself, or to those under his care, then he is certainly permitted, and may even be obliged, to flee from it.

There are extreme cases in which a person is permitted to risk his life or some other grave harm, but they occur only when some other, much greater good is at stake. For example, a person offered a choice to renounce his faith or suffer martyrdom is justified in choosing to suffer martyrdom (CCC 2473); similarly, because of the imminance of the the danger, a person may choose to risk his own life in order to save someone else in danger of drowning.

However, remaining in an abusive relationship is not one of those cases. Although marital unity is a great good, it has already been gravely transgressed by the offending spouse. By leaving such a situation, the injured spouse is not instigating a new rupture; he in only acknowledging one what already exists. (Separation, in any case, does not dissolve the marriage.)

Conclusion

Based on the discussion above, I will now answer the O.P.'s questions succinctly and address his concerns.

It is true that, because of Original Sin, we are unable to love as we ought. However, we must not underestimate the power of sanctifying grace, which we receive at Baptism (and the grace that spouses receive in the Sacrament of Matrimony). Those graces actually restore our ability to love as we ought. Moreover, it is our doing: when we love authentically, it is Christ who loves in us.

Authentic Christian love does not consist as such in emptying ourselves or giving in to others. Rather, it consists in allowing ourselves to be full of Christ, and giving him to others. We have nothing to give to God or others, unless He first gives it to us.

Remaining in an abusive relationship is absolutely not the same thing as martyrdom. With martyrdom, one’s life is weighted against a vastly greater good: namely, the Faith. However, those remaining in abusive relationships (although evidentlywe must never judge them harshly) are choosing to endure sufferings for the sake of a good that has already been, to some degree, ruptured. If the abuse is grave and sustained, they have every right (and possibly an obligation) to flee from it.

Although the abused spouse is entitled to flee from the situation, he is still called to love even his abuser. However, love must be understood here to mean supernatural love, not the feeling of love. Supernatural love entails desiring what is best for the beloved, and it does not necessarily entail feelings of any sort. No one blames the victim of abuse for having feelings of disgust or even hatred toward his abuse, but he is nevertheless called to rise above those feelings. Authentic love will lead him even to forgive his abuser.

Note that forgiveness does not mean returning to an abusive spouse (and, in fact, in most cases, returning would not be advisable). It does entail desiring what is best for him: his repentence and conversion, as well as his eternal salvation.

Finally, I think it would be mistake to say that those who remain in abusive relationships are committing idolatry. Although they will not find God, certainly, in the abusive behavior of their spouses, neither are they trying to offend Him. Abused spouses suffer terribly, and so they are not really in control of their situation. They are badly in need of help (if possible, professional counseling). In other words, they tend to remain in the relationship for psychological, rather than moral, reasons: it is not so much their free choice, as their dependence on the other, that keeps them there.


What has the LDS Church (Mormons) historically taught about the Curse of Cain and dark skin? I have heard that people with black skin had been denied certain things in the Mormon Church until the past 30 years or so and that this has something to do with the Curse of Cain.  What has been the historical teaching of the LDS Church regarding the Curse of Cain and dark-skinned people?  What are the references in the Book of Mormon and other Mormon Scriptures that address this issue?

Here is more context for some verses from the Book of Mormon, the first quote shows the curse, and the effect of it, so they became dark-skinned and lazy.  The problem is that this can then be extended to shape prejudices against anyone because of their skin color, but, the last two quotes shows that discrimination based on color is wrong, and all from the Book of Mormon.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/2_Nephi#5:21

  21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of
  their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become
  like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that
  they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come
  upon them. 22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto
  thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. 23 And cursed shall be the seed of
  him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And
  the Lord spake it, and it was done. 24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they
  did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for
  beasts of prey.

When you come back to God and do what is expected then this curse is lifted:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/3_Nephi#2:15

  12 Therefore, all the Lamanites who had become converted unto the Lord
  did unite with their brethren, the Nephites, and were compelled, for
  the safety of their lives and their women and their children, to take
  up arms against those Gadianton robbers, yea, and also to maintain
  their rights, and the privileges of their church and of their worship,
  and their freedom and their liberty. 13 And it came to pass that
  before this thirteenth year had passed away the Nephites were
  threatened with utter destruction because of this war, which had
  become exceedingly sore. 14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites
  who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; 15
  And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like
  unto the Nephites; 16 And their young men and their daughters became
  exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were
  called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.

Another section showing that others may get the curse due to their wickedness:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/Alma#3:18

  14 Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he
  said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a
  mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and
  thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of
  their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them. 15
  And again: I will set a mark upon him that mingleth his seed with thy
  brethren, that they may be cursed also. 16 And again: I will set a
  mark upon him that fighteth against thee and thy seed. 17 And again, I
  say he that departeth from thee shall no more be called thy seed; and
  I will bless thee, and whomsoever shall be called thy seed, henceforth
  and forever; and these were the promises of the Lord unto Nephi and to
  his seed. 18 Now the Amlicites knew not that they were fulfilling the
  words of God when they began to mark themselves in their foreheads;
  nevertheless they had come out in open rebellion against God;
  therefore it was expedient that the curse should fall upon them. 19
  Now I would that ye should see that they brought upon themselves the
  curse; and even so doth every man that is cursed bring upon himself
  his own condemnation.

When you try to be consistent with the BoM then cherry-picking to justify prejudices is going to happen, as God isn't going to discriminate based on skin color for example.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/2_Nephi#26:33

  33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that
  which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it
  be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come
  unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come
  unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he
  remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and
  Gentile.

And here the believers are commanded not to hold these against others since the believers should reflect on the filthiness of their own souls. This is similar to "Him who has no sin cast the first stone", IMO.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/Jacob#3:8

  7 Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their
  husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; and
  their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity
  of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the
  sight of your great Creator? 8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye
  shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours,
  when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. 9
  Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God,
  that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their
  skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their
  filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember
  that their filthiness came because of their fathers.

So, it is easy to see how people could pick some verses and make some decisions that enforce their own biases, but that is due to ignoring other verses, so the blame is not on the BoM but on those that did the cherry-picking.


Is Jesus the Father? I think that Jesus is the Father himself. The Father became man and as man he renounced his divinity, therefore there are Bible passages where it seems that Jesus is not God.
And that is why I don't believe that there is a Triune God.

This may be a ridiculous example, but when I play a video game and control a character, then I take on a new role, I who is in the real world is still me, but in the world of the game, I am another "person".
Maybe it's like Jesus, Jesus is the character of God in this world.
Is this way of thinking wrong?

Let us answer your question as being about what most Christians believe.

The vast majority of Christians are Trinitarian. They believe that Jesus and the Father are separate (though both persons of God).

The main reason for this is the many occasions where Jesus refers to the Father as separate from himself (e.g. Mt 10:32, Mt 16:17, Mt 20:23, Mk 8:38, Mk 13:32,  Lk 10:22, Jn 1:14, Jn 3:25, Jn 16:32) and addresses the Father (e.g. Matthew 11:25, Mk 14:36, Lk 22:42, Lk 23, Jn 11:41, Jn 12, Jn 17).


Omniscience, Omnipotence and Modern Science God, according to most disciplines of Christianity, is thought to be All-Powerful, All-Knowing and Everpresent. The first two however seem to Juxtapose with everything we know about the natural world. For instance, things are described by sets of variables, like the orientation of a tennis ball, it's mass, how fast it's going, where it is etc yet on the smaller scales, there's a fundamental fuzziness to Nature which means that things don't exist in those sort of states at all, but have distributions. And moreover, if something like how fast something's going is narrowed down to a very small range of values, it's scattered randomly over a far larger section of space. It would seem fundamentally impossible for knowledge of these things simultaneously to exist at all, let alone be continually known by any presence, given what implications that holds [knowing one of the variables inevitably leads to affecting the other, conjugate variable, meaning that it would be continually messing around with the distributions of every system in the universe].

How do you reconcile this / argue against this with Christianity?

There is nothing to reconcile, and I will illustrate it in two manners.

God the Almighty

Christians believe that God is transcendent. He is not bound the universe. He is not described by physics. The uncertainties described by quantum physics are no different.

You have already recognized Christianity recognized God as Almighty. Even if we gloss over that whole creatio ex nihilo thing and stick to just to a couple of Christ's miracles, we see that Christians already believe that God is not bound by the laws of physics.

Feeding of the 5000

  One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to Him, "There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two small fish, but what are they among so many?" Then Jesus said, “Make the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. And Jesus took the loaves, and when He had given thanks He distributed them to the disciples, and the disciples to those sitting down; and likewise of the fish, as much as they wanted. So when they were filled, He said to His disciples, "Gather up the fragments that remain, so that nothing is lost." Therefore they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten. [John 6:1-14 NKJV]

How is that to be understood under the laws of physics? Start with two small fish and five loaves of bread. Feed 5000 people and still end up with twelve baskets of bread. Conserving matter and energy does seem to limit God.

Walking on Water

After feeding the 5000, what does Christ do for an encore? Walk on water:

  Therefore when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone.
   Now when evening came, His disciples went down to the sea, 17 got into the boat, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was already dark, and Jesus had not come to them. Then the sea arose because a great wind was blowing. 19 So when they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus walking on the sea and drawing near the boat; and they were afraid. But He said to them, 'It is I; do not be afraid.' Then they willingly received Him into the boat, and immediately the boat was at the land where they were going.  [John 6:16-21 NKJV]

Again, this is completely unacceptable to physics. For the sake of argument, let's say that God isn't required to obey the law of gravity. We could write a book full of the miracles of God (I think maybe that may have already been done), all illustrating that God is not bound be the laws of physics.

Physics is limited

In asking how can God know position and momentum at the same time, you have made a categorical error. Physics, like all science, is limited to describing what can be observed. Physics has no basis for observing the way God's knowledge works. Assuming that God must make observations, that He must interact with creation is without basis. Attempting to predict the outcome of God's actions, God's knowledge using physics is logically flawed. You can not draw a conclusion without first satisfying the premises.

Addressing a comment

You commented:

  Probably, but the bits we know, we know. And to all intents and purposes [even if just to play Devil's advocate] you should accept that things don't have definite position or velocities. How does that work with Omniscience however is my question

Again, there is nothing to reconcile. If things don't have definite position or momentum, then not knowing a definite position or momentum is not a challenge to omniscience. If you like, you can just assume that God groks the full evolution of the universe in whatever physical model you like.


Did Luther say he "might well have entrusted the whole affair of this [Eucharist] controversy to [Calvin] from the beginning"? I've seen this quote in various internet discussions, and until recently, was only able to trace it back as far as the 1990s. However, the earliest English version of the story that I can find is from the 1851 book The Life and Times of John Calvin, the Great Reformer, Volume 2, by Paul Henry, pages 97-98. In the following, Henry appears to be quoting (not merely paraphrasing) the story from another source:

Calvin's book [A Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper], thus far translated into Latin by Galasius, appeared again in 1545 and was brought to Wittenberg. On the Monday after Quasimodogeniti, when Dr. Luther had finished his lecture on Genesis, upon which he was still engaged, he proceeded to the shop of the bookseller Maurice Goltschen, who had just returned from the great Easter fair. Luther welcomed him home, and continued in these words: 'Well, Maurice, what good news is there at Frankfort? Do they wish to burn the arch-heretic Luther?'
Thereupon Maurice replied, 'I have heard nothing thereof, honoured sir; but I have brought with me a little book, which John Calvin wrote some time ago in French, on the Lord's Supper, and which has been lately republished in Latin. It is said of Calvin, that he is a young but a pious and learned man. In this little book he seems to have shown in what respect your reverence, and both Zwinglius and Oecolampadius have gone too far in your controversy on this subject.'
As Maurice Goltschen did not express himself very well, Luther answered quickly, 'Give me the book, friend!' The bookseller immediately gave him an octavo copy, stitched up. Having taken it in his hands, Dr. Luther sat down and read the first three leaves after the title, and then the last four and a half to the end. These he read with particular attention, and at last said, 'Maurice, this is certainly a learned and pious man, and I might well have entrusted the whole affair of this controversy to him from the beginning. I confess my part. If my opponents had done the like, we should soon have been reconciled, since it only needed that Oecolampadius and Zwinglius should have thus explained themselves, to prevent the controversy from proceeding to such lengths.'
This was heard by Matthias Stoius, who was one of the numerous students by whom Dr. Luther was then surrounded. He was at that time a boarder in his house, but subsequently became a doctor of medicine, and was appointed private physician to the old duke of Prussia. The story was repeated in the presence of many of the nobility of the archduke Albrecht.

What is the ultimate source of the story? Did Luther actually express this sentiment about Calvin at any time?

Original source
Henry's quote is verbatim from Christoph Pezel's 1590 book Außführliche, warhaffte und bestendige Erzehlung, and he mentions Pezel in a footnote to the paragraph prior to the story. Many sources indicate that the story originates with Pezel.
Credibility
I found a few historians who weighed in on whether the story was credible or not.
Paul Henry says in The Life and Times of John Calvin that the story bears "all the internal signs of truth" and "is wanting in none of the outer."
Julius Kostlin says in Theology of Luther in Its Historical Development and Inner Harmony Part 2 (pg. 191):

Under these circumstances [the cooling of Luther's attitude toward Bucer], there is no internal improbability in the report, that he greeted with rejoicing the tract upon the Lord's Supper which Calvin had meanwhile published, although it is open to question in how far Pezel's account of this incident is trustworthy.

Johann Karl Ludwig Gieseler concludes that the story is credible while discussing a different but related matter in A Text-book of Church History: A.D. 1517-1648 (The Reformation and its Results to the Peace of Westphalia) (pg. 414 n. 43):

As Luther at this time [1539] must have known the Institutions of Calvin, it follows, from the declarations of this letter, that he was then satisfied with his [Calvin's] doctrine upon the Lord's Supper; and, besides, it also fully agreed with that to which the Swiss had declared assent to Luther in 1536. Thus the avowals of Luther about Calvin are trustworthy, given by Christoph. Pezel.

Brian Gerrish hedges on whether the story is reliable, in The Old Protestantism and the New (pg. 286 n. 53):

Mülhaupt ("Luther und Calvin," p. 103) suspects this story of being a mere embellishment of the incident Calvin reported to Farel in his letter of 20 November 1539, where, as we have seen, the writing in question is not identified. But this is mere guess-work, and the story may well be authentic; Pezel relates it with attention to details and also names the witness (one of Luther's table companions) from whom the incident is derived. On the other hand, it is quite plain from two passages in the Table Talk that Luther's attitude toward Calvin in the closing years of his life was a mixture of respect and suspicion: W.A.Tr. 5.51.19 (no. 5303) and 461.18 (no. 6050).

Calvin's letter to Farel and the two Table Talk passages will be discussed briefly below, in the "Luther on Calvin" section.
Rudolph Hospinian also told the story (more briefly) in his History of the Sacraments (1598), though I was only able to find a Latin version and I couldn't locate the story in that edition. Gerrish (on the page quoted above) and Erwin Doumergue say he was an independent reporter, but Gieseler thinks he borrowed it from Pezel. Says Doumergue (Jean Calvin, pg. 573 n. 1):

Hospinian has not borrowed from Pezel because according to his method, he would have cited the main passages verbatim. They probably had two different sources.

It's worth noting also that Pezel was a Lutheran who was under suspicion for much of his life of being a crypto-Calvinist on the sacraments, and Hospinian was Swiss Reformed, so he was either Calvinist or Zwinglian on the sacraments.
Luther on Calvin
Gerrish has elsewhere written an overview of Luther's statements on Calvin, titled "Luther and the Reformed Eucharist: What Luther Said, or Might Have Said About Calvin." James Swan has written a helpful summary of Gerrish's article at his blog post "Luther and Calvin... Friends or Enemies?"
Since Mülhaupt (mentioned above) believed that the incident in question was an embellishment of a claim Calvin makes in a letter to Farel, it makes sense to quote part of Gerrish's treatment of the letter here:

In a letter to Guillaume Farel, dated 20 November 1539, Calvin reports that Luther has asked Bucer to greet his young French associate for him: "Will you pay my respects (salutabis reverenter) to John Sturm and John Calvin. I have read their little books with singular enjoyment." We can forget about John Sturm for the moment. Calvin exclaims with evident delight: "Just think what I say there about the Eucharist! Consider Luther's generosity (ingenuitatem)! It will be easy to decide what reason they have who so obstinately disagree with him." Calvin goes on to say that Philipp Melanchthon has confirmed the good news of Luther's high regard for him, and has instructed the letter-carrier to deliver an oral message, which Calvin reports in these words:

Certain persons, to irritate Martin, pointed out to him the aversion with which he and his followers were alluded to by me. So he examined the passage in question and felt that he was there, beyond doubt, under attack. After a while, he said: "I certainly hope that he will one day think better of us. Still, it is right for us to be a little tolerant toward such a gifted man." We are surely made of stone [Calvin comments] if we are not overcome by such moderation! I, certainly, am overcome, and I have written an apology (satisfactionem) for insertion into my preface to the Epistle to the Romans.

...
The intriguing question is, of course: What book of Calvin's had Luther read "with singular enjoyment"? ... The case for ... the Reply to Sadoleto, it seems to me, is clinched by the fact that the Luther's request to Bucer—"pay my respects to John Sturm and John Calvin," etc.—is followed immediately by the caustic remark, "As for Sadoleto, I wish he would believe that God is the creator of men even outside of Italy."

Swan's and Gerrish's links also contain a brief discussion of the Table Talk entries on Calvin, among other things.
Note on sources
I am indebted to Nathaniel's answer for its alternate translation, which (via Google) was my gateway to Gerrish, who in turn was my gateway to all the rest of my sources.


Are blessed secular objects categorically lower than or different from traditional sacramentals like altars, priest vestments, etc.? Every Thursday in the National Shrine of St. Jude Thaddeus Manila, students of various universities nearby go to Mass. After Mass, the priest comes out with his holy water and sprinkles it on the mass-goers. Students would then break out their notebooks, their pens, their pencils, their laptops, etc., and hold it up high so it would catch some holy water.

The students do this at least once in a semester during their exam periods, before defending their papers, etc., believing that when they use these now-blessed objects during review, exam, or thesis defense, they would have God's Grace (not necessarily have good luck) when they attempt to pass their academic requirements.

Take note that they are having the priest bless objects that are secular, that had been used for secular purposes, and that will be used for secular purposes.

Assuming that this method does bless their school stuff, are these categorically lower than the "normal" blessed sacramentals, such as chalices, priest vestments, and rosaries?

I am asking for the Church dogma/doctrine standpoint, please, if it applies. Thanks!

The ritual the O.P. is describing is a typical blessing of ordinary objects, of which there are many examples in the Shorter Roman Ritual, for example. (Keep in mind that there is no set “rite” for blessings of this kind—the ritual is indicative, not binding.)

The blessing of a “normal” object does not turn it into a sacramental or (better said) a sacred object. Only an object destined to specifically religious use becomes a sacred object. (I am not aware of any specific Church law regarding this, but this is clearly how the rites of blessings treat such objects.)

Such a blessing (i.e., of school supplies) is not really intended to increase one’s chances of passing an exam (I am afraid that there is no substitute for studying), but rather reflects the fact that even “mundane” goods such as these are, ultimately, given to us by God. It is a way of giving thanks to Him, and of placing potentially difficult circumstances (e.g., exams) into His hands.


How do Leslie Weatherhead's views on the will of God compare to contemporary Baptist thought? I am reading Leslie Weatherhead's collection of sermons on 'The Will of God' from a book of the same title (ISBN: 9 780687 074822 published by Abingdon Press).

He looks at God's will in three ways -

God's intentional will which he sees as God's ideal purpose,
God's circumstantial will which he sees as God's will in the circumstances which evil has set up, and
God's ultimate will which he sees as God's final purpose to bring about his original will overcoming evil completely.

I would really like to know how Weatherhead's views on the will of God compare to contemporary Baptist thought on the same subject - specifically the views of mainstream British Baptists who are part of the Baptist Union of Great Britain. Are Weatherhead's and British Baptists' views compatible?  Are they at odds in certain aspects, and if so which? Are they very different?

Weatherhead pointed out that the New Testament never refers to Jesus as God and neither did Jesus refer to himself in this way. Jesus called himself the Son of Man and the Word. To say that Jesus was the "only begotten son" of God would be an impossibility, as such information is not presently available

The King James Bible stated in John 10:25-30 *even to the end of the chapter, and I quote:

"25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30 I and my Father are one".*

"They being one indicates that Christ is God incarnate in the flesh"

Any and all teachers then or now, are only as good as the translation they use, if it is the Syrian text he does well . . . if it is the the Alexandrian (Egyptian text) it is . . . well you get the idea.


Is Paul making an oath in Galatians 1? Several times in the New Testament, we are told not to make oaths but to make simple statements of affirmation or denial. For example...

  Matthew 5:33-37 (NIV)

      33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

  James 5:12 (NIV)

   12 Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple “Yes” or “No.” Otherwise you will be condemned.

However, near the beginning of Paul's letter to the Galatians, he seems to make an oath himself.

  Galatians 1:20 (NLT)

  20 I declare before God that what I am writing to you is not a lie.

Sadly, no reference to a cake, but anyway, it seems like Paul is making an oath based on God Himself. How can these passages be reconciled?

Oaths generally refer to something you will/won't do. We are unable to control what will happen in the future, and therefore don't know if we will be able to keep that oath ("you cannot make even one hair white or black"). Paul, in this situation, was writing about what already happened. He already experienced it so he knows it is true. He doesn't need to have control over anything but his hand (or the hand of his scribe) so he can know he is keeping his "oath." This is why I believe there is nothing wrong with Paul's statement, but it still may very well go against Jesus' teaching because Paul wasn't perfect.

In applying it to our lives, I believe we should avoid making statements such as Paul's even if we know it to be true since we are to give God our best rather than flirt with the line of right and wrong.


Different interpretation of salvation I understand "knowing Jesus" as understanding Jesus who accepts the Cross, ie reasons why He did it and the suffering He took upon himself. And when I accept Him, I accept that suffering, ie I accept the possibility of the same burden to receive salvation. I can't comprehend letting someone suffer for me. I feel evil accepting His suffering for mine. I don't know if that is wrong since protestants claim I should accept (legally) his sacrifice or I go the hell. That is my core belief. Maybe it's the God complex or my ego. But I really want to understand this. Simply, my intuition prevents me from blindly believing that I have to just accept His sacrifice and be happy that he is suffering for me and not me. How can I stand in front of Him without shame after that?

There are many theories of the atonement, that is what exactly Jesus did for us that saves us, and what exactly he saves us from. Many of them can be true simultaneously.
See https://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/
These are the major ones:

Moral Influence Theory : Jesus set a good example for us to follow
Ransom Theory : Jesus is the ransom paid either to Satan or to God to buy our freedom
Christus Victor : Jesus defeated evil, sin, death & the devil (no payoff)
Satisfaction Theory (Anselm) : Jesus paid our debt to God to satisfy justice
Penal Substitutionary Theory (Calvin, Luther) : Jesus paid our debt by receiving punishment we deserved
Governmental Theory (Methodism) : Jesus paid the debt of the church to show us how serious sin is, but not in an exact sin-for-sin way
Scapegoat Theory : complicated, but Jesus is victim, not sacrifice

In the Book of Job, that suffering man drew up a list of the things a savior would have to do to rescue him. Among them were to pay his ransom ("For I know that my Redeemer lives", Job 19:26), defeat death and evil, and purify him morally (make him like pure gold). This encompasses the first three theories.
The theory you seem to be wrestling with is Penal Substitutionary Atonement. This is a key contribution of the Protestant Reformation. Not all Christians accept it (though I do). However, whichever version you subscribe to, you need to take into account the following:
The Garden of Gethsemane

38 Then he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death;
remain here, and watch with me.” 39 And going a little farther he fell
on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let
this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”
(Matthew 26:38-39)

If a perfectly Holy and obedient Son (Jesus) asked his perfectly Loving and Holy and infinitely powerful and wise Father (God) if there was another way to get the job done, then if there were such a way, the Father would have allowed His son to take it. That didn't happen. Any such alternate way would involve us cleaning up part of our own mess and us enduring the suffering we justly deserve. Could we even make the interest payment on such a debt?
The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant
In the parable, a king forgives a servant a debt of ten thousand talents of gold. In modern terms, that is about 3.5 billion USD. In ancient terms, it was several times the annual budget of the entire kingdom of Israel. Before God, our debt is that huge. Whatever theory of atonement you pick, you owe something you can never repay.
Suffering is more than you understand
I spent two years straight studying Job. From it I learned that suffering is more than punishment, judgment, and retribution. Suffering from God is love and it is a form of communication by which our Father imbues us with His Spirit, His wisdom, and His power. I found that in the cries of Job before God spoke to him from the whirlwind, while he was debating his worthless friends, were revelations from God. Even as Job was saying that he could not see God, could not hear his voice, that God was far off from his cries for help, Job was pouring forth oracles of wisdom that came from heaven. I discovered nine prophecies of the Christ in Job's speeches which covered the Lord's ministry from beginning to end and identified the messiah as both human and divine. Those nine prophecies were arranged in chronological order. Through this suffering, Job was receiving the Word of God into him so that it could be shared with the world. Job was a type of Christ. We all must be broken by suffering. Jesus is like a jar of perfume or a balm. The jar has to be broken so that the curative can be poured on our wounds. And we must be broken like a syringe breaks the skin to administer the vaccine to our bodies.
The Bread of Life
Jesus said that he was the bread of life. When you eat bread, it keeps you alive. You are preserved. The bread is consumed.

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me
shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36
But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All
that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I
will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my
own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of
him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given
me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my
Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should
have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
41 So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, “I am the bread
that came down from heaven.”

After Jesus called himself the bread of life, a lot of people left him. On some level they could not accept that they needed someone to do that much for them to rescue them and pay such a heavy price. Common responses are:

I am not that bad a person. I don't need such a dramatic rescue.
I can do it all by myself.
I will do part of the job because that is fair. I'll call you later when I need help.
I am such a bad person, I don't deserve it. No way anyone would ever do that for me.

They are all forms of pride.


Who is "I" in Isaiah 44:6 I want to know who is "I" in Isaiah 44:6 in a view point of Trinity;

  The LORD is Israel’s king and defender. He is the LORD of Armies. This is what the LORD says: I am the first and the last, and there is no God except me.

I am tempted to think "I" is the Godhead of Trinity. But I am not sure the Godhead of "One Essence" of Trinity is the right concept to be able to speak like this. It seems to me that this act of speaking is more appropriate to a Person of Trinity. But then he says "no god besides me" and so I am confused.

Thanks in advance!

The reference to "the first and the last" is a conscious echo of Isaiah 41:4:

  Isaiah 41:4: Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.

Isaiah 41:4 is, in turn, part of a narrative about the Creator -- the first person of the Trinity --  as we see in Isaiah 40:28:

  Isaiah 40:28: Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

In verse 44:24 the narrative again reminds us that it is God, the creator of all things, who is talking:

  Isaiah 44:24: Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

The importance of "no God beside me" is not a denial of the Trinity but of paganism.  Most biblical scholars regard Isaiah chapters 40-55 to have been written during the Babylonian Exile by an anonymous prophet now known as Second Isaiah to distinguish him from Isaiah, son of Amoz. It was during this period that the priesthood began to assertively declare that there is only one God.


Christianity and Usury from a Historical perspective It is safe to say that the Old Testament prohibits usury?
Jesus followed the Law and as a rabbi he would have also prohibited it.
It seems that the Church banned usury until roughly the 18th Century.

Are these statements correct from a historical perspective?

You point appears to be partly correct.  Jesus would not have endorsed usury, but that particular doctrinal point (given that most people Jesus taught at the time were already aware of OT law) may not have arisen due to common practice being in general accordance to the OT law.  There is a reasonable treatment from the Catholic Point of View in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Usury, the following points arise:

  The New Testament is silent on usury.
  Until the fourth century all that can be inferred from the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers is that it is contrary to mercy and humanity to demand interest from a poor and needy man..they simply protest against the exploitation of misfortune, and such transactions as, under the pretence of rendering > service to the borrower, really threw him into great distress."
  The 12th canon of the First Council of Carthage (345) and the 36th canon of the Council of Aix (789) have declared it to be reprehensible even for laymen to make money by lending at interest. The canonical laws of the Middle Ages absolutely forbade the practice.
  The {Eastern Orthodox}, at least since the sixteenth century, do not    consider the taking of interest on loans as intrinsically bad.
  For a long time civil law was in agreement with canon law; but as early as the sixteenth century, Germany allowed interest at 5 percent; in France, on the contrary, interest on loans was forbidden until the Decree of 2 and 3 October, 1789.
  The Holy See admits practically the lawfulness of interest on loans,    even for ecclesiastical property, though it has not
  promulgated any    doctrinal decree on the subject.


Poor defined as 'Any Poor' or 'Christian Poor' Context:

Proverbs 19:17

  He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again.

Luke 12:33

  Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth.

... and plenty of more examples ...

In the Bible, when the Bible speaks of giving to / helping the poor, is the poor referred to as:

(1) any poor person
or
(2) a poor person that identifies him/herself as Christian

I.e. according to the Bible, should Christians give to poor non-Christians?

The word Poor is a translation from another word or words used in either the Old or New Testaments. It appears 201 times in the Bible in 194 different Verses.

The word poor is a translation from both Hebrew and Greek, and actually is several words in both the Old and New Testaments. The exact meaning of the word poor is dependent on what the original word was. That being said your question appears to only be concerned with where it is used in relation to the status of people, So let's look at some verses and see just how it is used:

  Genesis 41:19 KJV And, behold, seven other kine came up after them, poor and very ill favoured and leanfleshed, such as I never saw in all the land of Egypt for badness:

Here the word can in no way refer to Financial depravity since a Kine is a cow.

  Leviticus 14:21 NKJV  "But if he is poor and cannot afford it, then he shall take one male lamb as a trespass offering to be waved, to make atonement for him, one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil as a grain offering, a log of oil,

Here the word poor does in fact refer to the person's lack of earthly riches however:

  Matthew 5:3 NKJV  "Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Here the word translated poor can only refer to a man's Spiritual wealth. These are only examples but it shows that the word poor in translations into English, are dependent on what particular word was used in the original manuscript and the particular circumstance in which it is used.

  Matthew 11:5  The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them.

Here the word poor could be understood to refer to either or even both.

So in answer to your question, it is necessary to take the surrounding verses, and possibly the entire chapter, or even the whole book into consideration in determining the meaning of not only the word poor, but many other words used in modern translations. When you get to the point of trying to exact the meaning of certain words it necessitates that you study and not just read the Scriptures, and even then it is sometimes necessary to search out the original word in either Hebrew or Greek in order to fully understand what is being conveyed. Even after many years of studying the Bible there is much that still perplexes me.

Hope this helps.


Why did Israel under Moses take a longer route to Canaan? Following is an excerpt from http://free.messianicbible.com/holiday/crossing-red-sea-god-brings-us-long-way/

"When Moses took the Hebrew children out of Egypt, he could have taken a direct route and made it to Canaan in a little more than a week, even though he was shepherding over two million men, women and children.  Of course, we know that was not the route taken.He took them the long way, a route that was indirect and involved the need for yet another miracle: the parting of the Red Sea so that the Israelites could cross on dry ground..."

My question is : Why did Moses go in for a longer route than was actually required for Israel to cross the desert on their way to Canaan. What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell on the issue ?

The account in the Bible book of Exodus gives the answer. Chapter 13 verse 17 begins to explain the wilderness detour, and I quote from the New Living Translation:

"When Pharaoh finally let the people go, God did not lead them along the main road that runs through Philistine territory, even though that was the shortest route to the Promised Land. God said, 'If the people are faced with a battle, they might change their minds and return to Egypt.' So God led them in a roundabout way through the wilderness toward the Red Sea."

They themselves were totally inexperienced in warfare, so when they saw the Egyptian army chasing after them while they were trapped by the Red Sea, they were panic stricken and knew they could not even defend themselves. That was when they witnessed God fighting on their behalf, in spectacular and miraculous fashion! God displayed his glory and they did not have to lift a finger - Moses only had to lift his arms! Thereafter, they experienced God's miraculous provisions of food and water in the wilderness. God was teaching them to trust him. Yet chapter 16 verse 2 describes how they complained at God, a developing pattern as time went by.

Even by the time God knew they were ready to do battle to enter the Promised Land, it was their continued lack of trust (faith) in him that caused God to send them back into the wilderness, for forty years! The ten spies had spent forty days checking out the land of Canaan, with only Joshua and Caleb urging the nation to enter. So God decreed that for every day spying, they would spend a year in the wilderness. The reason for that length of time was for the generation who lacked faith to enter to die off. Only their children (plus faithful Joshua and Caleb) finally entered the Promised Land. Read Numbers 14 vss 26 to 35.

It wasn't Moses who directed the routes for their wilderness wanderings. The pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night determined where they were to go and for how long they had to stay camped. This was God directing the route. See Exodus 13 vss 21 to 22.

Catholic scholar Benedict Schwank agrees with the biblical account of this early period in Israel's desert wanderings. He writes, "In the wilderness the tribes, who were once in bondage, feel themselves to be the chosen people of God. Henceforward Israel is conscious of being the vassal people of Yahweh... From now on Israel and Yahweh are united by a sacred covenant... Henceforward this practical monotheism sets Israel apart from all other peoples of the Near East. Although it is uncertain which route the people took at the exodus from Egypt, there are sound reasons for believing that the crossing of the Red Sea took place at the southern end of the Salt Lakes." (Encyclopedia of Theology pp 1096-7, edited by Karl Rhaner, Burns & Oates, 1981)


Was the 1914 prophecy (derived from the book of Daniel) ever mentioned in any newspapers before World War I? This question is about the time period of 2520 years derived from the book of Daniel and the calculations that that period ended in 1914.

There is this other question that states that this calculation was used in the March 1880 Watch Tower magazine to identify the year 1914 as the time for the close of “the appointed times of the nations”.

Also the answer to that question brings out some other people who had come to similar conclusions even earlier than 1880. So it looks like 1914 was identified, at least in some circles, as a somehow special year decades before it arrived.

What I wanted to know is whether any evidence exists outside of Jehovah's Witnesses literature, such as articles in public newspapers from late 1800's or early 1900's, that talk about this prophecy regarding the year 1914?

I have some newspaper articles although only a couple of the ones I have are the type that they are written by the newspaper's journalists.

One I have is a letter to the editor (in defense of Charles Russell) and other one is one of those "Pastor Russell Sermons" that some newspapers carried.

The "Pastor Russell Sermon" titled, "Overturned Until He Come" was published in the Twin Falls News on August 31st, 1911.

In this article he refers to the 2520 years ending on October 1914. The paragraph under the subtitle "The Time of the Gentiles" in the second column states:

  When God removed the typical kingdom of Israel and His typical throne
  in the world, He gave over the earthly dominion to the Gentiles; and
  this lease of power, as represented in Daniel's prophecy, was to
  continue for "seven times" - 2,520 years. In other words, during the
  same period that Israel would be having "seven times" of tribulation
  and subjection, the Gentiles would be having "seven times" of
  prosperity; and both will terminate at the same time - in 2,520 years
  from G.C. 606 - October, A.D. 1914.

This sermon is shown in the image below.

Another article is from The Lima Daily News, dated March 28th 1914. This article was written to address what some minister was saying in Canada that the world will end (as in "the earth will get destroyed") in 1914. This article also appeared in The Newark Daily Advocate on March 23rd, 1914.

I have copied some of the text below to provide a gist of what he wrote about world's end and 1914:

First column, second paragraph onward:

  I was prompted in the selection of my text for today by reading an
  extract from the sermon of a Canadian minister delivered recently. In
  it he declared that 1914 would witness the Second Coming of Christ,
  etc. His statement allowed for the inference that he holds the view
  common to nearly all the creeds; namely, that the earth is to be
  burned up and the human race blotted out; and that, incidentally,
  Christ will come a second time, to see that none of the Church are
  included in the destruction.

  Mistakes of Dark Ages Being Corrected.

  To my understanding, all such expectations are wholly unscriptural,
  untrue, misleading, and hindrances in the right understanding of the
  Bible.

Fourth column, end of first paragraph onward:

  If we have the correct date and chronology, Gentile Times will end
  this year - 1914.

  What of it? We do not surely know. Our expectation is that the active
  rule of Messiah will begin about the time of the ending of the of
  power to the Gentiles. Our expectation, true or false, is that there
  will be wonderful manifestations of Divine judgments against all
  unrighteousness, and that this will mean the breaking up of many
  institutions of the present time, if not all.

This article is shown below.

I also had two that were written by the newspapers after the war had already started (Wikipedia gives 28 July 1914 as the start date).

One of these, titled "End of all Kingdoms" was published in The World Magazine on August 30th, 1914. The other one, shown below, was in The Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette on October 4th 1914 (a thumbnail of this page can also be seen here).

As a side note, the interesting part of this article was the below statement (in the fifth column, second paragraph) but only because it seems that overall people did not expect a war to start that year, let alone one that turned to be a World War.

  And in 1914 came war, the war which everybody dreaded, but which
  everybody thought could not really happen.


What is the essence of sin? There are bound to be lots of questions like "Is X or Y a sin?". However, what is sin at its root and where in the Bible do we get our understanding of it?

Luther has famously argues that every time you break any other commandment, you always break the first commandment; in other words, behind every sin is the desire to worship a god other the God. Whether it is pride, in which we consider ourself to be God, or a sin of fear-of-man, in which we consider another person to be God, all sin is, at its core, idolatry.

When you see the essential problem as a worship issue, over against a breaking-of-commandments issue, I think several things are clarified.

Worship and idolatry addresses both the positive and negative sides. That is, when we do what is right, we are worshipping God (and conversely), and when we are not worshipping God, we are not doing what is right (and conversely).
Much of the Bible talks about idolatry, and seems a bit foreign and obsolete to modern ears. After all, we do not deal with Baal or Molech on a daily basis. However, when considering this as an example of our basic relationship with God, these passages become much more relavant. God is repeatedly enraged by his people worshipping idols and intermixing with other gods. Though we do not by and large bow down to physical idols made by hands, we do worship at the gods of money, power, etc.
The idolatry issues allows for a distinction between things that are good and created by God against things that ultimate for us. God gives us food, but we can be gluttons. God gives us sex but we find all ways to abuse it. Seeing sin as essentially idolatry allows us to have good things be God-centered, and not find abuse to be the only use we can comprehend.


Why was Paul allowed to write in jail? We know that Paul was held under some brutal conditions—his feet in stocks in one case. Yet he was still able to write many letters from prison. Was this during some of his "nicer accommodations", or did the ethos of the time allow visitors and outside contact (even as they tortured prisoners)?

In contrast, in the US, when someone has done something pretty offensive (murderers to terrorists), there are controversies about and often restrictions placed on their writings (esp. the ability to publish books, but sometimes more general limitations on outside contact, etc.)

First of all, Paul was the Roman citizen, and during his imprisonment he was been waiting for Caesar's judgment:

  (Acts 25:10-12) Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged (...) I appeal unto Caesar. Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go.

His crime was imputed to him not by Roman citizens, but by persons of occupied nation.

So, this wasn't just imprisonment as for ordinal criminal, but it was something like house arrest before sitting of the court. It was quite comfortable restraint of liberty, so Paul could even preach:

  (Acts 28:16, 30-31) And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the
  prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him. (...) And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received
  all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching
  those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence,
  no man forbidding him.


Comparison of church services between Church of Ireland and the Catholic Church I am Roman Catholic and what I would like to know is how does the Mass of the Roman Catholic Church differ from one in the Church of Ireland.

Sixty years ago this question would have been simpler. The differences were starker then, but also there was much less diversity within each denomination. Roman Catholic masses were in Latin, many parts were inaudible, and the participation of the  congregation was almost entirely passive.  Church of Ireland communion services were audible, in English, and  the congregation were expected verbally to join in more of the prayers. The Roman Catholic mass was always the Tridentine Mass and the Church of Ireland communion service was  very close to the liturgy of Archbishop Cranmer, with minor revisions. Neither had changed very much since the sixteenth century.

Today, the Roman Catholic church (normally) uses the "New Order" Mass produced after Vatican II, within which are several alternatives and options, including a choice between  four Eucharistic Prayers (four normally, but actually there are other options in particular circumstances). The Church of Ireland has two orders, a traditional one and a contemporary one. The traditional one (Order 1)is still very close to Cranmer, while the contemporary one (Order 2) is closer, in structure, to the Roman Catholic service. The contemporary one contains many flexibilities , options, "may say" rubrics and "or an alternative" rubrics. It offers a choice of three Eucharistic prayers.

This diversity makes it harder to say what is being compared with what.

In terms of "customer experience" such as style of music (if any), length of homily/sermon, availability of beverages, difficulty in refusing beverages etc., variation exists more within each denomination (and even services at different times in the same building) than it does between  the C of I and the RCC.

There are differences between the content and wording  of the RC mass and the Church of Ireland equivalent due to   different emphases  in doctrine between  Catholics and Protestants.  These can affect, for example,  the overall structure of the service, the  explicit sacrifice of the already consecrated bread and wine, praying to saints, the prayer about that the bread and wine  being for us the body  and blood, and prayers for the institutional church.

STRUCTURE - FIRST PART OF THE SERVICE

In the  RC mass the penitential rite is at the start, after the greeting. It may consist of a general confession followed by absolution and a Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy), or some alternative.  After this come the bible readings, the creed and the sermon or homily. Next up are the Prayers of the Faithful (also called the Universal Prayer, Bidding Prayers or Mass Petitions), which pray for the church and the world in general and/or  some specific persons or situations. Only after this  does  the Liturgy of the Eucharist itself begin.

In the traditional order (Order One) of  the Church of Ireland service the main penitential rite is not at the beginning of the service, but after the Universal Prayer. However, before the bible readings either the ten commandments, interspersed with the Kyrie Eleison (in English), are read out, or else Christ's summary of the Law from Matthew 22 vv  37=39 is read.

In Georgian times, particularly, the service would not proceed beyond the Universal Prayer, except a few times each year. These normally included at least  Christmas, Easter  and Whitsun. Even if the service was going to proceed many might leave the church at this point, only those intending to receive the bread and wine remaining. The invitation  or exhortation is quite  solemn, perhaps emphasising the belief that Holy Communion is not something to be undertaken lightly.

  Ye that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in
  love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life
  following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in His
  holy ways, Draw near with faith, and take this holy sacrament to your
  comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly
  kneeling upon your knees.

In the Order Two (Contemporary) C of I service the confession may be just after the reading of the Law, or later in the service,  and may take various forms. The reading of the commandments may also be interspersed with verses from the New Testament, generally giving a  New Testament positive matching the Old Testament negative. For example, "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is followed by "Let everyone speak the truth" (Ephesians 4 25).  Another option is for the Beatitudes  (Matthew 5) to be read at that point.

STRUCTURE - SECOND PART OF THE SERVICE

The highlight of the liturgy is the Institution Narrative in which the priest tells the story of the Last Supper. This includes the words of consecration "This is my Body" and "This is the chalice of my blood" and "Do this in remembrance of me".  There are  other prayers both before and after this. In the RC service, and in the Order Two C of I service, there are further prayers after the consecration and before the bread and wine are consumed. In Order One of the C of I the bread and wine is consumed immediately after the Institution Narrative.  This places a particular Protestant  emphasis on the idea that the sole purpose of consecrating the bread and wine is so people can eat and drink the Body and Blood, and not for any other purpose.

SACRIFICE OF THE CONSECRATED HOST

In the Roman Catholic mass what happens after the consecration, and a proclamation, is that the consecrated bread and wine, by now believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ, is offered to God. The wording varies between the different Eucharistic Prayers. The following is from Eucharistic Prayer One (the Roman Canon):

  we, your servants and your holy people, offer to your glorious majesty
  from the gifts that you have given us, this pure victim, this holy
  victim, this spotless victim, the holy Bread of eternal life and the
  Chalice of everlasting salvation. Be pleased to look upon these
  offerings with a serene and kindly countenance, and to accept them, as
  once you were pleased to accept the gifts of your servant Abel the
  just, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the offering
  of your high priest Melchizedek, a holy sacrifice and a spotless
  victim. In humble prayer we ask you, Almighty God, command that these
  gifts be borne by the hands of your holy angel to your altar on high
  in the sight of your divine majesty.

In the Church of Ireland services God is asked to  "accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving"  both in Order One,  and in Order Two Eucharistic Prayer One.  Eucharistic Prayer Two has only "we proclaim His perfect sacrifice made once for all upon the Cross".   In Order One the body and blood have already at that time been consumed, but in  Order Two they have been consecrated but not yet consumed.

A little later in the service Order One has we "offer and present unto thee ourselves, our souls and bodies to be a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice" whereas Order Two has, after the consumption, "Through Him we offer you our souls and bodies to be a living sacrifice".

In all the Church of Ireland versions there is a reference to Christ having already made the perfect sacrifice.

To summarise, in the Roman Catholic services the consecrated bread and wine is offered to God. In the Church of Ireland the congregation, after consuming the consecrated bread and wine, respond by offering themselves. (This last remark  refers to the words used in the services, not necessarily the full underlying eucharistic theology of either the RCC or the C of I.)

PRAYING TO SAINTS

In the Confession in the Roman Catholic Mass members of the congregation  ask  "Mary ever-Virgin, all the angels and saints and you my brothers and sisters" to pray for them.  In the Tridentine Mass the confession itself is addressed to God, Mary, Michael, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul,  all the saints and the priest, and these same saints  are also asked to pray for them.

In the Church of Ireland service saints are not spoken to.

In the RC Eucharistic Prayer One, and in the Tridentine, there is a prayer called the "Communicantes".  This is a prayer made  "in communion with those whose memory we venerate, especially Mary, Mother of our God and Lord, Jesus Christ, and blessed Joseph her spouse, your blessed apostles and martyrs, Peter and Paul, Andrew (and optionally 21 more saints) we ask that through their merits and prayers in all things we may be defended by your protecting help.

Eucharistic Prayer Three refers to the saints "on whose constant intercession in your presence we rely for unfailing help".

In the Church of Ireland service there is no reference to the merits or prayers of the saints, though in some versions there is a reference to the fellowship of the saints. Reliance on the merits or prayers of the saints is not considered a normal feature in Protestant practice.

PRAYER THE BREAD AND WINE WILL BE FOR US THE BODY AND BLOOD

This is part of the Eucharistic Prayer and so differs depending which version is used. This is sometimes called an epiclesis, that is an invocation of the Holy Spirit.

In the Church of Ireland Order One the prayer is

  Grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine
  according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in
  remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his most
  blessed body and blood.

In the Roman Catholic Eucharistic Prayer One (based on the Roman Canon of the Tridentine mass) the prayer is

  Make it spiritual and acceptable so that it may become for us the Body
  and Blood  of your most beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ.

Neither of these, Roman Catholic or Church of Ireland, specifically requests the involvement of the Holy Spirit (although if in fact  His involvement is necessary to the process, then it is implicitly requested). The Roman Catholic one envisages something being done to the bread and wine, whereas the Church of Ireland one is very unclear as to what, if anything,  must happen in order  that the Body and Blood may be partaken of. This reflects Protestant scepticism as to trans-substantiation, without (in this liturgy) specifically ruling it out, or defining what else might be involved.

In the other three Roman Catholic Eucharistic Prayers God the Father (who is being addressed in the Eucharistic Prayer) is asked to sanctify the bread and wine,  by means of  the Holy Spirit.

The  Church of Ireland Order Two Eucharistic Prayer One says

Grant by the power of the life-giving Spirit that we may be made one in your holy church and partakers of the body and blood of your Son.

This requests involvement of the Holy Spirit but whether He is expected to act on the bread and wine, or on the people, or both, or in some other way altogether, is unspecified.

The involvement and invocation of the Holy Spirit is regarded as very important by the Eastern Orthodox churches. If in some respects the Catholic and Protestant services are closer than they once were, in this respect there is something of a rapprochement with the East.

INSTITUTUIONAL CHURCH

Roman Catholic masses  contain, in the Eucharistic Prayer,  a prayer for the peace and unity of the church, with specific mention of the Pope and the bishop. Other prayers for the world and the church are often made in the Universal Prayer also called  Prayers of the Faithful.  In the Order Two Church of Ireland service similar prayers, which would not normally mention the Pope,  are made at the same point of the service  as the Prayers of the Faithful, which are called in the Church of Ireland service "intercessions". In Northern Ireland the Queen is normally mentioned, though not in the Republic of Ireland. There are several optional suggested patterns for the C of I Order Two intercessions which all mention bishops and clergy before the Queen (or in the Republic the President) and civil authorities, but these are only suggestions.

The Order One Church of Ireland service has its own Universal prayer which begins "Let us pray for the whole state of Christ's Church militant here in earth".  After praying that the universal church be inspired with the spirit of truth, unity and concord it continues

  We beseech thee also to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes
  and Governors; and especially thy servant Elizabeth our Queen, that
  under her we may be godly and quietly governed; And grant unto her
  whole council, and to all that are put in authority under her, that
  they may truly and impartially minister justice, to the punishment of
  wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and
  virtue.

(This is the version the C of I uses in Northern Ireland, there is a modified form for  use in the Republic.)

It continues:

  Give grace, O heavenly Father, to all Bishops and Curates, that they
  may, both by their life and doctrine, set forth thy true and lively
  word and rightly and duly administer thy holy sacraments.

This reflects a view of the institutional church, the bishops and clergy, as simply one facet of the Christian community, whose functions are preaching the word and administering the sacraments. In the worldview  expressed in Order One the civil authorities are no less  part of the church, and their particular functions are to ensure justice and to maintain true religion.   A lower view of the importance of the church hierarchy is common in Protestantism. The increase in secularism, and the growing presence of non-Christian religions, is perhaps  a challenge to such a view.

The Roman Catholic Mass (ordinary form can be seen here.

The Roman Catholic Extraordinary form with English translation can be seen here.

The Church of Ireland services are on this site but it is necessary to scroll down. Holy Communion One is Order One and Holy Communion Two is Order Two.

The Bishop of Down and Dromore, Rt Rev Harold Miller, who was involved in the C of I liturgical revisions of 2004, has written about them here.


Is there a scriptural support for "man are ‘half animal, half angel’"? The Philosopher and Critic of Christianity Ludwig Feuerbach wrote:

  “My only wish…is to transform friends of God into friends of man,
  believers into thinkers, devotees of prayer into devotees of work,
  candidates for the hereafter into students of the world, Christians
  who, by their own admission, are ‘half animal, half angel’ into
  persons, into whole persons.”

Is there an instance in the Bible when men are described as " ‘half animal, half angel’"?

There is a verse in Genesis that gives room for such interpretation:

"When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were
born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were
attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord
said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his
days shall be 120 years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those
days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the
daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty
men who were of old, the men of renown. The Lord saw that the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of
the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." — Genesis 6:1-5

So, based on this text, some interpret that the "sons of God" were angels, who had sexual relationship with women, thus giving birth to "half animal, half angel" creatures.

When we consider the context of this text we can better understand what Moses is explaining. In previous chapters we are given a glimpse of two competing lines, the godly line of Seth and the wicked line of Cain. Having established the antithesis in the garden, after affirming that there would be a constant struggle between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent we are given snapshot pictures of each of these armies.
We see Seth’s line about the business of exercising dominion, in submission to the Lord. We see Cain’s line dishonoring the law of God and making names for themselves. But the future is not mere co-existence between the two lines. The drama builds toward the great crisis of Noah’s flood right here in chapter 6. The great change, what creates the great downward spiral of humanity on the earth is that the two lines come together as one. That is, the godly line of Seth, the sons of God, seeing how attractive are the daughters of men, the wicked line of Cain, decide to take them as wives. The end result, however, isn’t mere dilution. It’s not that the now joined line becomes morally lukewarm, but that evil spreads, grows, deepens.
source

I hope this helps.
Blessings!