How does Jesus fulfill the Protoevangelium (First Gospel) in Genesis 3:15? In the judgment of the serpent in Genesis 3:15, God says the following:

  The Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, cursed
  are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your
  belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
  15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your
  offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall
  bruise his heel.  Genesis 3:14-15 ESV

Verse 15 has become known as the Protoevangelium, or "First Gospel".  How is this the first gospel and how does Jesus fulfill this prophecy?

Gospel means "good news." Understood rightly, this bit of news to Adam and Eve was certainly good news. The snake - the epitome of sin - had tricked Adam and Eve. Because of the snake (and their own sinful actions, of course) they were being kicked out of the garden. By trying to become like God, they had become like the snake - sinful and evil.
But God promises to put enmity between them and the snake. He would pull them apart from their wretched connection to sin and death. How?
A savior. A promise. Importantly, not Adam. Adam and Eve weren't going to get themselves out of this mess. Their offspring would. An offspring who would be born through the humiliating and painful process that God had just described to Eve a few verses back (the curse of the pain of childbirth). An offspring who would be injured by the snake (crushed on the heel) but who would, ultimately, crush the head of the snake.
What makes this the first gospel is of course the gold mine of promise beneath the metaphorical literary layer. The offspring of Eve would destroy the snake who brought Adam and Eve to sin and death, and in doing so separate them from that sin and death. He would undergo pain in the process, but it would be a trivial wound (on the heel) versus the mortal blow on the head.
Jesus was Eve's offspring, naturally. He was born to a virgin, was the son of a carpenter, born in lowly Bethlehem, placed in a manger, and raised in despicable Nazareth. He was born in a state of humility.
He was despised. He was beaten. He was killed on a Roman cross, the death for traitors and murderers. He temporarily went through Hell for his people. Satan had indeed bruised his heel, but that death had paid for the sins of his people.
And when Christ rose from the dead on the third day, he conquered death. He conquered the very thing Satan had brought into the world and brought back Adam and Eve to himself.

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Cor. 15:22


"Ask and you shall recieve" Can we ask for anything? I bet I've got it wrong but does "ask and thou shalt recieve" mean we can ask for anything and recieve anything? In which case, could I have a 'wish-list' of things I want glorified in heaven?

Like I said, I just KNOW I'm missing the point here. Having said which, surely it doesn't mean ask but make sure it's for something within this selection, otherwise why make the point at all? Being it was said by Jesus I'm guessing there was, not only a point, but a rather important one!!!

No, you cannot ask for anything and expect to receive it. You can only expect God to give you what you pray for if what you ask for is consistent with His will.

See 1 John 5:14-15

  14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask
  anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he
  hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

Don't expect God to give you what you ask for if what you ask for is not in His will.

From Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary (Emphasis mine)

  5:13-17 Upon all this evidence, it is but right that we believe on the
  name of the Son of God. Believers have eternal life in the covenant of
  the gospel. Then let us thankfully receive the record of Scripture.
  Always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that our labour is
  not in vain in the Lord. The Lord Christ invites us to come to him in
  all circumstances, with our supplications and requests,
  notwithstanding the sin that besets us. Our prayers must always be
  offered in submission to the will of God. In some things they are
  speedily answered; in others they are granted in the best manner,
  though not as requested. We ought to pray for others, as well as for
  ourselves. There are sins that war against spiritual life in the soul,
  and the life above. We cannot pray that the sins of the impenitent and
  unbelieving should, while they are such, be forgiven them; or that
  mercy, which supposes the forgiveness of sins, should be granted to
  them, while they wilfully continue such. But we may pray for their
  repentance, for their being enriched with faith in Christ, and
  thereupon for all other saving mercies. We should pray for others, as
  well as for ourselves, beseeching the Lord to pardon and recover the
  fallen, as well as to relieve the tempted and afflicted. And let us be
  truly thankful that no sin, of which any one truly repents, is unto
  death.


According to Trinitarian theology of Calvinism, was the Word (2nd person of the Trinity) missing from heaven when He (the Word) incarnated on Earth? What I mean with "missing from heaven" is something like this :
A. Only the first and the third persons of the Trinity were in heaven because the second person was on Earth.

Example:
Q : Where is the second person of the Trinity from 1 AD to 33 AD ?
A : On Earth in the flesh.
Therefore there is no second person of the Trinity in heaven.

Not "missing from heaven" is then something like this:
B. The first, second and third persons of the Trinity are still in heaven although the second person is at the same time on Earth.

Example:
Q : Where is the second person of the Trinity from 1 AD to 33 AD ?
A : On Earth in the flesh and in heaven just in spirit.

So, according to Trinitarian theology of Calvinism, was the Word (2nd person of the Trinity) missing from heaven when He (the Word) incarnated on Earth (John 1:14) or was He in heaven at the same time as He was on Earth?

Thank you.

Ah, the extra calvinisticum as it was derisively called by the Lutheran Reformers. The Reformed position is that although the Word is fully united to the human nature it could not completely contained by it.

The Belgic Confession discusses the two natures:

  We believe that by being thus conceived the person of the Son has been inseparably united and joined together with human nature, in such a way that there are not two Sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in a single person, with each nature retaining its own distinct properties. Thus his divine nature has always remained uncreated, without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth. His human nature has not lost its properties but continues to have those of a creature-- it has a beginning of days; it is of a finite nature and retains all that belongs to a real body. And even though he, by his resurrection, gave it immortality, that nonetheless did not change the reality of his human nature; for our salvation and resurrection depend also on the reality of his body.

The Divine nature was always filling heaven and earth. Note that this continues today with the locations reversed.

From the Heidelberg Catechism:

  Question 47 :Is not Christ then with us even to the end of the world, as he has promised?

  Answer: Christ is very man and very God; with respect to his human nature, he is no more on earth; but with respect to his Godhead, majesty, grace and spirit, he is at no time absent from us.

  Question 48: But if his human nature is not present, wherever his Godhead is, are not then these two natures in Christ separated from one another?

  Answer: Not as all, for since the Godhead is illimitable and omnipresent, it must necessarily follow that the same is beyond the limits of the human nature he assumed, and yet is nevertheless in this human nature, and remains personally united to it.

So, the Godhead is 'beyond the limits of the human nature' and 'omnipresent'. Today, while Christ's body has ascended to Heaven, his Godhead is still with us -- beyond the limitations of the body. Likewise, while he sojourned on earth, His Godhead was still (also) with the Father and Spirit.

Answer B

It should be noted that this idea is often identified with Calvin, it can be found in the Fathers as well.


How to reconcile both Outer Darkness and Unquenchable Fire as descriptions of Hell From the book "4 Views On Hell", edited by William Crocket (there is a second edition edited by Preston Sprinkle) I understand that until around the 16th century the traditional, orthodox view of the Christian Church regarding Hell has been one of literalism and that the metaphorical take on Fire, Darkness, and Suffering only began to gather momentum since then.
Among those denominations who hold that the "outer darkness" in Matthew 8:12, 22:13, and 25:30 are literal references to Hell, how is this reconciled with Hell's depiction as a place of unquenchable fire?  Is it a fire that gives off no light?

Jesus describes a 'great gulf' when he revealed something of the deceased condition of the rich man, separated by great distance from Lazarus, the beggar who once was left, daily, at his gate, who received nothing from him during life.
In the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, in 14:10-11, John reports the vision concerning the lake of fire :

... he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night ... [KJV]

So there is a great gulf between the justified and the wicked, but the wicked are punished in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb.
Thus a great gulf of darkness separates one from the other. The wicked, who worshipped the Beast and his image (Revelation 4:9) are, in comparison to the justified, in an outer and distant darkness . . .
. . .  where there is an unquenchable fire, and brimstone, and a smoke arising.
The holy angels, and the Lamb, who both have a spiritual existence that is not bound by dimension, are present at the place of torment : and also present (and there is the bodily presence of the Son of man) with the justified in the glory of New Jerusalem, the city of the Great King.
But the justified souls and the wicked souls, both raised in the general resurrection, are separated (the one from the other) by a vast distance of darkness.
So I would suggest that both descriptions ('outer darkness' and 'unquenchable fire') are true and are not incompatible.


Why such importance given to the hour of death? There is very importance given to the hour of death within the Catholic Church and maybe other Christian groups too.

Rosary contains:

  Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of
  our death.

Matthew 20:1-16 The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard also hints the importance of our last days before death.

There are other sacraments (confession, baptism, the anointment of the sick) that guarantee salvation if performed in the hour of our death.

Aren't we supposed to be judged by our whole life and not just what happens at the hour of our death? Should our whole eternity be based on what we did at the hour of death and pretend like our whole earthly life didn't matter?

So what is the importance or the Catholic teaching on the hour of death if we will be judged based on our whole life and not just that moment right before dying.

2 Corinthians 5:10

  For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that
  each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the
  body, whether good or bad.

TL;DR Important due to both Particular Judgment and Purgatory

The form of the question.

  Aren't we supposed to be judged by our whole life and not just what happens at the hour of our death? Should our whole eternity be based on what we did at the hour of death and pretend like our whole earthly life didn't matter?

As my answer will show, that isn't how it works.  Your "pretend that it doesn't matter" is a False Assertion imbedded into the question.

The text of the question assumes an answer in the asking of a question (which means the question itself is fallacious in nature). It comes across in this way: (1) I don't know (X), (2) nonetheless it seems to be this way, (3) so why is it this way?  This is not a well asked question anywhere, no less on an SE site.

Regarding the Hail Mary1

There are multiple questions answered on this site covering judgment from the Catholic point of view, to include this one here.  In summary, the Catholic belief is that when you die you face particular judgment right then (CCC 1021).  "When you die" is a time/event that can be called at the hour of our death if one chooses to use that turn of phrase.

It logically follows from Catholic belief that IF

We are to pray for others (we are, see CCC Section IV, Prayer)
And are praying for mercy (we may and should, see CCC, Section IV, Prayer)
And Mary is believed to be an intercessor for us (she is)
And in that office she may appeal to Jesus on our behalf (it is so believed)
And that Jesus is the one who judges us (He does, Please See the Nicene Creed generally and amplified in the CCC2)

THEN it is perfectly rational to make a prayerful appeal for anyone that, upon their death, Mary will intercede and appeal to Jesus to be merciful in judgment upon that person (or collectively to be merciful upon all of us sinners) "at the hour of death" during particular judgment.

  I. THE PARTICULAR JUDGMENT
  CCC 1021 Death puts an end to human life
  as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace
  manifested in Christ. The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily
  in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming,
  but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately
  after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the
  poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good
  thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny
  of the soul--a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

Each person is presumed to have sinned at some point in their lives, and thus at risk of damnation.  Not only is that a Catholic belief, it's raw Scripture:

  For all sin and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)

All are judged.

  CCC 1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at
  the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his
  life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through
  a purification or immediately, -- or immediate and everlasting
  damnation.
  - At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love. (~St. John of
  the Cross, Dichos 64.)

About the Sacraments

  There are other sacraments (confession, baptism, the anointment of the
  sick) that guarantee salvation if performed in the hour of our death.

This is an oversimplification that misses the point of Catholic belief and practice.  The one thing Christians do believe is that Baptism does indeed wash away sin, and Catholic belief goes further to aver that one is in a state of Baptismal Grace upon receiving the sacrament of Baptism.  This state removes all sin to include the stain of original sin.

First: Baptism, from which the other sacraments follow.

Baptismal grace is necessary, indeed it is the precondition, for salvation.
Second: Confession.  (CCC 1440-1460 The Sacrament of Penance and
Reconciliation).

Every time a Catholic goes to confession and receives absolution by completing the sacrament of penance and reconciliation, they are restored to the state of baptismal grace.  That, in a nutshell, is the gift of this sacrament.  The general teaching/rule is that a Catholic should be doing this at least once per year3.  (This is often called "Easter Duty").  The encouragement to go to confession monthly is a common position taken by clergy.  So no, you don't wait until "the hour of your death" to reconcile your sins if you follow the teachings of the Church.  It's like car maintenance, but maybe better called "soul maintenance."
Third: The sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick CCC 1449-1532

Particularly for those near death, this sacrament combines three things when performed in full:

Confession and Absolution (restoration of Baptismal Grace, see above)
Healing / Blessing / Spiritual Strengthening
Viaticum (Receiving the Eucharist)

Fourth: Purgatory

Purgatory is believed to be where any residual stain/effects of sin are purified/cleaned away so that the soul may at long last enter the presence of God, into whose presence no impurity may enter.   Put another way:

  Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance
  with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment
  for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely
  free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due
  to their transgressions.

Back to your question

  Aren't we supposed to be judged by our whole life and not just what
  happens at the hour of our death?

According to CCC 1021/1022 and the above, we are indeed so judged on the whole.   IF, regardless of our receiving baptismal grace, making regular confession, and even receiving absolution on our death bed, we still have the residual stain of sin THEN we require further purification upon receiving our particular judgment, which occurs "at the hour of our death."

Put bluntly: No, it isn't like nothing else ever happened.

1Louis de Montfort made further comment on the risks to our souls at the hour of our death.

  (Article 58. "Pray for us now," during this short life, so fraught
  with sorrow and uncertainty; now, because we can be sure of nothing
  except the present moment; now that we are surrounded and attacked
  night and day by powerful and ruthless enemies.

  "And at the hour of our death," so terrible and full of danger, when
  our strength is waning and our spirits are sinking, and our souls and
  bodies are worn out with fear and pain; at the hour of our death when
  the devil is working with might and main to ensnare us and cast us
  into perdition; at that hour when our lot will be decided forever and
  ever, heaven or hell.

  Come to the help of your poor children, gentle Mother of pity,
  Advocate and Refuge of sinners, at the hour of our death drive far
  from us our bitter enemies, the devils, our accusers, whose frightful
  presence fills us with dread. Light our path through the valley of the
  shadow of death. Lead us to thy Son's judgment-seat and remain at our
  side. Intercede for us and ask thy Son to pardon us and receive us
  into the ranks of thy elect in the realms of everlasting glory.  {snip}
  103. Then the devils started screaming:
  104. "Oh, you who are enemy, our downfall and our destruction, why have you come from heaven to torture us so grievously? O advocate of
  sinners, you who snatch them from the very jaws of hell, you who are a
  most sure path to heaven, must we, in spite of ourselves, tell the
  whole truth and confess before everyone who it is who is the cause of
  our shame and our ruin? Oh, woe to us, princes of darkness.
  {snip}
  We have to say, however, reluctantly, that no soul who has really
  persevered in her service has ever been damned with us; one single
  sigh that she offers to the Blessed Trinity is worth far more than all
  the prayers, desires, and aspirations of all the saints. We fear her
  more than all the other saints in heaven together, and we have no
  success with her faithful servants.

2 II. To Judge the Living and the Dead

  678 Following in the steps of the prophets and John the Baptist, Jesus announced the judgment of the Last Day in his preaching. Then will the conduct of each one and the secrets of hearts be brought to light. Then will the culpable unbelief that counted the offer of God's grace as nothing be condemned. Our attitude to our neighbor will disclose acceptance or refusal of grace and divine love. On the Last Day Jesus will say:
  "Truly I say to you, as you did it to one > of the least of these my
  brethren, you did it to me."(Matthew 25:40)
  679 Christ is Lord of eternal life. Full right to pass definitive judgment on the works and hearts of men belongs to him as redeemer of the world.  He "acquired" this right by his cross. The Father has given "all judgement to the Son". Yet the Son did not come to judge, but to save and to give the life he has in himself. By rejecting grace in this life, one already judges oneself, receives according to one's works, and can even condemn oneself for all eternity by rejecting the Spirit of love.

3 The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) had mandated, "Every faithful of either sex who has reached the age of discretion should at least once a year faithfully confess all his sins in secret to his own priest. He should strive as far as possible to fulfill the penance imposed on him, and with reverence receive at least during Easter time the sacrament of the Eucharist." For good reason, this mandate became simply known as "the Easter duty."


Why did Joseph only present five brothers? After Joseph and his brothers were reunited, Joseph presents only five of his brothers to Pharaoh.

Genesis 47:1-2
New International Version (NIV)
47:1: Joseph went and told Pharaoh, “My father and brothers, with their flocks and herds and everything they own, have come from the land of Canaan and are now in Goshen.”
2: He chose five of his brothers and presented them before Pharaoh.

Why only five? Why not all?

Biblical Commentary by Clarke gives us some reasons of why Joseph might have chosen only 5. Two of them are:

Joseph took five of the meanest-looking of his brothers fearing that Pharaoh would detain them for his service, whereby their religion and morals might be corrupted.
Joseph took five of the best made and finest-looking of his brethren and presented them before Pharaoh, wishing to impress his mind with a favorable opinion of the family which he had just now brought into Egypt, and to do himself honor.

My personal opinion is that as Joseph he wanted his brothers to stay in a fertile land in Egypt. He asked them to state to the Pharaoh that their job is to tend livestock. Livestocks are naturally kept in a fertile land during a famine. But the problem is as Joseph himself states, in Gen 46:34, that shepherds are detestable to the Egyptians. So he took only half of his fathers sons so that not to make the Pharaoh detest them.
Or Joseph might have been afraid that if he brought forth all of his 11 brothers at once, the Pharaoh might find them intimidating and Joseph might lose his favor.
In the next verses we also see that Jacob visits him separately. Probably that could be a royal custom to meet a Pharaoh in small groups.
In his commentary Clarke  also continues to say that in Judges 18:2, the word extremity (מקצה miktseh - the word which also appears in Joseph's selection of his brothers) may be understood as implying dignity, valor, excellence, and per-eminence. It is probable they might have followed what Joseph did here because the mission was important.
Here is the full text of Clarke's Commentary on the Bible for Genesis 47:3.


What exactly is "Ordinary Time" in the Catholic Church's liturgical calendar? In the Catholic Church's liturgical calendar, there is a period known as Ordinary Time. What is it exactly and what differentiates this period from the others in the calendar.

The answer should also include the origin of the name "Ordinary?" My understanding is that the period is not called Ordinary Time just because the period is "ordinary."

The Ordinary time is a period within the Church's liturgical year that does not celebrate like Christmastide (25 of dic.- sunday after epiphany) or Pascha(Easter sunday-pentecost), nor is penitential like advent(4 sundays before Christmas-24 of dic.) or Lent(Ash Wed.-Holy Saturday). It is a period of Hope and growth in Christ. It occurs two times, the first from Christmas to Lent and the second from Pascha to Advent. It liturgical color is green.

Edit: "Ordinary Time" implies just that it is not seasonal, this page might help you look more in depth

In Wikipedia it gives a small history of the term

  Before the liturgical reforms of 1970, there were two distinct seasons in the Roman Breviary and Roman Missal, known as the season after Epiphany and the season after Pentecost, respectively. Liturgical days in these times were referred to as the -nth Sunday after Epiphany or Pentecost, or Feria II,III,IV,V or VI after the -nth Sunday.

www.cyberfaith.com/calendar/ordinary.html

Also Eastern Orthodox observe Ordinary Time.


Is the idea that God can erase His memory a common understanding? While I was listening to the local Christian radio station on the way home, Jon Courson touched on Hebrews 8:12:

  For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no
  more. (NIV)

Courson said, "Man cannot do this. We have the capacity to forgive, but not to forget.  Only God can actually erase His own memory, and truly not remember your sins."

Now I'm a Biblical literalist, but this makes no sense to me. Even Biblical literalists believe that the authors of Scripture used figures of speech, such as hyperbole, and I'd always assumed that this was one such example.  To take this literally makes no sense to me alongside the doctrine of God's omniscience.

CARM agrees with my view, too.  So does every preacher I've heard up until today. They all teach that it means He will not hold our forgiven sins against us. His judgement will be as if He doesn't remember them.

But if a nationally syndicated preacher can make this claim, it leaves me to wonder if his take on this is common.

My question isn't whether or not this is hyperbole or if God can really wipe His own memories.

What I'm interested in knowing is whether or not this is a common view/teaching, or supported by established traditions or denominations.

The best explanation of this I have ever heard is by Jay Adams in his book on forgiveness. God does not change, and His memory does not change. Instead, Adams argues that God is not-remembering, instead of forgetting. That is, God is promising not to bring these sins against you ever again.

Adams goes on to say that forgiveness in general is a three-fold promise. When you forgive someone, you are making three promises:

You will not bring the offence up again to the person who offended you.
You will not bring the offence up again to anyone else.
You will not bring the offence up again to yourself.

I have found this definition of forgiveness to be extremely helpful.

I do not think the majority of Bible-believing, gospel-preaching denominations believe that God forgets anything. God is omniscient, and will always be omniscient. Now your Open Theists might believe that God can forget things, or that He doesn't know everything; and some of your mainline denominations that have departed from Scriptural teaching might also believe this.


Is Matthew 28 saying something about Baptism? On our sister site I asked a question about what the correct grammatical interpretation of Matthew 28:19 is with relation to baptism.

  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
  name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

My question here is, is the Great Commission trying to make a doctrinal point about baptism? On Biblical Hermeneutics I asked if baptizing really came after "making disciples" in the Greek. Turns out it does, but it's not really supposed to be read as subsequent.

Is there anything being said about baptism, particularly infant baptism? Does the Great Commission support Believer's Baptism since "making disciples" comes first?

What are the doctrinal implications here, if any?

The baptizing mentioned in Matthew 28 is not so much as a command as a part of a command.  The sentence structure here in the greek has one verb which is 'go'. Everything else modifies how we should go.  We should go discipling, we should go baptizing, we should go teaching.

Those commenting on the order of the words are, I believe, correct. The order is not significant.  Also note that the 'them' that are to be baptized here refers to the 'nations' that have been discipled.  God calls the people who are called by His name to receive the covenant sign of inclusion (baptism in the New Testament circumcision in the Old Testament).

It is true that those who are outside the covenant should convert to the Christian faith before receiving baptism (Acts 8:12) but that still leaves the question about those who grow up in the Christian Faith.  Paul clearly states that the children of one believing parent are somehow set aside and different.  I believe that the difference here is that the children are part of the covenant community.


Why are there so many First Congregational Churches in the US? A simple google earth search turns up hundreds of "First Congregational Churches" all over the U.S. What is the significance of this name?

Assuming you don't know about Congregationalism

Congregationalism is a system of governance where the local church independently and autonomously runs its own affairs. It does not specify any doctrine or hierarchy, which allows for the existence of 'Methodist Congregational' churches and 'Uniting Congregational' churches. There are two major denominations in the US which are Congregational throughout their structure - the 'National Association of Congregational Christian Churches' and the 'Conservative Congregational Christian Conference'.

Congregational churches are usually Protestant although there are also Congregationalist variants of other religious institutions.

As for the "first" bit

I haven't been able to track down any conclusive evidence.

Wikipaedia lists approximately 100 churches called "First Congregational Church" and only 2 called "Second Congregational Church". They are all in the US.


Where was Herod's temple built? The Scripture says that the Second Temple was built on the foundation of Solomon's Temple, but was Herod's Temple built in the same place or was it built next to it? (Do we have any records that say so?)

Herod's Temple is the massive building on which the Salomon Temple (with golden roof) stood, so the chances are; however, there is no archeological evidence of any previous Salomon Temple.

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/0c/b4/ca/0cb4ca76c5c01a5b43938663503a222e.jpg


What is the Biblical basis for the concept of 'balance' between 'two extremes'? Any Christian at some point will be labeled an extremist. Also every Christian at some point will call other Christians extremists.
Even in any given local church, some will label each other this way.

The question is from what Biblical basis can we say 'balance is good', and therefore what kind of extremes should a person avoid?

For example, most Christians would agree that never reading God’s word but just being blown around by the Spirit would be an extreme position. In the same vein, always reading God’s word but denying the importance of the Spirit for understanding the Word would be the opposite extreme. Is this Biblical for me to paint extremes as bad things this way?

What is the scriptural basis for balance and what might be some commonly held views that are considered 'extreme' by most Christians, regardless of denomination?

Ecclesiastes 7 is even more direct:

  In this meaningless life of mine I have seen both of these:
  the righteous perishing in their righteousness,
      and the wicked living long in their wickedness.
  16 Do not be overrighteous,
      neither be overwise—
      why destroy yourself?
  17 Do not be overwicked,
      and do not be a fool—
      why die before your time?
  18 It is good to grasp the one
      and not let go of the other.
      Whoever fears God will avoid all extremes.

That said, the Golden Mean is primarily Aristotelean in origin. That alone does not exclude it from Christianity, becuase much of Aristoltelean thought was incorporated into the Church's doctrine in the first few centuries of the early church.

Galileo, for example, was really having quibbles with Aristotlean cosmology, moreso than anything in Scripture itself.  The notions of perfect spheres and earth-centricity are not found in Scripture, but had been accepted as dogma by the Church, and as such were defended.


According to Reformed Baptist theology when did the Church begin? According to Reformed Baptist theology, when did the Church begin? In the Old Testament or in the New Testament?

Reformed theologians, including Reformed Baptists, typically believe that the church includes all true believers of all time, both Old Testament and New Testament.

This view naturally follows from covenant theology, which argues that there is one covenant, a covenant of grace, that has been in effect ever since the Fall.

Let's review the writings of a few Reformed Baptists from various eras.  We can start with one of the first documents of Reformed Baptists, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith:

  The universal Church, which may be called invisible (in respect of the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) consists of the entire number of the elect, all those who have been, who are, or who shall be gathered into one under Christ, Who is the Head. This universal Church is the wife, the body, the fullness of Him Who fills all in all. (26.1)

Another section makes it clear that the writers of this confession considered the elect to come from both the Old and New Testament periods, since it refers to "true believers under the Old Testament law" (21.1).  A later writer, A. H. Strong (1836–1921), elaborates a bit:

  The church of Christ, in its largest signification, is the whole company of regenerate persons in all times and ages, in heaven and on earth.  In this sense, the church is identical with the spiritual kingdom of God; both signify that redeemed humanity in which God in Christ exercises actual spiritual dominion. (Systematic Theology, VII.1)

Wayne Grudem (1948–) shares the same understanding and specifically calls out the Old and New Testaments:

  The church is the community of all true believers for all time. [...] Even though there are certainly new privileges and new blessings that are given to the people of God in the New Testament, both the usage of the term "church" in Scripture and the fact that throughout Scripture God has always called his people to assemble to worship himself, indicate that it is appropriate to think of the church as constituting all the people of God for all time, both Old Testament believers and New Testament believers. (Systematic Theology, chapter 44)

For more on this, Grudem's book is excellent.  You can also check out online sermons of Reformed Baptists, like John Piper's message called "Israel and Us Reconciled in One Body."


Why is the second beast of Revelation called the Antichrist? In many denominations of modern Christianity the Antichrist is the evil world leader who forces people to take the mark of the beast. After reading through Revelation and seeing for myself that the Antichrist is not mentioned at all, I began to search where, then, in the Bible is the Antichrist mentioned.

According to 1st John 2:22, anybody who denies Christ is antichrist. Furthermore in 4:3 John tells that any spirit that denies Christ is of the spirit of antichrist. Neither of these passages make a case for the Antichrist with a capital A. To me it merely tells that there are many who oppose Christ, in the past and in the future, and they can be identified in such and such a way.

It turns out that when people talk about the Antichrist, they really refer to eg:

The son of perdition
The man of lawlesness
The beast of revelation (seemingly forgetting that there are two)

Why is it that the term Antichrist is so bluntly exchanged with these other terms? I have been unable to find the origins of this way of interpreting the Bible. Who did it first and where did it start?

Just to add an answer to Cecil's, which is solid, but to elaborate more closely on the ideal of a personal antichrist.

Anti in the context of Christ refers to not only being opposite or opposed to, but also "in place of."  Since, from Revelation, we see that this antichrist is given power and authority by the dragon (universally recognized as Satan), the antichrist is indeed a singular person -- but beyond that, he is meant to REPLACE the real true Christ, Jesus.

Just look at some parallels, again from Rev 13 as Cecil used:

  3 And I saw one of his heads as if it had been mortally wounded, and his deadly wound was healed. And all the world marveled and
  followed the beast. 4 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority
  to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the
  beast? Who is able to make war with him?”

Two things here -- first we see the "beast" (the one empowered by the dragon, satan, has been mortally wounded but was healed).  As a result this causes people to marvel and worship satan.  This is a simulation of Jesus Christ's resurrection from the Cross.

The one goal of this is satan is prideful and wants to be in the place of God.  Naturally his antichrist would stand to be in place of Jesus.  We see this beginning in the Old Testament, for example, Isaiah 14:

  12 “How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,[b] son of the morning!
  How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations! 13
  For you have said in your heart: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will
  exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount
  of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north; 14 I will
  ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.’

Let's go back to Christ in the wilderness where satan tries to tempt Jesus.  From Matthew 4:

  8 Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and
  showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he
  said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down
  and worship me.”

Satan wants worship, that's his only price for all the nations of the world.  This is what got him thrown down from heaven, to the earth, where he has power and authority over this world until Christ's return; and this is his motivation for an antichrist.  Christ warns us in Matthew 24 to be weary of false Christs and false prophets whom perform wonders.  The dragon, the beast he raises up (the antichrist) and the antichrist's prophet itself imitates the Holy Trinity.

Again, to imitate, and be in place of, the true Godhead.  Since Jesus Christ is our personal Lord and Savior, it only makes sense the knock off attempt to take his place for non-believers would be a personal savior-like figure as well.


Were (at least some) Babylonians (at least somewhat) righteous? The book of Jonah tells the story of Jonah, God's most reluctant prophet. Commanded to preach to the Babylonians of Nineveh, he headed in the opposite direction, south, took a ship, which encountered the storm, was thrown off the ship to save it, and was "rescued" (swallowed) by a whale, and later regurgitated. It took this much to make him go to NIneveh and preach to its "Babylonians."

Once he was there, it was arguably the "easiest" conversion in the Bible, at least of a whole city. Nineveh repented en masse, and was spared destruction by God. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jonah%203&version=KJ21

Does this mean that the Babylonians were at least somewhat righteous? It seems that while they sinned a lot, quite a few of their leaders and people, including Nebuchadnezzar had concepts of right and wrong. Could the Israelis have fallen so far that when God delivered them into captivity of the Babylonians that it actually represented an "upgrade?"

In Habakkuk 1:12b-13, at least the prophet is claiming that even fallen Israel is more righteous than Babylon (emphasis added):

  O LORD, you have appointed them to execute judgment; O Rock, you have ordained them to punish.  Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong.  Why then are you silent while the wicked swallow  up those more righteous than themselves?

If one looks at the book of Daniel, one gets an impression of how righteous Nebuchadnezzar was not that long after the conquest of Judah.  He is easily angered and prideful.  When told by the astrologers that "No king, however great and mighty, has ever asked such a thing of any magician or enchanter or astrologer." (2:10b [NIV]), he was outraged to the point that he planned to execute all the wise men of Babylon.  While one cannot judge an entire people by their leader, moral character tends to leak both ways (from the culture to the leaders and from the leaders to the culture).

If one looks at the book of Judges, one sees that God repeatedly hands over his chosen people to those who appear to be less righteous (and certainly less favored).

Psalm 78:34-38 seems noteworthy in this context:

  Whenever God slew them, they would seek him; they eagerly turned to him again.  They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer.  But then they would flatter him with their mouths, lying to him with their tongues; their hearts were not loyal to him, they were not faithful to his covenant.  Yet he was merciful; he atoned for their iniquities and did not destroy them.  Time after time he restrained his anger and did not stir up his full wrath.

While a passage like Jeremiah 2:11 (where Israel is not even as good at henetheism as other nations) may indicate that Israel was even more wicked than Babylon--and a strong case can be made that given the greater favor and greater revelation their unfaithfulness was more wicked (e.g.,  Hebrews 2:1-4--the dreadfulness of neglecting such salvation--or Isaiah 5:4--where God's special favor produced wild grapes and justice would be harsh--or even Matthew 23:33-39--where treatment of the prophets accumulates guilt)--, it seems that it is the Righteous One striking his people that is the kindness (cf. Psalm 141:5) and not that he is leading them into greener pastures.

If one again looks at the book of Daniel, one might see another reason for the exile: to reveal the truth to "that ruthless and impetuous people" (Habakkuk 1:6 [NIV]).  As with Joseph in Egypt, the Babylonians were exposed to people of extraordinary integrity and to supernatural signs of favor because of the exile.

As with Jonah--and even at the time of Jesus with the money changers and animal sellers in the court of the Gentiles (rf. Matthew 21:12-13 where the most stinging portion of the quote from Isaiah 56:7 is left out, "house of prayer for all nations")--the people of God had forgotten that they were to be a light to the Gentiles, blessed to be a blessing to all peoples (Genesis 12:3).  (E.g., the queen of Sheba was not meant to be drawn simply to praise the greatness Solomon but to see behind this the greatness and love of God [rf. 1 Kings 10:1, 9].)


Biblical support of a Quadrichotomous view of Man There are two common views of the Nature of Man - the Dichotomous, and the Trichotomous.

However, a Quadrichotomous view can also be drawn from Jesus' answer to the challenge of what is the greatest commandment (Luke 10:27)

  And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."

or (Mark 12:30)

  and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.

What other verses/teachings support the four-fold view listed in Luke and Mark? Is this a valid view, or is it something akin to a Hebraism using repetition to enforce a point?

The four words that come in this scripture come from a variance in the translation of Deuteronomy 6:5. The Greek Septuagint translates "strength" as "mind".  This translation of what Jesus said in Aramaic accommodated both the familiar Greek translation as well as the more accurate Hebrew translation of the word.

It does not, however, suggest a Quadrichotomous view of man, even though that is a pretty cool word.


Would the Christians Luke was writing for know who Phanuel was? I'm sure there are many more names in the New Testament that no one would know, but this one strikes me as very odd.

The prophetess Anna is described in pretty good detail, for the Bible at least, but she doesn't do anything.  She is described as:

  the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher.

Does his name give any credence to her story or her prophecy?

I don't think you'll get a definitive answer on this one.  There's no other reference in Scripture, so there's nothing to cross-reference.

My hunch is that some people would and some wouldn't, the same way some people in my Church would know who Ray Comfort is, and some wouldn't.

It might simply be the habit of recording familial lines to avoid confusion with another Anna - this was Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, as opposed to another Anna.

I think that we have to assume that at least some (if not all) of the intended audience either was familiar with this person, or would be able to use the familial reference to determine the identity of this person.

Identification of a person as the "son of" or "daughter of" another person is a relatively common method of distinguishing individuals, not just in Biblical times, or even just in the Middle East.  I've heard references like this from Scotland, England, and various other places, both in historical works and in literature.  (I've even heard it in science fiction  i.e. Worf son of Mogh.)

I believe that this was merely a common expression that most of the intended audience wouldn't think twice about.


Why did Jesus call Abel a prophet? In Luke 11:50-51, the Lord Jesus Christ calls Abel a prophet:

  "Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of
  all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world,
  from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed
  between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation
  will be held responsible for it all." Luke 11:50-51 NIV

I have in mind the concept of prophet as one who acted as God's mouthpiece, relaying the words of God to men in accordance with God's instructions.
However, I coun't find no record of any prophetic utterance from Abel.

What then made him a prophet?

The broadest sense of an OT prophet was the Spirit of God coming up or moving a person to reveal something about God.  The narrow sense is a prophet speaking "thus sayeth the LORD".  It is in the former sense that Christ calls Abel a prophet.

  And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.  And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: ... If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
  Gen 4:3-4,7

  Prophet:
  "one who speaks forth or openly" (see PROPHECY, A), "a proclaimer of a divine message,"
  Vines

So, how was Abel a prophet?  What was the divine message from God as regards the offerings of Cain and Abel?

  Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
  Gen 3:21

Obviously from the very first example of God slaying the animal to cover the sin of Adam and Eve, the prophetic voice of Abel is one of blood sacrifice that culminates in Christ Jesus.


What are the requirements for a teacher in the Baptist church? A while ago, I read this academic paper by Casey Schutt. Although the entire paper was about evangelism ethics in the workplace and how self-identified evangelical/born-again Christians go about doing that in contrast to the religiously pluralistic workplace environment, I got a little interested in how Casey Schutt could just visit a Baptist church and teach 3 different classes. What are the requirements for a teacher in the Baptist church? How trained are they? Do you have to be baptized under the right formula to teach?

One of the key distinctives of Baptist churches is that they are congregationally governed and generally non-creedal. That means there's no overriding "Baptist" policy on who can and cannot teach in the church. You can be fairly certain that most Baptist churches will require a person to have been baptized as an adult in order to teach, but there are exceptions even to that. It's up to the individual church, and usually would be specified in the church's bylaws (or, if not, up to the discretion of the pastoral staff).

This isn't to say that Baptist churches are universally lax about who can teach, only that their standards aren't unified. Besides baptism, the typical requirements would be based on 1 Timothy 3 and similar passages, which hold leaders to high moral standards and require a certain level of respect and standing within the community.

Some of the more conservative Baptist churches would also exclude women from all teaching roles except that of teaching children. This is becoming less and less common, as even those churches that exclude women from the ordained pastorate often will permit them to teach in some capacity. Of course, many Baptist churches also fully affirm women in pastoral ministry. Again, it's up to the congregation.


Why was the Sea of Galilee called so? We see the mention of a freshwater lake of 167 km square in Israel called as the Sea of Galilee or the Sea of Tiberias at Mtt 4:18, Mtt 15:29, Mk 1:16, Mk 7:31 and Jn 16:1. I wish to know the logic behind calling a lake a sea.

This is not an unusual usage, nor one that needs a specifically religious explanation. "The Sea of Galilee" is the standard English translation of the original Greek θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας ("thalassan tes Galilaias"); that is, "the θάλασσα of Galilee"). One sees this usage, for example, in Matthew 4:18.

Liddell and Short, a commonly used Greek-English lexicon, defines θάλασσα as "the sea", using primarily references to the Mediterranean.

Merriam-Webster gives a usage of "sea" to mean

  a great body of salt water that covers much of the earth

that is, a synonym of "ocean". However, it also describes "sea" as used to mean

  an inland body of water—used especially for names of such bodies

It is in this sense that the body of water you mention is called "the Sea of Galilee".


On the Catholic Perspective on the incarnation of Jesus, according to St.Thomas Aquinas: Two natures, one Person To understand St.Thomas theology, we must understand the metaphysics that goes hand in hand with his theology.

For the notion of Person, the previous notion of Suppositum or Hypostasis seems to be central. I'm reading a book on St.Thomas' metaphysics, and it states that the difference between the concept of essence and suppositum was very important in how he was able to 'explain' the Incarnation of Christ, and His dual nature, of man and of God.

How was St.Thomas able to explain the dual nature of Christ?

Check out at least these The Thomist articles:(note: the following is not an exhaustive listing of all The Thomist's articles on this topic)

"Aquinas on Nature, Hypostasis, & the Metaphysics of the
Incarnation"
"Albert the Great & Thomas Aquinas on Person, Hypostasis, &
Hypostatic
Union,"
and especially:Jason L. A. West's "Aquinas on the metaphysics of esse in
Christ"

West also translated part of St. Thomas's Disputed Question: Concerning the Union of the Word Incarnate (De Unione Verbi Incarnati), which is a must-read for St. Thomas's view on the hypostatic union.

St. Thomas addresses the question of Christ's one being and two natures in De Unione a. 4 on "Whether there is only one being in Christ?":

  Objection 1: For there is both a divine and a human being in Christ;
  which cannot be one, because being is not said univocally of God and
  creatures. Therefore, in Christ there is not only one being, but two.

  ...

  I answer that ... Just as Christ is one simply on account of the unity of the supposit, and two in a certain respect on account of the
  two natures, so he has one esse simply on account of the one eternal
  esse of the eternal supposit. But, there is also another esse of this supposit, not insofar as it is eternal, but insofar as it became
  a man in time. That esse, even if it is not an accidental
  esse--because man is not accidentally predicated of the Son of God,
  as was said above [art. 1]--nevertheless, is not the principal esse
  of its supposit, but a secondary [esse]. Now if there were two
  supposits in Christ, then each supposit would have its own principal
  esse. And thus there would be a twofold esse in Christ simply. [Emphasis added]

St. Thomas also writes in his Compendium of Theology c. 212 on "the Unity and Multiplicity in Christ":

  For it is clear that parts divided individually have their own esse,
  but insofar as they are considered in a whole they do not have their
  own esse, but they exist through the esse of the whole. So,
  therefore, if we were to consider Christ as an integral supposit of
  two natures, there would be only one esse of him, just as there is
  also one supposit.


Are translations of the book of Mormon into other languages made from English, or are the golden plates stashed in a temple somewhere? I was poking around the Internet to see if there are any LDS-sanctioned modern translations of the Book of Mormon in English, and it seems there are not. (Although there's an unofficial one, A Plain English Reference to the Book of Mormon by Timothy B. Wilson.)  However from another question on here I saw that the book of Mormon is still being translated into foreign languages.  My question is, how is that the case?  It was my understanding that Mormons say Joseph Smith returned the golden plates to the angel, so how are new translations made? From the English?  And if foreign translations can be made from the English, why not a NIV-style English translation from the English?

You're right, the golden plates were returned to the angel Moroni at the conclusion of the original translation into English.

First, we have to understand the translation process (this link is the source to the quotes below).

There are some original translation manuscripts still in existence, but these are hardly legible anymore and, for several reasons (such as completing the whole translation in 60 days), contain many grammatical and spelling errors. Subsequent revisions of the English text referred back to the original manuscripts and other historical documents to fix technical issues and improve formatting. These have been published as new editions (most recently in 2013).

Regarding the relationship between textual revisions and the correctness of the translation:

  "All who have translated are keenly aware that it is a rare translation which cannot be improved,” said Stephen Ricks, a professor of Hebrew at Brigham Young University. “Thus, while it would be incorrect to minimize the divine element in the process of translation of the Book of Mormon, it would also be misleading and potentially hazardous to deny the human factor."

With an English translation that is close the original writ, translations into other languages are based on the current English revision. Several other languages, such as Spanish, have been revised several times for the same reasons. Some translations are even incomplete and are only available as selected excerpts until a full translation can be made. (I know someone who is helping to re-translate the Book of Mormon into Persian. She told me that the current Persian edition has trouble with some of the word choice and sentence structure compared to the English reading of it.)

As you might imagine, these translations are time consuming and difficult to do well. The translation process is done by study, prayer, and faith.

Finally, to answer your last question ("Why not a NIV-style English translation of the Book of Mormon?"), I would have to say that I don't know. I can't find any Church statement on that question specifically, but maybe somebody else could find an official source.

Well, Jacob Glad's answer added the missing piece, an official statement on the matter. Anyway, my original thoughts were:

If you want my guess, though, it's because the LDS Church wants to maintain the purity of the translation as much as possible. Translating into a different style of English may cause confusion, since it's quite likely elements of the text would inadvertently lose or change the meaning. As it stands, the language found in the current edition of the Book of Mormon is not nearly as archaic as the language in the KJV Bible, and is (in my opinion) still much more readable. With that perspective, some scholars suggest that an official, NIV-style edition of the Book of Mormon is simply not necessary.


What is the first recorded observation of Good Friday? When was the first Good Friday commemoration observed, distinct from Pascha/Passover or Sunday Easter?

Related:

What is the origin of the Good Friday tradition?

However, I am not interested in when or where the idea of it being Friday came from, but simply what and when the first record of a "Good Friday"  was.

The Didascalia Apostolorum, dated to AD 230, prescribe activities during Holy Week, including a fast on Friday:

  Therefore you shall fast in the days of the Pascha from the tenth, which is the second day of the week; and you shall sustain yourselves with bread and salt and water only, at the ninth hour, until the fifth day of the week. But on the Friday and on the Sabbath fast wholly, and taste nothing. [v. 19] You shall come together and watch and keep vigil all the night with prayers and intercessions, and with reading of the Prophets, and with the Gospel and with Psalms, with fear and trembling and with earnest supplication, until the third hour in the night after the Sabbath; and then break your fasts. (v18–19)

Something similar is related in the Apostolic Constitutions (dated to 375–380) for Friday, the sixth day of the week:

  But He commanded us to fast on the fourth and sixth days of the week; the former on account of His being betrayed, and the latter on account of His passion. But He appointed us to break our fast on the seventh day at the cock-crowing, but to fast on the Sabbath-day. Not that the Sabbath-day is a day of fasting, being the rest from the creation, but because we ought to fast on this one Sabbath only, while on this day the Creator was under the earth. (5.3.15)

The Pilgrimage of Etheria (or Egeria), dated to a few years later, describes a more elaborate celebration, with five main stages:

Service at daybreak

"And when they arrive before the Cross the daylight is already growing bright."

Column of the flagellation

"they all go at once with fervour to Sion, to pray at the column at which the Lord was scourged."

Veneration of the cross

"The casket is opened and (the wood) is taken out, and both the wood of the Cross and the title1 are placed upon the table. Now, when it has been put upon the table, the bishop, as he sits, holds the extremities of the sacred wood firmly in his hands, while the deacons who stand around guard it."

Station before the cross

"Thus from the sixth to the ninth hours the lessons are so read and the hymns said, that it may be shown to all the people that whatsoever the prophets foretold of the Lord's Passion is proved from the Gospels and from the writings of the Apostles to have been fulfilled."

Evening offices

"And after the dismissal at the martyrium, they go to the Anastasis, where, when they arrive, the passage from the Gospel is read where Joseph begged the Body of the Lord from Pilate and laid it in a new sepulchre."

The excerpts above are taken from the full text of The Pilgrimage of Etheria, which is too lengthy to quote here in full.  The Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity briefly summarizes:

  Christians spent the time reflecting upon Jesus’ morning appearance before Pilate (Mk 15:2-15 and parallel texts) and the flagellation (Mk 15:16-20 and parallel texts). At noon, the wood of the cross found by Helena was shown to the faithful; then, for three hours, the people read the account of the passion, along with OT prophecies about Christ.


What exactly does the Catholic Church mean by the "Virginity" of Mary? Possible ways to understand "virginity" :

Some people may define it as no sexual event whatsoever.
Some may define as not having intercourse with a male.
Some may define it as not participating in any intimate acts with a male.
Some may define it as an intact hymen.

I have a problem with the last one, since a lot of girls are not born with a hymen, or the hymen can be damaged in sports activities.

I can't see a logical reason to think that the Blessed mother was definitely born with one or didn't damage it with non sexual physical activity.

So, what exactly does the Catholic Church mean by the "Virginity" of Mary?

The Perpetual Virginity of Mary is one of the four Marian dogmas, the others being the Divine Maternity, the Immaculate Conception and the Glorious Assumption, which have so far been defined.

Pope Clement VIII in 1603 in Dominici Gregis condemned as heresy the error that the Blessed Virgin Mary did not remain  forever in her virginal integrity, before Christ's birth, in the birth itself, and perpetually after His birth.

This repeats the ancient formula

  ante partum, in partu, et post partum

or

  before giving birth, during the birth and after the birth.

So according to Catholic teaching, yes, Mary's hymen did remain intact during the  miraculous Virgin Birth of Christ. (It would hardly be necessary or seemly to take the phrase that she  remained a vigin during the birth as implying she did not have sex during the birth.) It is Catholic belief that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven, with her body intact.

Article 510 of the catechism says:

  Mary remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm


What is the process of removing an automatic excommunication? If a baptised Catholic committed sins which would have excommunicated him from the Church, what would be the method for getting back?

Receiving communion would not be allowed without reconciliation. Would a priest forgive those sins if they were all Mortal?

There are indeed some sins which cause excommunication simply by being committed. Such excommunications are called latae sententiae excommunications (in Latin, more or less, "[excommunications] of a hidden sentence"). Acts which can incur such an excommunication include:

a physical assault against a bishop or the Pope;
procurement of an abortion;
attempting to celebrate the Eucharist, even though not an ordained priest.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.

(paragraph 1463)
In particular, the Code of Canon Law provides:

Canon 1354 §3 If the Apostolic See has reserved the remission of a penalty to itself or to others, the reservation must be interpreted strictly.
Canon 1356 §1. The following can remit a ferendae sententiae or latae sententiae penalty established by a precept not issued by the Apostolic See:

the ordinary of the place where the offender is present;

Canon 1357 §1. ... a confessor can remit in the internal sacramental forum an undeclared latae sententiae censure of excommunication or interdict if it is burdensome for the penitent to remain in the state of grave sin during the time necessary for the competent superior to make provision.
§2. In granting the remission, the confessor is to impose on the penitent, under the penalty of reincidence, the obligation of making recourse within a month to the competent superior or to a priest endowed with the faculty and the obligation of obeying his mandates; in the meantime he is to impose a suitable penance and, insofar as it is demanded, reparation of any scandal and damage; however, recourse can also be made through the confessor, without mention of the name.

Here's what that means:

If a particular excommunication is specified as only being removable by the Pope (for example, if someone assaults the Pope), then officially the person needs to confess to the Pope. In practice, the Pope would probably depute the local bishop to hear the confession and remit the penalty.
In other cases, the local bishop himself (or a priest deputized by the bishop) would need to hear the penitent's confession.
In any case the confessor would impose an appropriate penance which would have to be observed.
After that, with sins forgiven, the person would be innocent and once more in good standing with the Church.

As far as whether a priest would absolve these mortal sins: Catholic priests are obligated to absolve from sin any penitent who seeks reconciliation and genuinely appears sincere, regardless of what their sins are:

If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.

(Code of Canon Law, Canon 980)


Was knowledge of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton a component of the "deposit of faith" entrusted to the apostles and their successors? According to the doctrine of apostolic succession, the Lord Jesus Christ entrusted and delivered the faith (i.e., the depositum fidei) to his apostles whom later entrusted and delivered it to their successors, and so forth.

According to Catholics,

Was the knowledge of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton a component of the "deposit of faith" entrusted to the apostles and their successors?
If so, what is the correct pronunciation?
If not, why was the name of God (i.e., the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton) not entrusted to the apostles and their successors?

The answers to the O.P.'s questions are simple:

No, the pronunciation of a word would not enter in any meaningful way into the contents of the faith. Faith has to do with God and those truths revealed by Him. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 156.) The revelation of God as “I Am Who Am” (see Ex. 3:14), which is deeply linked to the Tetragrammaton, does enter into the deposit of faith, but not the way those concepts are expressed linguistically.
Hence, the question of the correct pronunciation is for linguists, and the Church takes no official position. (As a practical matter, there does not seem to be any way to find out what the correct vowel pattern is, since vowel marks were added to Hebrew only after the Tetragrammaton had long ceased to be pronounced.)
The pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton was not entrusted to the Apostles precisely because it is a linguistic question, not a theological one. It is not essential (or even important) for understanding the mysteries revealed by God.


Is Tim Keller's view of idolatry Biblical? I just finished reading Tim Keller's Every Good Endeavor. In it, he says that in Ezekiel, there is a part where it talks about idols within the heart, "which involves making good things into ultimate things". Also, in one of his sermons, he brought up the fact that Martin Luther says that the 1st commandment underlies all the other commandments, since not putting God first and foremost (even above the good things in life) is what causes one to lie, cheat, steal, etc.

I would like to know if this view of "idolatry" is Biblical (since I read some opposing views somewhere else). If so, could you please provide me with relevant verses from the Bible.

For my part, I can see what Keller/Luther are getting at, and it seems to agree, somewhat, with Paul's assessment that whatever is not from faith is sin. However, it seems to downplay the seriousness of sin as something violating God's Law.

It is not for us to Judge either preacher, that is reserved for Jesus:

John 5:22 and 23  For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

That having been said; We can take a look at Scripture to see what they have to say regarding this.

Matthew 22:37 through 40  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38  This is the first and great commandment. 39  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

What Jesus appears to be pointing out here is that if you do not do these two things, then it will be almost impossible to keep the rest of the Law.
So Let's see what other Scriptures may help in understanding this; although many questions that arise in life are not directly addressed in Scriptures we are given clues as to how to handle them.

Matthew 5:21 and 22  Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Matthew 5:27 and 28  Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28  But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

From these two Scriptures Jesus is teaching us two things:

It is our precepts that determine our compliance with the Commandments, and not our actions, as is expressed in the fact that although we may not actually kill someone, it is the desire to do so that is not in compliance. After all how can you love your neighbor as yourself if stay mad at him, and especially if it is only you who have perceived wrong doing by him.

If we desire to do wrong it is tantamount to having done it. Even though we may contemplate stealing someone else's wealth for our own use, we have in effect not only put our greed above the other person's welfare; but we have denied God's promise to supply all of our needs as Jesus explained in his sermon on the Mount.

Mat 5:3 through 11  Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4  Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. 5  Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 6  Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 7  Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8  Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 9  Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. 10  Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11  Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

Jesus is here saying that God will provide all of our heart's desires as long as those desires are in keeping with serving him. And:

Matthew 6:8  Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

If there is one common concept in these Scriptures it is that God knows and considers our intents and our innermost desires. And that it is those upon which compliance with the Commandments is judged. And because Jesus has been tempted in every way in which we can be tempted which would have to include disobedience of every one of the Commandments, he alone is qualified to judge.
So let's take a look at  Chapter 14 of Romans and see if we can more discern what Paul is conveying.
Let's take a look at this excerpt from John Gill's commentary of the whole Bible.

for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. This is a general rule, or axiom, which is not only applicable to the present case, but to any other, whether of a natural, civil, moral, or evangelic kind: "whatsoever does not spring from faith", as the Arabic version renders it, cannot be excused of sin; whatever is not agreeable to the word and doctrine of faith, ought not to be done; whatever is done without faith, or not in the exercise of it, is culpable, for without faith nothing can be pleasing to God; and whatever is contrary to the persuasion of a man's own mind, is so far criminal, as it is a violation of his conscience; whatever men do, especially in a religious way, they ought to make faith of it, or to be fully persuaded of it in their own minds, or they act amiss:

It appears from this commentary that our purpose for anything we do should be based in our desire to please God, which is an integral part of Worship so it is up to you to decide whether or not mental disobedience of the command to have no other gods before me; is or is not is included. For my part I am inclined to believe it is based on the Scriptures I have quoted.
Hope this helps.


Was the Catholic title "vicar of Christ" conceived as an "assistant" or an "agent"? I was under the impression that a "vicar" was a "replacement" or "one acting in the stead of" another (an "agent") but it appears the Roman title of "vicar" seems to be more of an assistant. What is the intended significance of the title as applied to Catholic Popes? Was their title part of Roman government or just a religious title?

Was the Catholic title “vicar of Christ” conceived as an “assistant” or an “agent”?

The short answer is: The original theological connotations of the title had a pastoral sense to it, evoking the words of Christ to the Apostle Peter, regarded by the first Catholic Pope in John 21:16-17, "Feed my lambs... Feed my sheep", so Christ made Peter his vicar.

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains the title of the Vicar of Christ as follows:

  A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.

  In the course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St. Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus, Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ (cap. "Inter corporalia", 2, "De trans. ep."). He also declares that Christ has given such power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (cap. "Quanto", 3, ibid.), and states that it is the Roman Pontiff who is "the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ" (cap. "Licet", 4, ibid.). The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. "Fundamenta ejus", 17, "De elect.", in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ.

Wikipedia adds the follows:

  Vicar of Christ (from Latin Vicarius Christi) is a term used in different ways and with different theological connotations throughout history. The original notion of a vicar is as an "earthly representative of Christ", but it's also used in the sense of "person acting as parish priest in place of a real person." The title is now used in Catholicism to refer to the bishops and more specifically to the Bishop of Rome (the pope).

  The use of the term Vicar of Christ appears in the 5th century, in a synod of bishops to refer to Pope Gelasius I. The theological connotations of the title got a pastoral sense, evoking the words of Christ to the Apostle Peter, regarded by the first Catholic Pope in John 21:16-17, "Feed my lambs... Feed my sheep", so Christ made Peter his vicar and pastor with the responsibility to feed his flock (i.e. the Church) in his own place.


Is it true the term 'pontifex maximus' was the name of the high priest of the Roman Cult of Emperor Worship, before being adopted by the Pope? This has always seemed strange to me that the Pope would not want to distance himself with emperor worship as much as possible. If pointifex maximus was a term used by the government of Rome in its emperor worship, wouldn’t the Pope’s PR men advise using a different title? Or am I not correct in the initial assumption?

Also, I have seen on occasion that he used a pointy hat (the original pontifex maximus) does the Pope ever wear similar clothes as well? Or is there no similarity in dress at all?

So, "pontifex maximus" means "highest pontifex." The Pontifex were, at one time, the priests of the Imperial cult, but over time the meaning of the word broadened and it was used as a word for, "Bishop." The Pope's (unofficial) title is used in that context.

Refusal to use the term (where it clearly applies) would be akin to refusing to use the word, "Tuesday" because it is etymologically linked to the Norse god Týr.


How does this fit in with "we are incapable of following the law"? While reading through the Torah, the following verses caught my eye.

  Deuteronomy 30:11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too
  difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so
  that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and
  proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so
  that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim
  it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is
  in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

Just like the title, I am honestly wondering how the verses above (keeping their context in mind) fit in with the commonly held belief in the Christian church that human beings were and are incapable of following the law of God without the help of the Holy Spirit, etc?

I am aware of Romans 10:6-8, which says:

  6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your
  heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’”(that is, to bring Christ down)
  7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’”(that is, to bring Christ up
  from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is
  in your mouth and in your heart,”that is, the message concerning faith
  that we proclaim:"

However, what I am looking for is an honest explanation from the Old Testament, if possible, about the verses from Deuteronomy above.

If using Paul's words above is necessary for the explanation then I'd take that too. I am just honestly curious, looking for honest answers.

PS: No offense intended here.

PSS: Translation used is NIV.

The key difference is that the Torah is speaking to the letter of the law, Paul is speaking to what Jesus says of it.
As Jesus says in Matthew 5:

17“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

He goes on to give an example:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,a and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherb will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,c’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

In the case of the Torah, the requirement is simply to do the sacrifices and not go after idols.  It is completely a works based thing.
Paul could, for example, in Acts 23 say:

Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.”

but also say, as he does in Romans 7:

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.c For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

That tension works itself out in the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit.
For Jesus, it is a whole life shift - one that involves regeneration of the mind.  To actually put to death the sinful nature is impossible on one's own. To live out the perfection of the law is, as Jesus sets the bar, beyond man's ability.
Just checking off the boxes, as Moses commanded, is a much lower bar indeed.
That said, I'm not sure that in my own power, I would have even met that one.


Should we honor our parents even if it leads us to sin? In What does the Bible say about "bad" words? a comment was made that "I cuss in all the (two) languages I speak fluently. It's just my upbringing, and we should honor our parents, right?"

  Exodus 20:12 NIV
  12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in
  the land the LORD your God is giving you."

Ephesians 6:4 tells us parents to not lead our children into sin, but to train and instruct them in the way of the Lord.

  Ephesians 6:4 NIV
  4 Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in
  the training and instruction of the Lord.

If we disobey our parents and do not sin as they have taught us, are we sinning by disobeying them?

Honor your parents? Yes absolutely.
Sin? No never.
What is trump? Don't sin!

However it should be noted that the trump card will never need to be used because on closer inspection these two things are never actually in conflict. If your parents ask you to murder your neighbor (clearly sin) it would be no honor to them if you obeyed. The same principle can be extrapolated back to "smaller" sins. While your parents own sinfulness might cloud their perspective on what is or is not honoring, ultimately you are trying to honor God through honoring your parents.

The commandment to honor our parents does not say that we must obey every edict they may give us. However it is also clear that obedience is on of the primary ways that we can show honor and respect. Obey in so far as you are not being asked to sin. If in doubt, honor your parents. If something comes up that you understand to be sin and can Biblically demonstrate how something would be dishonoring to God, decline in an honorable way!

If it's your family's tradition to cuss (or to be bank robbers) there is nothing in the commandment that mandates that you also pursue that lifestyle. You can still act honorably towards someone as your parent even if they reject you as a child because of your choice.

This is particularly evident in extreme cases. For example say your parents are Muslims. From their perspective that their offspring would believe in Jesus as God, go to a Christian church, pray, read the Bible and fellowship with other Christians is an unthinkable shame. In their mind nothing you do will be honoring as long as you persist in your beliefs. However is it really dishonoring them that you have chosen to follow the truth? Of course not. Can you still treat them respectfully and in an honorable way even if they reject you and ostricise you? Yes you can, and you should.

But it doesn't take an extreme case for to apply this principle. It starts being applicable when they ask you to come finish the dishes but you feel like you ought to finish that great post you're working on for a Christian Q&A site.

  1 Peter 3:14-17 (ESV)
  But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.


What is the Scriptural basis for Catholics praying to Mary and the various saints? While researching for this answer, I came across this quesion. In its answer it stated:

  Roman Catholics are taught to pray to Mary and various saints. Such
  prayers are not scriptural and are, in fact, an insult to our heavenly
  Father.

The question is, what is the Scriptural basis for Catholics praying to Mary and the various saints?

Please note that What is the basis for the solicitation of prayers from dead saints? is seeking 'how' these prayers originated - and categorically states 'it does not intend to get answers why these prayers are acceptable' - while this question is seeking the scriptural basis of these prayers, i.e. 'why' are they acceptable from scripture?

Please note that the acceptable answer will be one that does not just rattle off scriptural verses, but also demonstrates an understanding of the Catholic practice in light of scripture. The answer should also address: 'Roman Catholics are taught to pray to Mary and various saints.'

To answer the question, it is important to understand that Catholics (as well as the Eastern Orthodox and other eastern churches) make a sharp distinction between adoration (or worship), which is directed only to God, and veneration, which refers to the honor given to the saints.
When Catholics (and Orthodox) pray to Mary and the other saints, it is never seen as an act of adoration, but only of veneration. It should be noted that Catholics (and Orthodox) are also encouraged to pray to God directly; in fact, for them prayer in its various facets (praise, thanksgiving, petition, supplication, and adoration) is chiefly directed to Him, not to saints (and whenever it involves adoration, it is only directed to God).
Therefore, the prayers that Catholics (and Orthodox) make to saints are chiefly for their intercession. Intercessory prayer is something that St. Paul clearly encouraged among the living:

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:1-4, emphasis added).

St. Paul also asked people to pray for him, as is pointed out by Geremia:

I appeal to you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf (Rom 15:30).

St. Paul, however, also teaches that saints are in a more perfect union with their Creator than we are:

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known (1 Cor. 13:12).

If those who have still not entered into the fullness of union with God (“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” Rom. 3:23) can intercede for one another, then all the more those who are already in possession of that glory can intercede for those on earth.
In fact, intercessory prayer is quite commonly recommended in the Scriptures. Moses had the privilege of speaking to God face-to-face:

Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend (Ex. 33:11).

If an Israelite needed to ask a favor from God, he would always go through Moses. Certainly, the ancient Israelites had only a partial understanding of God and His goodness, and so they feared to approach God directly, but this imperfect understanding does not take away the value of intercessory prayer. The intercessory role assumed by Moses was continued by the Levitical priests throughout the history of the People of Israel. (The whole Book of Leviticus describes this role in detail.)
The Scriptures, then, clearly encourage intercessory prayer, and it does not forbid us to seek this intercession from the saints in heaven. Moreover, it seems reasonable (according to Catholics and Orthodox) to seek the intercession of those that are closest to God.
It is true that the Scripture does not make an explicit endorsement of the practice, but demanding an explicit endorsement of every practice is a rather restrictive criterion. (For example, the Bible does not explicitly endorse revival meetings, altar calls, or other typically Protestant practices.) Nevertheless, there are indications in the Scriptures that the early Church firmly believed in the intercession of the saints. Probably the best example can be found in Rev. 5:8:

And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

In this context the “saints” (hagioi) are actually the members of the Church living on earth. In this passage, St. John (the author of Revelation) takes for granted those who are before the throne of the Lamb (i.e., God the Son) have the task of presenting the prayers (incense) of those on earth. This is intercession on the part of heavenly creatures on behalf of those still living on earth. (The 24 elders probably represent the 12 patriarchs of Israel and the 12 Apostles; hence John is most likely referring here to human, not angelic, intercessors.)
Let us now examine some possible objections to the Catholic (and Orthodox) practice of praying to the saints:
Aren’t the saints dead? Didn’t God forbid contact with the dead?
The saints are “dead” in the sense that they are no longer physically present on earth, but they are, in fact, very much alive in Heaven, in perfect union with their Creator. Jesus himself makes this very point when answering the Sadduccees:

And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living (Mt. 22:32).

It is true that God prohibits necromancy, or conjuring the dead:

There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you. You shall be blameless before the Lord your God, for these nations, which you are about to dispossess, listen to fortune-tellers and to diviners. But as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you to do this (Deut. 18:10-14).

Necromancy means obliging a dead man’s soul to appear on earth by magical incantations. Praying to saints for their intercession has nothing to do with this practice. Necromancy, unlike prayer to the saints, does not respect the freedom of the one who is conjured up (even assuming that it is successful: there is always the grave risk of conjuring up an evil spirit instead of the dead person in question).
In summary: the saints are not dead, nor does praying to them constitute a forbidden, occult practice.
How can the saints hear us?
Although Rev. 5:8 indicates that those before the throne of the Lamb have knowledge of our prayers, a possible objection is that the saints, mere creatures, are not omniscient, and so they cannot hear all of our prayers.
Catholics (and Orthodox) would reply that the saints, being creatures, are certainly not omniscient; that is, they do not have all knowledge, as their Creator does. They do, however, enjoy the direct vision of God, and this vision entails knowledge of all those things that are relevant to them.
Moreover, time in Heaven does not pass in the same way as time on earth:

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Peter 3:8).
For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night (Ps. 90:4).

Since it is through their vision of God that the saints acquire their knowledge, they have no problem hearing our prayers, even if those prayers are numerous.
Isn’t Jesus the One Mediator?
A possible objection stems from the following passage in 1 Timothy:

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5).

Catholics (and Orthodox) do not dispute the uniqueness of Christ’s mediation, which is based on the very Incarnation. Jesus’ unique status as the One Mediator does not, they would say, prevent God from establishing lesser mediations subordinate to the first. Jesus, as it were, bridges the gap, opened by the sin of Adam, between God and man; that does not prevent him from establishing other “bridges” between himself and the men still on earth. Jesus, in fact, clearly did this by establishing the Church, and the Apostles to lead it.
In any case, St. Paul cannot be forbidding intercessory prayer (which is mediation of the secondary kind), because he has just commanded it in the immediately preceding passage. (See above.)
Can’t we pray to Jesus directly?
Catholics (and Orthodox) would emphatically reply in the affirmative. Not only can we pray to Jesus directly, we should do so, and doing so should be the main focus of our prayer. They would say that intercessory prayer (including asking saints for their prayers) is simply one of the ways that God wishes to involve all members of the Church in the work of redemption: after all, if we ask the saints to pray for us, it is so that they they (as well as we) pray to Jesus.