How do people who reject transubstantiation interpret these verses? Luke 22:19 (The Message)

  Taking bread, he blessed it, broke it, and gave it to them, saying,
  “This is my body, given for you. Eat it in my memory.”

It has been argued that even the grammar must be taken into account. From the grammatical structure of the sentence is the meaning of transubstantiation derived. The verse in Luke has been used to defend the doctrine of transubstantiation, but what about the next verse of John? Apparently, Jesus really emphasizes the fact that he is a piece of food, waiting to be eaten. How can this not be seen as transubstantiation? Maybe it's metaphorical, but still, he describes himself in a similar way.

John 6:35-40 (New International Version)

  Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will
  never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But
  as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All
  those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I
  will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my
  will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of
  him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me,
  but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that
  everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal
  life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

Now, this part seems to get a bit eerie. As it is a piece of dialogue in literature, it illustrates Jesus' character and how he reacts to questions. When prompted by the "Jews", he appears to take the bread as body of Christ literally, which may support the doctrine of transubstantiation.

John 6:52-59 (New International Version)

  Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this
  man give us his flesh to eat?”

  Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh
  of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will
  raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood
  is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in
  me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live
  because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of
  me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate
  manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” He
  said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

How do people who reject transubstantiation (but believe in sola scriptura) interpret these verses and still refute transubstantiation?

Side note: The issue isn't really about the doctrine of sola scriptura, but rather about literalism. "Sola scriptura" is a term used by Protestants to mean that we believe scripture is the only ultimate authority, as opposed to Catholic doctrines that the teachings of the Church fathers have equivalent or comparable authority to scripture. But nothing in your question is contrasting a Bible quote to a quote from a Church father. Rather you seem to be saying, "How can someone take the Bible literally and not believe in trans-substantiation?" But anyway, to the point ...

The easy answer is that people who do not believe in trans-substantiation believe that Jesus was not speaking literally, but symbolically or metaphorically.

When I say that I take the Bible literally, I do not mean that literally! Of course the Bible includes many statements that are poetic, symbolic, and so on. Like when I read Isaiah 55:12, "The mountains and the hills Shall break forth into singing before you, And all the trees of the field shall clap their hands", I don't suppose that he means that trees will literally sprout hands and applaud. This is poetic language to describe a joyous day. When people say that we take the Bible literally, we mean that we read the Bible the same way we read any other book: If a statement is presented as describing actual human beings doing things in the real world, then we accept that the writer is trying to say that these actual human beings did these actual things, even if those things are incredible, such as a miracle. We don't mean that we insist that anything that sounds like poetry or metaphor must be a literal physical description. (And yes, we concede the possibility that there may be cases where it is not obvious whether something is intended literally or figuratively. But we insist that's relatively rare. But that's another subject.)

So perhaps more relevantly, Matthew 16:6 "Then Jesus said to them, “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” The text goes on how the disciples wondered what he was talking about, Jesus explains, and it concludes, verse 12, "Then they understood that He did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

So when Jesus talked about the "leaven of the Pharisees", he was speaking poetically. He was not talking about literal leaven, but using the word leaven as a symbol for their teaching.

Likewise, people who are literalists and who reject trans-substantiation say that when Jesus talked about eating his body and drinking his blood, that he was speaking metaphorically, not literally. Just like when he talked about the leaven of the Pharisees.

I think most literalists would say that it is clear that Jesus was speaking symbolically here because at the time he said, for example, "This is my body which is broken for you", it is clear that the bread was not literally his physical body, as he was sitting right there. When we celebrate the eucharist today, I don't think anyone would suppose that a chemical test of the bread and wine would show it to be literal meat and blood from a human being. So when a trans-substantiationist says that Jesus meant these words literally, he doesn't really mean literally either. He doesn't think that the bread and wine are literally meat hacked out of Jesus's dead body and blood drained from his veins. He means that it becomes the body and blood of Jesus in some mystical, spiritual sense. So, in my humble opinion, the two camps are really not that far apart. Not that this hasn't resulted in a lot of argument.


What is the significance of Jesus saying "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending"? All Scriptures are quoted from the King James translation.
Four times in the Revelation Jesus uses that phrase(they are all in red letters):

Revelation 1:8  I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Revelation 1:11  Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Revelation 21:6  And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
Revelation 22:13  I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

But we know that Jesus was existent at Creation or before since:

Luke 10:18  And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

It appears that Jesus had some other motive for using those particular words, rather than Eternal.

This is a powerful assertion of Deity by Jesus.  You are correct that it is, in fact, Jesus Himself who is speaking here and not the Father.  That is made clear in this passage, as Jesus was the One who "was dead" and is now "alive forevermore".

  17 When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, 18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.  Revelation 1:17-18 NASB

Jesus is, indeed, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, the Almighty.

Paul's letter to the Colossians is also simliar:

  He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.   Colossians 1:15 NASB

It is noteworthy to reference the passage in Isaiah where God states something very similar:

  “Who has performed and accomplished it, Calling forth the generations from the beginning?
  ‘I, the Lord, am the first, and with the last. I am He.’”  Isaiah 41:4 NASB

So, it was God (the LORD) in the Old Testament who claimed to be the First and the Last, and it is Jesus Himself who makes that very same claim in the New Testament.  God alone is the First and the Last, and Jesus claims to be God Almighty in an unmistakable manner.


Where do Saints go after we return with Jesus (Pentecostal perspective) I was wondering where the glorified Saints go to live after we return with Jesus as described in Revelation 19:11–16:

  And I saw Heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
   His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
   And he was clothed with vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
   And the armies which were Heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the wineprsee of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
  And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Do we stay in Israel or do we return to our homes?

I am interested in a Pentecostal perspective.

I'm not aware of a distinctive Pentecostal perspective on this that differs from any other literal, futurist interpretation. I believe that all such persons become part of Christ's worldwide government:

  And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations—

 ‘He shall rule them with a rod of iron;
 They shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels’—

  as I also have received from My Father; and I will give him the morning star. (Rev. 2:26-28)

They have authority over all the various places on Earth, while they may certainly be based in Israel, as Paul says that after the rapture and resurrection, "And thus we shall always be with the Lord" (1 Thess. 4:17).


How do Young Earth Creationists counter scientific evidence for an old earth? How do Young Earth Creationists defend their beliefs against articles like this:

100 million year old spider eating a wasp

  100 million years ago, when dinosaurs were still around, this spider
  had captured a wasp in his web. The wasp was going to be the spider's
  dinner. The wasp was going to die watching the spider kill him. The
  wasp was going to—SPLAT. At that exact moment—one hundred million
  freaking years ago—tree resin flowed over on top of them and froze the
  two bugs in time for us to see now.

@El'endia Starman's comment is correct.  One of the common assumptions of the young-earth position is that the dating methods that give us billions or millions of years of history are flawed.  I could give hundreds links to support the statement that this is a well-accepted assumption among YEC-ists, but I'll limit myself.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/dating-methods
http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/radiometric.htm
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evidences.htm#11
http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V1/1evlch07a.htm

We'd also counter with "If the dating methods are so accurate, how is it the  coelacanth stayed un-evolved for millions of years?"  and a whole host of other similar questions.

I'd also point out that the article makes no mention of how the author came to the conclusion that the thing is 100 million years old.  It just states it as if it were undisputed fact with no evidence to back it up, which wouldn't even fly here, as there's no supporting references.  We don't even need to bring up the dating methods for this article. We could just ask where that figure comes from.  (Then we'd need to debunk the dating methods.)

The answer could and probably should end with the above, but in the interest of stemming the all-but-inevitable debate in comments, I'd like to add...

None of which proves anything, either way.   All such questions do is lead to endless pointless debate.

Neither side is likely to throw aside our presuppositions to give credit to the opposing side.  To the atheist, the idea of allowing for supernatural explanations is incomprehensible.  For the YEC Creationist, there's nothing less than the entire foundation for Christianity at stake.  And of course, in between those two polar opposite views are hundreds of shades of differences, concern, and apathy.

And note, I did not state that evolution is true or false, I was very careful to stick to "How do YEC defend" not "Is the YEC view true", despite my well-known opinions on the matter.  This isn't the place to debate which position on origins is true.  I answered only because this asked specifically how a certain group within Christianity typically responds to the given statement.  "How they respond" is answerable objectively.  ;-).


Calvinism and Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit Matthew 12:31 says blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in the ESV Study Bible, says that it is, "This sin is committed today only by unbelievers who deliberately and unchangeably reject the ministry of the Holy Spirit in calling them to salvation"
In Calvinism, the I in TULIP is irresistible grace. Those God elected cannot resist His grace and that man will answer God's call. You can't resist it. So how does this fit in with blasphemy of the Holy Spirit where unbelievers resists the ministry of the Holy Spirit? Does the Holy Spirit try to work in everyone? Or does the Holy Spirit only work within those elected?

Jesus makes it quite clear that blasphemy is a matter of speech. 'He that speaketh ...' is how Jesus, himself, defines the unforgivable sin of which he warns.

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. [Matthew 12:32 KJV]

The word Jesus uses, reported by Matthew 12:32, Mark 3:28-39 and Luke 12:10 is βλασφημία which Thayer (see Strong 988) lists as 'slander' 'injurious speech' and 'impious and reproachful speech' is, invariably, a matter of the spoken word.
It seems to me that Calvin, himself, has caused a difficulty when he defines the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit thus  :

I say therefore that he sins against the Holy Spirit who, while so constrained by the power of divine truth that he cannot plead ignorance, yet deliberately resists, and that merely for the sake of resisting. For Christ, in explanation of what he had said, immediately adds, ‘Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him,’ (Mt. 12:3

Perchristum Wordpress

Calvin, in this place, defines the unforgivable sin as 'resisting' but does not make it clear that the sin is blasphemy, which is a matter of speaking. 'Resisting' could mean an internal matter, deep within the spirit of a man. And in the spiritual experience, there can be confusion within, ignorance and doubt.
But to 'speak against' is what is in view, according to the three apostolic reports of Jesus' definition.
If every resistance to the Holy Spirit is unforgivable then who shall be saved ?
Was not Saul of Tarsus found breathing out threatenings and slaughter against that which he knew of Christ ? And did not he 'kick against the stings' ?
Yet it is so, that Paul tells us he did it ignorantly and in unbelief. Not wilfully, in the full appreciation of what he was doing. We read of his turmoil and deep, spiritual experience in Romans 7.
But regarding the context and the content of Jesus' words on the subject, it seems abundantly plain that it is the verbal attributing of the visible effects of the power of the Holy Spirit to the 'Devil' (Diabolos, properly). This would not be forgiven, in this life or the next, if one publicly states that what is visibly and palpably holy, and of God . . .  is of the Devil : to have that deliberately in the mind and heart, and then to publicly make a verbal accusation against the evident work of the Holy Spirit, claiming it is of the 'devil' is to be cut off, forever, from him who brings the things of God and of Christ and shows them to us.
And, true, such do (also) resist, within themselves, personally, as well as communally :

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. [Acts 7:51 KJV]

Many people I have read of and heard of, and known, have been greatly troubled that they have committed the unforgivable sin. And whilst it is a good thing to consider carefully what one says when one opens one's mouth regarding the things of God, yet it can cause great harm if these matters are misunderstood.


Is there such a thing as Orthodox Lutheran Christian? I was talking with my buddy the other day. He said he is Orthodox Lutheran Christian. Is that a real thing? I don't think so.

There are several ways in which he could be meaning this.

One, there are indeed churches that identify themselves as Orthodox (big-O) Lutheran. For example: Lutheran Orthodox Church and Orthodox Lutheran Confessional Conference. This would mean he is a member of a specific church/sect that calls themselves these words.

Two, there is a historical era of Lutheranism known as Lutheran orthodoxy, which is mostly historical but has had some resurgence lately.  See: Lutheran orthodoxy. This would mean he probably is theologically educated and can go on at length about the Book of Concord.  This may align closely with #1 above (for example, the OLCC strongly adheres to the Book of Concord).

Three, he may mean an orthodox (practicing, mainline belief) Lutheran. He may mean this as opposed to "those people who call themselves Lutherans but don't go to church or know the first thing about its theology", or he may be referring to some denominational beef - I'd actually put 20 bucks on his meaning is "I'm Missouri Synod and not one of those fruity ELA or ELCA folks," or potentially "I'm ELA instead of one of those fruity ELCA folks."  Those are the three major Lutheran denominations, in decreasing order of cultural conservatism, and like to talk smack about each other in a semi-friendly way.

If you're really curious, ask him "what do you mean exactly by Orthodox?"  In any of these three cases he'll probably be thrilled to hold forth on it for you.


Why is being gay considered more sinful than being divorced or commiting adultery? I am looking for Biblical evidence that homosexuality is a greater sin than adultery or divorce (for any reason other than adultery).

Prohibitions of "sexual immorality" could cover homosexuality, and I understand that Christian marriage is to be the joining of a man and woman as long as they live. I have also read Paul's warnings about men acting/dressing like women and vice versa, but these still don't seem to be outweighed by the passages relating to adultery.

Many Christians are opposed secular gay marriage but do not seem to oppose secular divorce that can set aside a Christian marriage for "no fault".

It is worth noting that while divorce was not part of God's original intent / design, for those who were determined to divorce, God made a provision (through Moses) for them to do that in a respectful way.
This is in stark contrast with homosexuality, which, throughout the entire Christian canon is characteristic of deep depravity (cf. Sodom, Rom. 1), and leads to the severest condemnation and judgment from God -- every time it is mentioned.
Sin is sin, but one is tolerated (cf. polygamy), and one is severely, consistently condemned (cf. idolatry.)

Regarding the alleged distinction between orientation and practice, we should probably consider Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, where He explicitly refutes such thinking and defines even perverse thoughts as sin.
So what is a "homosexually-oriented" person to do?

those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. -Galatians 5:24
we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ -2 Corinthians 10:5
Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. -Colossians 3:2
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. -Philippians 4:8

...which, incidentally, is good advice in general for any such struggle with the flesh.


Persecution of Jewish people by Christians in Middle Ages? I want to apologize ahead if my questions sound disrespectful to anybody. This isn't my intent. I grew up in East Asia which has very few Christians, but I have been very interested in the history of Christianity and the content of Bible.

I have trouble understanding the persecution of Jews by Christians in Middle Ages. According to the Old Testament, Hebrews/Israelites are the "Chosen People" of God. The whole Old Testament is about how Jews struggled to find their land of promised. Isn't it against God's will, to persecute Jews? How did Middle Age Christians manage to explain these from theological point of view?

Another related question is, Old Testament was written in Hebrew. It didn't make a lot of sense to me, that Middle Age Christians would treat texts written in the language used by people they didn't like.

I am not trying to offend anybody. I have no doubt that modern Christians don't hate Jews. I just have trouble understanding how Middle Age Christians explained what they did in theological point of view.

English is not my native language, and I have been self-studying Bible. My knowledge could have serious defects and my terminologies could be way off. I would appreciate if you guys can bear with me, and help me understand the history and the Bible better.

This is an important question. While we today decisively reject the terrible things that people in the past thought and did, we should not shy away from recognizing what they did and why. And as Christians we must be honest about the role of religion and the church.

The "Middle Ages" covers a thousand years and the whole of Europe - and Jewish life varied considerably in different times and places - so this is going to be a bit general. If there are specific things you'd like to know more about, please do ask more questions.

Among the arguments used to justify antisemitism at the time are the following:

Supersession. The mantle of 'the chosen people' passed to Christians, and the old covenant has been superseded by the new.
Christ-killing. The Jews were held collectively responsible for the death of Jesus: his blood was on their heads. This is related to supersession, because it shows the covenant being broken.
General heresy. Anyone who did not share the Christian faith was not truly part of the community. This was used to justify various restrictions on holding public office, receiving university education, entering into mixed marriage, owning property, testifying in court, entering into contracts, etc. In addition it was common to think that Jewish people were particularly devious and untrustworthy, more so than regular Christian heretics.
Usury. New Testament prohibitions on usury were invoked as a sign of Jews being evil (exploitative of "honest Christian folk").
Evil magic. Again related to Christ-killing and general mistrust, some thought that Jewish people were in league with the devil, who granted them magical powers which they used to the ruin of the local community - especially by spreading disease. The infamous blood libel (that they murdered and ate Christian babies) was seen as a Satanic parody of the Eucharist.

As you can see, the basic theological root is the idea that by rejecting Jesus, the old covenant was abrogated and the Jews were no longer the chosen people. However, medieval antisemitism is not just about theology: it also has a lot to do with not liking people who are different. There is also a tremendously important political and economic angle. It would be too simplistic to say that the religious or political establishment was solely responsible, or that it was all about popular prejudice. These aspects all strengthened and supported each other.

Meanwhile, you also wanted to know about the Old Testament being written in Hebrew. This is true. But there was a long period when knowledge of the language was pretty scanty - certainly among everyday clergy. The standard circulating text was in Latin, which was also the language of liturgy, scholarship, law, and public administration. The Greek "Septuagint" was also important - again, though, a bit more specialised. Most people would not have encountered any Hebrew text. But even for those who did, the idea of succession of covenants allowed them to receive the Old Testament scripture as part of Christian patrimony. They could praise the great virtue of Abraham, Moses, or David, even speaking in glowing terms of the magnificence of the Temple and the detail of Jewish religious life, while still rejecting Jewish people who were born in years AD instead of BC.


Did the early church fathers view "monogenes" as "only" or "only-begotten"? Did the early church fathers view "monogenes" as "only" or "only-begotten"?

The following Bible verses have "monogenes" in it:

Verse              KJV                NET
John 1:14      only begotten     the one and only
John 1:18      only begotten     only one
John 3:16      only begotten     one and only
John 3:18      only begotten     one and only
1 John 4:9     only begotten     one and only
Luke 7:12      only              only
Luke 8:42      only one          only
Luke 9:38      only child        only child
Hebrews 11:17  only begotten     only son

With only one exception, the King James Version translates it to specify that the only is a child. However, modern translations, such as the New English Translation, use "one and only" most of the time. How was this word understood by the Church Fathers?

In Greek mono by itself means "only" so monogenes has to mean something more. As the earliest fathers were writing in Greek, they would have no need to define or translate the term.

Justin Martyr (circa 150 AD) says in his First Apology, chapter 23:

  Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power

This demonstrates to me that he saw the begotten aspect as part of the term monogenes.

Tertullian (circa 210) says in Against Praxeas, chapter 7:

  "The Lord created or formed me as the beginning of His ways;" then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect--"When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him." Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from Himself He became His first-begotten Son, because begotten before all things; and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, from the womb of His own heart-even as the Father Himself testifies: "My heart," says He, "hath emitted my most excellent Word."

Also, in the Arian controversy we clearly see they included the concept of begotten in their interpretation rather than deleting it as modern translators tend to do.  Otherwise, the Nicene Creed would not say "γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα." That is, "begotten, not made."

I found an interesting article, An Inductive Study of the Use of Monogenes in the New Testament written by a Doug Kutilek, arguing that the real meaning is simply "unique" or "one of a kind."   However, he admits that this is clearly not how it was interpreted in the third and fourth centuries.  His last paragraph:

  Understanding monogenes in its proper sense--one that completely excludes any notion of “begetting” or “begotten”--has strong theological implications for the doctrine of Christ.  It renders moot the whole heated theological debate of the third and fourth centuries concerning the so-called “eternal generation of the Son,” a term which always left me with the uncomfortable feeling that if we accepted such terminology at face value, we were admitting de facto that Christ was a created being and not God.  It also makes the Nicene Creed’s affirmation that Christ was “begotten but not made” (gennethenta, ou poiethenta) so much verbal nonsense. [21]  Likewise, proposed translations of monogenes such as that noted in Arnt and Gingrich’s Greek Lexicon, namely “begotten of the only one” are exposed as wholly ludicrous and unfounded. [22]  Christ is the unique Son of God; that is, in the sense in which He is the Son of God, He has no brothers.


What biblical/traditional elements lead Catholics to believe that saints can hear our prayers? There have been quite a few questions on the 'orthodoxy' of praying to saints, or rather asking them to pray for us1. Also questions on why Protestants don't/should do the same. My question is slightly more practical: leaving aside whether it's 'allowed' or not: what is the basis for Catholics believing that we might even be heard?

God is omnipresent, so being able to pray to him anywhere and any time 'makes sense'. Even if the saints are currently 'alive' (rather than being in limbo awaiting judgement day), what is the 'mechanism' by which they are supposed to be able to 'hear' our requests?

1 I'm not yet convinced that this distinction is really respected in practice.

Catholic traditions often reach deep into the Jewish roots of the faith and the answer to this question might be best supplied by looking at the Jewish teachings on Caleb who was asked to reconnoiter the land of Canaan and report back to Moses.

Caleb made a "side trip" to the graves of the Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and asked for the heavenly intercession.

As we know, Caleb is the lone voice of optimism for the potential taking of the land.

In the Jewish faith these men and women (such as the Patriarchs and Matriarchs) are called "Righteous" wherein a similar comparison could be made to the men and women of heaven that Catholics call "Saints."


According to Baptist teachings, what are the actual precepts God requires of us who are his? I am reading Psalm 103 and I come to the word "precepts" in these verses in the NIV:

  17 But from everlasting to everlasting the Lord's love is with those
  who fear him, and his righteousness with their children's children—
  18 with those who keep his covenant and remember to obey his precepts.

According to Baptist teachings, what precepts does God require from his children, particularly in reference to this Psalm?

Lord's Blessings.

It is pretty widely accepted, that the old testament Jews believed this too be the most important precept,  was this
Deuteronomoy 6:4-5 called the "Shema"

  4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one![a] 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.

The next section is good too. Deut 6:5-9

  6 “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

The idea being, that your life is devoted to obeying the Lord. You write his commandments on your front door, you talk about them all day, at home, with your friends, your family, you meditate on the word as you wake up, and before you go to sleep.

Compare with Proverb, 3:6

  In all your ways acknowledge Him,
  And He shall direct[a] your paths.

Making a list of all the "precepts" of God for human life could take a very long time. God understands the variety of human life, and in the Bible has left 66 books, covering a variety of issues, times, and situations.

The bible speaks on every facet of human life, God has things to say on, How you treat your family, How do you share your faith, how to be a good husband, how to be a good wife, how to obey the authorities in your life who are christian, how to obey authorities in your life who are secular, principles for giving money, principles for sexual behavior, principles for morality, principles for treating other believers, principles for running a local church etc etc etc.

A list of all the different precepts would be extremely long. When Jesus was asked a similar question, here is how he responded.
Matthew 22:35-40

  5 Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”
  37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’[d] 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’[e] 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”

Many times, people want to look for a few specific rules which they can keep perfectly, and then they will be able to feel like "Good" people.

The bible is clear that we are not saved by obeying the law, rather we are saved by Grace, and any "good works" are a result of being saved, and not what causes us to be saved.

see Ephesians 2:8-10

  8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

So with all this being said, God certainly does have standards for his children, there are absolutely "do's and dont's"

The classic example of these would be the Ten Commandments.  You can find these in Exodus 20.

These lay out foundational principles for how we are to honor God, and how we are to honor other human beings as well.

*footnote
Your question was addressed to "Us who are His". This is who these are addressed to. These are built on main requirement of God towards people
Jesus said in Mark 1:15

  14 Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom[e] of God, 15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.”


What is synthetic theology? In a comment conversation on another question I suspect (at the chastisement of my interlocutor) I may have misused the term "synthetic theology" (or, perhaps, theological synthesis?).

I think I had in mind that the term intends bringing together multiple passages to form a cohesive theology. Am I off-base here? What is meant by this term?

Yes, this is the same as "systematic theology". Systematics looks at the Bible in a logical fashion, whereas biblical theology looks at the Bible in its revealed order and tries to make sense of the overarching flow and history of redemption. Many commentators believe that systematics has nothing to do with exegesis or biblical theology, but nothing could be further from the truth.

If you start from the doctrine that the Scriptures are infallible, inerrant, and inspired (which I do), and that they are the only ultimate rule for faith and practice, then I think the best way to think of both systematics and biblical theology is an ever-evolving, constantly re-calibrating synthesis of all understood passages in Scripture. Scripture interprets Scripture (analogy of faith). Whenever a particular interpretation of a passage comes to be known as incorrect, you have to root out all misunderstandings based on that misinterpretation, and then incorporate the better interpretation into your systematics and biblical theology. Systematics and biblical theology both work this way. The difference is in the emphases and the order in which they go about looking at Scripture. a_hardin has posted a useful answer here that gets at what I'm saying.


Does Catholicism Have Anything to Say About 'Physical Evil'? Does the Catholic Church have anything specific to say about the Problem of Natural (or Physical) Evil. I'm not asking for a defense of Moral Evil, which I have heard answers for and accepted them as valid. However most explanations focus on Moral Evil; so does the Roman Catholic Church have anything additional to say on Physical Evil?

The writings of a revered Saint on the Subject would be sufficient in place of an official teaching from the Magisterium.

EDIT: And by Physical/Natural Evil I mean things such as disasters, disease and other things which do not have any human related causes. I know some cancers and disasters have been caused by human activity, but many seem to happen by virtual of the way the universe is.

You're asking for a quick answer for a complex and hard question, as I'm sure you are well aware.

I find that natural selection can be used as an theodicy, if one if willing to reject design arguements (arguments which Thomists reject anyway).

For example, on can cite Dr. Richard Dawkins on the benefits of natural selection in order to justify animal suffering (without that suffering, the goods of natural selection wouldn't arise). And who doesnt enjoy citing Dr. Dawkins as a defence for Theism? ;-)

Overall, although suffering is in itself ontologically evil, it can be, in the context of our fallen world, justified, as in this fallen world, suffering is necessary for great good (suffering is good per accidens). For example, the good of martyrdom cannot exist without suffering, and more importantly, the massive good of God becoming Man would not have happened without the Fall. This all works under St. Augustine's argument that if suffering can point to a greater good, it can be justified. In other words, as long as we realize that perfect goodness cannot arise without suffering ("your salvation was bought with a price"), the AFE doesn't work against Christian theology, unless the proponent of the AFE finds a meaningless evil in which no good can come, which it seems only a omniscient person can ultimately know.

You may wish to meditate on these articles by a Latin Catholic philosopher:

https://thomism.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/on-a-repugnant-presentation-of-the-argument-from-evil/

https://thomism.wordpress.com/2015/08/27/the-afe-utopia-and-the-cross/

https://thomism.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/tinkering-around-with-a-new-theodicy-argument/

https://thomism.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/the-argument-from-evil-in-the-gospel/

https://thomism.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/job-and-the-argument-from-evil/

https://thomism.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/assumptions-in-arguments-from-evil/

https://thomism.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/gratuitous-evil-would-be-good-for-atheism/

https://thomism.wordpress.com/?s=Argument+from+evil&submit=Search

Christi pax.


How do the Seventh Day Adventist approach Old Testament laws? I know the Seventh Day Adventist church is known for following certain Old Testament laws found in Leviticus such as the food/dietary laws. However I'm also under the impression that they don't follow all 600+ Levitical laws either. Is there a reason why they follow certain Levitical laws like food/dietary but don't follow others, such as wearing clothing made of two different materials (Lev 19:19) or cutting the hair at the sides (Lev 19:17)? To what extent do they keep the laws?

We Seventh Day Adventists distinguish between three different kinds of laws in the Bible:

Moral laws.
Ceremonial laws.
We also believe that there were laws in the OT specific to Israel as a nation. Something like their "civil code".

(Strictly speaking, there are also a few descriptions of other nations' laws in some books, like Persian laws in Daniel, or Roman laws in the NT; but these have nothing to do with theology or with laws given by God to His people.)

First, let me say that for us, the only laws that apply today are the Moral laws. But this poses at least two more questions:

How do we distinguish between the three types of laws?
Why, if the ceremonial laws do not apply anymore, are we still not eating some meals?

I will do my best to briefly answer these questions:

1. Distinction

The moral laws are the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5). They are different from any other laws in the OT in at least the following aspects:

Although beautifully synthesized in the Ten Commandments, all of them are supported by the Bible as a whole. For example, Adventists believe that the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment started with the Creation (Genesis 2:1-3), and thus it was given to mankind and not just to Israel. I mention the Sabbath because most Christians will probably agree on the other nine as perfectly valid today (probably with some different points of views, mainly from the Roman Catholic Church regarding the Second Commandment). There is a lot to write about the Sabbath and why it's still important today, but that's better for a different, new question.
They were written by God Himself in stone and given to Moses (Exodus 31:18 and 32:16).
Those were the only laws in the Ark of the Covenant (2 Chronicles 5:10, Hebrews 9:4). That's in relation with Adventists' unique fundamental belief of the Sanctuary, which is probably the most distinctive doctrine in Adventism.
They will apply after the Second Coming of Jesus, as they are the base of God's government (Revelation 22:14, Isaiah 66:22-23).
The Law of God is of such importance that it required Jesus to die for us, as the Only Means of Salvation. In other words, His law is absolutely immutable, so not even God will change it, giving his only Son instead (John 3:16).

On the other hand, the ceremonial laws were only of importance in the context of giving the OT people the best possible understanding of God's plan of salvation. This is also better understood (in an Adventist context) through the belief of the Sanctuary. These, and only these laws, according to Adventism, were abolished in the cross.

Finally, regarding the laws that were only regulating OT Israel's life as a nation under the theocracy (although were applied too under certain kings—not all—during the Monarchy), probably most Christians will agree that those were given only for that context and that they are easy to distinguish even from ceremonial laws. Jesus even mentioned that some of them were given to Israel "because of the hardness of your hearts" (Mathew 19:8). For most Adventists interpreters, these laws have a relation with our fundamental belief of the Present Truth (a topic that would  exceed this question).

2. Health and OT laws:

The idea that we extract our health practices (barely the only practices in relation with the OT laws that aren't part of the moral law) from the OT ceremonial or "civil" laws is a misunderstanding of Adventism. In fact, a lot of Adventists are vegetarians simply because our idea is that God created us (and the animals—yes, our view of Creation is a bit different too) as vegetarians (Genesis 1:29-30, 2:9). That's present in other portions of the Bible, in relation with health (see Daniel 1:8-20). For example, Ellen White wrote about the people living before the Flood:

  "They loved to destroy the lives of animals. They used them for food,
  and this increased their ferocity and violence, and caused them to
  look upon the blood of human beings with astonishing indifference."
  (Spirit of Prophecy, p. 69)

There are plenty of other White's statements about food and health (see Ellen G. White's Message on Health)

So for us, God authorized at some point to eat some meats, but that does not mean that that was His original plan at all. And the "authorized" meat was, in our view, the "less unhealthy". Also, it's worth noting that the distinction between clean and unclean animals appears much earlier in the Bible than when Israel's laws were given, as the clean animals are in the Flood story, supernaturally selected by God in bigger quantity to enter the Ark, as stated in Genesis 7:2:

  Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

So for Adventists who are not vegetarians, the OT food laws act as the guide, although a lot of us do understand that our duty is to become vegetarians. But please note that this is not the understanding of all Adventists, so our consensus is to at least, follow OT rules regarding food.

Finally, this page may be of help describing our 6 Doctrines and our 28 Fundamental Beliefs, including taking care of our bodies as a Temple for the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20): www.adventist.org -> Beliefs.


Why was Thanksgiving in the US traditionally the last Thursday before Advent? Prior to a change instituted by President Roosevelt I understand United States Thanksgiving was the last Thursday in November.

This is invariably the last Thursday before Advent Sunday (Nov 27 - Dec 3).

My question is whether this was deliberately intended to be the last Thursday before Advent, or if not was there some other reason.

Why was Thanksgiving in the US traditionally the last Thursday before Advent?

The Short answer is: There seems to be no connection between Thanksgiving Day and the First Sunday of Advent. However, the number of shopping days after Thanksgiving influenced the move from the Last Thursday of November (1863) to the Fourth Thursday of November (1939).

In fact the First Thanksgiving was held by the Pilgrims in October 1621.

  The event that Americans commonly call the "First Thanksgiving" was celebrated by the Pilgrims after their first harvest in the New World in October 1621. This feast lasted three days, and—as accounted by attendee Edward Winslow — it was attended by 90 Native Americans and 53 Pilgrims. The New England colonists were accustomed to regularly celebrating "thanksgivings"—days of prayer thanking God for blessings such as military victory or the end of a drought. - Thanksgiving (United States)

While turkey is today the bird of choice for Thanksgiving dinners across the United States, this was not always the case: according to History.com, for the first ever Thanksgiving in 1621 the Indians killed five deer as a gift for the colonists, meaning venison would most likely have been the dish of the day.

  Thanksgiving is a national holiday in the United States, celebrated on the fourth Thursday of November. It originated as a harvest festival. Thanksgiving has been celebrated nationally on and off since 1789, with a proclamation by George Washington after a request by Congress. Thomas Jefferson chose not to observe the holiday, and its celebration was intermittent until the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, when Thanksgiving became a federal holiday in 1863, during the American Civil War. Lincoln proclaimed a national day of "Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens," to be celebrated on the last Thursday in November. Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the date was changed to the fourth Thursday in November, an innovation that endures to this day. Together with Christmas and the New Year, Thanksgiving is a part of the broader fall–winter holiday season in the U.S. Thanksgivng (United States)

President Abraham Lincoln chose that the Last Thursday of November to be that of Thanksgiving because of the decisive victory the Union Army had at Gettysburg.

  On this day (October 3) in 1863, expressing gratitude for a pivotal Union Army victory at Gettysburg, President Abraham Lincoln announces that the nation will celebrate an official Thanksgiving holiday on November 26, 1863. - Lincoln proclaims official Thanksgiving holiday

The final change from the Last Thursday of November to the Fourth Thursday of November was not influenced by the First Sunday of Advent but by the number of shopping days left before Christmas.

At the beginning of Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, Thanksgiving was not a fixed holiday; it was up to the President to issue a Thanksgiving Proclamation to announce what date the holiday would fall on. However, Thanksgiving was always the last Thursday in November because that was the day President Abraham Lincoln observed the holiday when he declared Thanksgiving a national holiday in 1863. Franklin Roosevelt continued that tradition, but he soon found that tradition was difficult to keep in extreme circumstances such as the Great Depression. His first Thanksgiving in office, 1933, fell on November 30th, the last day of the month, because November had five Thursdays that year. Since statistics showed that most people did not do their Christmas shopping until after Thanksgiving, business leaders feared they would lose money, especially during the Depression, because there were only 24 shopping days between Thanksgiving and Christmas. They asked Franklin Roosevelt to make Thanksgiving one week earlier. President Roosevelt ignored those concerns in 1933, but when Thanksgiving once again threatened to fall on the last day of November in 1939, FDR reconsidered the request and moved the date of Thanksgiving up one week. Thanksgiving 1939 would be held, President Roosevelt proclaimed, on November 23rd and not November 30th.

  The fourth Thursday of November remained the annual day of Thanksgiving from 1863 until 1939. Then, at the tail-end of the Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, hoping to boost the economy by providing shoppers and merchants a few extra days to conduct business between the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, moved Thanksgiving to November’s third Thursday. In 1941, however, Roosevelt bowed to Congress’ insistence that the fourth Thursday of November be re-set permanently, without alteration, as the official Thanksgiving holiday. - Lincoln proclaims official Thanksgiving holiday


Jeremiah's seventy years Many people come to different conclusions around the seventy year exile prophesied I. Jeremiah 25:11. Some say they were 360 day prophetic years, others say "seventy years" is a phrase to mean a generation.

The dates for the captivity vary, ranging from 606 BC to 536 BC. Wikipedia and others say the exile lasted from 605 BC to 537 BC. That's 68 years. However, with those dates I've realised that, although it only makes 68 solar years, it makes 70 lunar years.

I know the Hebrew calendar is lunar based, with a typical year consisting of twelve lunar months and having an additional 13th month once the first month drifted from Spring (when the first month is supposed to occur). These leap months are now mathematical, consistent, and predictable, but back in the time of ancient Israel these leap months were off the cuff, only occurring of the high priest said so at the end of the twelve months. Therefore I'm assuming there had to be some general idea of what a "year" actually was, time wise. Otherwise people will could make pledges for X years without any knowing of how many months they had pledged for.

So maybe when Jeremiah prophesied the 70 year exile, the Jews at the time could've understood that as being a time duration of 70 typical years, or 70x12 months.

Is this argument plausible? What are your opinions?

I've looked into the Talmud for answers and it appears that there is a difference between someone making a pledge for "a year" or "this year" and someone making a pledge for "one year". "This/a year" would mean for the rest of the year, even if that year turned into a leap year, whereas "one year" indicates 12 lunar months. I don't know how "seventy years" would be viewed as in the Talmud.

The Hebrew calendar is actually a luni-solar one (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar).

It is based not only on the moon, but also by the sun.  The reason is the moon revolves slower around the earth (about 29-30 days) than the earth around the sun (about 365.25 days).  This means that roughly every three years, the Hebrew calendar "added" a month (called intercalary month) of 29-30 days to bring the lunar time back in line with the sun's time.

This lunar/solar necessity is spelled out clearly in Ex. 12:2 (This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.)  It is the beginning of months (plural).  This, in combination with the barley first fruit wave sheaf offering (Lev. 23:10) and other seasonal feasts.  If they merely followed the moon cycle, within a couple of years there would not be barley to wave, nor to harvest 50 days later at Pentecost (Lev. 23:15-22).  So, they "added" the month to bring "agriculture time" back into the moon and sun alignment so they could follow the commandments.

This necessity and time keeping is also clearly found centuries later with Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews Book 3 Chapter 10.5  ("5. In the month of Xanthicus, which is by us called Nisan, and is the beginning of our year, on the fourteenth day of the lunar month, when the sun is in Aries,").  The alignment time was thus marked as the spring equinox.  This means they required the new moon and full moon to both be after the Spring Equinox.  The sun would be in Aries and alight the new moon also in Aries.

So, the Seventy Years is in fact 70 years as measured by the rotation past the Spring Equinox and not by the lunar months (30 days or 360 days) alone.


What is Augustine's original of Tolstoy's "Three Hermits" story? Leo Tolstoy's charming short story Three Hermits (Три старца) of 1886
has frequently been cited in academic and popular works about prayer.
I don't want to spoil the ending - the (short!) text can be readily found
online in English
and Russian.
There's even a film dramatization in Притчи 2 (2011)
(19m25 video). Tolstoy, a collector of folk tales, apparently
did not originate this story, but adapted or expanded it from one
he had heard.

In the 1961 translation by Gleb Struve
(Russian Tales, Bantam Books, 1961) he remarks:

  At the core of the legend lies a well-known subject, a variant of which can
  be found in St. Augustine. St. Augustine's version of the legend became known
  in Russia in the sixteenth century. It is unlikely, however, that Tolstoy used
  as his source any of the bookish versions; the legend probably
  came to him in an oral retelling. p165

Similarly, Donald Barthelme's
short story At the Tolstoy Museum (New Yorker, 24 May 1969, p32ff),
later collected in City Life (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1970),
includes the lines:

  [Three Hermits] is written in a very simple style. It is said to originate in a folktale.
    There is a version of it in St. Augustine.

It is not hard to find other people mentioning an Augustinian connection, but I haven't found anything more specific.
"In St. Augustine" is not a very helpful citation, given the
size of his corpus.

Does anyone know where Augustine's version of the story can be found (or indeed any non-Tolstoy version)?
How does Tolstoy's retelling differ from his Russian sources or from Augustine's original,
and do any of those differences relate to Tolstoy's specific Christian beliefs (for example, Christian anarchism and its rejection of church authority)?

Separating history from legend is often tricky. There is a legend stating that while Augustine of Hippo was writing his treatise De Trinitate (about the Trinity), he was walking along the beach and thinking about the Godhead. There he encountered a boy running back and forth between the ocean and a small hole in the sand, filling it with water. When Augustine asked the boy what he was doing, he replied, "I'm putting the sea into this hole." After Augustine commented on the absurdity of this notion, the boy retorted, "I will sooner empty the sea into this hole than you will manage to get the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity into your head!"

There is nothing in Augustine's writings containing this account, only legend. The story is told in the 15th century Legenda Aurea written by Jacobus de Voragine, and it is depicted in numerous works of art from that time until now.

It is possible that this legend influenced Tolstoy's telling of The Three Hermits, but that's somewhat of a stretch since these stories have different points they are trying to make. I am not aware of any other stories related to this associated with Augustine.


If Jesus was weak, how could he be a carpenter? From the Gospels, we know that Jesus was a carpenter.

Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?' And they took offense at him."
Mark 6:3 - NIV

However, Saint Irenaeus of Lyon said that Jesus was weak.

Some of them, moreover — [when they predicted that] as a weak and inglorious man, and as one who knew what it was to bear infirmity, Isaiah 53:3 and sitting upon the foal of an ass, Zechariah 9:9 He should come to Jerusalem; and that He should give His back to stripes, Isaiah 50:6..."
Against Heresies, book IV, chapter 33, section 12.

If Irenaeus was right, how could Jesus be the carpenter if He wasn't physically strong? Is great strength needed to be a carpenter?

The section of Ireaneus quoted here is part of a parenthetical phrase (note the hyphens).

  Some of them, moreover — [when they predicted that] as a weak and inglorious man, and as one who knew what it was to bear infirmity, Isaiah 53:3 and sitting upon the foal of an ass, Zechariah 9:9 He should come to Jerusalem; and that He should give His back to stripes, Isaiah 50:6 and His cheeks to palms [which struck Him]; and that He should be led as a sheep to the slaughter; Isaiah 53:7 and that He should have vinegar and gall given Him to drink; and that He should be forsaken by His friends and those nearest to Him; and that He should stretch forth His hands the whole day long; Isaiah 65:2 and that He should be mocked and maligned by those who looked upon Him; and that His garments should be parted, and lots cast upon His raiment; and that He should be brought down to the dust of death with all [the other] things of a like nature - prophesied

The reference is not to Jesus' weakness as a man, as though he was physically inferior to other men, but to his humility as regarding his having released his grasp upon the equality with the Father that He eternally enjoyed and His assuming the physical form and role of a human servant of the Father.

  Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.  And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. - Philippians 2:5-8

Therefore the comparison is not between Jesus strength and the strength of other men but between the power of God and the physical limitations that the Son of God took upon Himself.


Why have Ministers and Preachers stopped preaching on Hell? Back in my early years it seemed that every other Sermon was about staying out of Hell. Now it seems that you never hear any Sermons about how terrible it is there.

As a young child that scared me and began my quest to find Salvation.

At a recent Sermon the minister even said that the result of sin was eternal separation from God. And while I agree that that is a part of the punishment, I do not feel that it is any more horrendous than burning for eternity in the lake of fire and not being able to die.

My answer? Churches nowadays are unfortunately often focused on quantity. "We have X churchgoers" or "Our denomination has X followers". They preach in order to get more people to attend and come back for the next seremon.

Preaching about "controversal" subjects loses followers, as we can clearly see from the Gospel itself - John 6 from 53 on, where Jesus talks about eating flesh and drinking blood, which resulted in 66 "From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him." By the way, Jesus was not about quantity - his reaction was in 67 "Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?"

You can also recount the fate of John the Baptist. He preached to Herod about his unethical sexual relationships, and where did it got him?

I'm from Russia, and we had a similar case recently. A priest Daniel Sysoev http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Sysoyev (arcticle is short, if you want to know more, better read its russian version through google translator, since it's got more content).

He preached very radically and with disregard towards how people will take his word or be offended by it. He was not shy to speak about hell, and how muslims and atheists and gay people will suffer eternal damnation if they do not repent, he was not shy to state boldly that Christianity is the only true religion, and the only one that leads to salvation, he was not shy to state that God does punish sinners. He made huge missionary effort, he converted many muslims to Christianity.

What happened to him in the end? He was assasinated, shot in the chest in his own church building by a radical muslim. Many people regard him as a martyr.

I think this answers your question very well. Preaching about controversal subjects is hard, and requires a certain degree of selfishness. And gets you in trouble.

PS:
Finally, Hell is a hard subject to talk about because it has so many meanings entwined and attached to it. The term may very well be misunderstood by the modern society as some sort of prison for sinners, made by God to punish them, which it is not. So it may be a good idea to explain the concept without using the word.


Why is Acts 8:37 missing in the NIV? During bible study I noticed that Acts 8:37 was missing from my bible. Verse 36 goes straight onto verse 38. Some cursory Google searches show that this happens in the NIV but not the KJV.

Is there some controversy with the verse? A translation error? Hidden conspiracy?

Are there other verses of the bible like this? What is the story here.

It is important to understand that we do not have an "original copy" of any book of the Bible.  What we have are copies of copies of copies... (manuscripts), from which "Textual Critics" seek to ascertain the original wording.  It is the original wording that most Bible scholars hold to be perfect and inspired by God.

Many modern Christians view "The Bible" that is sitting on their shelves as the perfect, exact word of the living God, but this doctrine is a bit off.  What is sitting on your shelf is an English rendition of a particular translator's interpretation of the group of manuscripts he studied when writing his translation.  (NOTE: The Bible on your shelf is completely sufficient for understanding God's message to us in 99.99% of cases.)

The books of the Bible were not originally divided into verses - this happened around the 16th century.  This was a period in time when a very limited set of manuscripts were available for translation.  The numbering scheme was, of course, based on those manuscripts which were available at the time.  The KJV is one of the translations written around this time.  (It is very interesting to look at how few manuscripts the KJV is based on, but that is a huge volatile topic that I won't go into here.)

Since that time, thousands of manuscripts have been excavated, which have given us more insight into what the original wording might have been.  Modern translators (e.g. the NIV translators) seek to faithfully handle the word of God by considering as many reliable manuscripts as possible during translation - which is exactly what the KJV translators sought to do in their day (they just had far fewer manuscripts to work with.)

Contrary to what some in the KJV-only camp would have you believe, the NIV translators are not trying to lead you into a fiery demise by deceiving you with false translations.  Many of the so-called "missing verses" are referenced in the side-column of your NIV Bible (see here).  The only reason they were left out is that the translators of the NIV honestly believed that the evidence was overwhelmingly against those verses being part of the original writing.


Is Any New Testament Book Undisputed In Its Authorship? It seems as though every time I turn around, I find that "the majority of scholars" doubt this person wrote this gospel or letter. It seems as though no book of the NT is immune to this doubting and disputation. Doubting every single one of the books seems a bit beyond the pail to me, and suggests a real bias against giving validity to the new testament.

Is there a new testament book or letter whose authorship and date are undisputed and accepted? If not, which one has the strongest argument for its authenticity?

This is a good question, and I think there are several things to consider.

Straightaway, you should keep in mind that phrases like “the majority of scholars” or “many scholars”—which are encountered everywhere in Biblical scholarship—would be rejected even by Wikipedia as weasel words.

Next, as the commenter observes, everything can be questioned; and given that academics need publications and presentations in order to be employed, everything surely has been questioned by now. (See the Wikipedia article on the authorship of the Pauline epistles—even the “Undisputed epistles” are disputed; they give citations!)

But the final thing to ask is what kinds of arguments can be constructed either way. What does it mean, for instance, to dispute the authorship of Jude? There is nothing to compare it to; the same goes for Matthew and Mark, for example.

The name “Paul” has more books associated with it, and Paul is prominent in Acts, and is mentioned in 2 Peter 3:16. But even then, one can only ask whether the fourteen letters bearing Paul's name were written by the same person or different people. Perhaps I believe that the Pauline epistles were written by two different people. But I can never know which person had the Damascus Road experience. (Wikipedia lists Ephesians as disputed, but perhaps Ephesians is the only letter actually written by Paul, and all the others are forgeries. It's just not possible to argue one way or the other.)

A final note is that it's very difficult to make a convincing argument about authorship. Here is a passage from Richard Hays's The Moral Vision of the New Testament:

  New Testament scholars are sometimes oddly resistant to the idea that
  Paul could have developed or even declined as a theological thinker.
  When the topic of pseudonymous composition arises, I like to ask my
  students whether all those albums issued under the name of Bob Dylan
  for the last fifteen years can possibly be the work of the same person
  who performed “Highway 61 Revisited.


Can a pope be a heretic? Say for example a Pope infallibly declares that Mary was not a virgin, and is currently rotting in Hell. This obviously contradicts established Catholic Dogma. What would happen in this case? Would the cardinals get together and kick the Pope out of his office? Is a heretical ex cathedra definition cause for an automatic loss of the Papal position which would lead to a sedevacantism situation?

What would happen if a pope were to be a formal heretic?

Formal heresy is obstinately denying Catholic truths, even after being warned.

If a pope were to define a "dogma" ex cathedra that contradicts Catholic teaching, this "dogma" would not be binding nor be protected by papal infallibility as defined at Vatican I. Definable Catholic dogmas must first be material dogmas (cf. Pope Pius XII's letter to all bishops regarding to the definability of the Dogma of the Assumption), i.e., truths connected to Revelation and believed by the Church in all times and space, either explicitly or implicitly. Even Popes are bound to Tradition.

  Does the Pope lose his office?

The common opinion is yes, but when is another question:

There are two major camps among theologians regarding when. One (that of St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez) says that he would immediately lose his office, even before being warned and given an opportunity to correct his error. The other (that of John of St. Thomas and Cajetan) says God would take the office away from him after the Church convicts him and declares him a heretic (or "vitandus" = "to be avoided").

  If so, how is that formalised?

It is divine law that the Church must separate herself from heretics (cf. Gal. 1:8-9), so the Church has a duty to warn the pope, try him, and (if it comes to this) declare him a heretic and proceed to elect a valid pope.

  Do the cardinals have the power to kick him out?

No, not even all the world's bishops have the power to depose a valid pope. To think that would be the heresy of Conciliarism, that Councils of bishops (sans the pope) have equal or greater authority than the pope.

See also my answer to the question "In Catholic understanding when there is more than one Pope, who decides which Pope is real and by what criteria?"

An excellent recent work that covers all these issues (whether a pope can be a heretic; whether he can be elected if he was previously a heretic; whether a pope loses his office by proclaiming heresy; who can declare him a heretic; when he loses his office; how is he deposed, considering he has no superior on earth; etc.; etc.) is:

True or False Pope? by John Salza & Robert Siscoe (St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary Press, Aug. 2015)

on Amazon

Another good one is:

Can the Pope Go Bad?: A Call for the Resumption of a Debate Not Taken Seriously Since the 17th Century by the Brazilian intellectual A. V. Xavier da Silveira (Catholic Research Institute, Sep. 1999)


Do the Eastern Orthodox think the state of virginity is more meritorious than marriage? Do the Eastern Orthodox think the state of virginity is superior and more meritorious to the state of marriage? If so, what modern Eastern Orthodox theologians support this view?

cf. Is virginity more meritorious than marriage, according to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7?

I'm not EO but I read lots of their stuff (I am lapsed Coptic Orthodox).

A few points however to be made.

1) The terminology you use "meritorious" is Roman Catholic.   The EO has a different outlook than the Latin Church in regards to "the saints", Ecclesiology etc.

2) The easy answer however is to say "yes" or "sort of".    Such an argument can be made by actually looking at what saint Paul says in 1 Cor. 7: "32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord."

That being said the EO like the Catholics believe that marriage is a special vocation from God and honorable (just as saint Paul did).   But like saint Paul says, the single life of virginity does allow someone to focus solely on serving the Lord.    It is interesting that many Protestants believe we are "living in the Last Days", but have a very different outlook on this subject than saint Paul!


Does the doctrine of Sola Scriptura prohibit the use of empirical information to understand the bible? As an example, what about examining Jesus' interaction with the Roman Centurion using historical documents explaining how the Roman Army was run?

I will answer, because (as you may have noticed from my other answers) I'm about as "Sola Scriptura" as they come.

No.

Basically, we believe that Scripture was given by God as the standard for His people to use in determining truth.

  All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. - 2 Tim 3:16-17

(See also Titus 1:9.)  Since Scripture adequately equips you to correct false doctrine, that implies it is the standard of truth.

So the point is this: If a person teaches something contrary to Scripture, they are wrong.

That is not to say that everything outside of scripture is wrong (or "not from God")... just everything contrary.  Therefore we reject any teaching which opposes what we know (based on Scripture);

  We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ  - 2 Cor 10:5

So the only safe bet is to use Scripture as the foundation of all of your doctrine.  (Additional elements include understanding the Scriptures, being led by the Spirit, recognizing the teachers God has given, etc.)

So as I said, the answer to your question is "no."  In fact, studying history is incredibly helpful in understanding Scripture.  (When preparing for sermons, I have often found the NIV Archaeological Study Bible very helpful in bridging contexts between the ancient world and our own.)

I think the big distinction between Sola Scriptura and opposing views is that if the Bible says "X" and an external source says "Y", we consider the external source rubbish, whereas others may attempt to reconcile the two, sometimes by re-translating the Bible.


Why is foot washing so uncommon nowadays In John Chapter 13, Jesus tells us to wash each other's feet, and that we will be blessed if we do so. Why do most churches do not practice this?
How did this relatively easy and straight-forward task not become common practice in Christendom?

This answer does point out there are references of early Christians practicing footwashing, and there are few denominations still practicing footwashings.

Why is this not as common as communion? (Note: I'm NOT looking for why it is not part of the communion.)

  When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and
  returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?”
  he asked them. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so,
  for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have
  washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have
  set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. Very
  truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a
  messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know
  these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

Might it be a possibility that only John refers to footwashing and not the other Gospel writers? If we compare this to communion, communion is mentioned in all the Gospels except John.

EDIT: I do not accept "Our feet are more clean nowadays" as an answer. Even though this might be true, it is still needed to wash your feet once in a while.

It seems that the washing of feet was somewhat more popular in the Early Church and even extended into several centuries afterwards.

St benedict of Nursia (480-543) in his Rule for Monks which covers all aspects of monastic life includes a chapter on the reception of guests.

Chapter 53 states that "the Abbot pour water on the hands of the guests; and both he and the whole community shall wash the feet of all the guests. After this washing let them say this verse: "We have received Thy mercy, O God, in the midst of Thy temple." Let great care and solicitude be shown particularly in the reception of the poor and of travelers, because it is in them that Christ is more especially received; for, as regards the rich, the very fear one has for them procures them honor."

At what point this custom fell into disuse is not known, but Dom Paul Delatte OSB the third abbot of Solesmes (1848-1937) in his Commentary on the Rule has this to say about the washing of feet:

  The Abbot shall pour water on the hands of guests and wash their
  feet. Because the Abbot holds the place of Christ in the monastery,
  therefore is this function reserved to him, recalling the condescension
  of Our Lord to His Apostles at the Last Supper and expressing Christian
  humility and charity. In ancient times, to pour water on the hand of
  those who were going to table was the act of a servant or disciple; 2
  with St. Martin 3 it became the act of a monk wishing to honour his
  guests ; and St. Benedict makes it a rule. This practice is still observed,
  and takes place at the door of the refectory when the guest is first led in.
  As to the washing of the feet, a regular element in the ritual of ancient
  hospitality, it no longer agrees with our Western manners and has long
  been suppressed; we must honour guests, not embarrass them.


Did Moses have more than one wife in his lifetime? EX 3:1 Jethro was the father-in-law of Moses.

NU 10:29, JG 4:11 (KJV) Hobab was the father-in-law of Moses.

This seems to suggest that he did. Curious if anyone else has looked into this.

About Jethro, Wikipedia states:

  There is some disagreement over the name(s) of Moses' father-in-law. In the KJV translation of Judges 4:11, a man named Hobab appears as Moses' father-in-law, while Numbers 10:29 makes him "the son of Raguel [Reuel] the Midianite, Moses' father in law". Reuel is noted Exodus 2:16, as "a priest of Midian" who had seven daughters. Exodus 2:18 "the girls returned to Reuel their father". Reuel becomes Moses' father in law in Exodus 2:21 "Moses agreed to stay with the man, who gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses in marriage."

  In Numbers 10:29, the Hebrew for the name Raguel is the same as the Hebrew for Reuel. The reason for the difference is that the Hebrew character ע (ayin) in רעואל is sometimes used merely as a vowel and sometimes as "g", "ng", and "gn", because of the difficulty of its pronunciation by European speakers. Re-u-el, with the first syllable strong accented, is nearer to the true pronunciation. Some suppose he was father to Hobab, who was also called Jethro, a likely possibility.[10]

  Another thing to consider is that there is only one Biblical Hebrew word for both "brother-in-law" and "father-in-law" (chathan).[11] It is, in fact, the word for any and all relations by marriage. If one takes into account the Biblical custom of multiple names for one person as well as Numbers 10:29 calling Hobab Reuel's son, Reuel and Jethro both appear as Moses' father-in-law,[12] while Hobab may be seen as his brother-in-law. However, this is disputed among theologians.[13][14]

An example of a theological position about the issue can be found in this paper. The author argues that the contradiction is apparent. He states (p.9):

  The   information  which  has  been  preserved  in  the   traditions   dealing   with  Hobab  can  be  best  understood  to   say  that   Hobab,   son-in-law   of   Moses,  was  a  Midianite  belonging  to  the  clan  of  Reuel  and  a  smith  by  profession.    Jethro,  priest  of  Midian  and  father-in-law  of  Moses,  was  a  member  of  the  same  clan  (Reuel).   Although  their  roles  have  been  somewhat  confused  in  later  reflections  of  the  early  Israelite  traditions,  there  is  still  enough  information  preserved  to  suggest  this  reasonable  solution  to  the  puzzle.

Details are in the paper, but for example he suggests that their profession (as stated in the Bible) were too different for them being the same person. I quote (pp.6-7):

  the  roles  of  Jethro  and   Hobab  are  entirely   different.   Jethro  appears  as  an  old  man  with  seven  daughters  (Ex 2,16),  who  advises  his  son-in-law  from  the  wealth  of  his  own  experience  (Ex  18).   Hobab,  on  the  other   hand,   appears  as a vigorous  younger  man  whom
    Moses  wishes  to  act as  guide  in  the  wilderness  (Nm  10,29-32) ...

  We  have  only  to  change  the  vocalization  from hôtën to hätän   where   Hobab is mentioned,  and our  difficulties  vanish:  render  Nm 10,29, "Hobab, son  of  Reuel,  the  Midianite,  son-in-law  of  Moses."   The  fact  that  both  Hobab  and  Jethro  belonged  to  the  clan  of  Reuel  should  cause  no  difficulty  whatsoever,  since  the  West-Semitic  nomads  were  as  a  rule  endogamous,   so one would expect  Moses' son-in-law  and father-in-law  both to come  from the  same clan.


Any radical transformation in case of incarnation without fall? There are some reasons considered by the Catholic Church to assume the Incarnation even without the Fall. Simply speaking, Jesus would come even if Adam and Eve would not have eaten the apple.

There are good biblical arguments (Romans 5:12-21) that there will be no (human) death. This concept does not contradict science as treated by Aquinas and interpreted here.

An important aspect of incarnation is radical God's self-giving, the kenosis that happened by the death on cross. I assume that also people shall practice similarly radical self-giving (John 15:13).

Question: How it would be possible to lay down one's life for one's friends if there is no death?

Note: I heard somewhere that there would be some transition like this, just without sorrow and pain. Similar to Mary's assumption. How it would look like? Would the person after the transition still be on the Earth?

I would appreciate Catholic position.

Any radical transformation in case of incarnation without fall?

The answer is Yes according to Eastern Church Fathers as they teaches the word Theosis.

  Theosis, or divinization ("divinization may also refer to apotheosis, lit. "making divine"), is a transformative process whose aim is likeness to or union with God, as taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church and Eastern Catholic Churches. As a process of transformation, theosis is brought about by the effects of catharsis (purification of mind and body) and theoria ('illumination' with the 'vision' of God). According to Eastern Christian teaching, theosis is very much the purpose of human life. It is considered achievable only through a synergy (or cooperation) between human activity and God's uncreated energies (or operations).[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)

Adam & Eve have access to the Tree of Life, and the fruit of the Tree of Life is what the Catholic Church believe today as the Holy Eucharist. The transformation, the Catholic Church teaches is a "transfigured bodies" for those who lived a Eucharistic Life.

  Saint Albert the Great taught that the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ, is the Fruit of the Tree of Life.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life

  1000 This "how" exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible only to faith. Yet our participation in the Eucharist already gives us a foretaste of Christ's transfiguration of our bodies:

  Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God's blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, the one earthly and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection.556

Question: How it would be possible to lay down one's life for one's friends if there is no death?

If Adam & Eve did not Fall then Jesus would still come as Creation & Incarnation is not a separate plan but a complete plan of God based on the teaching of Blessed John Duns Scotus on the Primacy of Christ. According to Blessed Scotus Jesus will still come not as a Redeemer but King of His creation.

  The theology of John Duns Scotus places Christ at the centre of a universe ordered by love. Christ is presented as the basis of all nature, grace and glory – the most perfect model of humanity. He is at the beginning, the centre and the end of the universe.

  St. Paul tells us that Christ was the first-born of all creation, and Scotus’ theology makes sense of this affirmation. Scotus did not believe that the acts of creation and Incarnation were separate, but part of one divine plan. So rather than the Incarnation being a sort of “Plan B” to rescue humanity after the fall, in Scotus’ theology it is the whole purpose of creation. Christ is the masterpiece of love in the midst of a creation designed for love, rather than a divine plumber come to fix the mess of original sin. Thus the Incarnation is placed by Scotus in the context of creation and not of human sin.
  The Primacy of Christ in John Duns Scotus: An Assessment.

Note: I heard somewhere that there would be some transition like this, just without sorrow and pain. Similar to Mary's assumption. How it would look like? Would the person after the transition still be on the Earth?

This is a different scenario on your premise above wherein Adam  Eve did not Fall. Mary's Assumptions happened because original sin enters the world. You might probably asking on the appearance of the faithful souls in the New Paradise. The Book of Revelation speaks of a Eucharistic Era, so based on Catholic Church Catechism#1000 souls will be given a foretaste of Christ "transfigured bodies".

In closing,the Primacy of Christ teaches that the Omnipotent God in all eternity knew that Adam & Eve will fall into temptation even the Fall of Lucifer as the Wisdom of God knew everything.

  "For the spirit of the Lord fills the world,
      is all-embracing, and knows whatever is said.(Wisdom1:7)

The Primacy of Christ is the ultimate radical transformation, A
Creator transforming into a creature assuming humanity devoid of all powers  majesty, but why?

St.Athansius has the answer;

  "God becomes man, so that man shall become gods."(St.Athanasius)

Jesus the Begotten Son of God has to come down to show us the Way how to enter His Father's Kingdom, and there's is only one way and the first one who teach the Apostles the Way that Jesus had shown by His life is the Theotokos. The Catholic Church teaches that the Way to Heaven and "transformation" is the Way of the Cross.

As St.Paul boldly exclaimed his own transformation;

  "I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. (Galatians2:20)


Why did the slave girl at the gate stop Peter but not John? At the time when Jesus' trial was to commence before the High priest, John readily went inside the courtyard because he knew the high priest well, whereas Peter was relatively unknown in the place. Yet Peter was stopped at the gate and John was not.

  John 18:15-17 Simon Peter and another disciple followed them as they brought Jesus to Annas. (Now the other disciple was acquainted with the high priest, and he went with Jesus into the high priest’s courtyard.) But Simon Peter was left standing outside by the door. So the other disciple who was acquainted with the high priest came out and spoke to the slave girl who watched the door, and brought Peter inside. The girl who was the doorkeeper said to Peter, “You’re not one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” He replied, “I am not.”

The fact that the slave girl allowed John inside and not Peter is a bit puzzling. If John was well known to the High priest, then how is that they did not know that he was Jesus' disciple? What could be the rational reason, that they allowed John inside and not Peter?

Bible tells that as soon as Jesus was arrested, all His disciples fled and went into hiding. So there was this possibility that whoever known to be close to Jesus would be arrested or tried like Jesus.

Matt. 26:56 But this has happened so that the scriptures of the prophets would be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

So there could be two possibilities. First: Peter was reluctant to enter inside lest he might be recognised by the people to be disciple of Jesus and land in trouble just like Jesus. Second: Peter was stopped because he was an unknown person trying to enter into a sensitive area.
In case of the “other disciple”: Like the Beloved Disciple, this other disciple is unnamed, closely associated with Peter and characterized as having special knowledge, wanted Peter to come inside to witness the trial of Jesus. Note that John says that this other disciple “knew the high priest and went into the courtyard with Jesus” indicating that in the courtyard this other disciple was not known to be a close disciple of Jesus or else he would have been in the same danger as other disciples.
Gill's commentary says:

If this Apostle is thought to be  John, because he frequently speaks of himself in Gospel of John, then he is supposed to be known to the high priest, by carrying fish to his house, and selling it to him; so Nonnus says, he was known from his fishing trade and it is not probable that he was known, or could be known by the high priest, so as to have any intimacy with him; nor is it likely that he, being a Galilaean, would venture in; he was discoverable by his speech, and would have been in equal danger with Peter.
Or possibility is that this desciple was some other disciples of Christ, who had not openly professed him; one of the chief rulers that believed in him, but, for fear of the Pharisees, had not confessed him; or it may be Nicodemus, or Joseph of Arimathea, or the man at whose house Christ had eaten the passover. In the Syriac version he is called one of the other disciples; not of the twelve, but others.

Adam Clarke in his commentary on the bible states that:

For this “another disciple”, there are many conjectures who this disciple was: Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Nonnus, Lyra, Erasmus, Piscator, and others, say it was John.

Clarke however further says that:

“It is true John frequently mentions himself in the third person; but then he has always, whom Jesus loved, as in Joh 13:23; Joh 19:26; Joh 21:7, Joh 21:20, except in John 19:35, where he has plainly pointed out himself as writer of this Gospel. So in this instance verse, he has mentioned no circumstance by which that disciple may be known to be John.

Conclusion: So Peter was stopped either because he was an unknown person entering the sensitive area or Peter was reluctant to go inside courtyard out of fear that he might be recognised, yet his love for his master brought him till the gate.
Whereas the other disciple, if he is John the apostle, was either not known in the courtyard to be close disciple of Jesus as Gill,s commentary suggest or he was brave enough to face any danger unlike Peter or this other disciple was not from the twelve apostles.


Are St. Maximilian Kolbe's writings available in English? St. Maximilian Kolbe was known for printing his pamphlets in the years leading up to World War II.  Reportedly, he had some very interesting musings on relativity, the speed of light  and Christ's redemptive power.

I can't find any of his works in English (or Polish for that matter), although I read his quotes now and again.  I've never seen an actual book or collection of writings written by him.

Is there a published collection of his works available anywhere?

The writings of St. Maximilian Maria Kolbe are now available in English, published by Nerbini International. See the official web site of the MI: http://mi-international.org.

In the U.S. the two-volume set is available through Marytown Press. See http://marytown.com


Is morality possible apart from God? Can an individual live according to Christian morals taught by Jesus, but not live according to the "greatest command" (to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.")?

In other words, is it possible to not love God, not follow God, and not believe in Jesus but still keep all the other commands?

Specifically, I'm thinking of commands like "honor one another more highly than yourself", love those who hate you, do not conform to the pattern of this world, do not take revenge, etc.

Is it possible to keep these types of high moral commands and maintain a separation from God?

Furthermore, what distinctions could be made between someone ignorant of the Bible and someone who has outright rejected God's Word?

As is common, it largely comes down to how you define morality. If (as per the question) one doesn't believe in God or follow God, then there is no reason to accept some of the things that are only declared "moral" due to being divinely stated. We all know the obvious ones... they have come up here often enough, so I won't get distracted mentioning them.

But yes: one could choose to adopt the same morals as the Bible, but I think everyone should be able to qualify the reasons for their morals; and if you don't have a divine crutch to support them, then there are a few Biblical morals that are pretty hard to justify otherwise.

Re the examples: I would wager that those things are equally challenging for people of all creeds and none, but both society and law generally cover most of them - for example, we don't act in a vigilante way. Likewise "honour one another" and "love those who hate you" generally fit very well with a Humanist outlook, which places emphasis on the rights, human value, and equality of all people.

The "do not conform to the pattern" one cited is interesting, though; if I understand your explanation (comments), then this is "don't worry about earthly things". Now, if we put aside the notion of God (as per the question), completely denying earthly things is... Stupid. The view is "this world (this wonderful, amazing, beautiful world) is all we have". If we don't take the time to enjoy it (with our friends and families etc), then we are missing all that we have. So: while I do not support overt materialism, I absolutely am going to try and enjoy this world and my time on it (but hopefully not to the exclusion of others).


According to Catholicism, is it sinful to physically harm abortion doctors to prevent them from performing abortions? Question: Is it sinful to physically attack a doctor who performs abortions and break his fingers so that he can not perform an abortion? If yes, why? If no, why? Does it depend on the circumstances?

Arguments against:

It would seem that one should not attack a doctor because he is not doing something unlawful.
It would seem that one should not attack a doctor because one does not have the authority to exert violence.

However, these arguments seem not to be good. To explain why I will give an analogy.

Imagine a situation where some guy wants to dismember a 3-year-old child. You see him going toward the child, and you know for certain what he plans to do. You are able to stop him via violence (and no-one except that guy will be harmed in the process). However, your stopping him will be illegal. It still seems that you should stop the guy. This analogy seems to explain why neither authority nor what is (il)legal matter, and therefore it shows why arguments against are not good arguments. Also, it is often said that: "Necessity does not know the law." And that "Unjust laws are not really laws."

If it were not sinful to attack a doctor who performs abortions someone would already be doing it. But we did not see such a case.

Arguments for:

Using the same analogy as above, it seems not only that it is not sinful to attack a doctor, but that we have a duty to attack a doctor, just as we would have a duty to stop someone (if we are able to) who wants to dismember a 3-year-old child.

Maybe the arguments above depend on whether we see a doctor who directly goes to the hospital to perform an abortion, but not to a doctor who does not directly go to perform an abortion.

I am interested in responses from a Catholic viewpoint (preferably a natural law response).

Ends do not justify means.
It is never permissible to do evil so that good may come about: "let us not do evil that there may come good" (Rom. 3:8). Sin sometimes must be tolerated in order to prevent a greater evil.
St. Thomas Aquinas's answer to the question of "Whether the rites of unbelievers ought to be tolerated?" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 10 a. 11 co.) could be applied, mutatis mutandis, to whether  abortionists ought to be tolerated:

although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue. Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii, 4): "If you do away with harlots [or abortionists], the world will be convulsed with lust."

cf. Vermeersch, S.J.'s Tolerance
In "Whether human law should repress all vices?" (Summa Theologica I-II q. 96 a. 2 co.), St. Thomas shows that human law should forbid murder:

human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.

Thus, "laws" permitting murder are no laws at all.
Abortion a state of war?
If the millions of abortions happening yearly constitute a state of war, then just war theory might be applicable. "In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 40 a. 1 co.):

"the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged"

"a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked [e.g., abortionists], should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault [e.g., killing innocent babies]."

"it is necessary that the belligerents [e.g., anti-abortionists] should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil [e.g., ending abortion]."

Conditions #2 and #3 certainly could apply to abortion, but it is unclear that condition #1 applies. Has any civil ruler ever openly declared war against abortion?