What did Mary and Joseph do with the gold, frankincense, and myrrh? And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child
  with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they
  had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and
  frankincense, and myrrh. (Matt 2:11)

I feel that it is pretty safe to assume that they at least used some of the gold to travel to Egypt, and perhaps even lived off of it while they were there. But I don't suppose any Josephologists or Mariologists have made any discoveries that perhaps give us some clues as to what exactly Joseph and Mary may have done with the gifts from the Wise men?

From the Wikipedia entry on the Biblical Magi:

  There was a 15th-century golden case purportedly containing the Gift of the Magi housed in the Monastery of St. Paul of Mount Athos. It was donated to the monastery in the 15th century by Mara Branković, daughter of the King of Serbia Đurađ Branković, wife to the Ottoman Sultan Murat II and godmother to Mehmet II the Conqueror of Constantinople. They were apparently part of the relics of the Holy Palace of Constantinople and it is claimed they were displayed there since the 4th century. After the Athens earthquake of September 9, 1999 they were temporarily displayed in Athens in order to strengthen faith and raise money for earthquake victims. The relics were displayed in Russia and Belarus in Christmas of 2014, and thus left Greece for the first time since the 15th century.

The above paragraph quotes a Russian TASS article, which says in part:

  The Gifts the Wise Men of the East, one of the few relics connected with the earthly life of Jesus Christ that have been preserved to the present day - gold, frankincense and myrrh are kept at the sacristry of the Agiou Pavlou (St. Paul’s) monastery on Mount Athos in Greece. The gold is in square and triangular plates bearing the finest ornament and measuring 5 by 7 centimeters. The frankincense and myrrh are in dark olive-like balls numbering 70. The box brought from Greece has part of the original Gifts: three gold plates with a thin filigree ornament with beads from a mix of frankincense and myrrh attached to it on a silver thread. The legend has it that shortly before her death, Virgin Mary gave these gifts to two righteous women. Later on, these relics were brought to Byzantium, and after the Turkish conquest in 1453, they were taken to Mount Athos by a Serb nun Mary.

Whether any of this has any historical truth to it is obviously pure speculation.


Why does the Mosaic Law demand the death of so many innocent people? What do these Bible verses mean? Why does it demand the death of so many innocent people in the Bible?

Leviticus 20:13 – demands the death of homosexuals.

“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Exodus 35:2 – demands that we kill everyone who works on the Sabbath day.

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a day of sabbath rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it is to be put to death

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 – demands that we kill disobedient teenagers.

"If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid"

Your real question is really why do the sins in these three instances deserve Death in God's eyes?

Leviticus 20:13,  Exodus 35:2, Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

The answer to that is the same as why God demanded death for when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:17  KJV

  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that
  thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God had created man in his image, and he had created both man and woman. In that original creation God did not give them or any of their prosperity the knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 2:7  KJV

  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Eve was created to be Adam's helper:

Genesis 2:18, 21, & 22  KJV

  18  And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

  21  And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

  22  And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

God created them differently for a reason, and that reason was:

Genesis 1:26 through 28 KJV

  26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

  27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

  28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Man was not created as an after thought God had specific plans for man. When God  created Adam, before he created Eve he gave Adam an assignment.

Genesis 2:5 & 15 KJV

  5  And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

  15  And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

God had also created Adam as an eternal being.

Genesis 2:16 &  17 KJV

  16  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

  17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

So when Man disobeyed God and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, lost that eternal life, and also marred what God had already pronounced as good.

Genesis 1:31  KJV

  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

So now that man had given up his eternal life, when Adam died there would be left no one to tend the earth and till the soil.

Therefore in order for those duties to be carried on man had to procreate, and so God told man to be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth. So man even though he had given up life eternal on the Earth, God still needed to fulfill his overall plan.

As for the part about homosexuality, For that you have to consider that God meant for man to procreate for several reasons, and one purpose was to have Adams posterity to care for his creation, that is why he gave sex to mankind in the beginning, and his explicit instructions were to multiply and fill the Earth. Sex was given to mankind for that reason, not for his pleasure. God made it pleasant so that man would not think of it as strictly a duty to him, even though it was. And there is no procreation in homosexuality, and it is therefore an abomination to God in that it is relegated to a place of pleasure only and not to fulfill God's edict to fill the Earth.

Leviticus 20:13  KJV

  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an
  abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

But you have singled out only one of many sexual deviations for which God has pronounced physical death and all of those are for the same reason and that is the misuse of sex.

As for the punishment of physical death for breaking the Sabbath God gave man a specific command;

Exodus 20:10 & 11 KJV

  10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

  11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

God blessed the Sabbath and made it holy and is to be observed as a covenant to the LORD.

Exodus 31:15 & 16  KJV

  15  Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

  16  Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

We do not have the right to degrade the Sabbath and ignore it's significance.

As for the last part of your question, concerning disobedient children.

Again God gave a specific command in the 10 commandments, and with this command, and none of the others, God gave the reward for obedience.

Exo 20:12  KJV

  Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy
  God giveth thee.

Deuteronomy 21:18 through 21 KJV

  18  If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

  19  Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

  20  And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

  21  And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

So it only stands to reason that if you do not honor your parents you should expect that your days will not be long, and matter of fact the less you honor them the shorter you should expect them to be right up to the point of not having any more days.


What are some scholarly biblical arguments for theistic evolution? As I have done my research on theistic evolution, which is the theory that God created the earth and everything in it but let the process of evolution happen on its own.

Definition of Evolution:
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

My main question though is what evidence is there to support the variety of different claims that theistic evolution makes?

First of all, evidence for the claims of evolution theory, theistic or not, comes from observations. Therefore, I understand the question as asking for exegetical evidence that the narrative of Genesis ch. 1 is compatible with evolution theory.

That compability comes from the distinct usage of two verbs in Gen ch. 1 for the divine activity: bara (Strong 1254), "create", and asah (Strong 6213), "make". Bara indicates the exclusively divine action of creating something which is not the result of reshaping a preexisting entity, and is used, as bārā or wayyiḇrā, in:

1:1 & 2:3 for the whole universe;
1:21 for the sea animals, the first living beings from the viewpoint of the Hebrews (for whom plants did not count as such);
1:27 (& Deut 4:32) for man.

Thus, while sea animals were "created", meaning that their being did not come from mere reshaping of preexistent inanimate matter (since for the Hebrews plants did not count as living beings), birds and land animals were "made", meaning that their being came through the reshaping of sea animals (which BTW was just the actual case according to contemporary natural science), just as the sun, the moon and the stars were "made".

Man, in turn, was also "created", meaning that his being (i.e. his spiritual soul) did not come through the reshaping of an existing animal.


Is Freemasonry now open to Catholics? In the 1983 revised Code of Canon Law, there is not mention of Freemasonry. It is not explicit in Can. 1374 whether Freemasonry is one of the associations prohibited to Catholics.

  Can. 1374 A person who joins an association which plots against the
  Church is to be punished with a just penalty; however, a person who
  promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with
  an interdict.

Is it correct for a Catholic [or a Freemason] to believe that the ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons may have been lifted?

No, it is not correct to entertain this belief, as demonstrated by a few specific instructions issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In fact, their letter Declaratio de associationibus massonicis ("Declaration on Masonic Associations") was published in 1983 as a response to exactly this question.

It appears that the decision not to list the Masonic associations in the new Code was an editorial decision. Apparently the editors decided that if they listed specific groups, they might create the mistaken impression that only the groups in the list were forbidden. Instead, they decided to describe the groups more generally.

Here is the text of the (authorized English translation of the) letter:

  DECLARATION ON MASONIC ASSOCIATIONS

  It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church’s decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous Code.

  This Sacred Congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance is due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.

  Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.

  It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above, and this in line with the Declaration of this Sacred Congregation issued on 17 February 1981 (cf. AAS 73 1981 pp. 240-241; English language edition of L’Osservatore Romano, 9 March 1981).

  In an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved and ordered the publication of this Declaration which had been decided in an ordinary meeting of this Sacred Congregation.

  Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 26 November 1983.

  Joseph Card. RATZINGER
  Prefect


If the dinosaurs and man co existed, why did the dinosaurs perish? According to the Young Earth Creationism viewpoint, the dinosaurs and man co existed. In this viewpoint, how did the dinosaurs perish? What caused them to be eliminated?

Joseph C. Dillow wrote a book, The Waters Above, about a possible water canopy above the earth that was the source of the downpour. The entire book was an attempt to scientifically measure any of its effects on earth today.

He speculated that with the water canopy, there would be more weight on us and dinosaurs. Based on what we know about hyperbaric healing after surgery, that extra pressure caused longer life for humans and allowed the vaster dinosaurs better blood flow. Once the canopy emptied, lifespans shortened and large dinosaurs could not survive.

I'm not sure the water canopy is a valid theory anymore, though.

[One interesting tidbit in the book was that after the flood event, Noah got drunk (Gen. 9:21). Dillow noted that the lesser pressure causes faster fermentation than normal, so Noah may have thought he was drinking something milder at the time.]

One thing about dinosaurs: Whenever we see or read about them, the huge lizards inevitably figure prominently. Yet bones of these monsters account for a fraction of 0.01 of skeletons found. The vast amount of prehistoric beings found were shellfish and animals no larger than sheep. Quick -- what are today's largest known animals you can think of off the top of your head? Not many, huh? So it was in the ancient world. Sorry to digress.


Why do some Christians object to images of Jesus? Within some branches of Protestantism, many Christians believe that "images of Jesus" are sinful, and that Christians should not attempt to produce them.  Some go so far as to say that they should be avoided in thought as well:

  The sins forbidden in the second commandment are [...] the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever (Westminster Larger Catechism, Answer 109)

Many Christians, however, interpret this commandment differently.  Millions use a crucifix instead of a cross, for example, and even many Protestants don't see an issue with pictures of Jesus.  For example, evangelical Hank Hanegraaff writes:

  If the second commandment condemns images of Jesus, then it condemns making images of anything at all [....] in context, the commandment is not an injunction against making “graven images,” but an injunction against worshiping them. (source)

What is an overview of arguments, particularly biblical arguments, presented by those who object to the creation and use of images of Jesus?

Those who argue against images of Jesus do so primarily in two ways: (1) that any image of Christ is necessarily inadequate and false and (2) that images of Christ inspire worship and devalue the Word of God.
Images of Christ inadequate and false
Advocates of this position regularly appeal to the incomprehensibility of God. John Calvin1 and J. I. Packer2 both refer to Isaiah 40, particularly verse 18:

To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him? (ESV)

Purported images of Jesus, therefore, are necessarily inadequate portrayals.  Specifically regarding images of Jesus on the cross, Packer writes:

[The crucifix] displays His human weakness, but it conceals His divine strength; it depicts the reality of His pain, but keeps out of our sight the reality of His joy and His power.  In both these cases, the symbol is unworthy most of all because of what it fails to display.2

John Murray similarly argues that we have been given no information about the appearance of Jesus, and therefore have no right to make an image of him:

We have no data whatsoever on the basis of which to make a pictorial representation; we have no descriptions of his physical features which would enable even the most accomplished artist to make an approximate portrait. [...] No impression we have of Jesus should be created without the proper revelatory data, and every impression, every thought, should evoke worship. Hence, since we possess no revelatory data for a picture or portrait in the proper sense of the term, we are precluded from making one or using any that have been made.3

But, some argue, Jesus had a human body, so couldn't an image of that be made?  James Fisher and Ebenezer Erskine respond that pictures of Christ are "downright lies, representing no more than the picture of a mere man":

Though he has a true body and a reasonable soul, yet his human nature subsists in his divine person, which no picture can represent. [...] The true Christ is God-man.4

Images of Christ inspire worship and devalue the Word of God
Another concern expressed by opponents of images of Christ is that any image of Christ, if meaningful at all, necessarily inspires worship. John Murray writes:

A picture of Christ, if it serves any useful purpose, must evoke some thought or feeling respecting him and, in view of what he is, this thought or feeling will be worshipful. We cannot avoid making the picture a medium of worship. [...] It is a grievous sin to have worship constrained by a human figment, and that is what a picture of the Saviour involves.3

Thomas Vincent's language is often quoted:

If it do not stir up devotion, it is in vain; if it do stir up devotion, it is a worshipping by an image or picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment.5

Rather than using images, proponents argue, God reveals himself to us through his Word, and to that we ought to limit ourselves.  Explaining Deuteronomy 4, part of which is also cited by the Westminster Assembly in support of this position, Packer writes:

God did not show [the people of Israel] a visible symbol of Himself, but spoke to them; therefore they are not now to seek visible symbols of God, but simply to obey His word. [...] To make an image of God is to take one's thoughts of Him from a human source, rather than from God Himself; and this is precisely what is wrong with image-making.2

Fisher and Erskine, following the Westminster Assembly, cite Romans 1:21–23 as referring to those who create images of either God or Christ, even in their own minds:4

they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [...] [they] exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (ESV)

Summary
Murray restates his concerns with images of Jesus as follows:

In summary, what is at stake in this question is the unique place which Jesus Christ as the God-man occupies in our faith and worship and the unique place which the Scripture occupies as the only revelation, the only medium of communication, respecting him whom we worship as Lord and Saviour. The incarnate Word and the written Word are correlative. We dare not use other media of impression or of sentiment but those of his institution and prescription. Every thought and impression of him should evoke worship. We worship him with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God. To use a likeness of Christ as an aid to worship is forbidden by the second commandment as much in his case as in that of the Father and Spirit.3

Images of Jesus, thus, fail to account for his divine nature, downplay the revelation of Scripture, and encourage worship not in accordance with God's law.

References:

Institutes, 1.11.2
Knowing God (1973), Chapter 4
"Pictures of Christ," from Reformed Herald, February 1961.
The Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism Explained, Question 51
An Explicatory Catechism, Question 51


Why did David wish to send Uriah back home? After David committed adultery with Bathsheba, David began to contact her husband, Uriah.

2 Samuel Chapter 11 Verse 6 [New Living Translation]
6 Then David sent word to Joab: “Send me Uriah the Hittite.” So Joab sent him to David. 7 When Uriah arrived, David asked him how Joab and the army were getting along and how the war was progressing. 8 Then he told Uriah, “Go on home and relax.[b]” David even sent a gift to Uriah after he had left the palace. 9 But Uriah didn’t go home. He slept that night at the palace entrance with the king’s palace guard.
10 When David heard that Uriah had not gone home, he summoned him and asked, “What’s the matter? Why didn’t you go home last night after being away for so long?”
11 Uriah replied, “The Ark and the armies of Israel and Judah are living in tents,[c] and Joab and my master’s men are camping in the open fields. How could I go home to wine and dine and sleep with my wife? I swear that I would never do such a thing.”
12 “Well, stay here today,” David told him, “and tomorrow you may return to the army.” So Uriah stayed in Jerusalem that day and the next. 13 Then David invited him to dinner and got him drunk. But even then he couldn’t get Uriah to go home to his wife. Again he slept at the palace entrance with the king’s palace guard.

I might not know the best course of action to take after doing what David did, but I can't understand why David would choose to send Uriah back to his home. If Uriah did go back home, wouldn't he learn that his wife became pregnant? Why send him back now?

Unless you only have sex once it can be hard to pinpoint exactly when the child was conceived. Normal term pregnancies range from 37 to 41 weeks, a full month's time.

Bathsheba presumably contacted David as soon as she realised she had missed her period and was pregnant. David tried to get Uriah to go home and sleep with her immediately, so that he would think the child was his own. At that stage she would not have been visibly pregnant, and as long as they slept together before a month was over, he would think that her second missed period was because he had got her pregnant.

But Uriah didn't play along, and David, not being willing to confess his sin, had him killed instead.


What is the moral status of common-law marriage? It is a common Christian belief that sex outside of marriage (whether extra-marital or pre-marital) is sinful. But what about common law marriage? In 10 US states and the District of Columbia (source), a marriage can be contracted by a cohabiting couple putting themselves forward as married - beyond mere cohabitation, there is a necessity to present one's selves as being married. (Which as a practical matter is not hard - many people will assume that a cohabiting couple are married, so in a common-law marriage jurisdiction, a cohabiting couple can become married simply by doing nothing to disabuse others of the perception that they are married.) So, if a couple have a legally recognised common law marriage, are they sinning by living together and having sexual relations? Is a marriage ceremony or a legal document morally necessarily to be married? (If it is, did Adam and Eve have a ceremony or a contract?)

Does the jurisdiction in which the couple live matter for the purposes of its moral status? Is a cohabiting couple, presenting as married, in a common law jurisdiction in which such presentation is sufficient to become married, not sinning by having sexual relations, while a cohabiting couple, making the same presentation, in a jurisdiction which does not recognise common-law marriage, sinning? (Many jurisdictions which used to recognise common-law marriage no longer do - that is true of most US states, most Canadian provinces, Scotland, among others.)

If the legal status of the relationship is relevant to its moral status - what is the moral relevance of jurisdictions (like Australia or France) which provide legal recognition to cohabiting couples which is legally distinct from marriage? (i.e. de facto status in Australia, pacte civil de solidarité in France). If legal recognition is morally significant, does it morally matter whether a jurisdiction considers a relationship established by repute to be equal in status to formal marriages, or to have some distinct legally recognised status?

(In this question I am only asking about heterosexual couples who are exclusively monogamous, who are freely consenting, adults, of sound mind, and not related.)

Allowances of the law have little or no bearing on the moral standing of marriage or any other Christian practice. Where applicable we are bound to follow relevant laws in addition to the prescription of our doctrine, but this is in addition to not in place of them. Common law does not define marriage, although it may or may not make an applicable legal hoop necessary.

Most of marriage practice among Christians boils down to tradition, but the traditions are built on principles. While much variation is found in the details, the principles guiding what is or is not done are pretty fixed. Marriage is a covenant relationship between one man and one woman entered into by profession before men and sealed by God.

How you go about that, the pieces have to all be there.  Where the profession is made -- in church or on a lawn, whether officiated by an uncle or pastor or even not at all -- doesn't matter nearly so much that a declaration is made public that two people are now married. Where they sign state paperwork before our after our not at all if not required doesn't change anything. Making such a declaration, then sleeping with someone else would be a violation of that covenant no matter where the state stands.

Christianity even honors marriage as sacred when entered into by two non Christians with a purely secular profession. God's role in the covenant relationship is something we believe just is -- even if the parties involved ignore him.

Obeying the law of the land is required, but our duties do not end where the law stops.


How is one supposed to "know" whether or not the Book of Mormon is true? When one is introduced to the Book of Mormon, he is oftentimes asked to pray to find out whether or not the Book of Mormon is true.

According to LDS theology, why is a person simply asked to pray about it, rather than looking at historical, archaeological, prophetical, and other fields of evidence that attest to the authenticity and divine authorship of the Bible?  Also, how exactly is one expected to know whether or not God has confirmed that the Book of Mormon is true?  How is God expected to answer the person's prayer?

To understand the answer, it's important to understand the actual invitation.  It can be found in the last chapter of the Book of Mormon:

  Moroni 10: 4-5

  4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye
  would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these
  things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with
  real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it
  unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

  5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all
  things.

With this in mind, the answer is that historical evidence can always be disputed.  There's an impressive corpus of "historical, archaeological, prophetical and other evidence and archaeological evidence" that testifies to the truth of the Book of Mormon, but like the evidence in favor of the Bible, it's all subject to interpretation.  It's all made up of things that happened to other people who are dead now. They can't tell their own story, and we never truly know if we have all the evidence or not.  New things are always turning up, and people come up with new theories and interpretations, sometimes based on reading the evidence, and sometimes based on reading something into the evidence that they want to be there.

But the witness of the Holy Ghost is testimony from God's spirit directly to yours.  It's a very personal affair, and it didn't happen to someone else.  It happened to you, and you know what you received from the Lord, and no alternate interpretation from some other person who hasn't experienced it can change the reality of that witness.  Simply put, it's the only truly trustworthy evidence there is, because it comes directly from the only perfectly trustworthy source there is.

As to how one is supposed to recognize the answer, this will probably sound like a cop-out, but the best answer is "you'll know it when it happens."  The problem is that any description requires a common frame of reference, and the witness of the Holy Ghost is a unique experience that isn't like anything that would be familiar to anyone who doesn't already have experience with it.  It's often described as a strong feeling of peace, and a sensation of warmth, a "burning in your bosom" to use the scriptural language, but it's not the same as physical heat.  But once one has experienced it, they truly know that they have received a testimony from the Lord.


Are there any examples where the non-believers demanding a miracle for the proof of Catholic faith and a saint succeeding in performing it? Questions: Are there any examples where the non-believers demanding a miracle for the proof of Catholic faith and a saint succeeding in performing one?

I am looking for those kinds of examples, especially if they were performed by a saint.

On more than one occasion, at Fanjeaux and Montréal, in order to resolve theological disputes between Albigensian heretics and Catholics, the Albigensians challenged St. Dominic to throw his book in the fire and they'd throw theirs in, too, and whoever's books remained unscathed would contain the truth. St. Dominic's book immediately jumped out of the fire unscathed, and the heretics' burned. St. Dominic's book is said to have defended the Immaculate Conception.
Here is how Bl. Jordan of Saxony, O.P., recounts it in his biography of St. Dominic, the Libellus:

One day a famous disputation was being held at Fanjeaux and a large number of the faithful and unbelievers had gathered. Many of the former had written their own books containing arguments and authorities in support of the faith. After these books had been inspected, the one written by Blessed Dominic was commended above the others and unanimously accepted. Accordingly, his book and that produced by the heretics were presented to three judges chosen with the assent of both sides, with the understanding that the side whose book was chosen as the more reasonable defense should be regarded as having the superior faith.

After much wrangling, the judges came to no decision. Then they decided to cast both books into a fire and, if either of them was not burned, it would be held as containing the true faith. So they built a huge fire and cast the books therein. The heretical book was immediately consumed by the fire, but the one written by the man of God, Dominic, not only escaped burning, but, in the sight of all, leaped far from the fire. For a second and a third time, it was cast into the fire, but each time it leaped back and thereby openly testified to the truth of its doctrine and the holiness of the person who had written it.

The trial by fire: the writings of the Albigenses are consumed in the flames, while St. Dominic’s book on the Flesh of Christ is miraculously borne safely away in the presence of the whole assembly. (See pages 18 and 236 [of Sr. Drane's biography of St. Dominic]). In this book St. Dominic affirmed the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.


History of the doctrine of religious vocation in Catholic Church I am reading Aquinas and I am puzzled by his view on religious vocation and common view in the Church today (I will for sake of simplicity call it a modern view) about religious vocation.

In On the perfection of spiritual life and in his Summa Theologiae the Angelic Doctor expresses his view on religious vocation (I will for sake of simplicity call it traditional view of religious vocation). I do not mean to start fights about modernism in the Church and all that but I just use these terms because they seem fitting to me. Let me contrast some differences between Aquinas view of religious vocation and modern view of religious vocation. To make things clear, although I dislike the term "religious vocation" let me try to define it.

Religious vocation = some kind of invitation or calling from God to life as diocesan priest or to life in some religious order.

Modern. These are just some statements that seem to be approved and agreed by common opinion in Church today (I do not exclude possibility that I have limited experience of common people and priests and therefore have a wrong picture of what is common opinion today, however, it seems to be that not so small number of people in the Church would agree with these statements).

One should take long time to discern his religious vocation.
Life in married state and in a state of religious order or in priesthood are equally good ways to sainthood, you just need to discern which one of these God wants you to take.
One can know God's will for his particular state of life via prayer and whether he feels peace (or something like that) when he prays or somewhere else.
Calling to religious vocation typically involves some kind of event where God is manifest or some deep experience of God.

Traditional. These are some statements that would (it seems to me) say 700 years before today be approved and agreed in common opinion of the Church.

There is no need for long discernment process for religious vocation.
Marriage is less perfect way of following our Lord, where poverty and celibacy are more perfect and better way.
One can not know God's will directly and with certainty about one's particular state of life.
Called to religious vocation are really all who are able to and (without serios and obvious impediments like missing a hand) willing to take it, and typically it does not involve some special feeling or manifestation of God to assure that one ought to take it.

These are just some points that seem to very different to me, so my question is, what are some arguments for both views? Did the Church ever, in her magisterial documents, speak about this? What happened historically that the modern view took its place in common opinion of people and priests today?

"One should take long time to discern his religious vocation."

From Fr. William Doyle, S.J.'s Vocations:

7.  Deliberation
It follows from what has been said that once the voice of God is recognized, that is when the thought of leaving the world has been more or less constantly before the mind for some time, and the souls realizes, even though she dreads it, that “the Lord hath need of her,” the call ought to be obeyed promptly.
St. Thomas [II-II q. 189 a. 10] holds that the invitation to a more perfect life ought to be followed without delay, for these lights and inspirations from God are transient, not permanent, and therefore the divine call should be obeyed instantly. As of old, when He worked His miracles and went about doing good, “Jesus of Nazareth passeth by”; if we do not take advantage of His passing, He may never return. “I stand at the door and knock,” He said, “If any man shall hear My voice and open to Me, I will come in to him,” if not, that call may never come again.
“Make haste, I beseech you,” exclaims St. Jerome [Letter 53 to St. Paulinus, 11.], “and rather cut than loosen the rope by which your bark is bound fast to the land,” for even a day’s delay deprives a person of invaluable merit, which he would acquire in religion.
Delay is dangerous, and long deliberation, as Msgr. Malou assures us, is unnecessary: “Of all the state of life the religious state is, without contradiction, that which demands the least deliberation, and is that of which the choice should cause less doubt, and provoke the least hesitation; for it is in this state that fewer difficulties are met with, and the best means are found for saving our souls.”

"Life in married state and in a state of religious order or in priesthood are equally good ways to sainthood, you just need to discern which one of these God wants you to take."

Your first clause is Jovinian's heresy, against which St. Jerome (Against Jovinian bk. 1) et al. wrote and the Council of Trent, session 24 canon 10 infallibly condemned:

Canon X.—If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony: let him be anathema.

That virginity/celibacy is a superior means to sanctification than matrimony does not mean that all virgins/celibates necessarily have more merit than marrieds, because sanctity is due to one's degree of charity. Discussing "Whether virginity is more excellent than marriage?" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 152 a. 4), St. Thomas Aquinas writes (ad 2):

Though virginity is better than conjugal continence, a married person may be better than a virgin for two reasons. First, on the part of chastity itself; if to wit, the married person is more prepared in mind to observe virginity, if it should be expedient, than the one who is actually a virgin. Hence Augustine (De Bono Conjug. xxii) charges the virgin to say: "I am no better than Abraham, although the chastity of celibacy is better than the chastity of marriage." Further on he gives the reason for this: "For what I do now, he would have done better, if it were fitting for him to do it then; and what they did I would even do now if it behooved me now to do it." Secondly, because perhaps the person who is not a virgin has some more excellent virtue. Wherefore Augustine says (De Virgin. xliv): "Whence does a virgin know the things that belong to the Lord, however solicitous she be about them, if perchance on account of some mental fault she be not yet ripe for martyrdom, whereas this woman to whom she delighted in preferring herself is already able to drink the chalice of the Lord?"

"One can know God's will for his particular state of life via prayer and whether he feels peace (or something like that) when he prays or somewhere else."

See Thomist Fr. Richard Butler, O.P.'s 1960 Religious Vocation: An Unnecessary Mystery.
He would agree with your statement that "One can not know God's will [perfectly] directly and with [perfect] certainty about one's particular state of life," because we cannot know God's essence perfectly (His essence and will are identical, because He is supremely simple). But we do know His will is our sanctification (1 Thess. 4:3: "this is the will of God, your sanctification").

"Calling to religious vocation typically involves some kind of event where God is manifest or some deep experience of God."

Pope Pius XII's apostolic constitution Sede Sapientiæ on vocations to the religious life says (part II.) two necessary conditions must be met when discerning a vocation: that one is called by God and called by the Church. For example, canonical impediments to entering religious life would be a clear sign God does not call one to religious life.
See also Pius XII's 1954 encyclical Sacra Virginitas, which refutes many modern errors regarding the religious life and virginity. See also Joseph Marie Perrin, O.P.'s Virginity (esp. ch. 9, "The Gift of a Vocation"), the appendix of which is that encyclical.


Is there a concept of a theological quadrilemma with regard to the person and divinity of Jesus Christ? One well-known trilemma considered a proof of the divinity of Jesus is most commonly known in the version by C. S. Lewis. It proceeds from the premise that Jesus claimed to be God, and that therefore one of the following must be true:
  Lunatic: Jesus was not God, but he mistakenly believed that he was.
  Liar: Jesus was not God, and he knew it, but he said so anyway.
  Lord: Jesus is God.
  Source: Trilemma

However, I have come across other arguments against the person and divinity of Jesus Christ, such as the notion he did not exist, and the suggestion that he lived in India for a time and returned as some sort of mystic.  I am looking for reliable information that gives insights into these arguments and any biblical and Christian counter-arguments. This question is directed at all Trinitarian Christian denominations.

In the first chapter of The Case for Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ, author Brant Pitre discusses C. S. Lewis' trilemma and how he realized that there was a fourth possibility when he first started studying the four canonical gospels: that Jesus is either Liar, Lunatic, Lord, or Legend. He writes:

  However, as I continued to study the quest for Jesus, it slowly dawned on me that for many people, there was a fourth option: namely that the stories about Jesus in the Gospels in which he claims to be God are "legends." In other words, they are not historically true. Consider, for example, the words of Bart Ehrman. This is how he responds to C. S. Lewis's argument:

    Jesus probably never called himself God....This means that he doesn't have to be either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. He could be a first-century Palestinian Jew who had a message to proclaim other than his own divinity.

Pitre goes on to cite several verses from the Gospel of John (e.g. John 10:30 and John 14:9) and notes the fact that Jesus was accused by the Jews of blasphemy and was nearly stoned to death, which is an indication that the Jews thought Jesus was claiming to be God. Pitre explains why scholars such as Ehrman do not accept these verses from John as evidence of Jesus' claim of divinity:

  On the one hand, most scholars admit that Jesus does claim to be divine in the Gospel of John....On the other hand, as I came to learn, many contemporary scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, do not consider the Gospel of John to be historically true when it depicts Jesus saying these things about himself. One of the most common arguments for this position is that Jesus does not make these kind of divine claims in the three earlier Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (known as the Synoptic Gospels). According to some scholars, we have three Gospels in which Jesus doesn't claim to be God (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), and only one Gospel in which Jesus does (John). Now, if this were correct -- and as we will see later on in the book, it isn't -- then it would raise some serious doubts about whether Jesus ever actually claimed to be God.

Pitre explains that the purpose of the book is to address this fourth option and provides a brief outline of his argument in the first chapter of the book:

  As we will see, there are compelling reasons for concluding that the four Gospels are first-century biographies of Jesus, written within the lifetime of the apostles, and based directly on eyewitness testimony.

  .... equally important, the more I studied first-century Judaism, the more I began to see clearly that Jesus did claim to be God—but in a very Jewish way. And he does so in all four first-century Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But in order to see this clearly, you have to take one very important step. You have to go back and read the Synoptic Gospels from an ancient Jewish perspective. Otherwise, it’s easy to miss what Jesus is really saying about himself. To be sure, Jesus doesn’t go around shouting, “I am God!” But this doesn’t mean that he didn’t claim to be divine. As we will see, Jesus reveals the secret of his identity by using riddles and questions that would have made sense to a first-century Jewish audience. In fact, it was precisely because his audiences understood that Jesus was claiming to be God that some of the Jewish authorities charged him with “blasphemy” and handed him over to the Romans to be crucified. And by the way, in a first-century Jewish context, it wasn’t blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah. But it was blasphemy to claim to be God.

These arguments (e.g. that the Gospels are first-century biographies of Jesus which are based on eyewitness testimony) also attack notions that Jesus didn't exist or that he lived in India.

Pitre explains in his book that it is written for

  anyone who has ever had questions about exactly who Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be

and that it is

  not written for scholars, though I cite lots of them in the endnotes.

Therefore the book would be a good introduction to the "quadrilemma".


What are the soteriological implications of Arianism? A friend recently made the following statement regarding the heresy of Arianism:

  The conflict was about the nature of Christ before the Creation of the Universe. It was a Philosophical/Metaphysical cum Theological difference which really had no practical manifestation in terms of Saving Faith or practice.

As Arianism denies the divinity of Christ and the fullness of the Godhead, I am inclined to disagree. (The emphasis of my studies are mostly biblical theology with an Old Testament emphasis and this is a systematics issue.)

What impact, if any, does an Arian view of Christ have on a person's salvation?

While I welcome answers from a purely biblical perspective, I also welcome historical arguments and answers quoting authors from the time of and close to the controversy.

I don't see why this should be complicated. Soteriology is the study of salvation (Greek σωτηρία). Succinctly stated, Arianism posits that the Lord Jesus Christ is not "the only true god" (ὁ μόνος ἀληθινὸς θεός; cp. John 17:3), Yahveh (cp. Isa. 44:6), but rather, a creation of the one true god (i.e., a creature).
According to Isa. 43:11 (cp. Isa. 45:21; Hos. 13:4), it is written,

I, [even] I, am Yavheh, and there is no savior besides Me.
אָנֹכִי אָנֹכִי יַהְוֶה וְאֵין מִבַּלְעָדַי מוֹשִׁיעַ

If the Lord Jesus Christ is not Yavheh, then he cannot effect salvation for humanity, for Yavheh Himself states, "There is no savior besides Me."
Some may suppose that salvation is ultimately effected by Yahveh via the proxy of the Lord Jesus Christ.
However, this is refuted by Psa. 49, in which it is written,

7 A man certainly shall not redeem his brother, nor give his ransom to God.
7 אָח לֹא־פָדֹה יִפְדֶּה אִישׁ לֹא־יִתֵּן לֵאלֹהִים כָּפְרוֹ
15 But God shall redeem my soul from the power of the grave, for He shall receive me. Selah.
15 אַךְ־אֱלֹהִים יִפְדֶּה נַפְשִׁי מִיַּד־שְׁאֹול כִּי יִקָּחֵנִי סֶֽלָה

When it comes to the redemption of a man's soul from the power of the grave, man cannot redeem his brother. Only God can. Therefore, the Lord Jesus Christ cannot be just a man, otherwise he is wholly incapable of effecting the redemption of humanity. Consequently, if the Lord Jesus Christ is not God, then he cannot be the savior or redeemer of humanity.


Who is Jesus referring to when he is speaking to the daughters of Jerusalem? In the passage of Luke where Jesus is carrying the Cross, he turns and addresses the weeping women witnessing his Passion:

  “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for
  yourselves and for your children.."

Then he prophesies about a certain group of people:

  ...for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are
  the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never
  nursed.’

  At that time people will say to the mountains, ‘Fall upon us!’ and to
  the hills, ‘Cover us!’ (Luke 23:29-30)

Who are these people He is describing that are saying this horrible things?

The New American Standard footnote says that Jesus is generically saying that his disciples are called to carry the Cross, but I think that is a little vague.

I'm just wondering if there are any interpretations of the Church Fathers, or any contemporary scholars that lean upon historical Christianity.

Jesus was speaking prophetically of what would occur to His people Israel--not just women--in both AD 70, when the Roman general Titus sacked Jerusalem, and in an unspecified time when the whole world, including Israel, would experience the wrath of God during the Great Tribulation, which is described in detail in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

In other words, "daughters of Jerusalem" is a synecdoche:  a part (daughters) for the whole (Israel).  Whether the women Jesus was addressing were hired mourners or actual disciples of Jesus whose tears and gestures were heartfelt, Jesus' words to them had a double significance.

First, within a generation of His ascension, Rome would invade Jerusalem, and the second temple ("Herod's temple) in Jerusalem would be destroyed.  Jesus prophesied about this earlier in Matthew 24:2.  The huge stones of the temple that were "torn down" in such a way that not one would be left standing on the other are still visible today in Jerusalem.

Second, during what has been called The Great Tribulation (again, see Matthew 24, especially vv.9 and 21) Satan's "false prophet" and "antichrist" will deceive not only Israel, but the entire world, and during the various calamities that befall the world during those days (viz., the judgments of the seven seals, seven trumpets, and seven bowls of Revelation 6-16) the unbelieving inhabitants of not only Jerusalem but of the entire world  will prefer death over life.

Their cries (taken from Hosea 10:8 and repeated in Revelation 6:16) reflect their panic, helplessness, and hopelessness in the face of "the wrath of the Lamb."  Remarkably enough, however, they will still not repent and turn to God (Revelation 9:20, 21); rather, they will plead for a quick end to their suffering through death.

Jesus' words in Luke 24:31 comprise a proverb.  As the NET Bible points out in its notes, "The green tree stands for good conditions resulting from God’s blessing and the dry tree for bad conditions resulting from divine judgment. If God allowed innocent Jesus to perish in times of His blessing, what would happen to guilty Jerusalem when God judged her?"

This proverb is characterized by the "how much more" line of reasoning; that is, if something bad happens in the best of conditions (the green), how much more will something even worse happen in the worst of conditions (the dry).

As terrible as the destruction of Jerusalem was for her inhabitants in AD 70, the destruction that occurs during the Great Tribulation will make General Titus's invasion look like a romp in the park by comparison.

In other words, “If the Romans condemned to death the one they admitted to be innocent, how would they deal in the future with those whom they found guilty?”  That future, again, had a double aspect, the first aspect would be fulfilled in AD 70, and the second  during the ruthless seven-year reign of the man of sin (the antichrist), whose power, not unlike that of Rome, will be manifest, and not just in part of the world as in Rome's heyday, but in the entire world.


Are relics only considered first class if they were collected from a Saint's dead body? I was seemingly corrected that St. Maximillian has no first class relics since some of his hairs apparently were found (collected prior to his death).  Would these be first class relics or second class relics?

You answered this question yourself in your other answer.

Relics are the remains of a saint. They are classified according to degrees. First degree relics are physical remains of a saint. They are most typically bones. Second degree relics are objects or items that touched a saint while he was alive. The relics of Christ's Passion would be second degree relics. Third degree relics include anything that touched other relics. Normally, it is the bones of the saints and the relics of Christ's Passion that are mentioned among the relics.
— Catholic Forum: Relics

The hairs are certainly not merely items that touched the saint. They are of his body.
Physical remains are first-class relics.


What is the Biblical Basis of Eastern Orthodox Christians that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone? Filioque is a Latin word meaning "and the Son" which was added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. This inclusion in the Creedal article regarding the Holy Spirit thus states that the Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son." (Orthodox Wiki, 2015).

What is the Biblical Basis of Eastern Orthodox Christians that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone?

John 15:26 seems to be the basis upon which the Eastern Orthodox Church believes the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone.  Here is a partial quote from an article regarding the Eastern Orthodox teaching about the Filioque, although it should be noted that it makes no reference to any biblical text:

The position of the Eastern Orthodox Church regarding the Filioque controversy is defined by the Bible, teachings of the Church Fathers, creeds and definitions of the seven Ecumenical Councils and decisions of several particular councils of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
The Eastern Orthodox interpretation of the Trinity is that the Holy Spirit originates, has his cause for existence or being (manner of existence) from the Father alone as "One God, One Father"...  The position that having the creed say "the Holy Spirit which proceeds from the Father and the Son", does not mean that the Holy Spirit now has two origins, is the position the West took at the Council of Florence, as the Council declared the Holy Spirit "has His essence and His subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration.”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_teaching_regarding_the_Filioque

Although there has never been a specific conciliar statement in the Orthodox Church which defined the filioque as heresy, it was denounced as heretical by the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs.  Here is an extract from a useful article that gives objections to the filioque on doctrinal grounds:

It is contrary to Scripture, particularly in John 15:26: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me." Thus, Christ never describes the Holy Spirit as proceeding from himself, but only mentions the Spirit's procession in terms of the Father.
The justifications for including the filioque in the Creed—bolstering the divinity of the Son and emphasizing the unity of the Trinity—are redundant, given the original wording of the Creed. That is, the Son already is described as "light of light, very God of very God," and so forth. The Spirit also "with the Father and Son together is worshiped and glorified." Additionally, the Creed itself begins with a statement of belief in "one God."
The filioque distorts Orthodox Triadology by making the Spirit a subordinate member of the Trinity. Traditional Triadology consists in the notion that for any given trait, it must be either common to all Persons of the Trinity or unique to one of them. Thus, Fatherhood is unique to the Father, while begottenness is unique to the Son, and procession unique to the Spirit. Godhood, however, is common to all, as is eternality, uncreatedness, and so forth. Positing that something can be shared by two Persons (i.e., being the source of the Spirit's procession) but not the other is to elevate those two Persons at the expense of the other. Thus, the balance of unity and diversity is destroyed.
Given the previous objection, the repercussions to the acceptance of the filioque into church life are potentially massive. Because how we relate to God is significantly affected by what we believe about him, false beliefs lead to damaging spirituality. One objection often raised about Filioquist theology is that it undermines the role of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Thus, with his role being denigrated, his traditional ministries are effaced or replaced. The Church's unity becomes dependent on an office, spirituality becomes adherence to the letter of the law rather than its spirit, sacraments come to be understood in terms of validity, and a spirit of legalism prevails.  https://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque#Objections_on_doctrinal_grounds

Another source of information I found explains the background and history to the schism and made this observation:

Finally, the theology of rationalistic Western Scholasticism predominated among the Latin theologians and bishops and so obscured the biblical, patristic perspective long advocated by the East, in which the Spirit is said to proceed "from the Father" (as in John 15:26) or, more rarely, "from the Father through the Son" (as in some of the Fathers). The Eastern bishops had not imbibed the rationalist intellectualism of the West, and so were unconvinced by the highly abstract and convoluted arguments of the Scholastics. Hence, the agreement of Florence, intellectually, represented in many respects an imposition of Scholastic theology.  https://orthodoxwiki.org/Filioque#Attempted_reunions_and_the_Filioque_after_the_Schism

I found a non-Wiki source of information which may be helpful in explaining the Eastern Orthodox view regarding the "monarchy of the Father" as described by Fr. John Behr: https://solzemli.wordpress.com/2010/06/05/the-trinity-scripture-and-the-greek-fathers-by-fr-john-behr/


What happened to Aaron's staff and the jar of manna placed by Moses in the Ark of the Covenant Please note, I am not asking what was inside the Ark of the Covenant (question asked in June 2013) but what happened to Aaron's budding staff and the jar of manna by the time the Ark of the Covenant was placed in the temple built by Solomon.

Exodus 16:33-34 says the jar of manna was placed in the Ark in front of the stone tablets.

Numbers 17:10 says Aaron's budding staff was placed in front of/before the Ark of the Covenant.

1 Kings 8:9 and 2 Chronicles 5:10 both say that by the time the Ark of the Covenant was placed in the temple built by Solomon there was nothing inside the Ark except for the two stone tablets of the testimony/covenant.

However, Hebrews 9:1-4 says the Ark contained the two stone tablets (the terms of the covenant), Aaron's rod (or staff) and the gold jar containing manna.

What happened to Aaron's budding staff and the gold jar of manna?  Were they lost or were they stolen? And why does the writer of Hebrews mention them?

After Solomon had built the temple in Jerusalem (960 B.C.) there was nothing in the Ark except the stone tablets that Moses had put there at Horeb (1 Kings 8:9 and 2 Chronicles 5:10). The NIV Study Bible notes on 2 Chronicles 5:10 say the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod were presumably lost when the Philistines captured the Ark of the Covenant. (See 1 Samuel 4:11 to chap. 6)

Various Bible commentators have pointed out that the tabernacle referred to in Hebrews 9:4 is the one built under Moses. The ESV Study Bible makes this comment:

  “By the time of Solomon’s temple, it was noted that there was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone (1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chronicles 5:10), but that may suggest that other items had previously been in the ark.”

Some 400 years had elapsed between the time of Moses and Aaron and the Ark of the Covenant being placed in Solomon’s temple.  The fact that the Ark had been stolen by the Philistines and it took them some time to return it may mean that the Philistines looted and plundered some of its contents.  Perhaps they stole the rod and the jar of manna, though given the plagues that afflicted them wherever the Ark stayed, fear would surely have prompted them to return any pilfered items!

However, Exodus 16:32-34 does not actually say the manna and rod were placed inside the Ark. It says they were ‘placed before the Lord’ in front of the Testimony. This anticipated the later description of the tablets containing the Ten Commandments as “the two tablets of the Testimony” (31:18; 32:15; 34:29) hence “the Ark of the Testimony” for ‘testimony’ is an old-fashioned word for ‘covenant’. Exodus 25:21 simply says that God instructed ‘the Testimony’ to be put inside the Ark – the stone tablets.  Now, I may be wrong, but I wonder if it is mistaken to conclude that the manna and the rod were also placed inside the Ark? If I’m wrong, please may someone correct me!

Hebrews chapter 9 states that the Holiest of all in the tabernacle contained the golden censer and the Ark of the Covenant.  In the Holiest part of the tabernacle was also placed the golden pot of manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant. This was with regard to the tabernacle and not the temple in Jerusalem. And it does not need to imply that the manna and the rod were inside the Ark; all those items were in the Holiest part, but not necessarily all inside the Ark. The censer was not inside it. The other items (apart from the stone tablets) need not have been inside it either.

My answer, therefore, covers both contingencies – that the manna and rod were inside the Ark, then stolen by the Philistines, but my own view is that they were never inside the Ark and that Exodus 16 and Hebrews 9 do not necessarily imply that they were.


Can Pope use his Interdict power to force changes in national laws regarding abortion? I had once read in Church history about Rome's use of the Interdict power during the Protestant split, that is, to instruct the clergy of an entire nation to deny the Sacraments.  Rome's intended reaction was for the Catholic populace against their Protestant masters to instantly revolt and restore said nation to Catholicism.   Since Rome's attitude regarding abortion is well known, then why does't Rome get serious and use Interdict to deny the sacraments to all nations whose laws allow abortion, in order to force change?

In Roman Catholic canon law, an interdict is an ecclesiastical censure that excludes from certain rites of the Church individuals or groups, who nonetheless do not cease to be members of the Church. The pope can at any time choose to use his interdict powers to deny  the sacraments to all nations whose laws allow abortion.

The widespread support of abortion rights is evident, for example, in the United States, which provides for legal abortions, and nearly every European country, with most countries in the European Union allowing abortion on demand during the first trimester. Were the pope to exclude the Catholic population of almost every country in the world from participation in Church rites, the Church could expect a backlash that might cause serious damage to the entire Church. So although the pope could interdict every country that did not fall into line, this is not a risk that a prudent pope would consider taking.


Do Paul and Jesus disagree on homosexuality? Romans 1:26-27:

  [26] For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, [27] and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality (from what we know) yet Paul teaches strongly against it (continuing in other verses). How do Christians who believe homosexuality is wrong justify the potential discrepancy here?

You are correct in stating that there are no recorded teachings of Jesus on homosexuality.  However, to suggest that this means there is disagreement between Paul and Jesus is unreasonable, since it is comparing something to nothing. It is certainly wrong to assume that Jesus disagreed with Paul on that just because He never explicitly indicates His agreement -- with Paul and the Law of Moses.

Indeed, if Jesus had disagreed with Moses on this, we should expect to hear about it in His teaching. If, however, He agreed with Moses, then why go to great pains to point that out?

It should be noted that Jesus was Jewish and lived among Jewish people in a Jewish culture.  This whole culture was based on Mosaic teachings that held that homosexuality was wrong and had a very stiff penalty spelled out for it, much like adultery. People caught in adultery still suffered the possibility of death (see John 8:1-11). It is quite likely that this was simply not practiced in this culture.

Jesus never taught that eating pork was wrong either, because everyone in that culture agreed with that and no one ate pork. The idea of "preaching to the choir" about getting involved in the church comes to mind.

During Jesus' life, Israel was still under the Old Covenant, so the prohibition against eating pork was still in effect. Paul's writings occur in the New Testament, but reaffirm the prohibition of Moses against homosexuality.

So, there's absolutely no "discrepancy", and any intimation that Jesus supported homosexuality is not reasonable.

Jesus "did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it" [Matthew 5:17].


What is the Biblical basis for thinking that Jesus died for me specifically? I know that Jesus died for the whole world, but sometime this is phrased as Jesus died specifically for me.  What is the Biblical basis for thinking that Jesus died for me specifically?

In 1 Timothy 1:12-17, Paul - or someone writing as him - says (NRSV translation):

I am grateful to Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because he judged me faithful and appointed me to his service, even though I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a man of violence. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners - of whom I am the foremost. But for that very reason I received mercy, so that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display the utmost patience, making me an example to those who would come to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

The author describes himself as being the pre-eminent sinner, although (from context) we know that he does not mean that he is actually worse than other people. Rather, his intention is to say that whenever anyone sins, he or she is condemned; and that everyone who is saved from the domination of sin is saved by Christ. The author counts himself as the chief of sinners because there is no greater sinner he can hide behind. There is no excuse for us. We can all describe ourselves in this way - but equally, we can all say "Jesus came to save me". And because of this knowledge, we must be careful to remember (as you point out) that the same is true for other people - Jesus did not come to save only me.
In response to your clarification:
You would like to know whether Jesus had you, specifically, in mind during his Passion. What we know from Scripture is that Jesus "gave his life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28), and that "he died for all" to "reconcile us to himself", "not counting our trespasses against us" (2 Corinthians 5:15, 18-19). This act of reconciliation unites us with him in love; "our old self was crucified with him" (Romans 6:6) and now "we abide in him and he in us" (1 John 4:13). Further, it is written (Isaiah 53:4-6 and partially quoted in Matthew 8:17):

Surely he has borne our infirmities
and carried our diseases;
yet we accounted him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions,
crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the punishment that made us whole,
and by his bruises we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have all turned to our own way,
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

It is certain that every sin was part of his burden on the cross, including even those sins yet to happen. If this were not so, then our sins could not be redeemed, and we could not be united with him.
Jesus certainly suffered in his crucifixion, as the Gospels attest. We might argue about the extent to which he was conscious of each sin individually. While some would say that Jesus in his earthly life had only a human intellect, the transcendent nature of the Passion is surely a plausible candidate for an exception. In any case, he felt the pain of every sin, including yours and mine, regardless of precisely how he felt it.


According to Aquinas, does "love" towards something always bring "desire" towards that something? According to Thomas Aquinas, does "love" towards something always bring "desire" towards that something?

St. Thomas Aquinas defines love (amor) as something that "belongs to the appetitive [spec., concupiscible] power which is a passive faculty" (Summa Theologica I-II q. 27 a. 1 c.).

"Love (amor) is something pertaining to the appetite". (ibid. I-II q. 26 a. 1 c.)"Passion is the effect of the agent on the patient." (ibid. I-II q. 26 a. 2 c.)

A sensitive appetite (i.e., an appetite pertaining to the senses) can be concupiscible or irascible. St. Thomas says (ibid. I q. 81 a. 2 c.) that the concupiscible appetitite is that

  through which the soul is simply inclined to seek what is suitable, according to the senses, and to fly from what is hurtful

The irascible is that

  whereby an animal resists these attacks that hinder what is suitable, and inflict harm

When you say "desire," it seems you mean what St. Thomas calls desire/cupidity or desiderium/cupiditas (cf. ibid. I-II q. 40 a. 1).

Hope might be the irascible analogue of "love" that you're looking for (cf. the aforementioned article).


Why does Joseph have a staff in nativity scenes? I noticed that many nativity scenes present Joseph with a staff (in many cases a shepherd's staff). What was the original basis for this portrayal?

This answer is less concerned with the origin of the staff but suggests that it was a symbol of authority, suitable for a descendant of David, and was used in early stories as part of a miraculous sign.

Also, was the use of a shepherd's staff an original (or very early) conception, perhaps again relating to David, or a later change, perhaps a confusion with the staffs of the shepherds in nativity scenes?

In the Luke account, Joseph and Mary had just walked about 60 miles from Nazareth to the Jerusalem suburbs (Bethlehem is about 5 miles away.)  The countryside is hilly, and there are some dangerous places too.

Personally, if I'm walking more than a mile or so, I'm going to take a stick. And, if I've got a pregnant girl I need to protect, I'm doubly sure I'm going to have a stick.  Theology aside, this would be a very practical thing to take on a long walk in a dangerous area.

As an artist, if I'm trying to remind people that Joseph was on a journey, this would b a very simple shorthand for conveying that imagery.


What is the Biblical evidence against the day-age theory? As many of you probably know, the day-age theory is an attempt to reconcile creation and evolution, by turning the days mentioned in Genesis into long periods of time. What is the biblical evidence against this theory? How can I use Scripture to refute such a view?

The primary argument against the day age theory is from the Hebrew Grammer.  The word Yom is translated day in this passage, and in different contexts it can mean different things.

In 67 verses in the Old Testament, the word Yom is translated into the English word "time." (Genesis 4:3, I Kings 11:42)
Four times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "year." (1 Kings 1:1)
Eight times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "age." (Genesis 18:11 and 24:1, Joshua 23:1)
It is translated Day hundreds of times.

If we were to stop here in our investigation of the word we could conclude that the genesis account could include the idea of the word yom referring to an age instead of a literal day.  But as we dig deeper this view becomes less likely.

Every place we find the word Yom with the words morning or evening it always means a literal 24 hour day.  Every place we find the word Yom with a number (First Day for example) it always means a literal day.  So usage would tell us that when we find the words "So the evening and the morning were the first day." we would fully expect that this means a literal day and not an age.


Can I take notes during a mass? I was raised roman catholic for the first 13 years of my life. The rest I spent agnostic of religion after I read the bible. Books like Leviticus made me very upset. Now I heard that this doesn't actually get preached in most churches, and a lot of people call themselves Christian because they believe in certain values rather than believing the bible word for word.

I'm very interested in getting to know how much of what actually gets preached matches with things I believe in. I want to figure that out by going to a couple of masses. From my religious youth I have learned that everyone is welcome in a church, but a lot of things are considered rude, like wearing a hat as a male or not standing or kneeling at the appropriate times (if you're able to).

Now my question is, is it considered impolite or rude in any way if I take notes during preaching? The goal of the notes is being able to study the preaching afterward.  Is there any Catholic teaching that would make this wrong or improper?

The short answer is “no,” there is no problem if someone takes notes during the homily. (There are no norms regarding this, so there is not much in the way of sources, but anyone who wishes to remember the homily in detail is welcome to take notes.)


Which monk states that the Old Testament is about the Father and the New Testament about the Holy Ghost Somebody mentioned to me in a conversation that there was a monk in the 13th century who held the belief that the OT is about the Father and the NT is about the Holy Ghost. The death and resurrection are right in the middle of this. The monk was considered a heretic in his time.
However, he forgot the name of the monk.
Is there a monk who held this belief?

The monk mentioned by the O.P. sounds like Joachim of Fiore (c. 1135 – 1202) to me. He was active mostly during the 12th century, but he did make it to the 13th.
Some of his ideas about the nature of the Holy Trinity were refuted posthumously by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215).
However, his doctrine of the “three ages” is a bit different from what the O.P. States. According to Joachim,

The Age of the Father corresponds to the Old Testament.
The Age of the Son corresponds to the New Testament.
The Age of the Holy Spirit corresponds to a future age yet to come.

(See the Wikipedia article for a summary.)


How is the ‘Resurrection of the Holy Ones’ in Mt.27:51-53 understood by those who do NOT consider it a literal, historical event? Since there are many ways to read the Bible, I wanted to understand multiple points of view, that being: 1) those who understand this as a non-literal, non-historical event (modern, liberal scholars, perhaps) – this question; 2) those who interpret this event as literal – see my other question.

  And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
  the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the
  graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
  And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the
  holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they
  that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those
  things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the
  Son of God. (Matthew 27:51-54, KJV)

With phenomenal events such as an earthquake so mighty it opens a number of graves and then the righteous dead arise and interact with the community, one would expect Matthew to explicate these miracles beyond the pithy lines in his text; or, at least, expect the other evangelists to also document these incidences in their narratives. The Markan narrative denotes the temple’s rented veil and the centurion’s response, but does not make any mention of an earthquake or the resurrection of saints.  Similarly, Luke and John do not make even the slightest reference to these events.

Additionally, during Peter’s pontifical address during Pentecost, not even a nebulous reference to a powerful earthquake or the resurrection of these saints is conveyed. Pentecost occurred fifty days following Christ’s resurrection and the supposed Holy Ones’ appearance to “many.” Therefore, the omission of these events in Peter’s address, especially to an audience that were likely witnesses to these events, is a curious oversight.

Why didn't the other Gospel writers write about these? Why aren't there other extra-biblical sources for these events? It seems like more than Christ's followers would have witnessed these events.... And it certainly seems like something people would continue to talk about for ages thereafter... Are there other sources that may imply the opening of tombs and rising of the deceased? Or were only the righteous ones able to "see" these?

Just confused why no one else mentions it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!)

Did Matthew have a reason as to why he interpolated this into the text (if we take the stance that it isn't a literal event)? If so, what role does this pericope play? How does it assist in the overall message that Matthew is conveying to his audience? Is there some symbolism? If so, what?

If Mark and/or Luke used Matthew as a source, then it seems most plausible to me to explain their omission as disagreement with Matthew---i.e., they thought it did not actually happen.  If instead they did not use Matthew as a source, then they may simply have been unaware of the tradition.  In this case, it was either an invention of Matthew, or comes from an earlier source independent of Mark and Luke.

Note that Mt 27:53 refers to a time after Jesus' resurrection.  A minority of scholars believe this should be placed, furthermore, after Jesus' second coming, or some other significantly later date than the resurrection.  However, this is a minority view and seems more speculation than anything supported by the text itself.

In the end, we just don't know the origin of this tradition, why Matthew's description is so brief and stingy on details, nor why other early Christian authors failed to mention it.  Even the best answers I've seen, in my opinion, are little more than speculation.


Where did the ecclesiastical offices go? In the Bible, there are three distinct titles:

Episcopai — literally administrator, these were tasked with overseeing a church/region
Presbyteros — a lesser title, still tasked with overseeing a church.
Diaconos  — Deacons (like Stephen)

In the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (and possibly the Anglicans?), these "translate" to bishop, priest, and deacon respectively (the quotes are because the English words are the product of linguistic shifts, and not an actual separate etymology), and we go off on a tangent about ecclesiastical lines and succession, yada yada yada...

According to the mainstream Protestant line of thought, what happened to these positions? They do not seem apparent in the Baptist, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, or Reformed church governments (I do not know the Lutheran church government).

As a side note: while presbyteros is the etymological ancestor of priest, the word has a fundamentally different meaning. Catholic "priests" are better understood as "presbyters" which is very different from the "priesthood of all believers" (the Latin for a "priest" as in a parish priest is "presbyteros", the Latin for "priest" as in "priesthood of all believers" is "sacerdos"). This is a deficiency of English itself as most others have the difference built in.

The answer here will vary widely depending on which specific protestant group you ask. No one can speak to every protestant tradition.

Try to think of a continuum, with one end describing groups with a very formalized and liturgical worship style, and the other end an informal and more laid-back style. Groups using the former style tend to (may not always) place more importance on structure and leadership at the level of the entire denomination (If you're liturgical, someone fairly high up was likely privileged to write out your liturgy). Groups using the latter style tend to (but not always) place more importance on the structure and leadership at the congregational level. In this answer, I will try here to speak to the latter end of the continuum.

In many such protestant denominations, every member is a priest/presbytor. In 1 Peter 2:9, speaking to all believers:

  you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood

Some will take this as far as calling any distinctions — at all — between "lay" and "clergy" backwards and evil, because the distinction discourages the individual Christian from taking up the full responsibility for their relationship with Christ. I know of groups that don't even formally ordain their pulpit ministers.

Moving on to Episcopai. This office may be called variously Elder, Bishop, Pastor, Minister, or Reverend; never Father, as that is a title reserved for God alone — some will even refuse to use the title "Father" when directly addressing a Catholic priest, as they see it akin to blasphemy. This level is notable because office holders generally (not always, especially among groups that use "Elders") draw some kind of salary to help support themselves directly through their ministerial work. This office is generally charged with oversight of a region or congregation, and the selection for this position may even originate within the congregation itself.

The final office is Deacon. Deacons may be in charge of a service area within a particular congregation, such as "benevolence", "building/grounds/custodial", "children's ministry", etc. Deacons will typically not draw a salary from their ministerial work, but are nearly always chosen from the so-called "lay" membership of the congregation itself.


According to Evangelicals, before the Reformation, who were Christians if “Catholics are not Christians”? Every now and then I hear non-Catholic Christians, usually Evangelicals, say things along the lines of “Catholics are not Christians” or “the Catholic Church does not teach the true gospel.” Unless I am mistaken, Catholicism and various Orthodox churches were virtually the only Christian “denominations” that existed before the Protestant Reformation, aside from a heretical sect here and there (e.g., the Cathars).

So for those who think the Catholic Church has abandoned the true faith or gospel, do they identify anyone from the time period of the fourth century A.D. until the Protestant reformation who had retained the true gospel?

Evangelicals would say that there were faithful churches who kept the gospel before the reformation. I think there are two historical factors involved:

Protestants recognise several movements of like-minded people before the reformation, such as the Lollards and Hussites. I think that Luther himself at one time admitted that his own beliefs essentially were Hussite. These movements did not have a strong lasting influence however. What gave Luther's movement longevity was a combination of the political situation and the printing press, which allowed his teachings to spread widely. It was not like all the precursors were condemned by the church either. Local disagreements and debates, especially by academics like Luther, were common. But printing took the debate to the continental level and demanded a response from the very top.
The Catholic Counter-reformation pinned down Catholic doctrine at the Council of Trent, removing a lot of flexibility from within the church. Several doctrines that would be denied at the council were permitted before, even if they would not have been explicitly endorsed. The Tridentine Catholic Church is different from the pre-reformation church, so that if Protestants say that the Catholic Church today is not truly Christian they are not implying that the pre-reformation Church was too.


How to find out more about the the 12 disciples? How can I find out more about the 12 disciples and their lives and families than is mentioned in the Scriptures?

What did they give up and who they left behind, in order to follow Christ.

The Bible tells us everything we need to know about the 12 disciples who were initially appointed by Jesus to follow him.  Their experiences are described in the four Gospels and additional insights are to be found in the Acts of the Apostles.  However, for more information, try this:

  Twelve Ordinary Men by John MacArthur published by Christian Book.com  https://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?event=AFF&p=1011693&item_no=88244

There were more than 12 disciples and the article in this link discusses the 70 (or 72) that Jesus sent out: https://www.gotquestions.org/70-or-72-disciples.html

  Since God did not consider it important for us to know the names of the 70 (or 72) disciples He charged with the important task of preparing the way for Jesus, we don’t need to consider it important, either. What Jesus called attention to was not the power He gave them but the fact that their names were written in heaven (Luke 10:20).

I found some other articles on the 12 disciples, which I hope will help you:

https://www.gotquestions.org/disciples-married.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/apostles-die.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/how-old-were-Jesus-disciples.html

Edit: Here is some information on Peter, taken from the Bible:

  Simon was originally from Bethsaida (John 1:44) and lived in Capernaum (Mark 1:29), both cities on the coast of the Sea of Galilee. He was married (1 Corinthians 9:5), and he and James and John were partners in a profitable fishing business (Luke 5:10). Simon met Jesus through his brother Andrew, who had followed Jesus after hearing John the Baptist proclaim that Jesus was the Lamb of God (John 1:35-36). Andrew immediately went to find his brother to bring him to Jesus. Upon meeting Simon, Jesus gave him a new name: Cephas (Aramaic) or Peter (Greek), which means “rock” (John 1:40-42). Later, Jesus officially called Peter to follow Him, producing a miraculous catch of fish (Luke 5:1-7). Immediately, Peter left everything behind to follow the Lord (verse 11).  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/life-Peter.html


What is the biblical basis for baptism by immersion? There are two modes of water baptism of which I am familiar--immersion and sprinkling.  As far as I know Catholics practice sprinkling along with many Protestant traditions, although many other Protestant traditions practice immersion.

What is the biblical basis for immersion according to those who have a literal interpretation of the Bible?

There is an excellent article here that covers the Biblical arguments for, and the common arguments against each point.  A few relevant excerpts"

  The word baptizo in Greek, translated "baptize" in the New Testaments,
  meant to "dip" or "immerse."  It is sometimes argued that in Mark 7:4
  and Luke 11:38 the word means "to wash by pouring," not "immerse"; but
  in those texts the actual meaning (as historical information
  substantiates) is to "wash by dipping or immersing in water."
  Baptism is specifically stated in the New Testament to represent the
  Christian's spiritual union with Christ in His death, burial and
  resurrection (Romans 6:3-7), which is remarkably and dramatically
  pictured in immersion.
  Whenever the act of baptism is described in the New Testament (which is rarely), the one who is baptized actually goes into the
  water.  Thus, after Jesus was baptized, He "came up out of the water"
  (Mark 1:10), and when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, "they both
  went down into the water" (Acts 8:38).  These descriptions do not
  quite prove complete immersion, however, since they could have stood,
  let us say, ankle-deep in water while one of them scooped up some
  water and poured it over the other's head.  Furthermore, we are not
  told in Scripture that we must baptize in exactly the same way as John
  or Philip.
  The mode used by the early Church in the first few centuries was immersion, with affusion reserved for occasions when immersion was
  impossible due to lack of sufficient water, and aspersion used for
  individuals too sick or weak for either immersion of affusion.

There is more in the original article, but in summary, the Biblical argument is based on both the meaning of the original Greek word, and also from evidence inferred, but not directly stated in Scripture.

The summary, however, is excellent, in my opinion.  The author states:

  ...Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not
  all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as
  substitutes in exceptional circumstances.  God accepts the believer on
  the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on
  the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized.
  The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that
  only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the
  Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based
  on Scripture.


Why do some Christian churches have classes about other churches? The context of my question is is directed mostly toward "non-denominational" or independent Christian groups, though feedback from the perspective of more established (e.g. Protestant) churches is welcome where applicable.

I'm aware that there are Sunday-schools by churches to teach their congregations about the scriptures, the gospel, etc. Some churches also teach classes about other churches.

Why do some Christian churches have classes about other churches? What is the Christian, not secular, reason for having them?

Because, and I say this with all humility, everyone of us concedes (or at least should concede), we could be wrong.

Besides- one thing we know about God's Truth is that it can always stand up to rigorous inquiry. If it did not, either we serve a weak God (which we don't) or our understanding of God is wrong.

Either way, the last thing any Christian should be scared of is the Truth.


Looking for a website providing HTML formatted works of Joseph Pohle's 12 volume Dogmatic Theology There are plenty of websites presenting multi-volume works of St. Thomas Aquinas in HTML formatted chunks such as New Advent's Summa Theologiae.

I'm looking for a website containing similarly HTML formatted chunks preferably with table of contents for the 12 volume set Dogmatic Theology by Joseph Pohle, S.J..  All I can find is a PDF version of the books from archive.org, a result of Google digitizing project.  Logos has it, but it's not free.

It looks like only one of the 12 volumes has been converted, courtesy of  Suzanne Lybarger, David King, and the Online Distributed Proofreaders Team, and hosted in the Project Gutenberg website: Grace, Actual and Habitual: A Dogmatic Treatise.

In lieu of HTML formatted website, clean digital files (PDF, EPUB, etc.) with table of contents are also acceptable.

There are EPUBs (and some other formats) from here:

God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes: A Dogmatic Treatise
The Divine Trinity: A Dogmatic Treatise
God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural: A Dogmatic Treatise
Christology: A Dogmatic Treatise on the Incarnation
Soteriology: A Dogmatic Treatise on the Redemption
Mariology: A Dogmatic Treatise on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God: With an Appendix on the Worship of the Saints, Relics, and Images
Grace, Actual and Habitual: A Dogmatic Treatise
The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise (vol. 1): The Sacrements in General, Baptism, Confirmation
The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise (vol. 2): The Holy Eucharist
The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise (vol. 3): Penance
The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise (vol. 4): Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, Matrimony
Eschatology or the Catholic Doctrine of the Last Things: A Dogmatic Treatise


Is there an example in the Bible of a human ever praying [a prayer] to someone other than one assumed to be God/god? Is there an example in the Bible of a human ever praying [a prayer] to someone other than one assumed to be God/god (i.e., whether they be a false god or true god)? In other words, is there an example of praying to something/someone who is assumed or acknowledged to be a creature rather than the Creator?

By the English verb "praying," I am referring to a conjugation of the Greek verb προσεύχομαι, and by the English noun "prayer," I am referring to the noun Greek προσευχή. Or, if in the Old Testament, I am referring to a conjugation of the Hebrew verb הִתְפַּלֵּל, or the Hebrew noun תְּפִלָּה.

As far as the Hebrew הִתְפַּלֵּל (hitpallēl) goes, I’m pretty sure1  the only example of prayer clearly directed at people (rather than God/gods) is Isaiah 45:14, which doesn’t come across as "pray" in most translations I’ve looked at, presumably because the idea is troubling.

  Thus says the LORD:
       “The wealth of Egypt and the merchandise of Cush,
            and the Sabeans, men of stature,
       shall come over to you and be yours;
            they shall follow you;
            they shall come over in chains and bow down to you (אֵלַיִךְ יִֽשְׁתַּחֲוּוּ)
       They will plead with you (אֵלַיִךְ יִתְפַּלָּ֔לוּ), saying:
            ‘Surely God is in you, and there is no other,
            no god besides him.’” (ESV)

The phrase "plead with you" uses the verb/stem of interest (hitpallēl) with the preposition אֶל (ʾel = "to", here in its emphatic form), which standardly identifies the object of prayer. The object ("you") is feminine singular and thus probably refers to Jerusalem rather than Israel (which is consistently referred to using masculine pronouns) or (more problematic still) Cyrus.  The semantically related verb יִשְׁתַּחֲוּוּ (yištaḥăwwû = "they will bow down") - makes it all the more jarring.

There is another set of occurrences of this same verb + preposition pair (hitpallēl ʾel) that is usually translated differently but involves precisely the same Hebrew construction. This is exemplified by 1 King 8:29 // 2 Chr 6:20:2

  that your eyes may be open night and day toward this house, the place of which you have said, ‘My name shall be there,’ that you may listen to the prayer that your servant offers toward this place (yitpallēl....ʾel–hammāqôm)

Here, as in other similar examples 1, hammāqôm ("this place") refers to the temple. The preposition generally translated "toward" is ʾel, the same word used to denote the recipient of prayer elsewhere.

With regard to the Greek terms, both the noun προσευχὴ and the verb προσεύχομαι are applied exclusively to the religious sphere throughout both the LXX and the NT. This distinguishes the term from εύχομαι, a more common word outside of Jewish literature where it often carries a sense of "to vow".3

1.  "Pretty sure" because this is drawn from David Clines’ Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, which comprehensively catalogues the objects of this verb + preposition combination in the entire corpus of known Classical Hebrew.

2. The notation // indicates parallel passages. See also: 1 King 8:30 // 2 Chr 6:21; 1 King 8:35 // 2 Chr 6:26; 1 King 8:42 // 2 Chr 6:32.

3. Heinrich Greeven. "εύχομαι". Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey Bromiley. Eerdmans, 1964.