Why did Esau despise his birthright? Genesis 25:29-34 tells the story about Esau selling his birthright because he is hungry and despised it.

  And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

Why did he (Esau) despise his birthright?

Is there a good Christian commentary that explains what "despised" means, and why Esau would have despised it?

Esau despised his birthright. In order to understand this, first we need to understand what it means in this context to "despise" and also what the birthright was.

What was a birthright?

An abundance of sources will tell you that in the Ancient Near East context, the birthright goes to the eldest son. All sons receive a "portion" of the inheritance of their father, but the one who receives the birthright receives a double portion. He would also be the "head" of the family.

What did despise (בָּזָה) mean?

Different translations have:

  Despise (NIV, ESV, NASB, KJV, HCSB, NET, WEB), contempt (NLT), belittle
  (ISV), make little account of (Douay-Rheims)

Strong's defines it as:

  despise, disdain, contemptible, think to scorn, vile person

NET Bible Notes say:

  So Esau despised his birthright. This clause, which concludes the
  episode, is a summary statement which reveals the underlying
  significance of Esau’s actions. “To despise” means to treat something
  as worthless or with contempt. Esau’s willingness to sell his
  birthright was evidence that he considered it to be unimportant.

Bottom line: He considered his birthright to be unimportant.

What was Esau's birthright?

God makes a covenant with Abraham in Genesis 17:

  I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.

This reiterates and expands on the promises God had already made to Abraham in Genesis 12, 13, and 15. In Genesis 25:11, it says that "after Abraham's death, God blessed Isaac." In the next chapter, God speaks to Isaac:

  Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham. I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because Abraham obeyed me and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees and my instructions.

These are the blessings that Esau was to inherit, in addition to his father's property. He was to receive the promise of fathering many nations, being a blessing to other nations, and a close relationship with God. But this he despised.

Why did he despise it?

In Hebrews 12 we read:

  See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for
  a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.
  Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he
  was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could
  not change what he had done.

Esau is implicitly contrasted with Jesus, who is mentioned at the beginning of the chapter:

  For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Jesus endured the hardship of the cross in order to secure blessings for all nations. Esau gave in to his momentary hunger in order to forego his blessing. Ultimately the reason he despised his birthright could be said to be that his god was his stomach. Paul has this to say about such men in Philippians 3:

  For, as I have often told you before and now tell you again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

Additional Resources

A Despised Birthright | Ligonier Ministries
Despising the Blessings of God | First Baptist Church of Toulon


Does any Church currently incorporate exorcism, three dunkings, and anointing in their baptism rite? Hippolytus of Rome, in relating the rites and liturgies in use in Rome in the 3rd Century AD in his work called Apostolic Tradition, describes a process of exorcism first to expel evil spirits whereby the baptismal candidate verbally renounces Satan and service to him, is anointed by Oil of Exorcism, and then passed on to another Elder for a 3 time baptism; once each for confession of each Trinity member.

  At the time determined for baptism, the bishop shall give thanks over
  some oil, which he puts in a vessel. It is called the Oil of
  Thanksgiving. He shall take some more oil and exorcise it. It is
  called the Oil of Exorcism. A deacon shall hold the Oil of Exorcism
  and stand on the left. Another deacon shall hold the Oil of
  Thanksgiving and stand on the right. When the elder takes hold of each
  of them who are to receive baptism, he shall tell each of them to
  renounce, saying, "I renounce you Satan, all your service, and all
  your works." After he has said this, he shall anoint each with the Oil
  of Exorcism, saying, "Let every evil spirit depart from you." Then,
  after these things, the bishop passes each of them on nude to the
  elder who stands at the water. They shall stand in the water naked. A
  deacon,likewise, will go down with them into the water. When each of
  them to be baptized has gone down into the water, the one baptizing
  shall lay hands on each of them, asking, "Do you believe in God the
  Father Almighty?" And the one being baptized shall answer, "I
  believe." He shall then baptize each of them once, laying his hand
  upon each of their heads. Then he shall ask, "Do you believe in Jesus
  Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin
  Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose on
  the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat
  down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the
  living and the dead?"When each has answered, "I believe," he shall
  baptize a second time. Then he shall ask, "Do you believe in the Holy
  Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?" Then
  each being baptized shall answer, "I believe." And thus let him
  baptize the third time. Afterward, when they have come up out of the
  water, they shall be anointed by the elder with the Oil of
  Thanksgiving, saying, "I anoint you with holy oil in the name of Jesus
  Christ." Then, drying themselves, they shall dress and afterwards
  gather in the church.

After this they would anoint the newly baptized with the Oil of Thanksgiving.

Are there any traditions who currently baptize in this way (with or without the nudity)?  If not, when and why was this ritual changed?

Does any Church currently incorporate exorcism, three separate immersions, and anointing in their baptism rite (with or without the nudity)?

The short answer is probably not. Although some do more or less share similar elements.

St. Hippolytus of Rome relates how baptism in The Early Church was administered in or around 215 AD in Rome as such:

  21 At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. 2When
  they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring
  or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes. 4The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. 5After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water.

  6At the time determined for baptism, the bishop shall give thanks over some oil, which he puts in a vessel. It is called the Oil of Thanksgiving. 7He shall take some more oil and exorcise it. It is called the Oil of Exorcism. 8A deacon shall hold the Oil of Exorcism and stand on the left. Another deacon shall hold the Oil of Thanksgiving and stand on the right.

  9When the elder takes hold of each of them who are to receive baptism, he shall tell each of them to renounce, saying, "I renounce you Satan, all your servicea, and all your works." 10After he has said this, he shall anoint each with the Oil of Exorcism, saying, "Let every evil spirit depart from you." 11Then, after these things, the bishop passes each of them on nude to the elder who stands at the water. They shall stand in the water naked. A deacon, likewise, will go down with them into the water. 12When each of them to be baptized has gone down into the water, the one baptizing shall lay hands on each of them, asking, "Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?" 13And the one being baptized shall answer, "I believe." 14He shall then baptize each of them once, laying his hand upon each of their heads. 15Then he shall ask, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the living and the dead?" 16When each has answered, "I believe," he shall baptize a second time. 17Then he shall ask, "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?" 18Then each being baptized shall answer, "I believe." And thus let him baptize the third time.

  19Afterward, when they have come up out of the water, they shall be anointed by the
  elder with the Oil of Thanksgiving, saying, "I anoint you with holy oil in the name of Jesus Christ." 20Then, drying themselves, they shall dress and afterwards gather in the church. - The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome

Let us remember that this was the baptismal practice as was practiced in Rome in the third century.

Although the wording used in the above formula of baptism is slightly different than what we are accustomed to hear, the Trinitarian formulation is still in tact.

The Catholic Church still permits baptism by either immersion or by pouring water over the head of the catechumen. The Early Church practiced pouring over the head during baptism for those who were elderly or seriously ill.

The liturgy and how the sacraments are administered are never stagnate; they are administered by the Church(es) as the people of God move throughout the centuries. There is always an organic development so to speak in how the liturgy and the sacraments are administered, from century to century.

As I have said the Catholic Church still permits baptism, either by immersion or by pouring water over the head of her catechumens. It would still be permitted to baptize an adult by immersion while using the formula now in place within the Church.

For a baptism to be valid the following must be observed according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church

  1278 The essential rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water or pouring water on his head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I have seen priests, while pouring the water over the head of infant and pronouncing the trinitarian formula poured the water over the head in three separate pourings, one in the name of the each person of the Sacred Trinity.

In the same way, it is conceivable, but doubtful that an immersion baptism could be administered in a similar fashion. Doubtful, because this not the General manner of administering this sacrament in our days.

As far as exorcisms and anointings are concerned, they are still administered within the Catholic Church.

The modern Rite of Baptism for One Child,for example, still incorporates exorcisms and anointings in her baptisms.

As for the administration of this sacrament while being nude that was certainly phased out because of issues of modesty were involved.


Could a Catholic priest potentially use a digital tablet (iPad, etc.) for the Lectionary or the Book of the Gospels during mass? In the Catholic Masses I have been to, it begins with a procession of the priest along with acolytes and such and someone is holding up the Book of the Gospels decorated in gold or otherwise. This gets placed on the altar and the priest reads from it.

Could a Catholic priest potentially use a digital tablet (iPad, etc.) that contains the text of the Book of the Gospels (or the Lectionary for that matter) in place of this gilded one used during mass? Is there some requirement that the one used in mass has to have a certain appearance, or be made in a certain way? While I'm sure there are a number of reasons that this wouldn't be done (the possibility of technical difficulties, disapproval from parishioners who think it's inappropriate), is there anything within canon law or other church "rules" that would prevent this?

Could a Catholic priest potentially use a digital tablet (iPad, etc.) for the Lectionary or the Book of the Gospels during mass?
It seems the Rome has not yet pronounced on this matter officially. Yet the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference has made a statement on this subject matter. They responded in the negative.

When the priest is finished proclaiming the Gospel at mass, he reverently kisses the Lectionary. This would seem like a lack of liturgical decorum to kiss some sort of electronic devices.


If God is going to fix our "nature" why didn't He do it from the beginning? I've never been one to read a book without peeking at the end early so I sort of peeked at Revelations and this caught my eye:

  Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell
  with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them
  and be their God. 'He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will
  be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of
  things has passed away. He who was seated on the throne said, 'I am
  making everything new!' (Revelation 21:3-5)

So, my question is this: If the old order of things is going to pass and God is going to make everything new (Human Nature?), then why didn't he do this from the beginning? If he wasn't talking about human nature, then what is to stop us from rebelling against him as Adam and Eve did?

I realize no one can know God's thoughts, but is there anything in the Bible that gives us insight? As always, thanks for taking the time to respond, it's appreciated!

O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem ("O happy fault that earned for us such and so great a redeemer")

This is a very ancient concept in Christian theology. Essentially, Christian theology has long held that it was far better for God to bring good out of evil than it was not  to permit the evil to happen in the first place. (I'm paraphrasing S. Augustine here.)

In essence, Creation-Fall-Redemption-New Creation is better than Creation  alone.

Looking in the Bible, we might look at texts like Romans 5.20: "where sin increased, grace abounded all the more". Moreover, it is a concept that permeates both Old and New Testaments: the people of Israel came to know that their exile in the desert and later in Babylon was good because ultimately they came to know God better through it. Christians believe this is supremely true in Christ and in the New Creation.


How are the words of Mary in Luke 1:34 incontrovertible proof of her perpetual virginity? Based on this question it seems that a lot of weight is given to the simple statement by Mary to Gabriel that she is a virgin.

  Luke 1:34 NIV How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”

Various translations use different phrasing here like “I do not know a man” or “I am not knowing a man”. Catholics make a big deal out of this verse declaring it to be proof that Mary was informing Gabriel that she was a woman who had vowed to remain a virgin forever.

What is the reasoning for making this seemingly unexceptional statement  into a cornerstone of the unsubstantiated (in scripture) dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?

One would think Mary knew the birds and the bees. One would think that she knew that after betrothal, a couple would cohabitate and consummate their marriage. Naturally, a baby would ensue approximately 9 months later. After all, that’s how Mary was born! Her mother and father went through the same process. One would think Mary knew that.
This is a translation of Gabriel’s statement to Mary:1

31 And behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and you shall give birth to a son, and you shall call his name “Jesus.”

At that very time, Mary was already betrothed to Joseph. It would be expected for them to cohabitate and consummate their marriage. Would it not? If indeed this were to be the case with Mary and Joseph—the consummation—then why would Mary ask Gabriel:

34 ...How shall this be since I do not know a man?

“To know” is, of course, a euphemism for “to have sex.” Thus, we could just as well translate that verse as such:

34 ...How shall this be since I do not have sex with a man?

Hello?! Mary?! Don’t you know what shall happen when you and Joseph consummate your marriage? What do you mean, “How shall this be?”
So, if you do not believe that Mary was going to remain a virgin perpetually, then you have to believe Mary did not understand what happens when a husband and wife consummate their marriage. You have to believe Mary did not understand the birds and the bees although her parents already handed her off to be married to another man. You have to believe that Mary was asking Gabriel for a biology lesson.
Note, Gabriel does not say to Mary, «μέλλεις συλλαμβάνειν»—“you are about to conceive,” implying that her conception was at hand, prior to her consummation with Joseph. Rather, he uses the future tense, and Mary, already being betrothed, would have rightly understood it as being fulfilled when she consummated her marriage to Joseph—if indeed she did not have a perpetual vow of virginity.

Footnotes
1 Luke 1:31: «καὶ ἰδού συλλήψῃ ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τέξῃ υἱόν καὶ καλέσεις τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν»
2 Luke 1:34: «εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω»


What is the meaning of "last day" from the perspective of the dispensational premillennialist? TLDR
Dispensational Premillennialism teaches that the resurrection of believers occurs at the Rapture, which seemingly conflicts with Jesus's promise to raise Christians on the "last day."
John 6:40
For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

Analysis
I really enjoyed learning about Dispensational Premillennialism from teachers like John MacArthur and RC Sproul. The literal approach to attempting prophesy really resonates with me. Most common objections to the framework have reasonable answers on sites like GotQuestions, but I can't really find any compelling answers that directly address Jesus' clear words that the resurrection of believers takes place on the last day.
The Lord mentioned this promise several times. Even Martha reflects on Jesus' teaching:
John 11:24
Martha replied, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

Now, my understanding of the dispensational timeline is:
(1) Church Age <= (we are here)
(2) Resurrection of believers, both living and dead, at a time that no one can predict; aka Rapture
(3) Tribulation lasting seven years
(4) Second coming of Christ and Sheep/Goat Judgement
(5) Literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth
(6) Brief rebellion, led by Satan who is "loosed for a while"; Rebellion is summarily squashed.
(7) Unbelievers resurrected into new bodies suitable for eternal punishment; They're thrown into their final destination, the Lake of Fire.
(8) New heaven and new earth. Time ends, eternity begins.
So it would seem then that the timeline indicates the resurrection of believers occurs at Step #2. Whereas, if we take Jesus at His word, and the resurrection of believers takes place on the last day (of time), it would take place just prior to Step #8.
If we were talking about unbelievers, then the timeline holds true since they are indeed resurrected on the last day prior to being cast into the lake of fire. But clearly Jesus is talking about believers being raised on the last day.
So how might a Dispensational Premillennialist interpret the phrase "last day" in a way that is consistent with their timeline?
Thanks!

You correctly speak of “Jesus' clear words that the resurrection of believers takes place on the last day. The Lord mentioned this promise several times. Even Martha reflects on Jesus' teaching: John 11:24 Martha replied, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."
In the Revelation Jesus gave to John via an angel, there is no ambiguity about “the last day” starting with “the last trump” – the fearsome angelic trumpet sound heralding the end of the Day of Salvation and the start of the Day of Resurrection and Judgment. Revelation 8 speaks of Christ opening the 7th seal, showing 7 angels being given 7 trumpets, blown by them in turn. Various plagues and afflictions fall from heaven on to the earth. Chapter 10 then says, “that there should be time no longer. But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets”. Chapter 11 says “And the seventh angel sounded;” vs 15, adding in vs 18, “And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged…” Chapter 20 makes it perfectly clear that that time of judging is when “the dead, small and great, stand before God”. Time is no more. The hour of judgment has arrived and ALL the dead are given resurrection bodies. This harmonises perfectly with what Jesus said about the resurrection happening on “the last day”, which Martha correctly understood would see her brother Lazarus arise from the grave, resurrected.
So, how can it be that dispensationalal premillennialists insist that there is a prior resurrection of Christians who will be taken up (‘raptured’) into heaven? It is point 2 in your “dispensational timeline” that requires explanation, and the most essential requirement for it is a secret rapture, requiring a two-stage return of Jesus Christ. This is where the following link needs to be checked, What scripture is used to support a "Pre-Tribulation Rapture"?  to see the answer by Dick Harfield on 22/3/2015, for he cites a book that claims the origin of this idea was in 1830 when a 15-year-old Scottish girl called Margaret MacDonald attended a healing service, where she claimed to have had a vision of a two-stage return of Christ. Apparently this was adopted and amplified by John Nelson Darby, a British evangelical preacher and founder of the Plymouth Brethren. The book in question is called ‘The Rapture Exposed’, by Barbara R. Rossing.
To summarise Darby’s explanation, he has to claim that Christ returns secretly for his congregation, but that a literal angel appears in Rev. 4:1; that the voice saying, “Come up hither” into heaven, was spoken to Christians on earth – and they were raptured (dead Christians being raised first, the living ones following them up into heaven).  However, given that ch. 4 is crystal clear that the voice like a trumpet was talking to John shortly before the end of the 1st century A.D., and that John was given a vision of himself being in heaven, such an explanation is insufficient (to put it charitably).
There is no mention of Christ having returned for the events in ch. 4, and no mention of any dead people having been raised. The phrase, “Come up hither” [to heaven] is interpreted as meaning a secret rapture of believers. An admission is made by Darby’s disciple, W. Kelly: ‘One important thing, then, we have seen to be assumed.’ He continues, ‘This most solemn and blessed event must occur therefore between chapters 3 and 4 of this book.’
The claim is made that the assembly of believers was seen on earth in chapters 2 and 3 but by ch. 4 the congregation is now in heaven, represented by the 24 elders. Thus, they conclude, there must have been a secret rapture (which didn’t happen to be mentioned anywhere, let alone in the chapter where it was supposed to have happened). Regarding Rev. 4:1 Darby admits, ‘There is no mention here of the fact of the Lord’s coming in reference to the assembly.’ That is why this dispensationalist, premillennialist system of interpretation claims virtually the whole of the rest of the Book of Revelation is irrelevant to Christians and only applicable to the Jews. It is only at ch. 20 that a sort of general resurrection is described.
Yet, as pointed out at the start of this answer, the Book of Revelation depicts the Day of Resurrection and Judgment, “that there should be time no longer. But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets” (ch. 10). Chapter 11 says “And the seventh angel sounded;” vs 15, adding in vs 18, “And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged…” It is not until the final, seventh, last trump that the awesome resurrection happens.  Of course, I am not giving an answer in support of the dispensational premillennialist interpretation, but I offer this in the hope that some who do hold to such an interpretation might correct or enlarge.

Reference source for quotes by Darby and Kelly and summary of their view, ‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ’ by John Metcalfe, pp81-84 & p379 (The Publishing Trust 1998)


Did the invention of the printing press change Christianity? Before 1440 and the invention of the printing press, most Christians would not have had their own personal bible. So I would assume the only place they would see one would be in a church read by a Priest or other scholarly people.

Do you think this changed Christianity a lot from pre-15th century Christianity ?

Having your own Bible which you could refer to and read every day and debate people with must have been a lot different to the times when people had to go and consult the few copies.

I'm sure there were some richer people who could afford to have their own personal copies copied out by scribes.

Yes! Before the printing press the Roman Catholic Church did everything it could to limit the translation of the text into native languages and mass production of the text in Latin. The amount of power and control in doing so helped keep them as the #1 power on Earth for a millienia. Also the Protestant Reformation might not have occured without the printing press. Luther mass produced his 95 Thesis to spread around the churches faster than the church could remove them. It is my great hope that technology can once again allow the new awakening of knowledge through the internet.


Is there a special name for the room where sacramental bread is made? In churches or cathedrals that have a special room for making/preparing the sacramental bread, does this room have a special name?
Edit: I'm wondering because I saw a room in an Eastern Orthodox cathedral where the windows were clouded over, apparently because they cook the sacramental bread in there. I was wondering whether that kind of room has a special name, or is it okay to just call it a kitchen?

Is there a special name for the room where sacramental bread is made?
It is simply called a bakery room. The practice of having a separate bakery room for making hosts is common in both Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Hosts in the Catholic Church are generally made in Monasteries of female religious. I imagine the same holds true in Orthodox Churches.
The Bread of Heaven: Where Do Communion Hosts Come From?
Instructions for making Priest’s Hosts and Peoples’ Hosts for Western Rite Orthodox Liturgy.
I have personally seen these bakery rooms in male monasteries in the Catholic Church. It makes sense that they are not made in the kitchen areas, where regular meals have to be prepared for the community.
One or two large ovens would suffice for the work involved as well as several host cutting machines.
Small patches can be made in simple kitchens.

The Council of Milan, 1576, prescribes the making of hosts in monasteries and forbids it to laymen. A council of Cambrai in 1631 ordains that "in each city there shall be a person charged with making the altar-breads from the best and purest wheat and after the manner indicated to him. He must previously take an oath to discharge faithfully the duties of his office. He shall not be permitted to buy from others the bread to be used in the Holy Sacrifice." As early as the fourteenth century the making of hosts had become a business. The confraternity of the oblayers (host-makers) had a special ecclesiastical authorization to carry on that work.
Some prescriptions of the Oriental Churches are worthy of notice; moreover, some of them are still in use. The Constitutions ascribed to St. Cyril of Alexandria prescribe that the Eucharistic bread be baked in the church oven (Renaudot, "Liturg. orient. coll.", I, 189); among the Copts, Syrians, Jacobites, Melchites, Nestorians, and Armenians, the altar-breads must be baked on the very day of their consecration. In the "Canonical Collection" of Bar-Salibi there are prescriptions concerning the choice of wheat which differ but slightly from those of the West. In Ethiopia each church must have a special oven for the making of hosts. In Greece and Russia the altar-breads are prepared by priests, widows, the wives or daughters of priests, or the so-called calogerae, i.e. nuns, whereas, in Abyssinia, women are excluded. The Nestorians of Malabar, after kneading the flour with leaven, are accustomed to work in some of the leaven left from the preceding baking. They believe that this practice dates from the earliest Christian times and that it preserves the leaven brought to Syria by Saints Thomas and Thaddeus, for, according to another Nestorian tradition, the Apostles, prior to their separation celebrated the Liturgy in common and each carried away a portion of the bread then consecrated. - Host


What crime was committed by the "thieves" crucified with Jesus? During yesterday's sermon, the pastor mentioned the theory that the thieves crucified next to Jesus likely weren't simple thieves to warrant such a sentence, but were probably "thieves with a cause."  He suggested today they would likely have been considered religious or political zealots, or "terrorists."

The pastor's suggestion seems a little far-fetched to me, based on how the thieves responded to Jesus:  One mocking him, the other asking pardon.  These don't seem like the sorts of attitudes that religious or political zealots sentenced to death are likely to exhibit.  I would expect "terrorists" to more closely identify with their cause.

Do we have enough information, historically or textually, to draw any conclusions about these thieves' crimes?  Was crucifixion used to punish "simple thieves?"

Survey of Roman law
A now deleted (near) duplicate of this question asked if a claim that the Roman law forbid the crucifixion of thieves, so I'll start with that question, which is highly relevant to our exegesis of the Gospel accounts.
There are a lot of claims on the Internet and in popular-level books about Roman crucifixion.  Some common claims included that women couldn't be crucified, that crucifixion was reserved for the most severe crimes (such as treason and murder), and that Roman citizens were exempt.  What all these claims seem to have in common is that they are never backed by references, let alone primary sources.  All three are false.  I suspect the claims are based on a combination of over-generalization (the majority of crucifixions were on non-citizen men, for example) and it "making sense" to the modern reader's sense of justice.
The non-citizen-only claim is not relevant for this question (few people in Jerusalem would have been Roman citizens in 30 AD).  The male-only claim is obviously not relevant (but is answered in this History.SE question).  I will address the major-crime-only claim here, looking primarily at cases of theft.
The real truth about Roman crucifixion is that it was commonly used as punishment for all types of crimes committed by slaves and the lower classes.  According to Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World, it was the primary punishment used on slaves.1  Jeffrey Ross agrees, writing:2

In the writings of most Roman authors, crucifixion appears to be reported as the normal punishment for disobedient slaves.

Crucifixion was regularly used on liberti (former slaves) and peregrini (non-citizens), and not just for major crimes.  Crucifixion was occasionally used on citizens as well.1
In Against Verres, Cicero describes a farm owner who, upon discovering the fraud of the farm manager, should inflict summum supplicium (extreme punishment), a phrase Cicero clearly ties to crucifixion in the same work.  A farm manager would generally be a position held by a freedman or slave.  Similarly, in Digesta seu Pandectae (in English usually called simply Digest), the compendium of Roman legal code, Pomponius describes a night prefect being properly punished with summum supplicium for theft.  Elsewhere in Digest, the penalty for grave robbing is given as summum supplicium for the humilioris, a term used for all lower class persons (e.g. anyone who didn't own property).  Although there is no formal definition of the term in Roman legal code, Garnsey investigated its usage and concluded it refers to "crucifixion, burning alive, and perhaps condemnation to the beasts."1
In the play Bacchides, the main character, a slave who has stolen some gold, imagines himself in the future, carrying not the gold, but rather a cross.2 A fragment of a legal code known as lex Puteolana says that a salve owner has the right to have the state crucify a slave for any crime whatsoever, as long as the owner pays the cost of the execution.1
In Digest, the jurist Callistratus describes certain thieves being subject to crucifixion:1

The practice which has been approved by most authorities has been to fasten (or nail) notorious brigands to the cross in the place they used to haunt

There is no indication of the punishment applying only to some social groups.  In the Lex Fabia, a legal code concerning run away slaves, crucifixion is listed as a possible penalty for aiding the slave (and thus "stealing" the master's property), among the humiliores.3
Severus Alexander is said to have had a disgraced public official (so an upper class citizen) crucified after being convicted of theft:1

the kings were asked what penalty thieves suffered at their hands, and they replied "the cross," and at this reply the man was crucified.

Meaning of the Gospel accounts
We have now established that thieves could be and were crucified by the Romans.  Thus, we can turn to the Gospel narratives without risk of biasing our translation by what we know about the Romans.
Matthew 27:38 reads:

Τότε σταυροῦνται σὺν αὐτῷ δύο λῃσταί, εἷς ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ εἷς ἐξ εὐωνύμων.
Then two robbers (λῃσταί) were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left.

Mark 15:27 writes:

Καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ σταυροῦσιν δύο λῃστάς, ἕνα ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ ἕνα ἐξ εὐωνύμων αὐτοῦ. (NA27)
And with him they crucified two robbers (λῃστάς), one on his right and one on his left. (ESV)

Luke 23:32 has:

Ἤγοντο δὲ καὶ ἕτεροι κακοῦργοι δύο σὺν αὐτῷ ἀναιρεθῆναι.
Two others, who were criminals (κακοῦργοι), were led away to be put to death with him.

and John 19:18 reads:

ὅπου αὐτὸν ἐσταύρωσαν, καὶ μετ' αὐτοῦ ἄλλους δύο ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν, μέσον δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν.
There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them.

Luke's just uses the nondescript "criminals" and John is even less specific saying simply "others".  That leaves Matthew and Mark who both use a form of λῃστής.
According to A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (BDAG), λῃστής has two meanings.  The first is "robber, highwayman, bandit".  A good example of this usage is Luke 10:30:

Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers (λῃσταῖς), who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead.

Here it is clear that more than shoplifting is in mind - this is about violently taking property.  Further, John 10:1 (see also 10:8) shows that the cannot merely be a close synonym for thief:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief (κλέπτης) and a robber (λῃστής)."

If there was no distinction between κλέπτης (the ordinary word for thief) and λῃστής, Jesus' words would be silly, but they are not.  He is saying the man is both taking "property" (literally sheep, but in the context of the parable, souls) and committing an act of violence (in context, against God).
The second usage of λῃστής is "revolutionary, insurrectionist, guerrilla."   This is most likely the usage intended in John 18:40:

They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber (λῃστής).

While the ESV has chosen to translate it as "robber," the context clearly suggests a very serious crime is in mind.  If Barabbas was a robber, he must have been a violent one - and John does not need to use an adjective to express that.  Mark 15:7 backs up that John means insurrectionist by λῃστής, as he describes Barabbas as a rebel who committed murder in an insurrection.
This is probably also the intended meaning in Matthew 26:55 and parallel accounts - one does not need "swords and clubs" to capture a petty thief, nor would one expect a mob to seize a bandit.  One would, however, expect a crowd to attack an unpopular revolutionary or insurrectionist.
For the latter definition, BDAG also cites numerous passages in Josephus that suggest insurrectionists/guerrilla fighters.
Given the fact that Barabbas was in custody for his part in an insurrection, it seems likely that the two λῃστής crucified with Jesus were also insurrectionists.  If not, they were at least violent robbers - the meaning of λῃστής does not allow for ordinary thieves.
Conclusion
People were crucified for all kinds of crimes under Roman law.  Social status was a far bigger factor in whether one was crucified or not than the nature of the crime.  There are plenty of Roman documents that suggest thieves could be and often were crucified.  There is thus no legal difficulty in saying the criminals executed with Jesus were thieves.
The nature of the word λῃστής, however, suggests that the men crucified with Jesus were violent.  They were either ruthless bandits/highway robbers or insurrectionists.  The context of Barabbas' release and the description of him using the same word suggests that insurrectionists is the most likely meaning.  This conclusion also fits with the fact that Jesus was said to be a revolutionary by those who sought to justify the need for execution with the Romans.
The best conclusion, then, is that Jesus was crucified alongside two rebels (so NIV)/revolutionaries (so NLT).  Or, if one wishes to keep the theft connotation, "bandits" (ISV, NRSV) is a pretty decent translation.  The more common translations of "robbers" or "thieves", in my opinion, do not properly convey the violent nature of the crime committed by the criminals.

References
1 Crucifixion in the Mediterranean World (2014) by John Granger Cook
2 Religion and Violence: An Encyclopedia of Faith and Conflict from Antiquity (2015) by Jeffrey Ian Ross
3 New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (1997) by By S. R. Llewelyn


What does God mean by 'us' in Genesis? What does this mean in the Old Testament: Genesis 3 Verse 22.

  And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.

How through the fall from the Garden does it say that they become one of us? What is meant by "us"?

God is speaking about himself and his "master worker" Jesus. Proverbs 8:30 refers to Jesus as a "master worker" and Colossians 1:16 indicates that God used Jesus as a worker while creating all of creation (including man). This is in much the same way that an architect or engineer could be called the "creator" and his laborers could be called "master workers".

He also could have been speaking to the angels. We know they existed before man was created because Job 38:4, 7 shows that they shouted in applause when the earth was created.

Now remember that Genesis 3:22 doesn't say that the man has become one of us; it says has "become as one of us". This means that they made themselves like God.

Look at this explanation for more info: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003766


Troubled people showing interest in reading the Bible: how to explain to them that faith is a lifestyle and not an "ATM"? I get that often. I meet a lot of people who have some sort of troubles in their life and they show interest in reading the Bible to heal themselves.

However, the majority of these people just approach the Bible in the same way they approach an "ATM" machine, and they think that "if God exists" they should just "ask for a matter" and "God should provide in a button press".

How to explain to those friends that:

Faith is a lifestyle; it requires a one on one relationship with God
Faith is by giving your life to God and trust His way of guiding you even though you cannot always understand how God thinks, and His ways.
Faith is not only by asking, but also by giving to others and not being selfish
God WILL provide at the right time, the right moment IF what they are asking for is actually what God thinks is beneficial for them.

How to help people to get out of the materialistic ways of approaching something pure and divine like the Bible and understand there will be easy and hard days through faith?

Update:

Even though I do not agree on all (more details at the end of the update) that was mentioned in the accepted answer, but the solution David Stratton gave which is:

  All we can do with those who have been taught the modern gospel is to take them to Scripture and tell them the truth.

Is in my opinion the correct way to do it. Show the scripture then explain it in a spiritual way so that they stop thinking with a materialistic brain.

What were the points in his answer that i had some comments about?

I do believe God is love "God is love, come to Him and He will fix your broken marriage, drug problem, financial woes, etc.) " If you build a relationship with him and give him your life and all the steps you make. The Bible says:

  "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest."
  God is happiness, religion should not be only a feeling of guilt that we are sinners who deserve hell. of course we are sinners, but that is why Jesus died on the cross to forgive all our sins, and thus we may live and be happy and prosper:

  "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. "

So God does want us to enjoy and help others enjoy life BUT we need a one on one relationship; i.e, every step that we do we must tell him "I put it between your hands and you decide what should happen"

Unfortunately, the problem is a result of the "Modern Gospel".
(God is love, come to Him and He will fix your broken marriage, drug problem, financial woes, etc.)

The Gospel as told in Scripture is not even close to what's being preached by most Evangelical Churches today.

(That we're sinners who have offended God by our selfishness, disobedience, and unbelief, and that we have earned hell, but if we simply rely on His free gift, repent, and trust in Christ, He will save us from an eternity in Hell.)

Notice that The Scriptures don't promise an easy life. They promise trials, hardship, and persecution. See my answer here.

Some relevant verses:

  (Mark 8:34-36) If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life
  will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s
  will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world
  and forfeit his soul?

  (Acts 9:15-16) But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings,
  and the children of Israel: For I will shew him how great things he
  must suffer for my name's sake.

  (John 15:18-21) If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me
  before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love
  its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of
  the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I
  said to you... If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you...
  because they do not know Him who sent Me.

Unfortunately, all we can do with those who have been taught the modern gospel  is to take them to Scripture and tell them the truth.

Unfortunately, un-teaching false doctrines spread by well-meaning, but misguided people is a part of life. I'm sure there are plenty of people un-teaching my mistakes as well.


Does the act of sex constitute marriage in God's eyes? I came across this verse today (bold added):

  1 Corinthians 6:15-17 (NASB)
  15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! 16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.” 17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

In light of this verse:

  Mark 10:7-9 (NKJV)
  7  ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8  and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9  Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Does this imply that the act of consensual sex initiates a marriage in the eyes of God?

Note: My doctrinal tradition is protestant.

No, for a whole lot of reasons.

Old Testament Law says that a man who has sex with an unmarried woman has to marry her. That would be unnecessary if having sex made them married.
If that were the case, some teacher somewhere would be reminding people that they had to treat the people they had sex with as if they were wives.
Tamar has sex with Judah because he won't consent to give her to his son in marriage. After they have sex, there is no thought that they are married. Judah relents and allows Tamar to marry his son.
As pointed out elsewhere, fornication and adultery would both be non-existent events if the act of sex made you married.
David has sex with Bathsheba, and then later marries her. Also unnecessary if the sex made them married.

Having sex "makes you one flesh", and that is something that should be reserved for marriage.

As for Mark 10: "a man shall...be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh". That's two things that should happen, not one.


How do Catholics view physical and digital copies of the Bible? When I was in high school (a mission school), our principal (an Italian theologian and priest) was disgusted with the small blue New Testament bibles! He would throw them out of the window if he caught you with one, saying, "What kind of Bibles are these?!"

Another time, I saw a pastor preaching on TV saying, "If you have got your bible hold it up!" People were holding up smart phones and tablets!

What I want to know is, according to Catholic authorities:

Are digital Bibles appropriate in the Church?
Is there a special way of handling the Bible? How it should be treated?

I don't know what a "small blue New Testament bible" is, but I suppose your principal was thinking about a translation.

In Italy the Church uses the "CEI Edition", translated by Italian Episcopal Conference in 1978 and revised in 2008 and it's mandatory during official functions - but in informal occasions, sometimes we use other translations: I will not list them here, but some are acceptables, some other aren't. But the official one is the "CEI Edition 2008".

About digital versions... I've seen with my very eyes priestes use them without problems during cathechism lessons and other informal occasions, but some of them still don't use it during Holy Masses (here is an example).

There is no official rule (at least, not in Italy... New Zeland Catholic Bishop Conference said that only printed books can be used) but in my experience I've seen celebrating an Holy Mass with an Ipad only once.

About your second question... every priest I know taught me to handle every Bible with respect, and to not destroy or throw it away.


Where in the Bible is the restoration of the nation of Israel prophesied? I have heard that the restoration of the state of Israel is a fulfillment of one or more Biblical prophecies. But I cannot find any explicit reference to it.

Is this really a fulfillment of prophecy, if so which one(s)?

In Ezekiel 37, the prophet has a vision of a valley of "dry bones."  When asked if these bones could yet live, Ezekiel wisely says, "You alone know, O Lord." (v3) After this, the Lord miraculously makes the bones come together and come alive.

It is explicitly stated in that chapter, that this refers to the people of Israel being re-established in the land of Israel:

  Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’  Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. - Ezekiel 37:11-12 NIV

Additional context is set in the previous chapter where Ezekiel, speaking for the Lord says:

  “‘But you, mountains of Israel, will produce branches and fruit for my people Israel, for they will soon come home. 9 I am concerned for you and will look on you with favor; you will be plowed and sown, 10 and I will cause many people to live on you—yes, all of Israel. The towns will be inhabited and the ruins rebuilt. 11 I will increase the number of people and animals living on you, and they will be fruitful and become numerous. I will settle people on you as in the past and will make you prosper more than before. Then you will know that I am the Lord. 12 I will cause people, my people Israel, to live on you. They will possess you, and you will be their inheritance; you will never again deprive them of their children. - Ezekiel 36:8-12 NIV

Hal Lindsey, (The Late Great Planet Earth), for instance, explains how he sees this as the restoration of Israel in this video Note: Hal Lindsey is a controversial figure, to say the least, but he is the direct inspiration for many premilennial dispensationalists, such as Tim LaHaye (Left Behind), John Walverood, Ed Whisenant, and others.

Ed Whisenant's well-known work 88 Reasons why the Rapture will occur in 1988 was fundamentally based on the conflation of this event, Jesus' parable of the fig tree (not a generation shall pass away until these things occur) and the restoration of Israel in 1948.


What is the biblical basis for venial and mortal sins? My understanding of Catholicism is that they believe there are venial sins (kinda bad) and then there are mortal sins (really bad!), and that mortal sins are worse (or something). What is Catholicism's biblical basis for this?

Both Wikipedia articles for each sin strike me as circular in their reasoning and overly vague, and neither cite much biblical basis for this Catholic belief. A good answer will show me what areas of scripture Catholicism uses to support (or lack support for) their following beliefs about venial and mortal sins:

That there exist such things as "serious or non-serious" matters.
That the knowledge/deliberateness of one's sin impacts its effect on the relationship between the sinner and God.
That committing mortal sins harm one's relationship with God more than venial sins.

*I had trouble wording this question well so suggestions are appreciated.

The distinction between mortal and venial sins is only very roughly that "venial sins are kind of bad and mortal sins are really bad". More accurately one could say that all sins adversely affect one's relationship to God; but venial sins, because they don't involve a complete turning away from God, "merely" damage the relationship, while mortal sins destroy it and require a new outflow of grace from God—a "reboot" of the relationship.

As far as finding a Biblical basis for this distinction: The first thing to understand is that given an arbitrary Catholic belief, there may or may not be a Biblical basis for it. In this case, however, we can find at least something to go on.

There is one quotation which the Catechism of the Catholic Church cites as underlying the belief in a distinction between mortal and venial sins:

  If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.

(1 John 5:16–17; emphasis added)

The Catechism specifically states that "the distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, [citing the quote above] became part of the tradition of the Church." It goes no further in supplying any scriptural support. The Summa Theologica of Aquinas, however, has an extensive discussion of sin (First Part of the Second Part, Questions 73 and 74—titled "Of The Comparison Of One Sin With Another" and "Of The Subject Of Sin") in which Aquinas concludes (among other things) that there are reasons for believing that certain sins are judged less grievously than others, either because of the kind of sin or because of the circumstances. Among the quotations Aquinas gives are 1 Timothy 1:13:

  I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and an arrogant man, but I have been mercifully treated because I acted out of ignorance in my unbelief.

Aquinas also quotes John 19:11:

  Jesus answered [him], "You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin."

and interprets this (as the Church appears to have always interpreted it) as saying that Judas' sin is greater than Pilate's.

I see that my original answer to the question does not address your specific query about the Biblical basis for the belief that "the knowledge/deliberateness of one's sin impacts its effect on the relationship between the sinner and God." The Catechism addresses this question indirectly, stating that "freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary" and "every act directly willed is imputable to its author". As an instance of the deliberateness of an act playing a part in its evil, the Catechism cites 2 Samuel 12:7–15 (the story of the prophet Nathan's confrontation with David after the arranged killing of Uriah). But as far as knowledge or deliberation making an act worse, the Catechism states that

  sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest

(paragraph 1860)

but it offers no direct Scriptural support. Nor can I find anything direct in the Summa. But Aquinas, in his Catena Aurea ("The Golden Chain"), an edited collection of commentaries on the Gospels, quotes the commentaries of John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria on Luke 12:47–48:

  That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly.

(New American Bible, Revised Edition)

Chrysostom's commentary, as cited by Aquinas, is

  For all things are not judged alike in all, but greater knowledge is an occasion of greater punishment.

To this Cyril of Alexandria adds

  For the man of understanding who has given up his will to baser things will shamelessly implore pardon, because he has committed an inexcusable sin, departing as it were maliciously from the will of God, but the rude or unlearned man will more reasonably ask for pardon of the avenger.

Thus it appears that the doctors of the Church have commonly interpreted knowledge and deliberation as adding fault to the sin.


Why John the Baptist did not follow Jesus? John the Baptist was aware the Messiah was coming after him, and His identity was revealed (or rather, confirmed) to him in the Jordan though a voice from Heaven.
And yet, it seems John the Baptist did not became one of Jesus's many disciples, nor was he chosen by Jesus as one of the Twelve (whereas two of John's disciples did follow Jesus, one being identified as Andrew). It seemed like they had different tasks altogether and could not mix. I am not aware of an instance where they are preaching together or sharing other moments.
Why John the Baptist did not "follow" Jesus and became one of his disciples? He remained having disciples of himself, which you would imagine being a "less perfect way" than following Jesus.
PD: If needed as per site rules, a Catholic perspective is preferred.

You ask preferably from a Catholic perspective.  Sorry I cannot meet your preference, I am (Reformed) Baptist.
John the Baptist had a very important Commission from God, so important it was prophecied at least 400 years earlier in the Old Testament (Malachi 3:1 & 4:5-6). And the Father did not want him to leave his task, and neither did our Lord Jesus.
Jesus humbly allowed John's ministry to come to an end before taking up the same message as John (cf Matt 4:17 with Matt 3:2).  In waiting for the end of John's ministry Jesus did not try to out-shine John or compete against him; and in taking up the same message after the end of John's ministry Jesus endorsed John.
He praised John in Matt 11:1-19 despite John's uncertainty (Matt 11:3) which probably arose because John did not observe Christ's ministry.  God did not call John to observe Christ's ministry, but called him to fulfil his own.
Though the religious leaders & pharisees rejected John, very many of the common people believed he was from God (Luke 20:4-6).
It was doubtless easier for them to believe that John was a prophet of God than that Jesus was the Messiah. John was the sort of man who they recognised as being a man of God, and "Old Testament religious", being ascetic, similar in lifestyle and clothing to Elijah.
And the people had wrong views of what the Messiah would be like - expecting a military ruler (another like King David) to deliver them from the Romans and conquer the Gentiles.
Jesus, on the contrary, was meek, a "glutton" and a wine-drinker, and a friend of tax collectors (who were working for the Romans) & sinners (Matthew 11:19). Probably, none of these were recognised by the people as the kind of attributes the Messiah would have.
So those who heard John's endorsment of Jesus were helped to believe in Jesus, (& Jesus's endorsment of John also helped the people to be more positive about Jesus (Luke7:29,30)).
Another evidence of John's great influence on the common people can be seen in Josephus's history "Antiquities 18.5.2" which was published about 93 AD :-

But some of the Jews believed that Herod’s [Herod Antipas] army was destroyed by God, God punishing him very justly for John called the Baptist, whom Herod had put to death. For John was a pious man, and he was bidding the Jews who practiced virtue and exercised righteousness toward each other and piety toward God, to come together for baptism.

For thus, it seemed to him, would baptismal ablution be acceptable, if it were not used to beg off from sins committed, but for the purification of the body when the soul had previously been cleansed by righteous conduct. And when everybody turned to John—for they were profoundly stirred by what he said—Herod feared that John’s so extensive influence over the people might lead to an uprising (for the people seemed likely to do everything he might counsel). He thought it much better, under the circumstances, to get John out of the way in advance, before any insurrection might develop, than for himself to get into trouble and be sorry not to have acted, once an insurrection had begun. So because of Herod’s suspicion, John was sent as a prisoner to Machaerus, the fortress already mentioned, and there put to death. But the Jews believed that the destruction which overtook the army came as a punishment for Herod, God wishing to do him harm.

"The testimony of Josephus reminds us that the memory of John lasted a long time after his death."

( See https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/john-the-baptist )
John must have been famous and must have had a very big influence upon the people for this to be written more than sixty years after his death.
The ministry of John the Baptist was rejected by the Pharisees and religious leaders who of course also rejected Christ. This proves that their rejection of Jesus was inexcusible.  Their rejection was not because they had trivial prejudices concerning the style of Christ's ministry, they didn't reject him because they couldn't see how his non-ascetic ways could be of God: they rejected him because they didn't want God.  This is proven because the one who was ascetic they also rejected (Luke 7:28-35).


According to orthodox Trinitarians, why did Jesus respond that only God is good? 18"Why do you call Me good?” Jesus replied. “No one is good except God alone." (Mark 10:18 BSB, Luke 18:19 BSB)

How can Jesus be God Himself (and part of the Trinity) when he says "no one is good except God alone"? And then if Jesus is part of the Trinity, shouldn't they all be equal? So then why does Jesus say the following?

  28"You heard Me say, ‘I am going away, and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father because the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28 BSB)

If there are any duplicates, please suggest how I can edit this question to differentiate it from others.

The teaching on this passage from such as Martin Luther (see link below) is that the rich young ruler approaches Jesus as 'good Master'.

The young man sees only a master who can instruct him with legal commandments. All he thinks he needs is the knowledge of good and evil. He thinks he has resource within himself to do all that is necessary - he just needs guidance as to what to do.

He hasn't seen the necessity of a Saviour. He doesn't know of his desperate need within. He has not (yet) appreciated that God has sent One to save - not to legally instruct.

For this is why the Son of God came forth.
He is not a second Moses.

  For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. John 1:17 KJV.

So Jesus responds by speaking to where the young man is. And gives him food for thought according to his present spiritual state.

Why call me good ?
None is good, but God.

The man who thinks he needs only legal commandments is a man who knows only of a distant Deity, unknown, unrevealed. He does all himself (so he thinks). He has yet to discover what Saul of Tarsus discovered :

  O wretched man that I am ! Who shall deliver me ? Romans 7:24 KJV.

Martin Luther "A Treatise on Good Works

  We ought first to know that there are no good works except those which God has commanded, even as there is no sin except that which God has forbidden. Therefore whoever wishes to know and to do good works needs nothing else than to know God's commandments. Thus Christ says, Matthew xix, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." And when the young man asks Him, Matthew xix, what he shall do that he may inherit eternal life, Christ sets before him naught else but the Ten Commandments. …


Why did it take so long for papal infallibility to be defined? I have a question about papal infallibility. According to this source,

  That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation.

it was first formulated in the Vatican Council, which is in 1869–70.

Pardon me for asking this question, but is it justified if I think that this is an attempt to define the papal infallibility in a way such that the past actions of the previous popes 'fit' the definition (considering it is defined about 1800 years after the Church's history)? Please explain. Thank you for your response.

No, it would not be justified.

If papal infallibility was not true and well-established, then defining infallibility ad-hoc in 1870 would have been mortally dangerous for the Church. At that point, there had been 255 popes over the course of about 1800 years. Note that ex-cathedra is not a label; it is basically a clear statement on a particular topic, made by a particular person, and directed at a particular group of people. That's all. If it had turned out that any of these 255 popes had made conflicting ex-cathedra statements, then the doctrine of infallibility and seat of Saint Peter would have been undermined. It does not take much to speak ex-cathedra, and though it is not an everyday occurrence, many clear ex-cathedra statements have been made. Why would the Church bet the house on papal infallibility in the (rather plain and sensible) form of ex-cathedra? Why not rely on other organs such as Ecumenical Councils or some form of consensus among bishops in order to get infallibility?

Because the outcome was known in advance. The Church was certain that no two popes would be found to make conflicting ex-cathedra statements, because it was known all along and for a very long time that the pope was indeed to be considered infallible in this way.

It's actually too bad that it was not defined "ad-hoc" in 1870. That would  constitute a clean scientific test of infallibility. The prediction would have been: no two papal statements of a particular form shall be found to contradict each other. Not a trivial prediction! Oh well. I think I prefer long-standing tradition to a confirmed scientific test.

The section Proof of the Church's infallibility in the Catholic Encyclopedia, the source of the quote in your question, lists much evidence and many proofs for papal infallibility. I will not repeat them, since that would make the answer tedious. I think the above is a much cleaner argument.


Is Baptism of a child still valid if one of the pouring during baptism misses? In the Rite of Baptism for one Child the Celebrant when baptizing the child, says and does:

  N., I baptize you in the name of the Father,

  He immerses the child or pours water upon it.

  and of the Son,

  He immerses the child or pours water upon it a second time.

  and of the Holy Spirit.

  He immerses the child or pours water upon it a third time.

The question: Is the baptism still valid if as the Celebrant pours the water each of the three times on the child, one of the pourings does not make contact with the child (and the miss was noticed on home video after the ceremony was conducted or perhaps was noticed by the family but for whatever reason, they did not presume it was their place to bring this to the attention of the Celebrant)?

Although the triple pouring is required for lawful baptism in the Western Rites of the Catholic church, it does not seem to be required for validity.  (Source: Moral Theology by Fr. Heribert Jone, a book that was recommended to me by a traditional Catholic priest, and which I therefore consider reliable.)  So if one or even two of the pourings miss  the target, this could be a sin on the part of the baptizer but it would not render the baptism invalid.

Fr. Jone mentions that "several authors hold the flowing of one or two drops insufficient."


According to Methodism, is it possible to live without sinning? I don't trust the idea of original sin being inherited. However, that does raise another question: If children are innocent before they are able to differentiate between good and evil, is it possible that one can remain sinless until they die?

How do Methodists deal with this?

You may not trust the idea of original sin being inherited, but Methodists absolutely believe in the doctrine of original sin being passed on from Adam and Eve to every human.  As a biblical doctrine, original sin is an essential part of the foundation of Christianity, and John Wesley defended it through reason and experience.   Wesley concludes this sermon by saying:

Know your disease! Know your cure! Ye were born in sin: Therefore, 'ye must be born again,' born of God. By nature ye are wholly corrupted. By grace ye shall be wholly renewed. In Adam ye all died: In the second Adam, in Christ, ye all are made alive. 'You that were dead in sins hath he quickened:' He hath already given you a principle of life, even faith in him who loved you and gave himself for you! Now, 'go on from faith to faith,' until your whole sickness be healed; and all that 'mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus!'

Apart from God’s grace leading us to redemption, we have no hope of deliverance from the control of original sin over us. By God’s grace, made available to all in Jesus Christ and through discipleship to him with his church, we do.  Source: https://www.umc.org/en/content/ask-the-umc-how-did-john-wesley-understand-original-sin

Given that Methodists do not believe that children are bon innocent, then the answer to your question, ‘is it possible that one can remain sinless till they die?’ must be no.  As to the question, ‘how do Methodists deal with this?’ we need to dig a little deeper to understand that, with God’s grace, it is possible to aspire to holiness and to seek perfection.  Personally, I don’t think any of us will attain perfection this side of heaven, but that’s no excuse not to try!
This article http://ee.umc.org/what-we-believe/does-the-united-methodist-church-believe-that-babies-are-born-in-sin   explains that although Methodists do not choose to follow the way of sin, the nature of man is inclined to evil.  The article goes on to explore Romans chapter 5, which is all about salvation.  Here is a brief extract:

"as by one man's disobedience [Adam's] the many [meaning all who are born] were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience [Jesus] the many will be made righteous." This is Paul's way of spelling out both the doctrine of sin and the doctrine of salvation. Remember here, we are dealing with Paul's way of setting this up. Christ can redeem all because his faithfulness to God in perfect love and obedience matches and exceeds the disobedience of one man, Adam.

The notion of original sin does not compute very well with the modern outlook. Most of the 20th century church tried to dance around it and then wondered why Jesus' saving work was hard to get serious about. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." says 1st John, vs. 8.

The point is that we, from birth, need the grace of God available in Jesus Christ. We cannot hope in some tiny spark of goodness at our core that is always there to get us through. We are without merit or claim upon God on our own. This is a hard pill to swallow in our "enlightened" and modern perspective. On the other hand, what a gracious hope and gospel we proclaim and live if we simply accept the desperate need we are in from the beginning and the washing of water and the word in baptism where God claims us as God's own in union with Christ, dying to sin and living alive to God by the power of the Spirit.

Methodists deal with the issue of inherited sin by acknowledging it is only by the grace of God that we can die to sin and be spiritually reborn by the power of the Holy Spirit that indwells believers.


How does the Catholic Church visualize Jesus breathing over His disciples post-resurrecion? At John 20:22 we read:

  When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive
  the Holy Spirit.

One wonders how Jesus breathed on the disciples: did He do it by way of exhaling through nostrils, or by way of blowing through the mouth?

How does the Catholic Church visualize Jesus breathing over His disciples  post-resurrection ?

St. Thomas Aquinas commentates on that verse, saying:

  Jesus makes them adequate for their task by giving them the Holy Spirit, "God, who has qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit" (2 Cor 3:6). In this giving of the Spirit, he first grants them a sign of this gift, which is, that he breathed on them. We see something like this in Genesis (2:7), when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life," of natural life, which the first man corrupted, but Christ repaired this by giving the Holy Spirit. We should not suppose that this breath of Christ was the Holy Spirit; it was a sign of the Spirit. So Augustine says, in The Trinity: "This bodily breath was not the substance of the Holy Spirit, but a fitting sign that the Holy Spirit proceeds not just from the Father but also from the Son." [De Trin., 4, ch. 20]

Thus, it appears that He breated on them in the same manner in which God breathed onto Adam (into his nostrils).


Why don't we stone people? The bible many times specifically tell us to stone people...

Yet, I have yet to meet someone that defends that practice.

I've heard many times that this is because the OT is not valid anymore because Jesus have fulfilled it, the problem with that argument, is that then you can argue that several OT-only sins are not sin anymore.

I saw many atheists winning arguments calling us hypocrites for not following several parts of Leviticus (that for example says male homosexuals should get stone), and when I ask about it, people tell me that those are not valid anymore because of the new covenant, but for example bestiality (sex with animals) are only forbidden there... Thus if it is not valid, we cannot say to anyone that having sex with animals is a sin.

EDIT: Question not duplicate, because I am asking specifically about stoning, not the whole law in 'general', also the answer for that question is unclear on this case anyway, they decide what they must keep, but don't decide what punishments they must keep, for example "adultery" has stoning as punishment, the answer of the other question says that laws on sexual issues are kept, thus stoning would still be valid.

Both the Gospels and the Epistles repeatedly establish the New Covenant as a non-legalistic relationship with God --a new relationship not founded in following specific rules.

However, as Paul says, not everything that is allowed is beneficial.  As a Christian, you need to be guided by your relationship with Christ and by a spirit of discernment to understand what is and is not beneficial to your mission of being an instrument of God's love in the world.  Unfortunately sometimes Christians do disagree strongly with each other on moral issues --that's just a fact of life.

In specific regards to stoning, we have additional guidance in the form of two mentions of the practice in the New Testament.  Once, when Jesus is invited to join in the stoning, and is instead merciful, and the other time, when Stephen becomes the first Christian martyr though being stoned to death by friends of Saul/Paul.  Both of these passages guide us towards rejecting stoning and the judgment that it represents.  (Some Christians, including myself, view it as guiding us away from capital punishment in general, but this is controversial).


What was the nature of the miracle experienced by Zacharias & Elizabeth? Although the story about Zacharias & Elizabeth is great, the details are not clear. so that here are my stupid questions.

  But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. (Luke 1:13, KJV)

When someone is called "barren" due to advanced age, does it mean that she is known to be menopausal?
Does the above telling by the angel suggest due physical efforts from Zacharias? or does it suggest that the pregnancy shall be by the Holy Spirit or something else?

The reason I am asking the above ones is to figure out what part of the story is considered a miracle. After the Annunciation, I imagine Mary talking about the Annunciation with Elizabeth enthusiastically because Elizabeth will understand Mary thanks to her own "impossible" experience. But unfortunately, I am not sure about the impossible part of the above story. Just can't imagine what Elizabeth experienced through.

so that (sic) here are my stupid questions.
The only stupid questions are the ones one hasn't asked or is afraid to ask, etc.

Q1. When someone is called "barren" due to advanced age, does it mean that she is known to be menopausal?

The pertinent verse is [b]ut they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years. [cf. Lk 1:7 (RSVCE)].

Elizabeth was barren and advanced in age (scripture does not say whether she was menopausal or not but  advanced in age may be indicative of it).

Perhaps both are mentioned to show how remarkable the miracle of John's conception was.

Q2. Does the above telling by the angel suggest due physical efforts from Zacharias? or does it suggest that the pregnancy shall be by the Holy Spirit or something else?

Pertinent verses are [a]nd when his time of service was ended, he went to his home. After these days his wife Elizabeth conceived [cf.Lk 1:23-24 (RSVCE)], therefore it seems after Zechari′ah and Elizabeth had marital relations with God intervening because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in age.

The reason I am asking the above ones is to figure out what part of the story is considered a miracle. After the Annunciation, I imagine Mary talking about the Annunciation with Elizabeth enthusiastically because Elizabeth will understand Mary thanks to her own "impossible" experience. But unfortunately, I am not sure about the impossible part of the above story. Just can't imagine what Elizabeth experienced through.

The difference between Mary and Zechari′ah is that Mary believed the angel's message and only inquired how it would be accomplished since she was a virgin and from her words, since her marriage with Joseph was virginal (she knew how babies are ordinarily made). Hence Elizabeth's praise, '[a]nd blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.' [cf. Lk 1:45 (RSVCE)].

By constrast, Zechari′ah doubted the angel's words because even though the angel foretold the birth of John the Baptist, he couldn't see how this was possible since he reasoned that [he was] an old man, and [his] my wife was advanced in years. [cf. Lk 1:18 (RSVCE)]. He wanted proof:  'How shall I know this?'

Please see also: Did Mary have other children?.


Did the American Constitution and independence from England usher in the first full separation of Church and state? I have noticed that even among theologians that postulated full separation of church and state, like Luther, they did not force the subject so fully as our modern world understands.  In fact there was a lot of religious intolerance among great denominational leaders up until recent times.  I was watching a television show the other day that implied actual separation of church and state was a result of multi-denominational settlers (mostly Calvinists) that obtained independence from England in America and needing to get along. This resulted in the American Constitution where the religious infighting of Europe became partially detached in the result.

Did the American Constitution and independence from England usher in the first full separation of Church and state?

As a matter of chronology, yes, the United States was the first major Christian country (and it was fairly substantial, even at the time of the Revolution) to not require the establishment of a particular state church.  Not all colonies had established churches (Rhode Island, since 1636!, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, etc...) but most colonies disestablished in the 1780s.  Virginia, for example, disestablished her Anglican church in 1786.  Congress was prohibited from establishing a federal church in 1791 -the same year that France disestablished hers in the midst of the French Revolution.

Different from establishment, however, is the notion of separation of church and state.  The Constitution of the United States bars the U.S. Congress from establishing a state church (Amendment I), but the "wall of separation" developed slowly over the next few centuries, and was not formalized until Lemon v. Kurtz in 1968.  Whether and how this "wall" is supposed to work is an ongoing discussion.

The Netherlands (1795) and Switzerland (1798) disestablished their churches about the same times, but by a strict chronology, the United States was absolutely first. Germany (or more properly the Holy Roman Empire), left it to each prince to decide the status of their particular states prior to all of these, but the establishment of a church was considered important. This chart on Wikipedia gives many more dates.

The problem with disestablishing a church is not as straight-forward as it might seem, however.  In Virginia, for example, the Anglican church was the governmental authority charged with looking after the citizenry. If a person was unable to afford food, for example, it was the established church that cared for that person, using taxes levied and collected by the church.  Until a parallel, secular authority could be instituted to serve the same role, disestablishment would have hit the "least of these my brethren" extremely hard.  Indeed, even the Baptists who hated the established church so much were required to show that they could care for their members before the Act of Toleration in 1786.

Update: Per this article (link) Massachusetts did not disestablish her church until 1833, but as a Virginian, it is very hard to consider Massachusetts a major state (joke).  In all seriousness, that article shows how long and hard the process of disestablishment was - but at the federal level, it was much easier, because technically, it never could begin!


Abstinence from meat Why do Catholic church teaches to practice abstinence from meat on certain occasions(Example :Good Friday) or periods like lent?

I have heard some say that it is in respect towards Christ. However, I have not understood the rationale behind it.

EDIT : I can understand when Catholic church say that I must observe penance for my sins by fasting and abstinence from what I love. What I do not understand is the insistence on abstinence from meat.

According to the edit, the essential question is why the Church prescribes a specific penitential action (abstaining from meat) on specific days, rather than just telling us to do penance (our own way).  I think the reason for being so specific is that, although a general exhortation to do penance would be followed by some people, it would fail for a great many other people, even well-meaning people who intend to do penance. Penance is too easily procrastinated. If I eat meat (knowingly) on a day of abstinence, I know that I've committed a sin that I need to confess. If I procrastinate a general intention to do penance, it never quite feels like a real sin --- after all, I'm planning to do some penance next week or next month or whenever.

The preceding paragraph was about why the Church makes specific rules. Another aspect of the question is why the rule refers specifically to abstaining from meat. I don't know the historical reason for that, but here's a guess. For many centuries, meat was not part of the regular diet of "ordinary" folks; only the rich could afford to eat meat often. So the requirement of abstinence had little or no effect for most people, but it required the rich to occasionally live like the rest of the population, an exercise in humility.

Does this guess vitiate my first paragraph? After all, ordinary people also need to do penance, yet, if I'm right, they weren't seriously affected by the law of abstinence.  The answer to that is that abstinence from meat was not the only penitential practice prescribed by the Church.  There are also days (and a whole season --- Lent) of fasting, which imposes a limit on the amount of food that one is allowed to eat. That would affect everyone, not just the rich. (And the restrictions were more severe longer ago).


What are the views of Evangelical Christians on whether it is possible to go to heaven and back to earth? I've heard some stories about how kids have died and come back to life a couple of minutes later with a note or something from heaven (e.g., Colton Burpo). Is this biblical? Is it possible? Could it just be a vision?

The apostle Paul claims to have gone to the "third heaven," which he also called "Paradise" (2 Corinthians 12:1-4). Is his experience similar to the experiences of other Christians, such as Colton Burpo?

If, as is likely, there are dissenting views, a complete answer will be an overview presenting brief arguments from both sides.

The devil is in the details, and overall the lame answer is that we just don't have enough details.
But first, addressing your direct questions and examples:

2 Corinthians 12:2-3 ESV I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows—

Paul says he knows a man (not himself) who was taken up to the third heaven, and that he doesn't know whether it was "in the body or out of the body"--which could easily mean that Paul doesn't know if he literally went to paradise or if it was an out-of-body experience, i.e. a vision. Also, there's no other mention of the third-heaven in scripture, so is Paul talking about heaven or some other paradise? We don't know this either.
And as far as people claiming they went to heaven and back, this is kind of like people claiming they were abducted by aliens: you either take their word for it or you don't. How do they know it wasn't a dream? If they provide "evidence", how do we know that it's not coincidence? There's not enough tangible evidence one way or the other to know for certain.
I can of only one case in scripture where it a "channel" was opened between heaven and earth: Saul summoning Samuel.

1 Samuel 28:13-15,19 ESV ... Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Moreover, the Lord will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The Lord will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines.

Samuel references the fact that he was "disturbed" and "brought up" and that Saul and his sons would be with him tomorrow, implying that Samuel is indeed in heaven. Samuel does not, however, come back to earth, but simply communicates with Saul.
There's another example of a channel being opened in Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus, but this shows a conversation between residents of heaven and hell, not heaven and earth. This doesn't totally apply to your question, but gives interesting perspective of how God separates the "realms".

Luke 16:22-26 ESV  The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades... [Abraham said] 'And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’

Having said all that, there's no explicit case in scripture of a person literally, physically going to heaven and coming back to earth, only the potential implication noted in 1st Corinthians 12, but even Paul says he doesn't know.
A really good question here would be this: where were Lazarus and Dorcas while they were dead?

John 11:43-44 ESV  When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”
Acts 9:40 ESV But Peter put them all outside, and knelt down and prayed; and turning to the body he said, “Tabitha, arise.” And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up.

Did they go to heaven? We just don't know. The devil is in the details and there aren't enough details to know for certain that they went to heaven and came back.


Is the desire for a spiritual mother natural to mankind? I've been answering a few questions on this site raised about the intercessory power of the  Blessed Virgin Mary and this question popped into my mind.  St. Thomas Aquinas can posit a rational proof for God's existence, glory, omnipresence, omniscience, eternal nature and beneficence.  I don't think he ever said, God exists because "we need Him".  But, He does exist and it's reasonable to say the He doesn't need us.
But, there is a sensitivity that is natural to man that brings him closer to God, to want to know what we can about Him.

Now creatures lead us to the knowledge of God, as effects do to their cause. Accordingly, by natural reason we can know of God that only which of necessity belongs to Him as the principle of things.
Summa Theologica Book 1, Article 32

Since Christ's death and resurrection, the Catholic laity has had an ardent devotion to the Mother of God and also consider her to be the mother of the Church and their own spiritual mother.  The truths which Sacred Tradition kept through constant devotion to Our Lady (i.e. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) are considered by the present Pope and the popes who promulgated said dogmas to be infallible (that's saying something coming from the Pope).
So, here's the question, if we can know God through reason alone, is it also reasonable that God willed that we have a maternal queen in Heaven as well who acts as a spiritual mother?
Looking for Catholic answers rooted in the Natural Law

In his book, First Comes Love, Scott Hahn outlines a concept of God that is in concert to this question.  He cites a writing of Pope John Paul II.

  “In the light of the New Testament it is possible to discern how the primordial model of the family is to be sought in God Himself, in the Trinitarian mystery of His life.  The divine “We” is the eternal pattern of the human “we”, especially of that “we” formed by the man and woman created in the divine image and likeness…God in His deepest mystery is not a solitude, but a family, since He has in Himself fatherhood, son-ship and the essence of the family, which is love.”

Hahn concluded:

  “Now we must be very careful readers here, because many people understand these statements precisely backward, which mans they don’t understand them at all.  The Pope was not saying that God is like a family.  He was not presenting the family as a cozy, homey metaphor for the Trinity.  He said that God is a family.  Thus, it would be more accurate to say that my wife, my kids, and I are like a family than to say God is like a family.  God is not like a family.  He is a family.  From eternity, God alone possesses the essential attributes of a family, and the Trinity alone possesses them in their perfection.  Earthly households have these attributes, but only by analogy and imperfectly.”

God's creation tells us that a Father has a Wife and a Son has a Mother as well as a
Father.  The Holy Spirit bears fruit from the will of God the Father and the First-Fruit is Jesus Christ.

The Hebrew word “Ruwach” is a feminine noun, therefore when Jesus spoke of the Holy Ruwach He understood that spirit by nature is feminine.

The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, which is eternally pregnant with the will of God the Father.  Just as Mary the mother of the incarnation we also through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit bear out the will of God the Father in our lives, which is Jesus Christ.

So "yes", The Holy Spirit is Mother, the Church is Mother and Mary is Mother!


How do the reformed theologians understand Hebrews 3:14? How do the reformed theologians understand

  Hebrews 3:14 For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold
  our original confidence firm to the end. ( ESV )

?

Does it not imply that we can lose salvation?

John Piper comments on the passage here: https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/do-not-harden-your-heart-in-the-day-of-trouble

He contends that the "if" clause means something other than what you might think at first. Instead of holding your assurance (persevering in faith) until the end to become a partaker in Christ, you prove that you already are a partaker in Christ by persevering. Here is a quote:

  Now jump ahead to verse 14 to confirm that this is the way the writer
  is thinking. In verse 14 we have an "if" statement very much like the
  one in verse 6: "We have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast
  the beginning of our assurance firm until the end." Being "partakers
  of Christ" in verse 14 is virtually the same as being "partakers of
  the heavenly calling" in verse 1. And both are the same as "being
  God's house" in verse 6.

  But notice the wording carefully here in verse 14, because it is a
  strong confirmation that we are on the right track. It says, "We have
  become partakers of Christ, if we hold our assurance to the end." The
  condition is future: "If we hold fast assurance to the end." But the
  effect of the condition relates to the past: "We have become partakers
  of Christ." So it's clear that the point here is not: hold fast to
  your assurance in order to become in the future a partaker of Christ.
  The point is: hold fast to your assurance in order to show (prove,
  evidence, demonstrate) that you are a partaker of Christ.

This article makes reference to Spurgeon, whose sermon on the topic is dense and hard to pull a cogent quote out of. The article, however, does make the point concisely.
https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-studies/book-of-hebrews/warning-part-2/

A brief quote:

  Hebrews 3:14 says that those who become Christians will continue until
  the end. The Greek tense of “have become” is a perfect. This means
  that real Christians start as Christians and continue being
  Christians. Real Christians continue in the faith – “if we hold fast.”
  Did the Spirit change His mind when He came to Hebrews 6:4? Is it
  possible to start as a real Christian and then not continue? Hebrews
  4:10 also says that Christians rest from working for their salvation
  just as God rested. The message in Hebrews 3 and 4 is that if you are
  real, you are real until the end. If we do not hold fast, we were
  never Christians from the start.

The Spurgeon sermon on this verse: https://www.spurgeongems.org/vols16-18/chs1042.pdf

The following paper by Dan Sanders discusses Jonathan Edwards' views on assurance:

https://churchsociety.org/docs/churchman/126/Cman_126_2_Saunders.pdf

Here is a quote (not of Edwards, but of the author):

  Finally, Hebrews 3:14 uses βεβαίαν with ὑποστάσεως. 29 We hold firm
  to our ‘first confidence’, or rather the ‘beginning of the reality’,
  referring directly to Christ (3:14a) or possibly to ‘the hope’ of the
  parallel confidence (3:6).30 We share in Christ and hold firm to
  Christ—the ὑπόστασις, the divine reality—by reflecting on Jesus
  (3:1) with a faithful heart not hardened by sin. Therefore, God is the
  author of our growth, richly providing everything needed for
  godliness. Jesus strengthens believers as the gospel is strengthened
  in the church. As we hold firm to Christ and our hope, we share in
  Christ. Hence, assurance, already existing in faith, grows as we do
  works of faith.


What is the purpose of godparents? I was looking through Catholic baptismal records, while doing genealogy, when I realized that I didn't know what the purpose of godparents is. What is their purpose? Why are they recorded? Are the godparents held accountable for anything?

A good explanatation is given in "The Role of Godparents" by Fr. William Saunders

As per Code of Canon Law 872 - 874 the rules are as below:

  Can.872  Insofar as possible, a person to be baptized is to be given a
  sponsor who assists an adult in Christian initiation or together with
  the parents presents an infant for baptism. A sponsor also helps the
  baptized person to lead a Christian life in keeping with baptism and
  to fulfill faithfully the obligations inherent in it.

  Can.873  There is to be only one male sponsor or one female sponsor or one of each.

  Can.874  §1. To be permitted to take on the function of sponsor a
  person must:

  Be designated by the one to be baptized, by the parents or the person who takes their place, or in their absence by the pastor or
  minister and have the aptitude and intention of fulfilling this
  function;
  Have completed the sixteenth year of age, unless the diocesan bishop has established another age, or the pastor or minister has
  granted an exception for a just cause;
  Be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has already received the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist and who leads a life of faith in
  keeping with the function to be taken on;
  Not be bound by any canonical penalty legitimately imposed or declared;
  Not be the father or mother of the one to be baptized.

So the primary purpose is to take care of the Catholic faith formation, and it does not hold them accountable to taking care of the child in the future.