According to Reformed Theology, why did the 70 Jewish translators include the Apocrypha? I read at carm.org:

  Paul tells us that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God.
  This means that they are the ones who understood what inspired
  Scriptures were, and they never accepted the Apocrypha.

From the sentence above, my English understanding is that
no Jews (including Jesus, the apostles and the rest of the Jews) accepted the books of

Tobit or Tobias
Judith
Esther with additions
1 and 2 Maccabees
Wisdom or Wisdom of Solomon
Sirach or Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
Letter of Jeremiah
Daniel with additions
1 Esdras
3 and 4 Maccabees
Psalm 151
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalms of Solomon

This list is from Wikipedia on the Septuagint.

What I don't understand is as follows:

  The Translation of the Seventy', derives from the story recorded in
  the Letter of Aristeas that the Septuagint was translated at the
  request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE) by 70 Jewish
  scholars (or, according to later tradition, 72: six scholars from each
  of the Twelve Tribes of Israel).  Source ibid.

My question:

According to Reformed theology, why did the 70 Jewish scholars include the list above (the Apocrypha), "bundling" them together with the non-apocrypha into one book and then call this one book Scripture - while they themselves never accepted the list?

It is true that the Jews ultimately did not accept the apocryphal books you listed in their canon, in a gradual process over several centuries at least spanning 1st century BC and 1st century AD.  There was no definitive answer, but a lot of pointers showing the development, shown in the BIBLE CANON article of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia.  Especially after the 1st century AD, in opposition to Christian usage of the Greek Septuagint to prove the truths of Christianity (such as how Septuagint translated Hebrew word almah into virgin in Isa 7:14 which the Christians used as one proof of Jesus's divinity), the Rabbinic Jews (whose precursor was the Pharisees) preferred the older Hebrew of the Old Testament, thus abandoning the use of Septuagint.

The early Christians who became more and more gentile in demographics and who understood only Greek (not Hebrew), understandably adopted the Septuagint more and more because they needed the prophetic background as a proof of their "New Testament" beliefs, so in ANOTHER gradual process completely separated from the Rabbinic Jews, the apocryphal books increasingly became part of their canon.  But as this excellent article shows, the acceptance of the apocryphal books were not unanimous among the Church Fathers.

Starting with the Reformation, as a reaction to some abuses in the Catholic church making use of the apocryphal books to support the doctrines which the Reformers opposed (indulgences, purgatory, prayers to saints, etc.), as well as the earlier influence of Renaissance Humanism's ad fontes movement, Protestant communities started to create new editions of the whole Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew sources instead the Latin of the Vulgate, translated into their national languages such as English and German.  Critical self reflection of the canon, coupled with the Protestant movement ethos to go back to the original theology of Christianity, thus formed the background on why the apocryphal books were rejected by the reformers.

The short Introduction to the Old Testament essay by the renowned Bible scholar Bruce M Metzger included in the 1962 Oxford Annotated Bible (RSV) is quite valuable to give us a contextual narrative of how the OT books were edited and became Scripture over several hundred-year period and how the apocryphal books were treated differently.  The Preface to the Revised Standard Version is also very helpful to serve as a short history of the Bible in the English language (started with Tyndale's project in 1535).  Archive.org has a clean pdf  of all the essays plus the 39 OT books (without the apocrypha).

As you can see from the articles I referenced above, the list of canonical books varies according to various criteria: holiness (inspired by God), what counted as "Scriptures", what are edifying, what can be used as a source of theology, etc. Consider also the different communities, whose identity development over centuries played into the making of the list: those who produced the Septuagint, Early Christians, Rabbinic Jews, Catholics, Protestants, etc. each understandably had varying interpretation of what the apocryphal books meant for their communities.

So by 1561, mere decades from Martin Luther's famous 95 theses, the Reformed Theology "fathers" already enshrined the "new canon" excluding the apocrypha in their Belgic Confession Articles 4-6 with the following reasons:

  ARTICLE 4: We include in the Holy Scripture the two volumes
  of the Old and New Testaments.
  They are canonical books
  with which there can be no quarrel at all.
  In the church of God the list is as follows:

  In the Old Testament,
  the five books of Moses—
  Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy;
  the books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth;
  the two books of Samuel, and two of Kings;
  the two books of Chronicles, called Paralipomenon;
  the first book of Ezra; Nehemiah, Esther, Job;
  the Psalms of David;
  the three books of Solomon—
  Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song;
  the four major prophets—
  Isaiah, Jeremiaha, Ezekiel, Daniel;
  and then the other twelve minor prophets—
  Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,
  Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk,
  Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.

  In the New Testament,
  the four gospels—
  Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John;
  the Acts of the Apostles;
  the fourteen letters of Paul—
  to the Romans;
  the two letters to the Corinthians;
  to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians;
  the two letters to the Thessalonians;
  the two letters to Timothy;
  to Titus, Philemon, and to the Hebrews;
  the seven letters of the other apostles—
  one of James;
  two of Peter;
  three of John;
  one of Jude;
  and the Revelation of the apostle John.

  a “Jeremiah” here includes the Book of Lamentations as well as the Book of Jeremiah.

  ARTICLE 5:
  We receive all these books
  and these only
  as holy and canonical,
  for the regulating, founding, and establishing
  of our faith.
  And we believe
  without a doubt
  all things contained in them—
  not so much because the church
  receives and approves them as such
  but above all because the Holy Spirit
  testifies in our hearts
  that they are from God,
  and also because they
  prove themselves
  to be from God.
  For even the blind themselves are able to see
  that the things predicted in them
  do happen.

  ARTICLE 6: The Difference Between Canonical and Apocryphal Books
  We distinguish between these holy books
  and the apocryphal ones,
  which are the third and fourth books of Esdras;
  the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Jesus Sirach, Baruch;
  what was added to the Story of Esther;
  the Song of the Three Children in the Furnace;
  the Story of Susannah;
  the Story of Bel and the Dragon;
  the Prayer of Manasseh;
  and the two books of Maccabees.

  The church may certainly read these books
  and learn from them
  as far as they agree with the canonical books.
  But they do not have such power and virtue
  that one could confirm
  from their testimony
  any point of faith or of the Christian religion.
  Much less can they detract
  from the authority
  of the other holy books.


Catholicism: Memento Mori in Christianity? In this video, the priest says that Memento Mori is an  integral part of Christianity. He says that priests and nuns used to place skulls on their desks to remind them of their impending death. I have few problems with that:

It doesn't seem a christian thing to do
It's creepy
Most importantly, you are stealing someone skull from the grave, according to Christianity, we should be buried, even if you take the skull of a none christian, it's disrespectful.

What does the Catholic Church has to say about that?

Memento Mori, or remembering one's death/mortality in order to live well, is definitely a Christian tradition rooted in Scripture (see Sirach 7:36, Psalm 90:12, Luke 9:23).

As for the skull on the desk, I think Father Schmitz is probably referring to something that I started on Twitter. I keep a skull on my desk (ceramic) to remind me of my death and started tweeting about it last year. The founder of my religious order, Blessed James Alberione, also keep one on his desk (also not real) to remind him of his inevitable death. I have found evidence of a couple other people in the history of the Church who kept skulls on their desks as a memento mori. Pope Alexander VII commissioned a marble skull from Bernini to keep on his desk. Saint John Fisher reportedly kept a skull on his desk and his table when he ate. If real skulls were ever used to meditate on death, I assume they were kept respectfully as relics and not used as mere props. Today, keeping a real human skull on one's desk definitely would not be appropriate according to Catholic teaching as human remains should be buried.


In the Catholic Church, other than cardinals, are there any other prelates that may don red cassocks? In the Catholic Church, the clerical dress (cassock) of cardinals is scarlet red in color. Are there any other catholic prelates who may don red cassocks?

Yes.

The Archbishops of certain sees are entitled to wear red ex officio, whether or not they are cardinals.

The Patriarch of Venice has this right, as do the occupants  of  sees holding  legatus natus (born legates, or legates as of right) status. Archbishops of these sees have the right to wear red. These include  Salzburg,  Udine, Cologne and Poznan.

Prior to the Reformation, Canterbury was a legatus natus see.


What is the relationship between the mass and the cross in precise terms? I have read that during a mass the sacrifice of the cross is "re-presented" which is to say "presented again", which implies that the single sacrifice of the cross is just neatly packaged up and presented to the father - so the sacrifice only happened once, 2000 years ago, but the "presentation" or "offering" of that sacrifice is repeated many times and perpetuated throughout the ages.

But then again I have read in other places that the sacrifice of the mass is literally the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross. Which is to say, being present at mass is ontologically equivalent to being present at the foot of the cross. Or in other words, a Catholic mass is not merely the "offering" or "presentation" of a previously performed sacrifice - it is in actual fact the performance of the sacrifice itself; The sacrifice of Christ is not merely being "offered up", he is instead literally being sacrificed before our eyes. I find that this understanding of things is hard to wrap my head around (It would seem that the sacrifice is being repeated in this case, and that the protestant criticism that catholics are "re-sacrificing" christ might have something to it). Nevertheless I find it very important for my faith walk, because keeping this understanding in mind really brings the mass to life for me.

With this preamble in mind, please clarify the following yes/no questions concerning a Catholic mass:

Does Jesus "die" during the mass?
Does Jesus die "again" during the mass?
Is the sacrifice of Christ repeated during the mass?
Is the one sacrifice of Christ performed once for all 2000 years ago merely packaged up and "offered to the father again" during mass, or is the sacrifice of the cross literally performed before our eyes during a mass?
Is the sacrifice of the mass a different and completely separate sacrifice to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross?

Point 1.  Does Jesus "Die" During the Mass

No, he does not, Jesus is in his Glorified State sitting at the Right hand of the father constantly interceding in our behalf, the one true intercessor between Man and and God the Father.

Point 2. Does Jesus die "Again" during the Mass

No, Jesus died for our sins once and for all (time) 2000 years ago. In his one sacrifice he died for all men who ever lived, whoever is living and who ever will live. His sacrifice and his alone made Satisfaction for all man kind and has not limit in it's Merit.  Christ died once for everyone, wether or not you accept this free gift, he died for you only the once.

Point 3. Is the sacrifice of Christ repeated during the mass?

No, despite what many anti-catholic Christians state, Christ is not re-sacrificed during the Mass.  Through the liturgy Catholics enter into the once true sacrifice at Calvary, they enter into the what is identified as the New Covenant, The Eucharistic Celebration.  "This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many." "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come."  I Think the Eucharist is celebrated about every 4 minutes around the Globe.  That's often.

Point 4. Is the one sacrifice of Christ performed once for all 2000 years ago merely packaged up and "offered to the father again" during mass, or is the sacrifice of the cross literally performed before our eyes during a mass?

Yes and No.  During the Mass the sacrifice is re-pressented not represented.  Its s a spiritual reality but that does not mean it is not real. At mass we biblically unite ourselves to the one and only sacrifice that is before the father at all times. It is a un-bloody Sacrifice but a sacrifice non-the-less, we are offering up to the father that very same sacrifice, uniting ourselves to it along with our thanks, praise and charity, with the angels in heaven and every other mass that has happened in the past present and future with every Catholic Christian that ever lived, are living or will live. Unlike Protestants who worship a risen Christ, we, as Saint Paul says "Preach Christ Crucified".  Each and every Eucharistic celebration.  Bishop Fulton Sheen once said "The Gospel that has removed Christ from the Cross is demonic" The Cross is the Ultimate example of Love.

Point 5. Is the sacrifice of the mass a different and completely separate sacrifice to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross?

No.  It is the one and same sacrifice.  Christ is not suffering again, as anti-catholics like R.C. Sproul and others separated from the Truth like to say.  The Mass is a Participation in that one Sacrifice.  This is what we are called to "do".  Christ says "Do This"  many times in scripture.


Does proclaiming that all non-believers won't be saved count as passing judgement? Romans 10:9 (KJV)
  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
  shalt be saved.

If I interpret Romans 10:9 as saying all those who don't confess with their mouth and don't believe in their heart, that they will not be saved and I proclaim this; am I therefore sinning by passing judgement on those who do not confess or believe?

  Romans 2:1 (KJV)
  Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself;
  for thou that judgest doest the same things.

There is a difference between condemning and being discerning. One is using the good judgement God gave you, the other is judging in the place of God.

It should be clear that Christians are supposed to be "as wise as serpents but as gentle as lambs. ". Throughout the NT, we are warned to avoid false teachers and cast them out of our midst. We are to encourage and rebuke our brothers

But note the context- in the cases where we are to use discernment, it is in a personal, relating body of believers.  We are not called to be God's policemen, forcing a system of morality on unbelievers. Rather, it is a privilege to be subject to the discipline of God - for after all, he only disciplines those he loves.

If a brother is calling himself a Christian, he invites discipline, rebuke, and encouragement. He sees it as a way to be the person God created him to be. If not, there is no use in casting your pearls before swine.


Are there any examples of Jesus praying publicly? As a follow up to this question:

Is it ok to pray in public?

There are many examples where Jesus prays privately and he will intentionally separate himself from his disciples, but are there examples where he actually prays out loud (not including the Lord's prayer where he is not actually praying but teaching the disciples how to pray)?

When Jesus fed the 5,000, the Gospel of John records that Jesus took the bread and gave thanks:

  Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated. So also the fish, as much as they wanted.  John 6:11 ESV

Additionally, in Mark's account of Jesus feeding the 4,000, Jesus again gives thanks, presumably in a public setting:

  And he directed the crowd to sit down on the ground. And he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and they set them before the crowd.  Mark 8:6 ESV

So, Jesus does appear to pray publicly, albeit not to make a show as the Pharisees did.  In this case, it appears to be private prayer prayed in public.

  And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.  Matthew 6:5 ESV

So, it does not seem reasonable to conclude that it is wrong to pray in public.  Indeed, it is more reasonable to conclude that it is right to pray in both public and private settings, as long as it is with a right heart and not done for show.


What does it mean / how do you know / how would you explain "God is working" or "God is at work"? Usually this phrase may come up during testimonies or used at church.

How would you explain it to someone who asks "How do you know it was God at work?" (usually an unbeliever)

Suppose someone has gone through major changes after accepting Christ. The saved person might say "God has been working" in their testimony. Another might ask "How do you know it was God at work? How do you know that person didn't make those changes on his/her own will?"

What passages might you include?

(If too subjective, leave a comment and the question can be deleted)

Early Christians were often exhorted to "test every Spirit" to see if it was of God. (1 John 4:1).
When the Bible was first received, there was very little question of whether or not spirits were at work, but rather which ones.  For this reason, the question "Is it God" isn't particularly within the domain of Scripture - or even doctrine.  God is assumed to be ultimately responsible for it all, so of course, it is "of God."
As to the question of whether or not a person is saved, there is also a simple test.  As Matthew records Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, the key idea is "by their fruits you will know them."

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’


What are the written signs referred to in John 20:31? John 20:30-31

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

My question is about verse 31, what are the signs which are written? Is it A) what Jesus does in chapter 21, B) what he has done during his life (as recorded by John), or C) is it something else?
If it is A, would this be an example of where a chapter breaks up the record (chapters are arbitrary)?
If it is C, what are the signs and where does John reference them?

It refers to the entire book, but especially the Book of Signs, John 1:19 - 12:50. (As with your note about arbitrary chapter beaks, notice that this doesn't align with the beginning of a chapter.) There are seven miracles or signs that John uses to establish Christ as the Son of God

Wedding at Cana
Healing the official's son
Healing the paralytic
Feeding the 5000
Walking on water
Healing the blind man
Raising Lazarus

Some add the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and/or the miraculous catch of fish. However, the list of seven is fairly common, a nice biblical number, and has some interesting theology developed from it.


How are 3 days/nights in grave prophecy reconclied if Jesus died on Good Fri & arose Sun? Did Jesus die on "Good Friday"? If so, how is it that 3 days & 3 nights are reckoned between Fri - Sun?
“For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40).

A hebrew idiom - any part of a day or night constituted a full day per traditional Jewish teaching (and the Talmud).

So - Jesus died Friday before sundown (before the Sabbath) and was burried (1 day), Jesus remains buried Friday through Saturday sundown (2 day), Jesus is resurrected on Sunday morning ("on the third day" - which per the idiom is a day and night (a full day).

This actually is what harmonizes the verses which say Jesus arose "on the third day" with "three days and three nights".

Note: night is actually morning and morning is part of the day.

Friday day(12am - 6pm) and Friday evening(6pm - 12am) = 1st day
Saturday morning(12am - 6am) and Saturday day(6am - 12am) = 2nd day
Sunday morning(12am - 6am) and Sunday day is part of the morning(12am - 12am) = 3rd day


How should Christians who work with fiction approach material which uses the Lord’s name in vain? Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD
will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Exodus 20:7 (KJV)

As an example of a work of fiction pertaining to my question, I submit One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the 1975 film adapted from the novel of the same name by Ken Kesey. Specifically, the character of Randle McMurphy as portrayed by Jack Nicholson, who doesn’t seem to go a single scene in this movie without using “God” or our Lord Jesus Christ’s name as an expletive.
On the one hand, I cringe. On the other hand, I see the characterization of sinners as a useful tool in a Christian writer/performer/director’s creative arsenal. As an aspiring screenwriter, I’m especially pressed to find an answer to this question.

For many years I misunderstood what "taking God's name in vain" actually meant. Using the name "Jesus Christ" (both or either), or "God" is an expletive or 'cuss' word was not actually the subject of one of the Ten Commandments.
Think about the phrase "take the name", then add "on" to make it "take on the name". Think about the traditional institution of Christian/Biblical marriage, and the practice of the bride "taking on the name of" her new husband as they wed.
"Taking the Lord's name" was really about the people advertising to the world that they were "God's people who lived by God's law". To paraphrase, what God was saying is basically this: "Do not take on my name [call yourselves God's children], then live like you belong to the Devil (or the world, or any of the other tribes or nations you see around you, who practice wickedness)."
It was about living out their (your) profession. We call ourselves Christians...but to the world, do we live as Christians?
Sure, the speech/language the exits our lips is a sign of what's inside ("out of the mouth the heart speaks" - Matthew 12:34, Luke 6:45), but it was/is about behaviour and how that aligns with profession.
We could say that the colloquially term 'Nominal Christian' might refer to those who "take God's name in vain".
I have certainly been guilty of this on many occasions...
Does that help?
For a more in depth understanding, study the act, and importance, of naming in the Old Testament. It was much more than a labeling mechanism, contrary to what our modern scientific world view would have us relegate it to.
Listen to the following podcast for a Scholar's take on this:
"What is God's Name? Feat. Dr. Michael Heiser"


What does it mean that Christ experience death for me? Besides the horror before death. Asking about what happens right after death. And assuming Death is a spiritual living thing.

After reading Hebrews 2, is it saying that, before Christ vs after Christ, there is a difference in what happens right after death? Death no longer takes a hold of you? Like Death is no longer coming to claim the death. Did Christ Jesus saved human kind from this horrific experience?

For example, there is an idea/fact, that after death, there is a light tunnel leading to Christ Jesus, which then leads one to God to be Judged. Thereby not experiencing Death holding-on you.

Hebrews 2:9 NET

  but we see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little
  while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so
  that by God's grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone

I think I understand your question, but not fully. Here is my answer based on my understanding.  You asked: "Because of Christ's death, what does death mean for me?"
Christ felt everything we have gone through (joy, pain, sorrow, etc), and suffered for it in the Garden.
Alma 7:11-12 Book of Mormon

11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people. 12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities.

He died on the cross for us and decended below all things so he could feel our pain, so he would know how to succor us:
Doctrine and Covenants 19:15-19

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. 16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; 17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; 18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—  19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

So what does His death mean for us? It means that we can repent and become clean again as Isaiah promised
Isaiah 1:18

18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Now as pertaining to what happens to your spirit once you die, the best scriptural account I have read is from The Book of Mormon in Alma 40

11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.
12 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.
13 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.
14 Now this is the state of the souls of the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.
15 Now, there are some that have understood that this state of happiness and this state of misery of the soul, before the resurrection, was a first resurrection. Yea, I admit it may be termed a resurrection, the raising of the spirit or the soul and their consignation to happiness or misery, according to the words which have been spoken.

I hope I understood your question correctly, if not, please clarify and I will see if I can answer differently.


Besides Paul, were there any other enemies of the early church who converted to Christianity? As I was listening to a debate between Drs. William Lane Craig and Richard Carrier on the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, something Dr. Carrier said caught my attention. He claimed that "[Paul] is alone, actually; there's no other enemies of the church that were converted to join the church." I immediately got a hunch that this was unlikely, but I haven't had any luck in finding other antagonists to the early church who were converted.

Based on the New Testament and contemporary (within the 1-200 AD "Early Church" period) historical records, were there any other enemies of the church, aside from Paul, who converted to Christianity?

For reference, the debate can be found here, and the point containing the quote starts at 1:28:32.

I would greatly appreciate citations in any answers that you might offer.

To further clarify: I'm not looking for answers from sources that Dr. Carrier would necessarily accept as credible (although citations from extra-biblical, historical sources are definitely encouraged). To place a constraint like that on the question might make it impossible to answer, as he states in the video that he doesn't view the gospels as credible. I would certainly accept answers that reference the gospels.

Also, for the purposes of this question, I would define an "enemy of the church" during the apostolic time period as someone who actively persecutes or opposes Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christian churches.

In Peter's sermon at Pentecost he accuses the members of his audience of delivering up Jesus to be crucified:

  "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested
  to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did
  through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus,
  delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God,
  you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." (Acts 2:22-23,
  ESV)

Concluding remarks end on their guilt for crucifying Jesus.

  "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has
  made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." (Acts
  2:36, ESV)

The response of the crowd was to be convicted:

  Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to
  Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" And
  Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the
  name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will
  receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and
  for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord
  our God calls to himself." And with many other words he bore witness
  and continued to exhort them, saying, "Save yourselves from this
  crooked generation." So those who received his word were baptized, and
  there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2:37-41,
  ESV)

Why would a crowd of Jews in close historical proximity to the crucifixion be cut to the heart over an accusation of crucifying Jesus, and repent and be baptized, if they were not in some way involved in the crucifixion itself? The simple answer is that they were involved in the persecution of Jesus, and therefore of early Christianity.

Whether or not this meets the definition of persecuting the early church depends on your definitions of "the early church" and "persecution."

But secondarily, what is difficult to prove in specifics is easier in statistics. Rome was not sympathetic to Christianity, and generally did persecute early Christians. And yet, the church achieved explosive growth that took the form of abandoning one's former lifestyle. Are we to believe there was zero overlap between these two groups?


Did Jesus act out His parables? We see in the parables of Jesus, many moments which  provide   for dramatic presentation, like the scene of the prodigal son envying the well-fed swines, or the father running to the gate to receive his son. It is hard to believe that Jesus said all those things without emotional attachment. He would have taken the assistance of the disciples and presented the parables in such a way that they stayed put in the hearts of those who listened. My question therefore, is: what does the Catholic Church say about the manner in which Jesus presented His parables ?

We don't see Jesus "acting" (physically moving to) his parables. Instead what is shown in scriptures is the vast relationship between every-day life and the parables. They depicted the message to be practiced "every-day". There are many categories for parables, specially the agricultural ones. Many people rejected his messages so he explained his messages through parables like Isaiah prophesied (John 12:38)


What is the Catholic Church's view on curses and their after-effects? We see at Exodus 20:232-24 (NRSVCE):

"You shall not abuse any widow or orphan.  If you do abuse them, when they cry out to me, I will surely heed their cry;  my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children orphans."

It is not uncommon for someone to curse another- sometimes with deep feeling of hurt, and sometimes out of ego. Some  parents curse their children in certain situations. But, in the post-Prodigal Son scenario, one wonders whether God prefers to have the parents, build up patience with the prodigal children, or to go ahead with executing their curse. My question therefore is: What is the Catholic Church's view on curses, especially those of parents, and their after-effects.

What is the Catholic Church's view on curses and its’ after-effects?
First of all, there are different types of curses.
For example in the Old Testament , we see God cursing Adam and Eve. In the Gospels we can see Jesus cursing the fig tree.
Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on the subject of cursing.

In its popular acceptation cursing is often confounded, especially in the phrase "cursing and swearing", with the use of profane and insulting language; in canon law it sometimes signifies the ban of excommunication pronounced by the Church. In its more common Biblical sense it means the opposite of blessing (cf. Numbers 23:27), and is generally either a threat of the Divine wrath, or its actual visitation, or its prophetic announcement, though occasionally it is a mere petition that calamity may be visited by God on persons or things in requital for wrongdoing. Thus among many other instances we find God cursing the serpent (Genesis 3:14), the earth (Genesis 3:17), and Cain (Genesis 4:11). Similarly Noah curses Chanaan (Genesis 9:25); Josue, him who should build the city of Jericho (Joshua 6:26-27); and in various books of the Old Testament there are long lists of curses against transgressors of the Law (cf. Leviticus 26:14-25; Deuteronomy 27:15, etc.). So, too, in the New Testament, Christ curses the barren fig-tree (Mark 11:14), pronounces his denunciation of woe against the incredulous cities (Matthew 11:21), against the rich, the worldling, the scribes and the Pharisees, and foretells the awful malediction that is to come upon the damned (Matthew 25:41). The word curse is also applied to the victim of expiation for sin (Galatians 3:13), to sins temporal and eternal (Genesis 2:17; Matthew 25:41).
In moral theology, to curse is to call down evil upon God or creatures, rational or irrational, living or dead. St. Thomas treats of it under the name maledictio, and says that imprecation may be made either efficaciously and by way of command, as when made by God, or inefficaciously and as a mere expression of desire. From the fact that we find many instances of curses made by God and his representatives, the Church and the Prophets, it is seen that the act of cursing is not necessarily sinful in itself; like other moral acts it takes its sinful character from the object, the end, and the circumstances. Thus it is always a sin, and the greatest of sins, to curse God, for to do so involves both the irreverence of blasphemy and the malice of hatred of the Divinity. It is likewise blasphemy, and consequently a grievous sin against the Second Commandment, to curse creatures of any kind precisely because they are the work of God. If, however, the imprecation be directed towards irrational creatures not on account of their relation to God, but simply as they are in themselves, the guilt is no greater than that which attaches to vain and idle words, except where grave scandal is given, or the evil wished to the irrational creature cannot be separated from serious loss to a rational creature, as would be the case were one to wish the death of another's horse, or the destruction of his house by fire, for such wishes involved serious violation of charity.
Curses which imply rebellion against Divine Providence, or denial of His goodness or other attributes, such as curses of the weather, the winds, the world, the Christian Faith, are not generally grievous sins, because the full content and implication of such expressions is seldom realized by those who use them. The common imprecations against animate or inanimate objects which cause vexation or pain, those against enterprises which fail of success, so, too, the imprecations that spring from impatience, little outbreaks of anger over petty annoyances, and those spoken lightly, inconsiderately, under sudden impulse or in joke, are, as a rule, only venial sins — the evil being slight and not seriously desired. To call down moral evil upon a rational creature is always illicit, and the same holds good of physical evil, unless it be desired not as evil, but only in so far as it is good, for example, as a punishment for misdeeds, or a means to amendment, or an obstacle to commission of sin; for in such cases the principal intention, as St. Thomas says, is directed per se towards what is good. When, however, evil is wished another precisely because it is evil and with malice prepense, there is always sin, the gravity of which varies with the seriousness of the evil; if it be of considerable magnitude, the sin will be grievous, if of trifling character, the sin will be venial. It is to be noted that merely verbal curses, even without any desire of fulfilment, become grievous sins when uttered against and in the presence of those who are invested with special claims to reverence. A child, therefore, would sin grievously who should curse father, mother, or grandfather, or those who hold the place of parents in his regard, provided he does so to their very face, even though he does this merely with the lips and not with the heart. Such an act is a serious violation of the virtue of piety. Between other degrees of kindred verbal curses are forbidden only under pain of venial sin. To curse the devil is not of itself a sin; to curse the dead is not ordinarily a grievous sin, because no serious injury is done them, but to curse the saints or holy things, as the sacraments, is generally blasphemy, as their relation to God is generally perceived.

Curses can have very serious effects on both people and animal!
I like to recall the phrase that an exorcist once told when we were discussing the topic of cursing and malediction: ”Be careful what you pray for. Both good and evil could be answered in a way you could regret. People should not wish true evil on others. After all the Devil can hear those curses!”

2 Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few. - Ecclesiastes 5:2

Holiness is in the power of tongue.

Malediction in the form of hurling epithets is not as simple as it may at first appear, however. There is, for example, a fundamental difference between the utterances “You bastard!” and “Go to hell!” The first expresses malevolence or ill will, with reference to an imputed personal characteristic that bespeaks illegitimacy. The second, as watered-down and secularized as it may be in colloquial usage, refers to a supernatural and cosmological domain that remains deeply resonant across religious traditions and even in secular settings. In short, the malediction “You bastard!” is an insult. The malediction “Go to hell!” is a curse. The difference is not only one of degree, but one of kind.

Fr. Gabriele Amorth S.S.P. (1 May 1925 – 16 September 2016), the major exorcist of Rome stated several times in his books, An Exorcist Tells His Story and An Exorcist: More Stories demonstrates that cursing someone may, but not always lead to diabolic possession by the Demon.
Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas answers the question: Whether it is lawful to curse anyone?:

To curse [maledicere] is the same as to speak ill [malum dicere]. Now "speaking" has a threefold relation to the thing spoken. First, by way of assertion, as when a thing is expressed in the indicative mood: in this way "maledicere" signifies simply to tell someone of another's evil, and this pertains to backbiting, wherefore tellers of evil [maledici] are sometimes called backbiters. Secondly, speaking is related to the thing spoken, by way of cause, and this belongs to God first and foremost, since He made all things by His word, according to Psalm 32:9, "He spoke and they were made"; while secondarily it belongs to man, who, by his word, commands others and thus moves them to do something: it is for this purpose that we employ verbs in the imperative mood. Thirdly, "speaking" is related to the thing spoken by expressing the sentiments of one who desires that which is expressed in words; and for this purpose we employ the verb in the optative mood.
Accordingly we may omit the first kind of evil speaking which is by way of simple assertion of evil, and consider the other two kinds. And here we must observe that to do something and to will it are consequent on one another in the matter of goodness and wickedness, as shown above (I-II:20:3). Hence in these two ways of evil speaking, by way of command and by way of desire, there is the same aspect of lawfulness and unlawfulness, for if a man commands or desires another's evil, as evil, being intent on the evil itself, then evil speaking will be unlawful in both ways, and this is what is meant by cursing. On the other hand if a man commands or desires another's evil under the aspect of good, it is lawful; and it may be called cursing, not strictly speaking, but accidentally, because the chief intention of the speaker is directed not to evil but to good.
Now evil may be spoken, by commanding or desiring it, under the aspect of a twofold good. Sometimes under the aspect of just, and thus a judge lawfully curses a man whom he condemns to a just penalty: thus too the Church curses by pronouncing anathema. On the same way the prophets in the Scriptures sometimes call down evils on sinners, as though conforming their will to Divine justice, although such like imprecation may be taken by way of foretelling. Sometimes evil is spoken under the aspect of useful, as when one wishes a sinner to suffer sickness or hindrance of some kind, either that he may himself reform, or at least that he may cease from harming others.

Here follows most causes of demonic possession as recognized by the Church:

Causes of Demonic Possession
According to the Catholic Church, the chief causes of possession are the following:
• making a Pact with the Devil or Demons
• participating in occult or spiritualist rites, including playing with divination devices such as a Ouija™ or doing automatic writing
• offering or dedicating a child to Satan
• being the victim of a witchcraft spell or Curse
Engaging in these activities, as well as leading a deliberately sinful life, give Demons the right and license to take up residence, according to the church. Mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder are not considered to be caused by Demonic possession.
The church teaches that God allows possession to happen for a variety of reasons:
• to Demonstrate the truth of the Catholic faith
• to punish sinners
• to confer spiritual benefits through lessons
• to produce teachings for humanity


What are the arguments that Acts was written prior to 70 AD? What are the reasons, whether theological or secular, for concluding that the book of Acts was written prior to 70 AD?

Please also view the related question What are the arguments that the book of Acts was written after 70 AD?

J. A. T. Robinson, in Redating the New Testament (1976), lays out a thorough case for a pre-70 date for the publication of Acts.  His main points are also maintained by other conservative scholars, such as D. A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris in their Introduction to the New Testament, and in the Reformed Study Bible. The key points are:

Evidence for authorship by a companion of Paul
No mention of Paul's letters
Language considerations
Abrupt ending
No mention of important events in AD 62–70

A companion of Paul
Robinson argues that internal evidence points to a companion of Paul. First, he points to the passages where the author uses "we" in the narrative:

the style of the 'we' sections of Acts (16.10-17; 20.5-15; 21.1-18; 27.1-28.16) is, as Harnack showed, the style par excellence of the writer of the whole when freely composing in his own hand. There is no real ground for arguing that he is here using a source or travel-diary other than his own.

Against those who argue that this supposed "companion of Paul" made too many theological errors to be credible, Robinson argues that "the discrepancies with Pauline teaching have in my judgment been much exaggerated," for two reasons.  First, in Acts, Paul deals primarily with non-Christians, while in the epistles he addresses Christians – and Paul's only speech to Christians in Acts (to the elders at Miletus) "contains some remarkable parallels with later Pauline writings."  Second, the author of Acts presents himself as a layman, a historian, not a theologian, which accounts for a lack of precision in some statements (e.g., Acts 13:39).
No mention of Paul's letters
Against a second-century date, Robinson argues that Luke's failure to mention Paul's epistles, though not "decisive," is still problematic:

Silence on the very existence of the epistles is, as Kummel says, a formidable objection, amongst many others, to a second-century date. It is unbelievable that a later writer should not have made use of them for his reconstruction or at least alluded to them.

Language
Another evidence that Robinson cites is one of language:

Harnack goes on to adduce numerous positive indications of an early dating of Acts derived from the primitive character of its terminology.

The Reformed Study Bible offers some specifics along these lines:

Certain vocabulary points to an early date.  This vocabulary includes "disciple"; "the first day of the week" (later to become "the Lord's Day," Rev. 1:10); a reference to "the peoples of Israel" in 4:27 (a term later to include both Jews and Gentiles; Titus 2:14); the early title "Son of Man" (7:56); as well as language about geographical and political details.

Abrupt ending
The "rather lame and unfulfilling" ending of Acts, as Carson et al. call it, is widely cited as evidence for an early date.  Robinson quotes Harnack:

The question is: why does the account stop at this point? As Harnack said,

Throughout eight whole chapters St Luke keeps his readers intensely interested in the progress of the trial of St Paul, simply that he may in the end completely disappoint them — they learn nothing of the final result of the trial! Such a procedure is scarcely less indefensible than that of one who might relate the history of our Lord and close the narrative with his delivery to Pilate, because Jesus had now been brought up to Jerusalem and had made his appearance before the chief magistrate in the capital city!

Carson et al. draw particular attention to Luke's failure to mention Paul's release from prison (if he was indeed released), or his execution a few years later, given that his execution would have made a "fitting parallel" to the execution of James recorded earlier, and a similar ending as the gospel of Luke, in which Jesus is executed.
Surrounding events
But the outcome of Paul's trial is not the only event that is not mentioned by Luke.  Robinson breaks down a series of events that are inexplicably absent.  First, Nero's persecution in AD 64:

There is no hint of the Neronian persecution, which because of its excesses won considerable sympathy for the Christians, as Tacitus says. [Am. 15.44.]

The martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, would have fit Luke's narrative well, but it isn't mentioned either:

Nor for that matter is there any hint of the death of James the Lord's brother in 62, which took place at the hands of the Sanhedrin against the authority of Rome. [...] No incident could have served Luke's apologetic purpose better, that it was the Jews not the Romans who were the real enemies of the gospel. Yet there is not a hint of James ever falling foul of the Jewish authorities, unlike his namesake, James the brother of John (Acts 12. ff.)

And, of course, there's no mention of the Jewish revolt that lead to the destruction of the temple in AD 70:

Nor is there any shadow in Acts of the impending Jewish revolt, let alone of the destruction of Jerusalem to bear out the earlier prophecies of the Gospel. When last we hear of them, the representatives of Judaism, alike of church (24.21.; 25.1-5) and state
(25.13-26.32), are living in a condition of courteous, if suspicious, detente with Rome. One could never guess from Acts what was to break within a few years.

Conclusion
Robinson concludes:

The burden of proof would seem to be heavily upon those who would argue that it does come from later, and there is nothing, as far as I can see, in the theology or history of the Gospel or Acts that requires a later date [...]. From the internal evidence of the two books we should therefore conclude (as did Eusebius) that Acts was completed in 62 or soon after, with the Gospel of Luke some time earlier.


How to reconcile Aquinas' analogical view of God with God's self-revelation? We use language to describe God. However, Aquinas argues in Summa Theologiae that we can only make analogical statements about God, in which our language is incapable of truly grasping or describing God.

And yet, God chose to reveal Himself partly through human language. Hence we have now Church dogmas like the Trinity. Thus, how is it possible to have True Knowledge expressed in words, and simultaneously sustain Aquinas' position that all out statements about God are always and everywhere analogical? Does it mean that in the end we just cannot grasp what our dogmas mean? This is to say, that Revelation about God's nature is in the end all mystery?

Remember that Aquinas wrote almost 1,000 years after the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated.  Analogical language is not "incapable of truly grasping or describing."  It is just a form of compromise between equivocal and univocal predication, both of which are inadequate to describe God.  It's not even clear what you take "analogical language" to mean, for your link is broken.

Against this background, Aquinas asks how we are to interpret the divine names. He argues that they cannot be purely equivocal, for we could not then make intelligible claims about God. Nor can they be purely univocal, for God’s manner of existence and his relationship to his properties are sufficiently different from ours that the words must be used in somewhat different senses. Hence, the words we use of God must be analogical, used in different but related senses. To be more precise, it seems that such words as ‘good’ and ‘wise’ must involve a relationship to one prior reality, and they must be predicated in a prior and a posterior sense, for these are the marks of analogical terms.
-Aquinas on Analogy, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy


What does the Catholic Church mean when it calls humans co-creators with God? The Catholic Church says that human are co-creators with God.

  To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his
  providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing”
  the earth and having dominion over it. God thus enables men to be
  intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation,
  to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors.
  Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also
  enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their
  prayers, and their sufferings. They then fully become “God’s fellow
  workers” and co-workers for his kingdom. (Catechism of the Catholic
  Church, paragraph
  307)

In what manner, capacity, and extent are we co-creators with God, according to the Catholic Church?

God created the nature and men, either directly or through evolution (that's a different question). But men created lots of other things: fire, flint tools, wheel, civilisation... This is one aspect: in some sense God created even technology, but we, men, are its direct creators.

There are other aspects. If you testify about Jesus or just live with God and bear fruits of Holy Spirit and your testimony (by words and/or life) becomes the impulse for someone to convert and believe in Christ, this is mainly work of God's grace and Holy Spirit, but you acted as God's fellow worker in this case.

Of course, not everything we do is a participation on God's work on his kingdom. God gave us free will and responsibility to either gather with him or scatter without him.


If Jesus is God the Father, did God the father die on the cross when Jesus died? Most Christians believe Jesus is God. Scripture says there is one God, the Father. If this is so, when Jesus died on the cross did God the Father die also?

Most Trinitarians use this to summarize the Trinity:

The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all distinct (not one of them is identical to the other).

Therefore, when Jesus died on the cross, God the Father did not also die on the cross.


Are love and hate in a harmonious balance within God? I am referring to this fascinating (and accepted) answer of Jonathon Byrd where he proves by the Bible that God is also the God of hate:

Psalm 5:5 (NKJV)
The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity.
Psalm 7:11 (NKJV)
God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day.
Psalm 11:5 (NKJV)
The LORD tests the righteous, But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates.
Psalm 15:4 (NKJV)
In whose eyes a vile person is despised, But he honors those who fear the LORD; He who swears to his own hurt and does not change;

My question:
Is this hate in a harmonious balance with love comparable to Eastern religions, e.g. Taoism with their concept of Yin and Yang? Or how do both interrelate? Could this hate of God even be the explanation for the problem of evil in the world and why God gives Satan free rein?

Jonathan already explained from a Biblical perspective how God is a God of hate as well as love. I will try not to duplicate that.

The 'problem of evil' is utterly unrelated to the attribute of hate. Evil and hate are not at all the same thing. God is good: 100% pure good. He is, in fact, the only standard of what good is; we measure whether something is good or not by comparing it to the character and decrees of God. God is not evil! The fact that part of his character demands that he hate does not make him evil, it makes him fully good! Evil, note hate, is the correct opposite of good. Evil could even be defined by its hate of good: good hates that which is evil, evil hates that which is good.

It is logically impossible to be good and love good without hating the opposite of good.1 One must hate evil in order to love good. If you love Jews, you must hate the holocaust. If you love unborn babies, you must hate when they are aborted. If you love women, you must hate when they are abused.

The character of God is utterly different than what Eastern religions teach about balance. The standard of good that he demonstrates is not 'a little bit of good and a little bit of bad keeping each other at bay' or some mystic balance between forces. God is FULL of love just as he is FULL of hatred. Both attributes are taken to their full EXTREMES, not balanced in the middle. They are complementary characteristics, not opposites.

Good and evil are opposites. There is no evil in God and he will not permit evil to continue.2 Our world is but a temporary stage3 on which his final and decisive defeat of evil4 is played out (to demonstrate his glory not because it was ever in doubt) and he demonstrates how good he is in that he can even redeem evil and use it for good.5

But do not be deceived: evil is never in itself a good. Its defeat and destruction are good and that God both can and chooses to redeemed anything from the kingdom of darkness is purely astounding.6

  Isaiah 61:8a (ESV)
  For I the Lord love justice;
  I hate robbery and wrong

  Ezekiel 35:6 (ESV)
  ... therefore, as I live, declares the Lord God, I will prepare you for blood, and blood shall pursue you; because you did not hate bloodshed, therefore blood shall pursue you.

  1 Peter 5:10 (ESV)
  And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you.

  Acts 2:24 (ESV)
  God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

  1 Peter 1:6-7 (ESV)
  In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

  Romans 3:26 (ESV)
  It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.


Are Christians required to believe the teachings of their own denomination? My friend is struggling right now to discern what is right and wrong in the Church and his Christian life.

He has been brought up in a Catholic church where he had learned about Jesus and what he did for us.

Through friends (including myself) he has visited other denominations and congregations and is noticing the differences between them. He has attended traditional Church of Scotland churches, to Baptist Churches, to Pentecostal Churches and through each Church he is being told what to believe different things by different Christians. Some Christians have told him that he should not even question the pastor/priest, and must agree with what they tell him, as they are the anointed ones.

Does my friend need to accept all the teachings of whatever denomination he chooses to be associated with?

More generally, are Christians required accept the teaching of a denomination when they commit to it?  Or is there some freedom to pick and chose their own personal belief system?

Authentic faith should never demand a sacrifice of the intellect!

From Fr. Robert Barron, Catholic priest.

  One of the signs that you're not dealing with authentic faith is that
  you've had to sacrifice your mind.

However, it's important to acknowledge the bounds of one's own intellect, giving due respect to religious traditions that have been fed with thousands of years of intelligent thought and divine revelation. Christianity ultimately started in Judaism. Hence, our founding philosophy is well over 5000 years old. And the core Christian addendums, if I may call them that, have been scrupulously pored over and tested for nearly 2000 years.

Don't be afraid to bring your intellect fully into your faith. Also, bring your experience, spiritual and otherwise. But, acknowledge regularly your own intellectual limitations, your ability to be deceived, and your tendency towards self-serving reasoning. Remember again, that your spiritual advisor is likely trained to help you recognize your self-deception!

Remember that many major traditions only "insist" on adherence to some core set of beliefs. You are generally free and encouraged to roam a vast expanse of practice and thought.

Now, since it is likely that your priest or minister will make mistakes, intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, etc., remember: If you're in one of the major traditions, your priests have been sacramentally consecrated. They perform a specific, sacramental role which is to be rightfully honored and respected, even when the priest-person is in error.

And if I may offer a personal plea: Avoid relativistic tendencies. Under the cry of being open-minded, folks sacrifice their intellect far more than most any religion ever asks of them! The human intellect is pretty insistent that the world is ordered, that reality is what it is, and that there are correct and incorrect statements -- that truth is absolute. Though you may often cede not to know the right answer, I would beg that you insist, in most cases, that there is a right answer! And that often means the other answers are wrong, regardless of how compassionately we can acknowledge it.


Is it a sacrilege to take communion in hand? Is it a sacrilege to take communion in hand?
In the Old mass, Catholics receive communion by kneeling down and receive the Holy Eucharist in tongue. In the new mass, this has been changed, Catholics no longer kneel down and take communion in tongue. Catholics believe that the “real presence of our Lord” is in the bread and wine and therefore it is only appropriate to behave in a such manner of reverence that is due to Him. According to tradition and teaching, the priest is the only one allowed to hold the body of Christ because his hands were consecrated.

Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) - Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8

The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.
The Council of Trent (1545-1565)

This method [on the tongue] must be retained.
Memoriale Domini - Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)

To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.
Pope John Paul II - Dominicae Cenae, 11

It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.
Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9.

My question is more about worship and reverence. How do we behave in God’s presence? Yes, we are all dirty rags I know. Like for example in dining, do we use our licking fingers or use fork and knives? Do we exercise ethics and right conduct?

Is it a sacrilege to take communion in hand?
The short answer is no! However some may believe otherwise.
If it were sacrileges, the present teaching do not reflect that to be the case. Rome allows this by indult in the New Rite. If it were a sacrilege, that indult would not have been accorded by Rome.
Both ways are permitted within the Ordinary Form of the Mass. While communion on the hand is forbidden in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and is given while kneeling only, unless prohibited due to physical illness.
Communion on the hand may seem less reverent than communion on the tongue, especially to the more traditionally minded Catholics; it is not a sacrilege. The real sacrilege here would be in receiving Our Lord while in the state of mortal sin!
For the first three centuries the Eucharist was celebrated in the houses and homes of Christians. In times of persecution these celebrations would have been in secret, in catacombs and other hidden spots. At other times Christians gathered together openly in each others’ homes or in ‘house churches’ for the Eucharist though Mass was not celebrated publicly as it is in our own time.
In fact, the first Martyr of the Eucharist was was young boy of the age of 12. Although a layman, he was also an acolyte. He died taking the Eucharist to the faithful who were held either in prisons for their faith or to homes of the faithful. Priests could have done this, but it was deemed safe if the young lad went in their stead! He was caught and martyred on the spot.
How can one say it is a sacrilege to receive the Lord on our hands as children carried it in the Early Church.

Tarsicius or Tarcisius was a martyr of the early Christian church who lived in the 3rd century. The little that is known about him comes from a metrical inscription by Pope Damasus I, who was pope in the second half of the 4th century.
The only positive information concerning this Roman martyr is found in a poem composed in his honour by Pope Damasus (366–384), who compares him to the deacon Saint Stephen and says that, as Stephen was stoned by a crowd, so Tarcisius, carrying the Blessed Sacrament, was attacked by a group and beaten to death.
Nothing else definite is known concerning Tarcisius. Since Damasus compares him to Stephen, he may have been a deacon; however, a 6th-century account makes him an acolyte. According to one version of the detailed legend that developed later, Tarsicius was a young boy during one of the fierce 3rd-century Roman persecutions, probably during the reign of Emperor Valerian (253–259). One day, he was entrusted with the task of bringing the Eucharist to condemned Christians in prison. He preferred death at the hands of a mob rather than deliver to them the Blessed Sacrament which he was carrying.
He was originally buried in the Catacombs of San Callisto and the inscription by Damasus was placed later on his tomb. Some time later his relics were moved to the San Silvestro in Capite church in Rome. His feast day is celebrated on 15 August; that day is widely observed as the Feast of the Assumption, therefore he is not mentioned in the General Roman Calendar, but only in the Roman Martyrology.
He is the patron saint of altar servers and first communicants.

Saint Tarcisius
Communion on the hand may possibly been an Apostolic Tradition. St. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of it in the following way:

While the Didache concentrates on prayer and thanksgiving, Cyril’s instructions emphasize technique:
“Approaching (Communion)…come not with your palms extended and stretched flat nor with your fingers open. But make your left hand as if a throne for the right, and hollowing your palm receive the body of Christ saying after it, Amen. Then after you have with care sanctified your eyes by the touch of the holy Body, partake…giving heed lest you lose any particle of it (the bread). For should you lose any of it, it is as though you have lost a member of your own body, for tell me, if any one gave you gold dust, would you not with all precaution keep it fast, being on the guard lest you lose any of it and thus suffer loss? How much more cautiously then will you observe that not a crumb falls from you, of what is more precious than gold and precious stones. Then having partaken of the Body of Christ, approach also the cup of His blood; not extending your hands, but bending low and saying in the way of worship and reverence, Amen, be you sanctified by partaking, also of the blood of Christ.” Catechetical Lecture 5
Communion in the Early Church

The BC Catholic on July  28, 2019 published an article entitled Receiving Holy Communion: tongue or hand? It show that communion on the hands has been around a lot longer than we think. It also shows both side of the issue at hand. I find it quite enlightening.

Memoriale Domini, a 1969 Church document on reception of Communion, outlined St. Paul VI’s decision on this matter. After much study and special consultation with all the Bishops of the world, he concluded that “Communion [on the tongue] must be retained ... not merely because it has many centuries of tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist ... This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in ‘ordinary bread and wine’ that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord.”
So how did it happen that some countries were eventually allowed the indult of reception in the hand as well?
A few countries had already illicitly allowed Communion in the hand. Chief among the reasons was that some felt Communion in the hand represented the most ancient form of Communion in the early Church.
But while it is true that Communion in the hand certainly happened in the early Church, it is unclear exactly when this practice started and how universal it was. There are quotes from Church Fathers supporting both practices.
A quote, purported to be from St. Cyril of Jerusalem (around AD 350), is often given in support of reception in the hand: “placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King ... receive the body of Christ.” But scholars now tell us that this quote was likely not written by St. Cyril at all, and several ancient manuscripts attest to this.
On the other hand, there is also ample testimony from great saints like St. Basil, St. Gregory the Great, and St. Leo the Great, among others, suggesting that reception on the tongue was the standard for the early Church.
For example, St. Basil the Great, doctor of the Church (AD 330–379), would teach: “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution” (e.g., the laity could touch the Host to distribute it secretly).
The Councils of Saragossa (AD 380) and Toledo (fifth to seventh centuries) threatened excommunication to anyone who continued receiving holy Communion by hand.
Similarly, the Synod of Rouen (AD 650) decreed: “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman ... only in their mouths.”
The Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (AD 680–681) also forbade the taking of Communion in the hand by the laity, under threat of excommunication. And the Council of Trent (1565) added, “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
This brings us to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest ... out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity” (Summa Theologica). This is a powerful testimony, as much of the Church’s theology is based on the theology of St. Thomas.
Taking all this into consideration, Memoriale Domini declared: “From the time of the Fathers of the Church ... Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid ... the dropping of Eucharistic particles [today, consecrated Hosts are regularly stolen for use in satanic Masses and other blasphemous practices – even sold on eBay!]; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.”
It then mandated that “this method of distributing Holy Communion [on the tongue] must be retained” and “emphatically” urged “bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed ... by the majority of Catholic bishops.”
But after all this, Memoriale Domini then added a surprising disclaimer, leaving an avenue open to those bishops currently in disobedience over this issue. “Where ... Communion on the hand prevails,” bishops could request an indult to continue this practice, and Rome would consider it.
And these countries requested exactly that – and the indults were given – I am sure much to the sadness of St. Paul VI. A flood of requests then followed from countries, including Canada, where Communion on the hand did not prevail. These countries hadn’t been given permission to even ask for this indult. But ask they did.
Now some might say, “What’s the big deal?” After all, we are talking disciplines here and not unchangeable doctrines. True. And this is certainly not an area about which to quarrel or to judge one another’s spiritual intentions. Many insist that they feel equal reverence when receiving in the hand, and that the key is the attitude of the heart. There is truth in this too.
But the point is that the very document that permitted the seeking of an indult for Communion on the hand in very limited cases at the same time strongly advocated for Communion on the tongue, adding that it “is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist” and is “needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s body” (Memoriale Domini).
With bodily signs we show interior beliefs. In “The Theology of Kneeling,” an excerpt from his book The Spirit of the Liturgy (2000), Cardinal Ratzinger highlights this truth: “the bodily gesture itself is the bearer of the spiritual meaning ... when someone tries to take worship back into the purely spiritual realm and refuses to give it embodied form, the act of worship evaporates.” Later, as Pope Benedict XVI, in continuity with St. John Paul II, he gave Communion to the faithful on the tongue while they knelt.
I write this not to stir up controversy, but to provide a context against which individuals may decide how best to receive Jesus’ Precious Body and Blood, especially in our current culture. Many faithful Catholics are unaware of all of this background, as I was. Perhaps it is worthwhile to reconsider how we receive the Eucharist, for “not as common bread and common drink do we receive these” (St. Justin Martyr, AD 150).


Did any other philosophical systems have as much influence on the early Church as Platonism and Stoicism? Many historians agree that the philosophical systems of Platonism and Stoicism had an important role in the efforts of the early Church to communicate the message of the Gospel to unbelievers, and even in informing some early Christians' interpretations of the writings of Paul and others.

According to historians, did any other philosophical systems have a similar level of influence early in the life of the Church?

Neo-Platonism. Augustine was influenced by Neo-Platonism, as well as other Christian writers. I think you will find Neo-Platonism to be more more influential than Platonism.

I am not expert in Philosophy enough to provide my own explanation. All I can do is provide some references. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Augustine is described as a Christian Neoplatonist. Augustine is highly influential in later times as well and, as stated in the below, also being a main figure in the merging of Greek philosophical tradition and the Judeo-Christian religious and scriptural traditions. So, this would show influence of Neoplatonism on the early Church.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (bolding mine):

  Aurelius Augustinus [more commonly “St. Augustine of Hippo,” often simply “Augustine”] (354–430 C.E.): rhetor, Christian Neoplatonist, North African Bishop, Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church. One of the decisive developments in the western philosophical tradition was the eventually widespread merging of the Greek philosophical tradition and the Judeo-Christian religious and scriptural traditions. Augustine is one of the main figures through and by whom this merging was accomplished. He is, as well, one of the towering figures of medieval philosophy whose authority and thought came to exert a pervasive and enduring influence well into the modern period (e.g. Descartes and especially Malebranche), and even up to the present day, especially among those sympathetic to the religious tradition which he helped to shape (e.g. Plantinga 1992; Adams 1999).

Plotinus is generally regarded as the founder of Neoplatonism. His article says

  The term ‘Neoplatonism’ is an invention of early 19th century European scholarship and indicates the penchant of historians for dividing ‘periods’ in history. In this case, the term was intended to indicate that Plotinus initiated a new phase in the development of the Platonic tradition. What this ‘newness’ amounted to, if anything, is controversial, largely because one’s assessment of it depends upon one's assessment of what Platonism is. In fact, Plotinus (like all his successors) regarded himself simply as a Platonist, that is, as an expositor and defender of the philosophical position whose greatest exponent was Plato himself. Originality was thus not held as a premium by Plotinus. Nevertheless, Plotinus realized that Plato needed to be interpreted. In addition, between Plato and himself, Plotinus found roughly 600 years of philosophical writing, much of it reflecting engagement with Plato and the tradition of philosophy he initiated. Consequently, there were at least two avenues for originality open to Plotinus, even if it was not his intention to say fundamentally new things.

  ...

  The three basic principles of Plotinus' metaphysics are called by him ‘the One’ (or, equivalently, ‘the Good’), Intellect, and Soul (see V 1; V 9.). These principles are both ultimate ontological realities and explanatory principles. Plotinus believed that they were recognized by Plato as such, as well as by the entire subsequent Platonic tradition."

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy say Plotinus was a synthesizer of various philosophical schools:

  In the last analysis, what stands as the most important and impressive accomplishment of Plotinus is the manner in which he synthesized the pure, ‘semi-mythical’ expression of Plato with the logical rigors of the Peripatetic and Stoic schools, yet without losing sight of philosophy’s most important task: of rendering the human experience in intelligible and analyzable terms. That Plotinus’ thought had to take the ‘detour’ through such wildly mystical and speculative paths as Gnosticism and Christian salvation theology is only proof of his clear-sightedness, thoroughness, and admirable humanism. For all of his dialectical difficulties and perambulations, Plotinus’ sole concern is with the well-being (eudaimonia) of the human soul. This is, of course, to be understood as an intellectual, as opposed to a merely physical or even emotional well-being, for Plotinus was not concerned with the temporary or the temporal. The striving of the human mind for a mode of existence more suited to its intuited potential than the ephemeral possibilities of this material realm, while admittedly a striving born of temporality, is nonetheless directed toward atemporal and divine perfection.

New Advent's article on Neoplatonism describes it as:

  A system of idealistic, spiritualistic philosophy, tending towards mysticism, which flourished in the pagan world of Greece and Rome during the first centuries of the Christian era. It is of interest and importance, not merely because it is the last attempt of Greek thought to rehabilitate itself and restore its exhausted vitality by recourse to Oriental religious ideas, but also because it definitely entered the service of pagan polytheism and was used as a weapon against Christianity. It derives its name from the fact that its first representatives drew their inspiration from Plato's doctrines, although it is well known that many of the treatises on which they relied are not genuine works of Plato. It originated in Egypt, a circumstance which would, of itself, indicate that while the system was a characteristic product of the Hellenistic spirit, it was largely influenced by the religious ideals and mystic tendencies of Oriental thought.

Hopefully, the above will provide and idea that Neo-Platonism is not Platonism and that it had influence on early Christian writers most notably Augustine.


Which Christians refuse vaccinations on religious grounds? There are reports of a measles outbreak in a Christian school in British Columbia, Canada. News reports speak of this as a community with "traditionally low vaccination rates" and say that many parents do not vaccinate their children on religious grounds.

I'm unaware of any Christian group that prohibits vaccinations, or any line of theological reasoning that would lead to an issue with vaccinations. Wikipedia doesn't mention anything. Even Amish and Old Order Mennonites appear to go along with vaccinations.

Who are the groups that take this stand, and what is their theological reasoning?

I believe the answer is to be found in another news article, published around the same time as your question, titled, "Chilliwack [British Columbia] pastor tells congregation vaccines interfere with God’s care":

The pastor for the community at the centre of the Fraser Valley measles outbreak says he sees vaccines as an interference with God’s providential care.
Rev. Adriaan Geuze says his 1,200-strong Reformed Congregation of North America in Chilliwack mostly shares that view, which is why vaccination rates in the community are “very low.”
“We leave it in (God’s) hands. If it is in his will that somehow we get a contagious disease, like in this case the measles, there are other ways, of course, to avoid this. If (we get sick), he can also heal us from it,” he said in an interview Friday.
...
Geuze [explains] that there is no need to make a healthy “God-given” body “a little bit sick” through vaccination.
He does not oppose other means of boosting immunity, such as rest, healthy living and eating well. Nor does the church oppose medical treatment when a person is already sick, he added.
Asked if he actively advises his congregants not to vaccinate their children, Geuze responded: “Of course I openly express my own point of view according to the Bible, absolutely. But it’s not that we force them. It’s through their own conscience that they have to act,” he said. “They expect that from me, that in a clear way I lay it all before them.”
Opinions on whether or not to vaccinate, however, are divided within the Fraser Valley’s Christian community.
Rev. Abel Pol of Chilliwack’s Canadian Reformed Church said that while he has never surveyed the church’s 400-plus membership on the issue, he suspects that most if not all the congregation is in favour of vaccinations.
...
Pol said those who oppose vaccinations on religious grounds commonly quote the same passage of the Bible, Matthew 9:12, part of which reads:
“And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ But when he heard it, he said, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick do. Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

So they oppose it based on a reading of Matthew 9:12, a connection I don't understand. The reason they give is that it is "an interference with God's providential care." Given the church's Dutch reformed background, I suspect it's accurate to pinpoint Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 27 as the source of their discomfort, as the other answer conjectures.
Geuze's church is one of four in the Reformed Congregations in North America, and according to Wikipedia makes up 1251 of 1798 (70%) of the denomination's members. The denomination formed by splitting from the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, another small (though larger) conservative reformed denomination, in 1967. And in fact, the school at the center of the story, Mount Cheam Christian School, is affiliated with the Netherlands Reformed Congregations, and the denomination has its own congregation in Chilliwack.
Two other articles indicate that the NRC prohibits vaccinations, just as its offshoot does, and that there have been previous outbreaks tied to this community's refusal to vaccinate. Those outbreaks have occurred not only in the Chilliwack area, but also elsewhere in Canada.
It's clear that, just as the other answer conjectured, this all traces back to certain conservative reformed folk in the Netherlands:

The anti-vaccination beliefs of conservative streams of the Dutch Reformed tradition remain a concern to public health officials in the Netherlands.
A report in the 2001 American Journal of Epidemiology reported 275,000 members of the tradition in that country (roughly one-eighth of the total) were refusing vaccinations.
The unvaccinated Christians were the only victims of a Dutch polio outbreak in the early 1990s. Virtually all were members of conservative or orthodox branches of the Reformed tradition that make their home in the Netherland's so-called Bible Belt, known as "De Bijbelgordel."


What is the Biblical basis for the idea that the 'quality of life' in hell is not the same for everyone? What is the Biblical basis for believing that an existence in hell will be appreciably different in quality for each individual - i.e quality or grades of hell? Do proponents of this idea get support from Jesus meting out a lesser punishment for the ignorant slave?

is there a reason to believe that An existence in hell will be appreciably different in quality for each individual?

  Revelation 20:12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before
  God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is
  the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which
  were written in the books, according to their works.

Each is judged according to their works.

There is also a parable about proportionality;

  Luke 12:47-48  And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and
  prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be
  beaten with many stripes.  But he that knew not, and did commit things
  worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto
  whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom
  men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

God is just and his punishment is just.

God is also merciful.

  John 5:24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word,
  and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall
  not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.


Is android a kind of mankind? In St.Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, it said

  But to know distinctly what is contained in the universal
  whole is to know the less common, as to "animal" indistinctly is to know it as "animal"; whereas
  to know "animal" distinctly is know it as "rational" or "irrational animal," that is, to know a man
  or a lion: therefore our intellect knows "animal" before it knows man; and the same reason holds
  in comparing any more universal idea with the less universal.

(Answer of Question 85(3))

  Therefore, if anything is to be called by a name designating its
  property, it ought not to be named from what it participates imperfectly, nor from that which it
  possesses in excess, but from that which is adequate thereto; as, for instance, when we wish properly
  to name a man, we should call him a "rational substance," but not an "intellectual substance," which
  latter is the proper name of an angel; because simple intelligence belongs to an angel as a property,
  and to man by participation; nor do we call him a "sensible substance," which is the proper name
  of a brute; because sense is less than the property of a man, and belongs to man in a more excellent
  way than to other animals.

(Answer of Question 108(5))

So human being is defined as rational animal(or rational substance), and animal is sensible substance. However, androids with AI have complete rationality too, and they can be sensible with sensors. So is android a kind of mankind?
Androids seems also rational substances, thus they are men by the definition. However in common sense they don't have souls, hence mustn't be mankind. That seems a paradox.

So my question: Are androids have souls? Are androids rational substances? If they are rational substances but don't have souls, are they mankind? Why?

Note: 'Android' in here means a kind of intelligent robot which is similar to ours, not a kind of Google's OS.

Your assumption, that Thomas Aquinas has the final say on what is to be considered man, determines a lot about what my answer to you might be.

If, for example, you instead phrased the question "Assuming Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica to be inerrant: Is android a kind of mankind?" I would say the following:

AI are indeed sensible, as you say.
The definition of rational is vague when it comes to matters like this, and the definition used will determine whether AI can truly fit the category.

If you assumed rationality required an advanced ability to make informed decisions or comprehend relations, then AI can certainly achieve that so yes they would be man.

However, many believe AI will never truly have a true sense of intelligence, understanding or rationality, based on the belief that no matter how "smart" they get, their reasoning will only ever be the result of the observed environment (Of course, many believe that humans are purely reactionary creatures as well, most notably those who believe there is no reality outside of nature, so no supreme being(s). Check out the first few chapters of CS Lewis' Miracles for a better explanation of this than I could provide). This definition assumes rationality requires a sense of understanding or creativity above and beyond natural cause and effect, or divinely provided rationality. It sounds odd, but if you were to think about it, most (if not all) religious people believe this without ever really thinking about it. As a side note, this rationality would also account for the difference seen between man and animal. In this case, I would absolutely say no, they cannot be man as they don't fit this definition of rational.

If, however, you phrased the question as "Assuming the Bible to be inerrant: Is android a kind of mankind?" which is the answer I suspect you're looking for as you are on this site, than I would simply refer you to the following passage.

  So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. -Genesis 1:27

In this case, are androids made in the image of God? Certainly not. Of course, as it is in His power to do anything, He could theoretically breath his spirit into an Android (thus giving it a soul), but whether that fits his plan of creation is pure speculation.


During Assyria’s conquest of Israel, what side did Judah take? Relations between Israel and Judah were fluid. They were sometimes allies and sometimes adversaries. During Assyria’s long campaign against Israel culminating in the siege of Samaria and subsequent mass deportation, did Judah side with Israel, with Assyria, remain neutral, or oscillate between these positions as things got worse for Israel?

In 721 BCE, the Assyrian army captured the Israelite capital at Samaria and carried away the citizens of the northern Kingdom of Israel into captivity. The virtual destruction of Israel left the southern kingdom, Judah, to fend for itself among warring Near-Eastern kingdoms. After the fall of the northern kingdom, the kings of Judah tried to extend their influence and protection to those inhabitants who had not been exiled. They also sought to extend their authority northward into areas previously controlled by the Israeli kingdom.

According to 2 Kings 18, while Sennacherib was besieging Lachish, he received a message from Hezekiah offering to pay tribute in exchange for Assyrian withdrawal. According to the Hebrew Bible, Hezekiah paid 300 talents of silver and 30 talents of gold to Assyria—a price so heavy that he was forced to empty the temple and royal treasury of silver and strip the gold from the doorposts of Solomon's temple. Nevertheless, Sennacherib marched on Jerusalem with a large army. When the Assyrian force arrived, its field commander Rabshakeh brought a message from Sennacherib. In an attempt to demoralize the Judeans, the field commander announced to the people on the city walls that Hezekiah was deceiving them, and that Yahweh could not deliver Jerusalem from the king of Assyria. He listed the gods of other peoples defeated by Sennacherib then asked, "Who of all the gods of these countries has been able to save his land from me?"

During the siege, Hezekiah dressed in sackcloth (a sign of mourning), but the prophet Isaiah assured him that the city would be delivered and Sennacherib would fail.1 Overnight, an angel killed 185,000 Assyrian troops.[2]

All quoted from Wikipedia - Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem


What is the meaning when Jesus said "I commend my spirit" in Luke 23:46? Then Jesus called out in a loud voice, “Father, into Your hands I commit My Spirit.” And when He had said this, He breathed His last.(Luke 23:46)

The Catholic Church teaches the Jesus Christ was True God and True Man and was given like the rest of mankind a "rational soul and human will".

This can be seen in the Agony in the Garden when Jesus said in Luke gospel,

  “Father, if You are willing, take this cup from Me. Yet not My will, but Yours be done.”(Luke 22:42)

My simple question is from Catholic teaching and biblical explanation what is the spirit that Jesus commended?

Is it his human soul or the Spirit of Christ?

In his response to someone who claimed that Jesus had a 'divine soul' (sic) William Huntington wrote a piece (it is only 28 pages in booklet form) which he titled The Soul of Christ in which he thoroughly refutes the stated claim and proves that Christ's soul is human.
I cannot find exactly the words to answer your question - 'into your hands I commit my spirit' - but the following is pertinent and, I believe, gives an indication of an answer :

Thus I have proved that the phrase 'myself' sometimes signifies Christ's Godhead abstractly considered : 'I lay down my life of myself', and sometimes it signifies his human nature only : 'See that it is I myself, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
There is an 'I myself' in Christ, that hath been seen and handled, and there is a divine 'I myself' that dwells in the light to which no man can approach, whom no eye hath seen nor can see.

The Soul of Christ, page 8, published by the Huntingtonian Press, 1998.
From these quotes it is clear that Christ's words can sometimes indicate that he speaks of his own spirit associated with his own human soul, and at times he refers to his own spirit associated with his own Deity.
For the union of Christ's divine nature and his human nature is not a mingling of natures (for that cannot be, they are different things). The natures remain distinct, but they are united - in his Person.
But he may also - as in the case in question - refer to the person of the Divine Spirit which is in a perfect unity with himself. And it is sometimes impossible to tell whether he speaks of his own spirit or if he speaks of the Divine Person of the spirit.
Nor is this to be seen as a difficulty for such is the perfection of unity within the Deity, that one is as the other.
The same is true of one who is born of Spirit. Within his own soul, there dwells the Holy Spirit in union with his own created spirit. If he is moved of the Spirit, it is his own spirit that is moved.
In such a holy and spiritual union, who can tell exactly the movings of the persons involved ?
And, indeed, do we have to tell ?