Did St.Thomas really throw water in the air (in India) and it remained airborne? I was told this during childhood, that this is how St.Thomas converted certain Hindu Brahmins to Christianity. Also on Wikipedia:

  Historical legend records that when St. Thomas landed at Palayur, he
  witnessed the sight of Hindu Brahmins, after their ablutions in a
  local tank, offering prayers by chanting mantras (the Vedic tradition
  of India for spiritual transformation) hymns to god in the form of
  Argyam or Tharpanam (water held in the palms) of water to the Sun god,
  a practice also said to be followed in Harappan and Persian cultures.
  Amused by the sight of water being thrown up by the Brahmins, from the
  palms of their hands, which was falling back, he challenged the
  Brahmins stating that the water they were offering was not being
  accepted by the Sun god as it was falling back into the tank. He made
  a deal with them stating that his God would accept the offer of water
  if he threw it up in the same way as they did, but water would not
  fall back. If he proved this then his God was superior and the
  Brahmins would have to embrace Christianity. He performed this miracle
  (summoned the Holy Trinity, completed the sign of the Cross and threw
  water held in his palms up into the air, which remained still in the
  air at a height) and with this miracle he converted a number of
  Brahmins and Jews in Palayur to Christianity. Thereafter he baptised
  the converts in a nearby water tank.

Is there any evidence or similar documented text outside India which confirms this miracle?

I looked for such an account in the recent Synaxarion compiled by the Monastery of Simonos Petra on Mt. Athos, as well as an English translation of Dmitri of Rostov's 17th century Great Collection of The Lives of the Saints and I can't find anything like this account.  Both of these works are multi-volume collections  and extremely detailed.  Dmitri of Rostov's account of St. Thomas' Life is 14 pages long, but doesn't have anything similar I could find.

The most famous account of St. Thomas in India seems to be how he collected money from a great King to build him a mansion, but kept giving the money to the poor.  When the King found out what he had done, he was furious and had Thomas imprisoned.  The King's brother died suddenly, though, and was vouchsafe a vision of heaven, where he saw an enormous golden mansion being built for his brother by virtue of Thomas' good deeds to the poor.  He came back to life and both he and his brother became Christians as a result.


Does Catholicism consider bisexuality and asexuality sinful? I am curious: do Catholics believe that bisexuality and asexuality are sins?  I understand that they believe homosexuality is a sin, but I wonder about these orientations as well.

I ask this because of a specific incident where some Catholics I know told me that my asexuality is a sin and that they did not want to associate with me because of it. It seemed odd to me because all other Christians I know have no problem with it.

From the Catholic perspective, the universal teaching is that all persons are called by God to chastity, which is understood as a successful integration, inner unity and rational expression of human sexuality, both within the person as well as in interpersonal relationships (CCC 2337).

The Church helps sinners in a variety of states of life—including those who are married, were previously married, or those who remain single or devote themselves to celibacy—by encouraging them to express chastity in different ways. Each of these is valued, including the friendships offered by and to those not in sexual relationships (CCC 2349 and 2350).

The Church does not teach that having a homosexual or bisexual tendency/orientation/attraction is itself sinful, as sin relates to choices and actions/behavior. However, all sexual acts that are not open to life—i.e., all sexual acts outside of heterosexual marriage—are understood as sinful because they are expressions of sexuality that lack one or more of the essential qualities of the type of sexual expression to which we are called as Christians. So sinful behaviors would include homosexual acts, heterosexual acts outside marriage, as well as acts that are not open to life, even when within a marital relationship. So the Church would most likely say that the bisexual person is called to chastity and to cultivate inner freedom in order to choose either celibacy or heterosexual marriage.

Above, I mentioned that celibacy and singleness are recognized as valid lifestyles, and there are many examples of Christians who are not inclined to marry, often those who remain virgins and/or enter religious life. Additionally, consider this passage of Jesus' teaching:

  Matthew 19:8-12 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Please note that the word eunuch is not restricted to those who are physically castrated, but can also include those not inclined to marry, and the passage also references those who choose to live like eunuchs. So in both these examples (Scripture and the Catechism), virginal or celibate life are promoted as valid and valuable expressions of one's sexual identity, and the church does not teach that all people should seek or participate in a sexual relationship.

So according to Catholicism, both the person who experiences a deep sexual attraction to members of both sexes, as well as the person who does not experience this type of sexual attraction toward either sex have the opportunity to live out either a sinful life or a chaste and holy life, depending on the type of behavior they choose to engage in.

Note:
The church does teach that as part of being human, we all have a sexual identity (CCC 2333). It is possible that the case of someone who chooses to radically reject their own sexual identity, or the case of someone with a deeply wounded identity where the person is not able to bond or form healthy friendships might be considered problematic, but this does not appear to be what you are describing, and this would not likely be described as sinful.

The CCC references I've included are to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you are interested in learning more about what the church teaches about chastity and the nature of human sexuality, I'd recommend reading the first two sections of Article 6. You can easily search for these references online, or follow the links.  Both sections together are only a few pages long.


Is it appropriate to refer to God as "It"? I have recently read in a book about some debate around the fact that God is considered a masculine figure (He/His) and that we should find gender neutral of expressing the same ideas.

In my native language it is very hard to do this (God is a masculine noun and it is also derived from Domine Deus which also sounds masculine).

However, English has the advantage of having "it". According to Wordnick, "it" usage guide is also:

  Used of a nonhuman entity; an animate being whose sex is unspecified (..)

It sounds like a good fit, but I am wondering if this is ever appropriate or even offensive.

Question: Is it appropriate to refer to God as "It"?

In English, the appropriate non-gender pronouns are 'they' and 'them', but this construction is clumsy if people attempt to use it all the time. It simply does not work as a substitute. It does not adequately express person.

Babies are sometimes referred to as 'it' because, I suppose, their personality is not yet apparent. But, no, it is not appropriate in English (and, yes, it is offensive) to call a person 'it'. English just does not work like that.

When a voice was heard from heaven saying :

  This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. [Matthew 17:5 KJV] ουτος εστιν ο υιος μου ο αγαπητος εν ω ευδοκησα αυτου ακουετε

the voice used the masculine gender pronoun, αυτου - 'him'.

I think that should be respected. Throughout the Hebrew and Greek scripture - God's revelation of himself - the masculine pronoun is used.


Is Jesus' statement that Satan is the father of the Jews anti-Jewish? “Abraham is our father,” they answered.
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did. As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the works of your own father.”
“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”
Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” (John 8:39-47, NIV)

In this passage Jesus seems to be saying pretty clearly that Satan is the father of the Jews. I know a lot of Christians that love Jews, but this verse seems pretty anti-Jewish. Is there some way of understanding this verse to be not anti-Jewish, or are there Christians that do not accept this verse as authoritative?

That is exactly not the point he is trying to make. He is trying to say that it's our actions that show whether God or Satan is "our father" in a very figurative sense. He is saying "You are not the righteous just because you descend of Abraham, if you not also behave like that". Reversing that to say Jews are "children of Satan" in general is basically the thing he tries to refute here, in reverse.


Is baptizing someone without consent valid? (Roman Catholic view) Stemming from this question Is it valid to baptize multiple persons at once?, the question gives the scenario of one person baptising multiple people on a plane that is going to crash. The bit that confused me was towards the end when it says:

  and that air pressure has been lost leaving [the one doing the baptising] as the only one conscious

There is a comment as well:

  consent doesn't matter to the validity of baptism

According to the Roman Catholic church, if you baptise an adult who is not a believer and has not asked to be baptised (has not given consent), is that a valid baptism?

I think you'll find the section on Baptism in the Code of Canon Law helpful in answering your question.

Code of Canon Law: Title 1 - Baptism

To summarize a bit (please check out the link for the lion's share of details):

There is more than one way to be baptized, not all of which require a minister or other baptized person to be present. (e.g. the Baptism by Desire referenced by @Alypius above.) One form doesn't even require the recipient to be aware, but it's a special case (infants) that assumes the guardians have the infant's best interests at heart.
Consent is mandatory, and the person must be alive. This is where Catholic baptism parts ways from Mormon baptism. In the latter, it is acceptable to baptize the dead.

So, if the people on the plane expressed a desire to be baptized, and gave their consent, it matters little that they're conscious or not when the sacrament is conferred. An infant isn't cognizant of the act, yet it is acceptable to baptize the infant (for many reasons that you'll find in "illuminated" versions of the Code of Canon Law.)

Here's another pretty decent source of info (goes into much greater detail than the Code of Canon Law): Catholic Encyclopedia


Why does Genesis record only 10 names from Adam to Noah? Genesis 5 (NIV)

  And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in
  his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot
  Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and
  daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and
  thirty years; and he died.

  Seth lived one hundred and five years, and begot Enosh. After he begot Enosh, Seth lived eight hundred and seven years, and had sons
  and daughters. So all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve
  years; and he died.

  Enosh lived ninety years, and begot Cainan. After he begot Cainan, Enosh lived eight hundred and fifteen years, and had sons and
  daughters. So all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and five
  years; and he died.

  Cainan lived seventy years, and begot Mahalalel. After he begot Mahalalel, Cainan lived eight hundred and forty years, and had sons
  and daughters. So all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten
  years; and he died.

  ......

Genesis 5 lists the genealogy of Adam as Adam, Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah. Ten in all. Though each of these men had other sons and daughters, their names are not recorded.

Why are only ten names recorded and the rest are ignored?

Does this imply that these ten men were more important than others?

Noah's Lineage

Noah was definitely a significant figure, as it was he and his family alone who survived the flood.  The purpose appears to be to show Noah's lineage from Adam.  Adding in brothers and sisters at each level would be a bit tangential to that purpose.

Enoch was certainly a man of note due to his close relationship with God.

The Line of Cain

Genesis 4 tells us about both Cain and Abel, who were indeed brothers of Seth.  This chapter also gives us the line of Cain as follows:

Cain > Enoch > Irad > Mehujael > Methushael > Lamech.

Lamech's two wives were Adah and Zillah.

Adah bore Jabal and Jubal.

Zillah bore Tubal-cain and his sister Naamah.

So, we are actually given other names in the line of Cain in Genesis 4, even though both Cain and Lamech were murderers.  The line of Noah does seem to be a more righteous line, to be sure.

The Second Gospel

There is another interesting idea that has been put forward, specifically that the meanings of the ten names in Noah's lineage have significance--sort of a Second Gospel:

Adam        Man
Seth        Appointed
Enosh       Mortal
Kenan       Sorrow
Mahalalel   The Blessed God
Jared       Shall come down
Enoch       Teaching
Methuselah  His death shall bring
Lamech      The despairing
Noah        Rest, or comfort

Put together, this could be as follows:

  Man is Appointed Mortal Sorrow.  [The Blessed God] [shall come down], teaching.  [His death shall bring] to [the despairing], [rest (or comfort)].


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that separation from God is in itself sin? The normal understanding in Christianity is that sin brings separation from God. However is there biblical basis for holding to the belief that separation from God is in itself sin rather than a consequence of sin?

I can think of one clear-cut verse off the top of my head. Assuming that the question you are asking is about one who was once not separated from God but later became separated (actually this is true for all man if you think about it, since man was with God at the beginning and later separated himself from God)

  Jer. 2:13  For My people have committed two evils: / They have
  forsaken Me, / The fountain of living waters, / To hew out for
  themselves cisterns, / Broken cisterns, / Which hold no water.

Of course, you can also read into the context of the Bible and see. When man decided to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil rather than the tree of life, he actively made a choice to choose the representative of Satan (tree of knowledge) over God (the tree of life). In this way, the original sin itself is actually the act of separating himself from God in the way of disobedience.


Is there any significance to naming Lazarus in this parable? The parable I'm referring to is 'The Rich Man and Lazarus':

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.
20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores
21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried.
23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.
24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.
26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family,
28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” Luke 16:19–31 (NIV)

It seems, unless I'm mistaken, that in every other parable that Jesus taught the characters or actors were always just a generic description of the person (the widow, the land owner, the manager, the rich man, etc...)  In this parable, however, Jesus does actually refer to the beggar as Lazarus.  Is there any significance behind this?

I think it is significant that the rich man knows and uses Lazarus's name for the same reason that it's significant that he knows Moses name. It clearly shows that he knew who the man was and had been aware in life of his condition and done nothing about it -- in the same way he did not heed the teachings of Moses and the prophets.

Leon Morris also suggests in his commentary on Luke that the name Lazarus (i.e Eleazar) may be significant because it means God has helped, thus adding more weight to the part of story where the poor man received no comfort from men in life.

  In contrast is the poor man, called Lazarus (i.e. Eleazar; the name means 'God has helped' and may be significant; certainly man did not help this unfortunate). He is the only character given a name in Jesus' parables. -- Leon Morris; Pg. 276, V. 3, Tyndale NT Commentaries


Why did St. John Paul II add the Luminous Mysteries to the Rosary? I started praying the Rosary after St. John Paul II added the Luminous mysteries to the Rosary, so I virtually no remembrance of a Rosary being prayed before they came on board.  When he writes about them in Rosarium Virginus Mariae he kind of just slides them in and says what he thinks they should be.

  Moving on from the infancy and the hidden life in Nazareth to the public life of Jesus, our contemplation brings us to those mysteries which may be called in a special way “mysteries of light”. Certainly the whole mystery of Christ is a mystery of light. He is the “light of the world” (Jn 8:12). Yet this truth emerges in a special way during the years of his public life, when he proclaims the Gospel of the Kingdom. In proposing to the Christian community five significant moments – “luminous” mysteries – during this phase of Christ's life, I think that the following can be fittingly singled out: (1) his Baptism in the Jordan, (2) his self-manifestation at the wedding of Cana, (3) his proclamation of the Kingdom of God, with his call to conversion, (4) his Transfiguration, and finally, (5) his institution of the Eucharist, as the sacramental expression of the Paschal Mystery.

So, does anyone know what prompted him to add more mysteries?  He explains why he chooses the individual mysteries in the letter, but he doesn't really say why he thinks that the Rosary needed more stuff.

No one knows for sure where Pope St John Paul II the Great got the inspiration to add the Luminous Mysteries to the Rosary.
The history of the Rosary shows a wide variety of styles, due to the unique inspirations of an individual or even a Religious Order. St John Eudes (1601-1680) is a good example of employing different ways of using a rosary in one's life of prayer in his treatise on The Life and the Kingdom of JESUS.
It is obvious that Pope John Paul II desired to make the traditional mysteries of the Rosary to be expanded to include Jesus' public life and more Christological.

I believe, however, that to bring out fully the Christological depth of the Rosary it would be suitable to make an addition to the traditional pattern which, while left to the freedom of individuals and communities, could broaden it to include the mysteries of Christ's public ministry between his Baptism and his Passion. - ROSARIUM VIRGINIS MARIAE

The probable origins of the Mysteries of Light and Pope John Pal II's inspiration for them came from Saint George Preca (1880-1962). He was canonized by Pope Benedict XVI on June 3, 2007.

It is not yet known whether these new mysteries were actually taken from those proposed by Dun Gorg (as the new Blessed is affectionately known in Malta). But it is certainly a curious fact that, apart from some small differences, the five mysteries are identical to those proposed by Fr Preca. Interesting as well is the fact that the Pope has called these mysteries from Christ's public life “the Mysteries of Light”, the same title given originally by Fr Preca when he first proposed them in 1957. - Probable Origin of the Mysteries of Light

Fr. Dolindo Ruotolo may have been  Fr. Preca’s inspiration!

The Misteries of Light were proposed and included in the Rosary by Pope John Paul II with the Apostolic Letter of October 10, 2002
The Mysteries of Light are taken from the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke and St. John written by Father Dolindo Ruotolo (1939).

The Sacred Scripture: The Gospel According to Luke (Don Dolindo Ruotolo) Book 1


What is considered "The Word of the Lord" in the Episcopal Liturgy We finish the reading of scripture readings in the Episcopal church with the words:
"The Word of the Lord".

What does the Episcopal Church actually consider to be "The Word of the Lord?"

The answer to this question is defined for the Episcopal Church in particular,  and Anglicans more generally,  in the sixth of the Thirty Nine Articles [of Religion].

More particularly, the phrase "The Word of the Lord" is used in the service of Holy Communion, and in the offices of Morning and Evening Prayer to denote the conclusion of a reading from the Bible, the beginning of which was denoted by announcing the source of the reading, for example "A reading from the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians". The chapter and verse at which the reading begins may also be specified.


How is free-will formally defined as distinct from determinism, randomness and determinism-randomness hybrid to support moral responsibility? Usually free-will is assumed by most faith traditions as a prerequisite for moral responsibility in order to justify eternal punishment. The argument goes as "you are truly responsible for your immoral deeds because you were perfectly capable of acting morally, but chose not to, and therefore you are guilty and deserve punishment". In other words, there is an assumption of a self capable of having chosen otherwise. But this definition sounds kind of handwavy to me. What do they really mean by "capable of having chosen otherwise"? Does this mean that if we somehow go back in time and press the "univere's play button" again, a different decision would have come out of the same self? But how would that be different from randomness?

I would appreciate a formal (hopefully, mathematical if you can) definition of free-will that clearly differentiates it from determinism, randomness and any kind of determinism-randomness hybrid. Furthermore, I would love to read a logical discussion of how the formal definition provided would support the existence of true moral responsibility. Let me explain why. If the only options available were determinism, randomness and determinism-randomness hybrid, I cannot see any hope for true moral responsibility:

Determinism: your actions, either moral or immoral, are just the ripple effect of past events, you cannot help but do what the laws of Physics make you do, you had no choice, it's not your fault, therefore there is no true moral responsibility on your part.
Randomness: your actions are random, chaotic, there is no control, you are lucky/unlucky that you behave morally/immorally by random chance (e.g. because of weird quantum randomness in the brain, for example). In other words, it's just a matter of luck, a matter of winning the morality lottery. If you behave immorally, it's not really your fault, it's just your bad luck. Therefore there is no true moral responsibility on your part either.
Determinism-Randomness Hybrid: your actions are the result of a combination of deterministic rules applied to past events combined with random quantum noise or something along those lines. Depending on how strong are the causal ripple effects from past events and how strong are the random noises altering them, you end up acting either morally or immorally. In part you are unlucky, in part you have no choice. Anyway, it's not your fault. Therefore there is no true moral responsibility on your part either.

So, somehow, free-will is supposed to have a mysterious formal definition that distinguishes it from determinism, randomness and determinism-randomness hybrid that allows for true moral responsibility in a way that these other concepts can't. I would really appreciate such a formal definition.

Julian Baggini has written a book called Freedom Regained: the Possibility of Free Will. In it the idea emerges that Philosophers working on free will and moral responsibility proceed almost exclusively by appealing to intuitions.
Richard Oerton in his book The Nonsense of Free Will gives, I think, a good,
not-too-technical-for-the-average-reader discussion of the incoherence of the
free will idea.  When something is essentially illogical it means that the sort of formal mathematical definition you seek is actually impossible.  That's the thing about free will, it is free of formal definition.  If we could define it it would not be free. It just fills a gap people want to fill. The human will is not free of how God made it or why God made it. We are free to be ourselves but not free to be anything else. We make choices based on who we are. Who we are depends upon how we were made. Nothing has ever made itself. All our choices depend on how we were made. Free will needs a gap between what we are and how we behave. This gap does not exist.


(Catholic view) Why do we pray for God's Kingdom to come if good people go to heaven when they die? Here I wanted to find the Catholic view as to why we are told, e.g. in the Lord's Prayer (from Matthew 6:10) to pray for God's Kingdom to come when, on another hand, our immortal soul will end up in heaven (if we have been considered "good") when we die.

What is the purpose of God's Kingdom to come when the faithful anyway end up in heaven and the rest end in hell? What do we need the Kingdom for in this case?

What is a kingdom? It is primarily a king and his subjects, and only secondarily about a territory that is possessed. When you pray for the Kingdom to come:

1) You are asking for the King to come.

2) You are probing for any source of rebellion against that King in your heart and praying for a change of heart that it might cease.

3) You are praying that God will cause that kingdom to grow in extent by converting more rebels to the cause.

4) You are consenting to be an agent of the King to assist in accomplishing that goal.

5) You are praying that those in rebellion fail in their attempts to persuade loyal subjects to rebel.

6) You are praying that this process begin right now, while you ands those for whom you pray still live, instead of waiting until it is too late to change your mind and behavior.

Luke 17 says:

  nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the
  kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”

Before you can get into the kingdom, you need for the kingdom to get into you.


How would they know if Timothy was circumcised or not? During Paul's second missionary journey, he meets Timothy and wants to take him along on the rest of his journey.  The Bible makes a special point about Timothy being circumcised to avoid offending the Jews:

  Acts 16:1-3 (NASB)
   1 Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

I understand that the Jews who knew Timothy would assume that he wasn't circumcised because his father wasn't Jewish.  How would they know that he had been circumcised?  Would Paul and Timothy just announce it?  Would the Jews insist on verifying it?

The physical circumcision alone would not have been sufficient for the Jews.  The Bris ceremony would have had to have been observed, so there would have been a Mohel to testify.

The same traditions are still carried out in Judaism today.  Supporting references:

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Conversion/Conversion_Process/Circumcision.shtml

Item #1 covers the basics:

  1.Mohel: Who Is A Qualified Mohel?

  A mohel is an expert in the surgical aspects of circumcision as well
  as knowledgeable in the laws and customs pertaining to a traditional
  circumcision and ceremony. A mohel is a person who is certified to be
  capable and knowledgeable in both the surgical aspects of performing
  circumcision as well as the traditional aspects of performing a kosher
  circumcision and the traditional ceremony.

Item #10 covers an adult circumcision with a link:

  10. Mohel: Can A Mohel Do Adult Circumcision?

  There are experienced mohels who do perform adult circumcision. Aside
  from performing traditional circumcision on newborn children, Rabbi
  Mozes can also be a mohel for older children and adults. For more
  information on an adult Bris by Rabbi Mozes, please click here.


Is there any Biblical Basis for 400 years of silence between Old and New Testament? When I was researching about the deuterocanon (or the apocrypha, as most Protestants call them) I stumbled upon the notion that God was silent during a period of 400 years between the end of the Old Testament (after the Prophet Malachi) and the beginning of New Testament time (namely the appereance of John the baptist).

From a Protestant point of view where the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books are not considered scripture, there is indeed a 400 year gap in revelation -- no prophets, no inspired writings, nothing.

From a Catholic (or Orthodox) point of view however there is scripture written and inspiration taking place during that period and there is no gap (at least not that long) in in Gods revelation.

Now, when looking for reasons why christians consider the deuterocanon/apocrypha inspired or not I am sometimes told that those writings originated in a period where God was silent and thus cannot be considered scripture (like here, here or here).

To me this is:

A circular argument (apocrypha are not scriptural -> God was silent 400 years -> in those 400 years no inspired scripture was written -> apocrypha are not scriptural) or
There must be another reason to believe God was silent for that period. This reason would break the circle in (1) and make the stated argument valid.

My Question: What biblical basis give adherents of a large time of Gods silence between the Prophet Malachi and John the Baptist beside the (perceived) fact of missing inspired scripture in that period?

A best answer could simply cite the prophet X in saying: "Listen, God will be silent for 400 years before the fulfillment of time." and then stating that this fulfillment of time has come with Christ. But there may be more to say to that matter ...

In Amos 8, the prophet declares (NIV trans.):

  11 “The days are coming,” declares the Sovereign Lord, “when I will
  send a famine through the land— not a famine of food or a thirst for
  water, but a famine of hearing the words of the Lord.

  12 People will stagger from sea to sea and wander from north to east,
  searching for the word of the Lord, but they will not find it.

  13 “In that day the lovely young women and strong young men will faint
  because of thirst.

  14 Those who swear by the sin of Samaria— who say, ‘As surely as your
  god lives, Dan,’ or, ‘As surely as the god of Beersheba lives’— they
  will fall, never to rise again.”

I have on several occasions heard Baptist preachers cite this passage as a prophecy fulfilled by the 400 year gap in divine revelation.


Why doesn't the Catholic Church kill heretics anymore? So the Catholic church used their influence to sanction the execution of so-called "heretics" and now they do not. Somewhere in the middle they stopped supporting executions based on heresy.

Why did they stop? Was a formal reason given? This question sheds some great light as to when they stopped and began hinting as to why but doesn't really dig deep into it.

Important Note: The premise of my question is that the Catholic church had the de facto ability to convict and order executions based on so-called "heresy" and that it followed through with that ability. I acknowledge that technically the Catholic church itself never executed anyone, but through its influence on secular government had, in effect, the ability to execute through excommunication.

Some examples of this include The Massacre of Mérindol, Jan Hus, Cathar Crusade, Inquisitions, Joan of Arc, Priscillian, and the Stratford Massacre.

To the question, "When did the Church stop executing people" I answer that is a false premise. Probably akin to "when did you stop beating your wife?"

To the question, "Can a reasonable differentiation be made between the actions of the state acting in the name of religion and the policies of the religion proper?" I suggest that you look into emperor Otto and how (despite his apparent contrition, immediately drove the Pope into exile as soon as his excommunication was lifted). Or, perhaps more on topic, you could look at the consistent efforts of the Papacy to stem the violence brought by the Spanish Crown during the Spanish Inquisition. Several examples:

Near the outset of the Inquisition, in a letter of April 14, 1482, Pope Sixtus IV instructed the Spanish to ensure due process, allow legal counsel and appeal to Rome.[53] King Ferdinand defiantly rejected Papal control, the Inquisition becoming thereafter a tool of the monarchy, rather than the church.
The Pope tried to allow for appeals, but the crown only allowed that by royal approval
Torquemada actually systematized what could only be considered mob rule.
And finally an appropriate quote, "In 1498 the pope was still trying to...gain acceptance for his own attitude towards the New Christians, which was generally more moderate than that of the Inquisition and the local rulers."

To the question, "When did the policy of Church enacted executions end?" This requires proof that the Church had a policy of executing criminals, as an entity independent of the state. The evidence to this is very lacking.

To the question, "When did the policy of Church-sanctioned executions end?" The answer is that it never has: given appropriate circumstances (rare in first-world countries), the Church does make allowance for the death penalty.

To the question, "When did the policy of Church-sanctioned execution of religious or political dissidents end?" Again, the answer is that it didn't. Believe it or not, the Church is not in the business of dictating punishments for crimes. I don't know of any document which has ever said that the state does not have the right to execute criminals.

I would imagine that a significant number of churchmen, and indeed a vast majority of the populous, prior to the mid-twentieth century would have allowed for executing someone who has committed treason. I would also imagine that preaching dissidence in Medieval Europe would have been viewed as treason. (This is not a real stretch, I can think of one case where speaking out against the state was punishable by torture and death in sixteenth century Holland.)

To the question, "When did the Church stop having the policy of rendering correct judgements on matters heretical?" Again, the answer is never.

To the question, "Should the Church, knowing the intentions of the state, render a correct verdict?" And I think that answer is very loaded and beyond the scope of your question.

On an interesting side note: it should be stated that the purpose of the inquisition, was not to kill heretics, but to save souls. Thomas Madden states the position:

  [t]he Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions... The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

The article goes on to reinforce this idea by pointing out:

  Madden argues that while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

This is remarkably far from the implicit accusations in the question. I'd dare say, this was the opposite.


Is it permissible for a Catholic to believe in Miaphysitism? The Chalcedonean Definition is the official Christology of the Catholic Church. It states that Christ is a single person with two natures: human and divine. These two natures are neither divided nor mixed.
The Oriental Orthodox Christological position is Miaphysitism. This states that Christ has a single nature, but that nature is both fully human and fully divine, with the human and divine elements being neither mixed with nor divided from each other.
Historically the Catholics have misunderstood miaphysitism as a form of monophysitism (Christ has a single nature which is either human or divine but not both) and the Oriental Orthodox have misunderstood Chalcedonean definition as being a form of Nestorianism (Christ was two persons).
In my analysis, both sides are going to great pains to ensure that Christ is fully human and fully divine. They both go about it in different ways, but both succeed in the goal, and so both are acceptable formulations
Recently the two sides have cooled off and the accusations of heresy against each other are not so strong. There have been moves by some to say that the dispute is just one of terminology, not substance. This includes joint statements signed by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II, but despite this, the Catholic and Oriental orthodox Churches have not officially declared themselves in communion with each other, so I am not sure if Miaphysitism is considered an acceptable Christological position by the Catholic church.
Personally I find Miaphysitism to be more coherent and intuitive than the Chalcedonean 2 natures definition. As a Catholic, am I permitted to believe Miaphysitism so long as I don't simultaneously deny Chalcedon? And if it is permitted, then why aren't the Oriental Orthodox churches in full communion with the Catholic Churches as the Eastern Orthodox churches are?
Related question: is this what the Eastern Catholic churches that have an Oriental Orthodox background do? Ie. Accept that the Chalcedonean definition is Orthodox, but go ahead and teach Miaphysitism anyway? (I'm thinking of the Ethiopian, Eritrean and Coptic Catholic churches for example)
edit:
I note that the wikipedia article for Miaphysitism says the following:

Historically, Chalcedonian Christians have considered Miaphysitism in
general to be amenable to an orthodox interpretation, but they have
nevertheless perceived the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox to be
a form of Monophysitism (single nature doctrine).

This seems to indicate that Chalcedonians are able to accept Miaphysitism, given an appropriate interpretation.

The short answer is that, correctly understood, Miaphysitism can be compatible with the Catholic Faith.
In order to see how this is so, it is important to understand carefully what Catholics understand by “Miaphysistism.”
This position refers to a formula attributed to St. Cyril of Alexandria, intended to defend the so-called “communion of properties” in Christ:

μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη
one nature (physis) of the Word of God made flesh (sesarkomene)

(Briefly, the doctrine of the communion of properties, or communicatio idiomatum, means that the properties or actions of Jesus that proceed from his Divine Nature may rightly be ascribed to him as man, and vice versa. For example, we may rightly say both that God died on the Cross, and that Jesus the man created the universe. This communion arises because of the hypostatic union, since all actions are ultimately ascribed to the hypostasis, not the nature. See also Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 466.)
It should be noted that St. Cyril (c. 376–444) made this formula before the Council of Chalcedon (451), and before the terminology carefully distinguishing “nature” (physis) and “Person” (hypostasis) had stabilized.*
Hence, if the term physis here corresponds roughly to the Chalcedonian concept of hypostasis, then this formula can certainly be interpreted in an orthodox manner.
The Magisterium, in fact, has solemnly affirmed that Cyril’s formula may still be used. In the Second Council of Constantinople, the following canon is found:

If someone confesses that a union of natures, divine and human, has taken place, or speaks of one incarnate human nature of the Word of God (μίαν πύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένην), but does not understand these formulations as in the teachings of the Holy Fathers, … let him be anathema” (Denzinger-Hünermann no. 429, my translation).

In referring to the “Holy Fathers,” the Council clearly means St. Cyril of Alexandria, who did not at all espouse a Eutychian or Apollinarian Monophysitism (both of which effectively deny the full humanity of Jesus).
If Miaphysitism is understood according to this precise formulation, then it is perfectly orthodox and sanctioned by the Magisterium (so long as we understand that the Council of Chalcedon used physis in a different manner).
Hence, one could say that the key difference between Miaphysitism (correctly understood) and Monophysitism is that, whereas the latter denies some aspect of Christ’s humanity, the former respects his full and perfect humanity.

* The terms physis and hypostasis come ultimately from Aristotle—although the Alexandrian fathers were highly influenced by Platonism—and, in philosophical terms, have roughly the same meaning. Therefore, exactly how these terms are employed in theology is conventional. Cyril was writing before physis came to signify that which answers the question “What is it?” and hypostasis came to signify the personal subject that answers the question “Who is it?”


Why does the (N)KJV put Jesus' name in all caps in Matthew 1:21 and Luke 1:31? It's only in the King James and the New King James, but why is Jesus' name in all caps?

  And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS:
  for he shall save his people from their sins.Matthew 1:21

  And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
  and shalt call his name JESUS. Luke 1:31

It isn't like this anywhere else in the Bible. The word in the Greek is the same as in other instances of the name. Why? And why only in the KJV?

I'm pretty sure this is just a typesetting decision---more akin to using quotation marks.
For example, when the Gospels say what was written on the sign above Jesus' cross, they tend to typeset the message in all caps:

And the superscription of His accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mk 15:26
And a superscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. - Lk 23:38
And set up over His head His accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS - Mt 27:37
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. -Jn 19:19-20

On the other hand, an identical construction occurs only a few verses before the Lk passage for John:

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

One other thing to consider, since Jesus' name is Semitic---and in Mark's case its meaning has bearing on the story ("for he will save his people from their sins")---it may be because it was in a different language (though of course, still written in the Greek script). The difficulty here is that the KJV doesn't capitalize transliteration elsewhere.


What was the first Spiritual Gifts Inventory book published or who was the first to use the method? Today there is a plethora of books using questionnaires or similar tools in order to identify what spiritual gifts a person might have. I am wondering who was the first using this methodology and/or what book was the first to be published using this approach.

(I am looking for the first book, not the "best" book or the "first good" book, nor am I currently wishing for answers about the benefits or drawbacks of the approach.)

Spiritual Gifts Inventory (SGI) is a type of material that is associated with the Church Growth Movement (CGM). It combines theology with sociological methodologies, including questionnaires, in this case for identifying Spiritual Gifts. All SGI materials are based on the assumption that gifts are given once and then remain with the bearer for life, a thought championed by Peter Wagner in his books about spiritual gifts. (A contrasting view can be found in the exegesis of James Dunn and Gordon Fee. Both interpret 1 Cor 12:7-11 as manifestations of the Spirit in the moment, based on many details in the text, including the fact that it is using the present tense for all verbs.)

The first SGI material that was published was SGI-McMinn in 1972. In order to avoid controversies it excluded gifts like tongues miracles and healing. Other popular tests that followed were:

SGI-WMHQ (1979).
SGI-L (1984), a modification of SGI-McMinn.
SGI-Gilbert (1986), the material presently being recommended by Church Growth Inc.

Source: Pochek, Robert (2011) Toward An Ecclesiocentric Model of Spiritual Gift Identification. http://digital.library.sbts.edu/handle/10392/3738 (+ Jesus and the Spirit, by James Dunn and God's Empowering Presence by Gordon Fee.)

Pochek has written a critical evaluation of the various SGI materials, and bases many of his arguments on the exegesis of Kenneth Berding. (See Berding, K. (2006). What are spiritual gifts? : rethinking the conventional view. Grand
Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.) But regardless of ones view on the gifts as such, Pochek seem to be a credible source to provide an authoritative answer to my specific question.


Why would God permit divorce because of Israel's "hardness of heart"? When questioned about divorce, Jesus refers to the Mosaic law and explains why God allowed divorce certificates in the first place.

  Mark 10:2-9 ESV And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

The certificate of divorce reference is, I'm assuming, from Deuteronomy 24.

This seems like an unusual thing for God to do: to explicitly allow something because of Israel's stubbornness. Certainly God hates divorce as much as other relational sins but he didn't tell Moses to give allowances for other things like fighting or idolatry.

Why would God permit a certificate of divorce because of Israel's stubbornness and not allow certificates for other wrongs? What makes divorce worthy of this? Is there additional context or statements regarding this in the bible?

The translation is not accurate. Original Greek says "is it lawful for a man to dismiss his wife?" Not divorce. The Pharisees would never ask "is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" as it is very clearly stated in Torah that it is (Deu. 24). Rather the question is about a man leaving his wife through separation alone. They ask Jesus why did Moses permit both divorce AND separation. Moses permitted separation, but Jesus reminded them that in separation you continue married and anything you do with another partner is considered adultery.
The greek word in question is apoluo ap-ol-oo'-o from Strong's G575 and G3089 meaning; to free fully, i.e. (literally) relieve, release, dismiss (reflexively, depart), or (figuratively) let die, pardon or (specially) divorce. It is used many times throughout the New Testament such as when Pilate wanted to APOLUO Jesus (Luk. 23:20), meaning let him go, not divorce him. Or Acts 28:18 when Paul is talking about being let go by the Romans, not divorced by them. Apoluo is referring to being separated from, while bill of divorce refers to a legal divorce of marriage. –


According to Roman Catholicism, what does "proceeds' mean in the Nicene Creed? The Nicene Creed says:

  We believe in one God,the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
        the only Son of God,
        begotten from the Father before all ages,
             God from God,
             Light from Light,
             true God from true God,
        begotten, not made;
        of the same essence as the Father.
        Through him all things were made.
        For us and for our salvation
             he came down from heaven;
             he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
             and was made human.
             He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
             he suffered and was buried.
             The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
             He ascended to heaven
             and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
             He will come again with glory
             to judge the living and the dead.
             His kingdom will never end.

  And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
        the Lord, the giver of life.
        He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
        and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
        He spoke through the prophets.
        We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
        We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
        We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
        and to life in the world to come. Amen.

I understand that there is one God, God almighty, and one God, the only son of God, and God is eternally begotten of God. And I understand that God became a man to do the will of God, and God was put to death to appease the anger of God, and now God sits at the right hand of God.

But what about God? It says God "proceeds" from God and God. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, proceeds means:

  Full Definition of proceed
  intransitive verb

  1:  to come forth from a source :  issue

  2 a:  to continue after a pause or interruption
  b:  to go on in an orderly regulated way

  3 a:  to begin and carry on an action, process, or movement
  b:  to be in the process of being accomplished

  4:  to move along a course :  advance

According to Roman Catholicism, what does "proceeds" mean?

Divine Procession
Fr. Hardon, S.J., gives a good definition of "divine procession:"

The origin of a divine person from another through the communication of the numerically one divine essence. There are two internal processions in the Trinity: the begetting of the Son from the Father, and the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. It is divine persons, not the divine nature, who are the subjects of the internal divine procession. The second divine person proceeds from the intellect of the first divine person by generation, and therefore is related to him as Son to a Father. The third divine person proceeds from the will or mutual love of the Father and the Son as from a single principle through spiration.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent on this part of the Creed

“Who Proceedeth from the Father and the Son”
With regard to the words immediately succeeding: who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, the faithful are to be taught that the Holy Ghost proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son, as from one principle. This truth is proposed for our belief by the Creed of the Church, from which no Christian may depart, and is confirmed by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures and of Councils.
Christ the Lord, speaking of the Holy Ghost, says: He shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine. (John 16:14). We also find that the Holy Ghost is sometimes called in Scripture the Spirit of Christ, sometimes, the Spirit of the Father; that He is one time said to be sent by the Father, another time, by the Son—all of which clearly signifies that He proceeds alike from the Father and the Son. He, says St. Paul, who has not the Spirit of Christ belongs not to him. (Rom. 8:9). In his Epistle to the Galatians he also calls the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Christ: God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father. (Gal. 4:6). In the Gospel of St. Matthew, He is called the Spirit of the Father: It is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you. (Matt. 10:20).
Our Lord said, at His Last Supper: When the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me. (John 15:26). On another occasion, that the Holy Ghost will be sent by the Father, He declares in these words: Whom the Father will send in my name. (John 14:26). Understanding these words to denote the procession of the Holy Ghost, we come to the inevitable conclusion that He proceeds from both Father and Son.
The above are the truths that should be taught with regard to the Person of the Holy Ghost.

The procession of the Holy Spirit
The procession of the Holy Spirit is one of the four relations in the Holy Trinity (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica I q. 28 a. 4).

paternity (the relation of the Father to the Son)

filiation (the relation of the Son to the Father)

active spiration of the Holy Spirit (the relation of the Father and the
Son in respect to the Holy Spirit)

passive spiration of the Holy Spirit (the relation of the Holy Spirit in
respect to the Father and the Son)

There are two processions in the Trinity:

Generation (the Son proceeding from the Father)
Procession (the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and from the Son)

Relations are depicted in green:

(original image source)
St. Thomas Aquinas describes the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son in his Compendium Theologiæ cap. 49:

We should recall that the act of understanding proceeds from the intellectual power of the mind. When the intellect actually understands, the object it understands is in it. The presence of the object known in the knower results from the intellectual power of the mind, and is its word, as we said above. Likewise, what is loved is in the lover, when it is actually loved. The fact that an object is actually loved, results from the lover’s power to love and from the lovable good as actually known. Accordingly the presence of the beloved object in the lover is brought about by two factors: the appetitive principle and the intelligible object as apprehended, that is, the word conceived about the lovable object. Therefore, since the Word in God who knows and loves Himself is the Son, and since He to whom the Word belongs is the Father of the Word, as is clear from our exposition, the necessary consequence is that the Holy Spirit, who pertains to the love whereby God is in Himself as beloved in lover, proceeds from the Father and the Son. And so we say in the Creed: “Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

For more information, see Fr. Gilles Emery, O.P.'s works on the Trinity, e.g., The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas ch. 5 "Relations" (p. 78 f.); cf. this answer.


Is having a collection greed? Is it greedy to have a collection of material possessions (e.g. comics, stamps, etc.) that are not needed?

Greed is a negative (wicked) state of the heart (mind) were collecting money is not governed by moral standards especially with regard to fellow human beings (a key element is the employment of deception, for example). Also, a greedy person is not inclined to donate any of their money for those in need. In Luke 11:39 it is stated "And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness".

There is nothing in the bible that indicates collection hobbies are greed (as long as no moral standards with regard to collection dealings are violated).


According to Preterism has Matthew 19:27-30 been fulfilled? If so, when? Mat 19:27  Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have
  forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?  Mat
  19:28  And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which
  have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in
  the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones,
  judging the twelve tribes of Israel.  Mat 19:29  And every one that
  hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother,
  or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an
  hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.  Mat 19:30  But many
  that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.

I haven't look at any full preterist sources, but partial preterists like the theologian John Gill take that this passage as fulfilled, so I suspect anyone who is preterist on this passage will agree to a large extent with following excerpts from John Gill's Exposition:

v28. And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, ...

in the regeneration

  not in the resurrection of the dead, or at the last judgment, but in this new state of things, which now began to appear with another face: for the apostles having a new commission to preach the Gospel to all the world

when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory,

  or glorious throne; as he did when he ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God

ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones: judging the twelve tribes of Israel;

  doctrinally and practically; by charging them with the sin of crucifying Christ, condemning them for their unbelief, and rejection of him, denouncing the wrath of God, and the heaviest judgments that should fall upon them, as a nation, for their sin; and by turning from them to the Gentiles, under which judgment they continue to this day.

v29. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake ...

shall receive an hundredfold,

  in this world; which may be understood either in spiritual things, the love of God, the presence of Christ, the comforts of the Holy Ghost, the communion of saints, and the joys and pleasures felt in the enjoyment of these things, being an hundred times more and better to them, than all they have left or lost for Christ's sake; or in temporal things, so in Mark it seems to be explained, that such shall now receive an hundred fold,

and shall inherit everlasting life

  The other evangelists add, "in the world to come", which is infinitely best of all; for this is an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, which fades not away, reserved in the heavens, when all other inheritances are corruptible, defiled, fading and perishing; houses fall, relations die, friends fail, and lands and estates do not continue for ever: they then have the best of it, who being called, in providence, to quit all terrene enjoyments for Christ's sake, are favoured with his presence here, and shall enjoy eternal glory and happiness with him in another world.


If you request and receive pastoral advice from a priest, are you culpable if the advice is wrong? I believe I remember reading a portion of some important document that indicated that the laity incur no culpability for sins committed at the direction of a priest and which the laity in question sincerely believed not to be sinful, provided that the behavior is corrected as soon as so directed by the Church, but I can't seem to find it so maybe I made it up or something :/

What does the Church teach regarding culpability on the part of a member of the laity acting in good conscience for complying prayerfully with incorrect moral direction from a priest?

Has the person who took the priest's advice (if it's wrong and leads the person to sin) committed a sin for which he may suffer in the next life?.

I'm definitely talking about the situation where the person doing it has no reason to think that the priest is acting in error.  This isn't about when you go to ten priests until one of them tells you it's okay to kill your ex-wife when you threaten his life, this is about when you're unsure about something and you go talk it out with your priest and you guys figure out a position that entails you taking some actions, but then it turns out that the position/actions were wrong because your priest was wrong.  What the action is is immaterial to the question unless your answer points out otherwise.

This question seems to be a variant on the question of whether ignorance excuses from sin. In this case: "Does ignorance that the priest's advice is conducive to sin excuse one from sinning by acting on his advice?"

St. Thomas answers the question of whether ignorance excuses from sin in his Summa Theologica I-II q. 76 a. 3 c.:

  Ignorance, by its very nature, renders the act which it causes involuntary. Now it has already been stated (Articles [1],2) that ignorance is said to cause the act which the contrary knowledge would have prevented; so that this act, if knowledge were to hand, would be contrary to the will, which is the meaning of the word involuntary. If, however, the knowledge, which is removed by ignorance, would not have prevented the act, on account of the inclination of the will thereto, the lack of this knowledge does not make that man unwilling, but not willing, as stated in Ethic. iii, 1: and such like ignorance which is not the cause of the sinful act, as already stated, since it does not make the act to be involuntary, does not excuse from sin. The same applies to any ignorance that does not cause, but follows or accompanies the sinful act.

  On the other hand, ignorance which is the cause of the act, since it makes it to be involuntary, of its very nature excuses from sin, because voluntariness is essential to sin. But it may fail to excuse altogether from sin, and this for two reasons:

  on the part of the thing itself which is not known. For ignorance excuses from sin, in so far as something is not known to be a sin. Now it may happen that a person ignores some circumstance of a sin, the knowledge of which circumstance would prevent him from sinning, whether it belong to the substance of the sin, or not; and nevertheless his knowledge is sufficient for him to be aware that the act is sinful; for instance, if a man strike someone, knowing that it is a man (which suffices for it to be sinful) and yet be ignorant of the fact that it is his father, (which is a circumstance constituting another species of sin); or, suppose that he is unaware that this man will defend himself and strike him back, and that if he had known this, he would not have struck him (which does not affect the sinfulness of the act). Wherefore, though this man sins through ignorance, yet he is not altogether excused, because, not withstanding, he has knowledge of the sin.
  this may happen on the part of the ignorance itself, because, to wit, this ignorance is voluntary, either directly, as when a man wishes of set purpose to be ignorant of certain things that he may sin the more freely; or indirectly, as when a man, through stress of work or other occupations, neglects to acquire the knowledge which would restrain him from sin. For such like negligence renders the ignorance itself voluntary and sinful, provided it be about matters one is bound and able to know. Consequently this ignorance does not altogether excuse from sin. If, however, the ignorance be such as to be entirely involuntary, either through being invincible, or through being of matters one is not bound to know, then such like ignorance excuses from sin altogether.

So, a person asking a priest who is known to permit or advise adultery, for example, is "as when a man wishes of set purpose to be ignorant of certain things"—e.g., of how a more faithful priest would advise him. This person would sin in following the unfaithful priest's advice.

But it is a different situation if the person learns what he can about his situation, consults several priests, etc., and acts on the lawful knowledge and advice he obtained from the priests.

Also,

  Acts 5:29: "We ought to obey God rather than men."

cf. St. Thomas Aquinas's question "Whether subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things?" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 104 a. 5)

Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Libertas:

  …where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God.

and his encyclical Diuturnum:

  The one only reason which men have for not obeying is when anything is demanded of them which is openly repugnant to the natural or the divine law, for it is equally unlawful to command to do anything in which the law of nature or the will of God is violated. If, therefore, it should happen to any one to be compelled to prefer one or the other, viz., to disregard either the commands of God or those of rulers, he must obey Jesus Christ, who commands us to "give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's," [Matt. 22:21.] and must reply courageously after the example of the Apostles: "We ought to obey God rather than men." [Acts 5:29] And yet there is no reason why those who so behave themselves should be accused of refusing obedience; for, if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, they themselves exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice; nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.

If one seriously does not know his priest's or other superior's command or "pastoral advice" is unlawful, "contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God," then the superior will be more at fault.


What does the Bible say about how we should pray? Context

In Matthew 6:7-15, we see Jesus

telling his disciples to not use vain repetitions as the heathens do
giving a specific example of how to pray

It's furthermore noted that prayer is a rather powerful technique given:

Jesus prayed right before his death Luke 22:39-46
some demons can only be removed via prayer Mark 9:29

I get the impression that prayer is something that:

was very important to Christ and his disciples
unfortunately, for some reason, not explained explicitly in the Bible (i.e. no 8-step prayer program)

There are other Biblical truths that are "hidden" -- like Trinity / TULIP -- they're in the Bible, but often times hard to see unless someone shows it to you. Prayer seems to be along these lines.

Question

Who were the most influential Church fathers on how we should pray? And what did they say about it? [Please cite resources.]

The subject of prayer during the reformation also took on a revised meaning.  The reference I think best illustrates this is John Owen’s Works Volume 4 - ‘A Discourse of The Work of The Holy Spirit in Prayer; With a Brief Inquiry into the Nature and Use of Mental Prayer and Forms.’
In this work Owen makes several key concepts, which to me, represent the ‘reformed view’ of prayer and opposed some previous traditional views that were seen as apostasy from the biblical view. The traditional views being rejected by Owen were any view that pretended of some ‘secret steps’ to prayer as possibly proposed by monkish institutions or ‘prayer books’ that sought to replace the personal need of prayer according to ones own peculiar situation.
In this work Owen argues the following basic tenants.
First Owen uses a prophecy in Zechariah to stress that prayer is a general work of the Holy Spirit in all believers. Not only so but it is a primary function of the Spirit in our lives and hence of our faith itself.

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. (NIV Zechariah 12:10)

He further establishes the root of his argument here:

Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.” (NIV Galatians 4:6)
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. (NIV Romans 8:26)

To reduce his many words into a summary, this lays the foundation of the reformed view, for basically as the Spirit is the Spirit of the ‘Son’ and of ‘supplication’, prayer is what binds us into communion with God by faith in Christ whereby we learn what to pray and how to pray and are enabled to do so with a Christ centered faith and power.
First of all without the Spirit we do not know what to pray.  Inwardly the Spirit desires that we conform to the image of Christ by faith, but we are not even aware of our own sins or needs, without the Spirit groaning for our deliverance with in us and manifesting our needs to us.
Secondly, the Spirit makes know to us how the atonement and work of Christ is able to provide an answer to what we need. As we learn what our needs are and bring them to God and the study of his word, the Spirit by faith in Christ opens up his word and assures us in particulars, according to our private needs, what God’s will is and that he is able to supply all our needs accordingly.
Third, the Spirit makes us feel as God’s children with ‘bold-free access’ to God. Children trust that their parents will help them and so frequently approach them with all their requests over and over. Often it is ‘hidden guilt’ that keeps us from coming to the throne of grace boldly, which explains our atheistic prayer-less life. This is actually unbelief and I have made a very very long post against the work of guilt and fear in our secret hearts here and is related to our desire to approach God by prayer.  With guilt we may be compelled to the duty of prayer but will never know what it is to pray in the Spirit, for that work will be a work of the flesh.
The end result of a reformed view of prayer is that it is entirely connected to our relationship with God.  Prayer takes the gospel, digests it and expresses the desire for God’s will and kingdom in our lives, in the desire, love and earnest seeking of his will for ourselves and our neighbors – it is our 'faith-pulse' even if we are barely ware of it.
The result of prayer, therefore, is that our whole state of faith depends on it, and if our faith is weak, we need quite time with God to strengthen it in order to do the more difficult matters such as the reference made to casting out a powerful demon, which the Apostles who were at the time weak in faith, we not able to do. This type of prayer, though extending into verbal public prayers as occasions will require, cannot be replaced by any supposed ‘secret method’, or published ‘prayer book’ but is the most intense, intimate and personal aspect of our relationship with God and his word.  Some of the best types of prayers, as illustrative examples, are those offered by the Apostle in some of his epistles.


What is the Biblical basis for a Heavenly Mother? We know that the Bible tells us of our Father in heaven, but is there any Biblical indication of a Mother in heaven?

Some non-mainstream churches say that there is a Mother in heaven. What is their Biblical basis for this belief?

In the Bible there are various mentions of goddesses and female idols worshipped by the pagan nations surrounding the Israelites—which, of course, are rejected as false gods.

By contrast, references to the God of the Israelites (which Christians see as the true God) are overwhelmingly male.

Still, there are a few passages scattered throughout the Bible that suggest or attribute to God female characteristics, including some that present God as a mother.

The first passage suggesting that God has female attributes occurs in the very first chapter of Genesis:

  So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

In saying that God created humankind male and female in the image of God, this passage suggests that both male and female reflect the nature of God. In other words, this passage suggests that God encompasses both male and female qualities and characteristics, and that we humans get both our maleness and our femaleness from corresponding attributes of God. We are not merely created male and female by God, but created male and female in God's image.

Next, from the Psalms:

  As the eyes of servants look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord our God, until he has mercy upon us. (Psalm 123:2)

Here God is compared both to a master (male) and a mistress (female), to which servants look.

Next, from the Prophets:

  For thus says the Lord: . . . As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem. (Isaiah 66:12–13)

Here the Lord speaks of being like a mother to the Israelites.

Next, from the Gospels:

  "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" (Matthew 23:37)

See also the parallel passage in Luke 13:34.

Here Jesus, speaking from the perspective of his eternal divine nature, compares his desire to care for Jerusalem to a hen gathering her chicks under her wings. This is a clear example of God presented as a mother to God's children.

And finally, a somewhat obscure and surprising one from the book of Revelation:

  And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the seven lampstands one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girt about the breasts with a golden girdle. (Revelation 1:12—13, italics added)

I am purposely using an old-fashioned translation (the Jubilee Bible) because it uses the word "breasts" rather than the now archaic word "paps" (meaning "nipples" or "breasts") used in the King James Version, or the word "chest" used in many modern translations.

The Greek word is μαστός (mastos). While this word can be used to mean a man's nipples, it is the usual Greek word for a woman's breasts. See, for example, Luke 11:27; 23:29.

There are more ordinary Greek words for "chest" that could have been used in Revelation 1:13.

One of them is κόλπος (kolpos), traditionally translated "bosom."

But the obvious word to use would be στῆθος (stēthos), traditionally translated "breast" (in the archaic sense of "chest"), and in modern translations as "chest." This, in fact, is the word used in a very similar passage later in Revelation:

  After this I looked, and the temple of the tent of witness in heaven was opened, and out of the temple came the seven angels with the seven plagues, robed in pure bright linen, with golden sashes across their chests. (Revelation 15:5-6, italics added)

The fact that in describing the figure of Christ in the vision the writer of Revelation did not use the more obvious and common word for "chest" that he used later in the very same book to describe the placement of sashes worn by angels, but instead used the word for the female breast or the male nipple, suggests that the figure of Christ in the vision conveyed to the person who saw and recorded it a sense of motherly nurturing and care, similar to Jesus' earlier image of God's care for Jerusalem as being like a hen gathering her chicks under her wings.

Conclusion

This is not an exhaustive list of female and motherly images of God in the Bible. A quick Internet search will turn up various lists of them. But these five examples should be enough to show that although God is overwhelmingly presented as a male figure in the Bible, there are places where the Bible speaks of God as being motherly, and having other female attributes.


Is there any Biblical argument against using "cuss words"? Possible Duplicate:
  What does the Bible say about “bad” words?

In modern Christianity, we tend to hold a certain set of (approximately) four letter words as taboo words.  In Ephesians, Paul writes:

  Ephesians 4:29 (NASB)
  29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.

Most of these taboo words have unwholesome roots, but have now been overloaded with non-unwholesome definitions, so that in everyday dialect, they are not typically used with any unwholesome meaning.

Is there any Biblical or cultural[1] argument against using cuss words[2]?

[1] A cultural argument is an argument based on the cultural context in which the Bible was written, or perhaps an extra Biblical source describing a view point held by the very early church.

[2] I mean cuss words in the most general sense - obviously the definition of which words are cuss words varies between cultures/languages.

Preface: This is one of those questions that deals with personal convictions and preferences rather than a clear-cut Biblical statement.  This actually came up not too long ago when our Pastor was preaching a sermon on the difference between the three.

A Biblical statement is simple.  The Bible says "Thou shalt" or "thou shalt not". (Example: Theft - thou shalt not steal)

A Conviction (in his definition) is a position on a subject based on overwhelming Scriptural support, but no direct statement from Scripture.  (not watching unwholesome movies based on "I shall set no evil thing before my eyes")

A preference is simply something we prefer.  (short hair on men, wearing a tie to Church)

Often the line between conviction and preference is blurry.  Many preferences can be loosely based on Scriptural understanding, and some convictions are based more on personal belief than the Word.

That said, I think the rest of this answer falls in that line between the two.

The Bible doesn't directly address "swear words" as we use the term.  When the Bible has the word "swear", it is usually a translation of a word meaning "take an oath".

However, the Bible DOES say that what we say is important for many reasons.  To list just the first two:

The words we use can hurt others.
The words that come out of our mouth reveal the condition of our heart and spirit.

Using just the second principle, if we are cursing, it's a sure sign that our spirit it not where it needs to be.

There's an entire sermon on the subject online here.

The relevant Bible section is James 3:1-11 (KJV)

  My brethren, if any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man,
  able also to bridle the whole body.

  Behold, we put bits in the horses’ mouths, that they may obey us; and
  we turn about their whole body.

  Behold also the ships, which though they be so great, and are driven
  of fierce winds, yet are they turned about with a very small helm,
  whithersoever the pilot listeth.

  Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things.
  Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!

  And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity:  so is the tongue among
  our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the
  course of nature; and it is set on fire of Gehenna.

  Every kind of beasts, birds, things of the sea, is tamed ... But the
  tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.

  With it we bless God, even the Father; and with it we curse men, which
  are made after the similitude of God.

  Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing.  My brethren,
  these things ought not so to be.

  Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?

  Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olives?  Or a vine, figs? so can
  no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

Also, Matthew 15:18-20 (KJV)

  But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the
  heart; and they defile the man.

  For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,
  fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

  These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen
  hands defileth not a man.

For me, the final test comes down to "what is the frame of mind I must be in if I'm saying this particular word/phrase".

There is no situation where a loving heart shouts or mutters things like "what the ########  are you doing, you ########.  Learn to drive the ######## car!"

In any sentence where I can consider using what we would call "swear" words, I need to be either angry, disrespectful, reacting to a sudden injury or fright, or a combination of the above.

In none of those situations am I being "godly" or "Christ-like" which should be the goal of every Christian.


In what countries is Christianity banned? I am doing a history day project and ours is on the rights and responsibilities and we wanted to know in what countries is Christianity banned and for what reason.

There's a list by WWL
http://www.worldwatchlist.us/world-watch-list-countries/

Extreme persecution:

North Korea
Saudi Arabia
Afghanistan
Iraq
Somalia
Maldives
Mali
Iran
Yemen
Eritrea
Syria
Sudan
Nigeria


The calling and experience of Ministry But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
Galatians 1:15 and 16, KJV

Paul, in developing his argument to the Galatian churches, expresses his own, personal, calling and experience. He stresses this in order to support his own standing with the churches - first, his calling and second his experience.
What do modern Protestant, Trinitarian, evangelical churches expect of their leaders. Do they expect such a ministry ? Are they gathered by such a ministry ?
And from whom do they expect to be taught what is the gospel and who is Christ ? Do they expect, and are they gathered, by such called and experienced persons ?
And, what are the names, today, now, of such persons who are leaders of Protestant, Trinitarian, evangelical churches ? Who are they ?
Paul says he is separated.
Paul says he is called.
Paul says that God has 'revealed' his own Son 'in' Paul.
Who, today, in Protestant, Trinitarian, evangelicalism supports their standing in the churches by such expressions as Paul uses to the Galatian churches in the first century ?

There is no difficulty in identifying godly men during past centuries, men who were called and who taught the gospel without apology or excuse.  Their ministry was blessed by God.  For example:

Martin Luther – 1483 to 1546

John Calvin – 1509 to 1564

John Bunyan – 1628 to 1688

Jonathan Edwards – 1703 to 1758

John Newton – 1725 to 1807

George Whitfield – 1714 to 1770

William Huntington – 1745 to 1813

Charles Spurgeon – 1834 to 1892

During the 1900’s, revival came to Wales, Scotland and England.  We may not know the names or even the identity of those ministers who brought the gospel into those godless corners of the United Kingdom, but we do know that God blessed them and that many came to saving faith.  For example:

  Overflow of the Welsh Revival in the 1920’s - Characteristics of the 1921 Revival.

  Praise. Services were characterized by joyful singing (Edwards p 142.) The men sang on the boats. The sound of hymn singing could be heard as the boats were coming home then those on the shore and those in the boats would sing together.
  Spontaneity. Services consisted of praise, prayer, testimony, preaching and appeal.  Services went on for hours and were spontaneous, not organized.
  Preaching. People would be weeping over their lost condition in the singing before the preaching began. The preaching focused on the message of the cross and the new birth. “Our need and God’s deed” they called it.
  Prayer. The revival was preceded in every place by fervent prayer – sometimes for years.  At the tiny village of Whinnyfold in Aberdeenshire prayer for revival had been going on since 1900.  In Cairnbulg there was a 6.60-9.30am prayer meeting every Sunday. Edwards p 126. At Peterhead there was a 6.30am prayer meeting every Sunday. Prayer caused expectancy to rise.
  Unity. There was a tremendous unity between church leaders and churches. Jock Troup and Douglas Brown would stand together in the pulpit in Lowestoft praying and weeping together.
  Lives Transformed. Whole crews were converted and lives totally transformed. God also came on those already saved and changed them. David Cordiner was a very quiet lad, converted at 13 before this time. He felt God now called him to preach. All his friends and family told him he couldn’t do it but God set him free to preach powerfully night after night.  Source: http://www.oasischurchperth.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Scottish-Revivals-1905-and-1921.pdf

  Revival in the Hebrides on the island of Lewis (December 1949) - The revival in Lewis is the last (most recent) move of God in the British Isles where "God came down" in transforming power.  In November 1949 two old women, one of them 84 years of age and the other 82 - one of them stone blind, were greatly burdened because of the appalling state of their own parish.  It was true that not a single young person attended public worship. Not a single young man or young woman went to the church. Those two women were greatly concerned and they made it a special matter of prayer.  Their prayers were answered in a most powerful way. Source: https://www.christianstogether.net/Articles/94936/Christians_Together_in/Christian_Life/Revival_in_the.aspx

Personally, I can only think of one Trinitarian, Protestant and Evangelical minister who fits the description of a man called by God, to whom Christ revealed himself and whose experience testifies to that calling.  He was the minister at the U.K. Baptist Church where I was led by God’s Spirit, and under whose ministry I became a Christian and, through God’s grace, came to saving faith.  He would not thank me for naming him.  Suffice to say he came out of those Welsh valleys that saw revival in the early 1900’s.  We could do with a few more like him, is all I can say.  Sadly, he has now retired.


How does a biblical literalist interpret the tale of David and Goliath? Affable Geek's answer to What does it mean to interpret the Bible literally? mentioned the possibility of non-literalists interpreting the story of David and Goliath as a "tale that grew in the telling."  This reminded me of something I read many years ago in a Bible commentary.

It mentioned that several odd discrepancies exist in the details surrounding the story of David and Goliath, making it appear as if another story had been clumsily inserted into the middle of the text by some scribe. Unfortunately, the book was borrowed and I no longer have it, and I don't remember all the points that were made, but the one I remember clearly, because it was so blatant, was how David, once he volunteered to fight Goliath as Israel's champion, was introduced to King Saul as if for the first time, even though he had been serving in the King's court as a musician for quite some time prior to this.

Of course a literalist must necessarily reject this idea that the story is full of later interpolations.  How would one account for the apparent discrepancies in the story of David and Goliath, then?

When I was a literalist, I believe my take was simply that the text does not demand that it was chronological (and having studied Hebrew since, one does have to admit that the use of the word "wa" similarly does not demand chronology, only some form of relationship between the two). So, if the narrative is taken as,

16 Saul needs a musician and is told about David.
17 is a story about how David and Saul first met.
18 continues from 16.

This actually does make some sense: how would the servants of the king have known of the harp abilities of a shepherd from Bethlehem unless they had some relationship with the boy already?

Addendum:

This position is supported with this article on creation which (while overall supporting an old earth mentality) does make one comment that is on topic here:

  in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.


What term is used to mean a prophetic message has a present and future application? I am looking for the term that describes prophecy as both present and future in meaning.

The term you're looking for is dual fulfillment. The best known example is the prophecy in Isaiah 7, which is taken by many Christians to refer both to an event contemporary with the prophecy, and to the birth of Jesus many centuries later.


What does the Bible say about giving worship to a created being? Is there any biblical basis to support the view that God, through Michael the Archangel, commanded all the angels to worship Adam?  Why would God ask the angels to worship a created human?  Doesn’t the Bible say to worship God alone?

This question arises as a result of a recent question: What is an overview of explanations for why fallen angels are motivated to attack Christians?  According to Protestantism, why are fallen angels motivated to attack Christians?

One answer quotes from a source which says: “Michael went out and called all the angels saying: 'Worship the image of God as the Lord God hath commanded.' And Michael himself worshipped first; then he called me and said: 'Worship the image of God the Lord.' And I answered, 'I have no (need) to worship Adam.' And since Michael kept urging me to worship, I said to him, 'Why dost thou urge me? I will not worship an inferior and younger being (than I). I am his senior in the Creation, before he was made was I already made. It is his duty to worship me.'”  (1913 English translation of the Latin version of the Life of Adam and Eve chapters 12-16, section xiv)

Another source here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/759-adam-book-of

When challenged by the Jewish scribes as to which was the most important commandment, Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’” (Mark 12:28-30) Jesus’ answer was based on the ‘Shema’ in Deuteronomy 6:4.

Yet God the creator commanded the created angels to worship a created human, Adam?  I realise there are various apocryphal sources that support this view but what does the Bible say about giving worship to a created being?

For example, if it is unbiblical to worship a created being (whether an angel or a human), then why does Hebrews 1:6 quote from Psalm 97:7 and say that all God's angels are to worship Christ Jesus, the Son of God?  Surely this must prove that Christ Jesus, the Son of God, was never a created angel?

The source you are quoting is "The Life of Adam and Eve", which is a Jewish Apocryphal writing. This means that it is not accepted as authoritative by either Christians or Jews. There is widespread agreement that it was composed in the first century after Christ, and thus not in any way contemporary with Biblical creation accounts.

In actual biblical writings, and even in non-biblical widely-accepted writings, there is no indication that God commanded angels to worship Adam. Doing so would go against the will of God expressed in many places in the Bible that God himself is the only being worthy of worship. You quote some of the key passages in the question, but there are plenty of others, such as Luke 4:8.

The Christian response to this dilemma is simple - the account in The Life of Adam and Eve is incorrect. No Christian group that I am aware of treats it as anything other than a man-made fictional story.


What do "Templar" and "Soldiers of Christ" mean? I have been hearing a lot about Templars in movies such as Ironclad and games like Assassin's Creed. I did a quick look up on Google about "Templars" and still haven't got any clue on what is it about.

Who are the Templars? What does Soldier of Christ mean? How are the Templars linked to Soldiers of Christ? And are all Christians soldiers of Christ?

The official name of the Knights Templar is "Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon".  So the "Soldiers of Christ" you mention is probably just another name for the same group.

Wikipedia has an excellent article on the Knights Templar.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar

A biblical reference to us being soldiers of Christ is in 2 Timothy 2.  I believe here we are being told to try to please Christ rather than others.

  2 Timothy 2:3-4 NIV (emphasis mine)
  3 Join with me in suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 4 No
  one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but
  rather tries to please his commanding officer.


Does St. Thomas Aquinas think idolatry is the main cause of homosexuality? Is idolatry the main cause of homosexuality according to St. Thomas Aquinas?

How does he  interpret Romans 1:24-25:

  Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart [because they "worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (v. 25)], unto uncleanness: to dishonor their own bodies among themselves

?

St. Thomas Aquinas treats the causality of homosexuality in his exegesis of Romans 1:24, cap. 1 l. 7:

139. But since impurity of this kind is a sin, it seems that God would not give men over to it: God himself tempts no one to evil (Jas 1:13).
The answer is that God does not give men over to impurity directly, as though inclining a man's affection toward evil, because God ordains all things to himself: the Lord has made everything for himself (Prov 16:4), whereas something is sinful through its turning from him. But he gives men over to sin indirectly, inasmuch as he justly withdraws the grace through which men are kept from sinning, just as a person would be said to cause another to fall, if he removed the ladder supporting him. In this way, one's first sin is a cause of the next, which is at the same time a punishment for the first one.
To understand this it should be noted that one sin can be the cause of another directly or indirectly: directly, inasmuch as from one sin he is inclined to another in any of three ways. In one way, when it acts as a final cause; for example, when someone from greed or envy is incited to commit murder. Second, when it acts as a material cause, as gluttony leads to lust by administering the material. Third, when it acts as a moving cause, as when many repetitions of the same sin produce a habit inclining a person to repeat the sin.
Indirectly, when the first sin merits the exclusion of grace, so that once it is removed, a man falls into another sin. In this way the first sin is the cause of the second indirectly or incidentally, inasmuch as it removes the preventative.

(translation from: Larcher, Fabian R., trans. Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans, ed. John Mortensen and Enrique Alarcón, with parallel Latin and the Greek text of the epistle. Lander, Wyo.: The Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012. pp. 47-8)

"God does not give men over to impurity directly, as though inclining a man's affection toward evil."In other words: He, the Author of nature, does not put same-sex attraction, which is the result of sin, in human nature.
Aquinas is saying that "one's first sin" (in this case: idolatry, turning away from God, "worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator") "is a cause of the next" (in this case: homosexuality, "uncleanness," "dishonoring their own bodies among themselves").