What is the purpose of Prayer? We are having a lovely discussion in chat about the purpose and efficacy of prayer.

I am of the opinion that God has a plan and the future is completely set. However I also believe that you should pray for what you need and that God will answer your prayer.

What scripture forms the basis for our prayers and how do we rationalize praying when the outcome is set?

This is an awfully big question, but here are what I think are the key points from scripture:

Prayer is more than just asking for things.  Tom Duckering's answer does a good job outlining this, but to gloss it again, prayer is communication with God which involves both talking to God and listening to him.  As our primary form of communication with God, it reinforces in us our relationship with him in all its forms.
Prayer does include asking for specific outcomes.  There are far too many examples to ignore: Abraham conversing with God over Sodom and Gomorrah, David pleading for Bathsheba's son, Hannah praying for a child, even Jesus praying that the cup be taken from him.  God wants us to ask for things, even though he doesn't always give us what we ask for.
(Here's where it gets a bit controversial) God can and does "change his mind"†.  My favorite example of this is Exodus 32, the story of the Golden Calf. Briefly, God tells Moses he is going to destroy the Israelites, but relents when Moses pleads with him not to. This is the classic definition of intercession: Moses stands between Israel and God and intervenes on their behalf.

This seems counter-intuitive, but God makes it quite clear that he wants people to intercede with him.  See Ezekiel 22:30:

  I looked for someone among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found no one. (Ezekiel 22:30 NIV)

This verse makes explicit what lots of stories in the Old Testament imply: God actively seeks people who will intercede with him.  So in the story of Golden Calf, it seems quite likely that God went to Moses hoping that Moses would react the way that he did.  Why?  Because as long as Moses was faithful there was still hope for Israel, and the rest of the story bears this out as Moses goes down to the camp and restores order.

The important point here is that God does not change, we do.  If Moses responds with apathy, then Israel is lost and the best that God can do is show his righteous wrath by destroying them.  But because Moses responds with prayer, God can take the better path of using Moses to lead them back to him.

What about times when we intercede but we have no actual control over the situation, like praying for healing?  Our prayers affect what God does because our involvement changes the picture from God's perspective.  If we are indifferent and don't bother praying, then what he does will not have any great effect on us.  But if we are deeply involved in prayer, then our hearts are on the line.  If God comes through, we will be affected and we will give the glory to God.  Our prayers, then, factor into God's decision of what he will do, and maybe, just maybe, our involvement will be enough to tip the balance.

If none of this made any sense, here's at least a great C. S. Lewis quote on the topic:

  "Praying for particular things," said I, "always seems to me like
  advising God how to run the world. Wouldn't it be wiser to assume
  that He knows best?"

  "On the same principle", said he, "I suppose you
  never ask a man next to you to pass the salt, because God knows best
  whether you ought to have salt or not. And I suppose you never take an
  umbrella, because God knows whether you ought to be wet or dry."

  "That's quite different," I protested.

  "I don't see why," said he. "The odd thing is that He should let us influence the course of events
  at all. But since he lets us do it in one way I don't see why He
  shouldn't let us do it in the other."

  (C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock)

† God "changes his mind" perhaps only from our perspective inside of time.  God actually seems to exist outside of time entirely, and so perceives all points in time simultaneously.  It's hard to understand this without time words, but before (a time word!) the creation of the world God sees everything that will happen, and writes his entire plan around what he knows that we will do.


Looking for a Catholic Arabic bible I'm trying to track down an Arabic bible which contains all the books, rather than the 66 book protestant canon.

I'm finding this hard to do. There are many Arabic translations out there but often it isn't clear whether they contain the deuterocanonicals or not.

Please guide me to a Catholic Arabic translation? Ideally purchasable online in Hardcover.

(The Sharif bible keeps coming across my radar and looks appealing and affordable: does it contain all the books?)

First of all, there are several Bibles in Arabic available online at www.archive.org. As I do not know Arabic, you might need to check whether they include the Deuterocanonical books or not.

According to Wikipedia, there has been three versions of the bible in Arabic done by Catholics. The first one, in 1671, published in Rome. I doubt this is sold online anywhere.

The second was done by the Jesuits of Lebanon/Beirut in 1880. A reprint was made later on. The publisher's website is here. But actually, you can buy that bible from the Bible Society in Lebanon, here (source of this suggestion here).

Finally, albeit not Catholic, the Bible Society published in 1992 the "Today's Arabic Version with Deuterocanonicals". Some shops that sell it are listed here (albeit the page is old).  It might be the same as this one, but you might want to ask.

I am surprised of the very few translations available!


What are the major differences between the NKJV and the ESV translations? I have read both the New King James version and the English Standard version. I have noticed very trivial differences between the two. What, if any, are the major differences between the NKJV and the ESV?

The New King James version is meant to be an update (circa 1975) of the vocabulary and grammar of the King James Version, while preserving the classic style and literary beauty of the original 1611 KJV version. 130 translators used the original King James version as well as Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts including the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The translators have sought to follow the principles of translation used in the original King James Version, which the NKJV revisers call "complete equivalence" in contrast to "dynamic equivalence" used by many other modern translations. The task of updating the English of the KJV involved significant changes in word order, grammar, vocabulary, and spelling. One of the most significant features of the NKJV was its abandonment of the historic second person pronouns “thou”, "thee", “ye”, “thy”, and “thine”. Verb forms were also modernized in the NKJV (for example, "speaks" rather than "speaketh").

The English Standard Version (ESV) of 2001 is a revision of the of the 1971 Revised Standard Version, which traces it's origins to William Tyndale's New Testament translation of 1525 (the first English translation of a Bible from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, which was also a significant influence on the original KJV).  Work on the ESV began over the perceived looseness of style and content of recently published English Bible translations. Many alterations designed to correct or improve the text were made to satisfy the objections of conservative Protestants who had considered the RSV to be theologically liberal, for example, changing the translation of the Hebrew almah from "young woman" (used in the RSV) to "virgin" (in the ESV) in Isaiah 7:14. The language was modernized to remove "thou" and "thee" and replace obsolete words (e.g., "jug" for "cruse").

Relative Differences: the biggest practical difference that I can see is that the ESV is newer. The RSV, upon which the ESV is based, was primarily a project to update the Bible to the English language of the current time (mid-20th century) as an improvement over the old KJV.  By the time the ESV was published the New King James Version -- which also had as its goal to modernize the language -- had been published twenty years earlier.  It seems to me (a Catholic who primarily uses the Challoner revision to the Douay-Rheims and the Latin Vulgate) that the both the ESV and NKJV are projects which in their history are based on the same work (Tyndale's Bible) with the same general goals (modernized language) and which have both achieved this goal with negligible qualitative differences.


What was the early-Christendom position on attributing pagan names to Christian concepts (mainly god)? Was there opposition to doing this? In the ancient times, the newly-converted European cultures naturally reused their native "pagan" words to refer to some of the newly-acquired Christian concepts, rather then re-inventing the wheel. Were there, in the history of Early-Christianity, conservative priests or people who were opposed to such naming, mainly in the case of Latin people naming the Christian God "Deus" (which once had a "pagan" sense), by calling such thing an "heresy", "idolatry", "paganism", etc?

Other cases are Latin "Inferno" and Greek "Hades", formerly Roman and Greek mythology concepts, that came to refer to the Christian hell in the Latin and Greek languages, respectively (but I think those cases might be not as heretic as attributing the name of pagan god(s) to God). How strongly was this objected to?

Even as early as apostolic times, there was use of the Greek word "theos" to speak about God, with no recorded opposition:

Paul stood up at the Areopagus and said:
"You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious. For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, 'To an Unknown God.'
What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all that is in it, the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands ...
(Acts 17:22–24, NABRE)

That being the case it would be surprising to discover that subsequent Christians had any objections to the practice.


According to the Catholic Church, is a marriage consummated if the couple had premarital sex? A valid Catholic marriage can be dissolved if it has not been consummated (if the couple has not had sex after marriage, with some additional rules). This is generally determined to be the case if the couple has not lived together.

Assuming a couple is known to have had sex / lived together at some point before marriage (fornication in Canon Law terms), but not after, would the marriage be considered to have been consummated? Or could it be dissolved on a ratum sed not consummatum basis?

Quite simply, in order for a marriage to be consummated, it must first exist. Sexual activity between two unmarried people does not somehow "carry over" after they marry each other. Their activity is the sin of fornication:

Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality, which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2353)

A sinful activity has no relation to an activity which is not only not a sin, but part of the purpose of a state ordained by God.
The difference is that marriage involves a total giving of each spouse to each:

"Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter—appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility."
(Catechism paragraph 1643. The quote is from Pope St. John Paul II's apostolic exhortation "Familiaris Consortio".)

Sex without marriage is not the full mutual giving that marriage demands; it's a different kind of activity than sex in marriage—no matter what the intentions of the participants are at the time. Thus, only sexual activity undertaken after marriage can be considered a consummation of the marriage, and then only a certain kind:

A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum if it has not been consummated: it is called ratum et consummatum if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring.... by which the spouses become one flesh.
(Code of Canon Law, Canon 1061 section 1)


Should Catholics in a state of grace call themselves sinners? The Bible says our righteousness is a filthy rag(works) it also says we are the righteous of God in Christ Jesus. As a Catholic at a state of grace is it right to still call myself a sinner when I have been justified by grace taking upon me Jesus Christ righteous?

Being in a state of grace is defined as:

  Condition of a person who is free from mortal sin and pleasing to God. It is the state of being in God's friendship and the necessary condition of the soul at death in order to attain heaven.

However, the Catechism makes a distinction between sins as mortal or venial so it is possible to be in a state of grace (free from mortal sin) while still being a sinner (having committed venial sins). Indeed, the Catechism refers to one who has committed venial sin(s) but not mortal sins as a "sinner" despite being in a state of grace (emphasis added):

  1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."

One could perhaps claim to be not a sinner just after having received absolution (so that you are free from mortal and venial sin), but even so the Catechism uses the word "sinner" to refer to a person who has just received absolution (emphasis added):

  Satisfaction

  1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must "make satisfaction for" or "expiate" his sins. This satisfaction is also called "penance."

The Catechism could easily refer to the "sinner" who "must still recover his full spiritual health" as, for example, a "penitent", yet it nonetheless continues to refer to the person as a "sinner".

Therefore, I would still call myself a sinner even if I'm in a state of grace. Even if one has recently received absolution from confession, in honesty and humility it is probably not long before one commits another venial sin and can no longer claim to be free of all sin.


What is the biblical basis for the logical Problem of Evil? From the Wikipedia article on the subject:

  The problem of evil refers to the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with an omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent God (see theism).
  …

  The problem of evil is often formulated in two forms: the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil.

  …

  Originating with Greek philosopher Epicurus, the logical argument from evil is as follows:

  If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not.
  There is evil in the world.
  Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

My question is, what is the biblical basis that such a logical problem exists?  More specifically, what is the biblical basis that God has unlimited power, has  the capacity to know everything that there is to know, and has unlimited or infinite good will or disposition to do good?

Edit: I had hoped for answers that would have taken a more holistic view of the Bible (that is, that these attributes are always with God and have always been with God).

If a verse states is that God is Omnipotent and  maintains the universe in its order, then how and why does God rest? (cf. Genesis 2:2–3)
If a verse states that God is Omniscient, then why does God ask men questions? (cf. Genesis 3:9, 11, 13; Genesis 4:6, 10; Acts 9:4) or why does God change his mind? (cf. Amos 7:6)
If a verse states God is Omnibenevolent, then why does God have evil plans or do evil things? (cf. Jeremiah 26:13; Jonah 3:9–10; 1 Chronicles 21:15)

Note: this is not asking for a discussion of how to answer or defend against the problem of evil such as these questions:

How to answer "Why do evil and suffering exist?"

How can we defend our faith against the "Argument from Evil" or "Problem of Evil"?

The following question is different because: (1) does not contain all three requirements of my question and (2) is only bounded by the general understanding of the term and not by the philosopher's meaning of the terms as framed by their question.

What is the biblical evidence for God's omnipotence and omniscience?

Good evening,  I have broken your question down and cited the relevant scriptural response.

What is the biblical basis that such a logical problem exists?

The bible acknowledges that the world is currently under the power of the evil one thus raising the question of why is evil granted any power?:

  19 We know that we are God’s children, and that the whole world lies under the power of the evil one. 1 John 5:19

More specifically, what is the biblical basis that God has unlimited power?

  Psalm 147:4-5
  He determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names. Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.

What is the biblical basis that God has the capacity to know everything that there is to know?

  1 John 3:20
  For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

  Psalm 147:5
  Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.

  Isaiah 40:28
  Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.

What is the biblical basis that God has unlimited or infinite good will or disposition to do good?

  Job 34:10
  ‘Therefore, hear me, you who have sense,
      far be it from God that he should do wickedness,
      and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.

  “The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He," (Deut. 32:4).

  "Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst not look on wickedness with favor," (Hab. 1:13).


Was Billy Sunday the first evangelist to equate the "altar call" with salvation? According to this article from the The Society for Effective Evangelism:

  Up until Billy Sunday, altar calls were invitations for seekers to come to an after-meeting or inquiry room where counselors would help people understand their heart condition. These ministers worked in concert with the Holy Spirit to help seekers repent and yield to God, and to pray that God would save them. Someone was saved only when they were born again—when the Holy Spirit came into them. Conversion and being born again meant the same thing.

Of course, I've been to many Christian events that feature altar calls and even more where the speaker simply asks non-Christians to "pray the Sinner's Prayer" with them.  I assumed the practice went back at least to Revivalists such as Charles Finney, but according the the article, evangelists before Sunday provided individual counseling before telling people they were saved.

Is there any evidence the practice of "salvation by altar call" is older than Sunday?

The altar call predates Billy Sunday, though possibly not by that name.

Charles Finney pioneered many evangelistic methods in the 1820s and 1830s, including what he called the "anxious seat" or "anxious bench", where sinners could come forward to receive instruction and counseling.

William and Catherine Booth, founders of the Salvation Army, used similar techniques—although they renamed the "anxious seat" to the "mercy seat". Like Finney, the Booths considered the altar call to be just the first step toward salvation.

  Sometimes people would stay there all night, and on a few occasions, even a few days, weeping and confessing their sins with broken hearts. There were always some who would stay right there to instruct them further, encouraging them to make a clean sweep of sin from their lives.

Dwight Moody began having altar calls after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 killed more than 300 people and destroyed Moody's church building, just after he had preached about repentance.

  Moody asked his congregation to evaluate their relationships to Christ and return next week to make their decisions for Him. That crowd never regathered. While Sankey was singing a closing song, the din of fire trucks and church bells scattered them forever, for Chicago was on fire. The Y.M.C.A. building, church, and parsonage were all to be lost in the next 24 hours.

After the fire Moody vowed never to delay in asking his listeners to make a decision for Christ. Moody, however, stressed that the altar call itself did not bring about salvation.

  It is not our work to make them believe. That is the work of the Spirit … I cannot convert men; I can only proclaim the Gospel.

However, by insisting that they make an immediate decision, Moody began to blur the line. At least one reporter understands Moody's methods to imply a connection between the altar call and salvation.

  Moody was quick to point out that only the Spirit awakens sinners, and the individual’s trip to the altar is simply a sign marking one’s salvation.

So it's fair to say that no preacher prior to Billy Sunday explicitly equated the altar call with salvation, but it's possible that the "immediate decision" that Dwight Moody asked of his listeners could have been understood that way.


Do we have any more information on Jesus's Sisters? Matthew 13:55

  “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and
  aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his
  sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

Mark 6:3

  Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,a
  Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?”

There are at least two references to Jesus's sisters in the gospels of Matthew and Mark, and although his brothers are referenced by name, and we know quite a bit about James, his sisters are not named at all. Is there any surviving information about who they were? Is there any other texts or traditions about them?

As you rightly say, the sisters are not named in the Bible which means we have to look to other sources for this information. I think it's fair to say that overall we don't know for certain, but different churches have developed different teachings and traditions on this subject.

The Roman Catholic Church teach that the word "sisters" is used purely figuratively. They believe that Mary remained a virgin until her death, so Jesus had no full brothers or sisters (but possibly some half-siblings - children of Joseph with another partner).

The Eastern Orthodox Apostolic Tradition teaches that Jesus had a single (half-) sister called Salome and that it was she, not Mary, that was the mother of James and John. They also teach that Joseph had two sons, Jude and another James. They believe that Joseph's first wife died and he was 60-80 years old when he married Mary, having had these three children with his first wife.

Other denominations tend to take the usage of "sisters" at face value and believe that Jesus had more than one sister. The Bible refers to "all his sisters"; in English that would imply at least three (otherwise it would say "both his sisters" or "his sister") but the Greek word that's translated to "all" can mean two or more. Richard Bauckham, a Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of St. Andrews, tells us that...

  Later Christian literature gives the names Mary and Salome to sisters
  of Jesus. These names were extremely common Jewish women's names within
  Palestine, but Salome seems not to have been used in the Jewish
  diaspora. There is therefore some probability that the tradition of
  these two names goes back to Palestinian Jewish Christian tradition,
  and so it may be a reliable tradition.

However that "may be" is about as reliable as we can get.

Bauckham's essay The Relatives of Jesus makes for good further reading on this subject; it is well referenced and covers a wide range of viewpoints, including the Catholic and Orthodox ones I've mentioned above.


What did the Trent lack with regard to Immaculate Conception that Ineffabilis Deus did not? I've often heard it alleged that 'the Immaculate Conception wasn't a dogma until Pius IX defined it in 1854.' However, I can't reconcile this with what the dogmatic Council of Trent already declared 300 years prior.

Namely,

  If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam [lost original righeousness]  ... ... let him be anathema.
  If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity ... ... let him be anathema.
  If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,—which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own,— is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ ... ... let him be anathema.
  If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam ... ... let him be anathema.
  If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted ... ... let him be anathema.

  This same holy Synod doth nevertheless declare, that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the mother of God; but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV., of happy memory, are to be observed, under the pains contained in the said constitutions, which it renews.

  —Council of Trent, Session V, First Decree, On Original Sin.

  ...

  CANON 23 — If any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial, —except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

  ...

  —Council of Trent, Session VI, On Justification.

Question

If this was already dogma per Trent's decree, why did Pope Pius IX define it with an extra-ordinary definition?

Pope Pius IX wrote in Ineffabilis Deus explicitly:

  Besides, we must note a fact of the greatest importance indeed. Even the Council of Trent itself, when it promulgated the dogmatic decree concerning original sin, following the testimonies of the Sacred Scriptures, of the Holy Fathers and of the renowned Council, decreed and defined that all men are born infected by original sin; nevertheless, it solemnly declared that it had no intention of including the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, in this decree and in the general extension of its definition. Indeed, considering the times and circumstances, the Fathers of Trent sufficiently intimated by this declaration that the Blessed Virgin Mary was free from the original stain; and thus they clearly signified that nothing could be reasonably cited from the Sacred Scriptures, from Tradition, or from the authority of the Fathers, which would in any way be opposed to so great a prerogative of the Blessed Virgin.[12]

  [...]

  Sess. V, Can. 6; Denz. n. 792. Declarat tamen haec ipsa sancta Synodus, non esse suae intentionis, comprehendere in hoc decreto, ubi de peccato originali agitur, beatam et immaculatam Virginem Mariam Dei genitricem, sed observandas esse constitutiones felicis recordationis Sixti Papae IV, sub poenis in eis constitutionibus contentis, quas innovat.

So he explicitly mentions the first quote in the question (the latin text in the footnote is the last paragraoh of your quote), but that did not make him think he should not write the encyclica.

When you look closely at Trent's Decree you see that they only say that they make no definitions on Virgin Mary. They know the title Immaculata and agree with it, but they do not make an exact definition about this. Historically speaking the Council of Trent wanted to condemn the teachings of the protestants, but did not want to restart (and then end) the discussion about the Immaculate Conception of the Middle Ages.

The Council never said "If any one denies the Immaculate Conception let him be anathema." and also never explained what the concept of Immaculate Conception means in detail. Both did Pope Pius IX. His encyclica displays the Council as if it would have said everything before, because a dogma is a teaching that was ever-believed by the church and he wants to prove this. But he knew that there was some work to do left, so he did it.

Making something to an dogma means (ideally) that a faith the church had through all times is exactly defined. This can for example be needed because of an attack on this faith from inside or outside the church. Pope Pius IX has done exactly this with Ineffabilis Deus.


What specifically is in the Pentateuch that later writers could not have known? I have heard people say that the Five Books of Moses had to be divine and written 3-4 thousand years ago because there is content in it that later writers (a la Documentary Hypothesis) simply could not have known. I'm unsure what specifically that includes. Perhaps some details of culture of Bronze Age Ur or Egypt. Could it have been written by ordinary scribes in the Iron Age, or are there actually specific details that could have only been known at one point in time?

To head off non-constructive debate in comments, bear in mind that whether these are convincing arguments is off-topic for the site.  That sort of thing belongs in chat.

If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to the medical knowledge implicit in some of the Mosaic law.  The standard Apologetic argument goes that long before modern medical knowledge, God gave Laws relating to cleanliness and avoiding disease and other scientific knowledge that was well ahead of its time.

An example is found at bibleevidences.com

Sample:

  Sanitary Practices

  For centuries doctors denied the possibility that disease could be
  transmitted by invisible agents. However, in the late 19th century
  Louis Pasteur demonstrated in his Germ Theory of Disease that most
  infectious diseases were caused by microorganisms originating from
  outside the body. This new understanding of germs and their means of
  transmission led to improved sanitary standards that resulted in an
  enormous drop in the mortality rate. Yet these core principles of
  sanitation were being practiced by the Israelites thousands of years
  earlier.

  The Israelites were instructed to wash themselves and their clothes in
  running water if they had a bodily discharge, if they came in contact
  with another person's discharge, or if they had touched a dead human
  or animal carcass. They were also instructed to wash any uncovered
  vessels that were in the vicinity of a dead body, and if a dead
  carcass touched a vessel it was to be destroyed. Items recovered
  during war were also to be purified through either fire or running
  water. In addition, the Israelites were instructed to bury their human
  waste outside of camp, and to burn the waste of their animals (See
  Numbers 19:3-22, Lev. 11:1-47; 15:1-33, Deut 23:12).

  Circumcision and Blood Clotting

  For centuries scholars must have been perplexed by God's law of
  circumcision which required the procedure to be performed on the 8th
  day after birth (Gen 17:12, 21:14, Lev 12:3, Luke 2:21). Medical
  researchers recently discovered that the two main blood clotting
  factors, Vitamin K and Prothrombim, reach their highest level in life,
  about 110% of normal, on the 8th day after birth. These blood clotting
  agents facilitate rapid healing and greatly reduce the chance of
  infection. You can verify with any Obstetrician that the 8th day of
  life is the ideal time for a circumcision, and that any circumcision
  done earlier requires an injection of Vitamin K supplement.

If you move beyond the Pentateuch and into other Old Testament books, there are other scientific statements that don't match up with the beliefs of Pagan societies at the time.

  The Earth and Space

  The earth's shape is perhaps the most important to deal with first
  since many critics claim that the Bible portrays the earth as flat.
  This couldn't be farther from the truth and in my opinion is one of
  the most vaporous arguments used by skeptics against the Bible. There
  is not a single passage that plainly states that the earth is flat1.
  The groundswell of this criticism gets its roots from the inaccurate
  but common belief among many that the ancients on up through the
  middle ages believed that the earth was flat. The truth is, virtually
  all learned people have known for the last 2500 years that the earth
  is spherical [please see footnote 2].

  Before the learned ancients surmised that the earth was spherical, the
  divinely inspired Isaiah wrote "It is He who sits above the circle of
  the earth...(Isaiah 40:22)". In addition, from the Book of Job we have
  "He stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the earth on
  nothing (Job 26:7)". It should be noted that just last century
  scientists believed space consisted of a hypothetical substance called
  Ether (not the chemical), which was the medium between the celestial
  bodies.  Also, the pagans of that time believed in such things as a
  mythical Atlas character who supported the pillars that held heaven
  and earth apart, and later carried the earth around on his shoulders.
  Another interesting tidbit that illuminates the divine nature of Job
  26:7 is the recent discovery of a huge hole in space in the direction
  of the northern hemisphere3.

and...

  The Hydrologic Cycle

  The circulation and conservation of earth's water is called the
  hydrologic cycle, which is accurately portrayed in several passages of
  the Bible, including the following: "For He draws up drops of water,
  which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and
  pour abundantly on man. (Job 36:27-28)" . Centuries after the Book of
  Job was written, Aristotle demonstrated only a vague understanding of
  this process. Though he recognized that rain came from clouds, he
  incorrectly postulated that air turned into water and vice versa.

There are more, and the site I linked to covers them in more depth, as does this site.  Putting them all here would be counter-productive (and plagiarism) so I'll stop there.


Does believing in Jesus Christ save me, or do I have to do something more? James 2:17 says that faith is not enough. Does that apply to salvation? Is belief (or faith) in Jesus Christ enough to be saved, or is one expected to act on that faith? If works are required for salvation, what is the threshold of that action. Does this threshold vary by denomination?

This question cuts to the core of an apparent conflict between the teachings of James and Paul. Here's some of the relevant scripture:

James 2:17-18, 24 (NIV)

  17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by
  action, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have
  deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith
  by my deeds. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what
  they do and not by faith alone.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)

  8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is
  not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no
  one can boast.

On the surface, it seems that James states that it is works, not faith that is the ultimate source of imparted righteousness. while Paul clearly states that works are useless and only through faith is righteousness and salvation attained.

The key is to put these writings in their proper context.

Paul in many of his writings is addressing Jewish Christians, those who came from a fairly orthodox religious background. Orthodox Judaism is highly legalistic and works-oriented, believing that salvation is achieved through strict adherence to the law. When Paul is talking about "works", he is referring to the legalistic code of Old Testament laws that continued to be a stumbling block to early Jewish Christians. And he is clear that adherence to the law is not a path to salvation. Only faith in Jesus Christ, who fulfilled the OT law with His death and resurrection, leads to salvation. Jesus' freed us from the bondage of sin as laid out in the law.

James on the other hand is addressing a different audience... he is addressing Christians who have faith in Christ and yet have taken their freedom from the law to the extreme. They are claiming that because of their faith in Jesus Christ, they have no need of any law and can behave any way they wish without fear for their salvation for their faith is sufficient.

Jesus clear on the matter of how we should live lives of faith:

John 15:5 (NIV)

  5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in
  you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

Christ dwells in us through the Holy Spirit, and the "fruit" of the Spirit is "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance" (Galatians 5:22-23). These fruits are "works", not works that garner righteousness or salvation, but works that grow properly out of a life strongly rooted in faith.

And so you see there is no conflict between Paul and James. Paul is teaching legalistic Christians that salvation is only achieved through faith, while James is teaching Christians who use their faith to justify living sinful lives.

The proper life of faith (living branches of Christ's vine) will naturally tend towards good works (bearing fruit) and that if you don't see these works, you have to question whether their faith is authentic.


When did we begin to exist? When did we begin to exist? I suppose there are really only two options:

We were created before we were born (our spirits existed in some state similar to our state after death, without a body)
Our spirits were created at the time of conception or birth (I'm not interested in a discussion about whether it was conception or birth; that can be another question)

It's clear that God formed our bodies in our mothers' wombs.

  Job 31:15 NIV

  Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one
  form us both within our mothers?

  Isaiah 44:24

  “This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the
  womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the
  heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself,

  Psalm 139:13

  For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s
  womb.

There really is no more scripture other then this one mention of God knowing us prior to our earthly state. Here is the one mention.

  Jeremiah 1:5

  “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I
  set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

This mention could easily be interpreted that God is not limited by time, thus could very well have known exactly how He wanted to create you.

I would say that it boils down to this. God created mankind on earth, thus He created their souls at the same time.

  Isaiah 45:12

  It is I who made the earth and created mankind on it. My own hands
  stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.


How do Calvinists interpret 2 Peter 1:10? Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. - 2 Peter 1:10 (ESV)

This seems to suggest that we have some level of influence over whether we finally end up among the elect, and that idea is contradictory to the Calvinist teaching of Unconditional Election. So how do Calvinists interpret 2 Peter 1:10?

Calvinists from Calvin to the present day have interpreted this verse as relating to man's assurance, not God's will.

John Calvin specifically responds to those who say this verse implies that the "stability of our calling and election depends on good works," saying:

  [P]urity of life is not improperly called the evidence and proof of election, by which the faithful may not only testify to others that they are the children of God, but also confirm themselves in this confidence, in such a manner, however, that they fix their solid foundation on something else.1

That is, good living can be correctly called proof of election, in that it is a testimony to others and to oneself of one's election, but this does not imply that good living is the foundation of election.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown argue that God's steadfast will needs no assurance, but man does, and good works provide it: "There is no uncertainty on His part, but on ours the only security is our faith in His promise and the fruits of the Spirit."2

Louis Berkof likewise uses this verse as evidence that "believers can in this life attain to the assurance of salvation."3 Similarly, John Frame cites this verse and says,

  Calling is a gracious act of God, but it inevitably produces good works in the believer, works that demonstrate that one is in fact called.4

Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles
Jamieson, et al. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4.11.C
Frame, Systematic Theology, p940


Did the cross permanently affect the intra-trinitarian relationship? I have heard a religious definition of death as separation from God. This makes the death of Christ--God himself--a matter of incomprehensible existential crisis. Adding to this the imputation of sin on the Son, and the wrath of the Father poured out on him, it makes me wonder if this event does not affect the relationship of the members of the trinity in some permanent way. Is there any evidence of this in scripture?

Phillippians 2 says that because of Jesus' death, God the Father exalted Jesus. As 2:9 specifically says (and note the therefore):

  Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
      and gave him the name that is above every name,
   that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
      in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

This theme is picked up by Athanasius, in De Incarnacione. His soteriology says our redemption was a gift that the Father gave the Son for his willingness to go through this separation. It's probably my favorite theory of how salvation works. The idea is that being God, both God the Father and God the Son already had everything. But out of an abundance of love, God the Father gave God the Son the opportunity to redeem that which was lost.


Did God kill the first borns in Exodus, according to Jehovah's Witnesses? Two Jehovah's Witnesses were here yesterday, and we talked for a while about religion. We mentioned briefly God's killing of all the first born in Egypt in Exodus 12:29, whereupon one of the Witnesses said that it wasn't God who killed them. Not having a Bible close by, I just said I must misremember, and we started talking about something else.

Now, upon rereading Exodus 12:29 I think it's pretty clear that "the Lord" killed the first born. Is there some alternative interpretation of this, that this Lord is entirely separate from God? I'm confused, because the Witnesses otherwise seemed to have great knowledge of the Bible. What am I missing?

Who do Jehovah Witnesses believe killed the first-borns in Exodus 12?

Jehovah's Witness have a particular affinity for "Jehovah" as the proper name of God.  One of the issues they often point out is that "the LORD," which translates the Tetragrammaton YHVH, is a Jewish superstition that hass somehow corrupted and dishonored the one of whom it speaks.

In [their understanding]  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_beliefs) of the Godhood (which is assuredly non-Chalcedonian, and non-Trinitarian), YHVH is a very different character from the more mainstream perspective. In their understanding, God is a force, albeit an approachable one, rather than a person.  (Note: In this perspective, Jesus as the son of God is not God, but rather a god or godlike being.)

Between these two things, I suspect that the issue of disagreement was less one of "what actually happened," than of one of terminology - or perhaps the nature of God in this instance.  The Biblical narrative (which many JW's reject as being corrupt, preferring instead their own NWT) indicates that Jehovah (whom Trinitarians view as God the Father) was in fact the one doing it. Exodus 11 states:

  And Moses went on to say: “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘About midnight I am going out into the midst of Egypt,  (New World Translation)

  Moses said, “Thus says the LORD: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt" (NET Bible)

The question then, is what their understanding of "the LORD" is.  From their perspective, it's not God - that is Jehovah. From a Chalcedonian perspective, however, it is a distinction without a difference.


What is the importance of Leviticus 19:19? Leviticus 19:19 states

  "'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

What is the importance of including these rules? I know some of the dietary laws of the Old Testament are there for practical reasons, such as preventing disease. Is there a similar practical explanation for the inclusion of these laws? Or perhaps a more symbolic reason for their inclusion?

I notice this verse is mention in the question here, but I am not asking should we or should we not follow such rules, but rather why such laws are present.

The point was to give a concrete definition of "holiness" - namely that God was "set apart," i.e. holy, and God wanted his people to be "set apart" from the other nations.

These vestigal practices mainly were a symbol of a greater concept - that as God's chosen people, they were to be different / separate from everyone else.

The opposite of holiness is syncretism - mixing in religious practices from outside Israel into the worship of YHWH.  He would often say of himself "I am a jealous God." He would not share his glory with any other.


Could there have been a pragmatic purpose for the OT legal dietary restrictions? Were swine prone to transmit disease in the conditions around the time of Moses? This consideration and similar are what I'm interested in.

Please answer only if you have a clear and solid source to back up the scientific foundation of your claims, wikipedia being okay for this purpose.

UPDATE:
To clarify what I mean by dietary restrictions, due some of the discussions that followed:
I do not mean ritual cleanliness, but rather the diet itself, i.e. ruminates, fish, locust.

As I have mentioned in the comments a complete answer can not be expected, but if someone has studied this subject, they will still find an open slot for an accepted answer.

Your title and question are very different, so I will respond based on the title.

You may find this article very interesting:

http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d040402.htm

Basically, there is no hygienic reason for these dietary rules, as, if a clean animal died on its own and you ate it, then you must wash your clothing and be unclean until evening. (Leviticus 11:40)

So, would it make sense that you had some disease, but once the sun set you were now healthy?

There is nothing to imply that this was for health reason, but for ritual reasons, and perhaps to help the Jews to understand that they were not like other groups, and by following a different diet they could set themselves apart.

There is also Leviticus 11:35, where the rule is that if an unclean food was ever used on that oven or stove is now unclean and must be destroyed, as it will always be unclean.

If this was for health reasons, it could be scoured, disinfected with bleach, but if you are following these restrictions then you must take apart the oven or stove, regardless.

http://bible.cc/leviticus/11-35.htm

  Everything, moreover, on which part of their carcass may fall becomes
  unclean; an oven or a stove shall be smashed; they are unclean and
  shall continue as unclean to you

If you feel you must follow these dietary restrictions, then you must follow all of them, including never use a used stove/oven, for example, as is found in James 2:10 (http://bible.cc/james/2-10.htm)

  For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is
  guilty of breaking all of it.


Did John know Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God during Jesus's baptism? We see that in John 1:31, John the Baptist said that he did not know Jesus. Some Bible commentators have said that what this meant was that John did not know Jesus was the Messiah.
However, we see in Matthew 3:14, John tried to prevent Jesus from being baptized by him because Jesus needed no repentance. Jesus had no sins to repent. So does that mean that John knew Jesus was the Messiah or not? Did John believe Jesus was perfect or not?

The idea behind John 1:31 when John says I knew Messiah/Jesus not is in the same sense as before in John 1:26.

John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

In other words, they knew of the forerunner (John the Baptist), but not the person of whom he was "forerunning".
Recall Jesus said to His mother about working miracles; not before My time.  We saw Jesus at age 12 asking questions, but nothing is recorded about Him being Messiah until His baptism when the Spirit descended, clarifying He was of the Melchizedek priesthood.

And I [John] knew him [Messiah] not: but he [God] that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

Regarding Matthew 3:14, it appears to be a reference to when Mary came to visit Elizabeth as recorded in Luke 1.

And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
Luke 1:43-44

When Jesus is about age 30 and John is about 30 1/2, Jesus again comes to John and it is apparent that John "knew" intuitively that Jesus was Messiah at that point.  John baptizes Jesus, the Spirit descends, and confirmation of what John had been foretold did happen.
So, from the bookends of the womb to pre-baptism, John would not in-between know Jesus was Messiah.  At His baptism, John would fully know, though doubt might enter later.
At the same time, John would know the role, function, detail of Messiah of whom he was "clearing the way".  Messiah would be perfect.


How do Catholics respond to claims that Christianity was paganised by the Roman Empire? The Catholic Encyclopaedia seems to suggest that the Church chose this day because it was the day of the Roman celebration: Dies Natalis Solis Invicti — the birthday of Sol Invictus, (the God of the unconquered sun) — which coincided with the Roman winter solstice.

Another source mentions Saturnalia.

  Researchers believe the Roman Catholic Church settled on Dec. 25 for many reasons, such as that date's ties to the winter solstice and Saturnalia, a festival dedicated to the Roman deity Saturn.

Linking Jesus to the Sun was supported by various Biblical passages. Jesus was considered to be the "Sun of righteousness" prophesied by Malachi 4:2

  Unto you shall the sun of righteousness arise, and healing is in his wings.

and apparently, Jesus' birth could actually have been on March 28th.

  An anonymous work known as De Pascha Computus (243) linked the idea that creation began at the spring equinox, on March 25, with the conception or birth (the word nascor can mean either) of Jesus on March 28, the day of the creation of the sun in the Genesis account. One translation reads: "O the splendid and divine providence of the Lord, that on that day, the very day, on which the sun was made, March 28, a Wednesday, Christ should be born.

How do Catholics respond to claims that Christianity was paganised by the Roman Empire?

Let's set the stage by reviewing how Catholic Answers (a popular Catholic apologist website) answers the claim: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-to-answer-the-charge-catholicism-is-pagan .  In the article Mr. Karl Keating (founder and senior fellow of Catholic Answer) proposes that the presence of what used to be heathen / pagan elements were introduced to the church as inculturation, a strategy defended by many popes as late as Pope St. John Paul II.  Probably aware of where the criticism came from, Mr. Keating also pointed out how the same inculturation process is happening within the Protestant churches as well.  In both cases, the Christian faith itself is not compromised.

What's uncontroversial was how local churches underground having no legal status within the Roman Empire until the Edict of Milan (313 AD) having to tolerate pagan worship with "state sponsored" rich festivals, sculptures, temples, rituals, etc.  Money simply poured in mostly from rich senatorial members as well as local town leaders.  But in the first centuries following Constantine (reigning 306-324) until the Justinian (reigning 527-565), the now legal Church started to win state protection and preferential treatment in the major cities until paganism became irrelevant and relegated to the countryside by the end of Justinian rule.  I recommend https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/fall-of-the-pagans-and-the-origins-of-medieval-christianity.html to learn about the details.

Imagine you are the Emperor, also having the title Pontifex Maximus, the chief high priest of the Roman religion, having power to distribute offices to all institutions related to religion.  Shortly after Constantine you'll have to treat both religions equal before the law and you have to manage powerful senators and city leaders across your empire politically so they keep giving you support.  Remember how your predecessors have used emperor sponsorship of temples as your political base throughout the empire.  At the same time, you want to promote Christianity by directing money to the building of churches, most notably the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.  When there are communities where the Christians slowly had the upper hand over the pagans you would support breaking down the temples and literally use the marbles and stones to construct a church, or you support architectural renovation to convert the structure into a church.

Now imagine you are a typical bishop between 306-565 leading your local diocese, given more funding and legal rights to do more in winning converts to Christianity.  Most of your target audience would be pagans.  How would you win them over?  You basically have to fuse Judeo + Early Christian approach to God (heavy in morality but very few sanctioned rituals like baptism, communion, marriage) with Pagan approach (no morality but heavy in rituals).  Two completely different spiritualities: one is expressed through justice, works of mercy, and legal standing before God, the other is expressed through doing the right rituals so NOT to offend the gods (otherwise calamities will fall on you, which is why Christians were persecuted in the first place, because of FEAR that enemies will destroy Rome, which is why the early Christian apologists were busy defending the Christians in not worshiping those idols).  But in morals you are free to do whatever you like otherwise; you have your option of Stoic, Epicurean, Platonic philosophies for your moral code.  As bishop you have to transition your pagan audience to be faithful morally and spiritually to the one God Jesus.

Then imagine you are a missionary TODAY being sent to Korea / Japan where there are STILL entrenched shaman practices and their shrines.  I was told how Samsung executives TODAY have to participate in company sponsored sea-side rituals led by shaman to offer sacrifices and prayers to some gods for blessing for Samsung, with some minority Christians having to either excuse themselves or participate with their fingers crossed offering prayer to the Christian God for forgiveness for participating because they cannot afford to be fired from the job.

So as bishop how would you wean both the Roman pagans of the 4-6th centuries and the Korean+Japanese "heathens" of today from their emotional, intellectual, and superstitious attachments to elements of their paganism, so entrenched in their survival and existential instincts so you could achieve enduring non-disruptive conversion to the Christian faith?  That would be the proper context to evaluate the inculturation strategy which of course in the modern West today is completely irrelevant (but WARNING: there is a rise of those old elements coming back under different names: interest in magic like Harry Potter, new age, etc.)   So why not CO-OPT the popular festivals into celebrating Jesus instead?

For more details, I suggest reviewing the work of a Roman Catholic priest, later appointed as history professor at St. Thomas College in Minnesota, offered a post as professor of reformation history at the University of Notre Dame, and awarded the title of monsignor, Mgr. Philip Hughes, who wrote the popular and very readable "A History of the Church to the Eve of the Reformation (first published in 1936, revised 1976) in 3 Volumes.  The first volume (-711) is the most relevant, with these chapters heavily address paganism:

Chapter 1. The World in which the Church was Founded.  Chapter Sections: The Roman Imperial Unity, The Pagan Religions of the Romano-Hellenistic Culture, The Religion of the Jews, Tendencies in the Religious World of the First Century A.D.
Chapter 3. The First Contacts with the Pagan Religious World.  Chapter Sections: The Religious World of the Second Century, The First Apologists, The Gnostics and the Church, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Marcion -- Montanism
Chapter 6. The Church and the Pagan Roman Empire.  Chapter Sections: The State -- Hostile and Tolerant, The State -- De-Paganised

I hope the Catholic references above will show that it's not that Christianity was paganised by the Roman empire, but instead it's a top down inculturation strategy implemented over a few centuries to win over converts and eventually knocking out the underlying pagan referents from the festivals, rituals and symbols.  It's like baptism and incarnation: the old is still there, but the core killed and replaced by a new life nurtured by the Holy Spirit in the service of the true God.

St. Thomas Aquinas of the 13th century will do the same in the intellectual sphere, baptizing the newly rediscovered Aristotle into the service of Catholic theology for many centuries to come.  Many Protestants would similarly protest (until today!) that there are too much Greek philosophical elements smuggled into Catholic theology, but in the end, is it really damaging to the spiritual Christian core?  How about enlightenment ideas smuggled into Protestant theologies and increasingly secular Western nations today?


What is the "fideism" rejected by the Catholic Church? In philosophy, fideism seems to be used as a label to refer to epistemological approaches that tend to prioritize faith over reason.  And this makes sense; after all, "fideism" is just Latin for "faith-ism."

In the context of Catholic theology, fideism is a bad thing.  John Paul II warned against "a resurgence of fideism" (Fides et ratio) and Pius X links it to modernism in Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

But it turns out that "fideism" is actually a very vague term, particularly so because it is frequently used pejoratively by opponents of certain belief systems.  One person might be accused of fideism for believing that reason alone cannot demonstrate God's existence, while another might be accused of it for believing that reason alone cannot change a sinner's heart.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy gets to the heart of it:

  Fideism claims that truths of a certain kind can be grasped only by foregoing rational inquiry and relying solely on faith. [source, emphasis added]

Using this language, my question is: What are the "truths of a certain kind" found in the fideism rejected by the Catholic Church?

Put another way: According to Catholicism, in what matters is it legitimate to prioritize faith over reason?  For example, consider doctrines like:

the nature of the Trinity
The immaculate conception of Mary
The virgin birth of Jesus Christ
The descent of Jesus into Hades after his crucifixion
The real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist

Are these doctrines thought to be discernible exclusively or primarily through reason?  Or do they find their primary support in one's faith in the Scriptures and Tradition?

How does the Catholic Church define the fideism that it rejects?

I am particularly interested in direct quotes from papal encyclicals and official documents of the Vatican, particularly post-Vatican II.

Problematic fideism in Catholicism occurs when faith is exalted at the expense of reason. That is, when faith involves or requires irrationality. Doctrines such as the Trinity are beyond reason and accessible only to faith, but they do not entail a transgression of reason.  This can also occur in a lesser mode when appeals to faith downplay or undermine the role of reason.  For example, John Paul II warns against privileging faith in scripture over the rationality of tradition and the Magisterium:

  There are also signs of a resurgence of fideism, which fails to recognize the importance of rational knowledge and philosophical discourse for the understanding of faith, indeed for the very possibility of belief in God. One currently widespread symptom of this fideistic tendency is a “biblicism” which tends to make the reading and exegesis of Sacred Scripture the sole criterion of truth. In consequence, the word of God is identified with Sacred Scripture alone, thus eliminating the doctrine of the Church which the Second Vatican Council stressed quite specifically. Having recalled that the word of God is present in both Scripture and Tradition,73 the Constitution Dei Verbum continues emphatically: “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture comprise a single sacred deposit of the word of God entrusted to the Church. Embracing this deposit and united with their pastors, the People of God remain always faithful to the teaching of the Apostles”.74 Scripture, therefore, is not the Church's sole point of reference. The “supreme rule of her faith” 75 derives from the unity which the Spirit has created between Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church in a reciprocity which means that none of the three can survive without the others.76

  Fides et Ratio, 55

John Paul II goes some way towards defining fideism when he quotes Dei Filius of the First Vatican Council.  As noted above, problematic fideism is not the belief in the superiority of faith, but rather the belief that there can be a true divergence between faith and reason which results in a contradiction between the truths of faith and the truths of reason:

  “Even if faith is superior to reason there can never be a true divergence between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals the mysteries and bestows the gift of faith has also placed in the human spirit the light of reason. This God could not deny himself, nor could the truth ever contradict the truth”.65

  Fides et Ratio, 53


Are Catholics prohibited from getting their body tattooed? I once heard a preacher stating that there are instructions in the Old Testament which prohibit the faithful from getting their body tattooed. I wish to know whether there are any teachings from the side of Catholic Church explicitly warning  its members against tattooes .

Are Catholics prohibited from getting their body tattooed?
There is no official Catholic condemnation against getting tattoos. I know some priests who have tattoos! The whole idea of getting tattoos is to say the least very discouraged by the Church.
If the Church forbids us from mutilating our bodies, does this mean that getting a tattoo is against the teachings of the Catholic Church?

First of all, the Church has not made any kind of formal decision on the matter of tattoos. There is some Biblical evidence on this, for example, a passage in Leviticus that says:
"You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord" (Lev. 19:28).
Yet, it seems that this prohibition was present so as to avoid the people of Israel from following the pagan mourning practices of the Canannites. Moreover, these Old Testament ritualistic laws are not binding on Christians.
The Church does say that we should avoid practices that mutilate or damage our body, as you can see in no. 2296 of the Catechism.

The question of tattoos was on the mind of at least one pope. Pope Hadrian I forbade the usage of tattoos on one's body in 787 AD.

In 787 AD, Pope Hadrian banned tattooing. It still thrived in Britain until the Norman Invasion of 1066. The Normans disdained tattooing. It disappeared from Western culture from the 12th to the 16th centuries. - A Brief History of Tattoos

Nevertheless there were a few exception from this ban of tattoos by Pope Hadrian I.

Christian tattooing rarely enters the written record but when it does, it does so in interesting ways. Pope Hadrian I, in 787 AD, banned tattooing (since it was associated with heathen practices) but there was an exemption for religious tattoos since they would “bring spiritual rewards.”
In the Medieval period, mentions of tattoos become more numerous including clerics (such as Dominican priest and German mystic Heinrich Suso (1295-1366) who tattooed the name of Jesus over his heart). - Christian Tattooing

Why did British sailors get the Crucifixion scene tattoo on their backs.

European sailors were known to tattoo the crucifixion on their backs to prevent flogging (since it was a crime to deface an image of Christ). - A Brief History of Tattoos

Here is a sample of a genuinely Catholic tattoo from Seven Types of Christian Tattoos.
I also know of some World War II marines (Catholics and non-Catholics alike) who got their dog tag numbers tattooed to their torsos or major portions of their limbs, for identification reasons in combat situations.

Why two dog tags are issued to soldiers?]9 The dog tag tattoo makes a third and permanent dog tag and often indicates the religious affiliations of soldiers.

Dog tag is an informal but common term for a specific type of identification tag worn by military personnel. The tags' primary use is for the identification of casualties; as such, they have information about the personnel written on them, and convey essential basic medical information such as their blood type and history of inoculations. They often indicate religious preference as well.
A pair of blank dog tags on a ball chain
Dog tags are usually fabricated from a corrosion-resistant metal. They commonly contain two copies of the information, either in the form of a single tag that can be broken in half, or as two identical tags on the same chain. This purposeful duplication allows one tag, or half-tag, to be collected from a personnel's dead body for notification, while the duplicate remains with the corpse if the conditions of battle prevent it from being immediately recovered. The term arose and became popular because of the tags' resemblance to animal registration tags.


How can one "buy" oil and "buy" gold, garments, and eye salve if these things can only attained by grace? From the account of the 10 virgins in Matthew 25, and from the exhortation to the Laodicean Church in Revelation 3:14-22,  What is meant by the instruction to "buy" oil, gold, garments and eye salve? It is my understanding that these all represent items that cannot be purchased by man, but instead were already purchased by Christ's death on the cross and given to man upon acceptance of His sacrifice?

Matthew 25:1-9 (NASB):

  “Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were prudent. 3 For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, 4 but the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps. Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep. 6 But at midnight there was a shout, ‘Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish said to the prudent, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ But the prudent answered, ‘No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.’”

Revelation 3:14-22:

  “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. ‘He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. ‘He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”

They are only available by grace, which is why Jesus asked us to purchase it from Him. The fact that it is free grace does not mean it does not require cooperation from us. If we take the parable of the man who sold all to purchase a field where he believed the treasure was, likewise we should do similarly spiritually - to forsaken our attachment to the things of this world to purchase the things we most need from God.

There is an exchange, it is our heart, our body, our soul. We are to surrender this to Christ. By purchasing the oil, the gold, the robe, the eye salve, we are building on our Christian experience with essentials not from us, going from faith to faith.


Who is a Christian according to the Russian Orthodox Church I was told by my Russian Orthodox friends on several occasions that according to their beliefs only members of the Orthodox Church are Christians. (For example, they pointed out that my statement that most people in the United States were Christians was incorrect because most people in the United States were Protestants and not Christians.) They claimed that according to the Russian Orthodox Doctrine:

  A Christian is a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Nicene Creed).
  The Orthodox Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

  Consequently, a member of the Russian Orthodox Church cannot say that a
  Catholic or a Protestant is a Christian (it would be a sin to do so; as it would be a sin to say that a pagan deity is God).

Is it true that members of non-Orthodox churches are not Christians according to the Russian Orthodox Doctrine? Is it a sin to call them Christians according to Russian Orthodox doctrine?

First things first, there are no 'denominations' within Orthodoxy. The Orthodox believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church (as professed by the Nicene Creed), and they believe that the Orthodox Church is it. Therefore it would be inappropriate to speak of a doctrinal position of the Russian Orthodox that is not also true of other Orthodox. While they are under different jurisdictions, they are the same Church and thus share the same beliefs. With that said, there are at times differences in emphasis between jurisdictions, and they don't always see eye to eye. The difference is that they generally do not split from one another and form separate 'denominations' as in Protestantism. They remain in the Orthodox Church and continue to seek reconciliation. Orthodox recognize that reconciliation may take years, perhaps centuries. So they don't rush these sorts of things. I should also mention that it is very precarious to attempt to speak on behalf of all of Orthodoxy when it comes to this issue, but I will do my best to represent what is the most prevalent view within the Church, with the caveat that not all Orthodox may agree (and that is OK).

With that being said, the answer to this question depends on whether you are talking about the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) or the Russian Orthodox Church itself. There shouldn't really be any distinction since as of 2007 the ROCOR is now in communion with all of mainstream Orthodoxy because of its incorporation into the Moscow Patriarchate. However, ROCOR is still self-governing, and its clergy and members are notoriously hyper-conservative and separatist. Regardless of this, they do not represent all of Orthodoxy if they claim that those who are not chrismated in the Orthodox Church are damned.

Fr. Damick offers a short explanation:

  The final boundaries of the Church are known only to God himself, but
  outside the historical context of the Church—that is, the Orthodox
  Church—the nature of the connection of any human being to the Church
  (whether a believer in Christ or not) is unknown to us. Throughout
  Church history, various groups have broken from the Church, a tragic
  reality which does not divide the Church but rather divides believers
  from the Church. The final status of Christians in such communities is
  dependent on God’s mercy and grace, which is also true for those with
  membership in the Church in this life.

  In this life, however, to be an Orthodox Christian means belonging to
  the Orthodox Church. It is not something one can do alone or as part
  of a separate group. Orthodox Christians believe that other Christian
  or even non-Christian groups may manifest varying degrees of the truth
  of the Gospel but that the fullness of the Christian faith is found
  only in Orthodoxy.

This is in stark contrast to Protestantism which considers the Church to be spiritual (and thus no one group can claim to be the Church). Orthodoxy, on the other hand, insists that it is "the fullness of The Church." According to Timothy Copple,

  When the Orthodox Church says that it is "The Church," they are making
  no pronouncement upon the salvation of anyone inside or outside
  membership in Orthodoxy. This may be hard for Protestants to grasp
  since being saved and being part of The Church is practically
  synonymous when linked to the spiritual Church. The knowledge that not
  everyone, let's say, in the Baptist Churches will be saved only serves
  to reinforce the fact that the Baptist Church cannot say it is "The
  Church". Yet, they also firmly believe that there are many who will be
  saved, so neither can one say that any other group is "The Church."

  While Orthodoxy does believe that ultimately to be saved means being
  in the Church and those outside the Church will not be saved, that
  issue is not fully decided until judgment day. Because salvation is
  not looked at within Orthodoxy as either an in or out position but a
  journey into God. We readily recognize that anyone inside or outside
  the Church at any particular point in time can be in the currents of
  salvation or not participating in it. Thus, there is no ability to
  point to any one person either inside or outside the visible Church
  and say they are saved or not saved. Whether any one particular person
  is going to make it to heaven we leave in God's hands. We cannot know
  the heart of the person, much less the disposition of God towards a
  particular individual short of God revealing that to us.

  Orthodoxy also does not say that the visible governing body of
  hierarchs and the organizations that are called the Orthodox Church
  are in and of themselves "The Church". This is an understandable
  confusion because what is generally labeled as synonymous with the
  visible church in Protestant circles, if they have any concept of
  that, is the governing body, the denomination or local church. It is
  by becoming a member of such-and-such group that one attaches
  themselves with like-minded Christians and is called "a church" in a
  visible aspect. Therefore, when a group says it is "The Church",
  Protestants will tend to think that the group is claiming that their
  fellowship, their organization, their denomination or local church
  body is a one-to-one equivalent to all those names written down in the
  Book of Life.

  Given what we just discussed above, it should be evident that this is
  not the case within Orthodoxy.

There are a lot of underlying worldview issues in this question that Copple addresses if you'd like to learn more (especially the tendency to separate the spiritual from its physical manifestation, a common dualistic worldview inherent in Modernity).

In conclusion, the general attitude of all Orthodox can be summarized by saying, "We know where the Orthodox Church is, but we do not know where it is not."


What Bible passages do Jehovah’s Witnesses use to support their view on free will? I’m given to understand Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to something similar to libertarian free will, the belief that a person’s choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God.

Since I don’t understand the position very well, perhaps a brief explanation of the view would be helpful to me, but primarily my question is concerned with what argument can be made from the Bible for the JW view.

Anytime you want an official position of Jehovah's  Witnesses on a particular topic  use Google search  of your key words and add jw.org . I typed free will jw.org and numerous hits came up  that link you directly to Jehovah's Witnesses  official website.
The first one I think is a good fit to your question and I have included it below:

  What Does the Bible Say About Free Will? Is God in Control?

  God dignifies us with free will, the power to make decisions of our own rather than having God or fate predetermine what we do. Consider what the Bible teaches.

  God created humans in his image. (Genesis 1:26) Unlike animals, which act mainly on instinct, we resemble our Creator in our capacity to display such qualities as love and justice. And like our Creator, we have free will.
  To a great extent, we can determine our future. The Bible encourages us to “choose life . . . by listening to [God’s] voice,” that is, by choosing to obey his commands. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20) This offer would be meaningless, even cruel, if we lacked free will. Instead of forcing us to do what he says, God warmly appeals to us: “O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river.”—Isaiah 48:18.
  Our success or failure is not determined by fate. If we want to succeed at an endeavor, we must work hard. “All that your hand finds to do,” says the Bible, “do with your very power.”(Ecclesiastes 9:10) It also says: “The plans of the diligent one surely make for advantage.”—Proverbs 21:5.
  Free will is a precious gift from God, for it lets us love him with our “whole heart”—because we want to.—Matthew 22:37.

  Doesn’t God control all things?
  The Bible does teach that God is Almighty, that his power is not limited by anyone other than himself. (Job 37:23; Isaiah 40:26) However, he does not use his power to control everything. For example, the Bible says that God was “exercising self-control” toward ancient Babylon, an enemy of his people. (Isaiah 42:14) Similarly, for now, he chooses to tolerate those who misuse their free will to harm others. But God will not do so indefinitely.—Psalm 37:10. - JW .Org.

There are of course many more pages available on the subject if you wish to learn more about what Jehovah's Witnesses teach about free will vs predestination.


What's the deal with oil? If you look across the Bible, there are many instances where oil is used. The anointing of Saul and David; Jacob pouring oil over the rock where he had his dream of the staircase to heaven(?); Maria pouring oil on Jesus, etc. Was oil expensive back then or something?

The short answer is yes, oil was expensive. It was used in ceremonies both because it was often perfumed to have a pleasing aroma and because the financial sacrifice was an act of humility.

You mentioned several good examples, but I figured I would offer you one more: Elisha providing for a widow (2 Kings 4:1-7). In this scenario, Elisha is able to provide the woman with enough oil that she can pay off all her late husband's debts, and she and her sons are able to live on the rest.

Now, this passage doesn't explicitly state that oil was expensive, but a little common sense will tell us it can't have been cheap. Elisha sends the woman's sons for empty vessels, and not too few, so he was clearly preparing to give her a large volume of oil, but it's fair to guess that the number ended up being in the 20-50 range (obviously just an estimate) as opposed to in the hundreds or thousands. For that amount of oil to be enough to pay off debts and set multiple people up for life means that oil had value, far more than it does today (imagine how much olive oil you'd need to hoard to be set for life).


What is the relationship between Gabriel and Noah in LDS/Mormon teaching? In the summary of Noah on the lds.org site, it states that Joseph Smith taught that Noah is, in fact, the angel Gabriel.  How exactly is this believed to have progressed?

Did Noah exist as an angel first and then become a man?  Or did Noah eventually become an angel?  If he became an angel, does that mean he did not attain godhood?

Is it a common believe that men become angels or angels become men?

According to LDS doctrine, it's not so much that men or angels "become" one another, as that they are the same order of creation.

From the same reference, under Angels, we read:

  There are two kinds of beings in heaven who are called angels: those
  who are spirits and those who have bodies of flesh and bone. Angels
  who are spirits have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone, or
  they are spirits who have once had a mortal body and are awaiting
  resurrection. Angels who have bodies of flesh and bone have either
  been resurrected from the dead or translated.

  There are many references in scripture to the work of angels.
  Sometimes angels speak with a voice of thunder as they deliver God’s
  messages (Mosiah 27:11–16). Righteous mortal men may also be called
  angels (JST, Gen. 19:15). Some angels serve around the throne of God
  in heaven (Alma 36:22).

The angel Gabriel is primarily known to Christians through his role in informing Mary and Zacharias about the important roles that their unborn children would play.  Genesis 9:29 informs us that Noah died, and as these events (as well as certain events in the book of Daniel that mention Gabriel) took place before the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, it's safe to say that he was, at this point, one of the spirits who "once had a mortal body and are awaiting resurrection."

The distinguishing characteristic seems to be not so much one of nature as of vocation; an angel is a servant of God--generally a non-mortal one (the one exception mentioned in the reference article refers to the messengers sent to Lot in Sodom, which is a somewhat ambiguous case)--with some special mission or duty to perform.


Fake Jesus reincarnations Is the Church (Body of Christ) active in any way, to expose fake Jesus reincarnations?

For clarification: are there any missions that include reaching the victims of false Jesus reincarnations that one could join?

Yes and no, depending on what you mean by "active".

According to orthordox Christian teachings, there will be no re-incarnation of Jesus. His next appearance will be in glory and judgement when nobody on earth will be in a position to question the description given of Jesus current position:

  Philippians 2:9-11 (ESV)
  9  Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10  so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11  and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

In other words, according to the main traditions claiming to be Christian (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike) anybody in any circumstance currently claiming to be a re-incarnation of Jesus is a fraud. As long as there is wiggle room for anybody on the planet to deny such a claim, the denial sticks.

This belief makes it really easy to root out the fakes:

FOR applicant IN jesus_reincarnations RETURN legitimate=false;

If by 'active' you mean:

"Do we examine the circumstances of every applicant and keep a running list of possibilities?"

Then no. That would be a waste of time.
"Do we have a clear and definitive answer for whether such applicants are frauds?"

Then yes. All of them.


Does the passage in Luke 9:49-50 support the diversity of denominations? It appears that this passage in Luke allows for the diversity of denominations.

  Luke 9:49-50 KJV
  And John answered and said, Master, we saw one
  casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he
  followeth not with us.   And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not:
  for he that is not against us is for us.

Does this passage, spoken by Jesus, allow for differing denominations?  If it doesn't, what does the verse mean?

There is a good sermon that was given on this subject actually:

http://www.christianuniverse.com/sermons/forbidnot.htm

But, basically, Jesus didn't want the in-fighting, which may be similar to having more denominations, it depends on how you define denominations, as you will see that there may be disagreements within the same denomination so we have fighting within, even within the same physical church.

For example, there are people that claim to be following Jesus but then opening profess hatred of others.  This we need to stand against, as that violates what Jesus taught, and invalidates his entire message.

But, we shouldn't be fighting against each other, and using valuable resources/time, when there are so many things in this world that could be helped if we focused on our mission of sharing Christ with the world.

Now, if someone is claiming to be doing work in Jesus' name, and you feel that there is some teaching that is suspect, then go by yourself, first, and try to share your concerns with them, but in all things it should be done with love.

This follows the teachings in Matthew 18:16-20.

By going by yourself, your ego is less involved, if you haven't told anyone what you are going to do, but just do it in a way so that only God is the other witness.


Can we use KJV Bible version in mobile application We are using KJV version of Bible in our app distributed globally and we are based out of Canada. KJV is in public domain except UK. Does it mean that we should restrict the users in UK.

The protection that the Authorized Version, and also the Book of Common Prayer, enjoy is the last remnant of the time when the Crown held a monopoly over all printing and publishing in the United Kingdom.[166] Almost all provisions granting copyright in perpetuity were abolished by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, but because the Authorized Version is protected by royal prerogative rather than copyright, it will remain protected, as specified in CDPA s171(1)(b).[j]

Cambridge University Press permits the reproduction of at most 500 verses for "liturgical and non-commercial educational use" if their prescribed acknowledgement is included, the quoted verses do not exceed 25% of the publication quoting them and do not include a complete Bible book.[167] For use beyond this, the Press is willing to consider permission requested on a case-by-case basis and in 2011 a spokesman said the Press generally does not charge a fee but tries to ensure that a reputable source text is used.

Wikipedia - King James Version


Will suicide keep me out of Heaven? I don't want to set off any red flags here.  I am not pursuing a suicidal lifestyle, nor do I have the desire to end my life. That being said:

Perhaps the greatest thing a person can hope for is to enter the
Kingdom of Heaven.
We are told that if a person truly accepts God as their Saviour,
they promised an eternity in heaven.

With this in mind, why not just accept Christ and then off yourself? We all want to go to heaven, don't we? Why prolong the wait and "misery" of living in a sinful world and just proceed to enter the pearly gates?  Strictly speaking in a logical sense this is the best thing a person could do for themselves.

I know in other faiths suicide nullifies a person's access to their promised land, but does the Bible say anything about this?

In the Protestant traditions I am familiar with suicide is not an automatic exclusion from Heaven. However it must be said that there is a logical incompatibility between suicide and faith. A faith that aborts just when it has something to trust is no faith at all.

First of all, suicide flies in the face of everything that we learn from Christ about what is good and true. Suicide is murder. It is taking a life that does not belong to you. As Christians we believe that we are the property of another -- that we belong to Christ as a slave belongs to a master.1 We believe that the life that is in us belongs to him. We believe that those who commit suicide will only be in heaven on the same grounds that any of us will, by grace and forgiveness, even for murder.2 However faith in Christ demands action, those who love Him will obey his commands. His commands including not murdering.3

Also, belief in Christ is the very thing that gives us hope for this life4, not just the life to come. We are able to endure whatever sufferings we experience here5 knowing that they will produce in us something even better6. To take your own life is to despair of life itself. This is fundamentally at odds with Christian belief. There would be no logic in believing and then killing yourself, because the later act would show that you really did not understand the former.

See the way the Apostles introduced themselves in letters as "bond-servants", Parables such as in Luke 12 were Jesus uses the servant/master analogy, and Romans (The whole book).
See the David in the OT, the thief on the cross in the NT.
See the commandment "You shall not murder." Exodus 20:13 (ESV)
Hebrews 6:19
1 Peter 5:10
James 1:1-4


Confused on Nahor and Haran In Genesis 11, we are shown that Abram, Nahor, and Haran are brothers.  Haran dies in Ur.

Then, Abram and other family members travel now to a city called Haran (a bit confusing, but okay.  Did they found the city and name it after the deceased brother or something?).  No mention of Nahor and what happened to him.

Then, Genesis 24, Abraham wants to find a wife for his son from his hometown.  Where is his hometown?  Is it Ur (where his father is from) or Haran (which is where the family spent some time)?

Then, a servant goes out and makes his way to the "town of Nahor."  Where is that?

I looked on Google for all sorts of map but I can't find a city called "Nahor."  I found one map with a colored line describing the travels of the servant and it ends in the city of Haran.  So is "town of Nahor" = "Haran " = "Abraham's hometown"?  I am so confused.

First the easy part. The name of Haran and the name of the town of Haran are English homonyms but are actually spelt differently in the Hebrew language. So, the town was not named after Abram's brother, Haran. The 'town of Nahor' is simply the town where Nahor lived, Haran.

Genesis 11:26 says that Haran was born and died in Ur of the Chaldees. Although the city of Ur was certainly ancient, the Chaldeans did not inhabit the area until the ninth century BCE, which tells us that the passage was not actually written until some time after the ninth century BCE. Ur and Haran were the two principal cities of the moon god, Sin, and some scholars see this tradition as reflecting ancient traditions about the migration of the Sin cult from Ur to Haran and then into Canaan.


How did the monastic tradition evolve? In the 4th Century there was a strong monastic tradition, which usually involved living in solitude or small groups in the wilderness. By the 12th Century the monastic life was being lived in large groups, and generally close to large communities. How did one tradition evolve into the other?

Monasticism was unknown until the end of the third century. Paul expressed that he preferred celibacy, but there was no "command from the Lord" to remain unmarried. (Simon) Peter, according to Catholic tradition the first Pope, was himself married.

  Luke 4:38 And he arose out of the synagogue, and entered into Simon's
  house. And Simon's wife's mother was taken with a great fever; and
  they besought him for her.

  MATTHEW 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his
  wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

Widows were treated with special respect, but encouraged to remarry and bear children if still within child bearing age. More emphasis was placed on missionary and charity work than meditation or spiritual development.

Over time, the custom developed of going into the desert (or otherwise being alone), when faced with an important life decision, a desire to commune with God, etc. These people were called hermits, a term which means "desert dwellers". The most famous of these early hermits was Anthony of Egypt (251-356). Athanasius' Life of St. Anthony began to make the hermit life popular, both because it portrayed it as a path to eternal life, and because Anthony was portrayed as an athlete for Christ, a heroic figure.

Now there were so many hermits that it was starting to get crowded. A hermit named Pachomius (290-346) instituted some rules; that the monks should live in isolated huts, produce their own food and clothing, and should never speak to one another. Because they were no longer dependent on public charity, their growth was unlimited, and monasteries and monks began to spread rapidly.