What was John Wesley's view of the Lord's Supper? In the usual schema, there are four views of the Lord's Supper:

The Memorialist/Zwinglian/Baptist view. Jesus is not present in the elements, but believers reap a spiritual benefit from partaking because they remember his death.
The Calvinist/reformed/"spiritual presence" view. Christ's body and blood are spiritually consumed by the communicants as they physically partake of the bread and wine.
The Lutheran/"consubstantiation"/"in, with, and under"/sacramental union" view. Christ is united to the elements.
The Catholic view ("transubstantiation"). When the elements are blessed, they become Christ's body and blood.

Sometimes a fifth view is considered, that of the Orthodox, who are close to Catholicism but don't like to explain it in Aristotelian terms.

(If you feel any of these descriptors are inaccurate, you're probably right. Please don't get too hung up on any of these definitions. If you're unfamiliar with any of these views, please research them for yourself.)

My question is, which of these did John Wesley believe? I suppose it's possible that he would be hard to categorize here; if that's the case, I'll be satisfied with an answer stating which view he's closest to, and how his views differ from that one. A good answer will include direct quotes from Wesley.

John Wesley favored the spiritual presence view, as demonstrated primarily through his writings, but also in his hymns.
Writings
First of all, John Wesley explicitly rejected transubstantiation:

[N]o such change of the bread into the body of Christ can be inferred from his words, "This is my body." [...] [T]hat they are not to be taken literally is manifest form the words of St. Paul, who calls it bread, not only before, but likewise after, the consecration [...] [a]nd accordingly these elements are called by the Fathers, "the images, the symbols, the figure, of Christ's body and blood."1

It's also clear that he rejects the "memorial" view.  In his Works is reproduced The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, which reads:

Hitherto we have considered this Holy Sacrament both as a memorial of the death of Christ, and a sign of those graces wherewith He sustains and nourishes believing souls.  But this is not all: for both the end of the Holy Communion, the wants and desires of those who receive it, and the strength of other places of Scripture, require, that much more be contained therein than a bare memorial, or representation.2

Instead, Wesley sees Christ's presence in the sacrament:

I haste to this Sacrament for the same purpose that St. Peter and John hasted to His sepulchre; because I hope to find Him there.2
I come then to God's altar, with a full persuasion that these words, This is My body, promise me more than a figure; that this holy banquet is not a bare memorial only [...] in what manner this is done I know not; it is enough for me to admire.2
And thus His body and blood have everywhere, but especially at this Sacrament, a true and real presence.3

Furthermore, these writings contain no indication of any of the language typical of consubstantiation.  Instead, Wesley draws a distinction between Christ's sacrifice on earth (his crucifixion) and the everlasting sacrifice he makes in heaven:

When He offered Himself upon earth, the vapour of His atonement went up and darkened the very sun [...]. And since He is gone up He sends down to earth the graces that spring continually both from His everlasting sacrifice, and from the continual intercession that attends it. [...] [W]ithout either ascending or descending, this sacred body of Jesus fills with atonement and blessing the remotest part of this temple.3

Some have argued that these quotations are not actually Wesley's original work, as they come from a treatise by Daniel Brevint, and were translated by Wesley.  Thus, the argument goes, they may not accurately convey Wesley's thoughts on the matter.  But such a view doesn't take into consideration how Wesley used the treatise:

This Treatise was deliberately adopted by Mr. Wesley as a formal statement of Eucharistic Doctrine, and carried the sanction of his name into all his Societies from the year 1745 until after his death.4

Hymns
The hymns written by the Wesley brothers are also pointed to as evidence, like the following:

We need not now go up to Heaven
To bring the long-lost Saviour down;
Thou art to all already given,
Thou dost e'en now Thy banquet crown;
To every faithful soul appear,
And shew Thy Real Presence here.5

Some have argued that hymns like this one cannot be admitted as evidence of John Wesley's views, since Charles may have been the one responsible for them:

[T]here are Methodist writers who do not scruple to assert that C. Wesley alone is responsible for them.  The assertion is unfortunate in every way.5

Rebutting these views as spurious, the editor claims that a previous edition with the same hymns carries only John Wesley's name.
Summary
The evidence shows that Wesley held the Reformed spiritual presence view.  He explicitly rejected the transubstantiation and memorialist views, and his writings do not suggest any support for consubstantiation.
Some Methodists have argued that Wesley held a memorialist view, but this is not borne out in the texts.  It seems much more likely that this argument is based in diverging opinions in the Methodist movement attempting to prove Wesley's support for their side.

References:

Popery Calmly Considered, in Works, v. 5, 811
Poetical Works, III, 194–95
Poetical Works, III, 197
John Wesley in Company with High Churchmen, vi
John Wesley in Company with High Churchmen, 13


What was the original rosary? According to some Catholic traditions, the Rosary was given to Saint Dominic in a vision of the Blessed Virgin Mary and it was then promoted by Blessed Allan de la Roche.
But here I read

Saint Peter Canisius, a Doctor of the Church, who is credited with
adding to the Hail Mary the sentence "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray
for us sinners", ...

which means it wasn't part of the original rosary.
What was the exact form of the original rosary given by Blessed Virgin Mary and who added "now and the hour of our death"?

There are actually two separate questions here, which need to be clarified.

  In what form was the original Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary?

  What was the form of the original Hail Mary?

First of all let us deal with the Hail Mary. And in order to understand the origins of this prayer we basically need to see this in the light of the Church's liturgical and official language: Latin, since vernacular languages will vary considerably.

  Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.
  Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus.
  Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae.
  Amen.

Let's start with the origins of the Ave Maria and who added the later portions of this wonderful prayer.

Although Wikipedia states that Saint  Peter Canisius (1521-1597 , a Doctor of the Church is credited with adding to the Hail Mary the sentence "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners", seems to be doubtful. It is plausible that  St Peter Canisius had some influence at the  Council of Trent in rendering the Hail Mary as we know it in its' official form.

  Who wrote the Hail Mary prayer?

  Actually, we owe the first half of it to the angel Gabriel and to Mary’s cousin Elizabeth. “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee,” are the words of the angel when he greets Mary at the Annunciation (Luke 1:28). During the visitation, Mary’s cousin Elizabeth welcomes her with the words, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb.” (Luke 1:42). The joining of the two salutations in prayer appears to have become a widespread practice in the mid-eleventh century, though there is evidence of it showing up in eastern rites as far back as the sixth century.

  The second part of the “Hail Mary” is where we ask for Mary’s intercession: “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.” Various forms of this go back to the fourteenth century; the wording as we use it today became official in 1568.

The devotion to the hail Mary can be traced at least to the 11th century, at least as Marian Salutation.

  Abbot Baldwin, the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1184 wrote about a devotion to the ‘Hail Mary’ prayer and said, “To this salutation of the Angel, by which we daily greet the most Blessed Virgin, with such devotion as we may, we are accustomed to add the words, “and blessed is the fruit of thy womb,” by which clause Elizabeth at a later time, on hearing the Virgin’s salutation to her, caught up and completed, as it were, the Angel’s words, saying: “Blessed are thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” - 11 Historical Facts You Probably Didn’t Know about the Hail Mary, but Should

The Hail Mary as we know it can be found in books from the 1400s.

  Dominican reformer Girolamo Savonarola wrote a piece in 1495 that contained the entire Hail Mary except the word ‘nostrae.’  There is currently a copy of this work in the British Museum. - 11 Historical Facts You Probably Didn’t Know about the Hail Mary, but Should

The Catholic Encyclopedia states something quite similar:

  We meet the Ave as we know it now, printed in the breviary of the Camaldolese monks, and in that of the Order de Mercede c. 1514. Probably this, the current form of Ave, came from Italy, and Esser asserts that it is to be found written exactly as we say it now in the handwriting of St. Antoninus of Florence who died in 1459. This, however, is doubtful. What is certain is that an Ave Maria identical with our own, except for the omission of the single word nostrae, stands printed at the head of the little work of Savonarola's issued in 1495, of which there is a copy in the British Museum. Even earlier than this, in a French edition of the "Calendar of Shepherds" which appeared in 1493, a third part is added to the Hail Mary, which is repeated in Pynson's English translation a few years later in the form: "Holy Mary moder of God praye for us synners. Amen.". In an illustration which appears in the same book, the pope and the whole Church are depicted kneeling before our Lady and greeting her with this third part of the Ave. The official recognition of the Ave Maria in its complete form, though foreshadowed in the words of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, as quoted at the beginning of this article, was finally given in the Roman Breviary of 1568.

The Hail Mary in the recitation of the Most Holy Rosary in our modern times has the ending as such is in English "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death" or as in French "Sainte Marie, Mère de Dieu, priez pour nous, pauvres pécheurs, maintenant et à l'heure de notre mort" did not exist when the  original rosary was thought to have been composed.

Seeing that in the early development of the rosary, it was a more scriptural way of meditating on the sacred mysteries of the life of Our Lord, since the original Hail Mary comprise of two elements the angelic salutation of the Angel Gabriel (Luke 1:28)  and St Elizabeth's words at Mary's Visitation (Luke 1:42).

Traditionally, the origins of the Holy rosary itself are believed to have been handed down from St Dominic in the year 1214. This may or may not be true.

  According to some Catholic traditions, the Rosary was given to Saint Dominic in a vision of the Blessed Virgin Mary and it was then promoted by Blessed Allan de la Roche. However, not all Catholics agree with that tradition. Some historians see a more gradual development for the Rosary, in that the repetition of Marian prayers which form the basis of the Rosary needed counting devices, which resulted in the modern form of the Rosary prayed on beads. - Wikipedia

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a more reserved approach to its' origin as a whole and tends to see the rosary as a natural development of piety:

  We have positive evidence that both the invention of the beads as a counting apparatus and also the practice of repeating a hundred and fifty Aves cannot be due to St. Dominic, because they are both notably older than his time. Further, we are assured that the meditating upon the mysteries was not introduced until two hundred years after his death. What then, we are compelled to ask, is there left of which St. Dominic may be called the author?

  These positive reasons for distrusting the current tradition might in a measure be ignored as archaeological refinements, if there were any satisfactory evidence to show that St. Dominic had identified himself with the pre-existing Rosary and become its apostle. But here we are met with absolute silence. Of the eight or nine early Lives of the saint, not one makes the faintest allusion to the Rosary. The witnesses who gave evidence in the cause of his canonization are equally reticent. In the great collection of documents accumulated by Fathers Balme and Lelaidier, O.P., in their "Cartulaire de St. Dominique" the question is studiously ignored. The early constitutions of the different provinces of the order have been examined, and many of them printed, but no one has found any reference to this devotion.


When did Christians switch from an ‘immediate baptism’ to ‘after years of instruction and scrutiny’ baptism, such as in the Apostolic Tradition? According to this article ‘Catechumen’ means one receives instruction from “a catechist in the principles of the Christian religion with a view to baptism”. I understand that some churches have this before baptizing people. I do not criticize this practice, but I am curious when this idea may have developed. In the scripture people are baptized immediately upon believing and there does not seem much delay in the matter. For example:

  But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (NIV ACTS 8:12)

The Apostolic Tradition was the work of Hippolytus, written somewhere between 215 and 400 AD. Recent scholars seem to take the later date (source). The whole writing can be found here: Apostolic Tradition.

Among the 'oddities' of this Tradition, seems to be that people were baptized only after three years of catechism.

  17 Catechumens will hear the word for three years...When the teacher finishes his instruction, the catechumens will pray by themselves, separate from the faithful...After the prayer, the teacher shall lay hands upon the catechumens, pray, and dismiss them. ...When they are chosen who are to receive baptism, let their lives be examined. (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition)

I am wondering is there any evidence that this switch occurred before 215-400 AD, or not? Do some churches still practice a three year regiment?

According to A history of the catechumenate: the first six centuries by Michele Dujarier (Sadlier, 1979), the development of a longer initiation period predates Hippolytus (assumed to be writing in 215AD) by at least a few generations.

In Rome, the First Apology of Justin Martyr (155-157AD) attests to preliminary instruction in the faith, prior to baptism (though not necessarily for three years, and it was not organized systematically). Dujarier writes, "Some Christians dedicated themselves more particularly to the task of awakening faith and of teaching and opened 'schools' as did philosophers of this period. These were private initiatives and were not institutionalized. The hierarchical Church had not yet assumed the direct responsibility for the teaching given in them. But the fact is clear: the laity themselves carefully ensured the evangelization and instruction of converts. [...] The witness of Justin thus manifests the essential aspects of stages and, catechumenal requirements. In the course of the following decades, these stages and requirements were codified more and more strictly."
In Alexandria, there was a school of catechesis (using that word!). Jerome says it was founded by the apostle Mark; at least, it was in existence in 176AD. Clement of Alexandria taught there from 190AD. There is some doubt, however, about whether the term catechesis here should be understood as including pre-baptismal instruction, or whether it refers to teaching in general.
Other writings around 200AD refer to catechumens, proselytes, auditors, recruits, or novices. This includes work by Tertullian and Cyprian. Dujarier deduces the existence of a catechetical period in Carthage in 200-210AD from this history.

The Apostolic Tradition is therefore recording a more formal version of a method that had been happening for a long time - certainly since the time of Justin Martyr. The justification seems to be both pastoral and practical; it is not only that new converts should be truly converted in their lives, but also relates to the effort to ensure orthodox belief, in the face of various heretical movements of the time. After Constantine, a further reason was that some people were seeking to become Christian in order to gain social status (condemned by Augustine, The first catechetical instruction 5), so it was important to distinguish between real converts and pretend ones.

As far as current practice goes, I don't know of a church which specifically holds to a three-year period before baptism, though it is unusual not to have some period of instruction (at least in the case of adult baptism). There is nothing particularly special about three years, though; and as Dujarier records, that length was not universally observed, and the span of time is less important than the content of the instruction.


What Does "Not My will but yours be done" mean? I need for things in about the bible to line up with our lives down here like when receiving prayer we should get what we ask for. Right now it's all negative coming from the belligerent acting warfare waging war coming up against my life and personal freedoms. When who the son sets free is free indeed, and need His mercies.

It means that people who profess to be Christians must submit their will, or their desires, to the will of God, just as Jesus did.  Jesus said:

Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother (Mark 3:35).

God’s will is knowable and provable:

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is — His good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans12:2).

God's will is about us pleasing God and serving Him:

Teach me to do your will, for you are my God! Let your good Spirit lead me (Psalm 143:10).

Delight yourself in the LORD and He will give you the desires of your heart (Psalm 37:4).

It’s true that Jesus said, “If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer” (Matthew 21:22). But, even in that statement, we have one condition to prayer: faith.
It isn't about what you think you need, or getting what you ask for.  It isn't about what you perceive to be your "personal freedoms."  It's about following Jesus, and taking up your cross.  It's about humility and serving others, just as Jesus did.


What doctrinal value does the Catholic Church place on "Cantate Domino"? If I understand correctly, Cantate Domino is a papal bull by Pope Eugene IV which is in some way affiliated with the Council of Florence.

I have heard it claimed that the writing of Cantate Domino was an instance of papal infallibility, but if I understand correctly, there are very few instances in which it is widely agreed that a pope spoke ex cathedra, and Cantate Domino is not one of them.

That being said, the Council of Florence is an ecumenical council. My understanding is that some but not all aspects of ecumenical councils are infallible. Was the writing of Cantate Domino an instance of the infallibility of ecumenical councils? What is the precise relationship between Cantate Domino and the Council of Florence?

If not, is Cantate Domino nevertheless a product of the (infallible) Sacred Magisterium? Or is it merely a product of the (fallible but authoritative) Ordinary Magisterium?

Documents of ecumenical councils receive their authority from the Pope who solemnly approves them. Councils give council to a Pope, and it is by his authority alone that their documents can be infallible.

Conciliarism, which teaches that a general council of the Church has higher authority than the Pope, is a condemned heresy. The First Vatican Council's infallible document Dei Filius, ratified by Pope Pius IX, stated:

  …they err from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an œcumenical Council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.

We can judge whether a document is infallible based upon whether the Pope

speaks for the whole Church,
invokes all his authority,
intends to definitively define dogma, and
speaks regarding the faith and/or morals.

These conditions follow from the section of Dei Filius regarding papal infallibility:

  …we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the
  Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in
  discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by
  virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine
  regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the
  divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of
  that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his
  Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or
  morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are
  irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.

The four conditions are indeed satisfied in Cantate Domino (1442) since Pope Eugune IV

speaks for the whole Church: "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches…"
invokes all his authority: The document is an authoritative papal bull.
intends to definitively define dogma: In this case, he is not defining anything new; he's only relaying and reaffirming what has been said before him (like in Pope Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam of 1302) regarding the necessity of the Church for salvation.
speaks regarding the faith and/or morals: Yes. In this case, he speaks of both.

Cantate Domino is thus part of the Extraordinary Magisterium, which Fr. Hardon, SJ, defines as:

  The Church's teaching office exercised in a solemn way, as in formal declarations of the Pope or of ecumenical councils of bishops approved by the Pope. When the extraordinary magisterium takes the form of papal definitions or conciliar decisions binding on the consciences of all the faithful in matters of faith and morals, it is infallible.

(cf. my answer here)

The famous 20th century Catholic theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, in his 1958 work The Catholic Church and Salvation: In the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See pp. 31-41, considered Cantate Domino an "official pronouncement of the Church" that "simply makes more explicit the lessons brought out in the Fourth Lateran Council and in the Bull Unam sanctam."


When was the term 'substitutionary atonement' first coined and what was the reason for the choice of the 2 words? The term 'substitutionary atonement' has been used within Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed Baptist circles for some time, and it is those I wish to examine in this question.
But the word 'substitute' does not translate a Greek word found in scripture, nor does the term 'atonement'. The word 'atonement' is found once in the KJV, Romans 5:11, but it is a clear mis-translation of the word καταλλαγην, katallagen, in all other places rendered 'reconciliation'.
Both words are vague in meaning. Nor does 'substitute' or 'substitution' convey a concept that the apostolic epistles express, the emphasis of the doctrine of Christ being union with Christ (in his sufferings, in his death and in his resurrection) rather than some kind of 'exchange' (another word never found in Greek except μετηλλαξαν, metellazan, in Romans 1:26).
The word 'atonement' has a weak etymology and an ill-defined concept, its meaning a loose 'at-one' derivation and its application being a very general and overall term for the both the sufferings and death and resurrection of Christ that is never found in the greater precision of the apostolic writings.
What exactly is being conveyed by the term ? When was the expression first coined ? What error was being resisted by the introduction of this couplet ?
Again, I am looking for a response in regard to Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed and Baptist usage of the terminology.

EDIT upon comment :
I believe that 'Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures'. I believe that 'Christ gave his life a ransom for many'. I believe that 'He bare our sins in his own body on the tree'. I believe that 'he was made sin for us, who knew no sin'. But the scripture never uses the word 'substitute' to express that. I am questioning the terminology, not the doctrine of Christ.
Further explanatory EDIT :
My concern has always been the emphasis. If I have no relationship with Christ, if I am not in union with Him, if I know not his presence before my face when I pray, then the facts of his sufferings, death and resurrection are just that - historical facts.
The terms 'substitute' and 'exchange' are distant terms. But kinsman-redeemer, for example, (gaal in Hebrew) conveys a relationship that exists before the redemption takes place, (see the book of Ruth, on this). And one is chosen 'in Christ' (not apart from him) before the foundation of the world.
These are my concerns and the reason for my question.

It is hard to nail down a person or time that can be credited with the coining of the term substitutionary atonement.  The concept is not well attested in early extra-biblical writings although there are early variations/precursers such as Ransom theories (Origen) and vicarious atonement theories (Athanasius and Augustine).  It's first systematic exploration can probably be attributed to St. Anselm and even at this early date is has perhaps more to do with the penal aspect of atonement:

Theologian Marcus Borg (1942-2015) points out that the substitutionary understanding of Jesus’ death “was not central in the first thousand years of Christianity.” [1] Borg explains:
[The] first systematic articulation of the cross as “payment for sin”
happened just over nine hundred years ago in 1098 in St. Anselm’s
treatise Cur Deus Homo? [Why Did God Become Human?] Anselm’s purpose
was to provide a rational argument for the necessity of the
incarnation and death of Jesus.

Much like the absence of the exact words "original sin" or "trinity" from the biblical text, the idea of substitutionary atonement is integral to both what God, in Christ, has done for us and how this work was typified for us in the Levitical system of worship.
Substitute
a person or thing acting or serving in place of another.

a·tone·ment
reparation for a wrong or injury.
"she wanted to make atonement for her husband's behavior"

Propitiation -
hilastērion

Neuter of a derivative of G2433; an expiatory (place or thing), that is, (concretely) an atoning victim, or (specifically) the lid of the Ark (in the Temple): - mercyseat, propitiation.

Atonement -
kâphar,
kaw-far'

A primitive root; to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel: - appease, make (an) atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, to pitch, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile (-liation).

Propitiation in the New Testament (Romans 3:24) and Atonement in the Old Testament (Leviticuas 16:10) both contain the nuance of expiation and I strongly believe that Leviticus chapter 16 demonstrates, in the sacrificed goat (lamb) and the released goat (lamb), the aspects of both substitution and atonement with  definite penal undertones, especially as regards the sin offering:

Lev 16:15  “Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses. - Leviticus 16:15-16

The blood of the sin offering expiates or cleanses the Holy Place (which is within the veil) of the uncleanness of the people and also of the tent of meeting and the altar.  This opens the way for concord between God and His people.  The yearly ritual of Israel is a picture of the once for all entrance and cleansing of that which is behind and within the veil of human flesh so that the very Spirit of God may enter and dwell:

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, _ Hebrews 10:19-20

In fulfillment in Christ it is not a perpetual sacrifice (even the Levitical practice lasted for a year) but rather a sacrifice with perpetual effect (He entered once and sat down).  It is however, in type and fulfillment, both substitutionary and atoning.
Likewise the scapegoat:

“And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat. And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness. - Leviticus 16:20-22

This goat actually has ALL the iniquities AND the transgressions AND the sins of the people transferred from them onto it and it bears them away into the wilderness (outside the camp) so that the people may remain within the camp.  It is impossible to escape the notions of substitution and atonement/expiation here (v.10) as the scapegoat takes on and carries away that which is not it's own and cannot abide in proximity to God.  It is also difficult to avoid the penal aspect as well since the goat suffers the consequence of bearing iniquity (expulsion into the wilderness).
And so we have Jesus typified in two sacrificial animals.  One of them is killed in order to cleanse the place of God's dwelling and the implements of man's concord/worship with Him (the temple made without hands) and the other bears away into the wilderness all within man that separates him from God.  Both of these animals are substitutionary and provide atonement.


As there are so many documents of Catholic doctorine that are considered infallible in content, how to search them? In other words, how to track down very particular pieces of infomation or answers...Obviously one can't read the entire lot every time one has a query! Is there some online resource that makes it easier?

Your best source for Papal Encyclicals (official statements of the Pope ex cathedra) comes from the Vatican itself comes from EWTN.  Check out: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/.  The official http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm houses several documents, but the search interface is more difficult.

Additionally, while not an official source, the Catholic Encyclopedia tends to be a good summary of issues from an informed theological perspective.


Are there any writings from the church fathers teaching Original Sin before Augustine? It has been said by some that Augustine was the first to teach Original Sin,

  "It was Augustine (354-430 A.D.) who first promoted the idea that; "the fallen nature of Adam was transmitted biologically through sexual procreation." This became an established pillar of Catholic theology." source

My question is are there any writings from the church fathers teaching Original Sin before Augustine?

Although St. Augustine clearly tops the list (at least in the West) of those Church Fathers who taught the doctrine of Original Sin, he surely is not the first.

First off, lets define Original Sin:

  Original sin, also called ancestral sin, is the Christian doctrine of
  humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man, stemming from
  Adam's rebellion in Eden. (Wikipedia)

Original Sin is arguably the most touched upon doctrine in the history of the Church - not counting Sacred Scripture (which wasn't clearly agreed upon for the first 3 centuries) - simply because its the root cause of our need for salvation.

Reference: Gen 3; 1 Cor 15:21; Rom 5:12,15; 6:23; Rom 5:12,19; Psalm 51:5; Eph 2:1-3

Discussion of this doctrine is clearly evident in the early centuries of the Church.

St. Irenaeus writes toward the end of the 100's:

  ....having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for
  herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man
  but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of
  salvation for herself and for the whole human race....Thus, the knot
  of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the
  virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through
  faith. ...But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if
  truth be told, the first-formed man....We, however, are all
  from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]. ...Indeed, through the first Adam, we offended God by not observing His command. Through the
  second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even
  unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose
  commandment we transgressed at the beginning. (Against Heresies
  3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3 emphasis mine)

Later we find Tertullian (c. 200 AD)

  Finally, in every instance of vexation, contempt, and abhorrence, you
  pronounce the name of Satan. He it is whom we call the angel of
  wickedness, the author of every error, the corrupter of the whole
  world, through whom Man was deceived in the very beginning so that he
  transgressed the command of God. On account of his transgression Man
  was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected
  by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation. (The Testmiony
  of the Soul 3:2, c. 200 AD)

Origin (c. 244 AD):

  Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin....And if it should seem necessary to do so,
  there may be added to the aforementioned considerations [referring to
  previous Scriptures cited that we all sin] the fact that in the
  Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sin; and according to
  the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed
  if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins
  and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism
  would seem superfluous. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)

  The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism
  even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets
  of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate
  stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the
  Spirit. [cf. John 3:5; Acts 2:38]. (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)

St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 AD):

  If, in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned
  much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their
  sins is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how
  much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but
  recently been born, has done no sin [committed no personal sin],
  except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted
  the contagion of that old Death from his first being born. (Letters
  64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus)

There are dozens more writings from early Church Fathers.

Long story short...

Despite the fact that Augustine is perhaps the most referenced theological giant (in the West at least), he most certainly isn't the first.


Why does the LDS Church put an emphasis on prepping? It's been many years since I attended LDS Churches, but I seem to recall quite a bit of discussion about emergency preparedness, which goes by the term "prepping" today.  I've never seen this in other denominations.  What is the official statement on the LDS Church for the reason for an emphasis on this?

There are a number of reasons you could name.

Historically, you could point to the experience of the Latter-day Saints in the 1800s which was one mass exodus after another. Emergency prepardness was life or death.

Culturally, there is a strong emphasis on hard work and temporal self-reliance (probably carried over from those early pioneer days).

Pragmatically, it makes good sense.

Doctrinally, they believe they live in the last times (latter days), which are promised to be so tough that even the righteous barely survive.

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Matthew 24:22

Many times, "emergency preparedness" is interpreted as "prepare for the nuclear/end-of-days/zombie apocalypse" by stockpiling food and weapons in bomb shelters.
In reality, emergency preparedness is much less dramatic. For all the decades Mormons have stressed preparedness, there's still no apocalypse.
But loss of employment, local natural disasters, illness, death of a family member, etc. are common. Mormons prepare for the proverbial rainy day.
Last month, the president of the Church said (and similar quotes can be found many places):

We live in turbulent times. Often the future is unknown; therefore, it behooves us to prepare for uncertainties. When the time for decision arrives, the time for preparation is past.

In addition to individual preparation, the LDS Church itself has orchards, farms, canneries, storehouses, and the largest cow-calf ranch in the US. It puts these to use in its welfare program, charities, and humanitarian aid services.
For individuals, the Church emphasizes:
Employment The LDS church runs employments centers, open to members and the public to help people get job skills and find employment. Members are taught to get as much education as possible, and the Church has the Perpetual Education Fund.
Avoid debt Education and a house have been listed as reasonable exceptions, but other debt, particularly consumer debt, is strongly discouraged.
Food storage The LDS Church used to recommend two years. Now, they recommend three months plus "extended" food storage, when feasible.
Health Follow the Word of Wisdom (LDS health code: grains, fruits, no alcohol, no tobacco).
The Provident Living website is a good official LDS source.
Of course, there's always that guy with his bomb shelter, 200 gallons of canned food, and private armory, but the LDS Church isn't suggesting that.
Being from Florida, I've been through a number of hurricanes, and it continues to amaze how many people will wait until the last possible second to prepare. Katrina was probably the most extreme recent example of this. Preparing to take care of your needs, rather than waiting for FEMA to do it for you, is the right approach.


In what sense they don't have life in them? John 6:53-57 John 6:53-57

  Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh
  of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

In what sense people outside of the Catholic Church have no life in them? What is the Catholic interpretation of this verse?

I believe the counterpoint in the next verse explains it:

  Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.  (John 6:54-55)

They lack eternal life, which John 17:3 defines:

  Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

St Augustine, a Doctor of the Church, teaches in his 26th Tractate on John

  He spoke these words, not certainly to corpses, but to living men. Whereupon, lest they, understanding it to mean this life, should strive about this thing also, He going on added, Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life. Wherefore, he that eats not this bread, nor drinks this blood, has not this life; for men can have temporal life without that, but they can noways have eternal life.


What, if any, were the Catholic orders that opposed the Catholic Inquisition? During the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, Dominicans and Franciscans were the main church inquisitors. I was wondering if there were other religious orders that, as a whole, opposed the Inquisition.  I am not interested in merely individuals within orders who objected, but rather groups as a whole that did so.

I have only found mention of an individual monastery in Spain (San Isidro del Campo), not of any religious orders.

Distinguo:

That Gregory IX, through his appointment of Dominicans and Franciscans as inquisitors, withdrew the suppression of heresy from the proper courts (i.e. from the bishops), is a reproach that in so general a form cannot be sustained. So little did he think of displacing episcopal authority that, on the contrary he provided explicitly that no inquisitional tribunal was to work anywhere without the diocesan bishop's co-operation.
Old Catholic Encyclopedia on Newadvent.org

I only throw this out there because of the popular support of the Inquisition would make it highly unlikely that orders were opposed to the Inquisition.
The other thing to distinguo is that the Dominicans and Franciscans were new orders, mendicant orders. Preachers and friars who went out to meet the people.  The other orders hung out in their monasteries.
I only mention these things to break down the two principles that form this question

That the Dominicans and Franciscans were the main church inquisitors.  They certainly had no power outside of the local bishop and were not independent of them when they were in his diocese.

That you can compare Dominicans and Franciscans to Benedictines.

However, the Catholic Encyclopedia says that St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who the Bernadines are named after, was opposed to the tactics of the inquisition.  However, I don't think the Bernadines were 'lead' by him, just formed in his honor.

Whether they be convicted of error, or freely confess their guilt, Catharists are not to be put to death, at least not when they refrain from armed assaults upon the Church.
ibid

so I think that doesn't jibe with your request that it not just be a person who took issue with the inquisition.  But he was a highly influential Cistercian - and apparently not rebuked for his stance; he was known for his preaching against the Cathars.


Would Nicene Christians consider a Unitarian Baptism sufficient for entry into the Church? What determines entry into Christendom - baptism or belief? Say a vaguely spiritual person joins a congregation affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. Sometimes, the congregation may pull readings from the Hebrew scriptures or the Christian scriptures, and over time, the vaguely spiritual person decides to identify himself/herself as Christian by belief, and therefore repents and does other Christian things. Now, the UUA does not normally perform baptisms as a ritual. Would such a person be considered a legitimate Christian? Would the UUA be willing to perform a baptism for the Christian convert before the congregation, since baptisms are very significant in Christianity?

Μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ.

Repent and believe in the Gospel.

Mark 1:15.

Of course, this cannot be accomplished unless the Father draws a man to His Son, as it is written (John 6:44),

  No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him on the last day.


Does the Catholic church believe that God really forgives by confession alone? My question is does the Catholic Church hold that God forgives every crime by confession alone?

If so I could commit crimes from Monday to Saturday and then go and confess to a priest on Sunday - problem solved.

So what is actually the relation between forgiving and confessing?

Any citation from Bible would be appreciated, or other material that the Catholic Church considers authoritative.

No; the Catholic Church does not believe that confession by itself is sufficient to ensure forgiveness of sins.
The Catholic Church believes that God alone forgives sins, but has delegated that authority to certain human beings within the Church (cf. John 20:21-23).
God is "gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in mercy" (see Psalm 145); he is also "abounding in steadfast love, and relenting in punishment" (cf. Joel 2:13). Nevertheless, there are three conditions which (except in extraordinary circumstances) the Church believes are required to ensure forgiveness of one's serious sins: confession, contrition, and satisfaction (or penance).

"Penance requires... the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction."

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1450; quoting the Roman Catechism)
Let's take these one at a time.
Confession
This is the practice of telling the priest the sins you have committed since your last Confession. Catholics are required to go to Confession at least once a year; more often is better (and makes it easier to remember what sins you've committed!).
Confession should be preceded by an examination of conscience, in which one thoroughly and frankly looks at one's behavior—one's thoughts, words, and deeds—in light of Christ's commandments. Any serious sins that you remember must be confessed. If after a sincere examination you forget a serious sin (and, for example, remember it only after confession), there is no need to worry about whether you are forgiven—but if you deliberately leave out a serious sin, you are lying (by omission) not only to the priest but to the Lord. This is itself a serious sin. It appears that such an omission invalidates the entire confession; at least that's my understanding of a statement given by the Council of Trent, and quoted in paragraph 1456 of the Catechism:

When Christ’s faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest, "for if the sick person is too ashamed to show his wound to the doctor, the medicine cannot heal what it does not know."

Contrition
The Catholic Church has a very specific understanding of contrition, and the Council of Trent developed a valuable distinction between what it called perfect contrition and what it called imperfect contrition or attrition; but essentially, contrition is an intense, sincere sorrow for—perhaps even a hatred of—one's own sinful behavior, together with a sincere resolution to avoid sin again.
This, it seems, addresses the problem you bring up. If someone sins Monday through Saturday, and goes to Confession Sunday with sincere sorrow and the sincere intent not to sin again, he's all good, even if he does in fact sin again on Monday. But if he goes to Confession not caring whether he sins on Monday (or perhaps even planning to), he is not showing a desire to be reconciled with God; he does not turn again toward God, and we cannot say that he is forgiven.
Satisfaction (Penance)

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."

(Catechism, paragraph 1459)
Penance, or satisfaction, involves spiritual and temporal works designed to restore relationships broken and damaged by sin. The Catechism says that penance

can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, "provided we suffer with him."

The satisfaction that we make for our sins, however, is not so much ours as though it were not done through Jesus Christ. We who can do nothing ourselves, as if just by ourselves, can do all things with the cooperation of "him who strengthens" us. Thus man has nothing of which to boast, but all our boasting is in Christ... in whom we make satisfaction by bringing forth "fruits that befit repentance." These fruits have their efficacy from him, by him they are offered to the Father, and through him they are accepted by the Father.

(paragraph 1460; the quoted material is from the Council of Trent.)

As the Catechism says elsewhere, God is not bound by his sacraments, and He can forgive even outside the context given here; but this is what the Church believes to be required, under ordinary circumstances, to ensure that sins are forgiven. The simple act of telling one's sins to a priest and having the priest recite the formula of absolution1 will not do.
1Here, if you are interested, is the formula:

God, the Father of mercies,
through the death and resurrection of his Son
has reconciled the world to himself
and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins;
through the ministry of the Church
may God give you pardon and peace,
and I absolve you from your sins
in the name of the Father,
and of the Son,
and of the Holy Spirit.


What is the basis for King Melchizedek actually being Jesus? Where did this idea come from? I have heard people state that King Melchizedek was actually Jesus.

What is the biblical basis for this idea? Where in church history did this idea begin?

The chief basis for the belief is Hebrews 7:3, which says in the NET translation:

  Without father, without mother, without genealogy, he has neither beginning of days nor end of life but is like the son of God, and he remains a priest for all time.

Those who argue that he is Jesus say that a plain reading of the verse is that Melchizedek literally had no parents or ancestors, and that he never died and is eternally a priest.

Others would counter it by saying that he was a type of Christ, and that Hebrews is calling attention to his mysterious, spontaneous appearance in Genesis: no genealogical record, no record of his life beyond his interaction with Abraham. They also point out that Hebrews says he was made "like" the Son of God, not that he was the Son of God, which is a title that Hebrews reserves for Jesus.

As supporting evidence, proponents of the "Melchizedek = Jesus" view point out that only a few chapters after Abraham's encounter with Melchizedek, he meets someone who has traditionally been identified as a manifestation of God. So such encounters were not unheard of.

The origin of the belief is murky, but it seems to have been a minority opinion in relatively early times, and remains so today. It seems to not have a lineage per se, but rather that commentators and theologians arrive at the conclusion independently at different times. Its earliest mention that I could find is the fifth century.

According to Philip Edgecomb Hughes' commentary on Hebrews, Jerome asserted (in letter 73, to Evangelus) that Origen believed Melchizedek to be an angel and that he himself along with Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Apollinaris, and Eustathius believed him to be a human being and a type of Christ. Hughes adds Cyril of Alexandria and Epiphanius to the list. But Ambrose (according to Hughes) sometimes referred to Melchizedek as God, sometimes the Son of God, and sometimes a type of Christ. Epiphanius was an early writer who explicitly wrote against the idea of Melchizedek being a theophany; John Brown also mentioned that he was aware of the belief. Hughes identifies Cunaeus as a more recent proponent of the belief, along with J.B. McCaul and A.T. Hanson, about whom not much information is out there online. In addition to all this (just as a side note) there were various heretical sects that saw Melchizedek as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, and Jewish writers commonly identify Melchizedek with Shem.


Did the congregation have input into leader selection in the early church? The way I've always seen it, leaders are to be chosen first, and then appointed as leaders. I guess this could be compared to an inauguration. The biblical leadership model in my mind, was in some ways an indirect democracy insofar as the people choosing their leaders.

The confusion I had thought I saw was that the "choosing" and "appointment" were mixed up, and therefore church leaders choose and appoint leaders themselves.

The only New Testament scripture I can go by is Acts 6 and Acts 14. Acts 6 mentions both the selection and appointment, however Acts 14 just discusses the appointment. Many leaders  I know just go by Acts 14.

Here are the scriptures I'm referring to:

Acts 6:2-6

  2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said,
  "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to
  serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men
  of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint
  to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the
  ministry of the word." 5 And what they said pleased the whole
  gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy
  Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and
  Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before
  the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.

And Acts 14:23

  And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

There's a good article about it here which discusses the verbs used.

My question is, what does the Bible tell us about the way leaders were chosen in the early church?

While the New Testament does not give complete details about the selection process, the role of other leaders is much more clearly documented than the role of congregations, at least in the appointment of elders.

Acts 6, by contrast, involves the selection of servant leaders, known in most churches today as deacons. The Apostles were too busy to "serve tables", so they asked the congregation to select seven men "to this duty". These men were not appointed elders (although at least one, Stephen, did later do some preaching.) The Apostles laid their hands on these servants, possibly as a blessing (see, e.g., Genesis 48:14-20) or a commission (see, e.g., Numbers 27:22-23).

Acts 14 specifically refers to the appointment of elders.

Although Dr. Perkins goes to great lengths (in your linked article) to show that the Greek verb in Acts 14:23 can be used of either appointment or election, the footnote from Alexander Strauch still stands:

  the point is, cheirotoneo can mean to elect or appoint. The context, not the etymology, determines its meaning. The context [Acts 14:23] is perfectly clear that appoint is the only possible meaning here.

The phrase, "they had appointed elders for them in every church", can only reasonably be interpreted that Paul and Barnabas chose the elders for the churches. As to whether Paul and Barnabas sought input from the congregations, we are not told.

Elsewhere in the New Testament, we see Titus being chosen by Paul to appoint elders:

  I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done, and should appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.—Titus 1:5

Again, we are not told (nor is Titus, for that matter) how much input Titus should receive from the congregation; however, since the qualifications for the office were listed in the private letter to Titus, it seems likely that the opinions of the congregation would not carry much weight.

So although congregations may have had some input into the selection of their elders, the New Testament is only clear in stating that elders were appointed by other church leaders.


Does the taxpayer take any part in funding Christian Churches in Britain? Are organisations such as the Church of England and the Catholic Church funded at all by the taxpayer?

It was something I thought of the other day but I thought it couldn't possibly be true as it would be so ridiculous, but the thoughts been getting at me and I've really been wanting to make sure.

It is a common misconception that the Church of England budget comes from the government. In fact, most of their money comes from individual donations or bequests, or from investments (including rent on land they own). The same is true for other UK churches which are not "established".

Churches and their ministers / employees may enjoy favourable tax status - often, they are organized under charity law. They may collect Gift Aid, a scheme where you give money to the charity, and the charity is able to reclaim a proportion of that from the tax you pay. In addition, churches may receive specific government funding for the upkeep of historic buildings, for running schools, and so on. But almost all of this is not specific to their status as churches.


What is the distinction between Consubstantial and One in Being? The New Translation of the Roman Missal is going to be put into use in Advent 2011 and there is a change made to the Nicene Creed.

  one in Being with the Father.

is going to be

  consubstantial with the Father

that's a nice new word to teach my CCD class, but what is the difference.  Does this further differentiate the Latin Rite Catholic creed from other Churches (especially Eastern Orthodox) or bring it doctrinally closer?

The change is just in the translation, the original Latin is the same as ever, but there still must be some significance, other than wanting to be more concise.

The aim of the retranslation, as I understand it, is to have the translated text more accurately represent the original text.

The Latin version of the creed says:

  Genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri

Which means "begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father".  The new translation is an accurate translation of the Latin.  (In the same way, "And with your spirit" is a better translation of "et cum spiritu tuo" than "And also with you".)

"One in Being with the Father" is an interpretation of the Latin -- and a fairly modern one at that.  If you'd said to one of the early Church fathers that the Son was one in Being with the Father, they may well have called you a heretic.

"One in substance" is a more accurate translation of the Latin and -- who knows? -- may give an opportunity for some good sermons on Christology.


According to the Roman Catholic Church, is halal meat being offered up to idols? For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well. (Acts 15:28–29, ASV)
No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. (1 Corinthians 10:20, NIV)

In some nations there are Muslims working in the slaughterhouses blessing the meat so it becomes halal meat, so that Muslims can eat it when it is sold in the stores.
For many this is  not okay. What does the Roman Catholic Church say about this? Is this meat being offered up to idols?

The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that food certified by either the appropriate Jewish authorities as meeting requirements for Kosher certification, or by Islamic authorities as meeting requirements for Halal certification are foods offered to idols. The Catholic position is that the God of the Jews and the God of Muslims is the same God as the Christian God,, and therefore not an idol.

In explaining different understandings between most Jews and most Muslims, from the understanding that most Christians have of God, Catholics teach that Jews and Muslims,  and frankly many non-Catholic Christians,  too, have (at best) an incomplete knowledge of the nature of God.


Does Cain still have descendants on the earth? According to Genesis 5:

  3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in
  his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam
  lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam
  lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

  6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father[b] of Enosh. 7
  After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had
  other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912
  years, and then he died.

If we continue reading, we see that we are descendants of Seth as his genealogy leads to the birth of Noah. God destroyed other families and spared only the house of Noah (8 people), from whom the earth was repopulated.

Adam->Seth-> ... ->Methuselah->Lamech->Noah->(Noah's Sons)-> .... ->Us

  Genesis 7:23- Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped
  out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground
  and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those
  with him in the ark

Cain's descendants and Seth's siblings' descendants were therefore wiped out.

Your answer seems correct. As God has never approved of being unequally yoked. Cain's descendants followed after Cain and dwelt in his city (Gen 4:17). God never wanted people to live clustered in cities, where sin would abound, and there are various examples of this throughout Genesis. God's people stayed in the wilderness, tilling the ground and doing the work God had commanded to them as a blessing, even though the ground was now cursed.  These were the people that began "calling on the name of the LORD." (Gen 4:25)

You could see the striking difference between the people that followed God and obeyed His commandments and those that did not.

From this point you can infer that Noah and his sons, being righteous in the eyes of God, would not mix with those who did evil in the eyes of God. If this is so, then Noah and his 3 sons would have wives that loved the LORD and were not of the lineage of Cain.

Of course it could also be that one or more of the wives were descendants of Cain that decided to follow in the way of the LORD. Nevertheless, the Bible offers no such insight on this matter. So the true answer is we do not know, but I'm definitely more inclined to say that they all were destroyed.


According to the scripture, when and how is the world destroyed? There is a lot of talk about the end times. But where and when in the scripture does it recount the world actually being destroyed? In the end of John's Revelation we have the new heaven and earth, and at the beginning the old. More specifically, at what event and by what means are the old heavens and earth destroyed?

If I am understanding St. Paul correctly, he's telling us that there is no way to know when this will happen -- that indeed the angels don't even know -- and that our preoccupation with it is of no consequence if we are not ready to meet and be judged by God on that day.

The following is based on 1 Thessalonians chapter 5:

  "Of the times and moments. That is, of the day of judgment, of the end
  of the world, of the destruction of Jerusalem. It is enough to know
  the time is uncertain, and that death cometh as a thief in the night.
  (Witham) --- When the judgment shall take place the Angels themselves
  do not know. Perhaps St. Paul, when wrapt up to the third heaven, may
  have learnt something on this subject; for he was told many things
  which he could not announce to man; therefore, he says, I need not
  write to you: it is unnecessary for us to know it. (Calmet)"

The second epistle of St. Peter does suggest fire though:

2 Peter 3:10: But the day of the Lord shall come as a thief, in which the heavens shall pass away with great violence, and the elements shall be melted with heat, and the earth, and the works that are in it, shall be burnt up.

Some commentary on this:

  The heavens, &c. He puts the faithful in mind not to regard these
  profane scoffers, but to be convinced of the truths revealed, and that
  the world shall be destroyed a second time by fire. Reflect that the
  time of this life, and all the time that this world shall last, is
  nothing to eternity, which has no parts, no beginning, nor end; so
  that in the sight of God, who is eternal, a thousand years are no more
  to be regarded than one day, or one moment. The long time that hath
  hitherto passed, must not make you think that God is slack as to his
  promises, or that they shall not infallibly come to pass at the time
  and moment appointed by his divine providence. God's infinite mercy,
  and his love for mankind, bears patiently with the provocations of
  blind and unthinking sinners, not willing that any of them should
  perish, but that they should return to him by a sincere repentance and
  true penance, and be saved. But watch always, according to the
  repeated admonition of our blessed Redeemer. (Mark xiii. 37. &c.) For
  both the day of your death, and the day of the Lord to judge the
  world, will come like a thief, &c. (Witham)


How do NON soul sleep adherents interpret 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18? How do non soul sleep adherents interpret 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18:

  But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
  14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
  15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
  16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
  17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
  18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words. (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, KJV)

Essentially, the passage is simply seen as an euphemism for death — and quite a common one, given that a dead person often looks like they are sleeping: the Greek personification of sleep, Hypnos, was said to the twin brother of Death (Thanatos) by both Homer in the Illiad and Hesiod in the Theogony. The other common metaphor for death is "departing" or "passing on", essentially going on a journey.

We have other passages to argue the opposite position, which is that Soul Sleep does not occur, like the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19–31), though I'm not sure it is in scope of the question. At any rate, weighing in for and against, we non-mortalists hold that the position that the soul is unconscious before the Resurrection cannot be considered orthodox.


Who are "Born again" Christians? "Born again" is a term most often attributed to Christians. Yet what exactly does it mean, and what does the the use of the term encompass?

What is a "born again" Christian?
Are they of a specific denomination?
Where does the term "born again" come from?

The term "born again" comes from a passage in John 3:

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

(Some translations render "born again" as "born from above")
The concept is picked up in other places in the Bible where Christians are referred to as "new creations". (2 Corinthians 5, Galatians 6). The sense is clear that to be a part of the Kingdom of God, you must undergo a radical transformation, akin to being created anew: "starting over again". Like birth, this is something that happens to you, not something you do.
Using this basis, the doctrinal position of almost all Christian denominations is that all Christians are by definition "born again". For many the sacrament of baptism makes you "born again". For others, whatever makes you a Christian also makes you "born again".
The use of the term "born again Christian" really dates from the 1960s, where it originated with the Jesus People and Christian counterculture. Since then it is generally associated with the Evangelical movement, and is often used by them to distinguish themselves from those they see as 'nominal' Christians. It isn't applied to any specific denomination.


In a Eucharistic miracle, do the communicants still partake of the sacrament? In the miracle of Lanciano in the eighth century, not only the substance but also the accidents of the bread and wine became that of flesh and blood. Chemically, it was identical to human flesh and blood. The elements were preserved, and later tested and found to be AB-type blood and human cardiac tissue.

In such a miracle (of which there are others), does the Eucharist continue as normal? Or is it wrong to partake of the flesh and blood that has the accidents of flesh and blood?

The short answer is “no;” the products of a Eucharistic miracle such as the one in Lanciano, no longer have the substantial and sacramental presence of Christ.

A little background on how the Eucharist “works” in the Catholic and Orthodox churches

For the benefit of readers, here is a very short primer on the belief shared by Catholics and the Orthodox (and the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Polish National Catholic Church, etc.) on the Eucharist.

These churches all believe that when a priest or bishop consecrates the bread and wine, these species are converted into Jesus Christ. In Western terminology (not commonly used in the East), we say that the very substance of the bread and wine is converted into the substance of Jesus. In other words, after the consecration (or epiclesis, in the Eastern rites), the sacred species cease to be bread and wine, and from that moment on are Jesus Christ. In Western terminology, this conversion is called transubstantiation. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1376.)

The Eucharistic species, however, retain all of the properties and appearances (or “accidents”) of the bread and wine; hence, they are indistinguishable from bread or wine chemically and physically. (See Council of Trent, Session XIII, Decree on the Eucharist, Can. 2; see also Summa theologiae [S.Th.], III, q. 75, a.5.)

It is important to note that the substantial presence of Christ ceases as soon as they cease to have the appearance of bread or wine. For example, once the bread is dissolved into a paste, or the wine is diluted, the Real Presence ceases. (See CCC 1377, as well as S.Th. III Pars, q. 77, a. 4, responsum, and my answer to the question During communion, when does the wafer stop being Jesus' body?)

Regarding the Eucharistic miracles

In the case of miracles such as those at Lanciano (i.e., in which either the bread becomes actual human flesh or the wine becomes human blood), it is clear that the appearance of bread or wine has ceased, albeit in an extraordinary way. The object in question now has the properties of human flesh or human blood, not bread or wine.

It follows that these objects no longer have the sacramental presence of Christ—however extraordinary they are.


Is there a connection between 666 and Solomon? There is another question here that asks for the significance of the number 666.
Most of the answers relate it to papacy, Nero or some other apocalyptic event.
I have read several prophetic websites and they do the same thing. Sum up the numeric value of the alphabets in somebody's name. Multiply it by 2, divide by 3 and it comes to 666.
However I was reading my Bible was surprised to find the following verse -

1 Kings 10:14 The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was
666 talents,
2 Chronicles 9:13 The weight of the gold that Solomon
received yearly was 666 talents,

My question is how did everyone over look this? Could it be that the number has nothing to do with papacy or Nero.
There seems to be some sort of connection with Solomon. If so what is it?

I don't think it's too much of a stretch.

If we look back at the law for kings in Deuteronomy 17, It prohibits the king from multiplying horses and chariots, wives, and wealth. This is exactly what Solomon is doing in 1 Kings 10-11. Chapter ten begins by commending his great wisdom, but then steps through his decline - that is, he begins violating the rules for kings by multiplying gold (666 talents a year), multiplying horses and chariots, and finally multiplying wives who turn his heart away from following Yahweh. He sets up centers of false worship for all the foreign gods of his wives. So, the number 666 is associated with Solomon in his fall, his abuse of power, and his turning away from true worship of Yahweh.

In Revelation, Jesus sets up worship interactions under the symbol of business transactions - buying and selling.

  I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see.

This is picked up in chapter 13 with reference to worship in the false temple - the image set up by the beast which must be worshiped on pain of death. Everyone must worship the image, but no one may do so without the mark. The buying and selling referred to here is of the same kind established by Jesus in chapter 3. It is worship - spiritual transactions.

This kind of forced worship of an image set up also has ties back to Nebuchadnezzar.

  King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, whose height was sixty cubits and its breadth six cubits... And the herald proclaimed aloud, “You are commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, that when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, you are to fall down and worship the golden image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. And whoever does not fall down and worship shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace.”

Nebuchadnezzar is acting as a beast (and later, even more so) and sets up an image to be worshiped. Again, we have six and sixty associated with worship of a false image on pain of death.

All of this comes together in the name and number of the man - 666. This sums up man in his fallen state. The number carries with it the fallen glory of Solomon, his degraded wisdom, his failure to follow the word of God, his abuse of power, and his allowing himself to be turned aside to the worship of impotent gods.

Don't be afraid of symbolism; it's good for you :)


Does saying "Thank God!" count as using God's name in vain? Would it be alright if I was to say "Thank God?" I'm not sure, as I'm quite a new Christian. This is the context:

I am late for the plane. I rush through the check-ins and stuff, and I reach the plane just in time. I say, "Thank God!".

Would that be counted as using God's name in vain? This comes from this question.

What about saying "Thank the Lord!" Would that be taking the Lord's name in vain?

Depends on the intent of the speaker. Do they say it with gratitude and in recognition of God? Who could find fault with that? It would not be vain then. But, if it is said without such a sentiment, it is vain.


Why are some verses missing in the NIV? I'm wondering why some passages in the NIV are missing when compared to the KJV, like:

Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Mark 9:44
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36

…and more. Also there are some passages where the NIV deletes some phrases as in Matthew 5:44:

NIV: But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
KJV: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use
you, and persecute you

I don't understand the need to change the Bible from what it was for so many years; I personally find the old versions really rich in culture and those express much more than the new versions do. Also in the old versions, the points and commas were really important to not change the original meaning. And the Bible teaches that God is the one that gives us revelation through the Holy Spirit to understand the scriptures, so there's no need to change the Bible to make it 'more understandable'

The NIV has some "missing" verses because it is based on different manuscripts than, say, the King James version.

For some background, we don't have manuscripts of the original writings of the New Testament.  We have copies of them, and as with text that is copied manually, there is room for copyist error, or for people to add or remove things - purposely or inadvertently.  Note that copyist errors don't affect the doctrine of inspiration, inerrancy, or infallibility of the Word.  And even though there are slight changes, it's still reliable for doctrine.

The verses that the NIV "removes" are simply not in the manuscripts used for translating it.

There's more detail available all over the web.  This is one such page.


What is the Septuagint? As the title asks, what is the Septuagint?

I've heard it referred to in a number of questions on this site and other sources across the internet, but I what is the Septuagint and what is it's importance to Christianity?

Also of interest is who wrote it, when was it written and why was it written?

The Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures (The Old Testament).  It is often referred to, in shorthand, as the LXX.  The name means "Seventy" (hence LXX).  It is named after the 70 scholars who wrote it.

After Israel was hellenized, it became popular, in Israel, as the everyday-man's scripture since Greek was spoken more often than Hebrew.  It is commonly referenced in Christian circles because it is the translation that was used by Jesus and the writers of the New Testament when they were quoting the Old Testament.  That is one of the reasons why the New Testament quotes of Old Testament scripture don't line up, word-for-word, with what you find in the Old Testament.  It was a somewhat loose translation of the Hebrew, roughly akin to the looseness of the modern NIV.

It has been immensely useful to those studying ancient Hebrew because it is a sort-of Rosetta Stone, providing slightly-more-modern Greek translations of ancient Hebrew words.  It is also important because, even though it is only a translation, it is older than many of the Hebrew manuscripts for the books in the Old Testament.

No one knows specifically who the 70 scholars were who wrote the Septuagint, but the traditional story is that Ptolemy II, a King in Egypt from 283-246 B.C., commissioned it so that it could be used by the Greek-speaking Jews who were living Egypt at the time.


To what extent does mainstream Christian doctrine teach that knowing a spirit's name gives you power over it? A while ago I was at a resort with a man who for many years worked as a church painter. He introduced me into some pieces of Christian doctrine.

He told me that the humans' souls, the angels, demons and the God himself all are the spirits.
Knowing a spirit's true name gives unlimited power over it.

For example, Jesus asked for the demon's name before he expelled it from the man and into the herd.

Consequently, nobody knows the true God's name which is the highest secret, because anybody who knew it would have God's power.

I wonder to what extent this explanation reflects mainstream Christian doctrine.

Actually, this is more Kabbalah than Christianity and has further roots in the occult and other non-Christian mysticism and folklore (Rumpelstiltskin comes to mind, which is a decidedly non-Christian story).

The idea that knowing the name of a beast/demon/whatever gives you dominion over it came from the idea that naming a beast/demon/whatever showed your already existing domination over it. It's a very ancient idea that we see displayed in Genesis 2 when God brings all the beasts to Adam so that he can name them 1 2.

The concept is often called knowing the True Name and also has its roots from a time when it was believed that language itself, or a special unknown language, held actual power (which is where the concept of spells comes from too). These concepts are not foreign to the Bible, but because of your modern eye, you might have over looked them. As already mentioned, Adam names the beasts in Genesis, but going further we see that God doesn't necessarily create in Genesis 1 with His own hands, but by simply speaking and with authority too. We see this again with the prophets, where they would speak with the authority of God ("thus saith the Lord"). We also see this in the New Testament in Acts when the disciples cast out demons "in the Name of Jesus." We even see this in John 1 where Jesus is called the "Word" that was and is with God.

Historically, this god-like power extended to kings, where any utterance from the king was not only legal law, but divine and natural as well. 3 4 Today, this extends somewhat into Christendom. For example, within the Roman Catholic Church, there is the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, though I concede that this doctrine did not originate from this ancient mythical concept, and also in a few sects, such as LDS and Seventh Day Adventists, that believe in a modern prophet that brought or clarified the Word of God, which also has different origins. Even secularly, this idea that words hold real power persists, as evidenced by the classic metonymy "The pen is mightier than the sword."

In general, "mainstream" Christianity really avoids these kinds of things. Most people find the topic very unnerving. Out on the edges is where you will find opinions favoring this. It is very difficult to Biblically support it. This idea leaves the impression that you can have some kind of intrinsic power over any spirit. Instead, what is readily supported is that it is God's power, Jesus Christ's power, that conquers the evil spirit. Jesus casts out demons by his own authority, while the disciples in Acts cast out demons "in Jesus' name," demonstrating that they have no power of their own, but that Jesus does.

Additionally, what is very common practice for exorcising demons is to never actually address the demon except to command it from the possessed (I can't find a source for this right now). This would show that in practice, asking for its name is something you should not do anyway, even if it would tell you the truth.

Addendum

In case you might ask about the story of the demon named "legion" ...

It's not particularly clear why Jesus wanted to know the demon's name, but it is very clear that the demon was in full submission to Christ before He asked.

  When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!”
  Mark 5

The demon immediately pleads and begs Jesus to spare him from a grisly fate. Jesus didn't even need to address the demon. It merely saw Him from a distance and fell promptly into submission.

Regarding having the power of God ... Any tradition that would claim that having God's power is possible, even only theoretically, is verging on blasphemy. I don't know for sure, but this does sound like something you would read in Kabbalistic literature.

Sources

Adam and the Woman by Sandra King
Genesis 2, Adam and Eve, and Authority by Matt Slick - CARM
Divine Right of Kings Definition - Duhaime's Law Dictionary
Divine right of kings - Wikipedia

An interesting related question on Literature SE: Where did the idea of a "true name" come from?


Was Jesus two separate individuals in one body? I have always been told, and I thoroughly believe that Jesus was wholly God and wholly man.

Since there are multiple occasions in the Bible where pre-incarnate Jesus apparently appeared to people, and yet we know that Jesus was  also born in human form to Mary, I feel that there had to be both a man Jesus and a deity Jesus occupying that same human body.

I hope that no-one will think that that is in any way Heretical and I certainly am not questioning the Deity of any part of the Trinity.

I have pondered that for quite some time and included the following in trying to come up with an answer.

When God created man he breathed the breath of life into only the man he created from dust. He has not breathed the breath of life into any others including Eve, and yet man continues to have the breath of life in posterity even to today.

Does this indicate that we are still sharing the same breath of life that God breathed into the first man?
God told man that when he partook of the knowledge of good and evil that that life would be demanded back for hs disobedience.
Since God is eternal is not the breath of life also eternal?
When Jesus died on the cross was it that same life given to original man that he sacrificed?
If that were so then it would fulfill the demand of God that man must surely die.
When we surrender to Christ are we too sacrificing that same breath of life given to original man.
That would tend to further explain why Jesus death on the cross gives us forgiveness for our sins.
That also helps me to understand the following scriptures:

Matt 10:39:  He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my     sake shall find it.

Matt 16:25:  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose    his life for my sake shall find it.

Matt 19:17:  And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good     but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

Luke 14:26:  If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and    wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot    be my disciple.

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

John 17:3:  And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God,  and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

And it causes me to believe that not only do we become a new creature when we accept Christ, but that he gives us a new eternal life.

  John 10:28 (KJV)
  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither
  shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

  John 17:2 (KJV)
  As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal
  life to as many as thou hast given him.

Do any Theologians or denominations share those beliefs or am I just off my rocker?

According to the Westminster Confession of Faith:

  The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man's nature,(1) with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin;(2) being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance.(3) So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion.(4) Which person is very God...

This appears to suggest that your "two persons" theory is mistaken, because Christ is one person with two natures. Whether or not this answers your question rather depends on your view of WCF, and assumes that your definition of person is the same as that used by WCF.


What is the LDS view on the Trinity? Possible Duplicate:
  If Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) don’t believe in a Holy Trinity, then who do they believe is God?

My main question is this: What is the LDS view of the Trinity?
As a Catholic, I believe that the Trinity is One Being (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) in three persons (consubstantial).
I guess my question boils down to this, do they (LDS) believe that the Trinity is One, or three separate beings?

The short answer: three separate and distinct beings.

In the Doctrine and Covenants (LDS canon), it states:

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

Additionally, in Joseph Smith -- History he recounts

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

David's link also has good information.


What is the theory that there is more than one "Satan" called, and what is its basis? I'm remembering back to a conversation that I had with an individual who was adamant about the fact that Satan was a made up Angel. That instead of Satan being a singular object, satan was actually the term for an angel.

He was claiming that there is more then one satan in existence and they did the bidding of God.

If you know what this theory is called or if there is any evidence being it, please let me know.

  Matthew 12:26 NKJV

  If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will
  his kingdom stand?

The Hebrew word satan means "accuser" or "adversary". It can be used in a general sense rather than as a proper noun. This does not mean that all occurrences of the word refer to a generic accuser. For example, Luke 10:18,

  I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven,

is clearly referring to a specific individual. But in 1 Kings 11:14,

  Then the Lord raised up against Solomon an adversary, Hadad the Edomite, from the royal line of Edom,

the English "adversary" is translating Hebrew "satan". Clearly Hadad is not the actual devil.

In the book of Job, "Satan" appears in heaven and is instructed by God to torment Job. This matches the idea that "satan" can be a job title of an angel, who works for God but whose task is to tempt people and cause suffering. In particular, such a "satan" is not opposed to God. In the Hebrew, it is actually "ha-Satan", "the satan" or "the accuser" (eg in Job 1:6).

Historically, Jewish ideas about Satan changed significantly during and after the Exile, perhaps due to their exposure to Babylonian mythology. The idea that Satan is in active rebellion against God is certainly much more prevalent after this time, whatever the cause. Previously, the dominant view was against an independent adversary, and in favour of God controlling everything, good or bad.


On nominal Christianity Yesterday crossed this article which has a strong stand against something called "nominal Christianity".
From reading the article, I couldn't understand some points I'd like clarification in

what "nominal Christianity" really is

the problems with it

which terminology a Christian ought to use/follow instead

"Nominal Christian" means being a Christian in name only. It's not really in dispute that there are nominal Christians. There are many people around the world who would mark "Christian" (or Catholic, Anglican, etc) on the census who never attend any church event, participate in any other Christian ministry, or really think about God at all. Many Western countries are now largely post-Christian; they've inherited a Christian background to their culture and morals, etc., but God and the Christian religion play a small part in most people's lives.
There's a spectrum of spirituality: people who attend Christmas and Easter services but nothing else; people who attend more regularly because they're expected to, but who ignore all the Christian content; people who participate broadly but whose personal and private spiritual lives is empty; people who pray publicly in church because they've learnt what to say, but never privately and never with any actual meaning or true intention. The term "nominal" might be applied to any of these groups at times, and it would arguably be fair to do so.
But saying that a specific individual is a nominal Christian is pretty judgemental. Yes we're to judge people by their spiritual fruits, but we can never truly know anyone else's heart. Saying it directly to someone is also not likely to provoke them to pursue a deeper faith. Instead we'd want to evangelise them like we would someone who makes no claim to be a Christian, by communicating properly with them, asking them about their lives, and explaining and witnessing to how Jesus can reconcile them to God, filling the spiritual void in their lives carved out by their sin.


Was 'Jesus and the woman taken in adultery' in St. John a later addition, and does this invalidate infallibility? In John 7:53-8:11 we have the account of 'Jesus and the woman taken in adultery'

  53 Then they all went home, 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Many modern translation include notes like this one (NIV).

  "The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53."

And some translations print the entire passage in italics to indicate that it is most probably not an original passage.

Read this article for more full explanation for and against.

My question is if this is a later addition then what implications does this have? Does is invalidate biblical infallibility? Does it change any moral or religious applications to this passage?

Forgive me for answering my own question…

There are several scenarios I can think of regarding this passage.

John himself added this passage later on.
John told this story enough that later his followers thought it appropriate to add this passage to John’s account.
This account was so common among early Christians and fit so well at this point in John’s gospel that the early Christians felt is appropriate to add this story here.
John himself had written this account elsewhere, and his followers later combined it with the rest of his Gospel.

If any of these explanations are true, or something similar happened, it would not invalidate the truth of the account historically, or otherwise. Likewise, just because the very earliest manuscripts do not contain these words exactly it does not necessarily follow that it is not true or any less inspired.