What is the difference between "belong fully to God" and "belong to God"? "Saints are people who belong fully to God," Pope Francis said, thus introducing a degree of belonging to God, fully or less fully or, even, not fully.

Can anyone explain, in the light of Gospel, what "belong fully to God" means and how it is different  from "belong to God", even if not fully.

Thank you and peace be with you.

I suppose you may have read Pope Francis' words. I think it means that Pope Francis just wants Christians to be active participants in church rather than loafing around and doing nothing. Inactive, non-practicing Christians are no more useful than the "fluffy bunnies" of neo-pagan religions, bordering on being false believers and utter hypocrites. One may "belong to God" by receiving the invitation of salvation, but that's easy. One must participate in the party in order to belong fully to God.

Pope Francis explains his rhetoric by alluding to the Parable of the Great Banquet. Salvation is being compared to a great delicious feast that God holds for all his invited guests. If his invited guests (people who self-identify as Christians) do not come, then God will think of them as being ungrateful and skips them; God will instead look for more grateful guests by gathering believers on the streets. Additionally, it is known that Roman Catholics baptize infants. Using the same analogy, these Catholics are put on the guest list by their parents who expect them to worship God and presumably live a holy life. Well, these Catholics claim to be Catholics but aren't real Catholics because they do not follow God or the church, or even live a moral life. Therefore, non-practicing Catholics aren't really saved at all.*

*It is NOT to say or give the impression that nonreligious people cannot ever be moral. This is just about a particular group of "Christians" that identify themselves as Christians but really do not do Christian things like praying, worshiping, attending services regularly, or at least implementing Christ's teachings in everyday life.


Do Pope Francis' recent comments on atheism represent a change in doctrine? Pope Francis made some recent comments in a letter, which are being summarized in headlines like, "Pope Francis tells atheists to abide by their own consciences."

Does the full context of the Pope's remarks represent a change in doctrine?

A change in doctrine, if it is possible at all, can only be expressed with a definitive statement ex cathedra. The Pope wrote in his letter

  Le accolga come la risposta tentativa e provvisoria,
  Please accept this as a tentative and provisional response

so no, it does not express any change in doctrine.

In the English translation, the Holy Father writes

   Each of us is called to accept the view and the choice of love made by Jesus, become a part of his way of being, thinking and acting.

That is a definitive statement of what God expects of mankind.

He goes on,

   First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith.  Given that  —  and this is fundamental  —  God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience.  In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil.  The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.

This is saying much the same thing as Benedict XVI did when he spoke about the use of condoms in combatting AIDS. Consideration of one's actions and the reasons for them is the first step on the road to faith.

In explaining that God's mercy has no limits, Pope Francis writes "if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart". That presupposes that the person asking for mercy is asking of a God he believes in [or who is he addressing?] and with sorrow for not having believed in the past. The Pope has not contradicted the tenet that belief in God is necessary; far from it. What he has done, though, in directing people to obey their conscience — their God-given sense of good and evil — is to point them in the direction of God.

Both Popes are encouraging that first step in searching out the truth.

  [Truth is not] variable and subjective ... it is given to us only as a way and a life.  Was it not Jesus himself who said:  "I am the way, the truth, the life"?  In other words, the truth is one with love, it requires humbleness and the willingness to be sought, listened to and expressed.

Seek the truth; find it and repent; and you will enter heaven. This is consistent with the teaching of the Church.


What reasons do those who reject the JEPD view of Scripture provide? The documentary hypothesis, or JEPD view of Scripture, states that the Pentatuech was potentially compiled from four different sources: the Jahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomical. It is widely denied a priori by many Christians.

What reasoning do those who reject the JEPD point to (scholarly or theological)?

I don't think that it is a matter of "limiting" God.  I guess I've never heard anyone say that the theory is invalid because it "limits God".

The primary reason for rejecting the view is, for many, simply a matter of the traditional method of understanding Scripture, and it's origins.

Put simply (perhaps too simply), it is more likely that the people who actually lived in ancient times and lived through the events of those times had a better understanding of those times and the events of those times than someone who lived hundreds of years later.

Based on that reasoning, it's simply more plausible to accept the traditional view of the authorship of the Pentateuch than it is to believe a theory derived hundreds of years after the fact.

Whether the tradition started at the time of Moses, with those who were actually in the wilderness with him, or if the authorship was attributed to him later, the argument still remains that Mosaic authorship had been accepted by those who were much closer in time to the actual events than the later critics.

Another reason for rejecting the theory include the fact that it is only one of many theories.   (I know it's not the best source, but Wikipedia has some good information on these)

This may be a bad basis for faith, but on some level it is simply easier to reject all of the competing recent theories and hold fast to tradition.  (The Gordian Knot approach.)

When it comes down to it, for me anyway, whether Moses wrote the books or not isn't of the utmost importance. What is important is whether or not I trust that the Scriptures are actually "God-breathed".  Since Jesus Himself quoted from the books of Moses, He clearly accepted them as Scriptural.  That's good enough for me, so I don't worry about such issues.

Taking the next step, I personally reject the theory simply for the reasons above, but I wouldn't get into an argument over it.  I reject the idea, but accept that I could be wrong, and that God could have easily given us exactly the Bible He meant to give us in any way He chose. If I'm wrong about the authorship it doesn't really matter so I don't worry about it, so it's really a non-issue to me but if pressed I'd say I believe the Mosaic authorship.

I suspect that many who reject the theory do so for the same reasons.


How do Protestants interpret Matthew 16:13–20? The verses read like this:

  13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
  14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
  15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
  16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
  17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. [NIV]

I am familiar with how Catholics interpret this passage and often quote it as the reason the Papacy exists and is ordained by Jesus himself.

However, the verse is perplexing to me because it does seem to imply some sort or emphasis on Peter being special to the Church, but Protestants reject the Papal authority, so how would they interpret this passage? I am looking for the answer that speaks from most Protestants, since I think most Protestants agree that the Papacy does not have the authority it claims. Perhaps if Martin Luther or another famous reformer had anything to say on it would be good.

It is worth pointing out that even if you take the stance that the verse is saying that Peter had some kind of special status, there is nothing that indicates that that authority is continued in his line.  Every other place I can think of where a lineage related authority is granted, it is pretty clearly laid out by God in scripture.  (For example the establishment of the Levitical priests.)  In this passage, there is no such establishment of authority through lineage.


How did Christian come to be the name for believers? Who changed the name believer to Christians.  Are there bible verses calling the followers of Jesus Christ Christian?  If yes, were are the verses?  If no, who coined the word and under what condition did he coin the word?

The term Christian or Christians is only in the Bible 3 times: Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16. Acts 11:26 tells us a little bit of how the term Christian began to be used to describe the followers of Jesus. It says, "...The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." (NIV) We are given nothing else to go with.


Did the 19th Century Anglican Church have exorcism rituals or prayers? Did the 19th Century Anglican Church have exorcism rituals? I can't see any in the Book of Common Prayer. Is there somewhere else they might be?

I heard somewhere that only bishops could perform exorcisms in that era, but I've seen no firm evidence of that and nor can I find the rituals or prayers they would have used.

Did the 19th Century Anglican Church have exorcism rituals or prayers?

I think it is safe to say that the Anglican Church has a form of exorcism ritual(or prayers) during the 19th century.

  Exorcism is more widespread in contemporary England than perhaps at any other time in history. The Anglican Church is by no means the main provider of this ritual, which predominantly takes place in independent churches. However, every one of the Church of England dioceses in the country now designates at least one member of its clergy to advise on casting out demons. Such `deliverance ministry' is in theory made available to all those parishioners who desire it. Yet, as Francis Young reveals, present-day exorcism in Anglicanism is an unlikely historical anomaly. It sprang into existence in the 1970s within a church that earlier on had spent whole centuries condemning the expulsion of evil spirits as either Catholic superstition or evangelical excess.

  This book for the first time tells the full story of the Anglican Church's approach to demonology and the exorcist's ritual since the Reformation in the sixteenth century. The author explains how and why how such a remarkable transformation in the Church's attitude to the rite of exorcism took place, while also setting his subject against the canvas of the wider history of ideas. - A History of Anglican Exorcism: Deliverance and Demonology in Church Ritual (International Library of Historical Studies)


Is there biblical basis for the claim that Pilate had no choice? There is a trend among Christians to put the guilt of killing Jesus on Jews rather than on Romans.

Some Christians go as far as to proclaiming Pilate a saint (as did either Ethiopian or Coptic church if I am not mistaken).

I wonder is there biblical basis for such whitewashing of Pilate?

For example, some people on this site claimed in other answers that if Pilate did not execute Jesus, there would be a popular riot or Pilate could be fired from his position.

Is there biblical evidence that this indeed would happen and Pilate acted with no choice?

In short, no.  Pilate had a choice.

In Jesus' conversation with him, He says this:

Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”  John 19:11 ESV

The Jewish religious leaders--not all Jews--were guilty of a greater sin than Pilate, even though Pilate was guilty of sin for perverting justice.  Indeed, God sets up rulers "to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right".  So, Pilate failed in that.

  Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 1 Peter 2:13-14 ESV

Furthermore, Pilate himself made the following statement:

  “Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”  John 19:10 ESV

Pilate certainly may have wanted to appease the crowd, but with all the might of Rome at his disposal, he certainly was not subject to the Jewish religious leaders in any way.

In reality, Pilate had already had Jesus flogged at this point.  He could very well have said that Jesus had already been punished and than they needed to shut up and go home.  He was the ruler--they were his subjects.

So, Pilate most certainly had a choice.  The Jewish religious leaders did all they could to influence Pilate in his decision.

Edit: Even if some of the Jewish leaders and the Jewish people of that day could be held accountable, they are all dead now.  People of Jewish descent today can not be held accountable for anything any of the ancestors did hundreds and thousands of years ago.

Finally, all of this was in God's plan, so it is unbiblical, immoral, and ungodly to hold the Jews in any way responsible or guilty for the death of Christ.  I'm the guilty one, and Christ died for my sin.  I am the one to blame.


Does natural law override silly human laws? So Augustine, Aquinas and King agree that we, as Christians and free people are not required to follow human laws that do not comply with the natural moral law

. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

That's well and good for the evil that men do, but what about the pointless things that men do. Both in terms of the laws of government  like those dictating the use of butter substitutes in the dairy state and those edicts in our every day lives and offices such as, "all men on yhe second floor must poop in the basement even though there's a bathroom close by"?
Does the natural law, which has a lot to say about man's inherent dignity, override ones moral duties to follow laws and command which are, not wicked or unjust, but just either below ones dignity to follow, not a matter of gracious obedience or self-perfection, or just plain dumb?

I'm not sure about an answer that applies to all of Christianity. but as it happens, the subject of obeying rules we think are dumb came up in Sunday School this very morning.  So, from a Baptist perspective:

  Romans 13:1-2 (KJV) says

  1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no
  power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
  2 Whosoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God:
  and they that resist shall receive to themselves judgment.

There is no mention in Scripture of a principle by which we are allowed to ignore authority because we don't understand a rule/law, or because we think it's silly.  The only exception is if the law goes directly against the Law of God.  We would be allowed to disobey an authority that tried to force us to worship idols, for example, or commit adultery, murder, etc.

But we would be completely unjustified in disobeying a law that required us to wear a giant panda bear as a hat in honor of National Panda day, as wearing such a hat is not against the Law of God.  It's silly, but not amoral.

Dignity, in one sense, is a matter of pride, and therefore selfishness, and is not a justifiable defense. There is no concept of personal dignity being equal to God's law.

The above statement does not include the basic dignity that all human beings are afforded as creations of a loving God.  The dignity I'm referring to is the pride masquerading as dignity. As in "I'm too dignified for that", or "Such silliness is beneath me".  That's completely different than dignity in the sense that we have intrinsic value as human beings - creations of a loving God.  The dignity that we should not be discriminated against or denied entry because some bigot thinks we have less intrinsic value

As a matter of fact, the Bible gives a few very clear examples of where a person is told to do something that seems silly and undignified on God's command.  One such example is in 2 Kings 5 where Naaman is told to go dip himself in the Jordan seven times to be healed of his leprosy.  He's told to go wash in the stinky, dirty, smelly Jordan, and he balks at first because it seems silly, but when he obeys, he is healed.

So, no, there is no justification for disobeying silly rules that we don't understand and think are undignified.

End of official answer

The rest of this may go beyond a doctrinal answer and into "Pastoral Advice", but I think it bears on the original question and puts it in a different light.

There is an importance in following authority as Christians as well, even if we see it as silly.  For the Christian, the foundation of all authority is the fact that all authority is ordained by God, whether we agree with it or not.

For those of us with children, one of our responsibilities as parents it to teach them to respect, and be subject to authority, whether they like it or not.  If they see us disrespecting and disobeying authority, how are we going to teach them that they must respect and obey it.

If they see us refusing to obey our boss, for example, how are we supposed to teach them to respect their teachers and future employers?  We'd be hypocrites, and our children see through that pretty quickly.

Likewise, our peers see though our hypocrisy as well, so from the perspective of letting Christ shine through us, we would be bound to honor silly laws in the name of not being a stubmling block for others.


How does Proverbs 2:21-22 not disprove "once saved, always saved"? For the upright will live in the land,
       and the blameless will remain in it;
  but the wicked will be cut off from the land,
       and the unfaithful will be torn from it."

  Proverbs 2:21-22 (NIV)

"The land" seems like it is the land of God, which might symbolize heaven. So how is the eternal security doctrine defended in light of these verses? Does it have something to do with the fact that they are in the Old Testament?

It is problematic to spiritualize verses too quickly.  Recall that the Proverbs were written by Jewish people living in the Jewish homeland of Israel under the Mosaic Covenant--not the New Covenant spoken of by Ezekiel and identified by Jesus at the Last Supper.

This proverb is speaking about upright and wicked people living in the land of Israel at that time.  Proverbs are general wisdom also--not incontrovertible truths.  Some upright people died young, and some wicked people live to be quite old.

So, again, this is a general proverb that identifies that those who live righteously are often rewarded with long life.  The wicked, however, often receive God's judgment in various forms or are just exposed to greater risks for various reasons.

This has nothing to do with the New Covenant.


How do Modalist and Oneness Pentecostals interpret Revelation 3:12? In Revelation, after the resurrection, Yeshua says...

  "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." (Revelation 3:12, KJV)

Modalists believe that there is one god, the Father, who takes on three distinct modes or functions as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Why does god refer to god as "my God"?

Oneness Pentecostal Jason Dulle writes regarding this verse and others like it:

The solution to understanding these types of Scriptures will not be found in denying Jesus' deity, nor will they be solved by positing a Godhead in which two beings known as "God" share equality of deity. The solution lies in the acknowledgment of Jesus' complete, authentic, and genuine humanity; a humanity which imposed limitations (accepted willingly and intentionally) upon His deity so that He could live on the same plane as any other human, sharing in all of their experiences.
When God assumed humanity, He acquired a consciousness and identity which He never possessed before the incarnation. He had a human psyche not overwhelmed or consumed by His deity. The exercise of Jesus' human nature (such as His consciousness, spirit, will, mind, emotions, and flesh) in such a way requires that in the incarnation, Jesus be spoken of as possessing an identity distinct from, but not separate from the Father. Just as we find a distinction, but not a separation of Christ's two natures, we also find a distinction, but not a separation between God and Jesus; the Father and the Son. This view does not "compromise the deity of Christ or the radical monotheism of biblical theology. But it does give credit to the completeness and genuineness of His [Jesus'] human nature. Any other explanation compromises the completeness of His deity or His humanity."

Throughout this passage Dulle refers to Daniel L. Segraves, Systematic Theology, a Oneness Pentecostal text, and that's the source of the quote he gives at the end of the preceding paragraph.  Dulle concludes:

All of the above Scriptures demonstrate the relationship between the genuine and complete humanity of Jesus (latent deity in genuine humanity), and the transcendent Spirit of the Father. Because Jesus would not rely upon His deity in order to experience the limitations of humanity, He needed a relationship with God. As pertaining to His humanity, Jesus could say that His Father was greater than He Himself. The Father was greater, not because His deity was greater than that of Jesus' (Jesus was Yahweh become flesh), but in the respect that the Father (God as the all existing Spirit) was not subject to any of the limitations of human existence as was Jesus.


What is the basis of the Jehovah's Witnesses' belief that Jesus died on a Stake instead of a Cross? I understand that the Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus died on a Stake (a vertical pole) instead of a Cross.    What is the basis—biblical or other—for this belief?  Does history and archaeology show that the Roman form of crucifixion used just a vertical pole instead of a cross?  Was this unique to Jesus' death alone?

The Jehovah's Witnesses have addresses this issue. From their web site:
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/did-jesus-die-on-cross/

  Many view the cross as the most common symbol of Christianity.
  However, the Bible does not describe the instrument of Jesus’ death,
  so no one can know its shape with absolute certainty. Still, the Bible
  provides evidence that Jesus died, not on a cross, but on an upright
  stake.

  The Bible generally uses the Greek word stau·ros′ when referring to
  the instrument of Jesus’ execution. (Matthew 27:40; John
  19:17) Although translations often render this word “cross,” many
  scholars agree that its basic meaning is actually “upright stake.” *
  According to A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and
  Greek New Testament, stau·ros′ “never means two pieces of wood
  joining each other at any angle.”

  The Bible also uses the Greek word xy′lon as a synonym for
  stau·ros′. (Acts 5:30; 1 Peter 2:24) This word means “wood,” “timber,” “stake,” or “tree.” * The Companion Bible thus
  concludes: “There is nothing in the Greek of the N[ew] T[estament]
  even to imply two pieces of timber.”


According to LDS teaching, was Adam the first man created in all the worlds or just this one? In Moses 1:34, we read the following:

  And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.  (Moses 1:34)

According to LDS teaching, God made many worlds through His Son Jesus.  We are informed here that God called the first man by the name of Adam.

Was this the first man created on all the worlds created by God or just the first man on this particular world?

Was Adam the first son of God in the pre-mortal life as well?  If so, did this distinction carry through to the honor of being the first man in this world or could this have been for another reason?  If not, was there another distinction in the pre-mortal life that resulted in him being selected to be the first man on this world?

The answer can actually be found in the very next verse:

  35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

If many worlds had already existed and completed their cycle by this point, then clearly Adam was the first man of this world.

He was definitely chosen for a reason, out of all the spirit children of God who were to come to this earth, to hold a preeminent place in creation.  Exactly what that reason was has not been revealed, though there are three passages in the Doctrine and Covenants that refer to Adam as being the same person as Michael the Archangel.  (See D&C 27:11, 107:54, and 128:21.)


When would a Mormon choose to go to the temple instead of the church? The accepted answer to this other question mentions that Mormons have two types of meeting locations: temples and churches.

According to the answer, the churches have a 3-hour meeting every Sunday.

In what kind of cases or times would a Mormon then visit a temple for a meeting?

It's not a choice between the two as the question seems to be asking.  The temple is not actually a meetinghouse where ordinary worship services are held.  (In fact, temples are closed on Sundays.)  Latter-Day Saints regard the temple as the House of the Lord, a highly sacred place where, like the temple in the Old Testament, very special, sacred ordinances are performed.

The majority of the work that takes place in temples has to do with the LDS doctrine of salvation for the dead.  Mormons believe that those who died without the Gospel can accept it in the hereafter, as has been discussed elsewhere on this site, but also that certain saving ordinances, such as baptism and confirmation, are necessary for salvation.  This apparent dilemma is resolved by proxy work: in the temple, people can do this work on behalf of those who have passed on, consistent with Paul's mention in 1 Corinthians of baptism for the dead.  As far as I'm aware, ordinances on behalf of the dead cannot be performed anywhere but inside a temple.


How do Orthodox Christians celebrate Christ's resurrection on Easter Sunday? After checking the Orthodox Christianity and Easter tags (over 400 of them), I could find nothing specific on how Orthodox Christianity celebrates Easter Sunday, apart from the Paschal greeting What is the earliest surviving reference to the Paschal Greeting? , and one custom of the breaking of pottery on a few of the Greek Ionian islands. In Corfu it happens on Holy Saturday where ceramic pots are thrown off balconies into the streets.  In Zakynthos it takes place at the Great Friday evening of ‘The Epitafios Lamentation’ service.  This custom is meant to symbolize the Harrowing of Hades or, more specifically, the smashing of the Gates of Hades.  I also note a photo in my Enclyclopedia of World Religions of many ostrich eggs being suspended from the ceilings of Armenian churches to serve as symbols of hope and resurrection. But I do NOT wish to know more about such events.
None of that addresses the actual day called ‘Easter Sunday’ (apart from the Paschal greeting, which I suppose only takes up about 10 seconds of the start of the Easter service.) I wish to know what customs and acts of worship and celebration the various Orthodox groups engage in on that one day.  I know there are lots of events in Holy Week leading up to the climax of resurrection Sunday, but I do not wish to know about the days prior to then. Stack Exchange is full of information about that. Nor do I wish to know anything about the date for Easter and controversies / theologies about that. Again, the site is full of such information.
I only want information from Orthodox Christians on what happens on that one day – the Sunday (of Holy Week) – and that could come from any of the groups within Orthodoxy as they all seem to have unique rituals and customs (Nestorian, Monophysite, West Syrian, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian).  I know the Paschal greeting starts that Easter Sunday service, but what happens thereafter?

How do Orthodox Christians celebrate Christ's resurrection on Easter Sunday?
The most obvious and almost universally Orthodox one is that they celebrate Easter on a different date than Churches in the West.
Orthodox and Western churches observe most holidays 13 days apart as they follow the Julian and Gregorian calendars, respectively.
Like the West their liturgical season of Easter ends with the Feast of Pentecost inclusively.
Here follows a sample of some Easter liturgical celebrations:
For Easter, their computations differ based on what dates the first full moon after the spring equinox and Jewish Passover fall in any given year. Accordingly, in some years, their Easter dates coincide, in others they can be weeks apart. The next "joint" Easter observance will be in 2025.
Seeing that there the Orthodox communion consists of 14 autocephalous (that is, administratively completely independent) regional churches, plus the Orthodox Church in America and recently the Orthodox Church of Ukraine; the diverse liturgical celebrations and regional customs would take a entire book to write about. They are quite diverse!
To start with here is a sampling for the liturgical celebrations of Easter:

About Greek Orthodox Easter: Everything You Need to Know
On Holy Saturday, psalms are read and Resurrection hymns are sung, telling of Christ’s descent into Hades: “Today Hades cried out groaning,” the psalm says.
The hymns speak of the conquering of death and the day’s celebration is called “First Resurrection.” Most of the readings of this day are from the Old Testament on the prophecies and promise of the conquering of death.
Finally, at midnight, there is the moment that all Greeks around the world eagerly anticipate: The Resurrection ceremony, when the faithful can finally greet one another by saying “Christos Anesti!” (Christ is risen!).
On this night, Greeks wear their Sunday best, take a white candle, and go to church to attend the liturgy, waiting for midnight.
Children hold their lampatha (λαμπάδα) a decorated white candle given to them by their godfather or godmother. This is a much-anticipated gift by children.
Children keep their lampatha throughout the year because the blessed candle which has been lit by the Holy flame on Resurrection night can be used in other special liturgies such as baptisms and weddings.
At midnight, all the priests come out and chant “Christos Anesti!” while they pass the Holy Light from which all the faithful light their candles and pass the light to one another, saying “Christos Anesti!” with the recipient replying “Alithos Anesti!” or “Truly, He is risen!”
The Holy Fire
In Orthodox tradition, the Holy Fire is considered a miracle that occurs annually on the day preceding Pascha within Jesus Christ’s tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem.
In the church, a blue light is said to emit from within Jesus Christ’s tomb, rising from the marble slab covering the stone believed to be that upon which Jesus’ body was placed for burial.
The light is believed to form a column of fire, from which candles are lit. This fire is then used to light the candles of the clergy and pilgrims in attendance.
The fire is also said to spontaneously light other lamps and candles around the church. Pilgrims and clergy say that the Holy Fire does not burn them.
The Patriarch is inside the chapel kneeling in front of the stone, while the church is dark. Then the Patriarch comes out with the two candles lit and shining brightly in the darkness.
The crowd roars as they witness the bright candles with the Holy Fire and light their own, jubilant after seeing the miracle.
The Holy Fire, which Greeks call Holy Light, is taken to Greece by a special flight, while it is received in the country by political and church leaders with all the honors of a visiting state leader.

Individual Eastern Orthodox Churches have a variety and sometimes varies Eastern customs involving subjects as food to diverse religious practices. It is not uncommon where I live to see Greek Orthodox roasting lamb outside in their back yard.
It is customary among Orthodox Christians to greet one another during the Easter season with the Paschal greeting. The salutation begins with the phrase, "Christ is Risen!" The response is "Truly; He is Risen!" The phrase "Christos Anesti" (Greek for "Christ is Risen") is also the title of a traditional Orthodox Easter hymn sung during Easter services in celebration of Jesus Christ’s resurrection.
In the Orthodox tradition, eggs are a symbol of new life. Early Christians used eggs to symbolize the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the regeneration of believers. At Easter, eggs are dyed red to represent the blood of Jesus that was shed on the cross for the redemption of all men.
One of the most common Christian symbols associated with Easter is the lamb. It is often depicted with a banner that bears a cross, and it is known as the Agnus Dei, meaning "Lamb of God" in Latin.

In Lebanon, many Orthodox Christians attend a church liturgy at Easter, whether it is on Sunday morning or midnight liturgy between Holy Saturday and Easter Sunday. On Easter Sunday, many families hold a special lunch consisting of turkey or chicken stuffed with nuts and served with rice. The afternoon is spent visiting friends and family members. Many homes have maamoul (cookies) on a plate with other delicacies such as chick peas covered with sugar and sweet almonds.
In Bulgaria, many worshippers celebrate outside churches after midnight liturgy, carrying candles to symbolize the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Painted eggs are cracked or smashed and richly-painted Orthodox churches are filled with clouds of incense and choir songs.
In Greece, Easter Sunday is also a widely celebrated occasion. Lambs are roasted on a spit and the provision of wine is abundant. The roasted lamb is served in honor of Jesus Christ, who was sacrificed and rose again on Easter. Lamb is the most traditional Greek Easter food. Red-dyed eggs are cracked against each other and the person with the last remaining uncracked egg will have good luck. Easter Sunday is a time of festivity and people eat, chat or dance throughout the night.
On the island of Crete, many villages prepare for a bonfire effigy of Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus Christ, as described in the New Testament of the Bible. In the lead up to the bonfire event, people gather sticks and branches to prepare to burn the effigy.
Around the world, many Orthodox Catholic Churches, including the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches, hold Easter liturgies during the Easter period according to the Julian calendar. Families unite and join in Orthodox Easter activities, festivities and traditions.

Serbian Orthodox families traditionally begin the feasting after Easter Sunday services. They enjoy appetizers of smoked meats and cheeses, boiled eggs and red wine. The meal consists of chicken noodle or lamb vegetable soup followed by spit-roasted lamb.
Holy Saturday is a day of strict fasting for Russian Orthodox Christians, while families stay busy making preparations for the Easter meal. Usually, the Lenten fast is broken after the midnight mass with traditional Paskha Easter bread cake. - What Is Orthodox Easter?

Special mention should be made about the Holy Fire at Jerusalem.

The Holy Fire is described by Orthodox Christians as a miracle that occurs every year at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem on Great Saturday, or Holy Saturday, the day preceding Orthodox Easter. However, many dispute the alleged miraculous descent of the Fire.
Orthodox tradition holds that the Holy Fire happens annually on the day preceding Orthodox Pascha (Orthodox Easter). During this time, blue light is said to emit within Jesus Christ's tomb, rising from the marble slab covering the stone bed believed to be that upon which Jesus' body is to have been placed for burial. The marble slab is now in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem. The light is believed to form a column of fire, from which candles are lit. This fire is then used to light the candles of the clergy and pilgrims in attendance. The fire is also said to spontaneously light other lamps and candles around the church. Pilgrims and clergy say that the Holy Fire does not burn them.
While the Patriarch is inside the chapel kneeling in front of the stone, there is darkness but far from silence outside. One hears a rather loud mumbling, and the atmosphere is very tense. When the Patriarch comes out with the two candles lit and shining brightly in the darkness, a roar of jubilation resounds in the Church.
Thousands of pilgrims as well as local Christians of all denominations gather in Jerusalem to partake and witness this annual event.
The Holy Fire is taken to Greece by special flight, and similarly to other Orthodox countries or countries with major Orthodox churches, such as Georgia, Bulgaria, Lebanon, Romania, Egypt, Cyprus, North Macedonia, Serbia, Ukraine and Russia, being received by church and state leaders.
History
The historian Eusebius writes in his Vita Constantini, which dates from around 328, about an interesting occurrence in Jerusalem of Easter in the year 162. When the church wardens were about to fill the lamps to make them ready to celebrate the resurrection of Christ, they suddenly noticed that there was no more oil left to pour in the lamps. Upon this, Bishop Narcissus of Jerusalem ordered the candles to be filled with water. He then told the wardens to ignite them. In front of the eyes of all present every single lamp burned as if filled with pure oil. Christian Orthodox tradition holds that this miracle, which predates the construction of the Holy Sepulchre in the fourth century, is related to the Miracle of the Holy Fire. They admit that the two differ, as the former was a one-time occurrence while the Miracle of the Holy Fire occurs every year. However, they have in common the premise that God has produced fire where there, logically speaking, should have been none.
Around 385 Egeria, a noble woman from Spain, traveled to Palestine. In the account of her journey, she speaks of a ceremony by the Holy Sepulchre of Christ, where a light comes forth (ejicitur) from the small chapel enclosing the tomb, by which the entire church is filled with an infinite light (lumen infinitum).

Holy Fire in 2018
Interesting enough is that Orthodox celebrate a particular celebration during Eastertide known as Mid-Pentecost

Mid-Pentecost or Midfeast, also Meso-Pentecost is a feast day which occurs during the Paschal season in the Eastern Orthodox Church and those Eastern Catholic Churches which follow the Byzantine Rite.
Mid-Pentecost celebrates the midpoint between the Feasts of Pascha (Easter) and Pentecost. Specifically, it falls on the 25th day of Pascha. At the feast of Mid-Pentecost, a Small Blessing of the Waters is traditionally performed after the liturgy of the feast.
Mid-Pentecost is a one-week feast which begins on the 4th Wednesday of Pascha, and continues until the following Wednesday. That is to say, it has an Afterfeast of seven days. Throughout these eight days (including the day of the feast) hymns of Mid-Pentecost are joined to those of the Paschal season. Many of the hymns from the first day of the feast are repeated on the Apodosis (leave-taking of the feast). Although it is ranked as a Feast of the Lord and has an Afterfeast, Mid-Pentecost itself is not considered to be one of the Great Feasts of the church year.


Are there any mandatory prayers in Christianity? Does Bible impose any type of mandatory prayer that you have to offer at particular time or particular day? If so, what are some important prayers? Is a prayer at Church more worthy than a prayer at home?

The closest would be the model prayer given in Matthew chapter 6 as part of the Sermon on the Mount. This prayer is understood by most to be an example, or model, rather than something to be repeated verbatim.

So, no, there are no specific mandatory prayers given in scripture, other than that we are to pray — and to pray without ceasing. Mandatory prayers reflect an ethos that is more about rule keeping. While there are rules, Christianity is not really about rule keeping: it's about building a relationship with God, and by extension your fellow man.


Prevenient Grace - Negative Responses to Scriptural Examples of It See what I mean by "Prevenient Grace" in the first question I asked relating to this topic.

If your understanding of scripture leads you to believe the doctine of Prevenient Prace is not supported in the Bible, what are your responses to some of the proof texts used to prove/explain the concept of Prevenient Grace?

Some examples, I believe are:

Cornelius coming to the Peter even though apparently not yet a Christian in Acts 10
Luke 19:10
Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men."
John 6:44: "No man can come unto me, unless the Father who hath sent me, draw him..."
John 16:18 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;"

etc.

I'm looking less for opinions and more for evidence/rationale supported by the larger context of Scripture, historical setting, background, etc.

I am understanding your use of the word prevenient grace to be not only God's influence upon men before actual justification but also joined with the assumption that his intended influence upon men to draw them to salvation by the Holy Spirit can be rejected and is resistible.  In this sense the grace you imagine is something opposed to Calvinism.

To answer the question from the standpoint of a Calvinistic view we must first make clear that Calvinism does not reject the idea that there is a gracious influence from God before actual grace is received through the gospel, rather it upholds it. Calvinism only rejects the idea that it is resistible. The original reason for rejecting the idea of the original Roman Catholic teaching of prevenient grace is because under Catholic theology it is actually a means to introduce the idea that grace is only half grace (from the protestant concept) and always depends on cooperative human works. Under this scheme grace can be earned by cooperating with previous grace and justification is not in a moment but through a lifetime of 'cooperative' works. Therefore, under a reformed evangelical view, Catholic theology actually says that salvation is by human effort 'aided by the Holy Spirit' and is therefore actually just salvation by works. You seem unaware as you toy with the phrase prevenient grace that many theologians see such a devilish background lurking around it.

One can see this line of reasoning from Calvin himself.

  the Papists confess that we are under the tyranny of the devil, and slaves to him, and that there is no right will in men, except through the prevenient (præeunte) grace of the Holy Spirit. But as I have already said, they talk vainly of the grace of the Spirit, and say that it is an influence by which God enables us to follow that which is right, if we have a will to do so. Thus, then, the grace of God, according to them, leaves men in suspense, so that they are free either to receive or to reject the grace of God. Afterwards, they join the subsequent grace, which, in their view, is a reward; for if I assent to God, that is, if I suffer myself to be ruled by his Spirit, and embrace the grace offered to me, God will then reward me with another grace to confirm me in my right purpose. And thus they confess that perseverance is in part the gift of God; but they always imagine it a co-operating grace. And then, as perseverance, according to them, is God’s subsequent grace, and is, as it were, a handmaid, it ceases to be grace, for it is rather the reward of merit. (BOOK OF THE PROPHET JEREMIAH and THE LAMENTATIONS BY JOHN CALVIN, p4.213)

However I understand that under your thinking you are associating the idea of prevenient grace NOT as a sinister means to destroy the protestant view of grace. You have a more happy idea in mind, for you seem to be considering people like Baptists or any evangelical that does not believe in the non-resistible grace of reformed theology.

I assume these question arise not from the subject of God's influence on men prior to new birth but are an outcome of wrestling with the idea of election. I can't imagine a big interest in the term otherwise. From this standpoint you may be contemplating a 'limited acceptance' of the concept of 'prevenient grace' to be a possible solution to the unresolvable tension between the idea of free will and predestination.  However, I do not think this will really resolve that tension for it does not address the issue before time began but merely in the experience of men with the Holy Spirit in time.  This means regardless of how we color a limited acceptance of some kind of grace that can be 'rejected or accepted' it can not prove if it is ultimately resistible or not.  For example, this simple Calvinistic type question removes the relevance of prevenient grace from the subject of predestination: 'What if God choses to provide limited influence of goodness towards those destined to hell, only to establish more guilt on their soul for rejecting his prevenient grace, knowing that they would reject it. On the other hand for the elect he provides 'more' prevenient grace which becomes 'irresistible' in order to save those he choses to save?'

I do not actually think God works in a way that we can fully comprehend and understand to relive the tension of election and free will, so my question above is actually not my question.  My personal theology is Calvinistic with some associated mysticism, a.k.a..humble admission of not knowing everything. What I mean is all the elect will be saved and actual saving grace is irresistible but I also believe God desires the salvation of all men. The knowledge that can relieve this apparent contradiction is not in my mind declared in scripture, making faith our only refuge and comfort for the desired removal of the seeming tension.

Anyway to answer your specific examples:

Cornelius coming to the Peter even though apparently not yet a Christian in Acts 10
Luke 19:10 This is not an example that opposes irresistible grace as Cornelius eventually becomes a Christian, which rather supports Calvinistic beliefs in irresistible grace

Titus 2:11: "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." This has no bearing on Calvinistic doctrine concerning irresistible grace for of course the grace of God has appeared to all men but only those who are irresistibly drawn to it can take hold of it through faith.

John 6:44: "No man can come unto me, unless the Father who hath sent me, draw him..." This is a actually a proof text for irresistible grace which assume a prevenient and irresistible saving work of the Holy Spirit upon a sinner who is unable to draw himself or properly cooperate in a meritorious way into his salvation.

John 16:18 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;"Again this has no bearing on Calvinistic views concerning irresistible grace, for being convicted of sin and fearing the judgment as a guilty sinner, or being convicted of one's justification by freely accepting the irresistible grace of God is entirely in accordance with Calvinistic views of the work of the Holy Spirit, condemning the damned and saving the elect.

Possibly your only confusion is that you did not realize every Protestant believes in a kind of external grace before actual justifying grace (call it prevenient or whatever). The only difference between some Baptists for example and reformed parts of the church is that this prevenient grace is not resistible with respect to the elect and their being drawn into actual justifying grace.


Is 1 Thessalonians 4:17 the only verse that supports the rapture? Are there any verses in the Bible besides 1 Thessalonians 4:17 that support the doctrine of the rapture?

There's also Matthew 24:40-42

  Two men will be out in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left. Therefore, stay awake! For you do not know on which day your Lord will come.

and it's friend Luke 17:34-35

  I tell you, on that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken, the other left. And there will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken, the other left.”

so long as you leave off the next verse

  They said to him in reply, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the body is, there also the vultures will gather.”

Which rapture folks might be likely to do.

It kind of leaves you thinking that the lucky one is the one who is left, not the one who was taken and eaten by a vulture. If this were pointing to a rapture, the one who was left would be the one eaten by a vulture.


Is there a difference between celebrating Mass for a living person and for a deceased one? In the Catholic church, the people can have Mass celebrated for someone. From the salvation point of view, what is the difference between celebrating a Mass:

for dead persons whose souls are in purgatory
and for persons that are still alive (e.g. for healing or repentance of that person)?

Based on this difference, is it possible to say which purpose is more important?

When Catholics say that a Mass is celebrated "for" something or someone, it just means that the priest offers the Mass—which for Catholics is the very highest form of prayer—for the sake of some intention. It is a kind of intercessory prayer, and Masses can be offered for any kind of intention (for example, for an end to a war or famine, for a recovery from illness, or simply for the sake of the local Church).

When they say that the Mass is offered "for someone," it just means that the priest offering the Mass at the behest of that person (or perhaps even a third party; for instance, a mother might ask a priest to offer the Mass for her son).

When that person in question is deceased, the Mass in question is usually offered for the repose of the soul of that person.

(For those who are not familiar with the doctrine, the Church teaches that it is possible for someone to die in the state of friendship with God, but not completely sanctified or purified. For those persons, a purification is needed after death: what Catholics call "Purgatory." Note that Purgatory is not an intermediate state between Heaven and Hell, but, as it were, the antechamber of Heaven, where people prepare to enter Heaven. According to Catholic doctrine, all of the souls in Purgatory will reach the Divine Presence in the end.)

Catholics believe that intercessory prayer can help those persons that need it to complete their purification after death. Since the Mass is the highest form of intercessory prayer possible, many (if not most) Masses are celebrated with for the sake of some loved one who is deceased.

Returning to the question, determining which purpose is the more important is complex, because it depends on the intention requested.

For example, the repentance of someone not in friendship with God is more important than the purification of a deceased person in Purgatory, since the salvation of the souls in Purgatory is assured, whereas the salvation of the former person is in peril.

On the other hand, praying for someone in Purgatory is probably (at least absolutely speaking) more important than praying for someone's physical healing, because (at least according to the testimony that many saints and mystics have given) the purification in Purgatory causes a suffering much greater than that caused by illness.

One should also keep in mind that although each Mass has what is called a "first intention"—which is regulated by Canon law to avoid abuses in collecting  donations for Masses—a single Mass can have any number of "second intentions." Therefore a single Mass could be offered for both a living person and a deceased one, or several of each. Moreover, the "second intentions" are not worth "less" than the first; it is just that only first can be attached to a donation (and priests may collect a maximum of one per day).

The reason that most Masses are offered for deceased souls (as a first intention) has less to do, I think, with the intrinsic importance of the intention, as with the spiritual needs of the faithful. Many people request Masses for their deceased relatives, usually with a small donation (stipend), and therefore these, as a practical matter, become the most common first intention.


Wasn't Peter just trying to avoid getting caught when he denied Jesus three times? Simon Peter's denial of Jesus is seen as a horrible sin, but it seems to me that it wasn't that bad; Peter was among enemies and they surely would have taken Peter or sent him out if they found out he was Jesus' disciple. So why was Peter's denial of Jesus so bad given that Peter couldn't tell them the truth if he wanted to stay and see what happens with Jesus?

Reading related passages helps to understand Scripture; the sin was pride.

Peter's denying Jesus is set up by something that happened previous to that infamous denial during Jesus' night time interrogation. From the book of Matthew (26: 31-35):

  31  Then Jesus said to them, "This night all of you will have your
  faith in me shaken, for it is written: 'I will strike the shepherd,
  and the sheep of the flock will be dispersed'; 32  but after I have
  been raised up, I shall go before you to Galilee."  33  Peter said
  to him in reply, "Though all may have their faith in you shaken, mine
  will never be."  34  Jesus said to him, "Amen, I say to you, this
  very night before the cock crows, you will deny me three times."   35
  Peter said to him, "Even though I should have to die with you, I will not deny you." And all the disciples spoke likewise.

Peter talked a good game.  He boasted of his faith and love for Jesus.  And when it came to crunch time, he could not back up his words.
(Matthew, 26: 72-75)

  72  Again he denied it with an oath, "I do not know the man!" 73  A little later the bystanders came over and said to Peter, "Surely
  you too are one of them; even your speech gives you away."  74  At
  that he began to curse and to swear, "I do not know the man." And
  immediately a cock crowed. 75  Then Peter remembered the word that
  Jesus had spoken: "Before the cock crows you will deny me three
  times." He went out and began to weep bitterly.

Peter's sin was the sin of pride, as evidenced by his boasting to Jesus and the other disciples present.

Whether or not it was "some great sin" to react with fear, Peter's boast demonstrates the hazards of pride, and the other matter of walking the walk versus talking the talk.  While I've generally heard it taught (by clergy in various denominations) that this was a case of Peter's faith being put to the test -- as any of us can be presented with a test of faith -- there are many lessons to learn from this.

Pride goeth before a fall 1

One lesson is: don't write checks with your words that your faith can't cash.

Lesson two: don't boast

As the Apostle Paul cautions us: don't be boastful.  Peter was boasting about how strong his faith was when he'd no idea what test his faith was about to be presented with.  Jesus knew.
1 Corinthians 1: 27-31

  27 Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and
  God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong, 28 and God chose
  the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to
  reduce to nothing those who are something, 29 so that no human being
  might boast before God. 30  It is due to him that you are in Christ
  Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, as well as righteousness,
  sanctification, and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, "Whoever
  boasts, should boast in the Lord."

Peter was boasting in Peter, not the Lord, and so had a fall.

1 A slight misquote of Proverbs 16:18

  Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall


According to the doctrine of the LDS Church what is man's relationship with God According to the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints what is man's relationship with God?

Specifically what does the LDS church teach about God's view of man and how man should view God?

How are God and man related?

Please answer in context of scriptures in the bible and Book of Mormon that the LDS church doctrine on this pertains. Also sources from church leaders would be appreciated.

I like your question.  It is well thought out and sincere.  As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I strive to have a close relationship with my God. I will answer your questions to the best of my ability in the order they were asked.  I will refer to hymns in my answer because they often convey the doctrine simply and beautifuly.

According to the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints what is man's relationship with God?

Although we believe God is our Father, He is our God who is just and who is merciful. If we offend our God, justice will have hold on us until we repent through the Atonement of Christ. That being said, God does not want us to fail, we were sent to earth to get what we couldn't as Spirits (a body and experience) and then work our way back and prove our selves. God's whole work and Glory is the "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).

As a parent, I understand this concept a lot better. I have children, and I love them and I want the best for them, however, I cannot stop bad things from happening to them, nor would I want to all the time, for how would they learn?  When they are disobedient, they are punished, when they are obedient they are blessed. All children have a different relationship with their parents. One may not be so good, another better.  Our relationship with Him is what we make of it. If we ignore Him, He still loves us, but won't push His way into our lives. If we allow him in we will build trust and a strong relationship with him.

Specifically what does the LDS church teach about God's view of man and how man should view God?

God the Father is the Supreme Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is the ultimate Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. He is perfect, has all power, and knows all things. He “has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's” (D&C 130:22).

We believe that while Christ was on the earth, he was trying to teach us who God is and what He is like (John 5:30). The First Principle of the Gospel is to know for a certainty the character of God, who we come to know through living Christlike Life. I recommend you listen to Elder Holland's talk entitled "The Grandeur of God" He answers this question clearly and perfectly.

How are God and man related?

We believe that God is our Father, and we are His children. One of the most sung hymns in the church is "I Am a Child of God" The lyrics to verse 1 are as follows:

  I am a child of God, And he has sent me here, Has given me an earthly home With parents kind and dear. Chorus: Lead me, guide me, walk beside me, Help me find the way. Teach me all that I must do To live with him someday.

And "Oh my Father", Only verse 1, but follow the link for more:

  O my Father, thou that dwellest
  In the high and glorious place,
  When shall I regain thy presence
  And again behold thy face?
  In thy holy habitation,
  Did my spirit once reside?
  In my first primeval childhood
  Was I nurtured near thy side?

Scriptures referenced in the hymns: Romans 8:16-17, Acts 17:28-29 (22-31),       Psalm 82:6, Mosiah 4:15, Doctrine and Covenants 14:7


John 14:2: a literal house / temple or heaven In John, Jesus is speaking of Heaven.  However in Matthew he's talking about a physical temple.

John 14:2 NIV

  2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have
  told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?

VS

Matthew 21:12-13 NIV

  12 Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying
  and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and
  the benches of those selling doves. 13 “It is written,” he said to
  them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are
  making it ‘a den of robbers.’”

How do we know for sure that he's talking about Heaven in John and not a physical temple / Church?

Well, for sure is never really possible, but let me give this a shot.

There is no difference between the two words in Greek—just like the English translations you provided. Both use the generic Greek term for house, "oikos." However, it's important to note that the second quotation (Mt. 21) is itself a quotation from Isaiah 56:7. In Hebrew, the word for house, bêt, is also used frequently to refer to a "temple" (cf. with the archaeological sites of bet shemesh, et al.), and in fact is the word used in Isa 56:7, which is unquestionably referring to the Solomonic Temple. The Greek word oikos does not include this connotation in contexts other than translation. In other words, referring to the temple as oikos in Matthew is a semiticism preserved by a literal translation and is not part of the usual semantic domain.

So, in John 14 there is no reason contextually to assume that Jesus has in mind a "temple" when he says "house" because there are perfectly good words in Greek that do mean temple.


What is the Catholic explanation as to why God has revealed himself in "male" terms? The Catholic Church teaches that God is neither man nor woman.

  CCC 370 In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man
  nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the
  difference between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man
  and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those
  of a mother and those of a father and husband.

What therefore is the Catholic explanation as to why God has revealed himself in "male" terms?

The Catechism has

Christ's true body
476 Since the Word became flesh in assuming a true humanity, Christ's body was finite.112 Therefore the human face of Jesus can be portrayed; at the seventh ecumenical council (Nicaea II in 787) the Church recognized its representation in holy images to be legitimate.113
477 At the same time the Church has always acknowledged that in the body of Jesus "we see our God made visible and so are caught up in love of the God we cannot see."114 The individual characteristics of Christ's body express the divine person of God's Son.

Scripture has a number of relevant references:

For to what angel did God ever say, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee"? Or again, "I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son"? — Heb 1:5
I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men; but I will not take my steadfast love from him... — 2 Sam 7:14
I will be his father, and he shall be my son; I will not take my steadfast love from him... — 1 Chr 17:13
I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my son, today I have begotten you." — Ps 2:7

Given that throughout scripture God has revealed the Messiah as His Son, the individual characteristics of Christ's body express the divine person of God's Son.
That would not be particularly understandable by mortal man if God's Son was female, so He chose to make it easy.

112 Cf. Council of the Lateran (649): DS 504.
113 Cf. Cal 3:1; cf. Council of Nicaea II (787): DS 600-603.
114 Roman Missal, Preface of Christmas I.


Why did God enter humanity so silently on Christmas day? I know it was not absolute silence. A few shepherds, a few wise men from a distant land and some close family witnessed the miracle. Also the new star even led to a mad search to hunt and kill the future King. However, this reason for the killings did not seem to have been published and basically the Jewish world at large, let alone the Gentile one, did not seem to notice that Messiah had come very much at all.  In fact there is almost no historical record of anything remotely suggesting the occurrence outside of the gospel accounts. Considering the size of humanity this small fanfare seems more like a little ripple around a pebble slipped quietly into the Ocean.

The question then is 'Why did Messiah arrive in such silence on Christmas day?'  Why not a more publicly proclaimed entry of the anointed King and only Son of God into the world? Does it make sense that Messiah would enter covertly and in such secret humility?

Part of the reason seems to have been wanting to minimize the drive to direct the Messiah toward worldly goals.  Many people wanted a worldly king, e.g., John 6:15 (NIV):

  Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again into the hills by himself.

and there was a desire for "bread and circuses" (well full stomachs and miracles), e.g., John 6:26 (NIV):

  Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill."

(Note that Jesus' desire for them to follow because of the "miraculous signs" was, I perceive, that this evidence would encourage belief not a desire for them to want to continually see miracles.)

(Herod's desire to see a miracle, expressed in Luke 23:8, seems to be a typical human desire.)

Jesus was trying to draw out true worshipers (John 4:23):

  Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

Similar mysterious secrecy is expressed, e.g., in Matthew 8:4:

  The Jesus said to him, "See that you don't tell anyone.  But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."

One parallel passage, Luke 5:14, gives a hint of an additional motive for limited fanfare in later life (which might apply in a different way for childhood): inescapable crowds would make solitary prayer extremely difficult.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that the Lord Jesus Christ does NOT presently possess blood in his incorruptible body? Some Christians do not believe that the Lord Jesus Christ presently possesses blood in his incorruptible body. What is the biblical basis for such a belief?
For example, the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) states on their website,

Jesus had shed His blood on the cross. It quite literally had drained out of His body. We see that when Jesus rose from the dead, He still had the holes in His hands and feet (Luke 24:39). Since He retained the characteristics of His bodily ordeal, it is logical to state that His blood, which was literally drained from His body, was likewise still shed. Therefore, His body could be raised, and the blood remained shed as the thing that "makes atonement": "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement," (Lev. 17:11).
That is why after the resurrection--to prove that He had risen in the same body He died in--Jesus told people to touch His hands and feet because it was the hands and feet that had the holes in them. What more proof do you need to but see and touch the very same hands and feet that had the holes in them from the nails on the cross! Furthermore, in the same statement Jesus said that He possessed flesh and bones--not flesh and blood. He had risen!

Furthermore,

The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50).  If this is so, then how could physical body have been raised?  The answer is simple.  After His resurrection, Jesus said, "Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have," (Luke 24:39). You must note that Jesus did not say, "flesh and blood." He said, "flesh and bones." This is because Jesus' blood was shed on the cross.  The life is in the blood, and it is the blood that cleanses from sin: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul," (Lev. 17:11). See also, Gen. 9:4; Deut. 12:23; and John 6:53-54. Jesus was pointing out that He was different. He had a body but not a body of flesh and blood. It was flesh and bones.  I am of the opinion that Jesus' body had no functional blood in it.  Remember, after the resurrection, He still retained the wounds in His hands, feet, and side.  But, His blood was the thing that cleanses us of our sins:  "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin," (1 John 1:7).  His body was raised, but it had no blood flowing through its veins.  It was a glorified, physical body.

Adam in the Image of God
In Genesis 1:27:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

We later learn that Adam had a body of flesh and bones (not flesh and blood) in Genesis 2:23:

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

The first mention of blood in the Bible is after the fall, in Genesis 4:10—11:

And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.
And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;

It can then be concluded that one of the changes to Adam and eve was the change from bodies of flesh and bones in the image of God to bodies of flesh and blood.  Blood then becomes the source of life in the flesh (and not the Spirit) as explained in Leviticus 17:11:

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

The Body of Christ
In Matthew 16:17, Christ explains that no one with a body of flesh and blood had revealed who Jesus was to Peter–thins knowledge came from a different source:

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

In prophesying his future state (in Luke 13:32), He told the Pharisees to tell Herod:

Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. [emphasis added]

After His resurrection, He distinguishes Himself from being only a spirit and having a body of flesh and blood in His testimony about Himself (Luke 24:39)

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. [emphasis added]

Paul, in referencing the Christ, to the Ephesians reiterates that we will not become part of Christ's body of flesh and blood, but rather (Eph 5:30):

For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Future State of Resurrection
In discussing the resurrection, Paul teaches the differences between mortal and immortal bodies (1 Cor. 15:44–54), he specifically states with blood will experience a change:

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

This change, to be consistent with the other immortal bodies we know about, would be bodies of flesh and bone.


The word "ascended" and what does it mean "No one has ascended into heaven" in John 3:13? John 3:13

  No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

About the word "ascended" :
A. resurrected then "bodily" ascend into heaven
B. not resurrected but it is his/her spirit ascend to heaven

is it A or B ?

About the whole bold sentence, Jesus say :
A. until today, no one has ascended into heaven
B. before My Second Coming time-frame, no one will ascend into heaven

is it A or B ?

Thank you.

I think for this question, the context is super important, here is verses 10-13 of john NKJV

  Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

The context here is talking about teaching. Nicodemus is "the teacher of Israel" i have heard this to imply that he was quite possibly THE teacher in Israel, maybe there was no one above him. He was supposed to be the guy with all the answers.

But still he had doubts and questions, which is why he came to Jesus by night.

So in the context, when Jesus is saying "No one has ascended to heaven" he is referencing teaching, how he (Jesus) is not guessing, or passing along secondhand information, Jesus says

  13a "Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, "

The Emphasis is that no one on earth is is able to teach the things Jesus can teach, Because no one has "Ascended" to heaven, for the purpose of returning and teaching the truths of heaven, on earth.

I believe jesus is less making a blanket statement about whether anyone has gone to heaven to that date, and making a strong point about his unique ability to teach the truths of God which he knows by personal experience, because he is come down from heaven, something no one else has ever done.

So i think to sum it all up for an answer to your question, the best understanding of the sentence

  No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man

C. No living human person has gone up to heaven to learn these things and returned to teach them, Except for Jesus, who came Down from heaven already knowing them.


What does it mean that the Believers Eastern Church (in Asia) is an "Ancient-Future Church"? Recently I was asked a question about the Believers Eastern Church and have been doing some research to find out what they believe. Here is part of what I discovered:

The founder and current Metropolitan Bishop of this group is K.P.Yohannan, who started a chapter of Gospel for Asia in Kerala, India, in 1981 and in 1983 established the Indian headquarters in Tiruvalla.  Since August 2018 K.P. Yohannan is known as Moran Mor Athanasius Yohan Metropolitan in relation to church duties. Believers Eastern Church (previously Believers Church) is self-described as "evangelical in nature and outlook, oriental in worship, democratic in function and Protestant (Episcopal) in governance and character". The Believers Eastern Church is an "Ancient-Future Church" and as such, is considered by some to be heretical.  Source: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/K._P._Yohannan

The Nicene Creed is the official statement of faith for the Believers Eastern Church.  The Church is Trinitarian and accepts and confesses the historic Creed of Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus.  Source: https://www.bec.org/faith-and-beliefs/

I noted that although this church is "Protestant in governance and character" that does not mean to say it is Protestant in belief.  It also says it is "oriental in worship".

My main concern is with the claim (by some) that because it is an "Ancient-Future Church" it is heretical.

What does it mean to be an "Ancient-Future Church"?

Edit: I suspect there are several churches claiming to be "Ancient-Future" and insights into what "Ancient-Future" means is helpful.  However, my main question is about the Believers Eastern Church and because it is an "Ancient-Future Church" some people brand it as heretical. Theologicaly speaking, what would make an "Ancient-Future Church" heretical?

On the surface, ancient-future churches claim to speak across generations and draw equally upon ancient (hymns, chant, candles, communion) and techno-modern (alt. rock, art, ambient, projection, video) sources. An American example of this would be the hi-tech megachurches that host anything from rock concerts to communions.

Underneath that modern, millenial-attracting exterior lies a method developed re-design & re-purpose churches, emphasizing proselytization & assimilation:

(from Ancient-Future Evangelism: Making Your Church a Faith-Forming Community)

It endeavours to reach its goal by introducing "levels", akin to New-Age religions such as Scientology.

In sociology, this concept is called gamification and is widespread in social networks and mobile apps. Gamification is hugely popular amongst millenials and Generation Z.

Ancient-Future is a reaction to attempt countering the decline in worldwide religiosity, which is especially hurting first-world Christianity. According to the latest Pew studies on the matter, the regional percentage of the population identifying as Christian will decline significantly in Western regions by 2050:

The situation for Asia is a stagnant, but this is largely due to Christianity being concentrated in just a few Asian countries with a higher birth rate than the West.

The motivations for this modernized recruitment approach are twofold:

many millenials grow up much less influenced and knowledgeable of doctrine as the previous generations. They also grew up and are accustomed to virtually immediate access to scientific facts and are as a result, better versed in critical thinking
the most loyal age group in first-world churches will be largely deceased by 2050


According to Catholic teaching, what constitutes a prophecy to be Messianic? It is a generally known fact that in Jewish history there have existed many diverse thoughts and theories regarding the Messiah, and different words of prophets, known as Messianic prophecies, have been used to support these said theories.

My question is regarding the reasoning given in the Catholic Church for what costitutes a prophecy to be Messianic in nature or not. For example, in Isaiah 7 we are given the image of a virgin birth. This prophecy doesn't seem to be explicitly referring to the Messiah, but rather referring to a Messiah-like figure that is existent in a smaller context. There are other examples similar to this that are considered by the Church to be Messianic prophecies, as in referring to the Messiah. So what is the line of reasoning regarding what pieces of Scripture are to be considered Messianic prophecies? If certain prophecies are referring to Messiah-like figures, what makes the Church hold that they are more substantially referring to the Messiah?

Note: I stumbled upon the nature of typology (I'm rather inexperienced in Old Testament studies) and found it interesting in this matter. It seems like a typological approach could resolve the last question I was wondering about, but the more general question remains. Granted the typological approach, or any other approach that resolves the distinction between the past events and the indication of this account for the future, how does the Church specifically/generally determine what prophecy is thus actually Messianic?

It appears that the Church's typological approach to interpreting Messianic prophecy is grounded for the most part in the New Testament information that is later referenced to Old Testament passages. What is primarily considered to be 'Messianic' in nature is largely attributed to that which refers, in hindsight, to Christ, who is in fact the Messiah. The Jewish considerations throughout the years of these same passages as prophecy is a secondary, though important point as well. A helpful link that includes a somewhat extensive and easy to access list of the New Testament verses that either reference or can be referenced to particular Old Testament passages that are typological in nature can be found here. The following will address the latter point, in regards to whether Jewish culture likewise used typology and if so in what way.

Jewish Typology

The question to be answered in addition to the Christian typology is naturally whether the Jewish culture around this time both approached Scripture typologically and applied such an approach to their own understanding of what was to come. We could of course refer to Scripture itself, which appears to maintain a typological approach within its own text. The following are a few examples:

  Unless the LORD Almighty had left us some survivors, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorra. Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom; listen to the law of our God, you people of Gomorra! (Isaiah 1.9)
  Go now to the place in Shiloh where I first made a dwelling for my Name, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel. While you were doing all these things, declares the LORD, I spoke to you again and again, but you did not listen; I called you, but you did not answer. Therefore, what I did to Shiloh I will now do to the house that bears my Name, the temple you trust in, the place I gave to you and your fathers. I will thrust you from my presence, just as I did all your brothers, the people of Ephraim. (Jeremiah 23.14)
  Everyone who quotes proverbs will quote this proverb about you: "Like mother, like daughter." You are a true daughter of your mother, who despised her husband and her children; and you are a true sister of your sisters, who despised their husbands and their children. Your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite. Your older sister was Samaria, who lived to the north of you with her daughters; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you with her daughters, was Sodom. You not only walked in their ways and copied their detestable practices, but in all your ways you soon became more depraved than they. (Ezek 16.44)
  Isaac prayed to the LORD on behalf of his wife, because she was barren. The LORD answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, "Why is this happening to me?" So she went to inquire of the LORD.
  The LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger." (Genesis 25)
  The LORD will dry up the gulf of the Egyptian sea; with a scorching wind he will sweep his hand over the Euphrates River. He will break it up into seven streams so that men can cross over in sandals. There will be a highway for the remnant of his people that is left from Assyria, as there was for Israel when they came up from Egypt. (Exodus 14.6)
  As in the days when you came out of Egypt, I will show them my wonders (Micah 7.13)

All of these verses show both examples of interpreting present situations in terms of past events and predictive cases in which a certain 'type' is indicative of what will occur in the future. Thus, one commentator states "the data from the OT shows quite clearly that typology was a mainstream interpretive approach to Israel's history , personages, events and primeval history. Accordingly, NT writers were not employing an 'alien' method to the exegesis of the OT-- indeed, they were squarely in the mainstream of accepted hermenuetical approach." This indicates that what often appears to be simply historical reference (as certain Messianic prophecies are) can be taken to be, or implied to be in the writing itself, another thing entirely.

Though an objective fact itself, it can also be written in hyperbole, or talking about a very public and/or mystic figure, by which a future tense and further meaning is meant to be taken. These passages can be identified, if they are Messianic especially, as referring to a mystical king or one who is meant to restore some truth and balance. Thus, in the Messianic prophecies we have, the Church is employing an approach very common to Jewish understanding about passages that seem to qualify as speaking in a language of 'types'. This of course does not make these passages 'prophetic' however. It should be noted though that prophecies can very well be formulated in a typological way, meaning that in speaking about a certain historical king, a prophet can stress certain truths that shall occur to a kingly figure beyond the king being apparently spoken about in the actual text. This is very evident in the many passages of prophecy regarding King David and the relation to the Messiah.


Besides St. Casimir, are any other saints portrayed with three hands in iconography? Other than the icon of St. Casimir in Vilnius (below), are there other examples of saints with three hands? Does a third hand make up part of the iconography of St. John the Evangelist?

Image by Alistair Young via (Wikimedia Commons).

There is some iconography (religious art) with three hands or an extra hand in them. There is one that concerns St. John of Damascus, but not St. John the Evangelist.

Icon of the Mother of God of “the Three Hands”

  In the eighth century during the time of the Iconoclasts, Saint John of Damascus (December 4) was zealous in his veneration of holy icons. Because of this, he was slandered by the emperor and iconoclast Leo III the Isaurian (717-740), who informed the Damascus caliph that Saint John was committing treasonous acts against him. The caliph gave orders to cut off the hand of the monk and take it to the marketplace. Towards evening Saint John, having asked the caliph for the cut-off hand, put it to its joint and fell to the ground before the icon of the Mother of God. The monk begged Our Lady to heal the hand, which had written in defense of Orthodoxy. After long prayer he fell asleep and saw in a dream that the All-Pure Mother of God had turned to him promising him quick healing.

  Before this the Mother of God bid him toil without fail with this hand. Having awakened from sleep, Saint John saw that his hand was unharmed. In thankfulness for this healing Saint John placed on the icon a hand fashioned of silver, from which the icon received its name “Of Three Hands.” (Some iconographers, in their ignorance, have mistakenly depicted the Most Holy Theotokos with three arms and three hands.) According to Tradition, Saint John wrote a hymn of thanksgiving to the Mother of God: “All of creation rejoices in You, O Full of Grace,” which appears in place of the hymn “It is Truly Meet” in the Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great.

  Saint John Damascene accepted monasticism at the monastery of Saint Sava the Sanctified and there bestowed his wonderworking icon. The Lavra presented the icon “Of Three Hands” in blessing to Saint Sava, Archbishop of Serbia (+ 1237, January 12). During the time of an invasion of Serbia by the Turks, some Christians who wanted to protect the icon, entrusted it to the safekeeping of the Mother of God Herself. They placed it upon a donkey, which without a driver proceeded to Athos and stopped in front of the Hilandar monastery. The monks put the icon in the monastery’s cathedral church (katholikon). During a time of discord over the choice of igumen, the Mother of God deigned to head the monastery Herself, and from that time Her holy icon has occupied the igumen’s place in the temple. At the Hilandar monastery there is chosen only a vicar, and from the holy icon the monks take a blessing for every obedience.

  In Slavic usage, this Icon is commemorated on July 12.

Related by not really answering the question is the fact that Leonardo da Vinci's famous fresco of The Last Supper has an extra hand in it. I have been aware of this particular fact long before Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code made people's imagination run away with themselves in interpreting various modern meaning involved in this fresco. We were taught in the seminary that the extra hand in The Last Supper symbolized the fact that the Devil wanted to stir things up (mischief) especially with the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. The seminary which I attended had and still has a professor who is also a professional artist.

Leonardo da Vinci's The Last Supper

The hand with the knife can be seen between the third and fourth disciple on the left hand side of the image. It is not easy to see, but a better image may be seen here, although I find the commentator a little off with his wording. It could be noted that the Latin word for left-handed is sinister.


What a beginner need to study to be a good christian? What are the main topics a beginner need to study to be a good christian?
Is it important to know the catechisms (catholic, westminster, lutheran)?

It's tricky because everyone starts in a different place.
Personally, I would recommend focusing on the New Testament to start, and getting good guides or commentaries. What guides or commentaries are 'good' for you or not will depend - you really have to try ones and see if any resonate with you (your spirit is saying 'yes!') and seem to move you forward.
I personally started with a focus on books on the Sermon on the Mount, which contains a lot of advice about what to do from Jesus, and moved outwards from there.
There are a huge number of denominations and different kinds of approaches to Christianity, with a range of views on all sorts of subjects. I personally don't stick with one tradition when reading - Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, non-trinitarian - I find all of them interesting and having strong and weak points. In the end, your best guide to all this will be God's guidance through discernment.
Anyone's spiritual development is going to be an organic process - I am very skeptical of one-size-fits-all recommendations for study for a beginner. In a sense, everyone's a beginner. :)