What is the biblical basis for the belief in incubus and succubus (sex demons)? Many people believe in the existence of demonic entities who sexually assault people at night. They are popularly known by the names of incubus and succubus. I don't want to share explicit material on here, but with some quick searches it's not hard to come by stories and first-hand testimonies of people who claim to have had encounters at night with these entities (just search on platforms such as YouTube, Reddit and many forums devoted to the paranormal/supernatural).
Is there any biblical basis to the belief in incubus and succubus? Do the Scriptures give any credence to the possibility of demons having any sort of sexual interaction with human beings?

To show that this is a belief held by many Christians, I invite the reader to check the following posts and books published by Christian deliverance ministries: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. If whole ministries are developed around the idea of setting people free from demonic oppressions, including sex demons, then it should stand to reason that many professing Christians who are either directly or indirectly linked to these ministries hold these beliefs.

What is the biblical basis (if any) for the many reports by people about being sexually assaulted at night by succubus/incubus?
I believe that there very few, if any  Christian denominations that explicitly teaches that a demon succubus or incubus exist.
It is a little far fetched, but I give it a reasonable try at answering the question.
First of all, the Book of Tobit has an interesting story about Tobias, Sarah and the demon of lust, Asmodeus ("the worst of demons")!

The Book of Tobit is listed as a canonical book by the Council of Rome (A.D. 382), the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393), the Council of Carthage (397) and (A.D. 419), the Council of Florence (1442) and finally the Council of Trent (1546), and is part of the canon of both the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Catholics refer to it as deuterocanonical.
Augustine (c. A.D. 397) and Pope Innocent I (A.D. 405) affirmed Tobit as part of the Old Testament Canon. Athanasius (A.D. 367) mentioned that certain other books, including the Book of Tobit, while not being part of the Canon, "were appointed by the Fathers to be read".
In Judaism
Before the 1952 discovery of Aramaic and Hebrew fragments of Tobit among the Dead Sea Scrolls in a cave at Qumran, scholars believed Tobit was not included in the Jewish canon because of late authorship, estimated to A.D. 100. Qumran fragments of the text, which were copied between 100 B.C. to A.D. 25, evidence a much earlier origin than previously thought. These fragments evidence authorship no later than the 2nd century BC and, likely, contemporary with the date ascribed, by modern scholars, to the final compilation of the Book of Daniel, which did attain canonical status.
Summary
This book tells the story of Tobit, a righteous Israelite of the tribe of Naphtali, living in Nineveh after Sargon II had deported the northern tribes of Israel to Assyria in 721 B.C. In the two Greek versions, the first two and a half chapters are written in the first person; in the Vulgate version, they are written in the third person. Tobit, raised by his paternal grandmother, Deborah, remains loyal to the worship of God at the temple in Jerusalem, refusing the cult of the golden calves that Jeroboam, king of the northern kingdom of Israel, set up at Dan. He is particularly noted for his diligence in attempting to provide proper burials for fallen Israelites whom Sargon's successor, Sennacherib, has slain. For this behavior the king seizes his property and exiles him. After Sennacherib's death, Tobit is allowed to return to Nineveh, where he buries a man who has been murdered on the street. That night, he sleeps in the open and is blinded by bird droppings which fall into his eyes. His blindness subsequently leads him to falsely accuse his wife, Anna, of stealing a baby goat she had received as partial payment for work she had done. This strains his marriage and, ultimately, he prays for death.
Meanwhile, in faraway Media, a young woman named Sarah has prayed for death in despair. The demon of lust, Asmodeus ("the worst of demons"), abducts and kills every man Sarah marries on their wedding night before the marriage can be consummated. God sends the angel Raphael, disguised as a human, to heal Tobit and free Sarah from the demon. - Book of Tobit

The only other possible source that may again be a remote answer involves the  Nephilim from the books of Genesis and Ezekiel. The possibility only exists as to how some interpret Sacred Scripture.

The Nephilim (Hebrew: נְפִילִים) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4.
A similar or identical biblical Hebrew term, read as "Nephilim" by some scholars, or as the word "fallen" by others, appears in Ezekiel 32:27.1
When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version
The word is loosely translated as giants in some Bibles and left untranslated in others. The "sons of God" have been interpreted as fallen angels in some traditional Jewish explanations.
According to Numbers 13:33, they later inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan.
The Lord said to Moses, "Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites" ... So they went up and spied out the land ... And they told him: "... Yet the people who live in the land are strong, and the towns are fortified and very large; and besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there." ... So they brought to the Israelites an unfavorable report of the land that they had spied out, saying, "The land that we have gone through as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are of great size. There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them." — Numbers 13:1–2; 21; 27–28; 32–33. New Revised Standard Version.

And now let us look at what the Sons of God may mean:

Sons of the God (Hebrew: בני האלהים) literally: "sons of the Gods") is a phrase used in the Hebrew Bible and apocrypha. The phrase is also used in Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of different Jewish angelic hierarchies.
Hebrew Bible
Genesis 6
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, KJV
The first mention of "sons of God" in the Hebrew Bible occurs at Genesis 6:1–4. In terms of literary-historical origin, this phrase is typically associated with the Jahwist tradition.
This passage has had two interpretations in Judaism:

Offspring of Seth: The first references to the offspring of Seth rebelling from God and mingling with the daughters of Cain are found in Christian and rabbinic literature from the second century CE onwards e.g. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Augustine of Hippo, Julius Africanus, and the Letters attributed to St. Clement. It is also the view expressed in the modern canonical Amharic Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. In Judaism "Sons of God" usually refers to the righteous, i.e. the children of Seth.

Angels: All of the earliest sources interpret the "sons of God" as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls the (Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). This is also the meaning of the only two identical occurrences of bene ha elohim in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6 and 2:1), and of the most closely related expressions (refer to the list above). In the Septuagint, the interpretive reading "angels" is found in Codex Alexandrinus, one of four main witnesses to the Greek text.

Rabbinic Judaism traditionally adheres to the first interpretation, with some exceptions, and modern Jewish translations may translate bnei elohim as "sons of rulers" rather than "sons of God". Regardless, the second interpretation (sons of angels or other divine beings) is nonexistent in modern Judaism. This is reflected by the rejection of Enoch and other Apocrypha supporting the second interpretation from the Hebrew Bible Canon.

According to Scripture “sons of God” means “persons who are begotten independently of any creature’s decision”. All angels can appropriately be called “sons of God”, but not all characters called “sons of God” in the Bible can appropriately be considered angels. The “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 are undoubtedly human, and it is fitting to consider that they were created directly by God through transformation of human-like animals into persons.

Who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God. - Luke 3:38

Thus if the Nephilim were the descendants of the Sons of God (sons of Adam) and the "daughters of men" surely not all of them were evil. Some of them would have had good and upright souls. Someone could ultimately link them as being succubuses or incubuses, but that is really stretching it!


Did God ever talk about his other creations? I have always been a lover of all things "Science", space, other life forms, etc. I excelled in Science in School but a few years ago I started questioning things and now believe that "Science" and God can coexist - something that most people I've spoken to disagree with.

Anyway. There are other planets out there, we all know that. But does Life exist on any of those planets? Does God ever mention anything about his other creations (outside of Earth)?

When we look at Earth from outside of it (correct me if I'm wrong), we can see the lights all across the world. But when we look at other planets, there are no lights. This alone leads me to believe that there are no other forms of life on planets that we can see - unless they are completely different from us and are of colors that our eyes cannot see, or is it that God made it so that forms of life on one planet cannot communicate with or see forms of life on another planet?

I would very much like this to be a discussion but since that's not appropriate for this website I would like to know if there is anything in the scriptures about any of this?

This is not an answer but a scientific clarification, please delete if inappropriate. But since the OP asked

  (correct me if I'm wrong)

Lights on earth are only visible from space if you are very close.
The only planets we can actually "see" are the ones in our solar system. As far as we know these don't carry any life at all
With the aid of Kepler telescope, NASA has recently discovered three "earth like" planets that are not too far away http://www.npr.org/2013/04/18/177774505/kepler-telescope-spots-three-new-planets-in-the-goldilocks-zone
If these planets had lights we would not be able to see them from that distance. It's just too far away.
Visible light for humans only covers a small part of the
electromagnetic spectrum. Even on earth there are animals that use
different frequencies for vision. We have no reason to believe that
life on other planets would "see" the same way
However, we would expect some sort of electromagnetic radiation from a technological advanced civilization. We sure produce a heck of it.
Then again, the planets that Kepler has found (and there are most likely lots more out there) are about 1000 light years or so away. That means it takes about 1000 years for any type of radiation to get here and we'd only hear/see/detect what happened there 1000 years ago. So far we've come up empty.
If today there would be an alien at a Kepler planet pointing their radio-telescope at earth they would detect absolutely nothing. 1000 years ago, earth didn't radiate any electromagnetic waves.
The whole definition of "Life" is a tricky problem in itself. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions. For example it's not entirely clear whether a virus is a living thing or not (according to most, but not all, definitions it's not)
We don't have very credible idea of how life on other planets may look like or express itself and how we would recognize it as such if we came across it.


Does God create some people Heterosexual and others Homosexual? It is quite common for people who identify themselves as homosexual to say that God created them this way. Some way even go so far as to say it was a misfortune that they were born into:

  "Unfortunately for me, God made me gay."

This line of reasoning usually continues with
- "so I can't do anything about it"
- "it's not my fault, it's God's fault that I sin"

Others claim that since they were created that way it must not be a sin.

What does Christianity hold about the way people were created? Does having something in our natures make it not a sin?

As homosexuality is a sin, it is safe to conclude that God did not "create them this way". Just like God didn't create thieves as such, murderers as such, liars as such, etc.

It is as a byproduct of the fallen world in which we live that Romans 1:26-27 was written:

  For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Whether there are genetic mutations (errors resulting from Adam's first sin) that contribute to some people's homosexual tendencies may be debated. But as to it being God's purpose, intent, or design? No - He did not create them that way.

Genesis 1:26-27 also indicates that it is not God's intent:

  Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.


Explanation of Russian assorted saints and festivities icon "Plenka" Monastery/production company Sofrino supplies icon "Plenka" of assorted saints and festivities:

ИКОНА НА ДЕРЕВЯННОМ ПЛАНШЕТЕ 18Х24 ПЛЕНКА

I have bought one in almost A4 format but still the writing is too small for understanding. Is there available explanation of this icon? I guess, it is quite standard icon and so there should be quite standard explanation?

"Plenka" means "skin" or "membrane" in this context and refer to material covering the icon.

The icon itself called "all saints" and depicts major saints in order of their festive days during year. Twelve big sections correspond to months, starting from January. Big caption above the section is month name.

Small captions inside each section contain festive description or saint's name. Red letters on the left are church-slavonic digits - it is a day number in the month corresponding to saint/festive.


How is Matthew 18: 8-9 explained in the context of non works-based salvation? if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.
And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
Matthew 18:8-9

Jesus is either referring to saved or unsaved people. But either one, for unsaved it seems like they must cast away their sin to be saved, and for saved people it seems like they must not sin in order to remain saved. How is this explained in the context of non works-based salvation?

Note that this doesn't apply to all groups that adhere to Sola Fide.  Plenty of groups believe that we have no part in our own salvation, even in choosing to believe, but this is one perspective that's relatively common among Evangelicals.

Short version:

These verses are simply Jesus teaching on the true definition of what God's standard for "good" is.

Longer version:

These verses are very similar to those in Matthew 5, where Jesus explains that lust is the same as adultery, hatred the same as murder, etc.  Jesus was dealing with the Jewish people, who were under the impression that their obedience to the Law would save them.  By teaching them the Truth of just how high God's perfect standard is, He was preparing them to understand that they are not truly "good" at all.

Any reasonable person would hear those words and think "there's no way I can be that good and perfect.  I'm doomed".  To those that hold this view, that's the necessary realization of one's sinful nature that's necessary to drive us to repentance.

An example of one such ministry that holds this view would be Living Waters/The Way of the Master, headed by Ray comfort and Kirk Cameron.  Example: Am I good enough to go to Heaven?

Expanding a bit on the necessity of realizing our sinful nature to drive us to repentance, Ray Comfort says this in his Hell's best kept Secret teaching...  (This is a paraphrase from memory, but it's close)

  You try to save a man from drowning when he doesn't think he is.  Jump
  in, pull him to the shore without telling him anything, he's not going
  to be too happy with you.  But if he sees that he is drowning, he will
  be grateful, and won't despise the gift.

These verses show that God's standard is perfect, and that we fall short.  This is perfectly in harmony with the idea of salvation by faith alone apart from works.  God's Law can't save us.  it can only show us ourselves in our true nature, so that we can see the need to be saved.

From Bible Study Planet:

  Once a person has understood the Law, and its spiritual meaning and
  content, he knows that can’t keep it. What’s the summary of the Law?
  It is: “You shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and all
  your soul, and all your mind, and all your strength; and you shall
  love you neighbor as yourself.” (Luke 10:27)

Paul also wrote of this extensively in the Book of Romans.  Two small excerpts:

  Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under
  the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held
  accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his
  sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become
  conscious of sin. (Romans 3:19-20)

  ...

  What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the
  contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law;
  for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said,
  "YOU SHALL NOT COVET." (Romans 7:7)


According to evangelicalism, did Jesus' divine nature suffer on the cross? From the evangelical perspective, considering that Jesus has both human and divine natures in one person, did His divine nature suffer on the cross along with his human nature?

Just as there are differences of belief about the nature of Christ, there are some different ideas about this in some branches of Christianity. However the mainline orthodox belief has a pretty settled answer to this: yes.

Assuming ⓐ the trinity, one God in three persons and ⓑ that Jesus was God the son having two complete natures, the logic goes something like this. Different branches of Christianity use different terms for some of this, but the basic argument is the same.

The ‘cup’ as referenced in Jesus' prayer was God's divine wrath against sin.
Yes Jesus bore physical suffering as a human and his human nature bore the brunt of the pain the Romans inflicted.
But the significance of the cross was more than just a Roman torture and execution, he was also subjected to God's wrath.
“Why have you forsaken me?” was not a question about why he was left to hang on at tree, it was an expression of God turning his back on his son, subjecting him to ‘death’ in the sense of separation from God.
No human nature would have been able to bear that punishment inflicted directly by God — he would have neither the stamina nor the value to make such an action more meaningful than it was for the thieves he was crucified with.

Ergo the divine nature of God must have been subjected to and born the divine wrath side of things.

I question some time ago that asks about the same problem from a different angle, see How is Christ's death so significant? for a little more detail on the significance of “one man on a cross”.


What are the rules of Exorcism (Catholic Perspective) I've read conflicting perspectives if lay person's are able to perform exorcisms in the Catholic religion.

Wikipedia states

  Catholic exorcists were both priestly and lay, since every Christian was considered as having the power to command demons and drive them out in the name of Christ.

But the Catholic News Agency adds

  According to Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois, “Canon law requires a bishop to give permission before a priest can do a major exorcism, but bishops don’t receive any formal training in exorcism.”

Is there a solid rule in Catholicism about who can perform an exorcism and has this changed through the years?

In the Roman Catholic Church, only a priest or higher rank prelate may perform an exorcism over a possessed person.  A priest may only perform an exorcism over a possessed person with the permission of the local ordinary or bishop. This permission may be on a case by case necessity or may be general as was the case in the life of St John Vianney.

Not all exorcisms involve a possessed person and an exorcist is often aided by members of the community during an exorcism. And there is the fact that there are different types of exorcisms which the laity may freely pray.

One can read the rules involved in performing a Major Exorcism here. Rule 19, for example states:

  While performing the exorcism over a woman, he ought always have to assisting him several women of good repute, who will hold on to the person when she is harassed by the evil spirit. These assistants ought if possible be close relatives of the subject, and for the sake of decency the exorcist should avoid saying or doing anything that might prove to an occasion of evil thoughts to himself or others.

What types of exorcisms are there in the Latin Rite?

  Major Exorcisms

  Major Exorcism only applies when there is sound evidence that a person is possessed (Latin obsessis, Italian ossessa, Spanish obsesa).

  Only a priest specifically appointed by the Diocesan Bishop (as a general exorcist or to minister to a specific person) may carry out the Rite of Major Exorcism.

  Minor Exorcisms

  The only minor exorcisms specifically published by the Church are those for children and adults preparing for baptism. These may be celebrated by deacons and priests, and also by catechists in dioceses where the bishop has specifically mandated them to do so. Clerics, but not lay catechists, may also use the Oil of Catechumens in the manner set down in the ritual books.

  Sacramentals

  Following the implicit logic of Summorum Pontificum, all priests in good standing have the ability to use the Extraordinary Form rites of blessing and exorcising salt, oil and water. These sacramentals may be given to the faithful for their own private use.

  The medal of St Benedict is an important sacramental, the use of which expresses faith in Christ’s protection from the Enemy.

  Places and Things

  Where there is prudent reason to believe that a place or a thing is under demonic influence, a priest may seek permission from the local Bishop to perform Appendix I of the1999 Rite. Alternatively, (following the implicit logic of Summorum Pontificum), if he has his bishop’s general permission to make use of the Exorcismus in Satanam et Angelos Apostaticos, he may do so without needing to seek explicit permission for the particular case.

  It should not be forgotten that simpler remedies – such as blessing the place with holy water (perhaps exorcised using the older Roman Ritual) – or celebrating Mass in the place – may have a powerful effect without needing to have recourse to the Rite of Exorcism. The inhabitants of a place may, of course, make free use of the Appendix II prayers privately. - Exorcism and Prayers for Deliverance: The Position of the Catholic Church

Pope Leo XIII has given permission to use a simple exorcism that may be used by the laity "whenever the action of the devil is suspected, causing malice in men, violent temptations and even storms and various calamities."

  Prayer of Exorcism by Pope Leo XIII

  A beautiful prayer (a minor exorcism) that anyone can pray to ask Our Lord to drive the lingering influence of Satan away from a
  place. Recommended by His Eminence Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke for use by the laity, August 2, 2014. - EXORCISM OF SATAN AND THE FALLEN ANGELS

Years ago the Simple Exorcism for Priests or Laity by Pope Leo XIII was published in a little flyer form which was available in many parish churches. I am still in possession of a few of these copies and have been unable to find more in the last few years. This exorcism is intended to curb the influence of the devil in places or things. The following website shows exactly what was is on the flyers that I have.

  Prayer Against Satan and the Rebellious Angels

  Published by Order of His Holiness Pope Leo XIII

  The following is a simple exorcism prayer that can be said by priests or laity. The term “exorcism” does NOT always denote a solemn exorcism involving a person possessed by the devil. In general, the term denotes prayers to “curb the power of the devil and prevent him from doing harm.” As St. Peter had written in Holy Scripture, “your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.” (1 St. Peter 5,8)

  The Holy Father exhorts priests to say this prayer as often as possible, as a simple exorcism to curb the power of the devil and prevent him from doing harm. The faithful also may say it in their own name, for the same purpose, as any approved prayer. Its use is recommended whenever action of the devil is suspected, causing malice in men, violent temptations and even storms and various calamities. It could be used as a solemn exorcism (an official and public ceremony, in Latin), to expel the devil. It would then be said by a priest, in the name of the Church and only with a Bishop's permission.

  For the actual text of this simple exorcism see this.


In the Catholic Church, is there a punishment for "heresy"? Things are often referred to as "heretical" in Catholic literature and doctrine. As a lifelong Protestant (Pentecostal), I am very very inexperienced with the way the Catholic Church is run.

The only knowledge that I have of the proceedings with someone who commits heresy is of things like what took place during the Inquisition, and torture chambers and devices used by the Catholics in the Dark Ages.

My question is, What happens to a Catholic who commits heresy in modern times?

The 1983 Code of Canon Law says

  §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 194 §1 n.2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §1, nn.1, 2 and 3.

  – CIC (The online translation is slightly different from my hardback book)

A latae sentitiae excommunication means that the person is excommuicated by the very act; no explicit decree of excommunication is necessary.

Canon 1331 §1 lays down what happens to excommunicated persons, and §2 what happens once the excommunication is formally recognised to have occurred:

  §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:

  to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;
  to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;
  to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.

  §2. If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:

  who wishes to act against the prescript of §1, n. 1 must be prevented from doing so, or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this;
  invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm of §1, n. 3;
  is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted;
  cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church;
  does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church.

Canon 1336 as mentioned above allows an ordained minister to be further constrained by any or all of the following:

  a prohibition or an order concerning residence in a certain place or territory;
  privation of a power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title, or insignia, even merely honorary;
  a prohibition against exercising those things listed under n. 2, or a prohibition against exercising them in a certain place or outside a certain place; these prohibitions are never under pain of nullity;

Note that excommunication is not a punishment. It's a recognition that the person is outside the Church, it's a separation. Canon Law shows what the result of that separation is: basically, the heretic is cut off from receiving the benefits of the Church, including its ministries — the one exception to that would be Reconciliation (Penance).


Can we visit loved ones in Hell? According to an answer on this site, we can still be happy while knowing that people are in Hell and suffering. Growing up, they've always told us that the Bible says that when we enter Heaven, we are given everything we have and/or could ever want.

What if I wanted to visit a loved on in who was sent to Hell? Is there any scriptural evidence that states, or suggests that we will be allowed to visit people in Hell?

The story of The Rich Man and Lazarus, found in Luke 16:19-31 tell us it is impossible to visit others in Hell:

  'And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’


According to the Bible, is cremation an acceptable Christian practice? I have heard some people speak against cremation for Christians, because of the ties it has to some eastern religions.  But what does the Bible actually say about cremation, or any other burial practices?

There is nothing in the Bible that specifically deals with what to do with the bodies of the deceased.  Cremation does not appear to be a part of any burial customs of God's people in biblical times.

Joseph (Jacob's son), in faith, gave instructions to the Israelites to carry his bones back to the Promised Land when God would give Israel that land centuries after he died.  With his role in Egypt, he may have even been mummified according to Egyptian customs.

We also know that Jesus was not cremated, and His body did not see corruption.

It seems that the biggest issue with cremation is that it actively destroys the body rather than passively surrendering it to natural processes.


Why did God make it a sin to eat an apple? Eating a fruit* is not even a real wicked deed like killing somebody or something. Why did this whole sin thing get started with something so innocuous that by today's standard it wouldn't even be considered a sin?

* I'm pretty sure it was a fig.

There was probably no power at all in the fruit. The issue was that God gave them a choice and they chose to disobey Him. And so sin, in this case disobedience, entered the world.

I suspect that it could just as easily have been a, "Wet paint, do not touch!" sign.


In what order were the Sacraments added? In his book The Pursuit of God, A. W. Tozer has this phrase:

  'The sacraments' were first two, then three, then four, until with the triumph of Romanism they were fixed at seven.

What were these first two sacraments? The third? The fourth? The last three? As the title asks, what order were they established?

I'm not exactly asking when they first arose, but rather when they were officially declared as sacraments in the early Church.

Marriage was the proto-sacrament. It became a sacrament after Christ came.
Eucharist was the second. It first appeared on Maundy Thursday.
Baptism is ambiguous. The baptism of John was not sacramental. I believe that it became a sacrament after the resurrection.
Ordination can be seen between the resurrection and Thomas's acceptance of that fact. It can also be seen at the beginning of Acts (before confirmation).
Confirmation can be seen at Pentacost/at the Baptism of Cornelius.
"Extreme Unction" or "Anointing of the sick" is seen in James.
Confession is a bit ambiguous. It clearly was a sacrament in the Ante-Nicene period, but it did not gain its current form until several centuries later. Meanwhile the basic form of the other sacraments was codified much earlier.

Response to edit:

There is little evidence to suggest that what are now called "the seven sacraments" were not always called sacraments. That said, I believe this document might be of use.

  In Greek Christianity these various Christian rites were called "mysteries"* [i.e. things to be hidden from unbelievers] and the exact number of them was defined in a variety of ways. Even though Orthodox Christians today will usually agree that there are seven sacraments, but will also want to include such important rituals as funerals and monastic vows as "sacramental".

The first document it links to is a

  profession of faith demanded of this Byzantine Emperor when he converted to Roman Catholicism in 1274. This seems to have been the first important Church document which listed the seven sacraments.

*The word "mystery" is a reference to Ephesians 5:32. In Latin it is rendered, "sacramentum." Generally theologians will agree that they have the same intended meaning


According to evangelicals, who are the Great Multitude at Rev 7:9, who come out of the great tribulation (on earth) where they are given life? Revelation 7:4-8 describes the 144,000.    Then another group is mentioned that is the subject for this question.

According to evangelicals, who  are the Great Multitude at Re 7:9,

  Rev 7:9 After these things I saw, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could number, out of every nation and of all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, arrayed in white robes, and palms in their hands (ASV)

who come out of the great tribulation (on earth)

  7:14 And I say unto him, My lord, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they that come of the great tribulation, and they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb

where they are given life?   Don't evangelicals teach that all saved  Christians get eternal life when they go to heaven?

  7:17 for the Lamb that is in the midst of the throne shall be their shepherd, and shall guide them unto fountains of waters of life: and God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes.

This question is not about the differences between pre, post tribulation rapture or a-mils.  Focus on the identity of the Great Multitude and whether any evangelical group teaches, as per these verses,  that this group is not in heaven when they get life, after the 144000 are already in heaven.

Since there is no ruling body for evangelical Christians, each church, preacher, and member could take a different interpretation. In this answer I'll present various articles from generally well-known evangelical sources which provide contradictory answers, to give an idea of some of thing things that are believed amongst evangelicals.
In some cases, they believe both the 144000 and the multitude are the same set of people, and in other cases they don't. Where they believe them to be different, I've tried to explain what they believe both groups are.
All emphasis is quotes are my own.
Pre-millenial Example
This article from GotQuestions (whose Statement of Faith appears consistent with Evangelicalism) appear to hold the pre-millenial view

It is true that there will be people ruling in the millennium with Christ...Furthermore, the millennium is different from the eternal state, which will be established at the completion of the millennial period

They understand the 144000 to be a specific set of Jews at a particular time:

When taken at face value, Revelation 7:4 seems to speak of 144,000 actual people living during the end-times tribulation. Nothing in the passage leads to interpreting the 144,000 as anything but a literal number of Jews

And they (quite strongly!) disagree that it is a literal interpretation of the full number of saved Christians:

Much of the confusion regarding the 144,000 is a result of the false doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses [who] claim that 144,000 is a limit to the number of people who will reign with Christ in heaven and spend eternity with God

But the 144000 are not the multitude described in the rest of the chapter. Instead, this group of Jews goes on to convert large numbers of Christians, and it's these that the multitude is talking about.

As a result of their ministry, millions—“a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language” (Revelation 7:9)—will come to faith in Christ.

Contradicting pre-millennial example
John Piper, a well-known US evangelical preacher, describes himself as pre-millenial. This article referencing Revelation 7, directly contradicts this view, suggesting they are not converts from the tribulation.

Unless you restrict this multitude to the converts of the great tribulation and say that God's missionary purpose then is different than it is now, the implication of God's worldwide purpose is clear

Instead, he appears to suggest they represent all Chritians. This is backed up by his use of the words "saints" in this article, where he appears to equate both the 144000 and the multitude to all Christians.

in dying [Jesus] ransomed a great multitude of saints from all the nations

suggests Piper is using the word "saints" to mean "all Christians", which he then equates to both the 144000 and the multitude.

Then before the opening of the final seal John is given a vision of the destiny of the saints in all this upheaval. In 7:1–8 he sees that they will be sealed by God on the earth so they are preserved for his own. Then in 7:9–17 he sees them in the final triumphant state in heaven as an uncountable multitude from every nation serving God in security and joy forever and ever.

A-millennial example
This article is from the Gospel Coallition, which describes itself as "a fellowship of evangelical churches". It is written by Kevin DeYoung, who in another article for TGC describes himself as a-millennial. He also appears to interpret the 144000 as a representation of all Christians.

The 144,000 are not an ethnic Jewish remnant, and certainly not an Anointed Class of saints who became Jehovah’s Witnesses before 1935. The 144,000 represent the entire community of the redeemed.

I take it that, if the 144,000 represent all of God's people, DeYoung is interpreting the whole of Revelation 7 as referring to the same group of people.
Post-millennial Example
I haven't been able to find a great example for this. This article is from someone describing themselves as post-millenial, although doesn't seem to refer to themselves as "evangelical". It's not clear who they think the multitude are, but they draw a strong distinction between them and the 144000, which suggests they don't believe it is a particular set of Jews, at the very least.

The 144,000 saints represent Jewish converts to Christianity who dwell in Israel...John distinguishes them from “the great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues” (Rev 7:9). John is careful to make this strong distinction between the two groups.

Summary
Evangelical Christians generally disagree over the interpretation of who the multitude are, who the 144000 are, and whether they are the same set of people. Even Christians who appear to hold to the same interpretation of Revelation in general disagree over this passage in particular. However, there is a vague notion that suggests the most common interpretation is that it represents all of God's people.
Edit:
I'm tempted to say that the question of whether this multitude has not yet received life is a separate question, but I'll attempt to answer it anyway. If others feel it should be split out, then I can copy this section of the answer across.
Revelation 7:17 mentioned two things happening: God wiping every tear from their eye, and them being led to the water of life. It seems you've interpretted this to mean that they don't yet have life, and will only receive it when they reach said water of life.
However, if we look later in Revelation, we find that both phrases are used to describe the New Creation. I would therefore interpret these verses as simply telling us in advance, before the trouble we're about the see through Revelation, that this multitude will reach the New Jerusalem.

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[b] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” Revelation 21:1-5 (NIV®)

And

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. Revelation 22:1-2 (NIV®)


Mere Christianity Book IV Chapter 9 ("Counting the cost") : George MacDonald References In C.S. Lewis's book Mere Christianity, Book Four, Chapter 9 ("Counting the cost") there are 2 illustrations that C.S. Lewis borrowed from George MacDonald.
The first:

And yet—this is the other and equally important side of it—
this Helper who will, in the long run, be satisfied with nothing
less than absolute perfection, will also be delighted with the
first feeble, stumbling effort you make tomorrow to do the
simplest duty. As a great Christian writer (George MacDonald)
pointed out, every father is pleased at the baby’s first attempt to
walk: no father would be satisfied with anything less than a
firm, free, manly walk in a grown-up son. In the same way, he
said, ‘God is easy to please, but hard to satisfy.’

The second:

I find I must borrow yet another parable from George
MacDonald. Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in
to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand
what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping
the leaks in the roof and so on: you knew that those jobs
needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently he
starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably
and does not seem to make sense. What on earth is He
up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different
house from the one you thought of—throwing out a new
wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers,
making courtyards. You thought you were going to be made
into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He
intends to come and live in it Himself.

The question: Which books / sermons / stories by George MacDonald do these references coming from?

The first one is from a sermon called The Father's Appeal, preached in Westminster Chapel:

“Though Jesus Christ is very hard to satisfy, He is very easy to please. Think of that and it will help you a little. He is very easy to please, but very hard to satisfy. If you will but let Him in, and you have not much to put on the table. You cannot share much of life because you have not got it, He will be so pleased, if it be but a cup of cold water that you can give him. Let it be something genuine, something real.”

I could not find the second one but MacDonald may have borrowed it from Book 1 Chapter 5 of The Confessions of St. Augustine:

My soul is like a house, small for you to enter, but I pray you to enlarge it. It is in ruins, but I ask you to remake it. It contains much that you will not be pleased to see: this I know and do not hide. But who is to rid me of these things? There is no one but you …


What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about the nature of God? What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about the nature of God and, specifically, Jesus?

A common Christian belief is that God is One in Three co-equal, co-eternal Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge this?  If not, what specifically do they believe?

Only Jehovah is God; Jesus Christ is Michael the
archangel. He is different from the other angels in that he was the
first one created. They quote the following verse to prove that he
is Michael:

  1 Thessalonians 4:14 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command,
  with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and
  the dead in Christ will rise first.

Only Jehovah is the true creator. Jehovah created Jesus and then used him to create everything else. So Jesus
is the creator of everything except that he himself was created by
God.

  John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was
  made that has been made.

Only Jehovah is omniscient. Jesus does not know
everything.

  Matthew 24:36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels
  in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Only Jehovah is completely holy, not Jesus.

  Mark 10:18 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good
  except God alone.

Jesus, being an angel, cannot be completely holy.

  Job 4:18 Even in his servants he puts no trust, and his angels he charges with error.

Only Jehovah is the eternal King and true Judge. He has submitted
the judgement of this world to Jesus for the time being but
ultimately all authority will return to him.

  1 Corinthians 15:28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will
  be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may
  be all in all.

The Holy spirit is Jehovah's active power. It is an impersonal force just
like wind or fire and does not have a mind or will. This is from
the July 2006 issue of Awake! magazine, published by The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society:

  When Mary, the mother of Jesus, visited her cousin Elizabeth, the
  Bible says that the unborn child in Elizabeth’s womb leaped, “and
  Elizabeth was filled with holy spirit.” (Luke 1:41) Is it reasonable
  that a person would be “filled” with another person?

  John could hardly have been referring to the holy spirit as a person
  when he spoke of baptizing people with it.

  It is not unusual for God’s Word to personify things that are not a
  person. These include wisdom, discernment, sin, death, and undeserved
  kindness.

  The holy spirit is not a person simply because in some instances it is
  personified.


When Christ was pierced with the spear, why did water come out? On the cross, when the Romans pierced Christ with the spear, the scriptures say that water poured out:

  But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith
  came there out blood and water. (John 19:34)

The Greek word used is ὕδωρ (hydōr) so it's unlikely that they meant, "fluids" or anything else, it's apparent that it was literally water that came out.

Why did water come out of Christ when he was speared?

The probable medical reason is pleural efflusion, caused by hypovolemic shock and congestive heart  failure.

Hypovolemic shock, also called hemorrhagic shock, is a life-threatening condition that results when you lose more than 20 percent (one-fifth) of your body’s blood or fluid supply.

This would likely have been a result of the flogging prior to the crucifixion.

From gotquestions.org:

  Those who were flogged would often go into hypovolemic shock, a term
  that refers to low blood volume. In other words, the person would have
  lost so much blood he would go into shock.

...

  Prior to death, the sustained rapid heartbeat caused by hypovolemic
  shock also causes fluid to gather in the sack around the heart and
  around the lungs. This gathering of fluid in the membrane around the
  heart is called pericardial effusion, and the fluid gathering around
  the lungs is called pleural effusion. This explains why, after Jesus
  died and a Roman soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side (probably
  His right side, piercing both the lungs and the heart), blood and
  water came from His side just as John recorded in his Gospel (John
  19:34).


Who tells us that the whole Bible is inspired? I understand the inspiration concept, but I don't understand how to consider a quote if it's inspired from God [then we consider it God's Words],  or if it explanations by the the apostle or prophet?

Is there any verse in the Bible says that the whole Bible is inspired, and not absolute-human-talk?

The Bible does say that all the scriptures are inspired, which means "God-breathed":

  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV)

Though human writers did produce the scriptures, the ultimate source of the scriptures is God himself. When others spoke the scriptures they did so through God's breath.

In its original context this verse really refers only to the Old Testament. Peter however refers to Paul's letters as scripture, showing that the Apostles recognised that they were writing new inspired scriptures:

  And remember, our Lord’s patience gives people time to be saved. This is what our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom God gave him— speaking of these things in all of his letters. Some of his comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and unstable have twisted his letters to mean something quite different, just as they do with other parts of Scripture. And this will result in their destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16, NLT)


Jesus' Resurrection occurred before angel rolled back the tombstone? Many exegetes claim, without proof, that Jesus resurrected before the angel rolled back the stone, in order to show that he passed through it as he could walk through doors or as he was born out of the Blessed Virgin Mother's closed, virginal womb.
Commentaries on

Mt. 28:2 And behold there was a great earthquake. For an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and coming, rolled back the stone, and sat upon it.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on St. Matthew, ch. 28:Christ had already risen: for as He went out from a closed womb, so He went out from the sealed tomb.

Ven. Bede, as quoted by St. Thomas in Catena in Mt. cap. 28 l. 1:"And came and rolled back the stone;" not to open the door for the Lord to come forth, but to give evidence to men that He was already come forth. For He who as mortal had power to enter the world through the closed womb of a Virgin, He when become immortal, was able to depart out of the world by rising from a sealed sepulchre.

Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., Commentary on Matthew 22-28, ch. 28:And rolled away the stone, of the sepulchre of Christ. Not that He might rise out of it, for He had already risen while the sepulchre was closed, but that he might show to the women that Christ their God and Lord had already risen. Opening to them a way to the sepulchre, he showed it to them empty of the body of Christ. For as Christ was born from the closed womb of the Virgin, so also He rose from the closed sepulchre.

But what evidence is there that the Resurrection occurred before the angel rolled back the stone?

That the Angel sat upon the stone on rolling it back (Mtt 28:2) is sufficient to prove that the Resurrection of Christ had already taken place; if it had not, the Angel would have stood in reverence.
As for the seal, it was not intended to strengthen the closed entrance, as much as  to serve as a check on the guards themselves, lest they be bribed by the disciples . See the propaganda the guards make after the Resurrection : "His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep "(Mtt 28:13) .


How do denominations that ordain women at the same time justify not ordaining homosexuals? There are many verses in the New Testament that outline the role of women in the church.

1 Corinthians 14:34: Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)

And 1 Peter 3.
These verses seem crystal clear, yet many denominations, if not most, now allow women to participate equally in all areas of church government including leadership.  Some of those same denominations use the Bible to justify not allowing homosexuals to participate equally in all areas of church government.
The following New Testament passages deal with homosexual actions:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error (Rom. 1:26–27).
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9–10).
Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine (1 Tim. 1:8–10).

So, my question is, how can those churches follow some scriptures and not others? How do they explain it?

There's really nothing comparable between the two issues: no one thinks that being a woman is sinful, but many Christian denominations think that all sex outside of heterosexual marriage is sinful.

When we look the passages which give the criteria for church leaders such as 1 Timothy 3 we see several distinct criteria:

being above reproach
a husband of one wife
self controlled and not a drunk
hospitable
able to teach
not violent or greedy
takes care of his own house
not a recent convert
well regarded in the community

Some of these are inherently vague - an elder is not to be a recent convert, but Paul doesn't specify what "recent" means. Some people might think that five years is still too young a Christian, others think that only one or two is acceptable. Others would take the principle more generally, and say that the time a person has been a Christian doesn't matter, but how spiritually mature they are does.

Similarly, the requirement that they're the husband of one wife is contentious. Does it just prohibit polygamous husbands? What about divorced husbands? What about single men?

It's clear that Paul assumes the elders will be men. But is that an assumption we can do away with, or is that an essential part of the role description? Christians disagree greatly over that question. Some churches will not appoint women to be elders/ministers/priests, others will. Both sides have good arguments.

But what is indisputable is that the candidate's moral character cannot be ignored. I only listed some of the prohibitions in 1 Timothy 3, Paul gives more! No one who is in unrepentant sin is qualified to lead a church. If a church thinks that homosexual sex is sinful then they can refuse to ordain people in homosexual relationships while ordaining women without being inconsistent in the slightest.


How do Catholics observe Lent through a dignified and appropriate use of food? Have you considered presenting menus for those fasting days for religious people to follow? If so, what foods to eat on which fasting season and why? Display pictures if possible. Many would appreciate that.

In the Roman Rite Lent starts on Ash Wednesday and finishes on Holy Saturday. This comprises a period of 46 days. This includes six Sundays which are not considered part of the Lenten fast, but they are traditionally is still part of spirit of abstinence in Lent.

The period of Lent observed in the Eastern Catholic Churches corresponds to that in other churches of Eastern Orthodoxy that have similar liturgical and Lenten traditions.

  Age for Fasting in the Catholic Church: According to Church law, all persons 14 years and older are bound to abstain from meat on the days prescribed (Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, and Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities, or the conference of bishops has established another penance). Children under 18 are not bound to fast; adults under 60 years of age are bound to fast on the days prescribed (the only specific days prescribed for the whole Church are Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, though fasting more often is encouraged). Of course, those really unable to fast for reasons of health are excused from fasting. - Fasting

Pope Benedict XVI has this to say about Fasting:

  It seems abundantly clear that fasting represents an important ascetical practice, a spiritual arm to do battle against every possible disordered attachment to ourselves. Freely chosen detachment from the pleasure of food and other material goods helps the disciple of Christ to control the appetites of nature, weakened by original sin, whose negative effects impact the entire human person. Quite opportunely, an ancient hymn of the Lenten liturgy exhorts: “Utamur ergo parcius, / verbis cibis et potibus, / somno, iocis et arctius / perstemus in custodia – Let us use sparingly words, food and drink, sleep and amusements. May we be more alert in the custody of our senses.” - MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI FOR LENT 2009

Here are a few suggestions for Lent, whether on a traditional or a regional note:

Ecuador: Franesca Soup is a traditional dish served during Lent. This soup has 12 grains (representing Jesus' 12 disciples), dried cod, peanuts, hard-boiled eggs and mini cheese empanadas floating in a creamy base. On Good Friday, vendors serve it out of large vats. It's a bit of work to make yourself, but so worth it.
Greece: The following dishes a popular in Greece during lent: Lenten Cake, Octopus with paprika and Cake with no eggs.
Jejunium: Where fasting is indeed taken seriously as in many traditional religious communities breakfast may consist of a bowl (mug or cup, depending from which county you are from) of coffee or milk taken with a slice of bread. It is the tradition in some Religious Orders to place on the table a sign with the word JEJUNIUM in bold letters to remind everyone entering the refectory for breakfast that it is a fast day. With the suppression of greater part of the Church’s discipline of Lenten fasting, the Latin word for fasting, ‘jejunium’, is removed from the original text of the traditional hymns of Lent and substituted with ‘abstinentia’.
The evening collation: Besides a complete meal, the Church now permits a collation usually taken in the evening when one must fast. This might be something like a small amount of soup, a very small serving of some dish such as macaroni or leftovers and a slice of bread. In Europe and many religious communities, the main meal is around noontime or early afternoon. Due to work, many people who fast, reverse their collaton and their main meal times.
St. Benedict's Model for his monks: "We think it sufficient for the daily meal, whether at the sixth or the ninth hour, that there be at all the tables two dishes of cooked food because of the weaknesses of different persons; so that he who perhaps cannot eat of the one may make his meal of the other. Therefore, let two cooked dishes suffice for the brethren; and if there is any fruit or fresh vegetables, let a third dish be added. Let a full pound of bread suffice for each day, whether there be but one meal or both dinner and supper. If they are to take a second meal, let a third part of the pound be reserved by the cellarer, to be given to them at supper. But if the work has been rather heavy, it shall be in the discretion and power of the Abbot to make some addition, if he thinks it expedient, provided that excess be avoided above all things, that no monk be ever guilty of surfeiting; for nothing is more unworthy of any Christian than gluttony, as our Lord says: "Take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be overcharged with self-indulgence and drunkenness." Let not the same quantity be allowed to children of tender years, but a smaller amount than that allowed to their elders, so that frugality may be observed in all things. All, however, except the very weak and the sick, are to abstain from eating the flesh of four-footed animals." - Chapter 39
Corned Beef on Fridays of Lent?: Some US dioceses have permitted corn beef (or other meats) when the Feast of St. Patrick falls on a Friday of Lent. The following dioceses or archdioceses had announced giving the clear for Catholics to eat meat on March 17 when it falls on Lenten Fridays: Baltimore; New York; Milwaukee; St. Paul and Minneapolis; Atlanta and Savannah, Georgia; Omaha, Nebraska; and Jefferson City, Missouri. Corned beef conundrum: Some dioceses give St. Patrick's Day dispensation Many Catholics are seem to be Irish, or at least Irish for a day, and that means they'll have to pass on the traditional corned beef and cabbage or shepherd's pie — maybe.
Rauchbier (Smoked Beer): Rauchbier, or “smoke beer,” is made using malts that have been dried over fire—-thus gaining the smoky taste of cured meats like ham and bacon. At one time all beers malts were produced over fire, but in medieval Bavaria beers of this type came to be associated with Lent when the rich, smoky tones of meat were dearly missed. There is, of course, an official blessing for beer (“Bless, O Lord, this creature beer . . . ”) which one may safely assume is more efficacious in the original Latin: "Benedic, Domine, creaturam istam cerevisiae, quam ex adipe frumenti producere dignatus es: ut sit remedium salutare humano generi, et praesta per invocationem nominis tui sancti; ut, quicumque ex ea biberint, sanitatem corpus et animae tutelam percipiant. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.”
Black Wine: Black was the liturgical color for Lent before becoming replaced with violet.
Rosé Wine: For Gaudete and Laetare Sundays when Rose colored vestment are used at Mass.
Alligator: Alligator meat is permissible to eat on Fridays of Lent (in the USA only), the archbishop of New Orleans assured a conscientious parishioner, and his approval has been backed by the national bishops' conference. Try these for example: Alligator Fingers or Chef John Folse’s Alligator Sauce Piquante.
Torrija: Traditionally eaten in Spain during Lent
Croccante Quaresimale (Italian Cookies for Lent)
Ember Day’s Tart: Great for fasting days like the Ember Days and Lent.
Lent (in general): Spaghetti al nero di seppia (pasta + squid ink) It is penitential just by its color. Fare warning should be announced here. It stains your teeth. Onion Pie Onions were commonly eaten in Biblical Times. Also popular in lent are the following: Falafel, Almond Milk Frumenty (Medieval recipe) and Lenten Eggs Benedict. The Feast of St. Benedict (March 21) often falls in Lent. Oh, yes do not the tradition pretzel association with Lent.
Clean Monday: Lenten Bean Salad and Cuttlefish With Spinach (Σουπιές-με-σπανάκι) are cooked on Clean Monday in Greece as part of the Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches' traditions.
Fridays (of Lent): Friday Fritters
Friday of the Third Week of Lent: La Samaritana Festival is held on the fourth Friday of Lent at Oaxaca, Oaxaca, Mexico. The custom of the day involves churches, schools, and businesses giving away fruit drinks to passers-byes. In the Extraordinary Rite (EF) of the Liturgy the Gospel of the day is taken from St. John 4:5-42 which details Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritian women at the well.
Mid-Lent: Mid lent in the East is on Wednesday of the fourth week of Lent. In Armenia,  Mid Lent Fortune Bread (Michink) is traditional made and eaten this day.
Mid-Lent: Thursday before Laetare Sunday (Pancakes and crepes are popular this day for those undergoing the traditional 40 day fast of Lent, in the Roman Rite.)
Fourth Sunday of Lent:  Pretzel Sunday (Bretzelsonnden) in Luxenbourg. Mothering Sunday (Simnel Cake)
Passiontide: Passion Flower (Passiflora) The "Passion" in "passion flower" refers to the passion of Jesus in Christian theology. In the 15th and 16th centuries, Spanish Christian missionaries adopted the unique physical structures of this plant, particularly the numbers of its various flower parts, as symbols of the last days of Jesus and especially his crucifixion.
Palm Sunday: Palm Sunday is also called Fig Sunday, because figs were traditionally eaten that day, memorializing the fig tree cursed by Christ after his entry into Jerusalem.
Holy Week: Traditional Church’s Lenten fast and abstaining from both meat and eggs until Easter Sunday. Torrija traditionally eaten in Spain in Holy Week
Holy Thursday: Christian Seder Meal. Some communities will watch Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ following the Seder Meal.
"Judases":  In the Czech Republic one eats Judases (Jidáše) at breakfast on Holy Thursday, which are bread rolls made in a twisted manner, to recall the rope with which Judas, the betrayer of Christ, went out and hung himself. One dips them in honey to prevent disaster falling on oneself. For dinner one eats green herbs and green salad.
Green Thursday: Germans call Holy Thursday Gründonnerstag or “Green Thursday", eat green vegetables, especially spinach. This is custom in other European countries, especially the Czech Republic.
Good Friday: Hot Cross Buns & Cold Tomato Soup with Wine. Hot Cross Bun originated from St Albans, where Brother Thomas Rodcliffe, a 14th Century monk at St Albans Abbey, developed a similar recipe called an 'Alban Bun' and distributed the bun to the local poor on Good Friday, starting in 1361. There is also a little known Louisiana tradition: Pie Day: Louisiana’s Lenten Custom
Święconka: Although this is not a truly "fasting" tradition, it is a very valid tradition held on the last day of Lent (Holy Saturday) in many parts of the world like Poland. Święconka is the Polish tradition for "the blessing of the Easter baskets," and is observed in Poland as well observed by Poles in the U.S., Canada, the UK, and other Polish Parish communities. The tradition of blessing food at Easter has early-medieval roots in Christian society and dates back to the 7th century in its basic form. The more modern form containing bread and eggs (symbols of resurrection and Christ) are said to date from the 12th century. This tradition is also popular in other cultures also such as Czechs, Croatians, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Russians, Rusyns, Slovaks, Slovenes and Ukrainians. As to what goes into a food basket depends on the region one is from, the family's preferences, and financial means.
Popular items in the traditional Easter Basket are butter, bread, horseradish, hard boiled eggs (coloured egg; pysanky ), sausages, ham or lamb, smoked bacon, cheese, wine, salt and sweets. Some traditional blessings can be found here: Święcone - Blessing of Easter Food. Simply follow the links for the Latin prayers if so desired.
Holy Saturday: Drought of Honey Tradition. It is a custom, in some of the more traditional communities (Benedictine) to let the deacon or priest who chants the Exsutet to be given a draught of honey just prior to the commencement of the Easter Vigil in order to make his voice sound even more melodious than ever in the Divine Liturgy.

Honey and the Bee is also a symbol of wisdom, for it collects nectar from many flowers and turns it into nourishing and pleasing honey, which is the 'gold' of bees. We should do the same, take whatever we can and transform it through our labor into a superior element useful for us and our neighbor.

The symbolism of bees also signifies the way the Church generates her spiritual fruits because bees are virginal, they don't have any sexual contact. As the Church gives grace through the purity of her divine Sacraments, so the bees give us honey and wax by the labor of their pure bodies. This is why their wax, considered the fruit of a virgin labor, is worthy to burn in the candles on the altar at the offering of the Holy Sacrifice.

The honey, so agreeable to the palate, is symbolic of spiritual sweetness and religious eloquence. For this reason, the beehive is emblematic of St. Ambrose and of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, two Doctors whom the Church surnamed mellifluus and mellificuus.

Here follows some pictures for the curious:

Rauchbier or “Smoke Beer"

Ember Day Tart

Spaghetti al nero di seppia {pasta + squid ink} This truly looks like a penitential food to eat. It only for the courageous to eat.

For Holy Week, bring Jewish roots of Mass to life and host your own family Seder meal.

Blue passion flower (P. caerulea) showing most elements of the Christian symbolism.

  The "Passion" in "passion flower" refers to the passion of Jesus in Christian theology. In the 15th and 16th centuries, Spanish Christian missionaries adopted the unique physical structures of this plant, particularly the numbers of its various flower parts, as symbols of the last days of Jesus and especially his crucifixion:

  The pointed tips of the leaves were taken to represent the Holy Lance.
  The tendrils represent the whips used in the flagellation of Christ.
  The ten petals and sepals represent the ten faithful apostles (excluding St. Peter the denier and Judas Iscariot the betrayer).
  The flower's radial filaments, which can number more than a hundred and vary from flower to flower, represent the crown of thorns.
  The chalice-shaped ovary with its receptacle represents a hammer or the Holy Grail.
  The 3 stigmas represent the 3 nails and the 5 anthers below them the 5 wounds (four by the nails and one by the lance).
  The blue and white colors of many species' flowers represent Heaven and Purity.

Święcone blessing of Easter food on Holy Saturday.

  Whether Poles are church going or not, this is a tradition that has stayed with practically everyone, so that Easter just isn’t Easter without a basket of goodies. Here’s a typical church scene in Poland where the baskets just keep on coming all day long and the priests bless them every 5 minutes, as soon as the table has been replenished with more.  Last year I met my retired renal consultant with his family here in the UK. They are English but his son’s Polish fiancee was visiting and insisted on preparing a basket and heading for the nearest church – so others are learning about this ancient practice. - Święcone – What to put in your Polish Easter basket


What evidence is there that Peter was a bishop in Rome? The Encyclopaedia Brittanica says

  The claims that the church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its first bishop are in dispute and rest on evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century.

Where in the Bible does it say that Peter was a Bishop?  Also, are there  any non-biblical 1st-century historical accounts that mention his being the Bishop of Rome?

The Bible does not mention Peter as ever going to Rome, and there is no early Christian record of this being the case. Even at the end of the first century, the author of 1 Clement appears unaware that St. Peter ever came to Rome. Written from Rome, 1 Clement mentions Peter's 'many labours' and makes a general comment about Peter's death, without mentioning Rome: "There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory." Rex Wyler, in The Jesus Sayings, page 252, says the legend that Peter visited Rome appears in the non-canonical Acts of Peter, composed in about 185 CE. Eusebius embellishes this report two centuries later by adding that both Peter and Paul were executed in Rome during Nero's persecutions, but he cites no source and gives an erroneous date, casting doubt on his research.

John W. O’Malley, S.J. says, in A History of the Popes, page 8, that no one piece of evidence states in straightforward and unambiguous language either that Peter either went to Rome or that he died there, although O’Malley finds the circumstantial evidence is persuasive. Part of the evidence O'Malley relies on is in 1 Peter, which he acknowledges might not have been written by Peter himself, but claims it was at least written under his inspiration.

Francis A. Sullivan S.J. says, in From Apostles to Bishops, page 15, that there is a broad consensus among scholars, including most Catholic ones,  that the church of Rome was most probably led by a college of presbyters until well into the second century. He says there is no evidence of a ruling bishop in the first century. Now, it seems inconceivable that Peter would lead the church in Rome, as its first bishop, and appoint a successor as bishop, only for the Christian community of Rome to ignore this precedent for up to a century after the death of Linus.


How is Jesus descended from David? As I understand from OT kings of Judea, there was always a biological paternal line between the kingship and David. However if Jesus was the son of God and not of Joseph, how was he descended from David? Furthermore why are there two different accounts of who Joseph's father was?

There is no discrepancy.
Greek syntax
First, in the genealogy encountered in the Gospel of Luke,1 the very syntax of the Greek text seems to argue against the notion that Joseph is the son of Heli.
Consider Num. 36:1 in the LXX. When the translator wished to state that Gilʿad (גִלְעָד) was the son of Makhir (מָכִיר), and Makhir was the son of Menashe (מְנַשֶּׁה), he translated this into Greek as «Γαλααδ υἱοῦ Μαχιρ υἱοῦ Μανασση». Notice that the Greek word υἱοῦ (“son of”) precedes the name of each father. So, it is understood as Gilʿad the son of Makhir, and Makhir the son of Menashe, i.e., A son of B, B son of C.
Another example is Num. 16:1. The idea is that Korach (קֹרַח) is the son of Yitzhar (יִצְהָר), and Yitzhar is the son of Kehat (קְהָת), and Kehat is the son of Levi (לֵוִי). The translator of the LXX expresses this in Greek as «Κορε υἱὸς Ισσααρ υἱοῦ Κααθ υἱοῦ Λευι». Again, the translator precedes each father in the genealogical series by a declension of the Greek word υἱός.
The problem is that a declension of υἱός does not precede the name of each father in Luke’s genealogy. In a genealogy, where there’s a series of names, this seems quite the anomaly. Certainly it’s not unusual to see υἱός absent before, say, a single father in a narrative.2 But, for it to be missing before every father in a genealogy, I know of no other examples.
A Rule, You Say?
When we see one name preceded by another in a genealogy, we tend to think that the preceding name is the son/daughter of the following name. Hence, when people read the following in Luke 3:24,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, KJV, 1769

they interpret it to mean that Matthat is the son of Levi, and Levi is the son of Melchi, and so forth, all the way until the end of Luke 3:38, which states,

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. KJV, 1769

and thus, it is believed that Adam is the son of God, since Adam precedes God in the genealogy. However, this rule is not absolutely true. Consider the example of Gen. 36:2:

2 Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; KJV, 1769

We must ask, “Who is the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite?” Based on the aforementioned rule, you might say, “It is Anah, since Anah precedes Zibeon in the genealogy. Therefore, Anah must be Zibeon’s daughter.” Such would be unequivocally wrong, for Anah is a male, not a female, and thus he could not be anyone’s daughter.3 So, the genealogy in Gen. 36:2 is actually stating that Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah (her father), and the same Aholibamah is also the daughter of Zibeon (Anah’s father4 and thus, Aholibamah’s grandfather).
Therefore, there is no reason to assume, especially in light of the absence of υἱοῦ before each father, that Luke is saying A is the son of B, B is the son of C, C is the son of D, and so forth. In other words, what reason is there for assuming that Luke is saying that Joseph is the son of Heli, or that Adam is the son of God? I have shown you using the example of Aholibamah that a name simply preceding another name in a genealogy is not evidence of such a rule.
If Joseph is not Heli’s son, Then Who Is?
I have demonstrated that it is absolutely normal for the daughter of a man to also be reckoned as the daughter of the same man’s father. Naturally, this would also apply to a man’s son. For example, Jesus is not only the son of David,5 but also the son of Abraham,6 even though neither were Jesus’ direct, biological father.
In Luke 3:23, it is written,

23 And Jesus himself was being about thirty years [old], being [the] son (as was supposed) of Yosef, of Eli,
ΚΓʹ καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ὢν υἱός ὡς ἐνομίζετο Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ NA28

Let us consider the notion that Luke intentionally omitted υἱός from each father and only included it after Jesus (Ἰησοῦς) and before Joseph (Ἰωσὴφ). Again, it wasn’t normal for it to be omitted before each father in a genealogy. Either it is an anomaly, or Luke intended to do so. My belief is that Luke does not want us to understand Joseph as being the son of Heli, but Jesus as being the son of Heli, and Jesus being the son of:

Matthat
Levi
Melchi
Janna

all the way to...

Enos
Seth

and likewise, Jesus is the son of Adam, and Jesus (not Adam) is the son of God.7
The Nativity
Is Jesus the son of God? The books of the Bible unanimously declare him to be so. In fact, if we actually take a step back and read the narrative, one will see that it was Luke’s very intent to declare Jesus as the son of God, rather than Adam.
First, Luke begins his gospel describing the very nativity of our Lord Jesus. And, what does Luke tell us?
In Luke 1, it is written,

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. KJV, 1769
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: KJV, 1769
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. KJV, 1769

The angel says that Jesus will be “the Son of the Most High” (υἱὸς ὑψίστου) and “the Son of God” (υἱὸς θεοῦ) because ⇨ God the Father is Jesus’ actual father. To reiterate, Luke commences his gospel by demonstrating that Jesus is truly and literally the Son of God. But, he does not stop there.
In chapter 2, Luke describes the birth of the Lord Jesus.8 He writes that “Joseph and his mother marvelled...” (rather than “his father and mother”),9 and he writes that Jesus tells his mother, “...I must be about my Father’s business...”10
Baptism
Luke also emphasizes the fact that Jesus is the son of God during the baptism narrative in Luke 3.

21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, 22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Of course, it was God the Father who declared to Jesus, “You are My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” Then, just one verse later, Luke begins the genealogy. Again, looking at the big picture, one can see that Luke’s very intent was to describe Jesus as being God’s son. This is accomplished in the narratives of the nativity, baptism, and finally, the genealogy (Luke 1–3).
Not only does Luke focus on Jesus being God’s son, but he also focuses especially on Mary. On the other hand, if you read Matthew’s narrative, he focuses especially on Joseph. Hence, we need to understand that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary, and that Jesus is the son of God (not Adam). Accordingly, Jesus is Heli’s son, because Heli is his grandfather (Mary’s father).
This may be corroborated by the Jerusalem Talmud which speaks (albeit in a vile and derogatory manner, as can be expected) of a מרים ברת עלי (“Miryam, daughter of Eli”).11
In his commentary on Luke 3:23, John Lightfoot wrote,12

Joseph is not here called the son of Heli, but Jesus is so: for the word Jesus must be understood, and must be always added in the reader’s mind to every race in this genealogy, after this manner: “Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so the son of Heli, and of Matthat, yea and, at length, the son of Adam, and the Son of God.” For it was very little the business of the evangelist either to draw Joseph’s pedigree from Adam, or, indeed, to shew that Adam was the son of God: which not only sounds something harshly, but in this place very enormously, I may almost add, blasphemously too.
For when St. Luke, verse 22, had made a voice from heaven, declaring that Jesus was the Son of God, do we think the same evangelist would, in the same breath, pronounce Adam ‘the son of God’ too? So that this very thing teacheth us what the evangelist propounded to himself in the framing of this genealogy; which was to shew that this Jesus, who had newly received that great testimony from heaven, “This is my Son,” was the very same that had been promised to Adam by the seed of the woman.
And for this reason hath he drawn his pedigree on the mother’s side, who was the daughter of Heli, and this too as high as Adam, to whom this Jesus was promised. In the close of the genealogy, he teacheth in what sense the former part of it should be taken; viz. that Jesus, not Joseph, should be called the son of Heli, and consequently, that the same Jesus, not Adam, should be called the Son of God. Indeed, in every link of this chain this still should be understood, “Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi”; and so of the rest...

Jesus is descended from David via his mother Mary, who was of the tribe of Judah and thus physically descended from David. This fulfills God’s promise to David that the fruit of his loins would reign on his throne forever. Jesus cannot actually inherit the throne from his mother. Tribal status, and thus the right to the Davidic throne, is actually passed paternally. So, how then does Jesus inherit the throne of David? Adoption, in the same way that Christians inherit our throne and reign with Jesus.13

References
Lightfoot, John. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae: Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations. Trans. Gandell, Robert. Vol. 3. Oxford: UP of Oxford, 1859.
Footnotes
1 Luke 3:23–38
2 cp. Luke 6:15. However, he includes the definite article τὸν which is shorthand for τὸν υἱὸν.
3 cp. Gen. 36:24
4 ibid.
5 cp. Matt. 1:1
6 ibid.
7 Luke 3:38
8 Luke 2:7
9 Luke 2:33
10 Luke 2:49
11 Tractate Chaggiga, Chapter 2, Folio 11a, Halakha 2, Gemara; cp. Lightfoot, p. 55
12 p. 54
13 Rom. 8:15–17


Is Mary, "Mother of God," the mother of the Son or of the whole Trinity? I find the Catholic title "Mother of God" for the Virgin Mary confusing. It is clear that she was the mother of Jesus, the Son. But the title suggests (indeed, not literally, but still) that Mary is mother of God as a Trinity. Is that correct? If so, it creates the problem that a human (or is there reason to say that Mary wasn't (entirely) human?) gave birth to God, while God created mankind.

This problem doesn't exist when Mary is only mother of Jesus, because then it could be merely a way of speaking to say that Mary was the one through whom the Word became flesh, which would be the Protestant view as described in Why do Protestants not refer to Mary by the title "Mother of God"?

But the title seems to refer to God the Trinity. Is that correct?

No it does not.

First trinity is not God. Trinity is how God is. That is trinity is not a person, it is a relationship. So Mary cannot be the mother of Trinity.

Secondly it would be nice if you know the context why and when this was declared as a dogma. The problem rose when Nestorius said the Mary held within herself only the human Jesus and not divine Christ. That is Mary is the mother of human Jesus. But as we all know mothers don't give birth to "human nature", but to a person. Hence Mary is the mother of a person named Jesus, who happens to be divine in an Hypostatic union. Since Mary is mother of His humanity, she is also the mother of His divinity.

When we say Mary is the mother of God, we do not mean that she is the author of His Divinity. But we mean that she held in herself and gave birth to God and Human Jesus.


Readable presentations on theodicy (problem of evil) theories? Are there any expositions of christian philosophical resolutions to the problem of evil that one can more easily follow, in any presentation (video / audio / book /coursera / whatever)? Being a progressive at heart, I tend to get turned off when a philosophical system seems to require unnecessary (and counter-productive) suffering, but still I would genuinely like to understand christian theodicy positions. As much as I like to ridicule the position that "evil exists because the evildoer along with the righteous must have free will", there is actually something beyond that.

The Doors of the Sea by David Bentley Hart, from an Orthodox perspective.

The Justification Of God by John Piper, from a Reformed perspective. This book is more focused on the question of how can God be called good if he has sovereignly ordained that some people be damned, but the existence of God is clearly an implication of that question. As it's written by a Reformed theologian you can't be quite sure that the answer isn't "because freedom!"