Does the Old Testament law prohibit marriage among step siblings? I ask because I'm trying to understand whether the prohibition against sibling marriage is due to genetic or emotional reasons.

Suppose Bob and Alice marry, have a daughter Eve, and some years later Alice dies.

Suppose Chris and Diana marry, have a son Frank, and some years later Chris dies.

Now, suppose Bob and Diana marry -- that would make Eve and Frank stepsiblings with no shared biological heritage.

Would the Old Testament law, in this case, prohibit Eve and Frank's marriage?

The prohibited forms of incest are found in Leviticus 18.

Verse 9 is of the most concern:

  9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

Verse 11, however is also interesting:

  11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

Here, only children born of the father are considered. As such, a step sibling sired by another man (such as the case you posit) would appear to be fair game.

The complete list disallows:

your mother
any woman your father marries (honor)
your sister, or the daughters of either of your parents
your children's daughters (honor)
your father's wife
your aunt on either side (she is "a close relative")
your daughter-in-law
your sister-in-law

In many cases, the point seems to be "don't dishonor your family."  I suspect (and here I put on my Rabbi hat and accent), the idea would be that you could not seek out your step-siblings, but if the marriage were to occur before your father and her mother were to marry, that they would be dishonoring you, not you them.

All of this, of course, is far more legal and lawerly than Christianity normally gets, but you asks the question, you gets the answer...


Are there involuntary Catholics? I was just reading this answer which stated that a person could be Catholic without having gone through confirmation:

Catholics recommend that this is done to infants. 1

If that is the case, that a Catholic baptism alone makes a person a Catholic, and if they are generally baptized as such as infants, it would stand to reason that there would be many people who may be technically considered Catholic by no choice or even memory of their own. Is that actually the case?

So, if a person were baptized Catholic as an infant, for instance, perhaps lost his parents or was adopted, and then later grew up not knowing this, if this fact were somehow brought to his attention and those of the Catholic assembly, would they be considered Catholic, up to such point that the person intentionally renounced this?

As a follow up question, if this is actually the case, are there some people who the Catholic Church believes to somehow have a better standing with God, from childhood, through no thought or action of their own? If it's not up to the child, and if it does bestow some favor, then would there be any reason not to try to force every child into this if the opportunity arises? If not, is it withheld to punish the child for the sake of the parents' choices?

Citation:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1250.htm

Those who baptize infants are bound by Canon Law to raise those children Catholic. A Catholic parent must

  Can. 1125 1/…do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church.

Thus, unless the Catholic parents utterly fail in their duty, it is nearly impossible for a child to be baptized Catholic and not realize once the child reaches the age of reason.

Secretly baptizing foster children, for example, is prohibited by the Church for the reason that it cannot be assured that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion.

  Can.  868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly [i.e., lawfully]…2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

Thus, to answer your questions:

  a Catholic baptism alone makes a person a Catholic

This isn't quite correct. Catholic baptism + raising the infant Catholic makes the infant Catholic. If the infant is baptized Catholic but not raised Catholic, how is this any different from if the infant were baptized outside the Catholic Church? Anyone, inside or outside the Church, who can apply water and say the baptismal formula can validly baptize.

Catholic teaching is not that baptism alone makes one a member of the Church. As Pope Pius XII's encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi said,

  Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

Baptism and profession of the Catholic Faith are both required to be members of the Church. Since infants lack the use of reason, the Catholic environment in which the infant is brought up substitutes for the inability of the infant to profess the Faith. After the infant grows up and attains the age of reason, he can formally make this act of faith in the sacrament of Confirmation.


Don't the questions of Hebrews 1:5 and 1:13 demand an answer of 'None'? So how can Jehovah's Witnesses say that Jesus is the archangel Michael? There's a suggested duplicate to this question but that question deals with how the Jehovah's Witnesses explain the begotten divinity of Jesus while still maintaining that He is unequal to God.  This question is directed toward the distinction between the Son and angels as portrayed in Hebrews chapter 1.  I've included the entire chapter so that the context is plain in the reading (bold is added for focus):

  Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.” Of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.” But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? Hebrews 1:1-14

Twice the question is raised "To which of the angels has God ever said...?" and sandwiched between these questions is a direct contrast between angels and the Son.  The answer demanded by any plain reading within context for these questions is 'God has never said any such thing to any angel.'

In claiming that Jesus, the Son of God, is Michael the archangel Jehovah's Witnesses appear to be stating that God did, in fact, say such things to an angel.  My question is, how do Jehovah's Witnesses explain this seemingly clear contradiction to the context?

Question: Based on Hebrews 1:5 and 13 you ask how Jehovah's Witnesses can say that Jesus is the archangel Michael.  You also ask, what is the distinction between the Son of God and the angels?

In order to find an answer it is necessary to first understand what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe regarding the relationship between Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and the archangel Michael.  Here is a brief overview, using only quotations from their own literature:

  New Heavens and New Earth pages 30-31: "It proves Michael the archangel is none other than the only begotten Son of God, now Jesus Christ. The very name Michael means ‘Who is like God?’ and indicates Jehovah God is without like or equal."  [1]

  Your Will be Done on Earth page 316: “Jesus is actually the incarnation of Michael the archangel and resumed the name when he ascended into heaven.” [2]

  What Does the Bible Really Teach pages 218-219: "The Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth...  Since God's Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven - one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus - it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role." [3]

  "Who, though, was the son whom God chose to be born as a perfect human creature? ...He has rightly been called Michael the Archangel.  His life-force having been transferred to Mary's egg cell by Almighty God's power that overshadowed Mary meant that he, Michael, disappeared from heaven.   By human birth from Mary, the Jewish virgin, he was to become a human soul." (God's "Eternal Purpose" Now Triumphing, 1974, pp 137-138)

  What does the Society teach that this "life-force" is?  "The word 'spirit' is translated from the Hebrew word ru'ach, meaning the life-force that animates all living creatures, human and animal. (Ecclesiastes 3:18-22) However, the important difference is that ru'ach is an impersonal force; it does not have a will of its own or retain the personality or any of the characteristics of the deceased individual."  (Mankind's Search for God, 1990, pp 153-154)

In an attempt to find evidence to support the suggestion that Jesus is in a different class than any other angel, I went to the official Jehovah’s Witness web site and searched on angels:

  Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, pages 106-108, Angel Order and Rank: “As with the visible creation, so also in the invisible realm there is order and rank among the angels. The foremost angel, both in power and authority, is Michael, the archangel.”

  The article goes on to mention Seraphs: “Ranking very high among the angels in privileges and honor are the seraphs.”   Cherubs also “hold a special position among the angels.”  “Then there is the great body of angelic messengers who serve as a means of communication between God and man.” https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000277?q=angel+order+rank&p=par

No mention of any other class of angel.  Michael the archangel is the most powerful, then there are Seraphs and Cherubs and Gabriel is also mentioned in Scripture as a messenger.   The demons are classified as fallen angels, angels who sinned.  From here I searched on Son of God:

  Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2, pages 393-394: “Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return…  [3] Michael is actually the Son of God.” [1]

  “In his prehuman existence Jesus was called “the Word.” (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Ac 9:5), “the Word” shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. [1] His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) “The Word of God” (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, “Who Is Like God?” points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator.”  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003035?q=Michael+Son+God&p=par

  Watchtower 1 April 2010: Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?   Put simply, the answer is yes ...  In view of the foregoing, what can we conclude? Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel. Both names—Michael (meaning “Who Is Like God?”) and Jesus (meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation”)—focus attention on his role as the leading advocate of God’s sovereignty. Philippians 2:9 states: “God exalted him [the glorified Jesus] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.”  So Michael the archangel is Jesus in his prehuman existence. After his resurrection and return to heaven, Jesus resumed his service as Michael, the chief angel, “to the glory of God the Father.”—Philippians 2:11.  Source: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010250 [3]

This last quotation offers a clue as to how Jehovah’s Witnesses perceive the status of the glorified Jesus.  As one Jehovah’s Witness put it, “Jesus is stated to have been previously at par with the angels, but now he has been glorified above them. Therefore, he is excluded from the angels.”  I take that to suggest that since the glorified Jesus has now been exalted to a position higher than all the angels then the quotation from Psalm 2:7 isn’t referring to Jesus as an angel because the Son of God has been exalted and glorified and is higher than any of the angels.

The fatal flaw in this argument, however, is that quotes from two Jehovah’s Witness publications say Michael is the Son of God [1] and Jesus was the incarnation of Michael the archangel when he was born of Mary [2].   Since they believe that Jesus was known as Michael the archangel before and after he came to earth [3] then I can only assume that Jesus is still an archangel.  Of course, there is an argument that because the pre-human Jesus was the only spirit creation of Jehovah God, then that makes him special, and different to all the other angels that were created by and through Jesus.  Personally, I don’t go along with that sort of “reasoning” but there may be an article on the subject.

I’ve spent hours trawling through jw.org but can’t find anything that specifically addresses the issue raised by Hebrews 1:1-14.  Perhaps a Jehovah’s Witness will be able to track one down.  For the avoidance of doubt, I am not promoting the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses.


What name was Yeshua baptized in? What name was Yeshua baptized in by John the Baptist.  Could it be The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

John's was a baptism of repentance. It was a cleaning of the body, according to the Law that commanded those who were unclean to "wash with water".

This is not the same baptism as that in Christ since the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ those who had already received John's baptism in Acts 19.


When does the bread and wine become Body and Blood? Exactly when during the Mass does transubstantiation occur? I am aware that it occurs during the Eucharistic Prayer, but at exactly what moment? Would this change if a priest were to consecrate outside of the Eucharistic Prayer? Why does the Church teach that it occurs at that moment?

It would be helpful to have a direct quote from a document published by the Church that makes a direct statement on when the exact moment is (for example, does it occur before or after a certain word or phrase is said?), both for the bread and for the wine. If both older and more recent sources could be provided, that would be especially helpful. If there are different views within Catholicism, please include those and explain where they apply.

Transubstantiation occurs during the consecratory thanksgiving during the single act of worship called the liturgy of the Eucharist.

1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM

During Mass the liturgy of the Eucharist begins a particular time and follows this structure:

1346 The liturgy of the Eucharist unfolds according to a fundamental structure which has been preserved throughout the centuries down to our own day. It displays two great parts that form a fundamental unity:

the gathering, the liturgy of the Word, with readings, homily and general intercessions;
the liturgy of the Eucharist, with the presentation of the bread and wine, the consecratory thanksgiving, and communion.
The liturgy of the Word and liturgy of the Eucharist together form "one single act of worship";170 The Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P40.HTM

The consecratory thanksgiving is the moment when the priest holds up the bread and repeats the words of Christ: "This is my body ..." and so on. Likewise, he says the same for the wine "This is the cup ... " and so on.

1412 The essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine, on which the blessing of the Holy Spirit is invoked and the priest pronounces the words of consecration spoken by Jesus during the Last Supper: "This is my body which will be given up for you.... This is the cup of my blood...."
1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P44.HTM

Now one might ask: what if the priest does not finish the consecration for some reason? Say he faints. The wording of the Catechism does not address this directly except it does simply say this in the canon law:

Can. 927 It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the eucharistic celebration.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/__P39.HTM

Seemingly, then, the consecration must be finished despite any circumstances. This bit of canon law also implies that it is possible to consecrate the bread but not the wine, however serious a sin it might be.
This further leads to another question: suppose communion, the last part of the liturgy, is not achieved -- is the bread and wine still Body and Blood? It seems yes because of what is stated in 1376. The "presence of Christ ... endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist." Once transubstantiated the Body and Blood are Body and Blood so long as they exist. I assume then their destruction by eating or rot or other leaves them as not Body and Blood. However, not finishing the eucharistic celebration may be 'absolutely wrong' as well in light of the Canon Law quote above (I really cannot speak authoritatively on that).
Why does it occur at that moment and not some other? 1376 (below) states that it is "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread" at the last supper. So this statement argues both why transubstantiation occurs and when, and, subsequently, why it occurs at that time.
The definition of transubstantiation:

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM

I don't have easy access to older items, however, 1376 is a quote from the Council of Trent (1500 something).

SOURCES
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Code of Canon Law


Does the Bible ever say that the Ark of the Covenant flew or levitated? I've heard several references in History and Discovery channel type TV programs that say that the Bible talks about the Ark of the Covenant miraculously flying. Not to mention there was a line about that in Indiana Jones. I am not aware of any Bible reference that says any such thing. Is there some verse I'm missing? If not, is there some other ancient source -- the Talmud or Josephus or something -- that makes such a statement? Or is this just some crazy idea that came out of nowhere?

The Ark of the Covenant is never recorded as having flown in Scripture.

There were only two means by the Ark ever moved -

Per God's command, the Ark was transported by the priests, using the Acacia poles which held it through the base, for this purpose.

When the Priests carried it into the Jordan River when it was still flowing in Joshua 5, for example, the river receded. If it could have flown, there would have been no need for the priests to "step out" in faith.

On two occasions, contrary to God's command, an ox cart was used to transport it.

a. In 2 Samuel 6, the Ark is being drawn "on a new ox cart," as follows:

  And they carried the ark of God on a new cart and brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. And Uzzah and Ahio,[a] the sons of Abinadab, were driving the new cart,[b] 4 with the ark of God, and Ahio went before the ark.

Famously, it began to tip, and Uzziah tried to steady it.  For this, he was immediately zapped (that's not a technical term) by God, and died instantly.  Had the Ark been capable of flight, one would have assumed that it would have steadied itself in such an instance.

b. Also, in 1 Samuel 5, the Israelites had lost the Ark in battle to the Philistines.  When the Philistine's local deity Dagon kept falling over before it, as if it were bowing, the Philistines started moving it from Ashdod to Gath and throughout their cities.  Problem was- people kept dying.  So, eventually they decided to get rid of it, and send it on its merry way with a bunch of gifts for the Israelites.

1 Samuel 6 records:

  The men did so, and took two milk cows and yoked them to the cart and shut up their calves at home. 11 And they put the ark of the Lord on the cart and the box with the golden mice and the images of their tumors. 12 And the cows went straight in the direction of Beth-shemesh along one highway, lowing as they went. They turned neither to the right nor to the left, and the lords of the Philistines went after them as far as the border of Beth-shemesh. 13 Now the people of Beth-shemesh were reaping their wheat harvest in the valley. And when they lifted up their eyes and saw the ark, they rejoiced to see it. 14 The cart came into the field of Joshua of Beth-shemesh and stopped there. A great stone was there. And they split up the wood of the cart and offered the cows as a burnt offering to the Lord.

The story of the Ark of the Covenant being moved by Nazi jeep pickup truck is, alas, non-canonical, and adheres only to the obscure Spielbergian sects of Christianity.

In all seriousness, however, the legends of the ark flying may be attributable to the winged cherubim on top of the mercy seat. This ornament of two angels, only either end of the ark, their wings touching, may have inspired such an idea, but they were strictly ornamental.


How does the bible describe heaven I have several questions regarding the main questions.

The reason I'd like to know what the heaven is like, is because I'm wondering why would people rebel against God? I mean I'm thinking heaven as a perfect place.. Including the one who rules it (GOD). Why would anyone rebel against God? How bad can it be? Why would anyone choose any less.

And of course to be able to know if we want to go to heaven or not, we must first know whats in there for us. Like what are the conditions in heaven? What if a person was born with no limbs... and die, will he spend eternity like that? How about what if a person had a face surgery because he was born physically mutilated will the surgery be canceled and spend his life as is? Do we actually have physical images? do we have personalities? do we have like houses or we just stand all together? what are things we do in heaven? besides praise and worship? if we do stop praise and worship does that mean we have a schedule on doing praise and worship?

"How does the bible describe heaven?" The fullest description found in the Bible is in Revelation 21.

Your first question presupposes belief in God, those who don't have faith by definition won't follow God. And of the people that do believe, not all put that belief into practice (James 2, in particular look at verse 19). People do not and cannot choose to go to heaven, it is a blessing given to those who truly believe and follow after God.

What I mean is, if someone was to become a "christian" purely motivated by wanting to go to heaven and not hell, then heaven is nothing more to that person than a carrot-on-a-stick. Being a christian requires far more than simply wishing to go to heaven, it requires belief (John 3:16-18, Romans 10:8-10), repentance (Romans 2:3-4, 1 John 1:6-10), transformation (Romans 12:1-2, Galations 2:16-21), and faith-produced action (James 2:14-26).

In answer to the first portion of your second paragraph, I direct you to
1st Corinthians 15:35-44 (ESV)

  35) But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" 36) You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37) And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38) But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39) For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40) There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 41) There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 42) So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43) It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44) It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

So to summarize, our physical bodies on earth are entirely different from our spiritual bodies in heaven.

"do we have like houses or we just stand all together?" Look at John 14:1-3

"what are things we do in heaven? besides praise and worship? if we do stop praise and worship does that mean we have a schedule on doing praise and worship?" The short answer is we don't know what we will do in heaven (besides praise and worship and not sinning). You may be interested in the articles here and here which both discuss the possibilities (with biblical support of course).


Why did Simon Peter react so violently? In John 18, when Jesus is in the Garden on Gethsemane, Judas approaches with a mob of Pharisees and soldiers, coming to arrest Him.

4 Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, “Who is it you want?”
5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “I am he,” Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?”
7 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they said. 8 Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. If you are looking for me, then let these men go.”

But suddenly, Simon Peter pulls out his sword and slices off a servant's ear.

10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)

The Question
It seems a bit impulsive of Peter to cut off the ear of the high priest’s servant. Is this the case?
If so, why would/did Peter react so violently when he was seemingly unprovoked? Could it be, instead, that the Bible, or rather the translation thereof, simply doesn't record what was exchanged verbally between the two parties?
Why didn't any of the other disciples react in this way?
Are there any other passages of scripture that explain this behavior?

Simon Peter's reaction was inline with his previous self-trusting and impulsive nature, a tendency to rely on self to do what seemed right, rather than a faith that relied on God's promises. This cumulated to the point where he denied the Lord three times, having relied on his own abilities. It was not until the rooster struck that he finally recognized his sin and bitterly repented.

Again and again, Jesus had told His disciples that He was to be taken away and be killed, but they refused to believe, and the important significance of Jesus' sacrifice was not understood. Peter, not realizing the type of spirit that took over him, tried to even rashly rebuke the Lord for submitting Himself to such a fate.

  (Matthew 16:21-23) From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Peter's impulsive nature was also seen at the Passover dinner when Jesus reminded them of His fate and warned them that they would all scatter. However, Peter, trusting in himself, declared without hesitation that he would never desert, that he was even ready to die with Him. Therefore it was not out of character for Peter to take the situation into his own hands and try to fight the group that came to arrest and to kill his beloved Lord.

  (Matthew 26:31-35) Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.

We are all not without shortcomings, but the key is to recognize these flaws when revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, and by grace seek to overcome. When Jesus returned after His resurrection, the extent of Peter's repentance and the change in his character was clearly seen. When Jesus tested him, asking whether he loved Him more than the others, the previously rash Peter did not make a grand statement of devotion, but with a truer estimation of self, responded "Yea Lord, you know that I love You". (John 21:15)


Do United Methodist Church members really eat ham during Easter? Do United Methodist Church members really eat ham during Easter?

I knew a classmate who was Methodist. She told me that she ate ham during Easter. Is this a Methodist church tradition? Are Methodists allowed to eat meat during Easter or Lenten season?

I think you may be confusing the terms a little. There's a simple solution to your question.

Easter is the joyful celebration of Christ's resurrection.

Lent is the forty-day* period leading up to Easter. It is a time of penitence and fasting.

Many Christians observing the Western-style liturgical calendar (this probably includes your friend) fast in some way—often from meat, if possible—during Lent. This fast is broken on Easter, when lots of rich foods are eaten. Ham is a traditional Easter meal in the West.

When you understand this aspect of the calendar, it actually makes a lot of sense to eat meat on Easter.

You can read more about the church calendar at Ken Collins's web site.

(*) You might notice that Lent is actually longer than forty days. The reason for this is a bit detailed and dry, so read only if you're curious!

The week before Easter is referred to as Holy Week; it begins with Palm Sunday (the commemoration of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem). Holy Week contains Maundy Thursday (commemorating the Lord’s Supper) and Good Friday (commemorating the day of Jesus’ crucifixion). As you can imagine, this week is especially sombre and penitential.

In the Eastern church, Holy Week is not considered part of the forty days of Lent; they last forty days beginning from Clean Monday, with the last day on a Friday. The day after this is Lazarus Saturday, followed by Palm Sunday and Holy Week.

In the West, Holy Week got counted as part of Lent. The extra days are accounted for by making Sundays not count as full fasting days. Lent is then two days shorter than in the East, beginning on Ash Wednesday. Not counting Sundays, there are forty days from Ash Wednesday till Easter.

In both traditions, the season of Easter lasts 49 days till Pentecost. Fasting is not encouraged—in fact, it may be generally prohibited, especially in the first week of Easter, which is called Bright Week.


What did God mean when He said to Moses, "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh"? Perhaps I'm not seeing the meaning behind the translation, but while reading the KJV Exodus, I'm confused by chapter 7 verse 1, which reads:

  "And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet."

The verse throws me off. I'm sure that God isn't meaning that Moses is literally God. But I thought Moses was the prophet, and Aaron was just a priest under Moses (the prophet). Why would God use this wording, calling Moses "a God"?

Found a useful thought on the page https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2004206#h=23:0-24:0, which notes:

  How was Moses made “God to Pharaoh”? Moses was given divine power and authority over Pharaoh. Hence, there was no need to be afraid of that king.

Highlighted here on another page https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002564#h=27:0-28:0
 is the following idea:

  Aaron served as a prophet, not in the sense of foretelling future events, but by becoming Moses’ spokesman, or mouthpiece.

Consider that the Pharaoh was himself seen as a god, and that Moses acted in behalf of the "God of gods", who "removes kings and sets up kings" (Daniel 2:21,47). It must have been a fearful thing to be at the Pharaoh's mercy, as the Egyptians would probably have obeyed the Pharaoh without any questions asked. As consequence, it may have been the first time for someone to speak against the Pharaoh at all, not to mention the bold and open manner in which it was to happen. No wonder then that Moses could do with all the reassurance he could get!


How would Biblical Inerrantists resolve perceived tensions between 2 Timothy 3:16 and Hebrews 7:18? 2 Timothy 3:16 says:

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

From the perspective of Biblical Inerrancy, how is this compatible with Hebrews 7:18, which speaking of the law of Moses says:

  The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (NIV)

?

If there are various approaches that are too disctint and sufficiently nuanced to be comprehensively covered here, what is a basic overview of such approaches?

When considering the context of the passage you quoted from Hebrews, one will notice that the the passage is given within a broad discussion spanning several chapters. The focus of the discussion is the contrast between the Levitical Priesthood and the priesthood of Christ. This verse in particular points out that the regulation by which authority is dispensed to the priests is weak and useless. It is not a statement about the Old Scriptures. Consider this commentary by Charles Ellicot,

  The intimate connection between these two verses is obscured by the ordinary translation. They point out with greater fulness and clearness what is involved in the statement of Hebrews 7:16. “For there is an annulling of a preceding commandment, because of its weakness and unprofitableness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God.” (It must be borne in mind throughout that by the “commandment” is meant the ordinance which created the Levitical priesthood, not the Law in general.) That Jesus was not made Priest according to a law of a carnal commandment (Hebrews 7:16) involves the annulling of that commandment; in His becoming Priest according to a power of indissoluble life is involved the introduction of a better hope. This is the general meaning, but each division of the thought is expanded. The appointment of a different priest by the very authority on which the former commandment rested, the divine decree, showed that commandment to be of force no longer: as we have already seen (Hebrews 7:11), this is because the commandment is weak and unprofitable—because the priesthood it creates cannot attain the end of its institution, which is to bring men into fellowship with God.

Let us then consider the immediate context of the passage.

  Hebrews 7:11-16 (NIV) If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.

So, the "former regulation" in the verse you cited refers to the process by which the Levitical priests were chosen- by virtue of their ancestral father, Aaron, and his ancestral father Levi. These priests are men who by nature of their flesh are imperfect and are not immune to weakness wrought by the flesh whether the priest is good or bad. Because of their mortal tendencies, these priests, even when fulfilling their duties perfectly, were powerless to bring lasting atonement to their people. The Biblical narrative, however, presents many opportunities to observe very bad priests.

  1 Samuel 2:12-16 (NIV) Eli’s sons were scoundrels; they had no regard for the Lord. Now it was the practice of the priests that, whenever any of the people offered a sacrifice, the priest’s servant would come with a three-pronged fork in his hand while the meat was being boiled and would plunge the fork into the pan or kettle or caldron or pot. Whatever the fork brought up the priest would take for himself. This is how they treated all the Israelites who came to Shiloh. But even before the fat was burned, the priest’s servant would come and say to the person who was sacrificing, “Give the priest some meat to roast; he won’t accept boiled meat from you, but only raw.”

  If the person said to him, “Let the fat be burned first, and then take whatever you want,” the servant would answer, “No, hand it over now; if you don’t, I’ll take it by force.”

  This sin of the young men was very great in the Lord’s sight, for they were treating the Lord’s offering with contempt.

While there were certainly honest Levitical priests who carried out their duties well, the former dispensation was powerless to prevent preists like these. Christ, on the other hand, is not a Priest in the order of Levi, because Levi is not his Father, but Judah is. The priesthood of Christ is not ancestral, and given by the old regulation, but instead by a new regulation. Instead of an oath sworn by a son of Levi, this regulation regarding priesthood is initiated in an oath sworn by God himself regarding his own Son.

  Hebrews 7:16-22 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.  For it is declared:

  “You are a priest forever,
      in the order of Melchizedek.”

  The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

  And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

  “The Lord has sworn
      and will not change his mind:
      ‘You are a priest forever.’”

  Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

One can see that the passage is contrasting the regulations for dispensation of priestly authority. In closing, consider Matthew Henry's commentary on the verse:

  The law which made the Levitical priesthood, showed that the priests were frail, dying creatures, not able to save their own lives, much less could they save the souls of those who came to them. But the High Priest of our profession holds his office by the power of endless life in himself; not only to keep himself alive, but to give spiritual and eternal life to all who rely upon his sacrifice and intercession. The better covenant, of which Jesus was the Surety, is not here contrasted with the covenant of works, by which every transgressor is shut up under the curse. It is distinguished from the Sinai covenant with Israel, and the legal dispensation under which the church so long remained. The better covenant brought the church and every believer into clearer light, more perfect liberty, and more abundant privileges. In the order of Aaron there was a multitude of priests, of high priests one after another; but in the priesthood of Christ there is only one and the same. This is the believer's safety and happiness, that this everlasting High Priest is able to save to the uttermost, in all times, in all cases.


If Christ is considered the 'Son of God' then how is He a part of a Trinity? Note: This is in NO way a troll or a poke at any faith that believes in the doctrine of the Trinity but rather is simply a question for clarity.

There are several passages within the bible that refers to Jesus Christ as the "Son of God" or where He Himself refers to a "Father" who was in Heaven:

Luke 1:35 (Mary inquires of an angel how it's possible for her to ear a child while being a virgin)

  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

Luke 2:49 (Joesph and Mary share their concern of Christ leaving them at the age of 12. This is His response)

  And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

Matthew 3:17 (The baptism of Christ)

  And lo a voice from heaven saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matthew 26:39 (while suffering in the Garden of Gethsamane, Christ prays to the Father)

  and prayed saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

In these passages, and many others, it appears that God and Jesus Christ are separate being. My limited understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity is that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are "One". How does this doctrine fit with these scriptures?

For a fairly detailed explanation of the Trinity, see this answer.  But the gist of it is that God is three in person and one in nature.

Since then, there are three persons in God, they exist in relationship.  The terms Father and Son express the relationship between two of the persons; these terms do not speak in any way to the nature of God.

The question of how the relationship of Father and Son makes sense in the divine eternity is somewhat complex.  Begetting is a concept which we are less in tune with in our modern western culture, but it speaks to an idea of bringing into existence by the process of reproduction, giving rise to; bringing about.  It is the act of reproducing something of the same nature as the original being.

In our experience, begetting is temporally limited; a Father must be born and then mature before he begets.  But when he begets it's another person of like nature (note that a person begets of similar nature, but God, being inifinite, necessarily begets of perfectly identical nature).

However, in God's eternal present, begetting occurs in the immediate eternal such that there never was a time when the Son was not, but yet the Son is a second person in eternity arising from the nature of God.

In my thinking, and this is just my thought, it's as if the nature of God necessitates from all eternity that there be three persons for relationship and communion.

As something of an aside, a further point of confusion that arises is because Jesus "put off" his divine nature in order to be incarnate as a man:

  Phil 2:6-8

  6 Who, being in very nature God,
     did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

  7 rather, he made himself nothing
     by taking the very nature of a servant,
     being made in human likeness.

  8 And being found in appearance as a man,
     he humbled himself
     by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!

and again:

  Heb 2:9

  9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

In order to properly be able to redress the disobedience of Adam, it was necessary for Christ to enter our dimensions of time and space and to function in obedience as a man. To this end, scripture teaches he emptied himself of his divine nature; he was the same person, but with a temporarily (that is, within the dimensions of our temporal existence) diminished nature. He chose not to exercise his God-nature except via the Holy Spirit as a man.

So while on earth, Jesus functioned in a limited capacity, as a man invested with the Holy Spirit.  Thus he said, "the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing":

  John 5:19

  16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

  19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

Note there is a duality of sorts here; Jesus is still God in person, but has emptied himself of his divine attributes in order to become man.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses maintain 'secret' teachings? I have heard that within the JW faith, there are additional teachings that converts do not learn until after some time has passed since their inclusion into that group or the convert achieves some level of merit within their organization.

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses keep some of their teachings secret from the general public and from new converts to their faith?

All the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses are publicly available on their Jehovah’s Witnesses' Official Website and made known in their public ministry and literature.  There are no secrets that take time or merit to unlock.

I have been a Witness my entire life (42+ years), and the things I study and learn now are the same things I studied in my teenage years before I was baptized.

The only thing that might be considered "secret" is the guidebook that elders receive upon their appointment, which is kept confidential and not distributed to other congregation members or the public.  There is nothing in there related to teachings, however, it is merely procedural guidelines for handling congregation matters. Much of what is written there is sourced from other publicly available Witness literature.


Is it possible to just visit heaven? My church had a guest speaker that said he died and was at the gates of heaven for 90 minutes. Can someone tell me where to read in the bible about seeing if this is possible? I just have trouble believing this.

YES, it is possible to visit Heaven. Some people have visited Heaven before they died.

  I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the
  third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not
  know--God knows. (2 Corinthians 12:2, NIV)


Are Jesus and Lazarus the only people raised from the dead? Based on the bible, are these the only two people who were revived, or raised after being dead?

No. In 1 Kings 17, Elijah the Tishbite, the Prophet, raised the son of the widow of Zaraphath

Some time later the son of the woman who owned the house became ill. He grew worse and worse, and finally stopped breathing. She said to Elijah, “What do you have against me, man of God? Did you come to remind me of my sin and kill my son?”
“Give me your son,” Elijah replied. He took him from her arms, carried him to the upper room where he was staying, and laid him on his bed. Then he cried out to the Lord, “Lord my God, have you brought tragedy even on this widow I am staying with, by causing her son to die?” Then he stretched himself out on the boy three times and cried out to the Lord, “Lord my God, let this boy’s life return to him!”
The Lord heard Elijah’s cry, and the boy’s life returned to him, and he lived. Elijah picked up the child and carried him down from the room into the house. He gave him to his mother and said, “Look, your son is alive!”

In 2 Kings 4, 32-35, Elisha raised the son of the Shunammite,

When Eli′sha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed. So he went in and shut the door upon the two of them, and prayed to the Lord. Then he went up and lay upon the child, putting his mouth upon his mouth, his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands; and as he stretched himself upon him, the flesh of the child became warm. Then he got up again, and walked once to and fro in the house, and went up, and stretched himself upon him; the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes.

and in Mark 5, 22-24a, 35-43

Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Ja′irus by name; and seeing him, he fell at his feet, and besought him, saying, “My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live.” And he went with him.

35 While he was still speaking, there came from the ruler’s house some who said, “Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?” But ignoring[a] what they said, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, “Do not fear, only believe.” And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James. When they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, he saw a tumult, and people weeping and wailing loudly. And when he had entered, he said to them, “Why do you make a tumult and weep? The child is not dead but sleeping.” And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside, and took the child’s father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was. Taking her by the hand he said to her, “Tal′itha cu′mi”; which means, “Little girl, I say to you, arise.” And immediately the girl got up and walked (she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement. And he strictly charged them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat.

Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus.


Are Catholics allowed to call Mary 'perfect' by virtue of her Immaculate Conception? Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, is conceived without inheriting the original sin. They believe that Mary was never a sinner (source).

Are Catholics allowed to call Mary 'perfect' by virtue of her Immaculate Conception?

Note that by perfection, sinlessness is meant.

Your own question contains the answer

If by "perfect" you mean "sinless", and that the Immaculate Conception as the Church teaches means Mary was conceived immaculate in the womb of her mother i.e. without contracting original sin, then her Immuculate Conception was just the beginning.

Think of Eve [and Adam] created sinless and in innocence until they fell.

In CCC 493, the Church teaches that by the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long, and therefore from your taking sinless to mean perfection, Catholics can say mary was perfect all her life long because by the grace of God she remained sinless all her life long.

Please note that all of us are called to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect except our path unlike that of Mary is by forgiveness of our sins and our purification from them.


Which Roman Catholic figure(s) has/have accused the Church of Mariolatry? I seem to remember hearing that an early R.C.C. leader had accused the church of falling into Mariolatry—the worship of Mary. Have any popes or other leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, especially in early church history, come forth with these accusations?

*He may not have been an R.C.C. leader, but he was R.C. It seemed like it was a Pope, but I just can't remember.

Schismatics/heretics have said this. For example, the Collyridians sacrificed κολλυρίδας ("bread cakes") to her, and St. Epiphanius (d. 403) denounced this as mariolatry:

  Collyridians. Under this name [St.] Epiphanius (Haer. 79) assails certain women who had brought from Thrace into Arabia the practice of performing on certain days rites in honour of the Blessed Virgin, the chief being the offering of a cake (κολλυρίς), and the partaking of it by the worshippers. Epiphanius condemns their conduct because (a) women ought not to offer sacrifice, and (b) Mary is to be honoured, God only to be worshipped. The name Collyris (or kindred forms) is to be found in the LXX translation of Lev. vii. 12, viii. 26; II. Sam. vi. 19, xiii. 68; and the word passed thence into the Latin versions.

cf. ch. 6 article 1 of Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., or the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary," § "The Age of the Fathers"


What's the biblical basis for non-believer's ability to do good? This is a bit of a theoretical question, but what is the biblical basis for the belief that non-believers can do good (doing good meaning performing a good deed from a good intent)?
On the contrary, scripture seems to show that humanity is incapable of doing anything good:

Genesis 6:5 ESV, Matthew 23:37 ESV The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. ... For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Romans 3:11-12 ESV None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.
Isaiah 64:6 ESV We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

This seems to go against common sense as we all know non-believers that do lots of good.
I'm not questioning whether or not non-believers do good deeds. I'm wondering, given God's frequent intent through scripture to show how fallen we all are without Christ, where scripture states that non-believers still have the capacity to do good without Christ.

The Bible recognises the good that King Cyrus of Persia did for the Jews, historically. Not just in allowing them to return to Judah, but in funding the considerable cost of rebuilding the Jerusalem temple. For example, Isaiah 41:2 refers to Cyrus as the righteous man from the east, and Isaiah 44:28-45:4 waxes lyrical:

  That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid. Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

Of course, non-believers do not feel the need for biblical recognition that they can perform good deeds with good intent.


What is the Christian (or commonly used) term for "god of relativism" (small g) in Tim Keller's book Hidden Christmas? Tim Keller talks about a god of relativism (small g) in his book Hidden Christmas.

This is an interesting phrase that feels familiar but I can't quite tie it down to a common term. (On the tip of my tongue).

My attempt at it is: Little-brother-style rebellion against authority seeking justice by affirming everyone and not seeking intellectual integrity and finding boundaries in mutual self-validating self-authority.

My question is: What is the Christian (or commonly used) term for "god of relativism" (small g) in Tim Keller's book Hidden Christmas?

I believe that there is actually no set Christian term (as of yet) for the phrase "god of relativism" as bruised reed seems to suggest in his comment. The subject of relativism is slowly becoming a more popular item of discussion in many Christian circles. I am sure that the term god of relativism fits in quite well in Tim Keller's book.

I have heard the phrase “Tyranny of Relativism” as an expression for relativism.

Here is the most common expression that I am aware of involving the subject of relativism. Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) seems to have made the following expression about relativism rather popular in Catholic circles at least: dictatorship of relativism.

  In his homily at the Mass preceding the conclave that quickly elected him Pope Benedict XVI, then-Cardinal Ratzinger said that "relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and ‘swept along by every wind of teaching,’ looks like the only attitude [acceptable] to today’s standards." He warned: "We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires."

  Relativism comes in a variety of shapes and sizes. For example, cultural relativism holds that "truth" is merely the creation of a particular culture and what is "true" for for one culture is not necessarily "true" for other cultures. There is moral relativism, the belief that morality is a subjective social creation of a particular people in a certain time and place–and that morality can be changed as desired or needed.

  Situational relativism asserts that what is "right" and "wrong" depends on the specifics of each situation–not upon objective, transcendent morality. And cognitive relativism is the philosophical belief that truth, rationality, and knowledge are relative–there is not such thing as objective, definitive truth. - Relativism 101: A Brief, Objective Guide

A quick google search of the phrase Dictatorship of Relativism will procure the following results.


What were the early Christians officially persecuted for? I wonder what the early Christians were officially persecuted for by the high priests?

In the book of Acts we see that Saul, before his conversion, received some letters from the high priest that were giving him an official power to persecute early Christians (Acts 9:2). I wonder what was the official reason for that.

I mean, the Bible does let us know that the high-priests didn't want the new teaching to spread (Acts 4:17), that they were quite jealous witnessing the miracles performed by Peter and John (Acts 5:16,17), and even the fact that they were simply afraid of Jesus' blood being brought upon them (Acts 5:28). However, I don't think they would officially state something like "Christians must be persecuted because we feel jealous regarding their growing number". There must have been some "official" and "scientific" reason put forth, perhaps based on the books of law (Old Testament), in order to persecute the early Christians. So, what was that reason?

1. The Jews persecuted Christians for Blasphemy

From the perspective of the High Priest, the followers of the Way were violating the primary profession of the Jewish Faith:  "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One."

Jesus, in claiming to be God, was, according to the High Priest, blaspheming.  Those who followed him would, to the Jewish mind, have been guilty of bifurcating God - of making God out to be polytheistic - of being two.

The disciples specifically were charged with teaching in the name of this "heretic" and "blasphemer."  This had the effect of subverting the authority of the High Priest and causing social discord. And yes, sedition and insubordination are valid charges in a kingdom, regardless of whether or not they are in a democracy like ours today.  Acts 5 records this exchange:

  27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

2. The Romans persecuted Christians for Atheism

For the Romans, however, the charge was different.  The Romans saw the Christians as being A-Theos (literally atheists) by denying the gods they grew up with, thus inviting destruction amongst everybody by their disbelief.  In rejecting the "gods" of their land, they had become 'godless Christians' and atheists. Unlike the Jews, who had special exemption from the requirement that they believe in "gods,"  the Christians, to the extent that they were not being Jews, were not privy to these exemptions, because the Christians had no historical basis on which to base their 'religio'.

As an example, Acts 19 shows this in practice.  To wit:

  23 About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. 24 A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there. 25 He called them together, along with the workers in related trades, and said: “You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business. 26 And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all. 27 There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited; and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty.” 28 When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” 29 Soon the whole city was in an uproar.

Here you see the charge - 'he is saying our gods are no gods at all!' (and, incidentally, you're not very good for business either!)

3. The Jews persecuted the Christians by using Roman charges

Since the Jews had no law to put a man to death, the next best thing was to charge that these Jewish non-Jews (and the Gentiles that accompanied them) were not privy to the Jewish exemptions and were subject to the Roman penalties against Atheism.  As such, they just had to differentiate the Christians from the Jews in order to aid in their persecution.

Since the Christians held that there was no God but God the Father, incarnated through God the Son, they were subject to the invective of Rome by means of the Jews.


Does Deuteronomy 18:21-22 still apply today? Deuteronomy 18:21-22 (NLT)

  21 “But you may wonder, ‘How will we know whether or not a prophecy is from the Lord?’ 22 If the prophet speaks in the Lord’s name but his prediction does not happen or come true, you will know that the Lord did not give that message. That prophet has spoken without my authority and need not be feared.

Thus, the test of an Old Testament prophet was whether or not they prophesied correctly. However, I heard last weekend that modern-day prophecies are not always correct, much like when Galadriel (from Lord of the Rings) says (roughly) "Remember that the Mirror shows many things that have not come to pass, and may still not.". Given that prophesying still happens today (Acts 2:16-18, 1 Corinthians 14), I ask: does this Old-Testament test of correctness still apply today?

Whether or not prophesying (or, at least future-telling prophesying) still happens today is up for debate (see What is the basis for Cessationism).  However, if it does still happen today, then most Christians would agree that the Prophet's Test you mentioned is still very important.

Prophecy is only defined as such when it is a revelation from God.  And since it is impossible for God to lie, any so-called prophecy that proves false must not have been from God.  The principle of the passage still applies: if a prophet speaks presumptuously, asserting God's authority when God's authority was not actually given, that "prophet's" credibility is shot - he cannot be trusted.


What is an overview of beliefs on "Jesus is the Word (Logos) of God"? Recently, I've been racked at the possible ways this belief might be construed when someone says it. I suspect that the primary Biblical basis for it is John 1, but as we know, there can be many interpretations for just a single verse, depending on your assumptions and starting points.

So when a Christian says "Jesus is the Word", what is an overview of the various beliefs that this Christian may ascribe to?

NOTE: I do not want to focus on general christological overviews. I realize this question is indeed a christology question, but I want to be sure that answers focus exclusively on what Christians mean when they say this phrase and how that relates to their theological perspective (which you don't have to explain, just name).

Historically there are two options:

There is only one Logos, both Christ and Scripture are one in nature. But this lead to a problematic question, How Christians explain their belief that Christ is worshiped and Scripture is not while both are identical in nature as God's singular Word?

Matt Gutting in a chat room discussion refer to Catechism of Catholic Church,

  102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:1

  You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.2

  103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.3

  Catechism of Catholic Church, 102-3.

Gnostic's plethora of Logoi (one personal and another impersonal). Which also lead us to a problematic question, How do Christians differentiate themselves from Gnosticism?

Tertullian discussed how Gnostics distinguish among plethora of Logoi between the personal Logos incarnate and the impersonal Scripture to be of different natures. Valentinian Gnostic such as Theodotus of Byzantium,

  Therefore when the Saviour came, he awakened the soul and kindled the spark. For the words of the Lord are power. Therefore he said, “Let your light shine before men.” And after the Resurrection, by breathing the Spirit on the apostles, he was blowing off and re moving dust like ashes, but kindling and giving life to the spark.

  Theodotus of Byzantium quoted by St. Cyril of Jerusalem.

1 Cf. Hebrew 1:1-3.

2 St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 103,4,1:PL 37,1378; cf. Ps 104; Jn 1:1.

3 Cf. Dei Verbum 21.


How do we identify false prophets? Possible Duplicate:
  How to test the spirits and identify false preachers

one of the gifts of Holy Spirit is the gift to receive Prophecys. (1 Corinthians 12)

Jesus also warns us in Matthew 24:24

For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs
and miracles to deceive even the elect -  if that were possible.

So I am wondering, how can we know that someone is a prophet of Jesus?

Jesus speaks of false prophets elsewhere, and lays out the appropriate test:

  Matthew 7:15-20

  15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
  but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

  16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns,
  or figs of thistles?

  17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt
  tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

  18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt
  tree bring forth good fruit.

  19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and
  cast into the fire.

  20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

A false prophet, therefore, is someone who claims to be a prophet, but whose works are evil, whereas a true prophet will bring forth good fruit, and his works will be edifying and uplifting of those around him, as per the teachings of Jesus and the principles of the Gospel.


Why is the Bible so short? The Old Testament checks in at about 580,000 - 590,000 words (depending on the translation), and the New Testament has about 180,000.  That means the 66 distinct books combined have a total of about 770,000 words.

For purposes of comparison, the Lord of Rings Trilogy (just 3 books!) is 525,000, Atlas Shrugged (1 book!) is 645,000, and L. Ron Hubbard's Mission Earth is over 1.2 million words.

The book of 2 John has only 245 words, and the book of 3 John has 219 words - again for comparison, Dr. Suess' Cat In The Hat 1629 words. Indeed, 12 of the 66 books are all shorter than that!

The longest book in the Bible - the Book of Psalms, has about 42,000 words, which is not too much more than 1/2 of the first Harry Potter book (80,000).

According to Write Mindset.com, 60,000 is about the minimum for a novel, and no book in the Bible comes close. Indeed, only two of the Gospels exceed the normal maximum length of a short story by being just over 20,000.

With all of these comparisons, the point is pretty simple - the Bible is short.  The question is, Why?

Source: http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/kjv-stats.html

There are several reasons, but one of the most interesting to me is the cost of available materials.  We take cheap paper for granted, but even in the days of Paul, the raw materials for writing would have been expensive.  In his Introduction to the New Testament, Raymond Brown calculated that the cost of a paper and ink alone would have cost Paul the equivalent of about US$3000 in today's money just to write the Book of Romans.  That would not have necessarily even covered the cost of an Amanuensis to physically do the writing.

With prices like that just for the raw materials, one can understand why John would say in John 21:25

  Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written

The truth is, he probably couldn't have afforded it!


How has the position of the Catholic Church on drugs changed over time? The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially [...] the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.;
2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.
2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

Unfortunately, the Catechism does not provide a definition for the word drug or a description of what constitutes a distinction between drug and medicine. Paragraph 2290 includes food and does not therefore instruct abstinence but temperance, as it states, even with substances such as alcohol, tobacco, and medicines, which according to most definitions are indeed drugs. In addition, Paragraph 2291 excepts from the prohibition on drugs strictly therapeutic use. This seems to conflate the two terms drug and medicine, even though the use of one is prohibited and the use of the other is condoned with temperance.
In many western cultures, prohibition and control of substances is a relatively new practice, at least in terms of the lifetime of the Church. Is the prohibition of these substances by the church contemporaneous?
How has the position of the Catholic Church changed over time, from the Early Church Fathers until now, in condoning, instructing temperance, or commanding strict abstinence from the use of substances that perish with use, either for medical treatment or purposes other than medical treatment?

Edit to assist answers for bounty: I'm looking for a well sourced answer that gives an overview of the progression of moral and practical teachings concerning drugs, especially citing those traditional sources that mention substances or uses specifically, and considers any such progression alongside drug (or anti-drug) policies of nations like the US and the UK. An excellent answer would demonstrate how the use of some substances that were once permitted with temperance are now prohibited (or vice versa) if that is the case, or demonstrate that the church has always deferred the definition of "illicit drugs" to local churches and their (secular) legal systems, etc.

So I think this answer needs to dichotomize to be useful.

Mood altering drugs

Drugs that alter the mood, could be classed like alcohol, as something to be taken temperately, if it is possible to take them  temperately.  Smoking cigarettes can be done in moderation.  It is quite possible that smoking marijuana cannot.

  Wine was created from the beginning to make men joyful not to make them drunk

  Sir 31:35

Downers

There is no prohibition against self-medication within the Catholic Church. But there is a strict prohibition against complete inebriation (here's where I conflate being stoned with being drunk, YMMV).  There has been since the time of Noah.

The use of depressants to treat mental anguish might be licit.  It might also be contrary to what St. John Paul II called "Salvific Suffering". See: Salvifici Doloris Which is wrapped up in the reason Jesus rejected the drugged wine offered to Him on the cross.

Self-medication may inhibit someone else's ability to be a "Good Samaritan" for us, as St. John Paul II.

Psychedelics

Drugs that produce a near instant sense of euphoria; or that cause inebriation quicker than can be said is temperate are always contrary to virtues of Temperance.  Sloth and Gluttony are their fruits and they're to be avoided because of it.  Any good effects that come of doing evil are also to be avoided.

  A good intention ... does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. CCC 1743

Use of ecstasy or mushrooms to treat depression might be an exception. But that would be a circumstance when ones present state is improved.  (The sick, need the physician, anything else is self-mutilation - which is also to be avoided)

Uppers

Drugs that give "mental clarity" should also be avoided in places where such usage could be considered underhanded cheating.  They're brain stimulants that are as dishonest to use as human growth hormone is to a cyclist. The other reason to avoid them is that they often have the worst side effects and are the most addictive.  Nicotine, Caffeine are ways to use uppers moderately, but even they can be abused.

Drugs to produce a desired effect

Some drugs do not alter mood, but do something else to the body:

Abortion

Drugs to procure abortion would be illicit by virtue of them causing the death of the child in the womb. CCC 2322

Contraception

Any contraception is contrary to the idea of marriage, contraceptive drugs would be too CCC 2370

Suicide

Taking medication meant to induce death is always wrong, according to the Catholic Church 2280 It can even be scandalous.

Sleep

Not inherently evil, but if you abuse sleep aids, you might fall into the sin of Sloth.

Steroids

Taking medication to increase muscle mass is not inherently evil, unless it is for self-mutilation (malice), self-aggrandizement (pride) or to have an unfair advantage over competition.
Since these are the only non-medical reasons a person would have (other than complete flippancy, which is probably sinful too) it would seem that steroids are likewise verboten.

Analgesics

The FDA has a pretty clear system for determining which drugs are OK for over the counter use, which are OK by prescription and which are just not OK to have around (i.e. schedule 1 drugs).  Now, sometimes politics play a role in determining what drugs go where, but our civil society.  But Sirach, at least, makes a pretty good case for listening to doctors.

  Honor the physician for the need thou hast of him: for the most High created him ...
    The most High hath created medicines out of the earth, and a wise man will not abhor them
  Was not bitter water made sweet with wood?
  The virtue of these things is come to the knowledge of men, and the most High hath given knowledge to men, that he may be honored in his wonders
  By these he shall cure and shall allay their pains, and of these the apothecary shall make sweet confections, and shlal make up ointments of health, and of his works there shall be no end.

  Sir 38:1,4-7

In summary, between the times of Sirach and St. Pope John Paul II, the thing that has become the Chuch has consistently erred on the side of the Natural Moral Law when it comes to drugs.  First you consider what a thing is, then you ask what is it for.  If a thing is bad, then using it is bad.  If the thing that you use it for is bad, then using it is bad.


Tithing and excommunication question (LDS) Member of LDS Church asking:

Will the LDS hierarchy excommunicate me if I do not pay them the required 10% of the difference between my home purchase price and my home sale price? Anyone know about that? It is a bit more than just a tithing question because I had to pay $44.000 of home value in a divorce settlement, and I don't know if the LDS Church will take that into consideration.

"Those who pay tithing do not do so under the duress of legal compulsion. No one is disfellowshipped or excommunicated because he fails to pay."
—Gorden B. Hinkley, "My Testimony", General Conference, October 1993.

Declaring yourself a full tithe payer is one of the qualifications for holding a recommend to enter the temple.
Tithing is defined by the following:

In 1838 the Lord reiterated this commandment through the Prophet Joseph Smith:
“My people … shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever” (Doctrine and Covenants 119:3–4). Interest is understood to mean income.
—Tithing and Fast Offerings


What pronoun do Catholics typically use to refer to the Eucharist? Catholics believe that the communion bread and wine are not bread and wine anymore but the Lord Jesus Christ himself appearing as bread and wine.

Since in Catholic dogma the communion bread and wine becomes Jesus Christ, who is himself a person, that raises the question about what pronoun is used to describe the Eucharist. This change of substance (Transubstantiation) does not include the change in form, though.

What pronoun do Catholics typically use to refer to the Eucharist? Do they use the pronoun "He"?

I have never heard [of] a pronoun used for the Eucharist.

This section II. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED? in the Catechism of the Catholic Church lists the different names given to the Eucharist:

1) Eucharist, because it is an action of thanksgiving to God.

2) The Lord's Supper.

3) The Breaking of Bread.

4) The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

5) The Holy Sacrifice.

6) Most Blessed Sacrament.

7) Holy Communion.

8) The holy things (ta hagia; sancta).

9) The bread of angels, bread from heaven, medicine of immortality, viaticum ...

Expressions

He (the LORD) is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar

or

He is truly present under the appearances of bread and wine

Cf. Eucharist Hymn: Adoro Te Devote by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274):

  Hidden God, devoutly I adore Thee,
  Truly present underneath these veils:
  All my heart subdues itself before Thee,
  Since it all before Thee faints and fails.

  [...]


What is the Difference between a Heretic and a Schismatic, according Catholic and Orthodox tradition? (This question is aimed at the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox perspective only)

What is the difference between a heretic and a schismatic, and what are the soteriological consequences of each?

Heretic are they who restricting belief to certain points of Christ's doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure. They believe not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind. - (Summa Theologica - Second Part of the Second Part - Question 11)

Schismatics are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. It is to be noted that Schism is NOT the same as disobedience to authority. Some disobedience can be schematic in nature. But not every disobedience is a schism; In order to become Schism, along with disobedience to authority, there should be denial of Divine right of the Authority to command. Its is to be noted that because of this in Catholic and Orthodox tradition all Schismatics are Heretics too.


Noah's flood and Giants What is the biblical bases for giants living through Noah's flood?

Before flood:

Genesis 6:4 KJV

  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.

After flood:

1 Chronicles 20:8 KJV

  These were born unto the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of
  David, and by the hand of his servants.

Numbers 13:33 KJV

  And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the
  giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were
  in their sight.

Joshua 15:8 KJV

  And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the
  south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem: and the border went
  up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom
  westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants northward:

This is a good question.  I would assert that just because there were giants both before and after the flood does not necessitate that giants survived the flood.  In fact, the Bible indicates that there was a drastic reduction in lifespan after the flood.  It is possible that other things were different as well, including average height.  So, a giant before the flood would have been noticeably taller than the average height before the flood, and a giant after the flood would have been noticeably taller than the average height after the flood.  However,  what may have been considered a giant after the flood may have been average before the flood.

This is speculation, to be sure, but it should at least be considered a possibility, and there is at least some evidence that makes this feasible.  The largest human skeleton ever found is known as The Giant of Castelnau, who  was apparently 11'6".  Goliath is estimated to have been around 9'6".  So, Goliath would have been small compared to this guy and would have been relegated to playing point guard on the team.

Noah himself could have been very tall, having grown up in the pre-flood environment, which may have been a much healthier place to live.  He may have even been a giant himself, albeit from a race different than the Nephilim.

In any case, it is certainly feasible that there was a race of giants that merely arose after the flood and did not survive the flood.  The genetic makeup for large humans was present prior to the flood.  Perhaps Noah and his family contained these genes as well, but perhaps they were recessive.

So, there are a few possible explanations for this that do not necessitate giants surviving the flood.


What role does the Holy Ghost fill that the Father can't? In trinitarian doctrine, what role does the Holy Ghost fill that the Father can't / doesn't?
My understanding is, that according to trinitarians:

The Father is a spirit
The Holy Ghost is a spirit
The Father can indwell someone
The Holy Ghost can indwell someone
The Father bears witness of the Son
The Holy Ghost bears witness of the Son

The Son, after his incarnation, has a body so it seems clear that he has a distinct role, and those point don't directly apply to him. But it's unclear what makes the Holy Ghost different enough in trinitarian doctrine to make him a distinct person / have a distinct role.

Regarding the mission (missio = a sending) of the the Divine Persons,

The Father cannot be sent:Summa Theologica I q. 43 a. 4 co.:The very idea of mission means procession from another, and in God it means procession according to origin, as above expounded (a. 1). Hence, as the Father is not from another, in no way is it fitting for Him to be sent; but this can only belong to the Son and to the Holy Ghost, to Whom it belongs to be from another.missio in sui ratione importat processionem ab alio; et in divinis, secundum originem, ut supra dictum est. Unde, cum pater non sit ab alio, nullo modo convenit sibi mitti; sed solum filio et spiritui sancto, quibus convenit esse ab alio.

The Son is sent invisibly:Summa Theologica I q. 43 a. 5 co.:The whole Trinity dwells in the mind by sanctifying grace, according to Jn. 14:23: "We will come to him, and will make Our abode with him." But that a divine person be sent to anyone by invisible grace signifies both that this person dwells in a new way within him and that He has His origin from another. Hence, since both to the Son and to the Holy Ghost it belongs to dwell in the soul by grace, and to be from another, it therefore belongs to both of them to be invisibly sent. As to the Father, though He dwells in us by grace, still it does not belong to Him to be from another, and consequently He is not sent.per gratiam gratum facientem tota Trinitas inhabitat mentem, secundum illud Ioan. XIV, ad eum veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus. Mitti autem personam divinam ad aliquem per invisibilem gratiam, significat novum modum inhabitandi illius personae, et originem eius ab alia. Unde, cum tam filio quam spiritui sancto conveniat et inhabitare per gratiam et ab alio esse, utrique convenit invisibiliter mitti. Patri autem licet conveniat inhabitare per gratiam, non tamen sibi convenit ab alio esse; et per consequens nec mitti.

Holy Ghost is sent visibly:Summa Theologica I q. 43 a. 7 co.:God provides for all things according to the nature of each thing. Now the nature of man requires that he be led to the invisible by visible things, as explained above (q. 12 a. 12). Wherefore the invisible things of God must be made manifest to man by the things that are visible. As God, therefore, in a certain way has demonstrated Himself and His eternal processions to men by visible creatures, according to certain signs; so was it fitting that the invisible missions also of the divine persons should be made manifest by some visible creatures.This mode of manifestation applies in different ways to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. For it belongs to the Holy Ghost, Who proceeds as Love, to be the gift of sanctification; to the Son as the principle of the Holy Ghost, it belongs to the author of this sanctification. Thus the Son has been sent visibly as the author of sanctification; the Holy Ghost as the sign of sanctification.Deus providet omnibus secundum uniuscuiusque modum. Est autem modus connaturalis hominis, ut per visibilia ad invisibilia manuducatur, ut ex supra dictis patet, et ideo invisibilia Dei oportuit homini per visibilia manifestari. Sicut igitur seipsum Deus, et processiones aeternas personarum, per creaturas visibiles, secundum aliqua indicia, hominibus quodammodo demonstravit; ita conveniens fuit ut etiam invisibiles missiones divinarum personarum secundum aliquas visibiles creaturas manifestarentur. Aliter tamen filius et spiritus sanctus. Nam spiritui sancto, inquantum procedit ut amor, competit esse sanctificationis donum, filio autem, inquantum est spiritus sancti principium, competit esse sanctificationis huius auctorem. Et ideo filius visibiliter missus est tanquam sanctificationis auctor, sed spiritus sanctus tanquam sanctificationis indicium.


Have there been any high-profile converts from Catholicism back to high-church traditions? There are several high-profile "defectors" (tongue-in-cheek!) or converts from high-church traditions (such as Anglicanism) to Roman Catholicism.  I am thinking in particular of G. K. Chesterton and John Henry Newman.  Are there any corresponding conversions from Roman Catholicism (or another Orthodox/Catholic tradition) to a high-church Protestant tradition, in the last two hundred years or so? (thus excluding the Protestant Reformation itself!)

Wikipedia has an article on people who have converted to Anglicanism and a category for Catholic-Anglican conversions. Ones specifically listed as converting to Anglicanism from Catholicism as adults include:

Madeleine Albright
Matthew Fox
Alberto Cutie

Dinesh D'Souza said he converted from Catholicism to his wife's tradition in a Christian's vs. Atheists debate I attended a few years ago.  He still defends the Catholic Church very well.


Why must we obey the ten commandments if Jesus died for our sins? I was told that you must please God if you want to have paradise after life, therefore you should follow the Ten Commandments, but then what does that mean about Jesus? I realized he died for our sins but I thought you had to follow the Ten Commandments? I'm really confused so if someone could please help me thanks.

I think your answer lies in The Threefold Uses of the Law, and more specifically, Romans 7:1,11,24

  1 Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." ... 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. ... 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

In brief, the Law was meant to show us our sin. While it is required that you obey The Law, you are, by your nature, unable to (Romans 8:7). This is the hopeless estate of man. Jesus saves us by accomplishing two things:

He perfectly obeys the Law, providing obedience that we are missing and
He suffers the penalty for our sin.

That is termed Christ's active and passive obedience, active obedience being obeying the whole moral law of God (not only the Ten Commandments) and passive obedience being his obedient suffering on the cross.

The natural reaction, as was the reaction of Erasmus to Luther, is, if we are saved by Christ's work, and need not obey the Ten Commandments, then do we not then give license to evil behaviour? This is the argument in Romans 6:1, and the answer is, "By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?"

What Paul says in Romans 6:2 is that if we are truly changed by Holy Spirit, we have spiritually died with Christ and been raised to new life in Christ, then our nature (that nature which causes us to sin) will remain in our flesh but replaced in our spirit, and so we are regenerate and changed, still struggling with sin, but hating sin. We see this in Romans 7:25.

May I say, you've touched on the heart of the Gospel, but provoked some of the deeper theological nuances surrounding it. May I encourage you to find someone you can sit with in a coffee shop and do a study of Romans? Maybe pick up Martin Luther's commentary on Romans?


How Christians are expected to accommodate or view the existence and presence of other religions vis a vis Christianity? We as Christians acknowledge the God’s plan of salvation at work first through Judaism  in OT and then through Christianity in NT. So this question does not apply to Judaism.
This plan of salvation right from man’s fall in Genesis to the NT, is like a well oiled machine, where the OT and NT are in sync with each other. This I am saying because we accept OT in same spirit as NT and Judaism as from God because that is how God wanted to mould Jewish people to make them ready for receiving His promised Messiah.  Contrary to this we find all other religions not at all compatible with each other and that applies their relation with Judaism and Christianity also.
So what would be the best viewpoint to take on these other religions? How Christians are expected to accommodate or view them vis a vis our belief. Do we have to treat them as teaching that did not have origin from God but only from human thinking or from some hallucinations?
I am looking for answers from the Christian point of view only and not from any other position of belief/unbelief.
Are all other religions man-made?

I'm going to answer the main portion of the question from a purely Biblical perspective.  I anticipate that this question as well as this answer is going to generate a lot of debate, so I'm framing my answer as one from an in-arguably Christian perspective - one that's based on Scripture.

The presence of other religions is addressed in Romans 1.  (Quote below is KJV)

  20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
  clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
  eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

  21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
  neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
  their foolish heart was darkened.

  22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

  23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made
  like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and
  creeping things.

In short, man decided to reject God, and searched for other gods fashioned after their own imaginations.  The Biblical answer to your question is that yes, all other religions are man-made.

*And yes, I realize that there are plenty who would say Christianity is man-made as well, but that's not what the question is asking.  Answers on this site are supposed to represent a Christian perspective, which is what this is, and is what the question specifically asked for.  Whether or not this perspective is true or not is off-topic for this site.*


Why are there fourteen stations of the cross? So, I would have expected 12 stations of the cross. I mean, lets face it, a lot of things in the Bible happen in 12.  12 disciples, 12 tribes, etc...

Seeing as the stations of the cross are not Scripture, but rather a later invention, why were the stations that were chosen, chosen?

And why 14?

With regard to the number of Stations it is not at all easy to determine how this came to be fixed at fourteen, for it seems to have varied considerably at different times and places. - Way of the Cross (Catholic Encyclopedia)

The article as a whole actually goes into quite a few different variations which are found and expounds on those which were varied and altogether absent. To compound the matter further, some parishes will include a 15th station: the resurrection.
It is my suspicion (using this article), but this is, at best, speculation, that it happened to be that the 14 stations which are used today happen to be the 14 stations which were used at the time in Rome. It is not unheard of for normalization to be propagated based on what was common in the area of the Roman See and, lacking better evidence, this seems like it makes for a good fit. Of course the fact that there were a number of published documents describing things not wholly unlike the modern practice from the two centuries prior does not hurt either.
This ambiguity was also something which lead to Blessed Pope John Paul II creating a new stations of the cross in the 1990's.

While this is by no means a mystery on the level of the sacraments, it is still something which cannot be known.