What do Evangelicals who speak negatively of "religion" mean by that? I've been hearing some tributes to Rev. Billy Graham today and one of the things that people were praising him was that he "emphasized people over religion".  Now I'm guessing that is not necessarily the Catholic definition of religion which is "the virtue of reconnecting with God".

So, it seems to me, based mainly off of my interactions with Evangelicals here and listening to Christian Radio that religion is either bad or a necessary evil.  But is this what Evangelicals truly believe?  Are they always talking about organized religious ceremonies when they say "religion"?  Is there a concrete definition of what religion is, according to Evangelicals?

Evangelicalism is a pretty wide spectrum, and there are certainly many branches of it that have little issue with calling their belief system a "religion."  After all, John Calvin wrote the Institutes of the Christian Religion, and theologians like B. B. Warfield talk about true Christianity as "religion in its purity" (Selected Shorter Writings, I, p. 389).
Many evangelicals, however, particularly those less associated with established denominations, are more likely to accept a "religion vs. relationship" dichotomy, as explained by the evangelical, dispensational, and baptist site GotQuestions.org.  In an article entitled, "Is Christianity a religion or a relationship?" they write that in some contexts, the word religion refers to "man-centered" belief systems:

Most religions are similar in that they are built upon the concept that man can reach a higher power or state of being through his own efforts. In most religions, man is the aggressor and the deity is the beneficiary of man’s efforts, sacrifices, or good deeds.
In that regard, Christianity is not a religion; it is a relationship that God has established with His children. In Christianity, God is the aggressor and man is the beneficiary (Romans 8:3). The Bible states clearly that there is nothing man can do to make himself right with God (Isaiah 53:6; 64:6; Romans 3:23; 6:23).

Given their decentralized, non-denominational approach to the church, it's not surprising that they also associate religion with organized religion:

The grace-based relationship between God and man is the foundation of Christianity and the antithesis of religion. Established religion was one of the staunchest opponents of Jesus during His earthly ministry.
Just as the Jewish leaders made a religion out of a relationship with God, many people do the same with Christianity. Entire denominations have followed the way of the Pharisees in creating rules not found in Scripture.

The article concludes by emphasizing the relational aspects of Christianity, which it contends are not found in religion:

[God] does not ask us to try to attain holiness by our own strength, as religion does. He asks that our old self be crucified with Him so that His power can live through us (Galatians 2:20; Romans 6:6). God wants us to know Him, to draw near to Him, to pray to Him, and love Him above everything. That is not religion; that is a relationship.


How does Protestant Church explain Luke 2:48? At Luke 2:48 we read of St. Mary's complaint to Jesus for `getting lost'at the Temple:

  His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

Some denominations believe that Jesus had siblings on the earth.  I am therefore, curious to know why Mary did not mention the said brothers and sisters who would have definitely joined the parents in the search for their dear brother Jesus, who  was 12 years of age at that time . How does the Protestant  Church explain the said omission ?

If we accept the bible teaching that Mary/Joseph had children, then they would have been younger than Jesus.  In the question, the age of Jesus was 12.  The oldest sibling was probably no older than 10 at that time.

  Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. Mark 6:3

So there is no sense in saying, your father and me and your younger brothers or sisters are searching for you.  In other words, if you've "lost" one child, you're not going to send out an even younger child to do your searching for you.  Most likely when Mary/Joseph went back to Jerusalem after a few days to look, they would have left their other children with trusted relatives or neighbors.

  But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.  Luke 2:48

They wouldn't bring their other children on the journey back to Jerusalem from Nazareth.


Can "feelings and passions" make an act involuntary? In high school, my religion teacher said,

  Mortal sin is a very serious matter. It is a conscious decision in which the  person intentionally turns away from God. Therefore it is impossible to, say, attend Mass on Sunday in the state of grace, commit a mortal sin during the week, and attend Mass the next Sunday having already repented.

On the other hand, it seems entirely possible for a person to be a devout Catholic, attend Mass, then fall to temptation one night, watch pornography, masturbate, feel remorse immediately, and repent. A priest even advised me to go to confession immediately the next day whenever this happens.

Was a mortal sin committed in this case? Or is this a case where

  ...the promptings of feelings and passions diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense...

(CCC 1860)

?

Is someone strapping you to a chair, propping your eye's open, and forcing you to watch pornography? If not, then you certainly have freely chosen to watch it and doing so certainly is a mortal sin because:

Pornography constitutes grave matter.The sex slave / pornography industry is incredibly inhumane; giving material support to it is itself a sin.
You voluntarily watched it.Just because you had "feelings and passions" does not mean your act was involuntary. For example, if you become drunk, drive, and kill someone and don't even remember what you did, you are still responsible for having indirectly willed murder.For more info on indirectly willed acts, see §94 of Moral Theology by McHugh & Callan, O.P.Also, concupiscence (the body rebelling against the soul, "feelings and passions" inclining you to act against the dictates of reason) does not cause involuntariness, as St. Thomas Aquinas argues in Summa Theologica I-II q. 6 a. 6 co.:Concupiscence does not cause involuntariness, but on the contrary makes something to be voluntary. For a thing is said to be voluntary, from the fact that the will is moved to it. Now concupiscence inclines the will to desire the object of concupiscence. Therefore the effect of concupiscence is to make something to be voluntary rather than involuntary.Note that CCC 1860 is not claiming that "feelings and passions" make an act involuntary.(cf. also St. Thomas's question "Whether ignorance causes involuntariness?".)
You know it's an offense against God:St. Matthew 5:28-29:…whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than thy whole body be cast into hell.

Lust is a capital sin because other sins (like masturbation in your case) follow from it. Masturbation is an intrinsic evil. Onan "spilled his seed upon the ground" (Gen. 38:9) "And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing" (Gen. 38:10).

The Doctor of the Church St. Thomas Aquinas writes that masturbation is an "unnatural vice" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 154 a. 11 co.)—a type of lust like bestiality, sodomy, and pederasty—and that, as in contraception,

  procuring pollution [i.e., ejaculation], without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure … pertains to the sin of 'uncleanness' which some call 'effeminacy'*

*Latin: mollitiem, lit. 'softness, unmanliness'

Pray the rosary (at least 5 decades) daily. This is an excellent remedy against sins of impurity.See

Part 1, "4th Decade: Marvellous Effects," of St. Grignion de Montfort's The Secret of the Rosary, which describes how the rosary has converted hardened sinners (including those who prior to praying it were immersed in sins of impurity, like Bl. Alan de la Roche).
the stories of St. Alphonsus of Liguori's The Glories of Mary.

Marian devotion has a long history of helping those struggling with sins of impurity.


What was Esther’s relationship to Mordecai? Do we know what was Esther's relationship to Mordecai, based on the Jewish and Christian tradition?

There are two views on the relationship between Mordecai and Esther.

That she was his wife, is shown in one translation of the Septuagint.
That she was his adopted daughter, is shown in the Hebrew (per Josephus) and translated Masoretic texts

  Esther 2:7 Septuagint
  And he had a foster child, daughter of Aminadab his father's brother, and her name [was] Esther; and when her parents were dead, he brought her up for a wife for himself: and the damsel was beautiful.

  Esther 2:7 Masoretic
  And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle's daughter: for she had neither father nor mother, and the maid was fair and beautiful; whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter.

So, was Esther Mordecai’s wife or daughter?  We will see that the “for himself” in the Septuagint, is a misunderstanding.  Mordecai adopted Esther for his own daughter and yes to bring her to be a wife.

To return to Esther, the king sent out a command that the best virgins were to come to him (2:2-4).  If Mordecai had married Esther, this would exclude her; but, she was included in the search (2:8).  This tells us clearly that they were not married, though Esther was of marriageable age.  Mordecai was bringing her up to be married, though not to him.

We can also find this same line of thought in Josephus.  He was aware of the Hebrew text.  The Greek Septuagint appears to be a mistranslation.

  Preface to Antiquities
  2. Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures.
  http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/preface/chapter-1.html

  Antiquities Book 11 Chapter 6 Paragraph 2
  So when a great number of these virgins were gathered together, there was found a damsel in Babylon, whose parents were both dead, and she was brought up with her uncle Mordecai, for that was her uncle's name.
  http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-11/chapter-6.html

So, in the Jewish and Christian tradition, the answer is Esther was Mordecai’s adopted daughter.  He was bringing her up in the norms of the day.  She was raised a virgin, was never Mordecai’s wife, and became married to the king.

Notes
For an outline that the Septuagint was variously translated see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

PS I suspect the "married" idea of "old guardian" to "young virgin" Esther 2:7 translation of the Septuagint was made later to conform it to the later tradition from the Infancy Gospel of James of its tale of the "old guardian" and "young virgin".


Info about living in the temple quarters? While the Bible talks at length about religious ceremonies conducted in the Temple at Jerusalem, I’ve seen very little information about living quarters and what one did there when they were not actively performing religious duties. I’ve wondered this especially in the case of Samuel, as he moved to the Temple at a very young age - so, for example, was there some kind of program set up for children there?

There were not many priests who lived near the temple. The majority of priests took turns serving in the temple. They were divided into 24 groups. Each group served in the temple twice a year for a week, roughly six months apart. That covered 48 weeks. The remaining 4 or so weeks of the year were covered by the three major feasts: Passover (Spring), Pentecost (Summer), and Trumpets (Autumn). During the three major feasts, all of Israel came to the temple and all the priests served in those weeks because of the much greater attendance at the temple.

So the short answer is, most priests did not live at the temple. They lived in the Levitical cities around Israel and only traveled to live briefly in Jerusalem for their week of service.

According to Ezekiel 45-48, the priests had quarters in the rooms surrounding the courts of the temple. These likely served as their temporary accommodations when they took their turn serving a the temple. According to the gospels, the high priests' family, which were continually at the temple, had a separate residence in Jerusalem.

Some interesting resources on this topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestly_divisions
https://www.fachurch.org/2018/01/21/all-services/1221-45/the-courses-of-the-priests-pm/

In the case of Samuel, it is clear he was given over to Eli the High Priest as his guardian and seems to have been living in Eli's private home.


Are there any differences between Protestant and Catholic theology concerning the distinction between demonic possession from mental illness? Is there a difference between Catholic and Protestant Theology in regards to what constitutes Demonic possession as opposed to mental illness?

From this article by Got Questions Ministries, who describe themselves as "Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational", the answer to "How do we distinguish a psychological disorder from demon possession?" is

  The short answer to this question is that the Bible does not speak to
  distinguishing between demon possession and a psychological disorder.
  Because God chose not to equip Christians for this task, we should
  probably assume this is not something we are called to do.

In the Gospels, for example in Matthew 9, there is a clear distinction between 'every disease and every infirmity' that Jesus healed and the casting out of demons.

In the Catholic Church, "before an exorcism is performed, it is important to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One, and not an illness."

cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1673

  1673 When the Church asks publicly and authoritatively in the name of Jesus Christ that a person or object be protected against the power
  of the Evil One and withdrawn from his dominion, it is called
  exorcism. Jesus performed exorcisms and from him the Church has
  received the power and office of exorcizing.1 In a simple
  form, exorcism is performed at the celebration of Baptism. The solemn
  exorcism, called "a major exorcism," can be performed only by a priest
  and with the permission of the bishop. The priest must proceed with
  prudence, strictly observing the rules established by the Church.
  Exorcism is directed at the expulsion of demons or to the liberation
  from demonic possession through the spiritual authority which Jesus
  entrusted to his Church. Illness, especially psychological illness, is
  a very different matter; treating this is the concern of medical
  science. Therefore, before an exorcism is performed, it is important
  to ascertain that one is dealing with the presence of the Evil One,
  and not an illness.2

  1. Cf. Mk 1:25-26; 3:15; 6:7, 13; 16:17.
  2. Cf. CIC, can. 1172.


Are there any English Bible translations whose primary text for the OT is the Septuagint? The translators of most English Bible translations used the Hebrew Masoretic Text as their primary source for the Old Testament, though they will use the Septuagint and other texts to critically analyse the Hebrew text. (You can see evidence of this in footnotes that note that the Hebrew says one thing and the Greek says another.)

Are there any English Bible translations of both the OT and the NT whose primary text for the OT is the Septuagint?

There are a few. Some of them are published as academic works, while others are intended for the common use and worship (especially in Eastern Orthodox Churches).

The first was The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Covenant, translated by Charles Thomson in 1808 (though he did not include the apocrypha). It can still be bought today. The translation was revised and enlarged by C. A. Muses in 1954 as The Septuagint Bible.

Sir Lancelot Brenton published one in 1851. It has continually been in print since then and was updated as LXX2012: Septuagint in English 2012.

There is also the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS). Even here, they have to do textual criticism as the extant copies of the LXX don't all agree. In the translation principles, the committee states they have a target audience "that closely approximates that of the NRSV."

The Eastern Orthodox churches in English-speaking countries also have several options available for English translations based off the Septuagint. In 2008, The Orthodox Study Bible was released. It uses the semi-critical Septuaginta of Alfred Rahlfs as its base. Peter King, SJ, has also released a translation of the Septuagint in four volumes: The Pentateuch 2010, The Historical Books 2012, The Wisdom Literature 2008, and The Prophets 2013.


What is the Biblical evidence against the perpetual virginity of Mary? I understand that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary is the eternal virgin in that she never had sexual relations with Joseph (or any other man)--either before or after the miraculous conception of Jesus.

What Biblical evidence is there that contradicts this doctrine?

One such passage is Matthew 13:55, where Jesus is identified thus:

  “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and
  aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?"

Some would quibble over the definition and translation of the word "brother" here, taking it to mean that the brothers listed weren't the offspring of Mary but spiritual brothers (with no genetic link) or perhaps half-brothers (which would require Joseph to have had another wife - there's no evidence of this) or other relations. But much more definitive is Matthew 27:56, where Mary is described as the mother of those first two brothers:

  Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and
  Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.

Interestingly Mary here isn't identified as the mother of Jesus as well as James and Joseph, so one possible rebuttal to this verse is that Mary the mother of James and Joseph is a different Mary from Mary the mother of Jesus.

There are similar passages elsewhere in the New Testament that refer to Jesus' mother and his brothers, the context and normal processes of hermeneutics would lead to the conclusion that Mary (Jesus' mother) did indeed have these other offspring - but, to defend the Catholics a little bit, none of those passages state unambiguously that his brothers were born of his mother.

One further argument that Mary had further children after Jesus is that Jesus is referred in the Bible as Mary and Joseph's "firstborn", and never as their only child.

Matthew 1:25 (AMP):

  But he had no union with her as her husband until she had borne her
  firstborn Son; and he called His name Jesus.

But to be pedantic, an only child is also a firstborn, so this too could be argued against.

In summary, there is very strong Biblical evidence that Mary went on to have other children and therefore did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus; certainly that is the natural conclusion to be drawn from what is written in the Bible. However there are ways  of challenging the wording and interpretation of each of the verses above in order to form an argument to the contrary.

Reference/further reading: "Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters?" by Tony Warren


What is the easy and less complicated definition of predestination [Calvinism]? I am finding it difficult to understand the Calvinistic ideas of limited atonement and predestination. Does limited atonement mean that only a chosen people called the elect will attain salvation? If yes, will they all be Christians and/or non-Christians as well? How do I know that I am among the elect or not? If everything is predestined, then why preaching the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is necessary? All these ideas just confuses me, please help, but from the Calvinistic Presbyterian point of view and a Biblical basis as well.

Reformed churches are confessional bodies so the best place to start would probably be with those confessions. There are generally two camps:

The English tradition uses the Westminster Confession of Faith: http://www.pcaac.org/resources/wcf/

The Continental tradition uses the 3 forms of unity - The Belgic Confession, The Canons of Dort and the Heidelberg Catechism: https://www.urcna.org/1651/custom/24288

I would recommend starting with the Heidelberg Catechism because its easier to understand. (It also has quite beautiful prose)
I will try to answer your specific questions using specific phrases from these confessions. The confessions are not authoritative and all of them contain bible references for what they teach.
(1) On the matter of Limited Atonement, Canons of Dort, article 9 states:

It is not the fault of the gospel, nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God, who calls men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, that those who are called by the ministry of the Word refuse to come and be converted. The fault lies in themselves, some of whom when called, regardless of their danger, reject the Word of life; others, though they receive it, suffer it not to make a lasting impression on their heart; therefore, their joy, arising only from a temporary faith, soon vanishes, and they fall away; while others choke the seed of the Word by perplexing cares and the pleasures of this world, and produce no fruit. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13).

And article 10 states:

But that others who are called by the gospel obey the call and are converted is not to be ascribed to the proper exercise of free will, whereby one distinguishes himself above others equally furnished with grace sufficient for faith and conversion (as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains); but it must be wholly ascribed to God, who, as He has chosen His own from eternity in Christ, so He calls them effectually in time, confers upon them faith and repentance, rescues them from the power of darkness, and translates them into the kingdom of His own Son

So yes, only a chosen people will attain salvation. For those that do, it is the work of God through his effectual grace. For those that do not, it is their choice to reject the gospel and the fault lies in themselves.
(2) Will they all be Christians? Yes. Heidelberg Catechism, question 20:

Q. ARE ALL MEN SAVED THROUGH CHRIST JUST AS ALL WERE LOST THROUGH ADAM?
A. No. Only those are saved who by true faith are grafted into Christ and accept all his blessings.
Matt. 7:14; John 3:16, 18, 36; Rom. 11:16-21

And 21:

Q. WHAT IS TRUE FAITH?
A. True faith is not only a knowledge and conviction that everything God reveals in his Word is true; it is also a deep-rooted assurance, created in me by the Holy Spirit through the gospel, that, out of sheer grace earned for us by Christ, not only others, but I too, have had my sins forgiven, have been made forever right with God, and have been granted salvation.
John 17:3, 17; Heb. 11:1-3; James 2:19; Rom. 4:18-21; 5:1; 10:10; Heb. 4:14-16; Matt. 16:15-17; John 3:5; Acts 16:14; Rom. 1:16; 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:21; Rom. 3:21-26; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-10; Gal. 2:20; Rom. 1:17; Heb. 10:10

(3) How do you know you are among the elect?
Romans 10:9:

If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Salvation is a work of God. Faith is believing in that work. If you believe, you will be saved.
Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 18 says:

Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvationa (which hope of theirs shall perish) yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.
[...]
This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto
[...]
True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin which woundeth the conscience and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God’s withdrawing the light of his countenance, and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light yet are they never utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart, and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may, in due time, be revived; and by the which, in the meantime, they are supported from utter despair.

Assurance is possible but sometimes hard. The ordinary means of grace being referred to here are things like regularly attending church. Much of what we do every Sunday is simply reminding us the promises of God because we are a forgetful people.
(4) If everything is predestined, then why preaching the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is necessary?
God ordains the means as well as the ends and he has chosen the church as his vehicle of Salvation. Heidelberg Catechism, question 65:

Q. IT IS BY FAITH ALONE THAT WE SHARE IN CHRIST AND ALL HIS BLESSINGS: WHERE THEN DOES THAT FAITH COME FROM?
A. The Holy Spirit produces it in our hearts by the preaching of the holy gospel, and confirms it through our use of the holy sacraments.

Romans 10 again: (w/emphasis from me)

For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

The preaching of the Gospel is necessary for anyone to come to faith, but God ordains that as well!


What did Jesus look like or did Jesus look different for certain people? Now, I don't go to church, my family stopped when I was like 8 (I'm 13), the church near me, that didn't have a raping problem and was Christian(not Catholic even though that is Christian), was a super church. It didn't really teach me much, since I was little I went with the other little kids, we only watched Veggietales and colored. We really didn't like that it used fast food and drink places, like Starbucks, to attract people since that isn't what church is about to us. I did learn what ellipses were though.
So, I didn't really know what Jesus looked like except the pictures in my grandma's house. The Jesus in her house had (idk if she has them in her new house) a black guy with thick hair and then one with lighter skin, very long hair, and a long beard.
I asked her which one was really Jesus and she said that she said that she thinks that the black one is since nowadays they don't portray peoples' colors correctly and that we were the first people. She has both because she likes to have more than one thing portraying Jesus, even though it isn't the right one to her, she still knows who it is supposed to be. (Her church is a black church and the booklets portray Jesus as black)
I have even seen Jesus with white skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes and for some reason, I don't really like it since it seems fake.
My question is, which Jesus is right? And for the wrong ones, do you know why they changed them or did God make it so Jesus could be seen differently for different people?

What did Jesus look like?
While the Bible doesn't give any detailed information as to Jesus' appearance, let's look at the facts:

Jesus was born of a Jewish woman, therefore he would have the characteristics of that particular nationality. He would blend in with the local people without standing out amongst a crowd. (John 7:10,11)
Jesus' hair would have been longish, probably around the shirt collar, but not long like that of women (1 Cor. 11:14)
Jesus would have a beard as was the custom for those following the Law of Moses (Lev. 19:27)
Being a carpenter for a time, Jesus had the physical traits of someone that did intensive labor. Let's not forget that Jesus did lots of walking during his 3 1/2 year ministry. (Matt. 9:35)

Some people have argued that Jesus was of African descent because of the description of Jesus in Revelation 1:14, 15. But the book of Revelation was presented "in signs" (Rev. 1:1) to the Apostle John, so the description of Jesus would have symbolic meanings. Take for example that Revelation also describes Jesus as having feet of bronze or copper (Rev. 1:15), but there is no race that has skin color like in that description.
Some people say that Jesus was weak or frail. Jesus was a man of action like when he overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. (John 2:14, 15) The only time Jesus needed help was after he had been whipped and beaten by Roman soldiers. (Luke 23:26)
If you would like more information on this topic, read the article "What Did Jesus Look Like?" on jw.org. This is just one of several "Bible Questions Answered".


Who oversaw the 9th, 10th, and 11th sessions of the Council of Trent? From the wiki page on the Council of Trent, we have:

  Pope Paul III, who convoked the Council, oversaw the first eight sessions (1545–47), while the twelfth to sixteenth sessions (1551–52) were overseen by Pope Julius III and the seventeenth to twenty-fifth sessions (1562–63) by Pope Pius IV.

Was there an overseer for those sessions not presided over by a Pope? Why weren't those sessions overseen by a Pope?

Session 8 voted to move the council to Bologna, due to the political situation of Germany / Emperor Charles V.

Celebrated on the eleventh day of March, 1547
DECREE CONCERNING THE TRANSLATION OF THE COUNCIL
Does it please you to decree and declare that from the foregoing and other reports regarding that disease, it is so clearly and manifestly certain that the prelates cannot without danger to their lives remain in this city, and that therefore they cannot and ought not to be detained in it against their will? And considering, moreover, the withdrawal of many prelates since the last session, and the protests made in the general congregations by many other prelates wishing by all means to depart from here through fear of the disease, who cannot justly be detained and by whose departure the council would either be dissolved or, from the small number of prelates, its beneficial progress hindered; and considering also the imminent danger to life and the other manifestly true and legitimate reasons alleged in the congregations by some of the Fathers, does it please you likewise to decree and declare that for the preservation and prosecution of the council, and for the safety of the lives of the prelates, this council be transferred for a time to the city of Bologna as a place more suitable, more healthy and better adapted, and that the translation have effect from this day forth, that the session already announced for the twenty-first of April ought to be celebrated and be celebrated there on the day appointed; and that further matters be proceeded with in succession, till it shall seem expedient to our most holy Lord and to the holy council, with the advice of the most invincible Emperor, the most Christian King, and with the other Christian kings and princes, that this council may and ought to be brought back to this or to some other place?
They answered: It pleases us.

Sessions 9 and 10 were

Celebrated at Bologna on the twenty-first day of April, 1547;
Celebrated at Bologna on the second day of June, 1547,

respectively.
Julius III issued a bull on 14 December 1550 to reconvene the Council at Trent:

In order to put an end to the religious dissensions which for a long time have prevailed in Germany to the disturbance and scandal of the entire Christian world, it appears good, opportune and expedient to us, as also to our most dearly beloved son in Christ, Charles, ever august Emperor of the Romans, who has made this known to us by his letters and ambassadors, to bring back to the city of Trent the holy ecumenical and general council convoked by our predecessor, Pope Paul III, of happy memory, and begun, conducted and continued by us, who then enjoyed the honor of the cardinalate and, conjointly with two other cardinals of the holy Roman Church, presided in the name of our predecessor in the council, in which several public and solemn sessions were held and several decrees promulgated on the subjects of faith and reform, and also many other things relating to both subjects were examined and discussed. We, therefore, to whom, as reigning sovereign pontiff, it belongs to convoke and direct general councils, that we may, to the praise and glory of Almighty God, procure the peace of the Church and the increase of the Christian faith and of the orthodox religion, and may, as far as we are able, consider with paternal solicitude the tranquillity of Germany, a province which in times past was second to none in Christendom in cultivating true religion and the teaching of the holy councils and the holy Fathers, and in exhibiting due obedience and reverence to the supreme pontiffs, the vicars on earth of Christ our Redeemer, hoping that by the grace and bounty of God it will come about that all Christian kings and princes will approve, favor and aid our just and pious wishes in this matter, by the bowels of the mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ, exhort, command and admonish our venerable brethren the patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, our beloved sons the abbots and each and all of the others who by right, custom or privilege ought to be present at general councils, and whom our predecessor in his letters of convocation and in any others made and published with regard to this matter wished to be present at the council, to convene and assemble in the same city of Trent, since the lawful impediment no longer exists, and to apply themselves without delay to the continuation and prosecution of the council on the next first of May, which day we, after mature deliberation, of our own certain knowledge, with the plenitude of Apostolic authority, and with the advice and consent of our venerable brethren, the cardinals of the holy Roman Church, appoint and set aside for the resumption and continuation of the council in the state in which it now is. We shall make it our special care that our legates will be in the city at the same time, through whom, if on account of our age, state of health and the demands of the Apostolic See we shall be unable to be present personally, we shall under the guidance of the Holy Ghost preside over the council; any translation and suspension of the council and any other things whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding, and especially those things which it was the will of our predecessor should not create any obstacles, as expressed in his letters aforesaid, which, with each and all of restrictions and decrees therein contained, we wish and decree to remain in force, and so far as there is need we hereby renew them; declaring, moreover, null and void whatever may be attempted knowingly or unknowingly by any person or by any authority to the contrary. Let no one, therefore, infringe this our letter of exhortation, summons, monition, ordinance, declaration, renewal, will and decrees, or with foolhardy boldness go contrary to it. But if anyone shall presume to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the indignation of Almighty God and of His blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. Given at Rome at St. Peter’s in the year 1550 of Our Lord’s incarnation, on the fourteenth of December, in the first year of our pontificate.

Session

celebrated under the Supreme Pontiff, Julius III, on the first day of May, 1551

Quotes from: Schroeder, O.P.'s Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent
Period at Bologna
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Council of Trent:

Before this session [the 8th] was held the question of the prorogation of the council or its transfer to another city had been discussed. The relations between pope and emperor had grown even more strained; the Smalkaldic War had begun in Germany; and now an infectious disease broke out in Trent, carrying off the general of the Franciscans and others.

and

The majority of the fathers of the council went with the cardinal legates from Trent to Bologna; but fourteen bishops who belonged to the party of Charles V remained at Trent and would not recognize the transfer. The sudden change of place without any special consultation beforehand with the pope did not please Paul III, who probably foresaw that this would lead to further severe difficulties between himself and the emperor. As a matter of fact Charles V was very indignant at the change, and through his ambassador Vaga protested against it, vigorously urging a return to Trent. The emperor's defeat of the Smalkaldic League increased his power. Influential cardinals sought to mediate between the emperor and the pope, but the negotiations failed. The emperor protested formally against the transfer to Bologna, and, refusing to permit the Spanish bishops who had remained at Trent to leave that city, began negotiations again with the German Protestants on his own responsibility. Consequently at the ninth session of the council held at Bologna on 21 April, 1547, the only decree issued was one proroguing the session. The same action was all that was taken in the tenth session on 2 June, 1547, although there had been exhaustive debates on various subjects in congregations. The tension between the emperor and the pope had increased despite the efforts of Cardinals Sfondrato and Madruzzo. All negotiations were fruitless. The bishops who had remained at Trent had held no sessions, but when the pope called to Rome four of the bishops at Bologna and four of those at Trent, the latter said in excuse that they could not obey the call. Paul III had now to expect extreme opposition from the emperor. Therefore, on 13 September, he proclaimed the suspension of the council and commanded the cardinal legate del Monte to dismiss the members of the council assembled at Bologna; this was done on 17 September. The bishops were called to Rome, where they were to prepare decrees for disciplinary reforms. This closed the first period of the council. On 10 Nov., 1549, the pope died.


Are chapter and verse divisions international? If someone quotes e.g. Leviticus 6:7, will this be the correct position no matter the language or translation?

In general, yes...
As Affable Geek answered, the divisions predate the printing press but were not part of the original texts.  There aren't that many publishers of Bibles and most of them use the same system that English translations have used since Langton.  So if you go to a Spanish-language service anywhere around the world, you can find your place in the text.  (Assuming you understand Spanish, of course.)
It seems likely that this is for convenience and because of the network effect.  Since most tools of interpretation (dictionaries, commentaries, concordances, etc.) use the standard system, most people who purchase a Bible will expect to find it to be compatible to that system.  A publisher would quickly go out of business if they tried to introduce a novel system.
with two exceptions.

The Tanakh
As H3br3wHamm3r81's answer notes that the Jewish Bible (what we call the Old Testament) uses a different system.  Since Judaism has a separate apparatus of interpretation, Jewish publishers divide chapters and verses in slightly different places.  It's not different enough to cause major problems, but we have experienced confusion over on Biblical Hermeneutics.  One noticeable pattern is that Psalms in Jewish translations often make the short descriptive text (ascription) part or all of verse 1 in contrast to Christian translations.  For this reason, I like to quote Bible passages or at least link to them rather than just include bare citations.

The Psalms
The earliest Greek translation of the Tanakh included a slightly different order of the Psalms then the Hebrew original.  Since the standard system adheres to the Hebrew order, this is normally not a problem.  But it's something to be aware of if you are talking Psalms across the Eastern/Western divide or if you are reading Catholic liturgy (which uses the Greek system for some reason).

As it turns out, Leviticus 6:7 is not the same between the Christian system and the Jewish system:

And the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and thereby become guilty.”—Leviticus 6:7 (ESV)
And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD, in front of the altar.—Leviticus 6:7 (JPS)

It turns out the Jewish system puts what we call Leviticus 6:1-7 into the end of chapter 5 as verses 20 to 26.


What was the origin of the phrase "Abraham's Bosom" as used by Jesus? We read at Luke  16:22-23 (KJV)
" And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. "
Though  Jesus gives a literal picture of Lazarus sitting in the lap of Abraham ( and many drawings of the story of Lazarus picture him do so ),  some suggest that Abraham's Bosom was  a place where the dead would await their judgement, and that the phrase  was taken by Jesus from Jewish literature. My question therefore is: According to Catholic teachings, what was the origin of the phrase   "Abraham's Bosom" as used by Jesus in the Story of Lazarus and the Rich Man ?

"Bosom of Abraham" refers to the place of comfort in the Biblical Sheol (or Hades in the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew scriptures from around 200 BCE, and therefore so described in the New Testament) where the righteous dead supposedly await Judgment Day.
The word found in the Greek text for "bosom" is kolpos, meaning "lap" "bay". This relates to the Second Temple period practice of reclining and eating meals in proximity to other guests, the closest of whom physically was said to lie on the bosom (chest) of the host, as in John 13:23.

The Jews had adopted the Persian, Greek, and Roman custom of reclining at meals, and had long since exchanged the original practice of standing at the Passover first for sitting and then for reclining in a setup called Triclinium. They reclined on the left arm and ate with the right. The expression "lies in the bosom" is well documented in extrabiblical sources.


How does transubstantiation account for the amount of Christ's body eaten over the last 2000 years? If whenever communion occurs the bread and wine literally become Christ's body and blood then how is there enough of Christ's body to last for undoubtedly thousands of communion events every day for the past 2000 years? That would be millions of pounds of bread and wine over time.

How is this explained in the transubstantiation belief system? I assume somebody has had to have wondered this before. Is it explained away by saying that the bread isn't really the body, but it really is? Does God just perform a miracle and allow Christ's body to become theoretically infinite in mass?

There are several churches which use the idea of transubstantiation; but the Eastern churches (Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East) share a similar view on how it works. I'll therefore split my discussion into two parts, the "Eastern" and "Western" views.
Eastern View
The Eastern churches have occasionally used the term "transubstantiation"; sometimes (being Greek-speaking in origin) they would use the Greek-derived equivalent "metousiosis". They don't get very specific about how transubstantiation works technically. The Longer Orthodox Catechism (articles 339 - 340) states:

The bread and wine are changed, or transubstantiated, into the very Body of Christ, and into the very Blood of Christ. ...
In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord.

In other words, they're just saying they believe that the bread and wine "become" the Body and Blood of Christ, but they don't know (and really don't care) how; it is a mystery. The Eastern churches in general don't do as much philosophical speculation in their theology as the Western ones historically have; they have an entirely different approach. Certainly, they are aware and believe that the bread doesn't become body parts in some sort of literal sense. Thus, they're not concerned with the possibility that the consecrated Hosts become parts of Christ's body and add to his weight.
The Western View
The most systematic approach we have to an answer here is probably through the work of Thomas Aquinas, particularly his treatise Summa Theologica ("A Summary of Theology"). Unfortunately, it's very difficult to understand what Aquinas says about it simply by reading the book, without knowing a good bit of medieval philosophy, particularly medieval interpretation of Aristotelian philosophy. Aquinas' take on whether Christ's weight (or other aspects of his body) is really present in the consecrated host is this:

As stated above, any part of Christ is in this sacrament in two ways: in one way, by the power of the sacrament; in another, from real concomitance. By the power of the sacrament the dimensive quantity of Christ's body is not in this sacrament; for, by the power of the sacrament that is present in this sacrament, whereat the conversion is terminated. But the conversion which takes place in this sacrament is terminated directly at the substance of Christ's body, and not at its dimensions; which is evident from the fact that the dimensive quantity of the bread remains after the consecration, while only the substance of the bread passes away.
Nevertheless, since the substance of Christ's body is not really deprived of its dimensive quantity and its other accidents, hence it comes that by reason of real concomitance the whole dimensive quantity of Christ's body and all its other accidents are in this sacrament.

(Third Part, Question 76, Article 4)
This, like a very dry Host, is rather hard to swallow all at once. Essentially what it means is this: The weight of a physical entity is one of its accidents, one of the things that just happens to be true of it in particular, but doesn't change what kind of thing it is. (So my weight could change without changing whether I'm human or not.) Since transubstantiation changes the substance of the bread and wine, but not their accidents, transubstantiation does not directly give the bread and wine the weight, or height, or eye color, or what-have-you, of Jesus.
However, there's a surprise waiting: the doctrine of concomitance. This simply says that nothing about Christ, including body, blood, and what-have-you, is really separable from anything else about Him, so that if He's present in some sense, he's present in all senses. Thus, through the "real concomitance" approach, his weight is there. The weight of the Host, however, is a different accident—it's "attached to" the other accidents of the bread, which remain the same, and so it doesn't alter the weight of Christ.
Clear as mud? I thought so. Let me know what I can do to clarify it.


What do those who practice the gift of 'tongues' consider the purpose to be? In Acts 2, we read of how the apostles received the gift of tongues so that people heard the gospel in their own languages. Is the gift of tongues, then, specifically evangelistic or does it have a purpose in a congregation where there are only believers?

I was under the impression that only Charismatics currently practice this gift. What do they consider the purpose to be and are there others who actually practice the gift that consider the purpose to be different? How are these purposes defended using either Old or New Testaments?

The bulk of the teaching on tongues in the Bible is not in Acts, but in 1 Corinthians. While there are a couple of instances in Acts that do mention people speaking in tongues, only Acts 2 mention that the words are understood by the bystanders. In 1 Cor 12-14, it is clearly understood that tongues require interpretation in order to be understood.

Researchers generally differentiate between

glossolalia, speaking in unknown tongues
xenoloalia, speaking in a know tongue, but in words not understood or learned by the speaker

The purpose of speaking in tongues is edification. Tongues + interpretation in public edifies the church and is comparable to prophecy in its effect. Tongues in private edifies the speaker.

Tongues are prayer and as such can be praise, thanksgiving and intercession. Being prayer of course also means that speaking in tongues is communion with God, practicing being in His presence.

The above can be understood from scripture. If we also listen to researchers the following can be said:

While glossolalia exist in some non-christian settings, there is (AFAIK) no evidence of non ecstatic glossolalia in such settings. Older research (and Bible commentaries) tended to equate Christian glossolalia with ecstasy, trances, etc. (1 Cor 12-14 clearly indicates that speaking in tongues is a non ecstatic endeavor, but that does not mean that emotions may not run high, occasionally.)
People who speak in tongues are not mentally unstable. In fact, having cross-referenced away other factors, research indicate that tongue-speaking people on average are more emotionally balanced and socially well adjusted than non tongue-speakers.

If we add testimonies from tongue-speakers about how they benefit from the practice, at least the following are common themes:

Praying in tongues is a help when one does not know how to pray. Tongues means letting the Spirit produce the prayer that is optimal for the situation.
Praying in tongues is associated with a release of the power of the Spirit to empower, heal or in any other way help. Quietly praying in tongues while laying hands on someone is a common practice, that combines these two points.
Praying in tongues is a help in situations when ordinary words don't do justice to ones inner feelings of exuberance or grief.
Praying in tongues is a help when one does not have the energy or concentration to pray ordinary prayers. When the activity of formulating words to pray are too strenuous, praying in tongues is usually effortless.
Tongues function as a "gateway" gift, i.e. having been released to pray in tongues often is followed by other gifts, such as prophecy, gifts of healings, etc.

Saving the most controversial point for last: Some Pentecostals and charismatics see tongues as the initial evidence of the baptism in the Holy Spirit, which in turn is understood as a separate and non-repeatable experience from conversion. According to this view there is one Spirit-baptism, but possibly many "fillings". I personally do not share this view, since I think it makes a distinction between words like the Spirit "came upon", "fell upon", "filled" and "baptized" where the Bible does not make any distinction in, but rather uses them interchangeably for the same experience.

Edit

Additional sorce:The question answered by J. Rodman Williams, the first scholar to write a systematic theology from a renewal perspective.


Did John Bunyan believe in predestination and irresistible grace? This particular question is concerned with John Bunyan's stance, rather than the stance of Pilgrim's Progress, which is addressed in a related question.

I learned of Pilgrim's Progress through reading works of reformed theologians (many of who highly recommended Pilgrim's Progress), and thus I assumed that Pilgrim's Progress also believed in predestination.  I'm no longer sure of that, and I'm not even sure if John Bunyan himself believed in predestination. (Wikipedia doesn't seem to say either way)

Thus, the question: did John Bunyan take a stance on predestination and irresistible grace?

It's clear from the writings of John Bunyan that he believed in the Reformed doctrines of predestination and irresistible grace.  He makes an extensive defense of these and related doctrines in his work, Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ, in which he analyzes John 6:37:

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. [KJV]

Demonstrating his belief in predestination, he writes that the "all" of this verse are the elect:

Those, therefore, intended as the gift in the text, are those that are given by covenant to the Son; those that in other places are called “the elect,” “the chosen,” “the sheep,” and “the children of the promise,” &c. These be they that the Father hath given to Christ to keep them; those that Christ hath promised eternal life unto; those to whom he hath given his word, and that he will have with him in his kingdom to behold his glory. (5; 8)

He sees the "giving" of this verse as not only something happening in the present, with the transformation of individual sinners, but also something that God did long ago:

this gift was bestowed upon Christ when the covenant, the eternal covenant, was made between them before all worlds. (6; 11)

Turning now to the doctrine of irresistible grace, we see that Bunyan also clearly teaches it in this work.  He spends many pages expounding on the "shall come" of John 6:37, arguing that it is an absolute promise of God that cannot be circumvented by anything, not even the will of man:

The Father’s end was, that they might come to him, and be saved by him; and that, says the Son, shall be done; neither sin nor Satan, neither flesh nor world, neither wisdom nor folly, shall hinder their coming to me. (9; 19)

But what of the one who insists that he will not be saved?  Is it possible for him to resist God's will?  Bunyan says no:

Here, then, is the case; we must now see who will be the liar, he that saith, "I will not"; or he that saith, "He shall come to me." "You shall come," says God; "I will not come," saith the sinner. Now, as sure as he is concerned in this Shall-come, God will make that man eat his own words; for "I will not," is the unadvised conclusion of a crazy-headed sinner; but Shall-come was spoken by him that is of power to perform his word. [bold and quotation marks added] (22; 51)

How will this be done?  Will such people be dragged into the kingdom against their will?  On the contrary, says Bunyan:

The obstinacy and plague that is in the will of that people, shall be taken away; and they shall be made willing; Shall-come will make them willing to come to thee. (22; 52)

Summary
John Bunyan's formulations of predestination and irresistible grace do not diverge from the historical teaching of the Reformed faith.  It's true that he differed with Calvinists on some matters related to ecclesiology and the sacraments, but his understanding of salvation corresponds neatly with theirs.

Quotes come from Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ, a PDF published by bunyanministries.org.  The first number after each quote indicates the page number in that edition.  The second number after each quote refers to the page number in a 1774 edition of this work.


Does Roman Catholic doctrine teach that Christ no longer has a body that possesses flesh? Does Roman Catholic doctrine teach that Christ's incorruptible body no longer has flesh?

I was translating a work of John of Damascus entitled Περὶ τοῦ ἀχράντου σώματος, οὗ μεταλαμβάνομεν. In this work, John is quoting (actually, he seems to be paraphrasing) a statement made by Gregory Nazianzen in his work entitled in English, "The Oration on Holy Baptism."

Here is John's quotation in Greek.

  Πίστευε Χριστὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥξειν πάλιν μετὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου αὐτοῦ παρουσίας κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· οὐκέτι μὲν σάρκα, οὐκ ἀσώματον δὲ, οἷς οἶδεν αὐτὸς λόγους, θεοειδεστέρου σώματος, ἵνα καὶ ὀφθῇ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκκεντησάντων, καὶ μείνῃ Θεὸς ἔξω παχύτητος.

What Gregory Nazianzen writes is translated in English as (sec. 45),

  Believe [that for us sinners He was led to death; was crucified and buried, so far as to taste of death; and that He rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, that He might take you with Him who were lying low; and that] He will come again with His glorious Presence to judge the quick and the dead; no longer flesh, nor yet without a body, according to the laws which He alone knows of a more godlike body, that He may be seen by those who pierced Him, and on the other hand may remain as God without carnality.

Gregory clearly states that Christ does not possess flesh. The Greek is οὐκέτι μὲν σάρκα, "no longer flesh."

This is the basis for my question.

I don't understand how a body can exist without flesh, But a simple answer to your question is NO, It does not. It is actually the opposite. It is condemned as a heresy in the Catholic Church if one claims that Jesus is in heaven without his body/flesh. This concept falls into variation of different heresies Docetism, Apollinarism, Manichaeism etc.,

Catholics believe that Jesus is present with his flesh in Eucharist. And he is present in the Eucharist as he is present in the Trinity, i.e, with his flesh but his glory hidden to naked eye.

UPDATE:

In Luke 24:39, Jesus himself says that he has σάρκα That should end the discussion whether Jesus has σάρκα or not.

With regards to what the Catholic Church teaches, I think what St. Gregory Nazianzen was saying here with respect to "Flesh" is not to be taken as the nature of flesh but fallen state of flesh. In Jesus's second coming, he is going to come with a body that is not bound by natural laws. That is he is not going to fall to earth because of gravity. Christ's body after Resurrection is "of the same nature, but differed in glory." St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica answers the question of Whether Christ's body rose again entire(with flesh and bones)?:

  Flesh and blood are not to be taken there for the nature of flesh and blood, but, either for the guilt of flesh and blood, as Gregory says [Pope St. Gregory, Moral. in Job 14:56, or else for the corruption of flesh and blood: because, as Augustine says (Ad Consent., De Resur. Carn.), "there will be neither corruption there, nor mortality of flesh and blood." Therefore flesh according to its substance possesses the kingdom of God, according to Luke 24:39: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see Me to have." But flesh, if understood as to its corruption, will not possess it; hence it is straightway added in the words of the Apostle: "Neither shall corruption possess incorruption."


Does Roman Catholic Church recognize some Eastern Orthodox Saints? I heard that in some of Catholic churches (I mean parishes) in Europe there are icons of Russian Saints, such as Seraphim of Sarov, for example (may be I'm wrong, I personally haven't seen this).

So I wonder, does Roman Catholic Church recognize (officially) some Eastern Orthodox Saints?

One such appears to be St Vladimir the Great, who is revered as a saint by Churches in communion with both Constantinople and Rome. That said, it's not clear when he was canonised — that might have occurred before the Great Schism; and nor is it clear whether this is a local celebration or one recognised by Rome for the whole Church.

According to Wikipedia, St Seraphim of Sarov was called Saint by Pope Bl John Paul II in his book Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

Wikipedia also claims that St Sergei of Radonezh is recognised in the Roman Canon, but there appears to be little or no corroboration for this. In fact, the list of saints is so long that there exists no complete version, so it's probably not easy to confirm or deny it categorically, particularly in view of what is taught about saints...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, at para 945–962, explains the communion of the saints, and there appears to be no reason why Christians of Churches temporarily in imperfect communion with Rome could not be held as saints. The Catechism quotes Lumen Gentium:

  We worship Christ as God's Son; we love the martyrs as the Lord's disciples and imitators, and rightly so because of their matchless devotion towards their king and master. May we also be their companions and fellow disciples!


How do creationists address the similarity between Irreducible Complexity and God Of The Gaps? "God Of The Gaps" refers to using holes in our understanding of the universe as an argument for God. It is rejected by modern creationists, as it is by Christians generally.

However, the only people who invoke a ‘god of the gaps’ argument are evolutionists knocking down creationist straw men; creationists actually appeal to what we do know about chemistry, biology and information theory. (Lael Weinberger - Harmony and discord)

Creationists do however support the Irreducible Complexity argument, which says that there are systems which require multiple components to work together for the system to have any productive function at all. So for example, they have argued that the eye is irreducibly complex, and cannot have evolved.
But this seems to me to be very similar to a God Of The Gaps argument. "If a system has 20 components, we might be able to remove 10 of them and have it still function, but we don't know how it could function with only 9. Therefore God."
Isn't this a kind of God Of The Gaps argument? How have creationists addressed the similarity between these arguments?

The basic concept presented by Dr Behe is that of ‘irreducible complexity’. A system that is irreducibly complex is one in which precise components work jointly to perform the basic function of the system. It also means that if any part of that system were to be absent or removed, the system would cease to function. Therefore, any step to simplify an irreducibly complex system would result in a non-functional system. This presents an insurmountable problem for the Darwinist. If one alleges that all systems evolved by gradual addition to previously functioning systems, how does one explain a complex system that would not perform its basic function if it were missing even a single component? (Robert T. Mitchell - Darwin's Black Box)
The traditional conception of step-by-step major evolutionary change has the supposed advantage of reasonable probability for each step while suffering from the disadvantage of being incapable of producing the necessarily simultaneous changes (hence irreducible complexity). ... It almost seems as though evolutionists are invoking these hopeful mini monster mechanisms as an act of desperation. In any case, the giant chasm that remains between the observed tiny changes, on the one hand, and the speculated large-scale evolutionary outcomes, on the other, itself attests to the validity and force of the argument of irreducible complexity. (John Woodmorappe - Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists)

Fair question. But your construction of the IC argument doesn't quite capture its essence. IC doesn't say "We don't know how it would work with only 9, therefore God." Rather, it says, "This complex system is fundamentally non-functional without multiple interdependent parts, therefore all these parts had to emerge simultaneously, therefore the mechanism of gradual evolution cannot explain its emergence."

The canonical example of an IC system is the snap-type mousetrap. The system consists of a baseplate, a swinging hammer bar, a spring, and a trigger, all four of which must be working in tandem for the device to be considered operational. The IC adherent does not say "We don't know how to make a simpler mousetrap, therefore its a miracle." The argument is much more precise. They say, "This particular model of a mousetrap could never be functional with fewer parts. The manufacturer could not sell a discount version of this device with only 2 of the parts and call it a 'simplified mousetrap'. It's not a mousetrap if it is incapable of trapping mice."

So, if there are biological systems with comparable complexity, IC argues that gradual evolution is an insufficient theory to explain them. So, yes, these systems represent "gaps" that must be explained. Whether you put God in those gap is up to you. But naturalistic darwinian evolution -- by definition -- can never fill those gaps.


According to Catholics at what moment did the ransom sacrifice go into effect? At his crucifixion our Lord cried out "My God Why have thou forsaken me?"

A bit later he cries out again and in about that moment he died and there was darkness and earthquake and the temple curtain split in half.

Did the ransom go into effect at that moment or was it upon the shedding of blood when the soldier pierced his side? (Hebrews 9:22) "no forgiveness takes place without the shedding of blood"

Or was when Jesus returned to heaven "to appear for us in Gods presence"?   (Hebrews 9:24)

Or do Catholics have a time frame different than these for when the ransom went into effect?

Catholicism does not necessarily believe that there was a single moment at which Christ redeemed us:

Christ’s whole life is a mystery of redemption. Redemption comes to us above all through the blood of his cross [cf. Eph 1:7; Col 1:13–14; 1 Pet 1:18–19], but this mystery is at work throughout Christ’s entire life:

already in his Incarnation through which by becoming poor he enriches us with his poverty [cf. 2 Cor 8:9];

in his hidden life which by his submission atones for our disobedience [cf. Luke 2:51];

in his word which purifies its hearers [cf. John 15:3];

in his healings and exorcisms by which "he took our infirmities and bore our diseases" [cf. Mt 8:17; Isa 53:4];

and in his Resurrection by which he justifies us [cf. Rom. 4:25].

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 517; all Scripture references taken from footnotes to the passage)
However, the particular aspect of Christ's redemption of us which has to do with our ransom appears to have been fulfilled, that is completed, at the moment of his death:

The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), that is, he "loved [his own] to the end" (Jn 13:1), so that they might be "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [their] fathers" (1 Pet 1:18).
By his loving obedience to the Father, "unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfills the atoning mission (cf. Isa 53:10) of the suffering Servant, who will "make many righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities" (Isa 53:11; cf. Rom 5:19).

(Catechism, paragraphs 622–623)
Along similar lines, Aquinas' Catena Aurea quotes Origen on the passage:

His ministry extended so far, that He fulfilled even in what follows, And to give his life a ransom for many, they, that is, who believed on Him; and gave it, i.e. to death. But since He was alone free among the dead, and mightier than the power of death, He has set free from death all who were willing to follow Him.

(emphasis added)
Thus it appears that our redemption, considered as a whole, is caught up with the whole of Christ's life and death; but his death is primary in ransoming us; so that it is at the moment of his death that the ransom was fulfilled.


The Prohet and the Messiah in John 1:20-21 Why did the Jews in John 1:20-21 ask John the Baptist if he was the Christ and then if he was the Prophet?

Since the coming Prophet mentioned in Deut. 18:18 is the Messiah, it seems that their question was redundant. Or did they just not know that the Prophet and the Messiah were one in the same? I think I may just have answered my own question, but please elaborate.

It’s worth noting that the Jewish religious leaders did not ask John the Baptist outright if he was the Messiah.  They simply asked “Who are you?”  It was John the Baptist who immediately came to the point and said “I am not the Messiah.”  Messiah comes from the Hebrew word ‘mashiach’ and means “anointed one” or “chosen one.”  The Greek equivalent is the word ‘Christos’ or, in English, Christ. The name “Jesus Christ” is the same as “Jesus the Messiah.”

Scripture foretells of TWO prophets to come.  The first would be like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18).  The Jews expected the Messiah (Christ) to bring spiritual leadership and political redemption to Israel – a prophet like Moses.  But there was another prophecy to do with the coming Messiah, the prophecy about Elijah.  Elijah did not die but was taken up into heaven:

  “And as they still went on and talked, behold, chariots of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11).

Why did the delegation from the Sanhedrin ask if John the Baptist was Elijah?

  “Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 3:1).

  “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes” (Malachi 4:5).

The Jews believed that Elijah would return and come back to earth to announce the end time.  They also expected that the prophet like Moses would be associated with the coming of the Messiah.  That is why John was asked if he was Elijah or if he was the Prophet like Moses.  Both prophets would precede the coming of the long-awaited Messiah.

John the Baptist identified himself as the messenger of Isaiah 40:3: “A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”  John the Baptist specifically denied that he was Elijah or that he was the Prophet like Moses or that he was the Messiah (John 1:19-21).  To this day, Jewish Seders include an empty chair at the table in anticipation that Elijah will return to herald the Messiah in fulfillment of Malachi’s word.

The Pharisees who had been sent to question John the Baptist were then forced to acknowledge that John was not the Messiah, he was not Elijah and he was not the Prophet (John 1:25).  The Messiah was identified in Scripture as “the anointed one” – not just a priest, or a prophet, or a king.

  A Samaritan woman said to Jesus, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he” (John 4:25-26).  She also acknowledged that Jesus was a prophet (John 4:19).

  Jesus asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him” (Mark 8:27-30). As we know, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Messiah is, in English, Christ.

In conclusion, the Jews understood that the prophet like Moses and the prophet Elijah were to be the forerunners of the Messiah, God’s Anointed One.

Sources: New Living Translation and New International Version Study Bible notes.  Additional material: https://www.gotquestions.org/promised-messenger-Malachi.html


Where does the tradition come from that Noah's sons went separate directions? I have heard in many places, and was even taught as a child, that Noah's sons, sometime after the Flood, separated and went North, South, and East to repopulate the Earth. The story is commonly used to point out that North, South, and East of where the Ark is said to have settled have three distinct races, which are those of Europe, Africa, and Asia, as this answer mentions and AiG hints on.

The issue is that I cannot find this in the Bible. I see the nations that come from Noah's sons listed in Genesis 10, but that doesn't say the sons went in any particular direction. The story of the Tower of Babel follows in Genesis 11, after it is implied that it has been some time since Noah's sons had died.

From a Google search I found this very detailed description, but there is no source.

Since this doesn't appear to be Biblical, where did this story, or tradition, or theory, come from.

See Josephus' Antiquities Book 1, Chapter 6. He gives a rather detailed interpretation of Genesis 10, identifying what nations he believed the Hebrew terms refer to.

Japhet, the son of Noah, had seven sons: they inhabited so, that, beginning at the mountains Taurus and Amanus, they proceeded along Asia, as far as the river Tansis, and along Europe to Cadiz; and settling themselves on the lands which they light upon, which none had inhabited before, they called the nations by their own names. For Gomer founded those whom the Greeks now call Galatians, [Galls,] but were then called Gomerites. Magog founded those that from him were named Magogites, but who are by the Greeks called Scythians. ....
The children of Ham possessed the land from Syria and Amanus, and the mountains of Libanus; seizing upon all that was on its sea-coasts, and as far as the ocean, and keeping it as their own. ....
Shem, the third son of Noah, had five sons, who inhabited the land that began at Euphrates, and reached to the Indian Ocean. For Elam left behind him the Elamites, the ancestors of the Persians. ....

The quotations (and the text at the link) are the Whiston translation, which is unfortunately written in rather archaic syntax.


What is the 70 weeks prophesied in Daniel chapter nine? In Daniel chapter nine, He prophesies:

  Daniel 9:24  KJV Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish
  the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring
  in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

How can this prophesy be explained?

To explain the 70 week prophesy we have to determine what Daniel meant.

In order to answer the question it is necessary to first understand what Daniel meant by 70 weeks.
We are given a clue in verse 2:

Daniel 9:2  KJV  In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

Jeremiah 25:18  KJV  To wit, Jerusalem, and the cities of Judah, and the kings thereof, and the princes thereof, to make them a desolation, an astonishment, an hissing, and a curse; as it is this day;
Jeremiah 44:2 KJV  Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Ye have seen all the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem, and upon all the cities of Judah; and, behold, this day they are a desolation, and no man dwelleth therein,
here it is worth noting that the use of the term 7 in the Bible is usually a notation meaning complete or total.
The following is pasted from http://www.gotquestions.org/seventy-weeks.html
The Vision is explained by the Angel Gabrielle.
Daniel 9:21  through 23  KJV

21  Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
22  And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
23  At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

Explanation of the Vision:
Daniel 9:24  through 27   KJV

24  Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25  Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

So does this literally mean 70 weeks?
Remember that we said that the number 7 when used in the Bible meant complete or total.
This usage of the number 7 in this case can be construed to indicate completion of time, or that is to say that this period encompasses the Church age, or that period between Christ's death on the cross and his second coming.
The prophet Daniel was given many direct visions and revelations by God through the angel Gabriel
that pertain to the End Times. In fact, he was given so much information that Jesus Himself recommends
that we study and understand what Daniel had to say.
The Divisions of the 70 Weeks quoted from http://www.gotquestions.org/seventy-weeks.html.

In verse 24, Gabriel says, “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city.” Almost all commentators agree that the seventy “sevens” should be understood as seventy “weeks” of years, in other words, a period of 490 years. These verses provide a sort of “clock” that gives an idea of when the Messiah would come and some of the events that would accompany His appearance.
The prophecy goes on to divide the 490 years into three smaller units: one of 49 years, one of 434 years, and one 7 years. The final “week” of 7 years is further divided in half. Verse 25 says, “From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’” Seven “sevens” is 49 years, and sixty-two “sevens” is another 434 years:
49 years + 434 years = 483 years

The prophecy contains a statement concerning God’s six-fold purpose in bringing these events to pass. Verse 24 says this purpose is 1) “to finish transgression,” 2) “to put an end to sin,” 3) “to atone for wickedness,” 4) “to bring in everlasting righteousness,” 5) “to seal up vision and prophecy,” and 6) “to anoint the most holy.”
Notice that these results concern the total eradication of sin and the establishing of righteousness. The prophecy of the 70 weeks summarizes what happens before Jesus sets up His millennial kingdom. Of special note is the third in the list of results: “to atone for wickedness.” Jesus accomplished the atonement for sin by His death on the cross.

Fulfillment of the 70 Weeks

Gabriel said the prophetic clock would start at the time that a decree was issued to rebuild Jerusalem. From the date of that decree to the time of the Messiah would be 483 years. We know from history that the command to “restore and rebuild Jerusalem” was given by King Artaxerxes of Persia c. 445 B.C. (see Nehemiah 2:1-8).
The first unit of 49 years (seven “sevens”) covers the time that it took to rebuild Jerusalem, “with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble”. This rebuilding is chronicled in the book of Nehemiah.
Using the Jewish custom of a 360-day year, 483 years after 445 B.C. places us at A.D. 30, which would coincide with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The prophecy in Daniel 9 specifies that after the completion of the 483 years, “the Anointed One will be cut off” (verse 26). This was fulfilled when Jesus was crucified.
Daniel 9:26 continues with a prediction that, after the Messiah is killed, “the people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” This was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The “ruler who will come” is a reference to the Antichrist, who, it seems, will have some connection with Rome, since it was the Romans who destroyed Jerusalem.

The Final Week of the 70 Weeks

Of the 70 “sevens,” 69 have been fulfilled in history. This leaves one more “seven” yet to be fulfilled. Most scholars believe that we are now living in a huge gap between the 69th week and the 70th week. The prophetic clock has been paused, as it were. The final “seven” of Daniel is what we usually call the tribulation period.
Daniel’s prophecy reveals some of the actions of the Antichrist, the “ruler who will come.” Verse 27 says, “He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’” However, “in the middle of the ‘seven,’ . . . he will set up an abomination that causes desolation” in the temple. Jesus warned of this event in Matthew 24:15. After the Antichrist breaks the covenant with Israel, a time of “great tribulation” begins (Matthew 24:21, NKJV).
Daniel also predicts that the Antichrist will face judgment. He only rules “until the end that is decreed is poured out on him” (Daniel 9:27). God will only allow evil to go so far, and the judgment the Antichrist will face has already been planned out.

Conclusion

The prophecy of the 70 weeks is complex and amazingly detailed, and much has been written about it. Of course, there are various interpretations, but what we have presented here is the dispensational, premillennial view. One thing is certain: God has a time table, and He is keeping things on schedule. He knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10), and we should always be looking for the triumphant return of our Lord (Revelation 22:7).


What does it mean to not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter— when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood? (Isa 58:7 NIV).

Does this mean more like members of the family, or my own physical body? Thanks.

A number of translators interpret "your own flesh" as your family/relatives. Comparison

This passage is a(nother) condemnation of Israel for being phony in their religious observances. God asks them what they think he really wants, then lists things that are actually what he wants. A person always has a higher obligation to his family than to others, and so in this context, I think it makes the most sense to understand it as talking about helping your relatives (esp. your parents).


How do Unitarians explain Hebrews 1:10-12? How do Unitarians explain Hebrews 1:10-12?

10 And,
“In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like clothing;
12 like a cloak you will roll them up,
and like clothing they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will never end.” (NRSV)

These verses are quoted from Psalm 102:25-27, where they are addressed to God, and are applied to Christ in Hebrews 1:10-12

This is a reference to God who created all things aka Gen 1.
It is being re-applied to Jesus. Not to rewrite what was truth, but to add another dimension to it.
We see this pattern with an Immanuel in Is 7:14 and Matt 1:33. The two have no factual connection but the similarities are reapplied with a new focus on the Christ. Many OT passages had fulfilment in their day, but as God designed in to His plan, have much greater significance in Christ.
We can read on to Heb 2:5

5 For He did not subject to angels the world to come, about which we are speaking.

So the context is now evident. Quoting an OT passage and focussing on a new application of it on Christ. This does not undo what was true, but adds the depth God designed in to His word of promise.
Jesus as the firstborn of a new age (Col 1:15,18), which includes all men as brethren (Rom 8:29), is the one who may take the credit for what he accomplished on the cross when he declared, ‘it is finished!’
We can see the initial thread of the message from v1

1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the ages. This last word (ages) is usually translated world or universe which is grossly incorrect. Heb 1:1-2

So Jesus is the figurehead of a new age, even the creator of it as the man given all authority by his Father - and duly deserved!
So the Heb reference in focus is a reiteration of an old glorification of God, now being shared with His triumphant son by the writer of Hebrews.
Jesus being made heir is an absurd concept if (as many presume) he made everything to begin with.
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/hebrews-1-10 For more info.


Who believes the incarnation and resurrection wouldn't have happened without Mary's faith? A group called the Steering Committee for the National Consecration of Ireland to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is, as the name suggests, seeking the consecration of the nation of Ireland to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. In their FAQ, they say (in the answer to the last question):

  Some theologians teach that without Mary’s free fiat of “Let it be done to me according to thy word” God would not have worked the incarnation and others go as far as to say that without her perfect faith at the foot of the cross He would not have worked the resurrection.

Who are these theologians, and how generally accepted is their teaching in the Catholic Church? I'm curious whether there are important Catholic theologians who disagree - basically, whether there's a debate about it.

For the second part specifically - do these theologians suggest that in this case, Jesus would have simply died and not been resurrected? Do they believe that Jesus would have died, and yet our redemption would not have come about?

(I thought we had a past question which touched on the Annunciation part, but I can't find it right now. In any case, I'm pretty sure the second part is new.)

With or without Mary, God does what he intends to do. God tells us so at Isaiah 55:11

  "So my word that goes out of my mouth will be.
  It will not return to me without results,
  But it will certainly accomplish whatever is my delight,
  And it will have sure success in what I send it to do."

If Mary had not found favor in gods eyes, she would not have been used for his purpose. God could have picked any women that fit the prophecy. He chose her because of the qualities he found in her.

Regardless of Mary, Jesus did all that his father instructed him to do. We see from further accounts from the bible, that Jesus's purpose was more than the ransom sacrifice. Jesus also instructed us in what we need to do in order to be saved. Jesus of course met all those requirements and was resurrected.

As for the theologians that that website's FAQ is talking about, I cant find any good research on it. that website has absolutely nothing to help me research, besides key terms that I'm looking for on my own.

I found a few articles, but I'm not sure they will answer your question.

Devotion to the sacred Heart of Jesus, [deleted this one as it just reiterates what you said].... ,Beside the Cross of Jesus  <- this site here has the teachings of the catholic church.

It looks like they are inferring that without Mary, Jesus wouldn't have been born in the flesh. I cant find any article that exclusively says that without Mary's faith Jesus would have not been resurrected.

Also I find it very frustrating that none of these sites show where they got all this information, so I can research it.  Vatican is referenced for a few on that site.
CatholicEducation gives some more of the same insight.


Did Tertullian forbid Christians from being school teachers? While reading Bruce Shelley's Church History in Plain Language, I came across the following quote, in the context of how early Christians separated themselves from the world around them for fear of idolatry:

  Tertullian even forbade a Christian to be a schoolteacher, because such teaching involved using textbooks that told the ancient stories of the gods and called for observing the religious festivals of the pagan year. (page 42)

Shelley doesn't provide a citation for this claim or go into any more detail, so I wonder:

Where does Tertullian say this?
Was the entire profession off-limits, or only certain activities?
Did he also forbid Christians from studying under one of these pagan school teachers?

Prohibition on teaching
Tertullian does indeed forbid Christians from pursuing the profession of a school teacher, in De Idololatria, Chapter 10:

Undoubtedly Christians are not allowed to be schoolmasters or teachers since such men are involved in a variety of idolatrous practices.

He saw the profession of his time and culture to be intimately connected with idolatry, in two main ways, the first being that the pagan gods were an essential subject:

they have to make known the gods, their names, genealogies, etc. which, of course, contributes to idolatry

He goes so far as to call the teacher "a catechist of the idols," as in his teaching "he confirms the preaching of the heathen gods contained in literature; he calls them 'gods', which the Bible forbids."
The second objection Tertullian has to Christians working as teachers is that they are forced to participate in pagan festivals

they have to observe the heathen festivals for the sake of their incomes

Apparently it was financially necessary for teachers to participate in the Quinquatria, a festival to Minerva, because there not only did they supplement their regular incomes with tips, they also attracted new pupils.  And in order to participate in it, they needed to carry a "tablet with the names of the seven idols" (that is, the seven planets).
Not only this, says Tertullian, but some income had to be dedicated to pagan gods, and in honor of another, the school had to be decorated: "the whole pomp of the devil has to be assisted by [the teacher]."
So we see that, to Tertullian, the profession of teaching was so intimately connected with idolatry that he saw no way for a teacher to avoid sinning.  But, as we'll see shortly, he saw great value in education generally, so this prohibition ultimately rests in the sinful activities associated with the profession, not the profession itself.
Studying under a teacher
Tertullian summarizes the natural objection to his view on the teaching profession as follows:

One may object: 'If teaching is not allowed to a Christian, then learning is not so either. This means denying him admittance not only to human education but also to the studia divina'

Tertullian's appreciation for education is evident in his response, in which he argues that "a Christian may go to school":

We must, indeed, admit that a Christian cannot do without literary instruction

So what's the difference, then between being a teacher and being a pupil?  Tertullian explains:

If a Christian teaches, he confirms the preaching of the heathen [...] As a pupil, however, a Christian will behave like the man who receives a cup with poisoned contents from somebody not aware of this fact; he will accept it, but not drink from it.

Summary
Tertullian clearly saw the importance of literary instruction, and affirmed the importance of Christians studying, even under those who teach false things.  However, the close association between the teaching of his day and the honoring and promotion of false gods led him to regard the teaching profession as unsuitable for Christians.

Quotes come from Waszink and Winden's critical edition of De Idololatria, 179ff., which also includes helpful context for Tertullian's argument.  An older translation is also available in Schaff's Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 3.
The original Latin text, with critical apparatus, is available on tertullian.org.


How do you explain the Christian Message to people who have no Christian vocabulary or context? Original Question: Is it possible to give some brief description of Christian faith to non-believing listeners without exposing them to context requiring faith?

If yes, can you provide one? Any term requiring faith (like God, prayer, sermon) should be clarified in the answer using terms clear to non-believers (like love or selfishnes).

By brief I mean to be able to say it under 1 minute in normal speed speech.

This was the original point of "The Four Spiritual Laws. In that scheme:
1. Sin separates us from God
2. We cannot pay for our sin
3. Jesus did pay for that sin by dying on the cross
4. If we trust him, he will take us to heaven.

Even that assessment, however, (substitutionary atonement at its best!) is a bit technical and theological  Below is how I would relate the Gospel to a "newbie" (And note, I am not using them exactly as stated)

You were created to be a good thing, but like all all of us, you haven't lived up to that full potential. None of us is good enough to be what it is that God (the Supreme Being and Creator of all that is) designed us to be. (Gen 1:27, ISA 53:6, Eph 2:10)
Because we are not living up to what God would have us be, there is a penalty- an inability to be with God. Justice demands that as people who fall short of God's glory, we cannot stand in God's presence. (Because God is perfect, and we are not, how could we truly stand to be with someone totally holy? It's like when all those Nazis looked into the Ark of the Covenant and saw the angel of the Lord!  We just aren't strong enough or pure enough to look upon absolute pure holiness. ) (Ex 34:2, Mal 3:2, Rom 3:23, rom 6 &7)
Because of that gap, God realized that he had to make the first step- and here is that good news: that God so loved the world, that even though he was God, he chose to empty himself of being God, in order to find a way that he could both pay that for that penalty, and show us how to live with Him once he returned to his full God-like nature. (John 1, 3:16, Phil 2:5-12)
If we are simply willing to completely trust Him, he is willing to make us fit to stand in his presence, blameless, with great joy! (Prov 3:5-6, Jude 24, 25)
He will cause us to suffer, he will discipline us, and he will command us to do all sorts of things completely contrary to what our"common sense" will tell us to do- but if we completely trust him- if we take Him at his word, we will become his children- heirs in a legal sense. He talks to us through the Bible, through prayer, and by causing things to happen in our lives that force us to learn how to discern his will and lean on him for the strength to do what he would have us do. (Heb 12:1-6, James, Rom 8)
The primary thing that God would have us be is loving. God is love. God desires what is best for us, even if it is not the thing that gives us the most pleasure. He trains us to do the same thing- to love others in the way that he loved us. (Heb 12:1-6, (1 John, 1 Cor 13)