According to Biblical Unitarians, Did Jesus know that he would succeed? Biblical Unitarians believe that Jesus was only a man and that he was given the gift of the holy spirit at his baptism in order to help him resist sinning and complete the purpose for which God the Father sent him.  As near as I can understand BU believe that Jesus had his own will which was sometimes different and even at odds with the will of God (for example, "nevertheless not my will but your will be done").
I think BU would agree that God knew beforehand that Jesus would succeed as evidenced by the large quantity of prophecies given to that effect.  Here are just a couple of examples:

Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted. As many were astonished at you— his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind— so shall he sprinkle many nations. Kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand.- Isaiah 52:13-15

Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities. - Isaiah 53:10-11

Jesus knew the Scriptures very, very well (to say the least) and he both knew what they said about God's Messiah and also that he was that very Messiah:

And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.”
And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” - Luke 4:17-21

He knew ahead of time that he would be handed over to the Gentiles by the Jews, mistreated, killed, and rise from the dead:

for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. And when he is killed, after three days he will rise.” - Mark 9:31

In keeping with all of the Levitical prescriptions for sacrifices, the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is proof that he was successful in offering himself as a sacrifice without any spot or blemish of sin:

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. - 1 Timothy 3:16

I have seen BU content stating that Jesus, since he had a merely human will and was tempted in every way like we are, certainly could have sinned.
Given that Jesus knew he would justify many by rising from the dead and that this resurrection on our behalf required his death in a sinless condition:

Do Biblical Unitarians agree that Jesus must have known ahead of time that he would live a sinless life?

If yes, in what sense can it be said that Jesus "could have" sinned?

The scriptures are very clear - Jesus was a man tempted like us, made like us in every way.

Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect... Heb 2:17

But the OP says Jesus is 'only a man'. No, not like any other man (which is what is implied), but a man without any sin. Yet he is still a man.
There is no room here for a God/man. A God/man is NOT like us in every respect.
We are given no rubbery descriptions of a man who 'gave up his Godliness' so that he could be tempted and die as a man, but who could not fail as God.
If Jesus could not sin, why the charade of being tempted his whole life? - not just in the garden or after his baptism - all his earthly days
What kind of game is God playing at, and the devil playing along too, (as he could never tempt God to sin) why would he bother humouring God with this temptation nonsense? He was up against a second Adam who would defeat him - not by being God, but by relying on God for success - hence the 40 days and 40 nights of fasting before this momentous temptation!
Lucifer wanted to avoid depending on God for his glory - he wanted to have it on his own terms - hence the rebellion. Jesus chose the humble and obedient route and the glory that could never be taken away. Not a glory taken by pride, but given in love and honour by the only true Glory Giver.

During the days of Jesus’ earthly life, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the One who could--- save him from death---, and he was heard because of His reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered. 9 And having been made perfect... Heb 5:7-9

Who is he praying to as God and why?
Can God die? No, nor can He be tempted by evil.
This is not about the cross - it references his whole life - at the very least after his baptism until the uttered words, 'it is finished'.

The son of God is plainly a man and a man plainly - except he began without sin.
Jesus says, without telling fibs,

you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.

What games are we playing with the text to somehow read, 'God heard from God', or that saying he is a man means that he is also God?
He cannot be God for some purposes and not God for others. Pick one and let the text determine if it be true or not. This concept of Jesus being God renders only confusion and forces denial of basic scripture.
Simply being the fleshly mortal man that sprung from God's logos does not make him God. A simple word study of 'logos' will reveal that consistent reality throughout the NT. It does make him holy and without blemish - perfectly suited to be the one sacrifice for sin to redeem the mess begun with Adam. Yet he was still not qualified to be that sacrifice FOR sin.
He had to be made perfect or completed through suffering and the learned obedience that resulted. Does God need to learn obedience? Does God need to be made complete? No, but Jesus did. Because he had to suppress his will and submit to the Father - just as we do.
As God's logos, Jesus was God's word sent out to accomplish a task - a monumental task that only a man could do, and ONLY if he relied on God for all his needs.

So will My word be which goes out of My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the purpose for which I sent it. Isaiah 55:11

Jesus is the living word of God. He is not a predetermined outcome of a (silent) verbal decree from God. He has his own will that must be brought into submission. Not a static string of words, but a dynamic mortal life to accomplish what God had never done before.
When God sends His Holy Spirit into another vessel and 'fills that vessel', there is an increase in desire for God's will and purposes. God does not control that vessel, the vessel still has a will and can object, they still have to resist temptation to serve self. Paul, Peter, John tB, still had human nature that was ever-present. They are not perfect and still need saving. Satan doesn't go on holidays when God is around unless specifically ordered.  Jesus began without sin so didn't require salvation, but still had a human nature that could be influenced by the devil's tricks and subtle deceptions. While Jesus was well aware of these, he still had to resist and choose the Godly way. Clearly, sometimes this was more than difficult.
When Jesus asked for an alternative to 'the cup'(Matt 26:39) this was not God's doing, but Jesus fighting with the devils ploys to undo what had been a perfect run towards the cross.
Jesus knew he would succeed IF he relied on God, HIS God and Father.
This is the summation of what it is to be a Christian - what it is to be the Christ. God will succeed, He will have victory over evil, he will have His beloved creation redeemed!!!
But it will not be by force, decree or fiat, but by love and obedience. Humans think love and obedience are at odds - that is nonsense. That is the deception of what Satan has caused us to think about God and His son. Jesus showed us that it is true. He loved His Father and God and this led to obedience against ALL trial and suffering. Jesus' way would not work out, but God's way would. Jesus' will wasn't the way, God's will was.
We know little of Jesus life pre baptism. We know a lot about it after. If Jesus is God, is he somehow not God at moments of our random choosing? Is he God when he received the Holy Spirit? What was he before this, why is God being given the Holy Spirit?
All these and many more silly questions to force fit Jesus into a trinity dogma that the bible is eerily silent about. (sure there are some 'proof-texts" that taken out of context or reliant on dodgy translations can lead to this kind of thinking, but they are readily understood as intended when the initial constraint of a threeology is removed)
Do Biblical Unitarians agree that Jesus must have known ahead of time that he would live a sinless life?
(I have not commented on the 'Jesus must have known ahead of time' phrase as I'm not sure what this means - what time?, what ahead? As Jesus did not literally pre-exist his conception/birth, any time before that is irrelevant regarding what he would 'know')
We see the OP quotes informing of a successful outcome. God's prophecies always come to fruition - in the way that He intended, at the time He intended, and through whom He intended.
We also know that Jesus prayed to be saved from death during his fleshly life because he could have sinned and fallen short of the perfection required. He tells us he had to surrender his will to the Father - if he had a differing will that needed surrendering, it was then capable of being at odds with God - therefore sin.
How did he manage this testing? Through prayer alone and total dependence of God- just like us. His example was of constant prayer, he exhorted  the disciples to have this attitude and practise Luke 18:1 and many others.
We are called Christians b/c we follow Christ. We are called to live as he lived, we are to behave as he did, to value the things he did. We cannot live as God lives on our own as God does. But we can follow His human son in his example of total dependence on God.  This idea is disingenuous at best - that God sends a son who cannot be beaten and expect us to fall in behind such a charade.
His prayers and his sweat like blood, were they a charade too? If he is God, it would be, as he could not fail and the whole son of God thing, with the sacrifice and the death and the resurrection was a huge farce.
In what sense can it be said that Jesus "could have" sinned?
Simply because he was a man and not God as the scriptures tell us via the NT and OT writers. There is no prophecy of God coming as a man. The seed of Abraham, the seed of the woman, the descendant of David.
God does not have a God, God does not need to be exalted to the place he already had or become heir to what he allegedly already made. Heb 1:2
Conclusion:
Jesus knew he could not sin to be the Lamb, he also knew he could if he let his guard down and thought his way was better, less painful, more expedient, than God's. The scriptures show this humble and fully reliant man on his Father and God as an example for all men to follow and become the brethren, of which he was the firstborn, to the new age of eternal life with God. Col 2:15, Rom 8:29

Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. John 17:3

Finally, God does not triumph over evil by trickery or deceit. He does not by force or supremacy over all, even the devil. He could have!
But no, He does so by love - the love He has for all and the love that He places within us by His spirit - just as He did with His son Jesus. Jesus loved back by the presence of God's spirit and nature.
There is no deception, He says what is, and we must read what is written - without making stuff up or reading what we want it to say. If we are told Jesus is a man, then a man he is - how then can he be God too? Why should we try to make him so against the scriptures?
This answer is gleaned from https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/


What is the difference between an Apostolic Exhortation and an Encyclical Letter? Pope Francis has just released an Apostolic Exhortation called Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel). He also released an Encyclical Letter in the summer called Lumen Fidei (The Light of Faith). What is the difference between these two types of documents? Is one considered to be more important than the other?

Apostolic Exhortation is a type of communication from the Pope that is written to encourage people to undertake an implementation of particular set of recommendations listed in the document.

Encyclical Letter which is usually more important than Apostolic Exhortation is a letter that usually deals with a specific doctrine, where the doctrine is clarified, or explained in greater detail.


What does the Catholic church teach about fate of non-Catholic christians? From what I've heard, The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the only representative authority of God on Earth. Does it indeed claim that, and if so what does it say happens to members of non-Catholic churches when they die?

The Catholic Church is very explicit in its teachings that "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church" (CCC 846).  The only way to enter the Church and become part of the Body of Christ is through baptism.  Thus, baptism is necessary for salvation (CCC 1257).

This is not meant to be interpreted as only Catholics can attain salvation.  Rather, the Church teaches that "anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula (CCC 1256)."  Thus, anyone baptized with water and "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" is part of the Mystical Body of Christ and can attain salvation. To the best of my knowledge, this includes most non-Catholic Christians. (Note there are other forms of baptism recognized, baptism by blood and baptism by desire, but those seem out of scope for this question.)

Now Baptism isn't the only requirement for salvation.  One must also die free from mortal sin (CCC 1033). For a sin to be mortal, that is to be grave enough to cut us off from the life of God, three conditions must be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent." (CCC 1857). This full knowledge includes both knowledge that it is a sin, and that it is a grave matter (CCC 1859).  Thus a sinner who through no fault of his own, believes he is not sinning does not commit a mortal sin.

If one does fall into a state of mortal sin, then normally the sacrament of reconciliation is necessary (CCC 1856) to restore or "reconcile" one with God.  However, it is recognized that a perfect contrition can also attain this forgiveness (CCC 1452).

In conclusion, the Catholic Church teaches that the sacraments of the Church are the surest and easiest way to reach salvation, but it is still possible for other members of the Body of Christ to enter Heaven.


Is a "skeptical viewpoint" more objective than "Christian viewpoint" in matters of theology? Based on a recent discussion, the assertion was made that a skeptical viewpoint allows one to be more objective, even in matters of theology. Is this demonstrably true?

When evaluating Christian claims, one must use a certain epistemological framework.  The question is, does a presumption of belief in the Scripture somehow negate one's ability to be "objective" and "dispassionate" about the claims it makes? In other words, does the presumption of truth so fatally bias the questioner as to make philosophical reasoning invalid.

Definitions
Lets start with some definitions:

"Skepticism or Scepticism has many definitions, but generally
refers to any questioning attitude towards knowledge, facts, or
opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are
taken for granted elsewhere."
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept which has been
variously defined by sources. A proposition is generally considered to
be objectively true when its truth conditions are met and are
"mind-independent"—that is, not met by the judgment of a conscious
entity or subject.
Bias is an inclination to present or hold a partial perspective at the expense of (possibly equally valid) alternatives.

Also worth noting is the difference between objectivity and bias:

Biased means a personal preference is expressed.
Objective means both or numerous sides are expressed without a preference being expressed.

And for "Christian viewpoint", one could refer to one of two positions (one more moderate and one more devoted):

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Christian apologetics is a field of Christian theology that aims to present a rational basis for the Christian faith, defend the faith against objections, and expose the perceived flaws of other world views.

So what is the main difference between a skeptic, and a Christian theist? A theist believes that God of the Bible and Jesus exist (therefore, it is a "fact" to them, nor a mere "possibility"), whereas a skeptic takes no assumption (is neither agnostic, saying that one can't know if God exists, nor atheist stating that there is no God, but is open to the possibility that God might or might not exist).
What is a difference between a Christian theist and a Christian apologetic? An apologetic defends the faith against objections, and exposes the perceived flaws of other views. An apologetic is therefore biased towards his or her system of belief.
Good or bad at answering questions
What makes an apologetic better for answering theological questions? Quite often they know a lot on the subject of the given religion they support, and can present numerous claims supporting their viewpoints. They are devoted to proving their point right, so they will not try to omit any evidence supporting their claim, no matter how insignificant. So in general, they can present all there is about a given subject from the point of view of what they are supporting.
What makes an apologetic worse for answering theological questions? As per definition, they defend their faith against objection, which can be accomplished by not presenting alternatives to their views, or by misrepresenting some facts in their favour (for example, Kitzmiller v. Dover and claiming ID is not a religious belief). Moreover, sometimes apologetics resort to using faulty logic to prove their point (for example, even if one can prove that evolution is wrong, that would not prove intelligent design, despite some people implying that).
What makes a theist better for answering theological questions? By definition they believe in something, so they have to know at least a bit about the subject. They can be devoted to giving answers about their faith and could enjoy talking about the subject. Depending on their world view they can be more open to alternatives than apologetics and admit that some believes are not based on facts.
What makes a theist worse for answering theological questions? Some might not consider alternatives to their beliefs, some might choose not to mention it, or would be uncomfortable talking about it (taboo)
What makes a skeptic better for answering theological questions? They hold nothing as fact until it is proven, so they can consider and present more alternatives to a given problem. This can provide an insight that could be omitted by a theist (for example, Polish Catholics idolize pope John Paul II, but would seldom acknowledge him being conservative on doctrine, sexuality and ordination of women). Generally, they are comfortable exploring both sides of an argument and reaching their conclusion from it.
What makes a skeptic worse for answering theological questions? Generally, being a skeptic says nothing about one's interest or knowledge, so the person in question might not have any knowledge on a given subject. Sometimes skepticism can be close to pyrrhonism ("nothing can be known"), or contemporary cynicism (lack of faith and hope in human race), therefore rendering the "answer" into an open-ended "debate" with oneself. Skeptics disparage in regards to values hold sacred by theists can be viewed by some as trolling, or attempts at personally attacking them.
Which view is biased?
By definition, apologetics are strongly biased. Theists can be biased, but have an easier time being objective. Skeptics by definition are not biased in favour of the thing they are skeptic about, but they can be biased against that thing.
Which views are useful?
All of them. If one is looking for answer to a theological question based on a specific doctrine ("What does the Bible say about..."), an apologetic and a theist can present an exhaustive answer on the subject, as they are interested in learning a lot about their faith and scripture. If one is looking for an answer to a question that bridge between religious and non-religious world view ("Is there scientific evidence for creationism?"), a theist and a skeptic can remain objective on the matter and present a balanced opinion. Each view should be applied where it is relevant.
TL;DR
Apologetics are strongly biased, theists can be biased in favour of religion, skeptics can be biased against something. All can give good answers, but most in their area of expertise.


why can the devil offer riches? Often people talk about the devil offering one all these material things if one should worship him.
People even believe that they can become rich and famous if they sell their soul, Why is this!?
The devil even tempted Christ with the wealth of all the nations.

Why can the devil do this? Why does he have all this "wealth" to offer?

Here's the passage where Satan tempts Jesus in this way:

  Matthew 4:8-10 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.” Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’”

Notice how Satan is offering the kingdoms of the world, not the riches. Satan doesn't have banks of gold, but what he can do is lie and blind people to the truth.

  2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ESV And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

He has a deceptive stranglehold on the evil rulers of the world and that is what he was offering to Jesus; or at least what he was claiming to offer.

Also, stories about people mystically "selling their soul" to the devil are pure fantasy tales and not in scripture, unless to "sell one's soul" just means to do evil and revel in it--a lot of that happens.


Can a church pastor prohibit sacraments to people for any reason, other than mortal sin? A friend of ours alerted us to an example (maybe there are more) of a Catholic Church (took a little checking to make sure it was really a Catholic Church) that is only allowing people who are vaccinated to receive confessions.  Now, this seems like a constitutional crisis of faith to me.

Does this somehow tie vaccinations to grave matter?  Does it mean there are no private confessions?  Is this even legal, under church law?  What happens if you want to go to confession, but not get vaccinated (or you can't get vaccinated for whatever reason)?

As in most such cases: It depends on the context and is complicated. The relevant norms of the CIC are:

Can. 213 The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.

Can. 980 If the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent, and the penitent seeks absolution, absolution is to be neither refused nor deferred.

Can. 991 Every member of the Christian faithful is free to confess sins to a legitimately approved confessor of his or her choice, even to one of another rite.

Can. 980 (cited by Geremia) applies only to this situation: After the penitent stated his/her sins the priest does not want to give absolution because of non-spiritual reasons (personal differences etc.). This is not allowed. The norm does not say something about someone wanting to confess but not getting an appointment. In this case the condition "the confessor has no doubt about the disposition of the penitent" cannot be fullfilled.
More relevant are cann. 213 and 980. Every member of the faithful have a right to the sacraments, esp. to confession with a priest of his/her choice.
But to have a right does not mean, you can use it under every circumstances. If your selected priest has no time/is ill/... you will have to wait. And a if a pandemic compels some hygienic measures you will have to confess under that circumstances. If the vaccine reduces the risk of a confession I see no problem to differentiate between vaccinated and not-vaccinated christians.
The screenshot seems very harsh. But I have the strong presumption that it does not represent the full picture. Most priests will find possibilities to hear confessions as safe as possible, if someone really want. But they may also ask, if the penitent could wait a few weeks/months. That the public opportunities to confess are bound to vaccination seems justifiable to me. For the others one may find individual solutions.
The wording of the screenshot suggests before the vaccination-rule there was no possibility to confess. So let's celebrate there is more freedom now and not complain that the pandemic is not yet over!
The church wants to bring the grace of God in the sacraments to every human in the world. But it is restricted in its means by the earthly circumstances. This is not new, but we notice it in this pandemic in a hard way.


What is the Roman Catholic view on Matthew 23:9? In Matthew 23:9, Jesus says:

Matthew 23:9 (NIV)
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

What is the Roman Catholic view on this? In the Roman Catholic Church there are at least two titles that are based on the word father: abbot (head of a monastery) and pope (head of the Church). In addition to this, it is common to address a priest with the title father (at least in fiction). How do the Roman Catholic Church reconcile these two facts?

It's pretty blatant hyperbole, evidenced by the fact that St. Peter and St. Paul both used the term "father" in their letters freely and repeatedly.
In Romans 4:11-12:

11And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal on the righteousness received through faith while he was uncircumcised. Thus he was to be the father of all the uncircumcised who believe, so that to them [also] righteousness might be credited,
12as well as the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised, but also follow the path of faith that our father Abraham walked while still uncircumcised.

In Romans 9:10:

And not only that, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one husband, our father Isaac

In 1 Corinthians 4:15:

Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

In 1 Thessalonians 2:11:

As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children,

In 1 Timothy 5:1:

Do not rebuke an older man, but appeal to him as a father. Treat younger men as brothers,

In Hebrews 12:9:

Besides this, we have had our earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not [then] submit all the more to the Father of spirits and live?

In James 2:21:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?

In 1 John 2:13:

I am writing to you, fathers, because you know him who is from the beginning.
I am writing to you, young men, because you have conquered the evil one.

St. Paul also used it in Acts 22:1:

“My brothers and fathers, listen to what I am about to say to you in my defense.”

As well as St. Stephen in Acts 7:2:

And he replied, “My brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he had settled in Haran,

The list of references to the apostles calling people (or themselves) fathers continues on from there.
The dead giveaway though is in Matthew 19:18-19, when Jesus himself makes mention of worldly fathers in his recitation of the commandments:

18He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness;
19honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Jesus was known for using hyperbole as a rhetorical device. Consider Matthew 5:29-30:

29If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away.s It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna.
30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.

Obviously, Jesus doesn't mean for you to pluck your eye out or cut your hand off.
So if it's not meant to be taken literally, what was the point Jesus was trying to convey? For that, I turn to an essay on Catholic Answers, which was declared nihil obstat by the Censor Librorum of the Archdiocese of San Diego:

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. [...] To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.
[...]
This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a "cult of personality" around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.


Mark 10:29-30 vs Matthew 19:28-29: when will we receive our reward? Why is there a difference between Mark 10:29-30 and Matthew 19:28-29?

  Matthew 19:28-29 (NIV)
   Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.

  Mark 10:29-30 (NIV)
  “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.

Matthew seems to have Jesus talking about Heaven/the Kingdom of Heaven but Mark seems to have Jesus promising great rewards "now"? Which would make sense if you love your Church family as much as your genetic one but 'lands'??? What with the hey?! One of them must be misleading because they can't both be correct accounts of Jesus's words!

I don't see Matthew as referring exclusively to the next life. Why do you think that is what it is saying?

In fact, Matthew doesn't give a time frame, therefore, it is less exact, but not contradicting Mark. They are both saying the same thing. Even in other translations, I see it as reading into the text of Matthew to say that it is referring exclusively to the next life. The text of Matthew merely says that those things will be given one hundred fold, and the text of Mark says this as well, but clarifies that it will be given now, and eternal life will be in the next life.


What paths exist in the Catholic Church for a certain theological position to become recognized as dogma? I'm trying to parse the words carefully to say "recognized as dogma" instead of "become dogma", but basically.  How does a bill become a law, according to the Catholic Church.

If, for instance, a group of neo-Origenists went balls to the wall interpreting the Bible to mean that souls preexist conception.  What processes are in place to move a something that most Catholics assent to (i.e. the human soul is created at the moment of conception) to something on the level of Doctrine or Dogma?

It seems you're asking how a material (definable) dogma becomes a formal (defined) dogma.

material (definable) dogma: a truth revealed by God that the Church has not yet proposed one has to believe under pain of mortal sin against faith and excommunicationanalogous to a legislator's "bill"

formal (defined) dogma: "A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God"*analogous to a legislator's "law"

*On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them by Father Sixtus Cartechini S.J. (Rome, 1951)(source)
Steps a pope takes to define a dogma
1. Determine if the proposition is true and definable
Before defining dogma, a pope first needs to establish that the truth he intends to define can be defined.
Certain things are not definable at all, because they are not true or known to be true (e.g., "black = white" or "the world will end at 12:34 PM GMT on January 24, 2025"*) or because they do not pertain to the faith or morals (e.g., "2+2=4" couldn't be defined as a dogma).
*Knowing this would be contrary to Revelation, which says the time and hour is only known to the Father in heaven.
Example
To determine the definability of the dogma of the Assumption, Pope Pius XII consulted all the world's bishops, as he relates in Munificentissimus Deus:

And, since we were dealing with a matter of such great moment and of such importance, we considered it opportune to ask all our venerable brethren in the episcopate directly and authoritatively that each of them should make known to us his mind in a formal statement. Hence, on May 1, 1946, we gave them our letter "Deiparae Virginis Mariae," a letter in which these words are contained: "Do you, venerable brethren, in your outstanding wisdom and prudence, judge that the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith? Do you, with your clergy and people, desire it?"

(source)
Although a pope has the authority to define a dogma without asking for counsel regarding its definability, it would be rash not to seek counsel.(source)
2. Define it.
Once it is established that the proposition is a definable truth (material dogma), the material dogma can become a formal dogma if the pope

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

(source)
Example
The declaration/pronouncement/definition of the dogma of the Assumption (Munificentissimus Deus):

[…] by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.


How many hells did Swedenborg say there were? In G.K. Chesteron's essay "The Red Angel," found in the collection Tremendous Trifles, he remarks:

  One small child in the dark can invent more hells than Swedenborg.

What is Chesterton referring to here? How many hells did Swedenborg think there were?

G.K. Chesterton is here referring to Swedenborg's common (for him) and somewhat unusual (in general religious writing) expression "the hells."
In his voluminous theological writings, Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772) spoke both of "hell" in the singular and of "the hells" in the plural, depending upon the context and the point he was making. In fact, based on context and subject matter, there are three general answers to the question of how many hells Swedenborg said there were:

One hell
Three hells
Too many hells to count

This arrangement draws on the philosophical and esoteric concept of "macrocosm and microcosm," which is a fairly common theme in Swedenborg's theological writings.
1. One hell
As in general religious usage, Swedenborg commonly refers to "hell" in the singular. For example, his very first reference to hell in his published theological writings occurs early in his first published theological work:

I have been taught about the different kinds of spirits, the situation of souls after death, hell, (or the regrettable state of the faithless), and heaven (or the blissful state of the faithful). (Secrets of Heaven #5, italics added)

In the opening paragraph of his treatment of hell in his book Heaven and Hell he uses both the singular and the plural in referring to heaven and to hell:

In the earlier discussion of heaven, it was made clear throughout (particularly in #2–6) that the Lord is the God of heaven and that the whole government of the heavens is in the Lord's hands. Since the relationship of heaven to hell and of hell to heaven is like that of two opposites that act against each other, with the action and reaction yielding the state of equilibrium within which everything exists, in order for absolutely everything to be kept in this balance, it is necessary that the ruler of the one be the ruler of the other as well. That is, unless the same Lord controlled the attacks of the hells and restrained their madness, the balance would be destroyed; and if the balance were destroyed, everything else would go. (Heaven and Hell #536, italics added)

In Swedenborg's usage "hell" in the singular refers to the entirety of hell, including all of its regions and parts—which are also individually referred to as "hells."
2. Three hells
In line with Paul's reference to "the third heaven" in 2 Corinthians 12:2, Swedenborg stated that there are three heavens, forming three levels one above the other, or three rings of a concentric circle:

There are three heavens, very clearly distinguished from each other. There is a central or third heaven, an intermediate or second one, and an outmost or first. These follow in sequence and are interdependent, like the highest part of the human body, the head; the middle, or torso; and the lowest, or feet; or like the highest, middle, and lowest parts of a house. (Heaven and Hell #29)

Similarly, he said that there are also three hells opposite to these three heavens:

Because there are three heavens overall, there are also three hells overall. There is a deepest hell that is opposite to the inmost or third heaven; there is a middle hell that is opposite to the middle or second heaven; and there is a highest hell that is opposite to the outmost or first heaven. (Heaven and Hell #542)

Note that since hell is a distorted and inverted reflection of heaven, the highest, or least malevolent hell is opposite to the lowest, or least exalted heaven; and the lowest, or most malevolent hell is opposite to the highest, or most exalted heaven—similar to a mountain whose upside-down reflection appears in a lake.
3. Too many hells to count
In addition to speaking of all of heaven and all of hell collectively in the singular as "heaven" and "hell," and in addition to speaking of there being three heavens and three hells overall, Swedenborg also stated that heaven and hell are divided into myriad communities, each of which is referred to as "a heaven" or "a hell" in its own right.
Further, even each individual angel can be referred to as "a heaven," and by extension, each individual evil spirit in hell as "a hell."
About heaven being distinguished and divided into communities, Swedenborg wrote:

The Heavens Are Made Up of Countless Communities
The angels of any given heaven are not all together in one place, but are separated into larger and smaller communities depending on differences in the good effects of the love and faith they are engaged in. Angels engaged in similar activities form a single community. There is an infinite variety of good activities in heaven, and each individual angel is, so to speak, his or her own activity. (Heaven and Hell #41)

About each angelic community and each individual angel being a heaven, Swedenborg wrote:

Each Community Is a Heaven in Smaller Form and Each Angel a Heaven in Smallest Form
The reason each community is a heaven in smaller form and each angel a heaven in smallest form is that the activity of love and faith is what makes heaven. This good activity is in every community of heaven and in every angel of a community. It does not matter that this activity is different and distinctive everywhere, it is still the activity of heaven. The only difference is that heaven has one activity here and another there. So whenever anyone is raised into any community of heaven, they say that he or she has arrived in heaven. They say of those who are there that they are in heaven, each in his or her own. All the people who have arrived in the other life realize this; so individuals who are standing outside or below heaven and looking off into the distance where there is a gathering of angels say that heaven is there—and over there as well.
It is rather like the situation of officials and functionaries and servants in a royal palace or court. Even though they live individually in their dwellings or in their rooms, some higher than others, still they are in a single palace or a single court, each one involved in a particular function in the service of the king. We can see from this what is meant by the Lord's saying that "in my Father's house there are many dwellings" (John 14:2) and by "the stories of heaven" and the "heavens of heavens" in the prophets. (Heaven and Hell #51)

Later he applies the same principle to hell:

Because hell is differentiated into as many communities as heaven is, there are also as many hells as there are communities of heaven. As each community of heaven is a heaven in smaller form (see #51–58), so each community of hell is a hell in smaller form. (Heaven and Hell #542)

Although I am not aware of any place where Swedenborg stated explicitly that each evil spirit in hell is a hell in smallest form, the inverse parallelism that he established between heaven and hell suggests that the same principle would apply to hell as well.
Based on this, if Swedenborg spoke of each community of hell as "a hell" (in smaller form), and by extension, if even each individual evil spirit in hell could be considered "a hell" (in smallest form), then according to Swedenborg there are too many of these smaller and individual hells to count.
This, I suspect, is what Chesterton was referring to in his line:

One small child in the dark can invent more hells than Swedenborg.

If I am correct, Chesterton was using Swedenborg's countless hells as a rhetorical device to convey with a touch of wry humor the idea that small children can conjure up in their imaginations more monsters, bogies, and goblins (to use Chesterton's own words in the immediate context of the quoted line) than it is possible to count.


How many writings of those who were disciples of the first 12 apostles (plus Paul) are available today? How many writings of those who were disciples of the first 12 apostles, plus Paul, are available today? There's no need to include Mark and Luke as their writings are included in the Bible.

The group you're referring to is known as the Apostolic Fathers. The exact number is unknown, because some writings cannot be dated precisely.

These writings we can say with some confidence are from the Apostolic Fathers:

1 Clement, a letter written by Clement of Rome, a disciple of Peter. He may also be the same Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3. There is also a letter called 2 Clement, but it is generally believed to have been written by a later author.
Polycarp's letter to the Philippians. Polycarp was a disciple of John, and a martyr in the early second century.
Seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch, who was also martyred in the early second century. He was a friend of Polycarp and probably a disciple of John.
Fragments of the writings of Papias of Hierapolis. Papias is known to have written five books, which were often quoted by later Christians. Papias' own writings have since been lost, but the quotes from them survive in later works. Papius was also a disciple of John.
The Shepherd of Hermas was considered Scripture by some early Christians, and actually appears in some early copies of the New Testament. By later consensus it was excluded from the NT because it came from the second generation of Christians, not the first.

These writings may or may not belong to that generation:

The Didache. The full Greek title translates to "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles". Some scholars believe these teachings were collected by the first disciples of the apostles, but other scholars believe this was a later work.
The Apology of Quadratus of Athens. Quadratus was the first Christian apologist. Unfortunately, like the works of Papias, Quadratus' apology survives only in fragments quoted by later writers.
The Apology of Aristides. This  was believed lost for many centuries, until a copy was found in 1889 in St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai.
The Epistle of Barnabas, attributed to Barnabas who traveled with Paul. Most scholars believe this was actually written by someone else.
The Disputation of Jason and Papiscus attributed to Aristo of Pella. Survives only in fragments.
The Epistle to Diognetus. The letter is attributed to "Mathetes", meaning "Disciple". The author calls himself "a Disciple of Apostles", but does not otherwise identify himself.
The Martyrdom of Polycarp, written by someone who knew Polycarp. Whether they were of the same generation, we can't be sure.


Why did Luther add the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28? Luther added the German word "allein" (alone) to Romans 3:28 despite the fact that it is not in the Greek texts. Why did Luther add the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28?

  So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des
  Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben.

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

REFERENCE:

(Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):


Where can we find the official records of canonizations? Famous Catholic saints are often surrounded by various popular beliefs. Or sometime there is little that is actually known about the life of a saint (e.g. we don't seem to know that much about Thomas Aquinas). Is there an official website where the Vatican provides the official canonization documents of saints (old or recent)?

Where can we find the official records of canonizations?

If one were to look with some difficulty and in very specific Catholic libraries, such as some traditional monastic or seminaries, you may be able to find a copy in the reference section the source you are looking for.

The following book published by the Vatican (Congregatio pro Causis Sanctorum) every so many years has the information you desire:

Index ac Status Causarum Beatificationis Servorum Dei et Canonizationis Beatorum

The status of every single person proposed for sainthood is in there. When cults of saints are suppressed, it will state why. Every canonization and beatification is alphabetically listed. It is however only in Latin and is hard to find.

The Holy See is not a fan of putting all their richness of information online. Thus many researchers must make use of the now slower method: books and other documents!


What is the Catholic/Anglican understanding of how the Sacrament of Reconciliation began? How did the Sacrament of Reconciliation begin?

I have tried to find this answer but can not trust Wikipedia and do not need any more answers for when it came to be.

Your title implies that you are looking for an answer from a "Catholic-Anglican" perspective, but perhaps you will also accept an answer from the Eastern Orthodox perspective, which shares a common early Church tradition.

In the Orthodox understanding, the Sacrament of Reconciliation (or Repentance) was instituted by Christ Himself:

  The Lord instituted the Mystery of Repentance after His Resurrection,
  when, having appeared to His disciples who, except for Thomas, were
  gathered together, He solemnly said to them: Peace be unto you....
  And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them:
  Receive ye the Holy Spirit. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are
  remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained
  (John 20: 21– 23). Moreover, even before this, Christ the Saviour
  twice uttered a promise about this Mystery. The first time He said to
  the Apostle Peter, when Peter, on behalf of all the Apostles, had
  confessed Him to be the Son of God: I will give unto thee the keys of
  the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall
  be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be
  loosed in heaven (Matt. 16: 19). The second time He testified to all
  the Apostles: If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee
  as a heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you: whatsoever ye
  shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall
  loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 18: 17–18).1

This accords with how the "Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation" is explained within the Vatican's Catechism of the Catholic Church 2.2.2.4.VI, which cites these same passages.

The commentary on Canon XI of the First Ecumenical Council in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series provides an overview of the how epithemia (penance) was viewed and administered in the early Church.  This can be summarized:2

  In the ancient Church there existed a rite of public repentance for
  the “fallen,” and in particular for those who had not held firm in the
  faith during the persecutions. According to this rite, the penitents
  were divided into four classes: (a) the “weepers,” who did not have
  the right to be present at the public Divine services and, stretching
  out their hands off the church porch, with weeping would beg those who
  entered the church to pray for them; (b) the “hearers,” for whom it
  was permitted to be in the narthex of the church all the way to the
  end of the liturgy of the Catechumens; (c) the “prostrators,” who
  entered the church itself but also did not participate in the Liturgy
  of the Faithful (after the Liturgy, on bended knees, they were
  vouchsafed the pastoral blessing); and (d) the class of those who
  “stood together” with the faithful for the whole Liturgy, but could
  not receive Communion of the Holy Mysteries.

The First Ecumenical Council was recognized by all five of the ancient Sees in antiquity, including Rome.

1  Michael Pomazanski, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.), p.293
2 Ibid.


According to the Eastern Orthodox, in what sense did the Theotokos (Virgin Mary) give birth to Christ's divinity? Nestorianism would claim that Mary only gave birth to Christ's humanity.  When I thought about it and considered it, I realized my prior attitude towards the Virgin Birth had been somewhat Nestorian, and so now I'm awe-struck at the fact, according to Orthodox understanding, that Mary gave birth to both Christ's humanity and divinity in some way.

How far does this go?  How does a finite, created being give birth to the pre-eternal God who existed before the Ages, including His divinity?  As we say in Small Compline in the hymn 'Awed by the beauty', "I am in doubt, and stand in awe", but yet, I want to know, how much does the Eastern Orthodox Church know on this topic?  In what sense did the Virgin give birth to the Divine?  Was the Divine Nature recreated through her, or was she somehow infused with the Divine Nature so that Christ inherited it from her in birth? How much do we know?  What do the Saints say on this topic?

You answered your question that Mary gave birth to Christ, full stop. This same Christ who walked the earth and was the child of Mary is the God-man.  Mary gave birth to the one cohesive person who is Jesus Christ. The second hypostasis of the Trinity entered her womb and took flesh of her and made it his own. This is called the hypostatic union.
Nestorianism believes that Christ is a duality of persons. The human person born of Mary and second person of the Trinity who occupied this mere man Jesus as a temporary receptacle.
The canonical epistles of Cyril to Nestorius presented at Ephesus 431 AD explain the Orthodox understanding:

For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was called the Son of Man....Because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ.
Confessing the Word to be made one with the flesh according to substance, we adore one Son and Lord Jesus Christ: we do not divide the God from the man, nor separate him into parts, as though the two natures were mutually united in him only through a sharing of dignity and authority (for that is a novelty and nothing else), neither do we give separately to the Word of God the name Christ and the same name separately to a different one born of a woman; but we know only one Christ, the Word from God the Father with his own Flesh....
Besides, what the Gospels say our Saviour said of himself, we do not divide between two hypostases or persons. For neither is he, the one and only Christ, to be thought of as double, although of two (natures) and they diverse, yet he has joined them in an indivisible union, just as everyone knows a man is not double although made up of soul and body, but is one of both. Wherefore when thinking rightly, we transfer the human and the divine to the same person....And since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word had the beginning of its existence from the flesh.


How do the Jehovah's witnesses reconcile Isaiah 44:24 with their belief that Jesus is the only direct creation of God? Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is God's only direct creation, and that it was Jesus who created all other things:

  Since all created things had a beginning, there was a time when God was alone. Countless ages ago, however, God became a Creator. Who was his first creation? The last book of the Bible identifies Jesus as “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) Jesus is “the firstborn of all creation.” That is so “because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible.” (Colossians 1:15, 16) Yes, Jesus was the only one directly created by God himself. (Who Is Jesus Christ? on wol.jw.org)

We see this most clearly in the Jehovah's Witnesses translation of Colossians 1:15-16:

  Colossians 1:15-16 (NWT) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him.

But Isaiah 44:24 says that it was Jehovah who created all things by himself: note the last line of Isaiah 44:24 which says that no one else was with Jehovah, probably speaking primarily about humans, but also angels and other spiritual beings, which would seem to preclude God co-creating with Jesus.

  Isaiah 44:24 (NWT): This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser,
  Who formed you since you were in the womb:
  “I am Jehovah, who made everything.
  I stretched out the heavens by myself,
  And I spread out the earth.
  Who was with me?

How do the Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile Isaiah 44:24 with their belief that Jesus is the only direct creation of God and it was Jesus who created all other things?

Question based on various revisions of this now deleted question by Mr. Bond.

Jehovah’s Witnesses DON’T believe that Jesus created all other things. Jehovah alone was the creator.  We DO believe that.

Colossians 1:15-16 (NWT) ............ All other things have been created through him and for him.

Notice through him not by him. Take a look at
Insight Vol 2

  If the estimates of modern-day scientists as to the age of the physical universe are anywhere near correct, Jesus’ existence as a spirit creature began thousands of millions of years prior to the creation of the first human. (Compare Mic 5:2.) This firstborn spirit Son was used by his Father in the creation of all other things. (Joh 1:3; Col 1:16, 17) This would include the millions of other spirit sons of Jehovah God’s heavenly family (Da 7:9, 10; Re 5:11), as well as the physical universe and the creatures originally produced within it. Logically, it was to this firstborn Son that Jehovah said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” (Ge 1:26) All these other created things were not only created “through him” but also “for him,” as God’s Firstborn and the “heir of all things.” —Col 1:16; Heb 1:2.
  Not a co-Creator. The Son’s share in the creative works, however, did not make him a co-Creator with his Father. The power for creation came from God through his holy spirit, or active force. (Ge 1:2; Ps 33:6) And since Jehovah is the Source of all life, all animate creation, visible and invisible, owes its life to him. (Ps 36:9) Rather than a co-Creator, then, the Son was the agent or instrumentality through whom Jehovah, the Creator, worked. Jesus himself credited God with the creation, as do all the Scriptures. —Mt 19:4-6

The fact that Jesus played a role Under the direction of the ultimate creator does not take away from the fact that Jehovah alone is the creator.

The context of Isaiah 44 is not dealing with the subject of how Jehovah accomplished creation. It is establishing him as the Almighty Creator.

So the answer is there is not a textual discrepancy between saying all other things were created through Jesus and Jehovah saying in Isaiah I alone created the heavens. The source of dynamic energy responsible for every creation is Jehovah the eternally existing Almighty God. The methodology and instrumentality used in creation need not be mentioned by Jehovah when he declares he created the heavens.

That’s the basics of JWs answer.

A very detailed answer to this question was written about 7 years ago on Yahoo Answers it was reposted on this site which is easier to  access.


Does the Bible advocate ethical egoism? Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest.

According to ethical egoism, I should only do what benefits me. That doesn't mean I must be the only benefactor. Ethical egoism does allow for others also benefiting from my actions, only so long as the act also serves my long-term interests.

The Bible could be seen as advocating a similar view. I must have faith because without it I can't be saved, and being saved is in my long-term interest.

Does the Bible advocate ethical egoism?

Short Answer, No.

1. The model of Jesus argues against it

In laying down His life for creatures he made, Jesus had absolutely nothing to gain. Being God, he is in no way contingent upon us. Despite this, he willing gave up the perks of being God, humbled himself, and became obedient unto death - even the death of a cross! Now, yes, because of this, at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father. (Phillippians 2:5-12) But remember, he was already God, so it wasn't needed. So, from the standpoint of Jesus, the answer would have to be no.

2. Biblical teaching argues against it

When Jesus said, "You must take up your cross, and follow me," he did so knowing there would be no gain. When Jesus said, Blessed are you when men shall persecute you and revile you for My names sake, he was being clear that this was not a path to power, riches, or fame. Even Peter admitted that the disciples had given up houses and family- and Jesus replied that they wouldn't be paid back for any of those things in this life. So, from an instructional point of view, the answer must be no.

In Acts 5, when the first believers came together, they willingly shared all they had in common. From a Randian perspective, for example, this is sheer lunacy. To give up all they had just out of love is completely contradictory. So, from an early practioner's point of view, the answer would have to be no.

Furthermore, James and many others stress humility - that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.  Using the term doulous (a slave), Christians are regularly told that their duty is to serve one another in Christ, and that "the first shall be last, and the last first - " all the exact opposite of self-interested service of any kind.

3. The definition of Love argues against it

Overall, the major theme of Johanine literature is the idea that people should be able to recognize Christians by their love. Love often involves a cost - As Jesus said, no greater love hath a man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. Jesus showed his love for us in this - that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us!  Likewise, Paul explicitly defines love as something that "Seeketh not its own" (1 Cor 13).  So, from a theological point of view, the answer would be no.

4. Original Sin suggests that grace overrides man's choice anyway

Finally, far more Christians adhere to the Calvinistic doctrine of Total Depravity than its heretical opposite (which I now know to call Pelagianism). Total Depravity says that as a result of original sin, man's will has a fundamental defect that prevents it from seeking God on its own. That man can be saved is an act of grace - unmotivated by selfish interest from a perfect God - and (as Paul says), not through any work, lest any man should boast.  In other words - even if man is inherently self-interested in the out come of faith, it isn't really a choice he is even capable of making in the first place.  (Here, some Arminians might say that God supernaturally enables man to make a free choice - but even there, the act of grace is required to get man to the place where he can choose in the first place.)

tl;dr>

In short, I can't think of a way to make Rand and Jesus go together. So, from a answer standpoint, I'd have to say, no.


Was there a sacrifice in the Old Testament for intentional sins? When reading through the law in the Old Testament it seems that there are only sacrifices for unintentional sins. Is this true? How does the New Testament handle intentional sins such as drunkenness, lust, bad habits, etc? And, how does the Old Testament deal with these sins as far as forgiveness goes?

The Old Testament is clear that only unintentional sins can be atoned for:

  One and the same law applies to everyone who sins unintentionally, whether a native- born Israelite or a foreigner residing among you.
   “‘But anyone who sins defiantly, whether native- born or foreigner, blasphemes the Lord and must be cut off from the people of Israel. (Numbers 15:29-30, NIV)

The idea of 'intentional' is better understood as 'defiant' or 'high handed'. Unintentional therefore includes many sins committed due to want of knowledge, through weakness, or where the offender did not really understand his guilt. Intentional sin, is not that you were consciously aware of sinning, like when King David committed adultery, rather it is more of a public defiance against the covenant, like the man stoned for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Num 15:32), just after God had declared that the whole camp should not work on the Sabbath.  This open rebellion during the establishment of the ceremony was like a spirit of mutiny on a ship at sea. This is what 'intentional' means in this context.

The punishment of 'cut off' is understood differently by various ancient and modern commentators. However as many 'high handed' sins were punishable by death, the term should not be confused with excommunication as some sins incurred but as in literally being put to death. Naturally their is no atonement for that.

In the New Testament this 'cutting off'' is referred to in three ways.

First as 'intentional sin' is actually open unrepentant rebellion to God. This has a corresponding reality in blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Heb 6:4).

  And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:31-32, NIV)

Second in showing when people commit great sins that seem like blasphemy but are not due to 'ignorance', such as Peter's sermon in Acts which implied many Jews killed Christ 'in ignorance' (Acts 3:17). Peter is saying, 'Even though it seems that you have 'intentionally' sinned when killing Christ, many of you did not actually blaspheme the Holy Spirit because you did it in 'ignorance', so I offer you today atonement even for that sin through Christ.'

Third, for sins where capital punishment was the penalty but not necessarily implying a 'high handed' full rebellion from the covenant, the New Testament provides an atoning sacrifice in Christ, including murder, adultery, etc.   Therefore being put to death for sin in the Old Testament is not to imply that each offender could not be forgiven by faith, just not forgiven by Mosaic Law.

  Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. (Acts 13:39, NIV)


How do Catholics understand how the title “Lord” for Jesus is dependent on his resurrection at Ro 14:9 if it means he is God? Romans 14:9 For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living (KJV)

How does being revived (lived again, ASV) make him Lord of both the dead and the living?

Catholics appear to teach that after Pentecost Christians understood that calling Jesus Lord was the same as calling him God.

  In the Gospels, Jesus is rarely called "Lord", with the exception of a few times in Luke and John. The Apostles and first disciples did not come to the full realization that Jesus was God until after his Resurrection and after they had received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Once they had reached that realization they did not hesitate to attribute to him the divine title of "Lord" as used in the Old Testament. (Catholic Education Resourse Center)

The argument that calling Jesus "Lord" necessarily or always refers to his divinity, I suspect, is a novel one; and non-magisterial catechetical resources carry no guarantee of the soundness of their argumentation for doctrine, since the deposit of faith was handed on largely without explanation of the doctrines, containing only the doctrines themselves: various explanations and arguments for said doctrines' validity accumulating over time. That said, there are certain instances which make it clear that for early Christians, the lordship of the Messiah, and his divinity, were without scruple conflated and mingled into one conception of one single person, one divine Messiah - inasmuch as that's precisely who Jesus is in the New Testament: "God ..  made flesh." (John 1). One key example is, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28). Or the instances of "The Day of the Lord" being conflated with the "Day of Christ." Yahweh the only Saviour with Jesus the Saviour of all. Etc. Clearly "Lord" with reference to Jesus is directly calling Him God, as in the Lord of all.

Consider two chapters prior:

  Romans 10:9-13 (DRB) For if thou confess with thy mouth [that Jesus is Lord], and believe in thy heart that God hath raised him up from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For, with the heart, we believe unto [righteousness]; but, with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith: Whosoever believeth in him, shall not be confounded. 12 For there is no distinction of the Jew and the Greek: for the same is Lord over all, rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.

St. Paul quotes Joel 2:32 here:

  And it shall come to pass, that every one that shall call upon the name of the Lord [Yahweh] shall be saved: for in mount Sion, and in Jerusalem shall be salvation, as the Lord hath said, and in the residue whom the Lord shall call.

Thus, Romans 14:9 might rightly be understood in the sense that God in some sense can become 'more' the Lord of the living and the dead by partaking of life and death in the humanity of Christ, than if He hadn't - and only in that sense. Analogous to how Hebrews 4:15 describes the incarnation (Phil. 2):

  For we have not a high priest, who can not have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.

On the one hand, not having compassion on our infirmities wouldn't follow from not being human, since God can make Christ quite capable of sympathizing with those who were, according to Hebrews 1, and John 1, were created through him, and which all consist in him (Col. 1:17).

  Hebrews 2:17-18 (DRB) Wherefore it behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest before God, that he might be a propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that, wherein he himself hath suffered and been tempted, he is able to succour them also that are tempted.

As if Christ, who is greater than the angels, couldn't do what angels an do. Thus the argument is that it is fitting and a way in which He can in yet another way be considered the perfect mediator, not that if He lacked humanity, He couldn't save another way, for example.

As with Romans, the author of Hebrews has already called Him God:

  Hebrews 3:1-4 (DRB) Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly vocation, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus: 2 Who is faithful to him that made him, as was also Moses in all his house. 3 For this man was counted worthy of greater glory than Moses, by so much as he that hath built the house, hath greater honour than the house. 4 For every house is built by some man: but he that created all things, is God.

There is as much difference between God and some man as there is between Christ and Moses. Why? Because He is God in the flesh. A man, yes, but who is that man? Son of Mary, or Son of God first, "from ancient times, even from the days of eternity?" The latter.

The word translated "[that] he might be lord of both" is a single verb in the Greek (κυριευση), meaning, "he might be lord." This never refers to being a particular lord or the Lord, but to *the quality of having or exercising governance over*, or exercising one's lordship over someone or something. It doesn't refer to becoming Lord.

However, here, even with the Catholic or trinitarian conception of Jesus, this clearly refers to the humanity of Christ ("he died and rose" etc.) and not to his divinity, in which He is already Lord by virtue of His being God. Here, Christ becomes the lord of the living and the dead by buying them from sin, and being "the Saviour of all men" (1 Tim. 4:10).

St. Paul's point in most or all of these instances is that Jesus is Lord in every way imaginable - as both God and as man. King and Lord in the sense of the new Adam and Messiah as well as in the sense of God.


Why did Pope Clement V leave Rome and relocate to Avignon, France? What were some reasons why Pope Clement V left Rome and relocated to Avignon, France?

From the Wikipedia entry on the 'Avignon Papcy,' aka the Babylonian Captivity:

  Following the strife between Boniface VIII and Philip IV of France, and the death of his successor Benedict XI after only eight months in office, a deadlocked conclave finally elected Clement V, a Frenchman, as Pope in 1305. Clement declined to move to Rome, remaining in France, and in 1309 moved his court to the papal enclave at Avignon, where it remained for the next 67 years. This absence from Rome is sometimes referred to as the "Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy".[2][3] A total of seven popes reigned at Avignon; all were French,[4][5] and they increasingly fell under the influence of the French Crown. Finally, on September 13, 1376, Gregory XI abandoned Avignon and moved his court to Rome (arriving on January 17, 1377), officially ending the Avignon Papacy.

In summary:

Clement V stayed put - probably out of fear for his saftey
France saw fit to keep it that way


Christian Toleration Please keep in mind
Matthew 5:39 NIV

  But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on
  the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

I was searching for something to write a blog post about, when I stumbled upon this site which mentioned things I found offensive

From this site

  You believe that the entire population of this planet with the
  exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in
  all rival sects denominations [sic] - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of
  Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and
  "loving."

However, thinking of an answer to this, I found myself stuck.  What are the characteristics of Christianity that make it tolerant?  Which denomination has a history of showing toleration or is toleration not a Christian attribute?  To be clear, I am looking for documented cases in the bible which fit a historical example.

I define tolerant as, "showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with."  However, should there be another definition that fits the Christian use of the word "tolerant" please define.

Here's an example of how Christians are expected to practice tolerance

Tolerant of what? "Tolerance" is one of those words that people overuse yet never define. It generally carries the assumption that a person is only as good/strong/important as his ideas - if you reject a person's idea, you must be rejecting that person as well.

  You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs... will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant"...

"You believe that you know the truth and that this truth isn't happy for all people, therefore you hate some people." This is an emotional argument with no grounding in rationality. (He doesn't seem to realize that any person who accuses another of intolerance, is by definition, the pot calling the kettle black.)

Christianity has always accepted people without tolerating their sins. All people, whether Christian, Muslim, atheist, etc, are created in the image of God Almighty. To hate a person is to hate the One who made him (1 John 4:20). "Tolerance" is a cheap substitute for the love we (Christians) have been called to show all people.


Can only the priest lead the ritual of washing the feet in Holy Thursday in the Catholic Church? On Holy Thursday I watched a broadcast from the liturgy in a small religious community in Brasil. The liturgy was led by an elderly priest. Because of the pandemic, there were less than 12 persons to have their feet washed. A lay brother was doing footwashing and at the end, a girl who was helping was doing the footwashing to the brother who was washing the feet of everybody. Another year I saw another variation of feet washing ritual on Holy Thursday, whereas in very big congregation, about 60 lay brothers were washing the feet of all people participating in the liturgy.

Did it go "too far" at some point or there is no law which would forbid such practices?

Where the documents explaining the current position of The Catholic Church on this ritual are to be found?

Can only the priest lead the ritual of washing the feet in Holy Tursday in the Catholic Church?

The short answer is yes, only a bishop or priest may preform the Mandatum.

According to the rubrics only bishops and priests are liturgically permitted to wash the feet of the faithful. It should be noted that the rite of Mandatum remains optional during the Holy Thursday celebration of the Mass.

A decree published on January 6, 2016 modified the liturgical Mandatum:

  In the Roman Liturgy this rite was handed down with the name of the Mandatum of the Lord concerning fraternal charity from the words of Jesus (cf Jhn 13:34), which are sung in an Antiphon during the celebration.

  In performing this rite Bishops and priests are invited to intimately conform themselves to Christ who «came not to be served but to serve» (Mt 20:28) and, compelled by charity «to the end» (Jhn 13:1), to give his life for the salvation of the whole human race.

  In order that the full meaning of this rite might be expressed to those who participate it seemed good to the Supreme Pontiff Pope Francis to vary the norm which is found in the rubrics of the Missale Romanum (p. 300 n. 11): «The men who have been chosen are led by the ministers…», which therefore must be changed as follows: «Those who are chosen from amongst the people of God are led by the ministers…» (and consequently in the Caeremoniali Episcoporum n. 301 and n. 299b: «seats for those chosen»), so that pastors may select a small group of the faithful to represent the variety and the unity of each part of the people of God. Such small groups can be made up of men and women, and it is appropriate that they consist of people young and old, healthy and sick, clerics, consecrated men and women and laity.

  This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, in virtue of the faculties granted by the Supreme Pontiff, introduces this innovation into the liturgical books of the Roman Rite, reminding pastors of their responsibility to adequately instruct both the chosen faithful as well as all others so that they may participate consciously, actively and fruitfully in the rite. - Decree: In Missa in Cena Domini

Thus it is clear that only bishops and priests may perform this liturgical action. However those whose feet are to be washed is no longer reserved to men. Women may now be included. The number of persons has been set up to a maximum of 12.

Nota Bene: Girls are permitted to serve as altar servers in Ordinary Form of the Mass.


What difference does baptism make when it comes to marriage? Here is a hypothetical example of what may be a very common situation.

Bill and Martha have been seeing each other for four years. Both were raised in Catholic families, but were not baptized. They are not married, but instead, they had been living together for a while now. Now Bill sees that both want to continue in their relationship, and because of their upbringing, they would like to get married under the Catholic Church.

Would it make any difference if Bill and Martha got married before they were both baptised, or after?

The Sacrament of Baptism is often called "The door of the Church" because it is considered the first of the seven sacraments. According to Catholic Catechism (1212), the Catholic Church sees baptism as the first and basic sacrament of Christian initiation. For most Christians and especially Catholics, baptism is the first sacrament received (often as an infant) after which one becomes a member of the church. Baptism is also required by the Catholic church in order to receive the other sacraments. For example, the Sacrament of Confirmation and the Sacrament of Holy Communion depend on first being baptised.

For such a couple, it would be required by the Catholic Church for baptism to take place before being married otherwise the marriage would not be considered a sacramental marriage, and the church would not be allowed to perform such a marriage.

The Sacrament of Marriage is built on a firm foundation of Baptism. Clearly from the Catholic point of view, marriage cannot take place before both man and woman are baptised. The Catechism (1633) describes a mixed marriage as between Catholic and a baptised non-Catholic that requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors.
It further states "marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized person requires even greater circumspection" meaning a marriage to a non-baptized person would create complications and at least raise some tough questions about one's faith. There is a passage in the Bible in 1 Cor 7:14 about being married to an unbelieving spouse and the believing spouse a blessing to the other so there are some allowances for "mixed" marriages, but that is the exception not the rule.

Without a baptism, the commitment of the couple to the faith and church would be in question. When children come into the picture then it becomes even more important to decide whether one is a Christian or not and whether children should be raised as Catholics or not. The Bible clearly talks about "luke warm" Christians (Rev 3:16) and rebukes such attitudes. From the church's perspective, this is very relevant since you next have to ask about the commitment the couple will have to one another.

Of course, a secular stand point would have an entirely different point of view on this topic, but the context here is between two "nominal" Catholics who would like to get married in the church.


Did Karl Barth confess an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity? Karl Barth (1886–1968) is considered noteworthy for allegedly "recovering the doctrine of the Trinity in the 20th century." He is considered a reformed theologian, but his views are generally not considered classically reformed by confessional reformed bodies.

He heavily emphasized the doctrine of the Trinity in his writings.  Was his view consistent with the ecumenical creeds of the early church? I'm wondering if at any point his doctrine of the Trinity was not orthodox. That is, if he is not classically reformed in his formulation of the Trinity, is he still orthodox?

Yes. In fact, one of Barth's lasting contributions was a recovery of the doctrine of the Trinity as central for theology, in reaction to German liberalism's denial or, at best, sidelining of the topic (Schleiermacher's The Christian Faith is a prime example of this—in an 800 page systematic theology, the Trinity only merits 14 pages tagged on at the end). Barth's Church Dogmatics begins with the Trinity and its entire structure is based around it.

Some have accused Barth of modalism because he used the term "modes of being" or "ways of being" (Seinsweise) to describe the different members of the Godhead, instead of the traditional "persons." This accusation is based on a misunderstanding, though an understandable one. Barth's refusal to use the term "person" is due to the isolated individualistic connotation that term has taken on in recent times—a connotation that he doesn't think was contained in "hypostasis" as used in the creeds. In Volume IV of Church Dogmatics he differentiates between these "ways of being" more thoroughly, making it clear that he is not, in fact, a modalist.

I'll quote here from CD I/1, §9.2 (page 360 in the Hendrickson edition):

  What we have here are God's specific, different, and always very distinctive modes of being. This means that God's modes of being are not to be exchanged or confounded. In all three modes of being God is the one God both in Himself and in relation to the world and man. But this one God is God three times in different ways, so different that it is only in this threefold difference that He is God, so different that this difference, this being in these three modes of being, is absolutely essential to Him, so different, then, that this difference is irremovable. Nor can there be any possibility that one of the modes of being might just as well be the other, e.g., that the Father might just as well be the Son or the Son the Spirit, nor that two of them or all three might coalesce and dissolve into one. In this case the modes of being would not the essential to the divine being. Because the threeness is grounded in the one essence of the revealed God; because in denying the threeness in the unity of God we should be referring at once to another God than the God revealed in Holy Scripture—for this very reason this threeness must be regarded as irremovable and the distinctiveness of the three modes of being must be regarded as ineffaceable.

The modalist heresy held that God was only one (monarchianism), but that He revealed himself in three different ways. We might say that modalists hold that God is one "way of being" but three "ways of acting"; Barth, on the other hand, makes a clear distinction between the three "ways of being." Earlier on this same page, in fact, he argues explicitly against the idea that the Triune nature of God consists only in three different types of revelation.

The full argument in I/1 §9.2 is worth reading if you have the time and inclination.


What did kids of polygamous Mormon parents call their half-sibling's moms? Did they refer to them as their step-moms? Their Dad's nth wife? Half-sibling's mom? What was the common terminology used by Mormons back in the day when they practiced polygamy for describing family relationships between mothers and their husband's children from other wives?

A partial answer (I don't know the complete answer yet):

Henry Eyring, famed chemist and father of President Henry B. Eyring, currently the second counselor in the Church's First Presidency, grew up in a polygamist family.  His father was married to two women, who were sisters.  According to the biography "Mormon Scientist", authored by Henry J. Eyring (Henry Eyring's grandson), Henry referred to his half-siblings' mother as "Aunt Emma" (see page 93-94 of the biography, published by Deseret Book).

This may seem trivial, to call your aunt "aunt", but I think it does show that, in at least this one case, the child's aunt-nephew relation took precedence in title than the half-siblings' mother relation.

Obviously this answer is only one case, and doesn't apply to cases where the mothers are not already related.


How do you know if you are under a trial or if you are just suffering? Hypothetically, if you are going through a painful situation:

Is it because God is trying to grow you/redirect you?
Or is it a result of sinful actions?

In his book, Secrets of the Vine (based on John 15), Bruce Wilkinson addresses this very question.

In both situations, there is pain, so the presence of pain does not necessarily mean one is under God's discipline, although it could.

The key thing is to examine one's life to see if there is any unconfessed sin and to ask God  to reveal that.  One could also discuss it with a close friend or pastor to see if there is anything that other people have noticed.  If one is honest and there is nothing that God reveals, then it may be that the issue is purely one of growth.

Bruce Wilkinson distinguishes between the two by indicating that whenever there is pain because of sin, the pain continues until the person stops sinning.  However, if it is purely a matter of growth, the pain will continue until God has finished His work.


According to the Catholic Church, is practicing spiritism moral? What does the Catholic Church teach about Spiritism, especially the Kardecist Spiritualism Doctrine (covered in the link above)?  According to the Catholic Church, it is wrong to try to communicate with the dead and to gain knowledge from spirits?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a paragraph specifically referenced as "Spiritism — forbidden" in its index, and which unequivocally and categorically condemns the practice of spiritism.

  2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others — even if this were for the sake of restoring their health — are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.


Does a person lose anything by just praying to God the Father all the time? I have known many Christians to address prayers to Jesus, to Mary, various saints, etc.

What if someone always simply prays to God by calling on His name, God? Or says "Our Father who is in Heaven" as Jesus taught?

Can you see any downside to this?

Will this have any effect on their salvation?

If not, why do so few Christians seem to do this?

Euan Cameron says, in Interpreting Christian History, page 126-7, the early Church had no cult of saints, but around the time of the persecutions, Christians began to commemorate their martyrs, to inspire their successors and protect their memory.  A little later, some Church Fathers decided that the saints must still feel the same concern for the faithful as when they lived, so the saints must be praying for us.  Later still, people supposed it was appropriate to pray to the saints in heaven, to call on them as patrons, and ask for favours and protection.  Thus it became established practice to pray to saints for intercession. Vivian Green says in A New History of Christianity, p118, there were instances of men beating the saint's image because the saint had not responded to their prayers.

Green also talks about the special reasons for praying to Mary. He says (p117) that St. Bernard declared, “If you fear the Father there is Christ the Mediator.  If you  fear him, there is the Mother, pure humanity.  She will listen to you. The son will listen to her, the Father to him.”

The Protestant position is strongly against praying to saints. Martin Luther believed that the veneration of saints had turned into the worship of semi-divinities who were addressed exclusively for some need, with no reference to Christ. He also objected to the cult of relics to raise money.  In Smalcald Articles, he called the invoking of angels and saints, praying to them, keeping fasts and festivals for them, saying masses and offering sacrifices to them, and assigning to them special functions, “idolatory”.

It seems that there is a divide between the position of the Catholic Church (and Orthodox Church) and other Christian denominations. You will be guided by which denomination you belong to.


According to Trinitarian belief how is Isaiah 48:16 interpreted? According to belief in the Holy Trinity, how is Isaiah 48:16-17 interpreted?

According to belief in the Trinity is the Holy One of Israel Jesus Christ? Or is God the Father the Holy one of Israel, and why? Or is it The Father, Son and Holy Spirit speaking as one?

  Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me. Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. (Isaiah 48:16-17, KJV)

The New American Standard Bible Updated Edition seems to assume that Isaiah 48:16 is speaking of the Triune God, in that the words Me and Spirit are capitalized. Not so the NET Bible, however, which does not capitalize either word.
The reason for the NET's approach to the verse is that the NET's translators are perhaps thinking of a man, an earthly king known as Cyrus the Great, who would be an instrument in the hand of the Lord God to defeat the Chaldeans/Babylonians who had held Israel in captivity for 70 years.

"Approach me! Listen to this!
From the very first I have not spoken in secret;
when it happens, I am there.”
So now, the sovereign Lord has sent me, accompanied by his spirit."

In Ezra, chapter 1, we read the following:

"In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order to fulfill the Lord’s message  spoken through Jeremiah, the Lord stirred the mind [the Hebrew noun רוּחַ, ruakh, or spirit] of King Cyrus of Persia. He disseminated a proclamation throughout his entire kingdom, announcing in a written edict the following: 'Thus says King Cyrus of Persia:
The Lord God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth. He has instructed me to build a temple for him in Jerusalem, which is in Judah'" (vv.1-2a NET).

Notice who stirred up King Cyrus's mind (or spirit): the LORD. Proverbs 21:1 tells us that

"The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD ; He turns it wherever He wishes."

In other words, God's wish is the king's command, so Cyrus declared that the Jewish exiles in Babylon were free to return to Judah to rebuild the House of God in Jerusalem, and Cyrus even provided the financing to make the trip and the building project possible! Moreover, Ezra tells us,

"Then the leaders of Judah and Benjamin, along with the priests and the Levites--all those whose mind God had stirred--got ready to go up in order to build the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem" (1:5).

In conclusion, then, God stirred the spirit of a king and he stirred the mind of his chosen ones, his leaders of the Judahites and Benjamites to accomplish his purposes and plan. Very likely Isaiah 48:16 does not contribute to the teaching of the Scripture on the triune nature of God, but it does tell us that the LORD is sovereignly in charge of the affairs of men, and in particular "his people" (see Ezra 1:3).