What is an overview of how different Christian denominations deal with demon possessions? Pretty much everyone has watched at least one horror movie where an exorcism was carried out. Notable examples are The Exorcist and The Exorcism of Emily Rose, to name a few. Yet, these movies only illustrate the Catholic way of carrying out an exorcism. What about the other denominations? What is an overview of how different Christian denominations deal with the topic of demon possession and deliverance?

What is an overview of how different Christian denominations deal with demon possessions?
Many of us have watched the movie The Exorcist which is loosely based on a true American case of possession of an American teenage boy of 14 years old from Missouri in 1949 and who was given the pseudonym Roland Doe in order to protect his identity. The movie The Exorcism of Emily Rose and the German movie Requiem are loosely based on the story of Anneliese Michel.
But where to start?
Let us go above and beyond the question and start with Jewish exorcisms.

There is no instance in the Old Testament of demons being expelled by men. In Tobias 8:3, is the angel who "took the devil and bound him in the desert of upper Egypt"; and the instruction previously given to young Tobias (6:18-19), to roast the fish's heart in the bridal chamber, would seem to have been merely part of the angel's plan for concealing his own identity. But in extra-canonical Jewish literature there are incantations for exorcising demons, examples of which may be seen in Talmud (Schabbath, xiv, 3; Aboda Zara, xii, 2; Sanhedrin, x, 1). These were sometimes inscribed on the interior surface of earthen bowls, a collection of which (estimated to be from the seventh century A.D) is preserved in the Royal Museum in Berlin; and inscriptions from the collection have been published, translated by Wohlstein in the "Zeitschrift für Assyriologie" (December, 1893; April, 1894).
The chief characteristics of these Jewish exorcisms is their naming of names believed to be efficacious, i.e., names of good angels, which are used either alone or in combination with El (=God); indeed reliance on mere names had long before become a superstition with the Jews, and it was considered most important that the appropriate names, which varied for different times and occasions, should be used. Exorcism (Catholicism Encyclopedia)

In Sacred Scriptures, we see Jesus performing exorcisms as part of his Messiahship.

Assuming the reality of demoniac possession, for which the authority of Christ is pledged, it is to be observed that Jesus appealed to His power over demons as one of the recognised signs of Messiahship (Matthew 12:23, 28; Luke 11:20). He cast out demons, He declared, by the finger or spirit of God, not, as His adversaries alleged, by collusion with the prince of demons (Matthew 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 19); and that He exercised no mere delegated power, but a personal authority that was properly His own, is clear from the direct and imperative way in which He commands the demon to depart (Mark 9:24; cf. 1:25 etc.): "He cast out the spirits with his word, and he healed all that were sick" (Matthew 8:16). Sometimes, as with the daughter of the Canaanean woman, the exorcism took place from a distance (Matthew 15:22 sqq.; Mark 7:25). Sometimes again the spirits expelled were allowed to express their recognition of Jesus as "the Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24) and to complain that He had come to torment them "before the time", i.e the time of their punishment (Matthew 8:29 sqq; Luke 8:28 sqq.). If demoniac possession was generally accompanied by some disease, yet the two were not confounded by Christ, or the Evangelists. In Luke 13:32, for example, the Master Himself expressly distinguishes between the expulsion of evil spirits and the curing of disease.
Christ also empowered the Apostles and Disciples to cast out demons in His name while He Himself was still on earth (Matthew 10:1 and 8; Mark 6:7; Luke 9:1; 10:17), and to believers generally He promised the same power (Mark 16:17). But the efficacy of this delegated power was conditional, as we see from the fact that the Apostles themselves were not always successful in their exorcisms: certain kinds of spirits, as Christ explained, could only be cast out by prayer and fasting (Matthew 17:15, 20; Mark 9:27-28; Luke 9:40). In other words the success of exorcism by Christians, in Christ's name, is subject to the same general conditions on which both the efficacy of prayer and the use of charismatic power depend. Yet conspicuous success was promised (Mark 16:17). St. Paul (Acts 16:18; 19:12), and, no doubt, the other Apostles and Disciples, made use of regularly, as occasion arose, of their exorcising power, and the Church has continued to do so uninterruptedly to the present day. - Exorcism (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

In the Early Church exorcisms were not so formula regulated as in some Christian denominations nowadays.

We have it on the authority of all early writers who refer to the subject at all that in the first centuries not only the clergy, but lay Christians also were able by the power of Christ to deliver demoniacs or energumens, and their success was appealed to by the early Apologists as a strong argument for the Divinity of the Christian religion (Justin Martyr, First Apology 6; Dialogue with Trypho 30 and 85; Minutius Felix, Octavius 27; Origen, Against Celsus I.25; VII.4; VII.67; Tertullian, Apology 22, 23; etc.). As is clear from testimonies referred to, no magical or superstitious means were employed, but in those early centuries, as in later times, a simple and authoritative adjuration addressed to the demon in the name of God, and more especially in the name of Christ crucified, was the usual form of exorcism.
But sometimes in addition to words some symbolic action was employed, such as breathing (insufflatio), or laying of hands on the subject, or making the sign of cross. St. Justin speaks of demons flying from "the touch and breathing of Christians" (Second Apology 6) as from a flame that burns them, adds St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures 20.3). Origen mentions the laying of hands, and St. Ambrose (Paulinus, Vit. Ambr., n. 28, 43, P.L, XIV, 36, 42), St. Ephraem Syrus (Gregory of Nyssa, De Vit. Ephr., P.G., XLVI, 848) and others used this ceremony in exorcising. The sign of the cross, that briefest and simplest way of expressing one's faith in the Crucified and invoking His Divine power, is extolled by many Fathers for its efficacy against all kinds of demoniac molestation (Lactantius, Divine Institutes IV.27; Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word 47; Basil, In Isai., XI, 249, P.G., XXX, 557, Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 13.3; Gregory Nazianzen, Carm. Adv. iram, v, 415 sq.; P.G., XXXVII, 842). The Fathers further recommend that the adjuration and accompanying prayers should be couched in the words of Holy Writ (Cyril of Jerusalem, Procatechesis 9; Athanasius, Ad Marcell., n. 33, P.G., XXVII, 45). The present rite of exorcism as given in the Roman Ritual fully agrees with patristic teaching and is a proof of the continuity of Catholic tradition in this matter. - Exorcism (Catholic Encyclopaedia)
The practice of exorcism was not confined to clerics in the early ages, as is clear from Tertullian (Apology 23; cf. On Idolatry 11) and Origen (Against Celsus VII.4). The latter expressly states that even the simplest and rudest of the faithful sometimes cast out demons, by a mere prayer or adjuration (Mark 15:17), and urges the fact as a proof of the power of Christ's grace, and the inability of demons to resist it. In the Eastern Church, a specially ordained order of exorcists (or of acolytes, or door-keepers) has never been established but in the Western Church, these three minor orders with that of lectors as a fourth) were instituted shortly before the middle of the third century. Pope Cornelius (261-252) mentions in his letter to Fabius that there were then in the Roman Church forty-two acolytes, and fifty-two exorcists, readers, and door-keepers (Eusebius, Church History VI.43), and the institution of these orders, and the organization of their functions, seems to have been the work of Cornelius's predecessor, Pope Fabian (236-251). Exorcist (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

Catholic exorcisms within the Church in modern days generally use the Rite of Exorcisms, which most are aware of. Once and awhile Holy individuals will have an inspiration that will have the same intended outcome.
For example, here is a story about Fr. Dolindo Ruotolo

His goodness made even Hell tremble. As demons subdued to Jesus and publicly declared that He was the Son of God; as Father Pio from Pietralcina in his fight against Satan succeeded in defeating the devil with the wounds of Christ; also Don Dolindo in the Name of Jesus, when doing exorcisms, thrust out demons who cursed him, from the bodies of the possessed.
Demons are known to obey only those who work by the hand of God.
One day when a very resistant demon made fun of Father Dolindo, refusing to leave the man he possessed, Father Dolindo grasped a rope and began to flagellate himself and his penitence and suffering as consequence inflicted such a suffering on the demon to force him to abandon his victim, leaving him finally free.

St. Francis de Sales had a unique perspective on exorcisms to say the least!

In the life of St. Francis de Sales we read that the saint exorcised heretics before preaching to them, because he said all heretics are to some extent dominated by the devil, who is after all the Father of Lies. The saint’s way of acting was most successful. Seventy-two thousand heretics were converted.
“Francis already knew the country through which he was to pass. For while he was at school in the college at Annecy, M. de Boisy had been obliged to leave the chateau of Sales and to stay for some time at Brens in Chablais. Consequently, during the holidays at this period, Francis had become acquainted with the neighborhood, and his knowledge now
served him in good stead.
“As soon as the travellers had crossed the stream of the Chandouze, which, separating the commune of Juvigny from that of St. Cergues, formed in those days the boundary of Chablais, they made a halt for the purpose of prayer. They first of all saluted the angel guardian of the province; then, turning their thoughts to the God of all, they begged him to drive forth from the land the evil spirits which held the inhabitants chained in heresy, and to bless with success the work to which his servants were about to devote themselves.
“Charles Auguste tells us that the Provost and his companions made a custom of reciting within themselves a similar exorcism every time that they were called upon to dispute with the Calvinists, and especially in the case of the ministers; for Francis used to say that all heretics, but especially those who preach and instruct, are possessed or obsessed by the devil, and that for this reason it is a good thing to exorcise them before proceeding to a disputation.”! -"A Notebook on the Devil and Exorcism"

Deliverance ministries are practiced by some denominations like in Anglicanism (Church of England) and even Fr. Gabriele Amorth acknowledges the effectiveness of these types of exorcisms in certain occasions.

In Christianity, deliverance ministry refers to groups that perform practices and rituals to cleanse people of demons and evil spirits. This is done in order to address problems manifesting in their life as a result of demonic presences, which have authority to oppress the person. Believers attribute people's physical, psychological, spiritual, and emotional problems to the activities of these evil spirits in their lives. Deliverance rituals are meant to cast out evil spirits, helping people overcome negative behaviors, feelings, and experiences. Each individual event is different, but many include some or all of these major steps: diagnosis, naming the demon, expulsion, and some form of action taken by the exorcised person after their exorcism to keep the demon from returning. Exorcisms may be performed by individuals or by churches or ministries; in casting out spirits, adherents believe they are following the example of Jesus Christ and his disciples given in the New Testament. The doctrines and practices of these ministries are not accepted by all Christians.
Expulsion
The method used to expel demonic presences varies. Some adherents recite Biblical stories about casting out demons, or pray; many also invoke "the blood of Jesus," a reference to Jesus suffering for people's sins and intervening with God on behalf of humanity. In this context, invoking the blood of Jesus is a call for Jesus to intervene specifically on behalf of the possessed individual. The person performing the deliverance might touch the possessed person, or anoint them with oil or water. People may also perform rituals over objects that contain evil spirits, destroy them by breaking or burning them, then remove them from the home. If a place has evil spirits because of sins that were committed there in the past, people may repent on behalf of those who committed the sins as part of the process of casting out the evil spirits. All of these actions are meant to force a demon to leave an afflicted person, place, or thing. The demon may resist the expulsion using the body of the possessed person, and may speak, scream, cry, laugh, vomit, or lash out physically. For this reason, exorcism or deliverance rituals can be loud, dramatic, highly emotional experiences for those involved. Once the demon is gone, people often describe feeling as though weight or darkness has left them. - Deliverance ministry (Wikipedia)

Baptists, like Albert Mohler, the ninth president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, states that Baptists, among other evangelical Christians, do:

believe in the existence, malevolence, and power of the Devil and demons. About these things, the New Testament is abundantly clear. We must resist any effort to 'demythologize' the New Testament in order to deny the existence of these evil forces and beings. At the same time, we must recognize quickly that the Devil and demons are not accorded the powers often ascribed to them in popular piety. The Devil is indeed a threat, as Peter made clear when he warned: 'Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.' [1 Peter 5:8] The New Testament is also clear that very real cases of demonic possession were encountered by Jesus and his followers. Jesus liberated afflicted individuals as he commanded the demons to flee, and they obeyed him. Likewise, the Apostle Paul performed exorcisms as he confronted the powers of evil and darkness in his ministry. A closer look at the crucial passages involved reveals no rite of exorcism, however, just the name of Jesus and the proclamation of the Gospel. Likewise, there is no notion of a priestly ministry of ordained exorcists in the New Testament. - Mohler, Albert (15 November 2010). "On Exorcism and Exorcists: An Evangelical View". Southern Baptist Convention.

Eastern Orthodoxy

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, demonic activity is inextricably associated with disease and blight. As a result, exorcisms are quite common, even finding their way in rituals involving the blessing of fields. The exorcism ritual, found in the Euchologion, is that of St. Basil the Great. The baptism liturgy in Eastern Orthodoxy also contains an exorcism ritual.

Lutheranism

The Lutheran Church traces the practice of exorcism to the Scriptural claim that Jesus Christ expelled demons with a simple command (Mark 1:23–26; 9:14–29; Luke 11:14–26). The apostles continued the practice with the power and in the name of Jesus (Matthew 10:1; Acts 19:11–16). Contrary to some denominations of Christianity, Lutheranism affirms that the individual, both the believer and the non-believer, can be plagued by demons, based on several arguments, including the one that "just as a believer, whom Jesus Christ has delivered from sin (Romans 6:18), can still be bound by sin in his life, so he can still be bound by a demon in his life."
After the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther abbreviated the Roman ritual used for exorcism. In 1526, the ritual was further abbreviated and the exsufflation was omitted. This form of the Lutheran Ritual for Exorcism was incorporated into the majority of the Lutheran service-books and implemented. According to a Pastoral Handbook of the Lutheran Church,

In general, satanic possession is nothing other than an action of the devil by which, from God's permission, men are urged to sin, and he occupies their bodies, in order that they might lose eternal salvation. Thus bodily possession is an action by which the devil, from divine permission, possesses both pious and impious men in such a way that he inhabits their bodies not only according to activity, but also according to essence, and torments them, either for the punishment or for the discipline and testing of men, and for the glory of divine justice, mercy, power, and wisdom.

The Pastoral Handbook then states:

Let ardent prayers be poured forth to God, not only by the ministers of the Church, but also by the whole Church. Let these prayers be conditioned, if the liberation should happen for God's glory and the salvation of the possessed person, for this is an evil of the body.

With the prayers let fasting be joined, see Matthew 17:21.

Alms by friends of the possessed person, Tobit 12:8-9.

Let the confession of the Christian faith be once required of Him, let him be taught concerning the works of the devil destroyed by Christ, let him be sent back faithfully to this Destroyer of Satan, Jesus Christ, let an exhortation be set up to faith in Christ, to prayers, to penitence.

An interesting note: The “favourite non-Catholic exorcist” of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio ((now Pope Francis) was reportedly to be a Lutheran pastor in Argentina.  When the Pope was a cardinal in Argentina, his home country, he would call on Pastor Manuel Acuña of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church in Buenos Aires to do exorcisms when the local bishops would not give permission for the Catholic rite. See:The Lutheran Approach to Exorcism

Martin Luther throwing an inkwell at the devil, at Wartburg Castle
Pentecostalism

In the Pentecostal Church, Charismatic Movement, and other the less formalized sections of Christianity, the exorcism ritual can take many forms and belief structures. The most common of these is the deliverance ceremony. Deliverance differs from the exorcism ceremony in that the Devil may have gotten a foothold into a person's life rather than gaining complete control . If complete control has been gained, a full-fledged exorcism is necessary. However, a "spirit-filled Christian" cannot be possessed, based on their beliefs. Within this belief structure, the reasons for the devil to get a foothold are usually explained to be some sort of deviation from theological doctrine or because of pre-conversion activities (like dealing with the occult).
The traditional method for determining if a person needs a deliverance is done by having someone present who has the gift of discerning of spirits. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit from 1 Corinthians 12 that allows a person to "sense" in some way an evil presence. While the initial diagnosis is usually uncontested by the congregation, when many people are endowed with this gift in a single congregation, results may vary.


How does the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America handle heresies? As far as I know, I am aware, from a simple Google search, that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States, considers the twofold rule of God theology a heresy - or at least a misuse of it. Okay. In such a case, or another case in which a person (layperson or clergy) wilfully follows unorthodox beliefs and practices, how does the ELCA deal with them?

I am aware that individual Lutheran congregations are governed by synods. So, what does synod say?

The guideline for discipline of clergy can be found here:
http://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/Discipline_Process.pdf

The above disciplinary process is intended for rostered leaders, including associates in ministry, ordained clergy, diaconal ministers, deaconesses, etc.  Considering the complexity of the twofold rule of God theology, it is unlikely that error on this matter alone would be treated harshly.  Disciplinary action is more likely to occur should the theological error becomes manifest in some form of behavior or activity that is in contradiction with accepted witness of the Gospel and the ELCA Visions and Expectations for rostered leaders.  The guidelines known as Visions and Expectations are slightly different depending on the type of rostered leader.  These guidelines can be found here:
http://www.elca.org/en/About/Churchwide/Office-of-the-Secretary/Rostered-Leaders

Because American culture is currently undergoing massive social change in the wake of the advent of global interconnectedness through technology and business, and because the ELCA is in the midst of the development of ecumenical and interreligious relationships, the theological error wherein the unmerited grace of God is put forth as the governing principle of human society is more likely to occur and less likely to raise alarm among the leadership of the ELCA. This error supplants the rule of law with the gospel resulting in a theology of "cheap grace" wherein there is neither need nor demand for discipleship. Amidst the important and worthy need and effort to become radically inclusive and courageously cooperative, we are tempted to preach God's rule of law weakly, particularly on matters where we find ourselves in disagreement with those with who we seek to be in close partnership, whether religious, political or social allies.  American Lutherans seem to try really hard to be nice and avoid public controversy and conflict.
Errors that are more likely to initiate disciplinary action are those that indicate that adherence to a particular legal or moral code are redemptive and necessary for one's salvation and/or participation in the community of faith.  This is error that supplants God's rule of grace in the community of Christ and negates the redemptive action of Christ (a heresy colloquially known as "works righteousness" or "salvation by works").  While Lutherans are no less likely to engage in this kind of heresy, we are very sensitive about it because our theological and reformation heritage is rooted in the doctrine of salvation "by grace alone through faith alone."

It is unlikely that theological error on this matter would result in discipline for heresy for a layperson (unless perhaps, that layperson served their congregation in the ministry of Word and was deliberately teaching in contradiction to the ELCA teaching).  Because of the complexity and semi-paradoxical nature of twofold rule theology, error on the part of a layperson could be resolved with education rather than discipline.


What's the time limit for a Council's sessions to reconvene after a suspension? If a Council's sessions are suspended, such as was done at the Vatican Council by Pope Pius IX, due to the Roman heat, but the sessions could not be reconvened due to the attack on Rome and the Vatican in 1870, is there a time limit for the Council to be reconvened?  Pius XII was planning to reopen the Council and had preparations made for new sessions, but he was unable to follow through due to lack of cooperation (according to some sources).

There is no time limit. Convening of general or ecumenical councils is entirely up to a pope. Their purpose is to advise a pope, and they authoritatively teach only what the pope ratifies.

Fr. Hardon defines them as:

  Authorized gatherings of bishops for the purpose of discussing ecclesiastical problems with a view to passing decrees on matters under discussion. In Roman Catholic terminology, if all the bishops are called to participate and actually represent the Christian world, the assembly is called ecumenical, which means universal; if only part of the hierarchy is invited, the council is particular. The latter may be plenary or provincial, depending on whether a single provincial area, e.g., the dioceses of Ohio, or a whole country sponsors the gathering. Church councils, even on a provincial basis, enjoy juridical authority in religious questions that is distinct from the legislative powers of individual bishops. In this respect also, councils differ from episcopal conferences, which are not, as such, legislative assemblies.


What is the technical understanding of the assertion of Jesus dying on the cross? In technical terms, using the Nicea creed as the basis of understand, how can you explain the assertion of Jesus dying on the cross?

This is what I understand so far:

Co-existence
Co-equal
Co-Substantial
Jesus is begotten, not made

When you say Jesus died on the cross, is this referring to Jesus the 3rd person in Trinity?  I understand that Jesus is understood as being divided into 2 parts: Human and Divine.  So did the divine part die on the cross or the human?

The idea is that original sin has to be accounted for, so does this necessitate the Divine or Human aspect to be sacrificed and die?

Depending on the answer, which aspect/nature of Jesus is said to have risen on the 3rd day?

First off, I'm going to answer according to traditional Catholic Christology. This includes the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which took place in AD451, and issued the definition on Christology that most churches follow today. (The Oriental Orthodox form the most significant body that does not.) It also includes the Fifth Ecumenical Council of AD553.

You say:

  When you say Jesus died on the cross, is this referring to Jesus the 3rd person in Trinity? I understand that Jesus is understood as being divided into 2 parts: Human and Divine. So did the divine part die on the cross or the human?

First, the Son (existing before all worlds, only-begotten of the Father) is the second person of the Trinity. The Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ.

Second, Jesus is not divided in two parts, as you say. Traditional (Chalcedonian) Christology says that Jesus has both a human nature and a divine nature, but that he is one person. He is not half-and-half human and divine, but fully human and fully divine. This is called the hypostatic union of Christ. He is one human, with two natures.

Because Christ is only one person, there were no times when the divine nature was absent and no times when the human nature was absent. The two natures were fully united in Christ. As Catechism of the Catholic Church says quoting the Fifth Ecumenical Council:

  Everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."

That is to say, the person Jesus Christ, both God and man, suffered and died upon the Cross.

As Thomas Aquinas writes in Summa Theologica:

  as before death Christ's flesh was united personally and hypostatically with the Word of God, it remained so after His death, so that the hypostasis of the Word of God was not different from that of Christ's flesh after death

You go on to ask which nature had to be sacrificed and which was raised on the third day. The answer by now should be obvious and is the same in both cases: it is the one person Jesus Christ, true God and true man, who was sacrificed, died and rose again.


Why are Lussekatter served on St. Lucy's day (i.e. why cats?)? In researching this question I got sucked into trying to find a connection between St. Lucy's cats and the Nativity.

It got my mind wondering if they even have cats in Sweden, but then I remembered that St. Lucy was from Italy and recollecting Madeline's visit to the Eternal City, I know there are lots of cats there.  However what connection this has to do with St. Lucy is beyond me.  I know she had her eyes plucked out as part of her martyrdom.

I guess I don't see how those rolls resemble cats, they do look like eyes, not necessarily cat eyes. And I think both St. Lucy and cats had an uncanny ability to see in the dark, but she wasn't a cat herself. No saints, I've been told, are in fact cats.

Is there some story about St. Lucy and cats that all the modern day hagiographers have neglected or is this just cat by association?

There are many traditions and legends many of the saints. This is especially true of many of the early Christian martyrs and St. Lucy is no exception.

First of all, Who is St. Lucy of Syracuse?

  St. Lucia of Syracuse (283–304), also known as Saint Lucy or Saint Lucia (Latin: Sancta Lucia), was a young Christian martyr who died during the Diocletianic Persecution. She is venerated as a saint by the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, and Orthodox Churches.

  The oldest record of her story comes from the fifth-century Acts of the Martyrs.2 The single fact upon which various accounts agree is that a disappointed suitor accused Lucy of being a Christian, and she was executed in Syracuse, Sicily, in the year 304 during the Diocletian Persecution.3 Her veneration spread to Rome, and by the 6th century to the whole Church. The oldest archaeological evidence comes from the Greek inscriptions from the catacombs of St. John in Syracuse. Jacobus de Voragine's Legenda Aurea was the most widely read version of the Lucy legend in the Middle Ages. In medieval accounts, Saint Lucy's eyes are gouged out prior to her execution. - Saint Lucy (Wikipedia)

Some legends claim her that her eyessight was restored just before her death. This and the meaning of her name led to her connection with eyes, the blind, eye trouble, etc.

St. Lucy of Syracuse

How St. Lucy became associated with cats will remain a little of a mystery for us. Nevertheless there are some small glimmers of insight here and there.

  The first recorded appearance of a white-clad Lucia in Sweden was in a country house in 1764. The custom did not become universally popular in Swedish society until the 20th century, when schools and local associations in particular began promoting it. The old lussegubbar custom virtually disappeared with urban migration, and white-clad Lucias with their singing processions were considered a more acceptable, controlled form of celebration than the youthful carousals of the past. Stockholm proclaimed its first Lucia in 1927. The custom whereby Lucia serves coffee and buns “Lussekatter” dates back to the 1880s, although the buns were around long before that. - Lucia and Swedish Saffron Buns “Lussekatter"

How did devotion of St. Lucy arrive in the Scandinavian lands?

  She was also known to feed her people in times of famine. A story is told that St. Lucia arrived in the Syracuse harbor in 1582, bearing wheat on a ship for the townsfolk who had prayed to her for help while they were starving. A similar story takes place in medieval Sweden. St. Lucia, “with a face so radiant that there was a glow of light all about her head,” arrived in a ship on Lake Vannern bearing provisions during a winter famine. From both of these stories comes the custom of eating wheat porridge in honor of Lucia.

  Various explanations are given of how the Italian Catholic saint traveled to Lutheran Scandinavia and became firmly entrenched in Nordic culture. Did the Vikings bring the story of St. Lucia back with them on their travels? Perhaps the story was carried by German traders, or priests and monks from the British Isles may have introduced the story.

  However the story arrived in the northlands, it seems clear that the name “Lucia,” from lux (light), captured Nordic hearts as she merged with their ancestral traditions of Freya and Frigga.

  It was not unusual for the titles of ancient goddesses to be adopted as titles for both the Virgin Mary and for female saints. “Freya Vanadis,” meaning “shining bride of the gods,” reminds us of Lucy’s title “Lucia Bride.” Frigga was known as “Queen of the Aesir,” and St. Lucy was also called the “Lucia Queen.” Both were solar goddesses, associated with sun symbols such as sunwheels, cats, spinning, amber, and gold. Freya was called der vana solen, “the beautiful sun,” in a Swedish folksong.

  The “eye” imagery of both Juno Lucina and the martyr Lucia is linked to Freya’s eyes which shed tears of amber in the ocean and gold on the earth. - Who Is Santa Lucia?

Somehow the legends of St. Lucy intermingled itself with the mythology of the Norse goddess Freya and her two cats.

  The celebration of St Lucy spread over all of Europe. But the place where she is most beloved is Scandinavia, where light is especially welcome in the long hours of winter darkness. On her day, the eldest (or youngest) daughter rises before dawn and fixes a breakfast of special pastries and coffee for her family. She appears in their bedrooms, dressed in a white dress belted with a red sash, and wearing a wreath of greens and four (or seven or nine) lighted candles. Sometimes the wreath is made of green rue and decorated with red ribbons. She serves traditional pastries called lussekatter (or Lucy cats), x-shaped pastries, sometimes flavored with saffron. Other traditional foods served in her honor include saffron buns, ginger biscuits and glogg, a hot spiced wine with aquavit.

  Just as the Italian Santa Lucia partakes of the qualities of Juno Lucina, the midwife aspect of Juno the Queen of Heaven, the Scandinavian St Lucia (partakes of the qualities of Freya, Queen of Heaven. Helen Farias speculates that the constellation we now know as Orion was once viewed by Celts as the great goddess Bride (the girl representing Lucy is called the Lucy Bride) and by the Northerners as the Goddess Freya. (Orion’s belt was sometimes called “Freya’s Distaff”). Many centuries ago, this constellation processed across the sky during the winter nights, setting in the west at dawn about the time the daughter dresses herself as Lucy. Freya travels across the sky in a chariot drawn by cats. (Now Orion reappears in the North American sky in December.) Perhaps Lucy’s celebration replaced earlier rites devoted to Freya, thus explaining the Lucy cats and the star-boys. - St. Lucy's Day

Norse goddess Freya and her cats

For the present, the actual connection of how St. Lucy became connected to Freya and her cats seems to be lost in the annuals of history.

In any case, Bon Appetite everyone!

As for the traditional lussekatt - Lucia cat/saffron bun it has a thousand year history behind it. According to many mythologists the bun is in the image of the goddess Freyas favorite cat, hence the Swedish name. - Lucia in Sweden


Was Queen of Sheba black? If you guys don't know, she's the queen that quizzed Solomon to discover his wisdom in 1 Kings 10. Was Sheba located somewhere in Africa? (I heard some theories that Sheba was Arabia but I'm skeptical of this).

There are two "Sheba"s in the Bible. One is a descendant of Cush (Ethiopia). This Cush is probably somewhere near there.

The other is a decendant of Shem. The Semite Sheba's brothers include Ophir and Havilah.

Ophir and Havila are places accessible from King Solomon's Red Sea port Etzion Geber (near Eilat/Aqaba today) It would make sense that the Semite Sheba is somewhere on the Red Sea.

It could well be that the two Shebas refer to the same nation, which had a mixture of Semite and Hamite characteristics. Indeed, there was much trade and interface across the Red Sea strait.

This fits well with the Ethopian tradition that King Solomon had a son with the Queen of Sheba, Menelik, who is the progenitor of the Ethiopian Monarchy. There is much evidence that the Queen was dark and not Nordic, Chinese, or West African.


What is the difference in rewards between a person who is virgin till death and a person who is married? Nun in the churches are virgins till death. And normal women marries a man.
So what is will be the difference in reward after they die. And reach heaven.

What is the difference in rewards between a person who is virgin till death and a person who is married?
So what is will be the difference in reward after they die. And reach heaven.
At a Catholic point of view some of the saints in heaven will have special halos.
St. Thomas Aquinas states that virgins, doctors and martyrs will receive special aureoles:

An aureole is an exceptional reward corresponding to an exceptional victory: wherefore the three aureoles are assigned in accordance with the exceptional victories in the three conflicts which beset every man. For in the conflict with the flesh, he above all wins the victory who abstains altogether from sexual pleasures which are the chief of this kind; and such is a virgin. Wherefore an aureole is due to virginity. In the conflict with the world, the chief victory is to suffer the world's persecution even until death: wherefore the second aureole is due to martyrs who win the victory in this battle. In the conflict with the devil, the chief victory is to expel the enemy not only from oneself but also from the hearts of others: this is done by teaching and preaching, and consequently the third aureole is due to doctors and preachers.
Some, however, distinguish the three aureoles in accordance with the three powers of the soul, by saying that the three aureoles correspond to the three chief acts of the soul's three highest powers. For the act of the rational power is to publish the truth of faith even to others, and to this act the aureole of doctors is due: the highest act of the irascible power is to overcome even death for Christ's sake, and to this act the aureole of martyrs is due: and the highest act of the concupiscible power is to abstain altogether from the greatest carnal pleasures, and to this act the aureole of virgins is due.
Others again, distinguish the three aureoles in accordance with those things whereby we are most signally conformed to Christ. For He was the mediator between the Father and the world. Hence He was a doctor, by manifesting to the world the truth which He had received from the Father; He was a martyr, by suffering the persecution of the world; and He was a virgin, by His personal purity. Wherefore doctors, martyrs and virgins are most perfectly conformed to Him: and for this reason an aureole is due to them. - Whether three aureoles are fittingly assigned, those of virgins, of martyrs, and of doctors?

Perhaps in heaven we will be returning closer to Our Divine Author’s intention to be clothed in light as Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden.
Just maybe!
Adam and Eve Clothed in Light Before the Fall - Origin of this belief?


What is an overview of the differences between Old Testament and New Testament? I am a Muslim and I am trying to understand the Bible for educational purposes.

I've never known anything about the Bible apart from the fact that it exists. Now I have heard in many debates and Christian speeches of verses from The Old Testament and verses from The New Testament.

My question is simple, what is an overview of the differences between the Old and New Testaments? Are they still a part of the Bible?

Keep in mind I know nothing about Christianity so excuse me if my question doesn't make sense.

The Old Testament consists of books written by the Jews during the centuries before Jesus was born. It is believed to contain the entire history of the Jews all the way back to the creation of the world. The Old Testament is important to Christians because it is thought to include prophecies of Jesus.

The New Testament consists of additional books written by Christian authors, but not accepted by Jews as scripture. Four of these books, known as gospels, contain an account of the life of Jesus and another book, known as Acts of the Apostles, is believed to be a history of the early Church. Other books are letters, or epistles, believed to have been written by Christian apostles.

The Bible consists of both the Old Testament and the New Testament, following in that order.  When discussing Judaism, Christians sometimes refer to the Old Testament as the Hebrew Bible, but Jews would call it the Tanakh.


Why has God created us? Why has God created us? The Almighty Lord does not need anyone; he does not need the angels, the heaven, or the earth. Are there any written words in the Bible that tell the reason?

There are two ways to look at this, and there are arguments to both, so there isn't a correct answer that can be proven as it depends on how you want to interpret Scripture, since we are trying to understand God's motivation for creation, which is similar to an ant trying to understand our motivation for doing something.

You may want to read through this article, as I think this author did a fantastic job of explaining some of the relatively early church fathers thoughts on this, with references.

http://www.anselm.edu/Documents/Institute%20for%20Saint%20Anselm%20Studies/Abstracts/4.5.3.2j_11Rogers.pdf

Since this paper does such a fantastic job, I will show three sections that may help to at least show the two sides, but start with the fact that God is necessary, and perfect, so he doesn't have to create in order to be perfect.

Augustine had one side, which was that God could not fail to create, but Thomas Aquinas took the other side that God had the freedom to create or not create, so the freedom of indifference.

  God himself is a necessary being.  In his perfect being and
  simplicity, he just is an act, and that act is necessarily perfectly
  and infinitely good.   The question is not, “Does creation involve any
  necessity?”  Obviously it does.  The question is whether or not the
  necessarily perfect divine action inevitably produces one best
  creation, our world, which is the position I have attributed to
  Anselm, or might it have ended in some entirely different creation, or
  no creation at all, as Thomas holds.

  Augustine repeats the standard Neoplatonic line that the absolute
  Good cannot fail to create. In De Genesi ad litteram IV, 16, 27 he
  discusses the seventh day of creation, and holds that we are told of
  God’s rest so that we may understand that God has no need of creation.
  As perfect already He is not made happier or more complete by
  creation.  Nonetheless, it would be inconsistent with His goodness to
  fail to create

  Thomas holds that, having once chosen to create a given world, God’s
  goodness requires that he see to it that that world is perfectly
  ordered internally.  So God does not have the freedom to produce an
  inherently badly ordered creation.  But with regard to creation
  itself, God has freedom of indifference.  He is perfect in himself and
  does not need any creation, so it is indifferent whether his perfect
  act should terminate in our world, some other world, or not end in any
  creation at all.

If God chose not to create, would that make him any less that He is?

If God is perfect, why does He need our worship/love/adoration (whatever He gets from us)?

Regardless of God's reason for creating us, the end result is that we exist because of God's Love and Greatness.

But, I do enjoy the simplicity that was in this blog:
http://michellewui.blog.co.uk/2011/03/23/the-reason-that-god-created-man-10877315/

In Ezekial 18:4 we have:

  Behold, all souls are Mine . . . The soul who sins shall die.

God created us so we can have an eternal relationship with him, though, as seen in Genesis, with the Trinity already existing, God was not alone, so He didn't do it because He was lonely, but the idea that we were created to be able to know Him and by knowing Him deeply we can spend all of eternity with him is a fantastic idea.

Her simplicity is very nice, and since the OT asked about Bible verses I thought this would at least meet that requirement.


Why is the Ark always depicted as a ship? All the depictions of Noah's Ark picture it in the shape of a ship. However, the Ark had no need for navigation. And the first known ship shaped vessels were those of the Vikings, who had harnessed the wind to make navigation possible, prior to sailing there was no bow or stern, an certainly no rudders.

Depictions of the Ark do not have sails, but do most often depict a bow, and sometimes a rudder of sorts.

The Ark only needed to float:

  Genesis 7:17  KJV  And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

A lot of images of the ark do not attempt to be realistic at all, in terms of scale, but only try to give a general impression; it's also fairly common to have lots of extra windows with animal heads peeking out. (This is more fun for the artist, and lets the viewer understand what is being shown.) We see versions which are just a box; a box on top of a ship's hull; or a ship that's all one piece.

Examples:

Basilica di San Marco, Venice, 13th C. - basically a box with a roof.
Duomo di Monreale, 12th C. - box-on-a-boat. A splendid touch is the raven eating the drowned corpse of some unfortunate person - explaining why it did not return to Noah.
The Bedford Hours, BL Add MS 18850 f.13r, 15th C. - a three-story box, with proportions resembling a church nave.
Le Livre des hystoires du Mirouer du monde, BNF Français 328 f.4v, 15th C. - ship with a curved dome of wood, reminding me of a wooden blimp.
BNF Français 64 f.17r, 15th C. - same idea of a domed ship, reminds me of a flying saucer.

None of these are to scale, and realism in general is not something that the artists were trying to achieve. They want to convey that this thing is Noah's ark. They also often want to show Noah himself doing things.

The Bible doesn't say emphatically that the ark is not ship-shaped; Genesis 6 gives three dimensions, but modern ships can also be summarized by their lengths, widths and heights (perhaps also draughts) with no implication that they are boxes. In favour of the box shape, it would maximize the capacity of the ark, within the specified dimensions.

I don't have any competence in maritime engineering, so I can't speak to the seaworthiness of a big wooden box, but I'd imagine at least some of the artists involved have their doubts. Including ship-like details helps to render the whole image more acceptable, especially if the ark is being shown in a stylized way already.


Why did Luther not support iconoclasm like some other reformers? During the Reformation, Protestant reformers such as Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin promoted Iconoclasm among their followers. I have found information about Luther opposing it, but little about why.

Why exactly did Luther oppose iconoclasm when other leaders supported it?

Illustration in a deluxe Luther Bible showing God creating the world

The same illustration in a deluxe Luther Bible owned by Count Joachim, in which he erased the depiction of God because of his support of iconoclasm

Luther's own words on the subject are quoted in:

  The Third Sermon, March 11, 1522, Tuesday after Invocavit

In his sermon on 'How Christians should regard Moses' Luther makes it clear that he does not agree with making images nor with worshipping them but he draws the line at destroying other people's images.

Luther draws the line because he says :

  And if you reply: The text says, “You shall not make any images,” then they say: It also says, “You shall not worship them.” In the face of such uncertainty who would be so bold as to destroy the images? Not I. But let us go further. They say: Did not Noah, Abraham, Jacob build altars? [Gen. 8: 20; 12: 7; 13: 4; 13: 18; 33: 20]. And who will deny that?

Since he feels that he cannot prove that someone is worshipping an image in an idolatrous manner (although there may be no doubt that they made the image) he feels it wrong to destroy the image.

He also accepts the fact that some might criticise the making of an ark and cherubim. They were not made to be worshipped and it was wrong to do so, but Luther feels the criticism is valid and accepts that if Iconoclasts are going to destroy other people's images then those whose images are destroyed have a claim on them.


How did Calvin view the use of religious icons to facilitate worship of God? Recently I was told in a chat room on this site that the use of icons in the church 'wasn't offensive to anyone'!? I was so amazed that anyone would ever say such a thing, but since I have never had an interest in this sort of history,  I had some doubts.

The question is, 'Well what is it? Were many reformers deeply offended with the use of religious icons in worship, or is this just an unfounded claim?

Note: I am now researching many details about real church history on similar topics as I realize I am weak in being able to answer questions about it.  This question therefore is part of a series of historical questions as I learn myself. Please do not think I have fallen into 'negative theology' it is merely an academic quest to sort out some facts.

It does not take much research at all to find out the great offense that many reformers took in the use of religious icons in worship.  They viewed it as nothing less than idolatry.

Calvin dedicated a section of his Institutes to explain how this idolatry, though originally opposed by ancient church Fathers (he argues), became an established sin in the church.  For example here Calvin establishes some history of his own to work with.

  Augustine distinctly declares, that it is unlawful not only to worship images, but to dedicate them. And in this he says no more than had been long before decreed by the Libertine Council, the thirty-sixth Canon of which is, "There must be no pictures used in churches: Let nothing which is adored or worshipped be painted on walls. (Calvin's Institutes Book 1, CH 11 - IMPIETY OF ATTRIBUTING A VISIBLE FORM TO GOD. —THE SETTING UP OF IDOLS A DEFECTION FROM THE TRUE GOD)

Clearly, even from the title of the section, Calvin had a problem with the use of images in the worshipping of God.


Is there a difference between "co-redeemer" and "co-redemptrix"? Did Pope Francis throw cold water on any hope for a 5th Marian dogma or is there a fundamental difference between "co-redeemer" and "co-redemptrix" that leaves the door slightly ajar?

Is there a difference between “co-redeemer” and “co-redemptrix”?
Technically co-redeemer is masculine and co-redeemptrix is female.

Definition of co-redemptrix
A woman whose participation is believed by some Roman Catholics to be essential for the redemption of humanity
Specifically: Virgin Mary

The title of co-redeemer is occasionally applied the the Virgin Mary:

Mary's title of Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer can assist in magnifying our understanding of God's humility. - Teachings Not Yet Declared Dogmas
Co-Redemptrix or Co-Redeemer

Yes, it seems Pope Francis did throw cold water on any hope for a 5th Marian dogma!

At his weekly public audience on March 24, 2021, Pope Francis rejected the claim that the Virgin Mary should be honored as “co-redemptrix,” saying that she should be honored, “but as a mother, not as a goddess, not as co-redeemer.” Noting that he was speaking on the eve of the Annunciation feast day, he pointed out that in Christian iconography, the depiction of Mary is “always in relation to her Son and in connection with Him.. she always points out the center: Jesus.” - Catholic News Headlines

Although Pope Francis was not speaking ex cathedra, he definitively makes a point that he does not favour such a dogma.

Christ is the Mediator, Christ is the bridge that we cross to turn to the Father (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2674). He is the only Redeemer: there are no co-redeemers with Christ. He is the only one. He is the Mediator par excellence. He is the Mediator. Each prayer we raise to God is through Christ, with Christ and in Christ and it is fulfilled thanks to his intercession. The Holy Spirit extends Christ’s mediation through every time and every place: there is no other name by which we can be saved: Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and humanity (see Acts 4:12).
Due to Christ’s one mediation, other references Christians find for their prayer and devotion take on meaning, first among them being the Virgin Mary, the Mother of Jesus.
She occupies a privileged place in the lives of Christians, and therefore, in their prayer as well, because she is the Mother of Jesus. The Eastern Churches have often depicted her as the Odigitria, the one who “shows the way”; and the way is her Son, Jesus Christ. The beautiful, ancient painting of the Odigitria in the Cathedral of Bari comes to my mind. It is simple. The Madonna who shows Jesus, naked; then they put a shirt on him to cover his nakedness, but the truth is that Jesus is naked, he himself, man, born of Mary, is the Mediator. And she indicates the Mediator: she is the Odigitria. Her presence is everywhere in Christian iconography, sometimes very prominently, but always in relation to her Son and in connection with Him. Her hands, her eyes, her behavior are a living “catechism”, always indicating the hinge, she always points out the center: Jesus. Mary is completely directed toward Him (see CCC, 2674) to such an extent that we can say she is more disciple than Mother. The directions she gave at the wedding at Cana: “He: do whatever he will tell you”. She always refers to Christ. She is the first disciple.
This is the role Mary fulfilled throughout her entire earthly life and which she forever retains: to be the humble handmaid of the Lord, nothing more. At a certain point in the Gospels she almost seems to disappear; but then she reappears in the more crucial moments, such as at Cana, when her Son, thanks to her caring intervention, performs his first “sign” (see Jn 2:1-12), and then on Golgotha at the foot of the cross. - General Audience, 24.03.2021

Wikipedia has the following to say about the title of co-redemptrix:

According to those who use the term, Co-Redemptrix refers to a subordinate but essential participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption, notably that she gave free consent to give life to the Redeemer, which meant sharing his life, suffering, and death, which were redemptive for the world. Related to this belief is the concept of Mary as Mediatrix, which is a separate concept but regularly included by Catholics who use the title Co-Redemptrix. A Fifth Marian Dogma has been proposed including both Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix.
The term Co-Redemptress was used by Pope Leo XIII in 1894. "For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our co-Redemptress comes to us..."
The concept was especially common in the late Middle Ages, when it was promoted heavily among the Franciscans, and often resisted by the Dominicans. By the early 16th century the hopes of the concept becoming Catholic doctrine had receded, and have never seriously revived. In more recent times, the title has received some support from the Catholic Magisterium though it is not included in the concluding chapter of the apostolic constitution Lumen gentium of the Second Vatican Council, which chapter many theologians hold to be a comprehensive summary of Roman Catholic Mariology. Some, in particular the adherents of the Amsterdam visions, have petitioned for a dogmatic definition, along with Mediatrix, and the process for further theological clarification and eventual dogmatic definition is ongoing. Pope John Paul II was the most favorable of recent Popes. As a Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI suggested that the Marian title caused confusion and did not sufficiently reflect scripture. Pope Francis has repeatedly suggested the title not be used. - Co-Redemptrix


Does Numbers 16 describe the first earthquake? Numbers 16 describes the Levites revolting against Moses and Aaron. In proving the Lord sent him to do all those things, Moses said

  "But if the Lord brings about something totally new, and the earth
  opens its mouth and swallows them...you will know that these men have
  treated the Lord with contempt. As soon as he finished saying all
  this, the ground under them split apart and the earth opened its mouth
  and swallowed them...the earth closed over them, and they perished and
  were gone from the community." Numbers 16:30-33

It sounds like "something totally new" was an earthquake causing the ground to split. Is there any evidence for or against this?

Maybe, maybe not.  Consider Job 9:6.

  Job 9:6 (DRA)
   6 Who shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

Job is supposed to have lived around the time of Abraham, quite a while before the events that took place in numbers. Even if you consider Job to be a tall tale, its origin in oral tradition might suggest that Earthquakes are not new.

Earthquakes as a means of disposing with traitors to the faith, well that's different than flooding the Earth, and something new in God's revelation.

But alas, there is nothing new under the sun.


Does the theology of Arians and Jehovah's Witnesses admit that God was at one point ἄλογος? According to the article on “The Word” in the Watchtower publication Insight on the Scriptures,

  This Word, or Lo′gos, was God’s only direct creation, the only-begotten son of God, and evidently the close associate of God to whom God was speaking when he said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.” (Ge 1:26) Hence John continued, saying: “This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence.”—Joh 1:2, 3.

The publication states that the λόγος was God’s only direct creation, the “only-begotten son of God.” Furthermore, it also identifies the λόγος as Jesus Christ:

  In the Christian Greek Scriptures “the Word” (Gr., ho Lo′gos) also appears as a title. (Joh 1:1, 14; Re 19:13) The apostle John identified the one to whom this title belongs, namely, Jesus, he being so designated not only during his ministry on earth as a perfect man but also during his prehuman spirit existence as well as after his exaltation to heaven.

The claim is that God’s λόγος, the Word of God (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ), is a creation (and thus, a creature). If God’s λόγος was created, then it did not exist before it was created. The corollary is that God at one point lacked λόγος, or was ἄλογος. The Greek word ἄλογος means “without reason, logic; irrational; illogical.”

Source: Strong’s Lexicon; Greek Word Study Tool at Tufts University.

The Greek letter α (alpha) prefixed to a word signifies absence, opposition, or negation.

Source: Strong’s Lexicon.

For example, the Greek word νόμος (nomos) means “law.” When prefixed with the Greek letter α, it means “without law; lawless.”

Source: Strong’s Lexicon.

While the Greek word λόγος is most often translated simply as “word,” it also possesses the meanings of “reason” and “logic.”

Source: Strong’s Lexicon.

Something which possesses reason, or the ability to reason, is said to be “rational.”

Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged (based on the Random House Dictionary).

Something that lacks reason is said to be “irrational.”

Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged (based on the Random House Dictionary).

The consequence of the argument that God created the λόγος was that God was at one point ἄλογος, or without reason, illogical, or irrational.

How do Arians and/or Jehovah’s Witnesses respond when it is said that their God was without reason, irrational, and illogical?

What does this say about God’s supposed immutability?

If I’m understanding you correctly, this is your central claim:

  If God’s λόγος was created, then it did not exist before it was created. The corollary is that God at one point lacked λόγος, or was ἄλογος. The Greek word ἄλογος means “without reason, logic; irrational; illogical.”

Er, no. It doesn’t quite work like that. Here’s Witness theology, as I recall it.

God is God. Immutable. Unchanging. “For I am Jehovah; I do not change.” Malachi 3:6.

The Λόγος is a separate being (better known to us as Jesus, but bearing many other names besides, including Michael). The word is not, in this context, describing a quality of God, or an aspect of his nature. It’s a name. A person’s name. No doubt it’s a meaningful name, and the person so described is wise, but that does not mean that others lack wisdom, discernment, and rationality. Notably, God himself possesses all those qualities. And always has done.

  How do Arians and/or Jehovah’s Witnesses respond when it is said that their God was without reason, irrational, and illogical?

I don’t know. I’ve never heard it said before. As far as I’m aware, this question is unique to you. You’ve come up with a novel approach.

I must say that the concept of an irrational God becoming rational would be a rather artistically pleasing element to a creation myth, but it does not form part of Witness theology.


Does the seal of confession extend to bystanders? A Catholic priest cannot reveal what someone has told him in confession. If he does reveal it, he will be defrocked and punished.

If a different Catholic than the priest unintentionally overheard the confession, and learned of something important, like a murder. Would the bystander be allowed to reveal what he had heard? Does the answer change if the bystander is also a priest?

Of course, a priest who received a confession of a murder would recommend that the person confessing should give himself up to the police. But assuming he refuses to do that, what would be expected / permissible?

This is a hypothetical question, but in the centuries since the seal of confession has existed, this must have come up.

Does the seal of confession extend to bystanders?

The short answer is yes.

No one may reveal what is said in confession.

  Another interesting side to this question is the obligation of the laity to uphold the seal of confession:  An interpreter needed for someone to make a confession or anyone who gains knowledge of a confession (such as overhearing someone’s confession) is also obligated to preserve secrecy (Code of Canon Law, #983.2).  For such a person to violate the secrecy of another person’s confession is a mortal sin and warrants “a just penalty, not excluding excommunication” (#1388.2).  Moreover, a person who falsely accuses a priest of breaking the seal of the confession incurs a mortal sin and perhaps other canonical penalties, including excommunication.

  Clearly, the Church regards the seal of confession as sacred.  Every person– whether priest or laity– must take the obligation to preserve the secrecy of confession absolutely seriously. - Can the seal of confession be broken or the secrets ever be revealed by priests?


Where did the disciples meet Jesus after the resurrection? I was listening to a debate between a Muslim scholar and a Christian scholar, and the Muslim debater raised this and many other questions.  The Christian debater did not address this issue in his reply, so I tried looking for answer but had no luck.  My question is this:

After the resurrection of the Christ, where were the disciples actually?

In the Gospel of Matthew they are in Galilee:

  Matthew 28:7-10 (KJV)
  7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
  8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
  9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
  10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

In the Gospel of Luke they are in Jerusalem:

  Luke 24 (KJV)
  13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
  33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
  49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

I looked on a map, and Galilee and Jerusalem are quite far apart. What could be the explanation of this?

Christians who believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible argue that these two accounts are not contradictory: that Jesus met his followers in both Jerusalem and Galilee after his resurrection.

Such an argument first requires establishing that there was a lengthy period of time between the resurrection and the ascension, and that Luke 24 is a summary of that period.  Acts 1:3, also believed to have been written by Luke, says:

  [Jesus] presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God. (ESV, emphasis added)

Once this is established, one can argue that Jesus appeared to his followers multiple times.  For example, the New Bible Commentary (1970) says:

  There need be no doubt that Jesus appeared to His disciples both in Jerusalem (as in Luke, Acts and Jn. 20) and in Galilee (as in Matthew and Jn. 21).


Catholics ordained as "mail order ministers"? What is the canonical penalty for Catholics who get ordained as "mail order ministers"?

The Church seems to be silent on this matter, not because of its' gravity but more so because the whole purpose of canon law is to set down guidelines for Catholics in good faith to make the right choices and to act accordingly. How can one be in communion with the Church while being an ordained minister in another denominational church?

Catholics who freely get ordained as a non-denominational minister cease to be Catholics in good standing and as a result canon law will no longer hinder them because they outside the jurisdiction of the Church. They are outside the unity of the Church and are to be considered heretics and/or a schismatics. How can one serve two masters. Either he will love the first and hate the second? See: Matthew 6:24 One is Catholic or one is something else!

How Can someone claim to be a practicing Catholic and then get ordained as a non-denominational minister (such as from The Universal Life Church Ministries)  makes no sense. One can not abide by what the Church teaches and then leave the fold and teach what may be contrary to Catholic theology.

The following article is found online and although it is only indirectly on this topic, many of its' points are quite prevalent to this subject: Catholic Priests Who Become Non-Catholic Ministers.


Why do LDS members (Mormons) maintain a long-term supply of food? I understand that LDS members are encouraged to build and maintain a long-term supply of food and other essentials.  From where did this teaching originate and what is the reasoning behind this practice?  What is the prevalent "target" that one is encouraged to achieve?

Does this have anything to do with LDS end-times theology?

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on Emergency Preparedness explains that this practice is about simple pragmatism.  It really has little if anything to do with eschatology; rather, the concept that members should maintain a stored supply of food is based on the simple reality that disasters and emergencies, both personal and wide-scale, do happen, and often without warning.

A person who has a long-term supply of food on hand is much better prepared to weather various disasters, ranging from a sudden loss of a job or unexpected medical expenses to societal disruptions such as natural disasters, riots, truckers' strikes or other conditions that make shopping for food difficult.

The recommended target given by the church is to have a year's supply of essential food saved up.  The EoM article references a 1980 General Conference talk by Ezra Taft Benson, then of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which can be found here.  In the talk, however, he states that this has been the counsel of the church "for over forty years."  (Which would most likely place the origin of the idea in the 1930s, most likely during the Great Depression, which makes sense. If anyone can find a source to date this counsel back that far, feel free to edit it in here.)


What is the 'reward' that Jesus is referring to in Matthew 6:6? But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. - Matthew 6:6 NIV

I would like to think that 'reward' refers to answered prayers. But 'true' believers of Christ should know that God answers prayer (James 5:16), so it seems unlikely it is referring to just that. What is an overview of different interpretations of what 'reward' in this verse is referring to.

One commentator on scripture presents the reward as Grace.  If you view prayer as a sincere communication with God, in humility, the commentary comes to a rational conclusion.  Responding to God's call will include communication with God, in prayer and in other ways.

  {Catechism of the Catholic Church 1996} Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

  6:5-8 You may as soon find a living man that does not breathe, as a living Christian that does not pray. If prayerless, then graceless. The Scribes and Pharisees were guilty of two great faults in prayer, vain-glory and vain repetitions. Verily they have their reward; if in so great a matter as is between us and God, when we are at prayer, we can look to so poor a thing as the praise of men, it is just that it should be all our reward. Yet there is not a secret, sudden breathing after God, but he observes it. It is called a reward, but it is of grace, not of debt; what merit can there be in begging? If he does not give his people what they ask, it is because he knows they do not need it, and that it is not for their good. So far is God from being wrought upon by the length or words of our prayers, that the most powerful intercessions are those which are made with groanings that cannot be uttered. Let us well study what is shown of the frame of mind in which our prayers should be offered, and learn daily from Christ how to pray.


Jesus' Brothers (Matthew 12:46) What exactly did Matthew mean when he is talking about Jesus' brothers in Matthew 12:46? From Matthew 12:49, its clear that he didn't mean Jesus' disciples as his brothers. So who are the Jesus' brothers mentioned there?

In Protestant Christianity, it is understood that Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus, but not after.

  24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord
  commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had
  given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.  Matthew 1:24-25
  ESV

After the birth of Jesus, then, Joseph and Mary were like any other married couple and would have likely had other children.

Paul refers to someone named "James" whom he refers to as "the Lord's brother".

  But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.  Galatians 1:19 ESV

Later in Matthew, Jesus arrives in Nazareth, and he is rejected there because that is where he grew up, and people refused to believe he was anything special.  They specifically say that we know his father (who was actually only his stepfather), his mother Mary, and four named brothers.

  Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And
  are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things? Matthew 13:55-56 ESV

So, Jesus appears to have had four brothers, namely James, Joseph, Simon and Judas.  It also indicates that Jesus had sisters, but it does not give a specific number.


Given a Catholic understanding of Hell and individual judgment, do Catholics believe that all Protestants will go to Hell? I'm interested in a Catholic answer only; I want to know what the Catholic church teaches about this matter.

I know that the Catholic Church says that only God is the judge, and that we are the ones who will choose God based on our love we have for him.

Many Protestants, even very good ones, appear to have committed what Catholics believe to be mortal sins: for example using contraception, or cohabiting before marriage.

In addition, Protestants do not generally believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist; but Jesus said,

  Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

(John 6:53, New American Bible Revised Edition)

With this understood, how is such a person treated at the individual judgment (i.e., at the moment of death), having apparently died in a state of mortal sin? I know God forgives and look at the intentions, but I question whether someone who lives in mortal sin will retain the ability to recognize God in Heaven.

Does Catholic doctrine teach that at the individual judgment, at the moment of death, Protestants will all choose Hell for lack of the ability to choose to love the true God—or perhaps for some similar reason?

I'm trying not to give an answer that's purely a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but the matter is discussed so well there that there isn't much I feel I can add to it:

  816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it.... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him." [Lumen Gentium 8, section 2]
  ...
  817   In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." [Unitatis Redintegratio 3, sec. 1] The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body—here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism—do not occur without human sin. ...

  818   "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church." [Unitatis Redintegratio 3, sec. 1]

  819   ... Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him.

(emphasis added)

It appears, then, that these other Christians will be treated as Catholics will, and will no more be "unable to choose to love the true God" than Catholics will.

Please comment on anything you feel I might be able to add to my answer.

Note: I was asked to comment on an answer elsewhere which quotes a papal bull written by Pope Eugenius IV and included among the documents of the Council of Florence, to the effect that pagans, Jews, and other non-Catholics will burn in Hell. I've read the document (not just the quote), and certainly have my own views on it, which I'll be glad to discuss with anyone in chat. However, the question requested official Catholic teaching. I will therefore say this: The quotations I've provided above from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, an official teaching document of the Catholic Church, indicate the current state of the Magisterium, and thus allow for the possibility that Protestants can be saved. As Unitatis Redintegratio (section 3) states,

  For [those] who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.

This appears to answer the statement of Pope Eugenius.

I'd just like to wrap up with a final quote from Unitatis Redintegratio (section 4):

  All in the Church must preserve unity in essentials. But let all, according to the gifts they have received enjoy a proper freedom, in their various forms of spiritual life and discipline, in their different liturgical rites, and even in their theological elaborations of revealed truth. In all things let charity prevail. If they are true to this course of action, they will be giving ever better expression to the authentic catholicity and apostolicity of the Church.

Please see also the accepted answer to "Has the Church stated any advantages or reasoning or prompting to re-formulating positively the Catholic Church's salvation doctrine?". The Church has two formulations to its salvation doctrine, and they should be understood together.


How do Modalists interpret John 14:28? How do Modalists interpret John 14:28?

  You heard me say to you, I am going away, and I will come to you. If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. (John 14:28, ESV)

They would first point out that in John 14:28 Christ says he is both "going away" and "will come to you" as evidence that Christ and the Holy Spirit referred to in John 14:16-17 are really the same person based on John 14:18 [and v28]

  16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. John 14:16-18(KJV)

Next they would point out that while the Father in John 14:28 is treated as independent and "greater,"

  In passages of scripture such as Matthew 3:16-17 where the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit are separated in the text, they view this phenomenon as confirming God's omnipresence, and His ability to manifest himself as he pleases."
  Wikipedia

Finally, they would posit that the view of the "Father" as presented in v28 must be taken contextually as explained to their understanding just a few verses before in John 14:8-9, in which they would affirm that Christ essentially states that He and the Father are the same person.

  (John 14:8-9, WEB) Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you such a long time, and do you not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father. How do you say, ‘Show us the Father?’


The Middle Ages as a Model for the Orderly Society? I'm interested in finding books and studies (both for and against) the idea that Medieval European society had a kind of order that's desirable. Foundationally, there's a clear religious order--officially Western Europe was completely Catholic. In turn, this kind of religious uniformity supported a clear political order--the secular authorities were committed to this religious order and drew from it as a basis for their political order.
I believe this is a version of "Medievalism", but there may be a better more specific name for it.
Whether such a description of Medieval society is accurate or not really is irrelevant for me: the fact is that a minority of Christians (Catholics and others) seem to have this belief. I'd like to understand more about its recent origins, key apologists for it, and any significant criticisms of the idea. Catholic critiques in particular would be helpful. Patrick Deneen is one key thinker I've already identified.
Thanks so much.
See: Medievalism (Wikipedia).

A major book would be "The Reformers and their Stepchildren" by Leonard Verduin.  The "Reformers" would be Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Calvin, etc.  The "Stepchildren" would be the anabaptists, baptists and all who are today non-conformists, such as Pentecostals, Free church, essentially all who neither have nor seek any special privilege from "the State", they do not desire a "state religion" either for themselves or other religious groups.  [I have to  say the book upset me, because I had rather thought the Reformers rediscovered the idea of "the freedom of religion", and we owe our religious freedoms and freedom of speech, etc, to them... how wrong I was!]
The argument of the book is that the Reformers carried on in precisely the same steps where the Roman Catholic Church they had just condemned had been walking: rather than condemn Christian sacralism outright, they merely swapped Roman Catholic sacralism with Protestant sacralism.  This led to the persecution and deaths of Christian believers at the hands of the Reformers and their followers.
In terms of religion, the most successfully Christian country in the world today in terms of adherents of one sort of Christian denomination or another would be the USA where the constitution specifically forbids any favouritism to any one religious organisation.
The Roman Catholic Church has never repudiated the idea of a Church-State union, with the RC Church having the support of the State, enabling the oppression of those who will not conform.  Despite this, many Roman Catholics would agree that the RC Church is more healthy in the USA than in most other countries in the world.
The "Medieval" order, medievalism, can also be called "Christian sacralism".  Verduin also calls it "Constantinianism" derived from the name of the Roman Emperor who is commonly associated with effecting the change in the status of Christianity from an illegal cult worthy of persecution to the state religion of the Roman Empire. This new arrangement between the Emperor and the church leaders of those times thankfully brought an end to the persecution of Christians for the most part, but it immediately introduced the persecution of those who insisted on continuing in the worship of the old Roman gods. (It also started the persecution of those Christians who were not happy with the new arrangement, such as the Donatist Christians of North Africa.)
These are the some of the problems with sacralism: it leads to the persecution of those who won't conform - as Franklin Littell writes in the foreword to Verduin's book "to compel men by law to support and participate in religious exercises in which they have no faith is unworthy of Christians who put their trust in the Sword of the Spirit".
It leads to the loss of free speech and the loss of the freedom of religious expression.
It leads to the moral corruption of the religious organisations approved by the State, because these denominations in process of time gain a power, prestige, security and wealth which is attractive to ungodly men, drawing them in and causing them to seek advancement within the denomination.
In addition, when a person is considered to be a member of "The Church" simply because they are a citizen of the State a difficulty of church discipline arises: there is no longer any means of removing them from the Church except to remove them from the State: in such a situation the only way to discipline is to put them to death.  But it must be obvious that if the holiness commanded in the New Testament is to be taken seriously there would be rather a lot of people that would need to be put to death!
In consequence a Christian sacralist society loses the ability to take seriously the Bible's standards on holiness.
(By the way, it could be argued that the modern western society does in fact have a form of medievalism: most western States, to greater and lesser extents, do in fact promote a religious point of view which could be viewed as an attempt to create a "unified" society, and these states in the process use many of the legal instruments of the state to promote the unifying ideology.  It is just unfortunate for theists that the new unifying religious point of view is Atheism.  For instance, over the last fifty or so years in the USA, where the State is prohibited by the First Amendment from promoting any particular religious point of view or denomination, the Supreme Court, an instrument of the State, has rigorously promoted Atheism in schools, colleges, and society at large.. the consequence of a hugely perverse interpretation of the First Amendment.)
New Testament arguments against the idea of a Christian sacralist society
In the Old Testament the Israelite nation under Moses was a sacralist society: to be an Israelite was to be required to follow Jehovah, and failure could lead to death, even for picking up a few sticks on the Sabbath day (Numbers  15:32-36).  When Elijah sought repentance he did not go round preaching seeking the repentance of one Israelite here and one Israelite there.. he sought the repentance of the whole nation, because the whole nation was "the church", and the leader of the nation was the leader of "the church": before there could be any real improvement in "the church" the leader, King Ahab, needed to either repent or to die.  Of course, the OT Israelite sacralist state, like all sacralist states, could only enforce an outward, superficial, and largely hypocritical obedience.
But from the New Testament it ought to be clear that "Christian sacralism" is a contradiction in terms: the two concepts are at loggerheads against each other:
First, the term "ecclesia" means "called out", i.e. called out from the society of which the believer in Christ is otherwise a member.  It means "called out" to be visibly different from those who have not bowed the knee to Christ; it means called out to be holy, to be set apart for Christ.  It is this calling out that identifies Christ's kingdom as "the Kingdom of God".  It is not a kingdom that relies on any earthly power or privilege; it does not rely on the use of compulsion or the power of the sword; it is a kingdom which relies on the power of the Spirit; the members of this kingdom began to be part of it by their own choice and continue to be part of it by their own free choice. This kingdom does not seek to impose itself by any force; and so our Lord said to Pontius Pilate "My kingdom is not of this world, else would my servants fight" (John 18:36); and to Peter "put away your sword" (Matthew 26:52); the ways of the Old Testament prophets before the coming of the kingdom of God are not appropriate in the era of the kingdom of God (compare 2 Kings 1:10-12 with Luke 9:54-56).
The New Testament form of church discipline is not possible in a sacralist society.  "If he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a tax-collector" (Matthew 18:17b in 18:15-17).  If the whole of society is to be considered as belonging to the church then there isn't any place for the unrepentant to be removed to.  Another passage, on the same lines, which clearly neither recognises nor can be practiced in a sacralist society is 1 Corinthians 5:9-13:

I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.  For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”  (1 Corinthians 5:9-13 NKJV)

In Christian sacralism there is no inside and outside.
The ideas of this "Patrick Deneen", who I have never heard of, remind me of the "Reconstructionist"/"Dominion Theology"/"Theonomy" movement which has its origin I believe in some who hold to (Protestant) postmillenialism such as Drs Greg Bahnsen, Rousas Rushdoony and Gary North.  (Francis Schaeffer, it is said, was deeply influenced by the movement.)  These hold that Christians should be seeking to reconstruct society on Old Testament lines, with everyone subject to the laws and punishments of Moses........................ouch.
Books arguing against Greg Bahnsen, et al would be:-
"World Dominion - the High Ambition of Reconstructionism" by Dr Peter Masters;
"Dominion Theology, Blessing or Curse?" by H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice;
"Theonomy: a Reformed Critique", edited by William Barker & W. Robert Godfrey.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacralism
Friends, it seems to me that Christian sacralism has always been promoted with a view to the avoidance of persecution for Christ's sake. As such it will always be appealing till the world's end.  But the scriptures say that "all who will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Timothy 3:12).  Persecution, then, goes with the territory of true faith in Christ.  If anyone wants to avoid this persecution at all costs then there is no compulsion.. they can deny the Lord and leave him.
Christian sacralism gets promoted on the pretext of seeking a political unity or stability within society.  This is a horribly insulting misuse of Christ and the Gospel.  Christ's work and Gospel are designed for much greater things: to bring individual sinners into a right relationship with God and the saving of an eternal soul. It was never the aim of the Gospel to bring harmony to society.  Our Lord said "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)  It does not mean his followers will literally carry a sword, but the Gospel stirs up antagonism and opposition from sinners, not peace.
Where Christian sacralism is practiced evangelism is compromised. For who is there to evangelise except those who "The Church" says are Christian already?
Where those in political power seek its practice they also seek as a consequence to deny true Christians the ability and right to be visibly set apart from the rest of society.  The Church of those who have truly repented and believed in Christ, and who condemn sin, will always sooner or later be thrown into a fiery furnace and a den of lions by a hostile world that calls itself "The Church".
In the sphere of politics the western world, the "free world", holds that individuals should as far as possible be able to choose who rules them by means of free democratic elections.
Further, in the sphere of commerce and business, the western economic theories of "Free Market economics" hold that individuals should be free to choose who to buy from and who to sell to without coercion; and these theories of capitalism lead to the recognition that competition between businesses provides more choice for consumers leading to a struggle to produce better products and lower prices.  It is a commonplace understanding that monopolies should not be allowed to develop whereby consumers have no choice about who to buy a specific product from; so in the UK for instance there exists the Competition and Markets Authority which needs to give legal approval when two large companies want to merge.. the CMA will investigate to see if the proposed merger will be detrimental to consumers with the resulting merged company being so dominant in the market that consumers have little choice but must buy its products nomatter what the price.  Such regulations not only provide more choice to consumers, they also in the long term produce companies which are more competitive and more useful to society at large.
The same aim of providing free choice to individuals should exist in the sphere of religion, religious organisations and religious ideas.  The role of the State should not be to promote any one religious viewpoint, even the irreligious viewpoint: rather the main aim of the State should be to legally prevent organisations from using either coercion or deception either in the recruitment or in the keeping of adherents.


What could be the reason for Jesus not telling His disciples to write down whatever He was teaching them? What could be the reason for Jesus not telling His disciples to write down whatever He was teaching them?

He knew His mission here was to bring the Kingdom of God and He knew that the teaching He was imparting to the masses was extraordinary and unparalleled in the history of the world. Recently one member of this site mentioned and it could be true, that in a day whatever He was teaching His followers, would fit into one whole New Testament.  However, we find no record anywhere of Jesus telling His followers to record all that He was teaching them. He however said that when Holy Spirit comes He would teach them everything. Was His plan already in place?

1) Don't assume that Jesus neglected to instruct his disciples on this matter.  There are many things Jesus said and did that are not recorded in Scripture.  (The vast majority in fact.)

  And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written. -John 21:25

2) God's plan was for them to hear the words of Jesus, and then later be reminded of them by the Spirit, who would inspire them to write.

  But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. -John 14:26


Is it ever revealed that Paul released those that he imprisoned? So Paul (previously Saul) became a believer and an effective advocate for Christ, but only after he had imprisoned several believers.

  Acts 8:3 ESV But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.

Is it revealed in scripture anywhere that he went back and got those people out of prison? I would assume he did--I'm just curious if it's stated anywhere or implied or if there's a tradition about it.

No where in the NT does it suggest that Saul/Paul was able to undo his wrong in persecuting the Christians after his conversion. He himself became the object of persecution himself so he would have had no power with the Jewish authorities and it was they that eventually organised his arrest. The persecutors are never concerned about Justice and can justify the most terrible wrong in their religious zeal - just think about the miscarriages of justice around Jesus's trial.


Is faith in The Holy Trinity a choice or a gift? In the past and up till now, the majority of humans have believed in some form of deity. Now assume out of all those deities, only the The Holy Trinity is the only true God:

  And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. (John 17:3, RSV)

Is faith in The Holy Trinity a choice or a gift? Or is it a combination of both?

If I understand correctly, faith is a theological virtue that God gives to people, as opposed to human virtues that require some human effort to obtain.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm:

1813 ...They [theological virtues] are infused by God into the souls of the faithful to make them capable of acting as his children...
1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself....
1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it...

This gift of faith is then possibly infused during baptism and sealed at confirmation. It may also be obtained by praying to God and asking him for the gift of faith for oneself or for someone else. God can surely also dispense the gift of faith as he pleases without any human intervention according to his will.
To answer your question, it is a combination of both. It starts as a gift, but our human choices determine whether we acknowledge, accept and retain this gift, or whether we sin against, reject and dispose of this gift. God created us to have a free-will, so he won't let us believe something if we don't want to believe it. So I guess the gift of God and our choice to believe will always operate together in some way.