Is August 15th a day of obligation for all Roman Catholics? August 15th on which the assumption of St. Mary, mother of Jesus is commemorated by the  Catholic Church is a day of obligation for the Roman Catholics in India. I wish to know if the day is one of obligation for the universal Catholic Church, or is the practice restricted to India which commemorates its independence from British rule on the same day ?

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary is a holy day of obligation for the entire universal Church (Code of Canon Law, 1246 §1).

At the same time it should be recalled that the conference of bishops can suppress or transfer some holy days of obligation with the permission of the Apostolic See (Code of Canon Law, 1246 §2).

See also: What are the Holy Days of Obligation? (Catholic Answers)


American and Southern Baptists What are the principal differences between the Southern Baptist and American Baptist denominations in the US?

The Southern Baptist Convention is a formal denomination. They have a web site.

So is the American Baptist Convention.  Is that who you mean when you say Northen Baptists?  There's also the National Baptist Convention which happens to be a primarily African-American association. ABC and NBC also have web sites.

Please keep in mind that the Baptist traditions are free church traditions.  They got started in the USA when Roger Williams bailed out of theocratic Massachusetts to found Rhode Island with a driving principle of soul freedom.

Free church?  Specifically, each congregation establishes their own covenant (statement of beliefs and practices).  Therefore, generalizing is quite difficult, and may lead you to unfaithful conclusions.

Any congregation I've ever heard of is honored to talk to a visitor about their covenant. So ask!

Now to your question: Here is one little tidbit of difference between the SBC and the ABC.  A seminary teacher of mine, Prof. Mark Heim, is a member of the American Baptist Convention, and has represented them on the World Council of Churches Faith and Order Commission.

He taught very clearly that Holy Baptism is a universal rite for the whole church (across denominations, traditions, languages, and customs) according to Ephesians 4:4-6 ("one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all.")  He taught that when one congregation honors baptism administered in another congregation it's good for Christian unity. And the ABC suggests that for their congregations.

On the other hand, the SBC, at least according to an answer here on this site, recommends that congregations sometimes rebaptize.  See Do any major denominations refuse to recognize Holy Baptism in other denominations

So, that is a difference.


Is belief a work into salvation? Is the placing of one's faith in Christ for salvation, a work?  - Can I produce faith on my own?
How does the Bible answer that question?

You have asked for a biblical answer, and there are certainly different positions on this.  Some who believe that works are essential for salvation will refer to belief/faith as a work.  Indeed, if faith can be classified as a work, then requiring additional works for salvation seems more reasonable.  Yet, there appears to be good reason to distinguish faith from works.
Ephesians 2:8-9 is, of course, a key passage:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not
your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works,
so that no one may boast.  Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV

Salvation comes through faith, but salvation is not our own doing, but a gift of God.  Salvation is not a result of works (but of faith).  Faith, then, is distinguished from works.
(Some assert that faith is the gift of God, "this" does not match "faith" in gender, so that doesn't really fit.  It would be like saying, "my brother and his wife came over, and he got a new job--you would know I am speaking about my brother getting a new job because of the gender agreement)
There are quite a few other passages that demonstrate salvation is by faith, but not by works:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the
law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the
righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who
believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and
fall short of the glory of God... Romans 3:21-23 ESV
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.  Romans 3:28 ESV
16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that
whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life... 18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe
is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the
only Son of God.  John 3:16, 18 ESV
We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know
that a person is not justified by works of the law but through
faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in
order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law,
because by works of the law no one will be justified.  Galatians 2:15-16 ESV

Addendum
I was reading in Romans last night and came across this verse that specifically distinguishes works from faith:

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.  Romans 4:5 ESV

Paul speaks of the one who does not work, but believes--that person's faith is counted as righteousness.  Thus, faith is not a work, but is contrasted with works.


How are angels and humans different? It might sound like a stupid question at first, because obviously humans and angels are quite different in many ways... but bear with me a moment.

In one of the answers to my question What does "in the image of God" mean?, the poster says:

  [M]ost Christians interpret it to mean that we share in the spiritual reality with the spiritual beings, and traits specific to God (spiritual traits, since God is Spirit) belong to man. Such things then do not belong to other creatures, which may or may not include the angels.

It then lists four specific traits that humans share with God:

  Ability to create
  Reason
  Having a 'spirit'
  Being able to have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit

This makes me wonder: How are humans and angels different, in essence?  Of these four traits, angels seem to clearly posses a spirit, and likely have reason.  Are they able to create? Are angels 'indwelt' by the Holy Spirit? (Is it possible for a non-physical being to be indwelt anyway?)

What other traits do angels and humans share, and how else do they differ?

To provide a doctrinal scope, let me say I'm seeking views from an evangelical protestant* view, although I would still entertain answers from other views so long as they are labeled so.

*I realize that even "evangelical" may be too broad on this topic, as even if I specified a very specific denomination, there are likely many views supported within the official view of the denomination--since this is probably not considered an essential tenant of any denomination's statement of faith.  So... I hope this doesn't make the question unanswerable.

WARNING - CATHOLIC ANSWER

A religious sister at the end of the Faith Formation class I teach at was talking about this difference last night.

Angels are pure spirit, like God.

"Angel is their office, Spirit is their nature" - St. Augustine (see CCC)
Angels do not need to be saved by Jesus.

They made their choice to serve God or not before time began and do not have a fallen nature brought about by original sin.
Angels cannot consume the Eucharist.

Some theologians believe that this, coupled with the vision that Jesus would come to redeem mankind and be born of a woman, is the reason for Lucifer's revolt.

Catechism entry on angels

The internet does not seem to be a good place to source this info, or my google-fu is a little off.  Most of what we posit about the nature of angels is borne of private revelation.

So take it or leave it, I'll try to improve this answer when I come across the places I heard this information.


Is there a connection between St. Ambrose's "casta meretrix" and Apocalypse 17,1? The origins of the epithet "casta meretrix" are debated and not clear, do you know if anyone has ever related that to the words of John of Patmos "the great whore that sits on many waters" that many refer to the Roman Church?

Rahab a type for the Church
St. Ambrose uses the phrase "casta meretrix" in In Lucam III:23 (Patrologiae Latina XV, 1681):

Rahab illa typo meretrix (Josue, ii, 1), mysterio ecclesia indicavit: quae multorum convenarum publicæ non recusat, et quo conjunctior pluribus, castior; immaculata virgo, sine ruga, pudore integra, amore plebeia, casta meretrix, vidua sterilis, virgo fecunda. Meretrix, quia a pluribus amatoribus frequentatur cum dilectionis illecebra, et sine colluvione delicti: "Qui," enim, "adhæret meretrici, unum corpus est." (I Cor., vi, 16). Vidua sterilis, quæ viro parare non norit absente: venit vir, et hunc populum plebemque generavit. Virgo fecunda, quæ hanc genuit multitudinem cum fructu amoris, sine usu libidinis.

Rahab [Joshua 2:1] — who as a type was a prostitute, but as a mystery is the Church — showed in her blood the future sign of Universal Salvation amid the world’s carnage; she does not refuse to unite herself with numerous fugitives, and is all the more chaste in the extent to which she is closely joined to the greater number of them; she is the immaculate virgin, without a wrinkle, uncontaminated in her modesty, plebeian in her love, a chaste whore, a barren widow, a fecund virgin.* A whore because she frequents many lovers with the enticements of love: For "he who is joined to a harlot is one body" (1 Cor. 6:16). A barren widow who does not bear when her husband is absent; the husband coming, she gives birth to this people and nation. A fertile virgin who gives birth to this multitude with the fruit of love, without the use of lust.

*translation up to here from St. Ambrose scholar Cdl. Giacomo Biffi's Casta Meretrix: “The Chaste Whore,” An Essay on the Ecclesiology of St. Ambrose, as quoted in Br. André Marie's "Is the Church a 'Harlot'?"; what followers is my translation.
St. Ambrose's "casta meretrix" illustrates the sanctity of the Church and its necessity for salvation.
Br. André Marie's "Is the Church a 'Harlot'?" also includes the following quote from Casta Meretrix: “The Chaste Whore,” An Essay on the Ecclesiology of St. Ambrose, which shows that St. Ambrose was arguing for the doctrine that extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation):

Ambrose says that she “as a type was a prostitute but as a mystery is
the Church, united now to the Gentiles by the sharing of the
sacraments.” …
The “typical” use of Rahab — a contradictory character, to whom was
attributed both an unworthy profession and a praiseworthy and
providential action — was already a classic in Christian literature.
Matthew’s Gospel has recalled her in the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew
1:5). The Letter to the Hebrews had featured her as an example of the
faith which saves (Hebrews 11:31). St. James, concerned with other
aspects of theology, had emphasised her justification obtained through
works, i.e., through the good deed that she did for the Hebrew scouts
(James 2:25). Clement of Rome, almost as though trying to synthesise
and reconcile the two texts, had written, “Through her faith and her
hospitality, Rahab the prostitute was saved” (I ad Corinthios 12:1).
After Clement, who dwells a long time on the episode of Joshua 2:1-21,
reading it in the light of the Redemption worked by Christ (cf. I ad
Corinthios 12:1-8), a definite ecclesiological interpretation of the
figure of Rahab is clearly delineated — from Justin to Irenaeus, to
Origen, to Cyprian. Indeed, it is through reflection upon the “house
of the prostitute” — the only house in Jericho which preserved its
occupants from death — that the famous principle emerged of extra
Ecclesiam nulla salus [outside the Church there is no salvation].
“No one could be deceived in this regard,” writes Origen, “no one
could be mistaken; outside of the house, that is to say outside of the
Church, there is no salvation.’ (Om. in Josue 3:4).
Cyprian in turn writes, “Do you think that you can live if you detach
yourself from the Church, building yourself other houses and different
dwelling places, when Rahab, prototype of the Church, was told that
anyone who left the door of her house would be guilty?” (De unitate
ecclesiae 8).
[In a footnote, His Eminence adds:] “In Cyprian, the principle of
“extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” is linked to the truth of the maternity
of the Church: “no one can have God for a father who does not have the
Church for a mother” (De unitate ecclesiae 6).

The Fathers do not interpret the whore of Apocalypse 17:1 as the Church.
As quoted in the Rheims English New Testament (PDF p. 586), (pseudo?-)Ambrose wrote:

This great whore sometime signifieth Rome, specially which at that time when the Apostle wrote this, did persecute the Church of God. But otherwise it signifieth the whole city of the Devil, that is, the universal corps of the reprobate.

Tertullian wrote (Liber adversus Iudaeos):

Babylon in St. John is a figure of the city of Rome, being so great, so proud of the Empire, and the destroyer of the saints.

Fr. Kramer's The Book of Destiny, the most recent in-depth exegesis on the book of the Apocalypse, commentates on Apocalypse 17:1:

A harlot is given to fornication. Ezechiel (XXIII.) calls Israel and Juda harlots, because they practiced the idolatry of the pagan nations bordering on Israel. Fornication and adultery in prophetical language mean apostasy from the true faith and from God. Hence this GREAT harlot is a city whose apostasy from the true faith is a monstrous thing. This may point to Rome. Rome is the Holy City of Christ, the center of His eternal kingdom, as Jerusalem was the center of the theocracy. And the apostasy of this city, and her becoming the head of an empire that would lead all possible nations and peoples into antichrist-worship would indeed merit for her the title of THE GREAT HARLOT. The apostles called ancient Rome "Babylon" (1 Peter V. 13). So the conclusion is near that the great harlot of the future shall be Rome. However, in this narration, St. John uses ancient pagan Rome as the model for his portrait of the Babylon of the future. And whichever city it shall be, it will obviously be one that was once entirely Catholic, apostatized from the true faith and became the capital of the kingdom that leads all nations into Antichrist-worship. Primasius says: "meretricem vocans, quia relicto Creatore daemonibus se prostituit" [calling it a harlot because it left the Creator and prostituted itself to demons]. (Swete, p. 213).

related: What is the Catholic interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 [that Antichrist "sitteth in the temple of God"]?


Gregory of Nazianzus - First Oration - Translation of καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ δεξιὰ At the very beginning (§1) of his first oration entitled, "On the Holy Pascha and on His Reluctance/Delay," Gregory writes,

  Ἀναστάσεως ἡμέρα, καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ δεξιὰ...

Browne/Swallow translate καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ δεξιὰ as "my beginning has good auspices." Is this an accurate translation? It seems to me that it should be translated as "and the auspicious beginning," taking δεξιὰ as an adjective in FemNomSing modifying ἡ ἀρχὴ.

Is resurrection day (Easter Sunday) known in Catholic or Orthodox liturgy as "the auspicious beginning"?

Source text available here.

I will attempt1 to answer Is this an accurate translation? and leave the liturgical question to someone else.

First the text for reference:

  Ἀναστάσεως ἡμέρα, καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ δεξιὰ, καὶ λαμπρυνθῶμεν τῇ πανηγύρει, καὶ ἀλλήλους περιπτυξώμεθα.

  It is the Day of the Resurrection, and my Beginning has good auspices. Let us then keep the Festival with splendour, and let us embrace one another. (Browne/Swallow)

The question boils down to the distinction between an attributive (the auspicious day) and predicate (the day is auspicious) adjective. I think it is necessarily a predicate adjective, as Browne/Swallow have it. I see two reasons.

The word order and position of the article in ἡ ἀρχὴ δεξιὰ are that of a subject/predicate noun clause rather than an nominal phrase with an attributive adjective.

  If the noun is articular but the adjective is anarthrous...then the adjective is functioning as a predicate adjective.1

Recall that the constructions that are acceptable representations of an attributive relationship (if at least one article is present) are

ἡ δεξιὰ ἀρχὴ (=first attributive position, ~=English); and
ἡ ἀρχὴ ἡ δεξιὰ (=second attributive position); and
ἀρχὴ ἡ δεξιὰ (=third attributive position, uncommon).

It’s hard for me to see how a nominative phrase could make a semantically agreeable sentence.

  ?It is Resurrection Day, and the auspicious beginning, and let us keep the Festival...

I suppose you’re thinking of an appositive relationship (?). (It is Resurrection Day, that is, the auspicious beginning...) The lack of concordance in definiteness is a bit disconcerting, although I’m not sure that’s (for lack of a better word) definitive. The introjection of καὶ is also unusual for simple apposition.

Primarily for the first reason, and supported by the second, I read this clause as a predicate adjective, according with the Browne/Swallow translation quoted above.3

1. Admittedly, my grammar is about 300 years outdated for this question, but I offer it anyway as possibly helpful.

2. William D. Mounce. Basics of Biblical Greek. Zondervan, 2009: pp 67-68.

3. The details of how it is construed as auspicious and mine are not totally transparent to me, but that doesn’t seem to be bothering you. I suspect there is a semantic association between ἡμέρα and δεξιὸς that pushes the latter in the direction of “auspicious”.


God won't give us more than we can handle? Does the Bible state that God will not give us more than we can handle? Is it stated anywhere in the Bible?

The passage most commonly associated with this idea is 1 Corinthians 10:13 (NLT):

  The temptations in your life are no different from what others experience. And God is faithful. He will not allow the temptation to be more than you can stand. When you are tempted, he will show you a way out so that you can endure.


Does a list of people mentioned in the bible who got saved exist? I am studying about being saved. According to scripture :

  Ephesians 2 : 8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith; and
  that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

I want to study about the list of people mentioned in the bible who got saved. Explicitly I am looking for the one's who were like against God/Away from God and then got saved. Best example is, Apostle Paul. Are there any other in old and new testaments who were away from God and then saved?

The Catholic Church mentions such a list in its’ martyrology.

  Before the amazing 4th century, Christians were parochial and even patriotic in their veneration of saints. Rome celebrated the martyrs who had died at Rome, Constantinople celebrated the martyrs who had died at Constantinople, Antioch celebrated the martyrs who had died at Antioch, and so on. It never occurred to the folks in Rome to celebrate the saints of Antioch, or vice versa: celebrating a saint involved walking out to see his tomb. But in the 4th century a unique group of saints broke this pattern and set us on the path to the celebration of all saints. Who were they?

  The saints of the Bible.

  The saints of the Bible were familiar names throughout the Church. Texts like Hebrews 11 and Sirach 44-50, read everywhere, held up the great men and women of Salvation History as examples to follow and heroes to venerate. For the church in Jerusalem, however, the saints of Scripture were also the local martyrs: just as Rome had a list of days for celebrating the martyrs of Rome, Jerusalem had a cycle of liturgical commemorations of the biblical saints. When 4th-century pilgrims brought Jerusalem’s liturgies back to their home dioceses, they brought with them the practice of liturgically commemorating the biblical saints—and implicitly, they created the practice of commemorating saints that were not local. Unwittingly, they had planted the seed of the universal sanctoral cycle.

  Biblical saints have been a fixture in the liturgical year ever since, but most people don’t know about them. With the exception of a few prominent New Testament figures and one feast day in the Extraordinary Form, they are not mentioned in the Liturgy of the Hours or in the Roman Missal. But it turns out there is another liturgical book entirely dedicated to the commemoration of saints: the Martyrology. You’ve seen one of those liturgical calendars that lists saints’ days? They get their information from the Martyrology—and for any given day they leave out most of what the Martyrology offers.

  Here’s the punchline: the Church celebrates St. Abraham (Oct. 9), St. Moses (Sept. 4), St. Gideon (Sept. 26), and other great saints of the Old and New Testaments liturgically. They are part of the liturgical year. I have a complete list of biblical saints’ days at the end of this post: Saints of the Bible: A Complete List of Their Feasts in the Old and New Calendars


Dating the sacerdotal hierarchy What is the earliest generally accepted date for the sacerdotal hierarchy of the Christian Church?  My own best guess is that it cannot be much later than the destruction of the Temple, though I realize that there are questions concerning the usage of certain terms such as "presbyter" which concern the threefold hierarchy of deacon, priest, and bishop.  However, bishops are mentioned in the "Didache" as well as by St. Ignatius of Antioch.

The question concerns Protestant contentions that the sacerdotal hierarchy is a later Catholic/Orthodox distortion of the New Testament community.  This seems simply historically untenable to me since, if evidence of the hierarchy exists from the first century, a principle of historical continuity can be invoked to bring the institution quite near the earliest community, antedating the possible dates of composition of certain New Testament documents.

To trace the evolution of church institutions, as well as where Catholics and Protestants disagree about them, one will find that they agree on the facts but disagree on their meaning. There is nothing in the ‘facts’ that cause dispute, but as in all never-ending disputes, it is the prior assumptions that divide us. The cause in this subject is probably attributed to the mentality of either fully trusting or easily doubting ‘tradition’. However, to answer the question and to fix a date in history where Catholics and Protestants will generally divide over the interpretation of the facts regarding the development of Church institutions, it is not that difficult to do. All we have to do is locate at what date ‘additional titles’ of church officers, not found in scripture, became widely used in the Christian world.

As Protestants put all church traditions below authority of scripture there is generally no dispute in the basic primitive officers within a local church, such as a deacon or a bishop; the bishop, acting as a spiritual overseer and a deacon acting more administratively. Although even here we should mention that the title ‘deacon’ or ‘bishop’ mean varying things, based on one’s own tradition or interpretation of scripture. Yet as at least these titles themselves seem to exists from the times of the Apostles into the period of the council of Nicea, at which point we have certainly already passed the date were are looking for, we can disregard the evolution of those titles.

A practical date can be more or less equated with this question: ‘When did the term ‘arch-bishop’ and ‘arch-deacon’ first become widely used?’ This is a valuable data point because although a protestant might not oppose these offices (high Anglican), at a minimum, these terms are not found in scripture and indicate a development in church institutions. In addition, as Protestants generally believe in the separation of church and state, or at least a distrust of the state as a legitimate influence in church decisions and structure, this question also points to roughly the same date: ‘When did the primitive church lose it’s independence from the state and receive influence from the state onto the evolution of its subsequent church institutions?’.

With this approach we can take our best approximate date to be after the Edict of Milan (313AD) and prior to the Council of Nicea (AD 325).  This might seem like too narrow of a guess but there are two striking facts to support this narrow window. First, one can’t overestimate the impact of Constantine, the most powerful person in the world, becoming a Christian and actually intervening in church disputes eventually calling for all Christian leaders to convene a council in order to settle the debate over the nature of Christ. As wonderful as his conversion was to the Christian world in ending persecution and elevating the church into levels of honour never imagined just a few years before, the worldly exaltation and adjoining of state with church would naturally have an impact on it’s institutions for it’s officers would, in one way or another begin to report to the state and be determined by the state going forward.

Second the use of new ‘arch-’ terms did not appear in any historical documents until (as coincidence would have it?) this very same century.  Naturally these new titles would help increase the official level of bureaucracy in the church, as it ascended in political power, in order to help organize the state and the church together under a brand new and totally unexpected era!  Any large organisation under one powerful state, naturally needs auxiliary offices as compared to a simple ‘home church’ one might find in the New Testament or found during the very recent previous persecution of the Roman government. As later early history would show, this organization became especially important to any 'ambitious' bishop as it facilitated the administration of church offerings, with ‘city’ bishops collecting ¼ of all tithes and by the 8th century actually having power even over the collection of ‘rural’ assemblies revenue, increasing an ever growing luxury.

  "All offerings to the Church were originally in the disposition of the bishop, who was bound to dispense them to all who were on the list of the needy, whether they were clergy, widows, strangers, or poor. The earliest general rule is that of the Council of Antioch in 341 (c. 25), which is a general regulation for all Church property....The earliest regulation is that of Pope Simplicius in 475. It rules that of all the revenues of the Church and offerings of the faithful, one fourth is to go to the bishop; one fourth is to be divided among the clergy according to their several deserts; two fourths are to go to the fabrics of the churches, and to the maintenance of strangers and the poor. The regulation was recognised in later times by being incorporated in the body of Canon Law (c. 28, C. XII., qu. ii). (THE GROWTH OF CHURCH INSTITUTIONS by the rev EDWIN HATCH, p108)

and

  "The regulation took the form of requiring that baptisteries should only exist in places in which the bishop appointed them. It was first made in one of the earliest councils of the Carlovingian Reformation, that which was held by Pippin at Vernon, in Normandy, in 755. The regulation had the effect of dividing all churches outside the bishop’s own church into two classes, those in which baptisms could be performed and those in which they could not....It is evident that baptismal churches claimed a superior importance over the other country churches; it is also evident that they claimed a share in the newly sanctioned payment of tithes. (THE GROWTH OF CHURCH INSTITUTIONS by the rev EDWIN HATCH, p86)

This state-church organisation eventually led to national boundaries as would seem inevitable. The struggle over power in this new found world of luxury split the Eastern Churches from the Western with both claiming to be the only churches remaining that have always followed the traditions of the Apostles.

Having noted the date of the rapid change upon church structure as a natural result of the conversion of the Roman emperor, one must not think the Protestant Reformation immediately returned perfectly to the primitive structure of the New Testament, or even uniformly believes that it’s the right thing to do today. However one can see the main cord cut with Luther. Although separation of church and state would not really become a necessity until various denominations would settle in America with the need to live together, Luther paved the way for this eventual development by rejecting a more fundamental structure, namely the decisions made by ‘church councils’. Luther heartily rejected aspects of the first council recorded in ACTS (as did every other Christian) and also various parts of the next major council of Nicea. Following Luther's line of thought, 'if many decisions' made by church councils can be rejected, then the 'church institutions' that they establish or support can also be rejected. So the scarcity of such complicated hierarchies is no longer recognised.

No complex organizational structure can be maintained without group ‘councils’. Luther’s basic argument was that the council in Jerusalem as recorded in ACTS (ACTS 15:39) establish temporary rules about eating blood, etc. which was only applicable when Jewish traditions were slowly being put to death. These temporary rules were a kind of mercy to 'weaker brethren' who had grown up with them from the womb and found them too offensive to overcome when beginning to fellowship with Gentiles. Therefore, since nobody followed everything from the first council, there is no need to follow everything from any council. Luther then reviews the Council of Nicea and although fully supporting the main purpose for which the Emperor called the meeting, namely to defeat the Arian heresy, he notes the many embarrassing squabbles that the bishops added, over church institutions etc. He notes that this was added to the agenda the following day after the Empower had left and thinks the emperor would have never had enough patience to listen to such childish squabbles.

Luther’s effort in showing the greed and childish behaviour of many bishops at the council of Nicea leads to the original cause of why the church institutions developed into a power structure, why it lead to a split between east and west and why eventually Protestantism was brave enough to lead the path towards ultimate separation of church and state in the America.

  "The same council (Nicea) likewise decreed that the Roman bishop should, in accordance with an old custom, take charge of the suburbicarian churches, just as the bishop in Alexandria had charge of those in Egypt. I cannot and will not explain the word suburbicariae because it is not my word; but it seems to mean the churches located up to that time in Italy around the Roman churches, just as the churches in Egypt were adjacent to the churches in Alexandria. Let whoever wants to interpret it do so, but I still understand it to mean that this council gave the bishop of Rome no dominion over his surrounding churches, but entrusted them to his care; and it did not do it as though it had to be done “by divine right,” but because of an old custom. Custom, however, does not mean scriptura sancta or God’s word. Furthermore, it took the churches of Egypt (also in keep keeping with an old custom) away from the bishop of Rome and entrusted them to the bishop of Alexandria. Likewise, it is to be assumed that the churches in Syria were entrusted to the bishop of Antioch or Jerusalem, since they are farther away from Rome than Alexandria or Egypt.
  Now if this council is to be valid in our churches and go into effect, we must first condemn the bishop of Rome as a tyrant and burn all his bulls and decretals. There is no bull or decretal in which he does not boast vociferously and menacingly that he is the supreme head and lord of all the churches on earth, to whom everyone on earth must be subject, if they wish to be saved. This is exactly as much as saying, “The Council of Nicaea is false, accursed, and damned for taking from me domination over all things and for making the bishop of Alexandria my peer.” (Luther's Works Vol 41 p41)

In conclusion, the subject is massive but actually pivots on a few simple ideas in history in the fourth century. Catholics interpret them in such a way as to secure the 'infallible leadership of the Pope', tracing it to the New Testament itself under Peter. Eastern Orthodox interpret them in such a way as to retain the claim of original tradition also, however without the aggression that it claims the Catholic Roman Bishop tried to wield causing the split. Protestants, generally interpret the scriptures themselves to predict a very early falling away of the true traditions of the Apostles as people were predicted to begin to focus on ‘external rites’ and superstitions or harsh disciplines, in contrast to the inward evangelical realities of the gospel (e.g., 1 Tim 4:1-3). In addition Protestants commonly see St. Augustine’s focus on a real and ‘elect’ church, versus a mere external church, as a natural result of the joining of church and state, whereby so many 'insincere confessors' were politically manipulated to gather into its walls. Thus a kind of church within a church was dormant under St Augustine influence until the time of the reformation, at which point it largely came out under various national organization structures of the reformation.  Thus history seems to provide all three major Christian groups very confident positions from the mere facts. The real issue of contention is that all three groups claim that anyone who merely believes in Christ is a Christian 'without any doubt!', but both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox essentially mean …and belong to our external body as proof of such faith (or for the ignorant have a disposition to become part of our external body if sufficiently instructed in the light of their traditions).  This is the main point that divides the three groups.


Does Christianity say that the events that happen to us are from God? Does Christianity say that the events that happen to us are from God?

Is it all free will, or free will and God steps in to veto if he wants, or everything from God.

I ask because at the Church I go to it seems like if a street light turns green, it is from God...or if a stranger says something to me, it is a sign from God...

Not all things that happen are from God: Either God has allowed something to happen, or God intervenes and causes something to happen. God accomodates for everything that takes place and has worked it out for His own purpose.

A light turning green or someone saying something to you, does not necessarily mean they are from God.. But that doesn't mean God hasn't intervened with traffic lights before (or more likely the timing in which you come into contact with this light), or not inspired someone to say something to someone else.

  Proverbs 16:4 (Amplified) - The Lord has made everything [to
  accommodate itself and contribute] to its own end and His own
  purpose--even the wicked [are fitted for their role] for the day of
  calamity and evil.


Why do some Christians bowdlerise words like "God", writing "G-d" instead? Some Christians bowdlerise words like "God", writing it as "G-d" or even "G d". This practice is likely inspired by the Jewish practice to do similar. But while some Jews explain their practice as a means to ensure that the names of God including the word "God" are never thrown out, I have never heard any Christians give such an explanation, which seems to me to be both more legalistic and more mystical than is found in most branches of Christianity. And it doesn't seem to square with how God inspired the authors of the Bible: considering that the New Testament's use of κύριος (lord) for the Tetragrammaton could be considered a bowdlerisation, if this practice was God's intention, it seems to me that he could easily have inspired the New Testmanent's authors to do likewise for θεός (god).

What reasons do these Christians give for this practice? Why is it sufficient to obscure one letter but still write the two consonants, shouldn't the whole word be avoided? (Do they also avoid writing words like "godly"?) And do they explain why, if it's either wrong or imprudent to write "God" in English, God did not inspire the Biblical authors to avoid the Hebrew and Greek words for "god"?

In Christianity there are hundreds of denominations and subgroups of Baptist, Pentacostal,    Methodist, Lutheran, Church of Christ, Church of God- Cleveland, vs Church of God Holiness, and countless splits over the centuries, so it's impossible to know all the subtle teachings.
I have been in ministry in 3 countries - USA and 2 in Europe and and lived in 11 states, and while I'm familiar with this practice, it's not the official teaching or practice of any Christian denomination that I know of.
I'm not disputing that some Christians do this, but the point is that it is usually some variation of Hebrew Roots movement, or Messianic Jewish groups, and like the practice of snake handling, it is a fringe practice and would be a fraction of 1%, and is not representative of mainstream Protestant Christianity.
To answer your question - let's assume there is a branch of Hebrew Roots Movement that uses this, or some other offshoot fundamentalist sect that teaches this. The origin of this practice comes from the Jewish concept that the name of God is so holy that you can't utter it - This was specifically for the special name of God YHWH, which is transliterated as Yahweh.
This was extended from not pronouncing this sacred name of God, to not writing it out fully.
This was not a strict command in the Torah that you can't write or say God's name, even for Jews, [5 books of the Law] nor is it in the Old Testament. It came about by Jewish tradition.
As you indicate, there are many other names for God in both the Old and New Testament, and these names indicate his special attributes and character- Elohim, Adonai, Lord, Christ, Alpha and Omega, the Great I AM, Kinsman Redeemer, Everlasting Father, Jesus, Emmanuel, El Shaddai, Yeshua Ha mashiach and many others.
If God didn't want us to say or write God's name, then Jesus would not have used God's name in the Model Prayer, when he taught the disciples how to pray, "Our Father, who art in Heavean, hallowed/holy is your name."
Also, the fact that we have dozens of names all through the Bible, it's very inconsistent and legalistic to arbitrarily choose one to write with only consonants like G-d.


Issues with legal documents and marriage My fiance and I are planning our wedding and are having some trouble because we are from different countries. We are both Christians and would like to have a wedding that is honorable to God biblically.

We plan to be wed in Japan and it is sometimes custom that they will sign marriage documents and turn them into city hall even months before the actual ceremony. These marriage documents legally state that the two are married. It is beneficial for myself since it is required for a visa and job. However, this seems to be a problem as we do not think we are "actually married" since a ceremony wouldn't take place until months later.

So I am wondering if it is even acceptable before God biblically to allow for this legalization of marriage even before a ceremony. I am also wondering what Bible passages speak about marriage so that we would be able to put in as much consideration to this as possible.

EDIT: I think I should clarify more about what I'd like information about. I took note about how God was present to ordain the first marriage between Adam and Eve. I'm assuming that the covenant of marriage must be made before God. If "submitting legal forms" before an actual ceremony constitutes as marriage, is that "a covenant made before God"?

I read in the comments that you're not looking for an answer from a particular denomination, but a purely biblical answer.

Well, if you're a Christian, then you'd know that the OT laws (besides the 10 commandments) are not what we follow any more, as they have their completion in Jesus. Further, you are aware that you must render unto Caesar what is Caesars.  It would see as though the formalities in civil marriage are little more than a tax on marriage and don't constitute a legitimate marriage in the eyes of God.

Just as heresy can shed a lot of light on what the true Church teaches.  Divorce can shed a lot of light on what marriage is. Owing to what Jesus said (Matt 19:8), in the beginning it was not so, in the beginning you had Adam and Eve, the first married couple and the example for all marriage.  The coupling which took "it is not good for man to be alone" to "woah, this is indeed flesh of my flesh!". If anyone says Adam and Eve weren't married in the eyes of God and didn't have a perfect marriage in the beginning, they'd have a long and complicated argument.

So, if they had the best possible marriage, if you find it is impossible to be wed in a Church in the way you'd best see fit, getting married in the most prudent possible way is always better than being consumed with fire, as St. Paul might say.  If you want, you can have your marriage blessed later.

Then, to go back to divorce, Jesus says that divorce is only OK if the marriage is unlawful, which means there must be something that makes the marriage lawful.

To a Catholic, a lawful marriage requires consent of the man and the woman,  full knowledge of what they're getting in to, nothing previous encumbering the marriage.  There is a biblical pretext for all this, as I think there is for all Catholic tradition, but that's a bit beyond the scope of the question (or at least my capacity to answer)


Are there other sources for the belief in Catholicism that the Apostles composed the articles present in the Apostles' Creed between them? In the section Origin of the creed in the article Apostles' Creed | New Advent, it states that throughout the Middle Ages it was generally believed that the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, while still under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, composed our present Creed between them, each of the Apostles contributing one of the twelve articles.

The articles then names three sources:

1) This legend dates back to the sixth century (see Pseudo-Augustine in Migne, P.L., XXXIX, 2189, and Pirminius, ibid., LXXXIX, 1034).

2) To a sermon attributed to St. Ambrose (Migne, P.L., XVII, 671; Kattenbusch, I, 81), which takes notice that the Creed was "pieced together by twelve separate workmen".

(Church teaching also references St. Ambrose Cf. CCC 194 The Apostles' Creed is so called because it is rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the apostles' faith. It is the ancient baptismal symbol of the Church of Rome. Its great authority arises from this fact: it is "the Creed of the Roman Church, the See of Peter the first of the apostles, to which he brought the common faith". [St. Ambrose, Expl. symb. 7: PL 17,1196.])

And

3) To Rufinus (Migne, P.L., XXI, 337) c. 400,

The article then goes on to show why it regards the circumstantial narrative of Rufinus as unhistorical.

That leaves sources 1) and 2) and I started to wonder whether there were other sources for the belief in Catholicism that the Apostles composed the articles present in the Apostles' Creed between them, with each of the Apostles contributing one of the articles.

Are there other sources for the belief in Catholicism that the Apostles composed the present articles in the Apostles' Creed between them, with each of the Apostles contributing an article?

Related questions:

Did the Apostles' Creed originate with the Apostles?
When did “he descended into hell” become part of the Apostles' Creed?

St. Thomas Aquinas appears to believe this. He wrote in Summa Theologica II-II q. 1 a. 9 ("Whether it is suitable for the articles of faith to be embodied in a symbol?") ad 6:

  …the symbol of the Fathers…was drawn up after the faith was already spread abroad, and when the Church was already at peace…. … the symbol of the Apostles… was drawn up at the time of persecution, before the faith was made public..


What does the account of pigs and demons mean? Luke 8

  31 And they begged Jesus repeatedly not to order them to go into the
  Abyss.

  32 A large herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside. The demons
  begged Jesus to let them go into the pigs, and he gave them
  permission. 33 When the demons came out of the man, they went into the
  pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was
  drowned.

Why did the demons need to go inside the pigs? Would that be the only way to avoid abyss? Why not request to roam around in a desert or sit on a tree?
Why then did they kill the pigs? I thought they wanted to live in a body.
Why did Jesus send them into pigs instead of sending to abyss where they belonged?
Am I to make some spiritual/moral sense of this story or is it just a historical record?

In the case of the devils wanting to have permission to enter the pigs rather than be cast into no particular place it seems to be under a simple desire of destruction. The demons are enraged to destroy and in this story we clearly see the bounds of the destruction they seek are under the power of God. They are tied to a divine leash, not being permitted to destroy without boundaries.

The reason why Jesus actually permits them might be as an opportune time to prove to those watching that the demons were not imaginary but as they left the man who then had peace of mind, external evidence showed that they were real by immediately destroying the pigs.

Furthermore we see the curse for sin brought on man includes a curse upon nature and even animals. Jesus did not make his primary mission to protect the rights of animals or upholding good environmental practices but to put an end to the power of the Devil by his death:

  Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil —(NIV Hebrews 2:14)


What are the theological roots of "my testimony" in evangelism? I have noticed in evangelical / Baptist circles that the phrase "your testimony" is mentioned heavily in suggestions as to how you ought to witness to nonbelievers.  It is said that citing personal evidence of how God was active in your life, through miracles or improved moral behavior over time, is the trump card in your witness.   I've also heard a Lutheran pastor say something like, "It is transformed, not perfect, lives that will witness to Christ."  And I just now found similar "transformed, not perfect" wording on a Catholic site.

In contrast, the sermons I find most inspiring (and assume would be more convincing to a nonbeliever who was like myself) instead focus on a conviction of sin, and the futility of works, as a lead-in to Christ as Redeemer. For example, C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity talks about the nature of God and our sin moreso than how he prayed and got something from God.    A focus on material benefits and moral improvements risks missing out completely on the sin-death-resurrection narrative and are ultimately Antinomian.

Q: What are the theological roots of stressing "your testimony" in evangelism? (From bible to church fathers to contemporary great evangelists?)

I would suggest the answer is found in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. There, Paul shared the gospel in various ways, such as popular culture (Acts 17:23, the unknown god) and local poetry (17:28).

Then later he gave his personal testimony to the Jews of how Christ saved him and gave him a new purpose in life (22:1ff). Later he was taken and put in a cell, and there the Lord appeared and indicated that He was pleased with Paul's testimony of Him in Jerusalem. What's curious to me is that Jesus did not mention all the other cities in which he had preached. It was in Jerusalem before the Jews that he gave his testimony.

After that we find him giving his testimony again in 26:12 before Agrippa. Perhaps he had put two and two together and saw that reciting his personal encounter was more significant to the Lord, so he used that approach with Agrippa. Unfortunately, the book of Acts closes soon with no more mention about this approach. He was mainly a teacher and to the end taught from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ, and how people must repent for the kingdom of God.

I know you wanted examples from the church fathers on, but these few examples (and an example or two from the epistles) should be taken into account as probable origins of bearing one's personal testimony. After all, we do draw instruction from the Word of God. Paul gave his testimony without giving up teaching; he found a place for both.


Why was the Holy Family instructed to flee to Egypt? At Matthew 2:13-14 (NRSVCE)we read about the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt:

" Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.”   Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt"

My question is: what were the advantages that Egypt offered as a shelter for the Jewish family in the post-exodus scenario in which the then generation of Egyptians  would have only  hatred for the Israelites  in their genes ?  What are the views of the Catholic Church on the divine selection of Egypt  as the shelter for the Holy Family ?

There are many Reasons I suppose that the Holy Family went to Egypt, The main being the simple fact that they knew who Jesus was and that an Angel of God directed them to do so.  We can only speculate to the reasons, but here is a fun one.

Jesus was the Fulfillment of Old Testament Promises and the Archetype of Jesus that Moses represents.  Here are a few of those Typological simularities.

Both were hunted by a King/Pharaoh
Both were hidden from that King/Pharoah
Both went to Egypt to save their lives.
Both saved and helped by a woman.

It's quite a long list here is a good link that shows them all: Typology of Moses and Jesus.

There are about  20 examples of how Jesus is the New Moses listed on this site.

Typology is rampant in Scripture, it reveals the Old Testament fulfilled in the New Testament, typology of Mary, the Eucharist, Sacraments, Tribes and Apostles, the information is almost boundless.

Like in his Church, God has a reason for everything he does.


Can ministers of other denominations marry people in a Catholic church? Can ministers from other Christian denominations, for example a United Church Reverend, perform the marriage sacrament in a Catholic Church?

According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,

  It’s popular, and acceptable, for an interfaith couple to invite the non-Catholic spouse’s minister to be present at the wedding. But it’s important to note that, according to canon law, only the priest may officiate at a Catholic wedding. A minister may offer a few words, but he or she may not officiate or preside at a joint ceremony.

While I wouldn't say a non-Catholic marriage in a Catholic church has never happened (and if I did, it would be hard to prove :), but it would be rare at best, akin to holding services for non-Catholic faiths in a Catholic Church.

FYI, for the a Catholic marriage to be considered sacramental, both must be Catholic, and for the marriage to be performed at all requires at least one to be Catholic. (Source)


Did God change the DNA and genetics of Adam's rib? I recently read an article which talked about Mitochondrial DNA, and it placed quite a bit of emphasis on how different female DNA was from male DNA. It even went so far as to say that Mitochondrial DNA could be traced back to one single female who was the source of all female DNA.

But Genesis 2 says:

  And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Genesis 2:21-23, KJV)

But if God used the same DNA and Genetic signature in the rib, why would the woman not then have been an exact duplicate of Adam?

(As this is largely an issue for Creationists) How have Creationist apologists explained these verses?

Although I am not comfortable thinking of the account of God's creation of Eve as being in any way allegorical or mythical, I do, however, think of the account as a kind of artistic and symbolic version of what actually transpired when God created another human being--a female human being--in His image who would complement the male of the species whom He had already created.

Several observations:

ONE. While the people of Moses' day could not appreciate the complexities of the double helix and the human genome, they did realize that all living critters, including humans, give birth to other living critters "after their kind."

TWO. Prior to God's making for Adam a "helper suitable for him" (Genesis 2:18), God brought all the critters He had made to Adam and gave him the assignment of naming all the animals. Interestingly (but certainly not coincidentally), among the perhaps tens of thousands of animals Adam named, he found not one "helper suitable for him" (2:20).

THREE. God then "fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man and brought her to man" (2:22). Just as God had fashioned, for example, a male and female sheep, so also He fashioned a human female counterpart to the human male. God made something different, not identical, out of Adam's rib! Part of that difference was a major "tweaking" of the human genetic code. Subsequently, the man and woman would procreate "after their kind."

FOUR. At the exciting "reveal" after God's surgery on Adam,

  The man-person said, "At last! This is bone from my bones

  And flesh from my flesh.

  She is to be called Woman [Hebrew: ishah],

  Because she was taken out of Man" [Hebrew: ish] (2:23 CJB).

Contrast, then, Adam's inability to find a helpmeet among the animals, with his actually finding what he could never have found in the animal kingdom. Notice how the Complete Jewish Bible phrases his first words upon seeing his helpmeet: "At last!" It's as if Adam was saying,

  "Whew, God, I was beginning to think you didn't know what you were doing with all those boring animals you had me name. Don't get me wrong. They were wondrous to behold, but this, this lovely creature you have made is now truly "bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh." Thank you, Lord!"

FIVE. Scripture then goes on to tells us,

  "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (2:24)

This part of my answer goes WAAAAAAAY beyond the scope of your question, but it is nevertheless germane in a prophetic and hermeneutically responsible way.

In a seminal passage on marriage, the apostle Paul lays out in Ephesians 5 the duties of wives to husbands and husbands to wives, and in doing so he quotes Genesis 2:24 in verse 31. Why? Because the marriage of one husband to one wife was God's design from the very beginning. And what pattern did God use in creating what we call today the "institution" of marriage? To answer that question I'll quote liberally from John Piper's book, Desiring God, pp.212-213 (excerpts):

  It looks as though Paul uses the relationship of human marriage, learned from
  Genesis 2, to describe and explain the relationship between Christ and the church.
  But if that were the case, marriage would not be a mystery, as Paul calls it in
  Ephesians 5:32; it would be the clear and obvious thing that explains the mystery of
  Christ and the church. So there is more to marriage than meets the eye. What is it?
  The mystery is this: God did not create the union of Christ and the church
  after the pattern of human marriage—just the reverse! He created human marriage
  on the pattern of Christ’s relation to the church.

  The mystery of Genesis 2:24 is that the marriage it describes is a parable or
  symbol of Christ’s relation to His people. There was more going on in the creation
  of woman than meets the eye. God . . . patterned marriage very purposefully after the relationship between His Son and the church, which He had planned from all eternity.

  Therefore, marriage is a mystery—it contains and conceals a meaning far
  greater than what we see on the outside. God created man male and female and
  ordained marriage so that the eternal covenant relationship between Christ and
  His church would be imaged forth in the marriage union. As Geoffrey Bromiley
  has written, “As God made man in his own image, so he made marriage in the
  image of his own eternal marriage with his people.”

  The inference Paul draws from this mystery is that the roles of husband and
  wife in marriage are not arbitrarily assigned, but are rooted in the distinctive
  roles of Christ and His church. . . ..

  This is the foundation of the pattern of love that Paul describes for marriage.
  It is not enough to say that each spouse should pursue his or her own joy
  in the joy of the other. It is also important to say that husbands and wives
  should consciously copy the relationship God intended for Christ and the
  church.

In conclusion, even more significant than God's handiwork in creating a female egg and a male sperm, each of which when united at fertilization brings half the genetic information necessary for the beginning of a new human life, is the profound reason for God's creation of male and female: 1) to reveal to us through the analogy of marriage His grand plan of redemption and His eternal covenant with all true believers; and 2)  to grant to "us in marriage the privilege to image forth . . . divine realities infinitely bigger and greater than ourselves" (ibid.).


Can our own spiritual gifts be given to others? Are we able to impart our own spiritual gifts on others? That seemed to be what Paul was doing here.

  Romans 9:1-11 ESV For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, asking that somehow by God's will I may now at last succeed in coming to you. For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you— that is, that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith, both yours and mine.

I'm looking for answers supported by scripture.

Are there churches that regularly practice this? Are there any other examples in scripture that imply this?

1 Corinthians 12 indicates in a number of passages that the gifts can only be given according to God's will - and His only (I'll cite 3). There are some indications as well that not everyone will have one of these gifts.

Mormonism, as well as some Charismatics and WoF teachers (all based on my experience with both FLDS/LDS as well as frequent interaction with Charismatics/WoF), teaches these gifts can be imparted with the laying of hands or made manifest through baptism. Important to note, however, that a very large majority of these focus on the speaking of tongues, and (from a Linguists perspective) many do not.

1 Cor 12:11 (Concerning Spiritual Gifts)

  "All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually has He wills."

12:18

  "But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as He chose."

12:27-28

  Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues.

The Apostles, yes, were given the gift to pass on the Spiritual Gifts - and this, too, was a Gift from the Lord Himself:

Acts 8 we see a man try to use money to pay the Apostles to lay there hands on him, to which Peter replies, in verse 20:

  But Peter said unto him, "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money."

We see, through Scripture, that the gifts can only be made manifest by God's will. The Apostles, under very special command (Jesus, the Lord in the flesh), were able to impart these gifts by laying their hands on people.


What is the scriptural basis for the idea that salvation can still be obtained after death? What is the basis in the Scripture for the doctrine that those who haven't received salvation during their physical life, especially those who heard of Christ and yet chose not to pray to Him, will still have a chance to get saved after their physical death?

The only passage I am aware of is 1 Peter 3:18-20a:

  For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

It should be noted that this is rather a "standalone" passage, in that there is nothing similar in Scripture, so it is unwise to base a doctrine on it. However, you could read into this:

Jesus is here preaching to dead people in hell (implied by "he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed") and
He would not preach unless there was hope of their salvation.

Note though that this is speculation and not a central belief of any mainstream Christian denomination (that I know of - but see @brillant's comments, below).


How can it be said that Paul taught a pre-tribulational rapture of the Church given 2 Thessalonians chapter 2? 2 Thess 2:1-3: Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.

Paul appears to be saying that "that day" (the day of the Lord's coming and our being gathered to him) will not come unless two conditions (the rebellion and the revelation of the lawless one) come first.  According to pre-tribulational rapture theory the rapture of the Church takes place well in advance of both of these conditions.  If he is writing to reassure his pre-trib rapture followers that the Second Coming of Christ (Day of the Lord) hasn't happened yet, why has he listed two conditions that they will not be around to witness?  Why not say, for instance, "The rapture comes first and you're still here aren't you?"

There are a few interpretations:

The falling away (or rebellion) is the word apostasia (G646). Some say this apostasia, or the apostasy, is the rapture. However, there are some problems with this interpretation: literally it would mean that the rapture comes before the gathering unto Him, which doesn't make sense (since in this interpretation the gathering is the rapture.) The other problem is that the word apostasia has a bad connotation, it is only used for a departure which is negative, not something positive like a rapture. Another argument is that the definition of apostasy is: the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief or principle.
Some say the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is the rapture, and our gathering together unto him is the second coming. Doing this makes it possible for them to interpret the next verses so that it's only talking about the second coming, so pretrib rapture not included. I have no idea what justifies it to say the coming is the rapture and our gathering is the second coming or vice versa, because it has no biblical basis.
Some say that the Thessalonians received a letter from someone claiming that the day of the Lord had already come. They say the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him is only about the second coming. This would mean that Paul is just saying that the day of the Lord can't have happened since the falling away and antichrist has yet to come. The problem here is that Paul writes: or a letter seeming to be from us, if this theory would've been true, he would've written something like "a letter from someone else." To work around this issue some say that the letter that the Thessalonians received was written like it was coming from one of the apostles, ofcourse this is pure speculation. But don't get me wrong, it is possible that the Thessalonians did think that the day of the Lord had already come, since verse 2 could imply this. But if this is true, and the pretrib rapture theory is true, then how could the Thessalonians believe the day of the Lord was already at hand, since nobody was raptured?
Another argument I've heard is "the antichrist is already in this world." Which also has some problems: he, the antichrist isn't revealed yet, so that's no reason to justify the pretrib theory. Also the restrainer talked about in verse 6 to 8 is the church (or holy spirit) in the pretrib rapture theory: the church has to be raptured before the antichrist comes down to earth. This is a serious problem: if the antichrist is already here it would mean we were already been raptured.


Why are some of the Psalms written by authors other than David? Why are many Psalms attributed to authors other than David?
I read through Psalms and tried to figure it out but I just can't find it.

Psalms is a collection of songs written by many people, compiled latter by some unknown editor. Though David wrote many songs, he did not write all the songs. Some songs were written before David and some after him.

  The Psalms were written by numerous people over 1,000 years of
  Israel 's history. Some of the Psalms were written as far back as the
  time of Moses in 1500 BC. Others were written as late as the time of
  Ezra around 500 BC. Most, however, were written in the time of King
  David. David himself wrote more of the Psalms than any other author,
  composing 73 songs in this collection. While modern scholars often
  express doubts as to David's authorship, the bible affirms that the
  king was an accomplished musician (1 Samuel 16:18) who was also a
  great patron of the temple music (1 Chronicles). He is titled in 2
  Samuel 23:1 as the sweet psalmist of Israel .

  The Psalms were collected and compiled at various times throughout
  Israel 's history. Various collections and books of Psalms were
  gathered together and published as song books and hymnals. There is
  evidence of heavy editing of the Psalms. For example, Psalm 14 is
  almost identical to Psalm 53, except in Psalm 14 the name Yahweh is
  used for God, while in Psalm 53, the name Elohim is used. Psalm 108 is
  a medley of Psalm 57 and Psalm 60, put together for a new occasion.

  Therefore, the final order and arrangement of the Psalms suggests a
  single editor who brought ancient collections and songs together
  into the final form. The final form of the Psalms is arranged into
  five books.

  There are some scholars who connect the five books of the Psalms with
  the five books of the Torah. Most of these connections, however,
  stretch the connection beyond what is reasonable.

  SOURCE

The date of compilation is unknown. Some suggest it to be about 537 B.C. and some believe it to be around the Third Century B.C.


What are the different uses of "heaven" in scripture? In English, heaven is used through both testaments, but is often referencing different locations. What are the specific uses for this word?

5 Biblical/Theological Understandings of Heaven

The Sky: "God called the expanse heaven And there was evening and there was morning, a second day" (Genesis 1:8).
The Abode of God: God's existence outside of space and time.
The intermediate state for the righteous between death and bodily resurrection: "Today you shall be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). See, What is the difference between Heaven/Paradise/Sheol?
The kingdom or reign of God here on earth: "From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” (Matthew 4:17).
The Eschatological Heaven: This is the final heaven. "Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.  I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband" (Revelation 21:1-2) (also see 2 Peter 3:13).


What happened to the apostle John after the Biblical account of his life ends? There is a legend that says that John traveled to Ephesus where he took care of Virgin Mary and that he lived there until the end of his life.

Is this legend true? Are there any historical accounts that support the legend? Are there any other theories about the later life of apostle John?

We know from scripture that he was exiled on the Isle of Patmos near the end of his life - reliable understandings of when his epistles and the book of Revelation were penned indicate it was around the year 90 AD.

Where he was between ~50AD and 90AD (with 50 being a plausible time for Paul's early writings, and the original disciples/apostles to still be in Jerusalem), I don't believe we're ever told.

Also, Jesus' mother Mary would have been fairly old by then - she should have been at least mid 40s when Jesus began to preach (if she was ~15 when he was born). By the time of the early church and Paul's appearance on the scene (after his time out of the record when he was apparently studying and learning), she would have been at least in her mid 60s, if not older.


On what day of the week did Thomas first meet the resurrected Christ? I have read in numerous commentaries on John 20 that Thomas first met the resurrected Christ on Sunday, the first day of the week. Here is one illustrative example, though others I've looked at are similar in substance:

Verses 26-31 We have here an account of another appearance of Christ
to his disciples, after his resurrection, when Thomas was now with
them. And concerning this we may observe,I. When it was that Christ
repeated his visit to his disciples: After eight days, that day
seven-night after he rose, which must therefore be, as that was, the
first day of the week.
Matthew Henry's commentary on John 20 [emphasis is mine]

Here are the relevant verses from the Bible:

John 20 (NKJV)
19 Then, the same day at evening, being the first day
of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were
assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst,
and said to them, “Peace be with you.”  24 Now Thomas, called the
Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The
other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” So he
said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and
put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His
side, I will not believe.” 26 And after eight days His disciples were
again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut,
and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!”

Perhaps I'm being naïve, but starting from the Lord's day, Sunday, I count "and after eight days" (Greek: "καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέρας ὀκτὼ") to mean the Monday of the following week, that is, eight days after the first Sunday. It seems that the commentaries I've read interpret it to mean "on the eight day", which would indeed work out to the following Sunday. However, I'm having difficulty understanding how "after eight days" can be understood in this way.
So, my question is: On what day of the week did Thomas first meet the resurrected Christ? Was it on a Sunday, a Monday, or some other day of the week?
My main interest in this question is to understand if these verses in John 20 are indeed a valid support for the practice of Christians meeting on Sunday. I don't question the practice (there are many other verses in Acts, 1 Corinthians and Revelation that support it); I am simply trying to understand whether John 20 indeed displays the first case of Christians meeting as Christians on two consecutive Sundays. I'm having a hard time seeing this in this particular chapter.

The quick answer is Thomas met the resurrected Lord on a Sunday, eight days, counting inclusively from when the others had met Him.

There are a few ideas being presented that only make sense from an 8 day counting inclusive understanding.  One is between the first day (Sunday) and the eighth day (Sunday), from old creation to new creation.  Two is for the count to Pentecost.  Three would be a priest connection.  I'll only look at number two.

  John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week...
  John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: ...

At John 20:19, as it's phrased, the first day after the Sabbath (week) is Sunday at 20:19.

At John 20:26, the word translated "after" is meta, which may also be translated "with", as in with the eight days, a full period, from the previous Sunday to the next Sunday.  And with the eight days, the disciples had gathered again.
 Jesus again appeared to them.

One might ask why did they gather again 8 days later (counting inclusively) on the next Sunday?  Did they have Christians in mind?  They had begun their count of 7 weeks plus the one day to get to Pentecost (50 days).  They would have gathered to count on the morrow of the Sabbath, as they had done the previous Sunday.  Christ was fulfilling the shadows (Tabernacles, Passover, Unleavened Bread, First fruits, Pentecost).  Don't miss it.

  Lev. 23:15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:

Sunday (tomb empty), Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri, Sabbath is 1 week and 1 Sabbath.
Sunday (Thomas present), Mon .... Sabbath is 2 weeks and 2 Sabbaths.

This count of course led to the well-known pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost in Acts 2.

Is this a reason to meet on the first day aka the eighth day?  Absolutely.  I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day.  Sunday, not because of resurrection, but because its the day the Spirit was poured out.


Looking for red letter bible in database format I've found a couple databases or xml (programming-friendly) Bibles online that I can work with for an application that I'm building.

One thing that I'd really like to find but haven't been able to is a red-letter edition of the KJV in some sort of programming friendly file, whether this is a database, a strictly-formatted text file (or likely, set of text files) or something like an XML or JSON fileset.

Does anyone know where I might find one?

I assume, but cannot be sure, that the red-lettering (Jesus' and sometimes God's words) still leaves the work in the public domain?

Edit: I had found johnhurt.com, a site that has a few bibles in access .mdb format, but they aren't red-letter. Still, much better than nothing, but thanks to the answer below, I have exactly what I want and more!

The standard KJV module for The Word. available to download from the page given or as part of a standard install of the module, is red letter. The format is not the best for your purposes though. Red letter text is indicated by <FR> ... <Fr>, unfortunately there are a lot of other markup codes you would have to deal with.

Here is an example:

Jesus<WG2424> said<WG5346> unto him<WG846>, <FR>It is written<Fr><WG1125><FR> again<Fr>
<WG3825><FR>, <Fr><FR><FO>Thou shalt<Fo><Fr><WG1598><FR><FO> not<Jesus<WG2424>
said<WG5346> unto him<WG846>, <FR>It is written<Fr><WG1125><FR> again<Fr><WG3825><FR>,
<Fr><FR><FO>Thou shalt<Fo><Fr><WG1598><FR><FO> not<Fo><Fr><WG3756><FR><FO> tempt<Fo>
<Fr><WG1598><FR><FO> the Lord<Fo><Fr><WG2962><FR><FO> thy<Fo><Fr><WG4675><FR><FO>
God<Fo><Fr><WG2316><FR><FO>.<Fo><Fr><RF>tempt: or, try, or, put to trial, or,
proof<Rf>Fo><Fr><WG3756><FR><FO> tempt<Fo><Fr><WG1598><FR><FO> the Lord<Fo><Fr><WG2962>
<FR><FO> thy<Fo><Fr><WG4675><FR><FO> God<Fo><Fr><WG2316><FR><FO>.<Fo><Fr><RF>tempt: or,
try, or, put to trial, or, proof<Rf>

Under Downloads -> Tools and technical docs you can find a .doc description of the format, special modules to help/test indexing and placement of verses, etc.

I tried a DDG search; the first four hits seem to be possibilities. Check out the third, http://www.geeksandgod.com/forums/web-development/miscellaneous/bible-xml-format where user iluke says he has the kjv in mysql. It's near impossible to know who's got red-letter markup and who doesn't, though.


In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, is Paul really saying to avoid the immoral? (Catholic perspective) I'm really struggling with this chapter in Corinthians. Chapter 4 and the beginning of chapter 5 impart how God is the one who judges. But then Paul adds at the end of chapter 5:

  (5:11) I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or with the covetous or idolaters or
  a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a
  person.

  (5:13) Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person."

This seems to be against two core messages of Christianity.  Namely, mutual helpfulness in encouraging the sinner towards repentance, as opposed to avoidance and ostracism; and the avenue of redemption is open to all (the righteous). Nobody is without hope for recovery of one's soul if they are able to come into communion with Jesus Christ.

It's true we can pick our friends as well as part paths with a friend even if we forgive. However, Paul's stance appears to be remarkably closed-minded.

Am I missing Paul's point?  Am I misinterpreting the passage, or is Paul being judgmental?

Imigine a situation such as "Hi I'm Stu, and I'm an alcoholic."

"OK, Stu, thanks for telling us, but now get lost."

"Really? I've been sober a week, and I've used the power of prayer and my faith in the Lord to overcome my struggles" [in the days before the act of Reconciliation].

"Yeah? What about all the people you hurt?"

"Well, okay, but it's only been a week. I'm doing my best here."

"Be that as it may, get lost. Your sins are far worse than mine."

I am speaking both to the veracity of the message and it's intent.

I am requesting answers from the Catholic perspective.

Well, the question went a week. I did some additional research and  I'm offering a plausible response, maybe.

From the Catholic Study Bible, 1 Corinthians was written by Paul in 55 or 56 A.D. Early Christian practices, particularly Communion, weren't codified until the early second century [Wikipedia]. Paul speaks of "the breaking of the bread" as the main part of the Eucharist. It seemed like this caused a point of contention among the early Jewish converts. Afterwards, Paul converted mostly Gentiles [Wikipedia].

However, there was a phase where most catecheses were within synagogues. Peter called the Jersulam Jews of Jesus's time a "crooked generation" [Acts] but the Apostles didn't seem to be ashamed of their Jewish-ness, and their early actions could be seen as reform movements with the Jewish religion--the coming of the Messiah or Massiach--where man and God would once again walk together [Psalm 91].

The Pharisees knew the Mosaic Law, to be sure, but in order to really impress catechesis, they had to use the existing Pentateuch (Torah). In order to do this, they had to find deeper, metaphorical meaning within the Law. Much of this work would have been completed with the Babylonian Talmud (sort of the equivalent of the Catechism) [Wikipedia]. The Pharisees became quite proficient and comfortable with the use of metaphor, especially in spiritual matters.

Perhaps Paul was communicating in such a way. Perhaps he was speaking of the "breaking of the bread" ceremony in which early Christians communed with Christ. I suppose he wished forthe equivalent of taking a blessing or staying in one's seat during modern Communion for those with mortal sin on their soul.

Thus, Paul wasn't literally meaning to avoid one's neighbor, but he was speaking metaphorically to disallow a Eucharistic ceremony for the sinners until ... when, we're not really told when.

Granted, this is an opinion-based answer, but I learned a lot of neat stuff in the process!


Do JWs have books besides the Bible that they view as "sacred" or "inspired"? I see that the JW website contains the text of a few different Bible translations: KJV, ASV, Byington, New World Translation and The Kingdom Interlinear Translation.

From articles such as "The Bible Really Is God’s Inspired Word" (here) I can see that their view is that Bible is inspired by God.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses have any other books, besides the Bible, that they view as "canon" (e.g. a separate/additional message from God) on the same level as (or higher than) the Bible?

No, it's only the Bible. A full description of how Jehovah's Witnesses determine whether a book is canonical can be found in the entry for "Canon" in the book, "Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1."

The only books accepted as inspired by God are the 66 books of the Bible commonly accepted by Protestants.


Was Adam's rebellion the first sin? I've looked at other questions on here regarding why Adam was considered the original sinner even though Eve ate the fruit first.

i.e. Why is Adam considered the original sinner?

However my question is was that action really the first sin committed by Eve?

In Genesis:3v3 Eve misrepresents what God had told the pair about eating from the tree.  She tells the serpent God told them not to even touch it.  Which isn't true.

Could this mean heresy, not rebellion was the original sin?

If we believe that the world was perfect before the fall, and the fall was the result of the pair eating the fruit how could Eve tell lies before she'd even eaten the fruit?

Good question.

When I read your question, I immediately thought about James Chapter 1, where we read,

  Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

You'll see the relevance of those verses shortly.

First, however, let's define some key terms. Rebellion, as you've used the term, certainly describes Adam's sin, but biblically Adam's sin was disobedience.

  For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous (Romans 5:19 NASB).

Second, one reason for Adam being depicted as the fall guy (no pun intended) instead of Eve is found in the biblical teaching on headship. Without going into a great deal of detail here, from the beginning, man was the head of the woman, much like Christ is the head of the Church Universal (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18).

In a day of political correctness, the concept of headship seems to many to be primitive--offensive, even. Significantly, the Bible's teaching on headship does not even imply remotely that woman is in any way inferior to man. The Bible teaches clearly they are equals in God's sight. God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:24; cf. Galatians 3:28).

The Bible also teaches, however, that from the beginning the man was accountable to God in a way the woman was not. Were both Adam and Eve culpable of disobedience? Yes. Clearly, Eve was no less culpable than Adam. Nevertheless, Adam was held accountable in ways which Eve was not.

What did God say in the wake of the couple's disobedience?

  And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? (Genesis 3:9 KJV, my italics).

Clearly, both Adam and Eve were guilty of disobedience. That Eve's disobedience was preceded by a process of deception is almost irrelevant to the more significant issue of her eventual disobedience.

Though not strictly biblical, there is a distinct possibility that Satan approached Eve more than once with the same temptation. Perhaps she weakened through multiple temptations by the adversary of her soul. Frankly, we do not know, nor will we ever know. What we do know, however, is that Adam was right there with her when she finally gave in to the the temptation of her advesary (who was, after all, the personage responsible for sin's entrance into the universe).

  And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat (Genesis 3:6 KJV, my emphasis).

Where the Scriptures are silent we must not make unwarranted assumptions, but perhaps we are justified in surmising that had Adam "manned up," so to speak, and prevented his helpmeet (helpmate, or fit helper) from giving in to the temptation, there would not have been a fall from grace.

Still, Adam bore the brunt of blame in the fiasco. His sin, in a sense, was worse than his wife's, since in disobeying God, he betrayed his God-given headship.

While Eve's punishment, as with Adam's, was also death, she was to be burdened as well with the pain attached to childbirth.

  Unto the woman . . . [God] said, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" Genesis 3:16 KJV).

And from Paul's letter to his son in the Lord, we have these words,

  For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression (1 Timothy 2:14 KJV).

Two points in conclusion:

Being tempted is not sin; giving in to the temptation is. Temptation is a process, as James points out. We see (literally or figuratively), we want, we take. Lust entices us, carries us away, sin is birthed, and we are separated from God, some for a time and some forever.
Eve's deception took place prior to the Law being given through Moses. Bearing false witness--lying--was certainly a step in the wrong direction for Eve, but as James has pointed out, giving in to sin is a process. In the case of Eve, her deception itself may have been a long time in coming (as I've already suggested).

Perhaps she gave in to Satan's enticements after being worn down over repeated exposures to the same temptation. We simply do not know for certain. Nevertheless, God did not hold Eve responsible for lying but for her disobedience, and with her disobedience, the weight of responsibility as the head of the woman, Adam became the titular head of all humankind.

Albeit a clear anachronism of interpretation, from a 21st century perspective Adam carried in his body the "death gene." Through his seed each subsequent human being birthed into the world was infected with that gene.

  "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity", the psalmist said, "and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psalm 51:5 KJV)).

That sinful conception takes place in each generation because of Adam's "sin-and-death gene." While sin will always be, in a sense, taught, it is still an inborn capacity within the heart of each human being to disobey God. As has often been observed of children, no parent needs to teach his or her child to say no to mommy or daddy!

The good news, however, is that the "seed of the woman" (Genesis 3:15) would deal sin a death blow through the Son of Man, who because of his sinlessness could bear and take away the sin of the world.

  Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed (1 Peter 2:24 KJV; cf. John 1:29 and 36).


Was there silence in heaven when our Lord and Saviour was crucified? Revelation 8:1 says that when the seventh seal was opened "there was silence in heaven for about half an hour."  This speaks of a dramatic pause before the next series of plagues (NIV Study Bible comment).

Although Revelation speaks of future events, is there any biblical basis for thinking that when Christ Jesus was nailed to that instrument of torture, to endure the most awful, agonising death, that there would have been silence in heaven, possibly until the morning of the resurrection?

I realise that when the Bible is silent on a particular question, it simply means we don't need to know. But thinking about what Jesus, God incarnate, had to endure in order to redeem us from our sins, makes me wonder how that awful sacrifice was received in heaven.

Edit: Allow me to prevent any more negative comments and disagreements by bringing what has turned out to be a controversial question to a close. This question was inspired by two answers given in response to this question: What is the meaning of sacrifice?

Was there silence in heaven when our Lord and Saviour was crucified?

There was a profound silence of contemplation and adoration amongst the heavenly Angels before the august mysteries that were unfolding at Calvary.

Amongst the heavenly hosts or angels, there was a profound sense of awe during the Crucifixion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus an eerie silence would have been heard amongst the Angels of God.

There is no biblical basis to answer this question in any direction pro or con. But there may be a few small glimmers of light on this subject that comes from the Scriptures.

In the Book of Kings, we see that God spoke to the Prophet Elijah in a still small voice. The moments of Christ’s Passion truly produced an atmosphere of great reverence as to what was taking place on earth at that moment.

  11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:

  12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

  13 And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah? - 1 Kings 19:11-13

We see the Angels administering to the needs of Jesus on at least two separate occasions during his earthly ministry.

When Jesus was about to embark on his ministry, he firstly went into the desert to pray and fast. It is a story, we are all familiar with. Not only was Jesus tried and hungry during this time, but we see the Devil tempting Our Lord three times. After which Jesus was ministered by Angels.

  11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.- Matthew 4:11

  Ministered to by angels

  At this, Satan departs and Jesus is tended by angels. While both Mark and Matthew mention the angels, Luke does not, and Matthew seems once again here to be making parallels with Elijah, who was fed by ravens. The word ministered or served is often interpreted as the angels feeding Jesus, and traditionally artists have depicted the scene as Jesus being presented with a feast, a detailed description of it even appearing in Paradise Regained. This ending to the temptation narrative may be a common literary device of using a feast scene to emphasize a happy ending, or it may be proof that Jesus never lost his faith in God during the temptations. - Temptation of Christ (Wikipedia)

There is yet another occasion where we see the Angels ministering to the needs of Jesus. This time is just before his Passion.

  Jesus Prays on the Mount of Olives

  39 Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. 40 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” 41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.

  45 When he rose from prayer and went back to the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow. 46 “Why are you sleeping?” he asked them. “Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation.” - Luke 22:39-46

Now if the Angels appeared to Jesus on the eve of his Passion in order to strengthen him, it would likewise make sense that during his Crucifixion on the Cross, the Heavenly Hosts were supporting the second person of the Sacred Trinity in his human nature through their prayer and admiration of the Divine Sacrifice that being unfolded. This is not the time for rejoicing, but of awe and reverence.

Although Angels are pure spirit, traditional art have them “weeping” at the Crucifixion of Jesus.

  In the Crucifixion, angels are seen lamenting, wringing their hands, averting or hiding their faces.

  In the old Greek crucifixions, one angel bears the sun, another the moon, on each side of the Cross. - Legends of the angels and archangels,
  Mrs. Jameson (Anna)

It makes the most logical sense that during the Most Holy Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ there was in heaven nothing but silence and reverence at that moment.

There is a time for everything and the time for heaven and earth to rejoice would have been first felt is at the Resurrection of Christ. It is not wholly known if the Angels fully knew how the redemption of mankind was going to be transpired here below! God has secrets.

  3 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

  2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

  3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

  4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

  5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

  6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

  7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

  8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace. - Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Crucifixion with Mary and John by Michelangelo in 1540

  A modest depiction of the crucifixion. Next to Jesus are two lamenting angels. Mary and John the Evangelist stand besides the cross. Under the cross is a scull, the traditional reference to the location: Golgotha, Place of the Scull.

  In Rome, Michelangelo was befriended to a group of intellectuals who sought a more spiritual approach of religion. That influence may be reflected in this painting without background: the background is irrelevant to the story, so why show it.

When Christ died for our sins, Satan was disarmed and defeated. The one eternally destructive weapon that he had was stripped from his hand, namely, his accusation before God that we are guilty and should perish with him. When Christ died, that accusation was nullified. All those who entrust themselves to Christ will never perish. Satan cannot separate them from the love of God in Christ (Romans 8:37–39).

How can the Angels be rejoicing, when there is a battle going on below?

The mood was very solemn as one would think!