Is the Christian concept of the Trinity influenced by Philo's philosophy? Philo, the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher who lived at the same time as Jesus (albeit in Egypt) and during the time of the early church, taught a trinity very similar to what the Scriptures teach concerning the Trinity.

Philo taught that there were three divine Beings, the first, God, the second, the Logos, and the third, the Divine or Holy Spirit, and that God created the Logos and the Divine Spirit from his own "essence".

He said that God created through the Logos, and he said that the Logos was the "first-born", the Governor and Administrator of All Things, a High Priest, and that Adam was made in his image. He also said that the Logos would be the Messiah, sent as a son to do the will of his father, who is God.

Philo taught that the Divine or Holy Spirit would possess people, be breathed on people, and would lead them to seek God, and that it proceeds from God.

Christian doctrine teaches all of these things, except that the Logos and the Holy Spirit were created by God, but instead teaches that they themselves are God, although subordinate to the Father. Philo, however, was born significantly before the advent of Christianity, and died just around the time that Saint Paul would begin writing his letters; in other words, he came before Christianity.

How can it be shown that Christian theology was not influenced by Philo's philosophy, or that they at least came to the same conclusions using that same source, namely, the Old Testament?

Answer

Original question: Was the Christian concept of the trinity inspired by Philo's philosophy?

No, the Christian concept of the Trinity is not inspired by Philo's philosophy. It seems most probable that Philo based some of his writings on the Trinity from his knowledge of Jesus and Holy Spirit in the events of the Gospels, some writings as a philosophical expansion on the previous renderings of the Logos, and some writings based on the Old Testament, as the word Logos in the Septuagint appears quite often. See this link. Additionally, you asked

  How can it be shown that Christian theology was not influenced by Philo's philosophy?

"Influenced by" is quite distinct that "inspired by," unless you meant these words to be synonymous. "Inspired by" generally entails being the source of something, vs an "influence" just affects something else in any way, shape, form, or extent. I would say that Christian theology is/was influenced by Philo, probably even a much smaller extent compared to Arian. So the exact answer would be I don't think it can be shown, because it seems probable that Christian theology was influenced by Philo, though not inspired by.

Discussion

The exact answer to your question depends on what exactly you mean by the "Christian concept of the Trinity." If you are referring to the creeds formulated at Nicaea, then it is probable that those were affected by Philo's heterodox teachings. If you are referring to the doctrine of the Trinity as believed by ante-Nicene church fathers, then it is also probable that Philo's writings affected them, since ante-Nicene includes all of 1st century up until 325 AD. If you are referring to the doctrine of the Trinity itself, then no...see below.

An important element of this question hinges on the dating of Philo's works, since he lived 20 BC to AD 50. If the Christian concept of the Trinity is inspired by Philo's writings, then his relevant writings should be prior to when the Christian concept of the Trinity was established. I have unsuccessfully attempted to find any date given to Philo's writings, of which the ones including the Trinity and the Logos being the most relevant and central to this question. Philo spent a large portion of his writings and his life on Genesis and the Pentateuch rather than the Trinity.

The concept of the logos is familiar to Greek philosophy prior to Jesus' time and starting in the 5th century BC with Heraclitus, though with somewhat of an inconsistent and transient usage. Aristotle used logos in combination with ethos and pathos in his writings on persuasion. Read more here. Philo's discussion of the Logos could be a purely philosophically-based expansion on the previous philosophical/theological renderings of Logos, as the Logos had already had theological implications at least with the Stoics in the 4th century BC.

The New Testament writings were most likely all written after the death of Philo in AD 50; however, the events of the Gospels all happened by AD 30.  The earliest church father I am aware of besides the New Testament writers, Ignatius of Antioch, was born in AD 35. I doubt he would have been able to write a treatise on Jesus as the Logos before Philo did. I don't know if we can know how the apostles applied the term Logos to Jesus before the Gospel accounts. In Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Peter and Philo supposedly met, which is relevant. It is also possible that Philo was familiar with the events occurring with Jesus, including the Holy Spirit, Pentecost, "breathing" the Holy Spirit on the disciples, etc., which explains some of Philo's writings on the Holy Spirit (pneumatology) and the Trinity. He probably (possibly?) would have been familiar with what the Christians taught and believed about Jesus, so that most likely would have affected his writings.

You could prove me false by demonstrating that Philo's writings on the Trinity pre-date the events of the Gospels (before ~AD 25). It is difficult to otherwise separate what Philo knew of Christian beliefs at the time of his writings. Jesus was born around 4-6 BC, so his ministry started around AD ~25-27, so if Philo wrote extensively on the Trinity (especially and specifically pneumatology) before the events described in the Gospels, then I would be wrong. Otherwise, I would think it is the Gospel events (not the books) that are Philo's primary basis for his doctrine.  To have such sophisticated work on the Trinity would be extremely surprising based on the Old Testament alone.

Conclusion

In short, this is a great and difficult question; I don't think we have the data to come to a solid conclusion on this. And this was a terrible answer but just wanted to give you some information for your consideration in finding an answer to this question. Summary: I think Philo based his writings on the Logos from the Old Testament and philosophy, but his writings on pneumatology the events contained in the Gospels that he would have heard about.

Edit: This link (also linked in the Answer section) helped me see you could have some substantive writings on the Logos from the Old Testament alone, especially with a philosophical background because Logos appears a decent amount in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).

Therefore, it seems that Philo bases his ideas of the Logos on philosophy + Old Testament considering that he does quote it, see this answer, but the ideas of pneumatology on Gospel events since those seem to be very specifically from Jesus' ministry and teachings, and probably some overlap between the two. Jesus often referred to the Old Testament to reveal the Trinity, so Philo could have been aware of that.

P.S. if someone can give me dates for any/all of Philo's writings, that would be wonderful.


Is there one guardian angel for each person? A Roman Catholic friend of mine told me that each person has a guardian angel. He told me it is based on this verse:

  Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 18:10 KJV

According to Catholics and Orthodox, is there one guardian angel per person?

It is the belief of both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox that, yes we can.

In Orthodoxy, there is even a prayer to your Angel.

  O Holy Angel, keeping guard over my wretched soul and my passionate life, do not forsake me, a sinner, nor depart from me because of my incontinence. Do not give the evil enemy room to overcome me by force of this mortal body. Strengthen my weak and feeble hand, and set me on the way of salvation. Yea, O Holy Angel of God, guardian and protector of my wretched soul and body, forgive me everything by which I have offended you all the days of my life, and even what I have done this past night; protect me during this day, and guard me from every temptation of the enemy, that I may not anger God by any sin. Pray to the Lord for me, that He may confirm me in His fear and prove me a worthy servant of His goodness. Amen. - Orthodox Morning Prayers


Is there evidence to suggest that John Wesley targeted the bottom third of society? We see in society today that the bottom third of society are disenfranchied and led by loud mouths with empty promises. (Perhaps this has always been the case).

My rough understanding of Wesley from history is that he came during a time of great economic change (The Industrial revolution) when thousands were left out of work, and gave them purpose, and helped them integrate into the new world created by the Industrial Revolution. (sounds familiar to something similar happening today).

My question is: Is there evidence to suggest that John Wesley targeted the bottom third of society?

John and his brother Charles utilized the wisdom of the Holy Scriptures to not only change lives of the bottom third of society, but they also utilized these sacred texts to change the entire 18th-century culture in Great Britain, America and Asia. Their efforts cut across lines of culture and class. That is the obvious byproduct of the Bible- God's manual for humanity. The ideals of frugality, family, capitalism, community, these all are Biblical concepts which uniquely transformed the culture of 18th-century Great Britain. When John's brother taught the masses to memorize his rich hymns, it was just a short time later that these same illiterate individuals were learning to read when they were handed a sheet of paper written with the memorized hymns. The nearly 80% of the population who couldn't read began to read. When the teachings of the Bible taught husbands and wives to love and respect each other, the drunken masses of men and women addicted to gin began to sober up and do likewise.


How do soul sleep adherents make sense of Jesus' acknowledgement of the existence of disembodied spirits and ghosts? Luke 24:36-39 (NASB):

36 Now while they were telling these things, Jesus Himself suddenly stood in their midst and *said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened, and thought that they were looking at a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you frightened, and why are doubts arising in your hearts? 39 See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you plainly see that I have.”

Matthew 14:26-27 (NASB):

26 When the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out in fear. 27 But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.”

In these passages we see Jesus acknowledging the existence of disembodied spirits / ghosts. Of course, these entities are awake, not asleep, and yet they lack physical bodies. How do soul sleep adherentes make sense of this?

A soul sleep adherent would simply say that in the Matthew 14:26-27 passage, the disciples thought Jesus was a phantasma, a Greek term for spirit appearances or apparitions, based on their understandable superstition related to a disembodied spirit from someone who had drowned and haunted the water.  More likely, they may thought that an evil spirit (non human) tried to deceive them into thinking it was Jesus, since they know that Jesus was still alive.
Note also that Jesus simply said "It is I", without acknowledging that dead people's spirit can roam and haunt.  There is also no place in the Gospels that Jesus implied that human spirits waiting for resurrection are free to roam among the living.  Also, the main point of the passage is to show how Jesus is Lord over all creation.
Similarly, soul sleep adherents would read Luke 24:36-39 as Jesus's assuring the disciples who at that point were still doubtful of the resurrection and who were instead frightened because of the same superstition as in Matt 14:26-27 (a non-human evil spirit trying to deceive them).  The word used was pneuma but at least one commentator said the usage is parallel to phantasma in Matt 14:26-27.  But just because Jesus was using a word that came to the disciples' superstitious mind upon seeing Jesus's glorified body should it be taken as support for waking spirit in the intermediate state?
Christians of all stripes, soul sleep adherents included, interpret the Luke passage to prove Jesus's resurrection as well as as a preview of the bodily nature of the glorified bodies we will also have at our resurrection, especially against the growing Gnostic threat denying the goodness of the body.
Conclusion: Given the main import of both passages, soul sleep adherents would consider both usage of phantasma / pneuma as simply the narrators portraying the disciples' superstition and that they are too fleeting / irrelevant to be used as support against their position.


Which are some of the Non Trinitarian sects in Christianity I read about a very famous Scientist  Newton, who had did not believe in the theory of trinity and i came across a banner in my country which called people to some "Unitarianism church"

Hence out of curiosity wanted to know:

What are some Christian sects (Modern as well as Extinct or Old) which don't believe in the theory of Trinity nor the divinity of Christ ?

Before answering, there are a few ways of defining "divinity".  I am going to answer from the traditional, orthodox understanding of the term as defined at http://carm.org/dictionary-divinity

  Divinity is the nature or quality of being God. Within Christianity it
  belongs to God alone. It is also important to note that orthodox
  Christianity believes that Jesus was divine in nature (Col. 2:9) as
  well as being a man. For more information see Jesus' Two Natures.

There's a pretty comprehensive list of denominations that reject the Trinity here. Groups from that list that also deny the divinity of Christ include:

Latter-day Saints
Jehovah's Witnesses
Christian Science
Unification Church
Unity School of Christianity

While not necessarily sects, there are certain teachings that deny both the Trinity and Christ's divinity, which were adhered to by various sects.

Many are found at http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/heresies.stm

  Arianism-- Jesus less than God -- more than human-- The Arian controversy began in Alexandria, Egypt about 318 AD. Arius (c. 250-c.
  336) was a popular Alexandrian priest whose theology about who Jesus
  was was condemned as heretical by the First Council of Nicaea in 325
  and also at the First Council of Constantinople in 381.
  Ebionite-- Jesus regarded as prophet rather than divine Word of God-- Ebionites originally were a first century Jewish-Christian sect.
  They emphasized Jewish law and rejected Paul's teachings. Most
  considered him to be a man, not God. Later use of this term refers to
  anyone who minimizes the divinity of Christ.
  Nestorianism--    Refers to theology of Nestorius of Antioch, who became Bishop of Constantinople in 428 A.D.

  Nestorius believed that Mary was mother only of the human Jesus, not
  the divine Logos and in the Antiochine "two-nature" Christology.


Why do some people say that the angels wanted to preach the gospel? I heard from several Christians that the angels wanted to preach the gospel.
They say that based on I Peter 1:12 (KJV):

  Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they
  did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that
  have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from
  heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

But I read this verse to say that the angels desire to "look into" and not to "preach".

Does anyone know where that statement came from?

Perhaps I am reading these scriptures wrong, but I draw a different conclusion from these:
1st Peter 1:3 through 12   KJV

3  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4  To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5  Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
6  Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
7  That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8  Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
9  Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
10  Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11  Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12  Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

Perhaps I misread; but from the preceding Scriptures in which I have highlighted those things to which I believe that statement referes.


Romans 6:5 and "Where's Wolfius?" In order to better understand Romans 6:5, I've been doing a word study of the Greek word σύμφυτος (sumphutos), traditionally translated "planted together" or "united with". Commentators usually point out that this adjective is found only here in the New Testament. However, a verb form of the root word is found in Luke 8:7. What's more, various forms are found six times in the Septuagint (Esther 7:7,8 in the margin of Codex Sinaiticus by a corrector; in the text of Amos 9:13, Zechariah 11:2, Wisdom of Solomon 13:13, and III Maccabees 3:22). I'm trying to isolate the most basic meaning, which so far seems to be "thickly grown up together". It's not, as often thought, "grafted", though grafting can be used as an illustration for Romans 6:5 as a whole. Also, it seems to me that the plural form σύμφυτοι (sumphutoi) with the "oi" ending used in 6:5 is not rendered correctly by the traditional translation "united with Him", or even by the alternative "united with the likeness". Rather, in this instance the prefix σύμ- (sum-) doesn't mean "with", but "together", and sumphutoi describes the community of Christians, "such ones as we" of verses 1-4. This is then followed by the dative τῷ ὁμοιώματι (to homoiomati), which means that instead of the locative "'in' the likeness" the dative should be translated "'to' or 'for' the likeness". Romans 6:5 would then more literally read, "For if we have become 'thickly-grown-up-together ones' with reference to the likeness of His death..."

Along the way I found some of the most helpful information on sumphutos in Footnote 187 to Romans 6:5 in John Calvin's commentary on Romans, which was "translated and edited by the Rev. John Owen". This is not the famous Puritan John Owen (1616-1683), but rather a vicar of Thrussington, Leicestershire, UK, who lived from 1788-1867. This later John Owen wrote as "Editor" in the footnote and among other things said, "It appears from Wolfius that the word is used by Greek authors in a sense not strictly literal, to express congeniality, conjoining, union, as the sameness of disposition, or the joining together of a dismembered limb, or, as Grotius says, the union of friendship". I've wanted to read the exact words of the passage from Wolfius on this, so I've been trying to track him down. So far I've come up with three candidates:

John Wolfius, mentioned in some of The Zurich Letters  written to him in the 1500s during the English Reformation.
Christian Wolff ("Wolfius")(1679-1754), a German Enlightenment philosopher between Leibniz and Kant.
Johann Christoph Wolf (1683-1739), a German Christian Hebraist, polymath, collector of books, and master of Oriental languages and literature. I haven't found where he was called "Wolfius", but he very well could have been.

Does anyone have a clue who is the Wolfius mentioned by the editor (the later John Owen) in his footnote to Romans 6:5 of Calvin's commentary, and where the passage from Wolfius I'm looking for might be found?  Thank you all for any help, and God bless you!

The evidence supports the conclusion that the Wolfius referred  to by John Owen, Vicar of Thrussington, in his footnotes to Calvin's Commentary is Johann Christoph Wolf (1683-1739); and that the references made  are to his book  "Curae philologicae et criticae in Novum Testamentum".

This is a copy.

He studied at Wittenburg and amassed a library of some 25,000 volumes, becoming one of the foremost scholars of his age.

The Translators Preface to John Owen's volume, paragraph 12 refers to "Wolfius"  as being active in the last century, that is in the 1700s. This seems to rule out Calvin's contemporary. The other Wolfius mentioned, Christian, was an Enlightenment philosopher, rather than a specialist in the development of languages.

Footnote 187 cites Wolfius as quoting Greek authors as using the word in connection with, amongst other things the joining together of a dismembered limb. This Wolfius in his commentary on this verse quotes Antonius (i.e. Marcus Aurelias) Book 8 chapter 34. That chapter refers to dismembered limbs. He also quotes the tenth book of Plato's Legabus.

There are at least 24 references to Wolfius in Owen's footnotes to Calvin's Commentary on Romans. These relate to the translation of the Greek. In some there are specific references to Greek or Jewish literature. Here are some:

Footnote 164, in relation to chapter 5 verse 12, refers to a quote from Wolfius on Rabbi Moses Tranensis - this Moses is indeed mentioned in JCW's Curae  when dealing with that particular verse.

Footnote 197, on chapter 6 verse 17, refers to Wolfius mentioning A life of Pythagoras,  which is in JCW's Curae on that particular verse.

Footnote 254 on chapter 8, verse 15, says Wolfius quotes from the Talmud, and this is indeed to be found in JCW's Curae, on the verse in question.

Footnote 286 on chapter 9 vrse 3 quotes Wolfius referring to Photius. JCW's Curae indeed has such a reference for this very verse.

Footnote 459 quotes Wolfius as saying that Origen and Eusebius knew nothing of Paul going to Spain, and again this is indeed in JCW's Curae in reference to that particular verse.

All these corroborate that the Vicar of Thrussington, when referring to Wolfius, meant the Curae  Philologicae  et Criticae in Novum Testamentum by JC Wolf or Wolfius.


In Romans 7 is Paul talking about before or after he was saved? In Romans 7:15 Paul said "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I." and in Romans 7:11 Paul said "For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me." So it may seem that Paul was talking about having a sin problem BEFORE he was saved. Is Romans 7:17-34 talking about before Paul was saved or after Paul was saved? This is important because some believe we sin after we are saved and some believe we don't sin after we are saved and this is a key passage in discussions on this topic.

The passage was written after his conversion, and there is no indication whatsoever that Paul was speaking in the past tense.  Therefore, following the basic rules of interpretation, (particularly #3, 5, and 8) he is speaking about after he was saved.

Those eight rules are copied from the Apologetics Research page below:

  1 The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of
  Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then
  keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously
  abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require
  using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure
  that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of
  good examples of this are the Greek words "allos" and "heteros". Both
  are usually translated as "another" in English - yet "allos" literally
  means "another of the same type" and "heteros" means "another of a
  different type."

  2 The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was
  written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have
  been intelligible to them - just as the words of Christ when talking
  to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was
  written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish)
  culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our
  interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases
  and histories if one's interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived
  notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and
  ineffectual lesson.

  3 The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context.
  Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that
  come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all,
  or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A
  good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b:
  "...for there be gods many and lords many..." as a "proof text" of
  their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole
  verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these
  gods "so-called"), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching
  polytheism.

  4 The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some
  awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture
  was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can't
  be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If
  the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind
  when he wrote - without adding any excess baggage from the
  interpreter's own culture or society - then the true thought of the
  Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation.
  Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Our only interest in the past is for the
  light it throws upon the present."

  5 The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When
  interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed.
  Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the
  form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason - it
  invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other
  volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis. As
  Bernard Ramm said:

  "What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence...
  interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic...may
  have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such
  a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the
  laws of logic and evidence." (Protestant Biblical Interpretation,
  Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1956)

  6 The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a
  word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a
  judge's chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the
  interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really
  support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who
  were called "noble" because they searched the Scriptures to determine
  if what Paul taught them was true.

  7 The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be
  construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An
  interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An
  excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single
  passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the
  whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are
  referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach
  there is only one God).

  8 The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied
  from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a
  conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one
  proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or
  propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established
  by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such
  evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory
  evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an
  unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when
  he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in
  Matt. 22:23-33.

  Learning these eight rules and properly applying them will help keep
  any interpreter from making errors and will hopefully alleviate many
  of the disagreements unfortunately present in Christianity today.
  However, these eight principles are no substitute for the Holy Spirit
  which will, if you let Him, guide you in the truth [John 14:26]. If
  you receive Christ into your heart, God will give you the Holy Spirit
  freely as a gift [Acts 2:38]. I urge you, if you have not already done
  so, to examine the claims and the work of Jesus Christ and to receive
  Him as your Savior.

To come to the conclusion that he is speaking of only before he was saved, you'd have to ignore verb tense and other basic rules of interpretation.


Do clerics commit a sin if they do not recite the liturgy of the hours? According to the Code of Canon Law 1174, priests and deacons are obliged to recite the liturgy of the hours (divine office). If they do not do so, do they commit a sin (moral law)? Or is it only a "legal transgression" (Church law)? The text of the Canon Law does not seems to specify the consequence.

  Can. 1174 §1 Clerics are obliged to recite the liturgy of the hours, in accordance with Can. 276, §2, n. 3; members of institutes of consecrated life and of societies of apostolic life are obliged in accordance with their constitutions.

Do clerics commit a sin if they do not recite the liturgy of the hours?

The short answer is yes.

  First of all, we must distinguish among those who have an obligation to pray the Divine Office.
  All Latin-rite priests and transitional deacons have the grave obligation, undertaken in the moment of ordination, to pray the entire Liturgy of the Hours: "Are you resolved to maintain and deepen a spirit of prayer appropriate to your way of life and, in keeping with what is required of you, to celebrate faithfully the Liturgy of the Hours for the Church and for the whole world?" (cf. Roman Pontifical, Rite of the Ordination of Deacons)." This is confirmed by No. 29 of the General Instruction of the Liturgy of the Hours and Canon 276, §2.3, of the Code of Canon Law.

  With respect to the extent and possible exceptions to this general rule, the Congregation for Divine Worship offered the following clarifications:

  "Question #1: What is the mind of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments regarding the extension of the obligation of celebration or reciting daily the Liturgy of the Hours?

  "Response: Those who have been ordained are morally bound, in virtue of the same ordination they have received, to the celebration or the entire and daily recitation of the Divine Office such as is canonically established in canon 276, § 2, n. 3 of the CIC, cited previously. This recitation does not have for its part the nature of a private devotion or of a pious exercise realized by the personal will alone of the cleric but rather is an act proper to the sacred ministry and pastoral office.

  "Question #2: Is the obligation sub gravi extended to the entire recitation of the Divine Office?

  "Response: The following must be kept in mind:

  "A serious reason, be it of health, or of pastoral service in ministry, or of an act of charity, or of fatigue, not a simple inconvenience, may excuse the partial recitation and even the entire Divine Office, according to the general principal that establishes that a mere ecclesiastical law does not bind when a serious inconvenience is present;

  "The total or partial omission of the Office due to laziness alone or due to the performance of activities of unnecessary diversion, is not licit, and even more so, constitutes an underestimation, according to the gravity of the matter, of the ministerial office and of the positive law of the Church;

  "To omit the Hours of Morning Prayer (Lauds) and Evening Prayer (Vespers) requires a greater reason still, given that these Hours are the 'double hinge of the daily Office' (SC 89);

  "If a priest must celebrate Mass several times on the same day or hear confessions for several hours or preach several times on the same day, and this causes him fatigue, he may consider, with tranquility of conscience, that he has a legitimate excuse for omitting a proportionate part of the Office;

  "The proper Ordinary of the priest or deacon can, for a just or serious reason, according to the case, dispense him totally or partially from the recitation of the Divine Office, or commute it to another act of piety (as, for example, the Holy Rosary, the Stations of the Cross, a biblical or spiritual reading, a time of mental prayer reasonably prolonged, etc.). - What Should Be Prayed in the Liturgy of the Hours

Canon Law states the following:

  Can. 276 §1. In leading their lives, clerics are bound in a special way to pursue holiness since, having been consecrated to God by a new title in the reception of orders, they are dispensers of the mysteries of God in the service of His people.

  §2. In order to be able to pursue this perfection:

  1º they are first of all to fulfill faithfully and tirelessly the duties of the pastoral ministry;

  2º they are to nourish their spiritual life from the two-fold table of sacred scripture and the Eucharist; therefore, priests are earnestly invited to offer the eucharistic sacrifice daily and deacons to participate in its offering daily;

  3º priests and deacons aspiring to the presbyterate are obliged to carry out the liturgy of the hours daily according to the proper and approved liturgical books; permanent deacons, however, are to carry out the same to the extent defined by the conference of bishops;

  4º they are equally bound to make time for spiritual retreats according to the prescripts of particular law;

  5º they are urged to engage in mental prayer regularly, to approach the sacrament of penance frequently, to honor the Virgin Mother of God with particular veneration, and to use other common and particular means of sanctification.

Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university explains it this way:

  During the development process for the 1983 Code of Canon Law it was decided to remove expressions such as “under pain of mortal sin” with respect to the external prescriptions of Church law.

  In part this was done to distinguish Church law and the moral law. Church law covers the external relationship of individuals in the Christian community. Since sin also involves internal factors, the law, in itself, does not bind under pain of sin.

  This technical distinction does not mean that no sin is committed by transgressing Church law. The fact that the code no longer binds attending Sunday Mass under pain of mortal sin does not change the fact that willful and inexcusable absence is mortally sinful. - Obligation of the Liturgy of the Hours


What is the basis of the LDS (Mormon) belief that the Apostle John never died? I was recently informed that the LDS Church teaches that the Apostle John never actually died and is, presumably, still on earth somewhere today.

What is the Biblical and/or other basis for this teaching.

Also, if he is still alive and on the earth today, is there any church teaching regarding where exactly he may be?

There's an interesting passage towards the end of the Gospel of John, after Jesus's resurrection:

  John 21:21-23

  21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

  22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is
  that to thee? follow thou me.

  23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple
  should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If
  I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Here, John seems to be saying "no comment" on a certain rumor that had gone around in the church, leaving it deliberately ambiguous.  The Book of Mormon actually gives an authoritative answer to the question, and this is where the LDS belief comes from.

From 3 Nephi 28:

  1 And it came to pass when Jesus had said these words, he spake unto
  his disciples, one by one, saying unto them: What is it that ye desire
  of me, after that I am gone to the Father?

  2 And they all spake, save it were three, saying: We desire that
  after we have lived unto the age of man, that our ministry, wherein
  thou hast called us, may have an end, that we may speedily come unto
  thee in thy kingdom.

  3 And he said unto them: Blessed are ye because ye desired this thing
  of me; therefore, after that ye are seventy and two years old ye shall
  come unto me in my kingdom; and with me ye shall find rest.

  4 And when he had spoken unto them, he turned himself unto the three,
  and said unto them: What will ye that I should do unto you, when I am
  gone unto the Father?

  5 And they sorrowed in their hearts, for they durst not speak unto
  him the thing which they desired.

  6 And he said unto them: Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have
  desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my
  ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me.

  7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death;
  but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the
  children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to
  the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers
  of heaven.

  8 And ye shall never endure the pains of death; but when I shall come
  in my glory ye shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye from
  mortality to immortality; and then shall ye be blessed in the kingdom
  of my Father.


How does "Lead us not into temptation" need to be interpreted? When we Christians recite the "Our Father", we always say:

  ... and lead us not into temptation ...

From this quote I understand very clearly that God can lead us to temptation thus contradicting whatever else is present in the Gospel.

I read in different forums that such sentence must be interpreted as of "permitting" to fall into temptation. However I believe all words have a meaning and in this case "lead" has its own definition.
Appealing to interpretation sounds like cheating to me and I don't see why we should do it but to "make things work".

So how to deal with this sentence and solve such dilemma?

The word lead is nearly as unambiguous in Greek as it is in English -  εἰσφέρω (eispherō) - and the word for temptation - πειρασμός (peirasmos) - can mean temptation towards evil, just as in English.  It should be noted, though, that whereas in the preceding verse - forgive us our debts (Matthew 6:12), or forgive us our sins (Luke 11:4) - the Evangelists write in the imperative mood in Greek (i.e. as a sort of command), both Matthew and Luke use the subjunctive mood in the following verse.  What we normally see as lead us not into temptation could just as well be rendered may you not lead us into temptation, or perhaps may you never lead us into temptation.

While one might be tempted [sorry] to read a meaning of "test" rather than "tempt" into peirasmos, I don't think this is the best approach here.  Instead, one should probably also see and lead us not into temptation in opposition to the other clause in the verse, but deliver us from evil (or the evil one - the Greek can be read either way and was).

In his lengthly sermon on just this verse, Cyril of Alexandria - a 4th century Greek speaking to Greeks - explained:

  There is a certain close connection in the clauses: for plainly it follows from men not being led into temptation, that they are also delivered from evil; or perchance, were any one to say, that the not being led into it is the same as the being delivered from it, he would not err from the truth.1

In other words, Cyril is saying that the way to understand the verse is that it is a supplication to God to deliver one from evil in general and not - "God forbid" one might add - into temptation.

1. Commentary on the Gospel According to Luke, Sermon LXXVII


Where did the account of Veronica originate? Veronica wiping the face of Jesus during his passion is one of the stations of the cross in Roman Catholic tradition. This part of the passion has no basis in the Bible, though.

Where did this originate?

Luke 23:27-31 tells us that certain women lamented as Jesus carried his cross to Golgotha. At this stage, there is no mention of Veronica or of anyone wiping Jesus' face.

The apocryphal Acts of Pilate (an extant copy of which is contained in the Gospel of Nicodemus, dated at around the fourth century, expanded on Luke's brief passage, saying that one of these women offered a cloth to wipe the face of Jesus. A later eleventh-century story says this resulted in a portrait on the cloth (a reproduction of which is now kept as a relic in Saint Peter's basilica in Rome).

It seems unlikely that the medieval authors, well known for their pious creativity, could have known something that the author of Luke did not know. It is even more unlikely that the woman's name, Veronica (vera + ikon = "true image"), happened to coincide with what she was famous for in this story - wiping Jesus' face and receiving a true image of his face. Nevertheless, St Veronica remains important in Catholic liturgy and she now has a place in the popular devotion of the Stations of the Cross.


What are the major views on Adam's motivation to sin given that he was not deceived? I'm interested in finding out what the major views are on Adam's motivation to sin if he was not deceived?

The biblical understanding of Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son was that he believed God would make it right (Hebrews 11:19).
Jesus loved us so much that, even though He knew we would fall into sin, He created everything anyway: Because He knew and wanted to redeem us even with that happening.
Jesus is the "last Adam" (1 Cor 15:45). Is Adam a 'type' of Christ? Is Adam a 'first Christ' (not really a 'Christ' / Saviour, but a foreshadow, or symbol or similar) ?

So, given the above, if Adam was not deceived (1 Tim 2:14), if he was really not deceived, then why eat the fruit?

What are the major views on Adam's motivation to sin given that he was
  not deceived?

According to Genesis 3:6, after the woman had eaten, she offered the fruit to her husband who was with her. I see here only a change in panorama, not a change in chronology. Adam had been standing there the entire time. He heard it all, he saw it all. If we look at the first part of verse 6, a possible answer reveals itself.

  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... (AV)

We are told that the woman "saw" three things concerning the tree:

It was good for food;
It was pleasant to the eyes;
It was a tree to be desired to make one wise.

To begin with, the woman was motivated by what she now "saw," not by what God had previously declared. And what she saw appealed to the bodily senses and carnal desires. It is no coincidence that a serpent is seen beguiling the woman. That the serpent ("the poisoner") was the mouthpiece of Satan is commonly understood. And in a very real way, here the serpent "poisoned" the thinking of the woman and her husband, "who was with her."

Though no reference is made to what Adam "saw" in the tree, we do have one clear fact revealed to us in Scripture—

  ...and he did eat.

Irrespective of what Adam did or did not see with regard to the tree, what he DID see was that the woman had eaten of the forbidden fruit and "was not dead." Regardless of Adam's position with regard to the tree, he was still motivated by what he "saw" in stark contrast to what God had declared and commanded. Thus, Adam's motivation to sin was the fact that he did not see the woman fall down dead. Which brings up an interesting point.

Numbers chapter 30 deals in part with the making of vows and swearing of oaths which bind a man or woman. Beginning with verse 6 we read—

  And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out
  of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7 And her husband heard it,
  and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows
  shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 8
  But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he
  shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with
  her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD
  shall forgive her. (AV)

These are the words of the LORD which Moses, in turn, conveyed to Israel. I submit that there is little difference, if indeed there is any at all, between an oath that binds one's soul and a deed which does so.

Here we have God's own declaration that if the husband hears (or hears and sees) what his wife does which is contrary to God's declaration, command, statute, edict, law, precept, etc., then the man has full authority to disallow what was said or done by the woman (wife) and, "...the LORD shall forgive her."

I see no reason to strip Adam of this caliber of authority. He would have been well within his sphere of authority and dominion over the serpent in disallowing the "act" of the woman, and to give the serpent the "left foot of fellowship" from the garden. In so doing he would have upheld the command of God both in regard to the "fruit" and in regard to "having dominion."


What does "Christ was born across the sea" mean in Julia Ward Howe's The Battle Hymn of the Republic? The fifth verse of Julia Ward Howe's The Battle Hymn of the Republic, as published in 1862, goes like this:

  In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
  With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me;
  As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
  While God is marching on. (source)

What does the phrase "Christ was born across the sea" mean? Another question provides a tremendous explanation of the first part, regarding the lilies, so I'm hoping you can help me with the last part of this line.

First, just to be clear, this line is about Christ's birth, not about his being carried somewhere.

As explained at Grammarist.com here:

"Borne is the past tense and past participle of bear in all senses not related to birth," while
"Born is also a past tense and past participle of bear, but it’s reserved mainly for use as the passive verb in contexts relating to birth."

(The non-bold italics are added in both cases.)

If the author and the various editors of the lyrics to the song had wanted to say that Christ was "carried across the sea," they would have written "borne," not "born." Their consistent use of the form "born" indicates that the line is about Christ's birth.

Having established that:

Julia Ward Howe (1819-1910) was an American. Therefore the simplest explanation for the line "Christ was born across the sea" in The Battle Hymn of the Republic is that the Holy Land, where Jesus was born, is across the "sea," or ocean, from North America, where the lyrics for the song were written, and where the song achieved great popularity both as a hymn and as a patriotic song.

Whatever metaphorical meanings the line may carry (and for Americans of previous centuries, living "across the sea" from their origins in the Old World continents did have a quasi-religious symbolism as they established a new nation on one of the continents of the New World), the most likely basic meaning is that the song is picturing Christ's wondrous birth ("in the beauty of the lilies") as having taken place across the ocean from the land where the song was set, in Civil War America.

This wondrous birth is then set in apposition to the power of his death "to make men holy," invoking enduring themes and metaphors of birth and death.


How do Evangelicals celebrate Pentecost? Wikipedia sayeth in vague generalities:

  In Evangelical churches, where a lesser degree of emphasis on the liturgical year is generally placed, Pentecost may indeed be one of the greatest celebrations in the year. In many other cases though, Pentecost may be a holiday ignored in these churches. Perhaps ironically, this includes many Pentecostal congregations. Christians of these traditions may be surprised to learn of the significance assigned to the holiday by others, and in fact in many evangelical churches in the United States, secular Mother's Day is more celebrated than the ancient and biblical feast of Pentecost

Specifically, how do Evangelicals who do celebrate Pentecost do it?  Pentecost is one of the only two holy days that not only is a carry over from the Jewish tradition, but also a huge gigantic and utterly important point in the history of the Christian Church.

Pentecost, for Christians, marks the birth of "the Church." For evangelicals, however, church history generally means when their local congregation was founded. As a body of believers with no history, by design, historical holidays (I.e. Anything not explicitly about Jesus) fall to the wayside.

From an historic viewpoint, the Church Universal is an amazing institution. Like all institutions, however, tradition tends to shape it, once it gets going, for better or for worse.

Evangelicals tend to be highly distrustful of "tradition," as their origin stems from a reaction to the "religious maturation," aka liberal theology, of the late 1800s. In contrast, a group of scholars wrote a book called The Fundamentals, in which tradition was eschewed for a sola fide / sola scriptura basis. While fundamentalists sought to escape the culture, evangelicals intended to engage it- but in both cases, this reaction was grounded in an anti-establishment fervor. We basically threw the baby out with the bathwater. Anything "traditional," including liturgies, lectionaries, and church "holidays" were all suspect. Christmas and Easter survive, as much out of their popularity as anything else - but pretty much everything else was jettisoned.

(By the way, in my seminary, I remember a preaching class in which the professor had to remind us that Easter really was a special day and needed to be treated as such. That such an admonition needed to be said speaks volumes about what we think. )

As a result, Pentecost tends to be forgotten the "lower" church one goes. It's sad, because Pentecost is probably the most significant holiday after Easter and Christmas, and it's 100% scriptural. (indeed, it even prefers Christmas and Easter in the Bible!) Still, there's just too much tradition against it now for things to change.

As a side note, my Episcopalian church celebrates Pentecost as "Worship and Work Sunday."  We are all invited to wear red (the liturgical color) and spruce up the church grounds.


Did John Calvin believe there was no salvation outside the visible church? What did John Calvin believe about salvation outside of the church?

He writes in book IV of the Institutes:

  But because it is now our intention to discuss the visible church, let us learn even from the simple title “mother” how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her. For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels [Matthew 22:30]. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation, as Isaiah [Isaiah 37:32] and Joel [Joel 2:32] testify. Ezekiel agrees with them when he declares that those whom God rejects from heavenly life will not be enrolled among God’s people [Ezekiel 13:9]. On the other hand, those who turn to the cultivation of true godliness are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem [cf. Isaiah 56:5; Psalm 87:6]. For this reason, it is said in another psalm: “Remember me, O Jehovah, with favor toward thy people; visit me with salvation: that I may see the well-doing of thy chosen ones, that I may rejoice in the joy of thy nation, that I may be glad with thine inheritance” [Psalm 106:4-5 p.; cf. Psalm 105:4, Vg., etc.]. By these words God’s fatherly favor and the especial witness of spiritual life are limited to his flock, so that it is always disastrous to leave the church.

The text you quoted is certainly clear teaching of John Calvin on the subject. He believed that there was no salvation by remaining outside of the visible church, although it is necessary to distinguish that by not assuming that one could somehow not be saved unless inside a church building or attending a worship service. Rather, any person who professed to be a believer but somehow detached themselves from the visible body of Christ (the visible church) could have no hope of salvation or forgiveness of sins.

This is elaborated on in Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 1:

  God alone knoweth them that are his. Still he has given marks to
  discern his children.

  These marks are the ministry of the word, and administration of the
  sacraments instituted by Christ. The same rule not to be followed in
  judging of individuals and of churches.

  We must on no account forsake the Church distinguished by such marks.
  Those who act otherwise are apostates, deserters of the truth and of
  the household of God, deniers of God and Christ, violators of the
  mystical marriage.

Here again it is clearly shown that those who forsake the visible church are apostate etc.

And later in the chapter, in section 10:

  Whence it follows, that revolt from the Church is denial of God and
  Christ. Wherefore there is the more necessity to beware of a dissent
  so iniquitous; for seeing by it we aim as far as in us lies at the
  destruction of God's truth, we deserve to be crushed by the full
  thunder of his anger. No crime can be imagined more atrocious than
  that of sacrilegiously and perfidiously violating the sacred marriage
  which the only begotten Son of God has condescended to contract with
  us.

However, if the church that one was attending did not show the marks of the true church (the ministry of the word, and the administration of the sacraments instituted by Christ), then it was permissible and indeed preferable to leave such an institution. Having said that, to be in this church-less state is a most lamentable occurrence, and one which should be remedied as soon as possible by joining once again to a true church.


Are there any positive statements of the golden rule in extra-biblical literature? What is commonly called the golden rule is stated by Jesus in Matthew 7:12:

  In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for
  this fulfills the law and the prophets. (NET)

Commentators often notice that the golden rule appears in extra-biblical literature, but often in negative form.

For example, Ben Witherington states:

  Jesus was by no means the first or only person to come up with a
  version of the Golden Rule. There is the famous saying of Rabbi
  Hillel, for example: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your
  neighbor: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is commentary on it;
  go and learn” (b. Sabb. 31a cf. Tob 4.15; 2 En. 61.1-2). It is worth
  pointing out that Jesus insists on a positive formulation of the
  maxim, where as other forms of it, both Jewish and Greco-Roman (cf.
  Isocrates Nic. 61; Herodotus 3.142), tend to be negative.

Are there any positive statements of this principle to be found in extra-biblical literature? (Excluding, of course, Christian literature or later literature influenced by Christianity)

Negative statements of the Golden Rule, often known as the Siver Rule, are, for some reason, far more numerous.  Wikipedia identifies several ancient versions of the (positive) Golden Rule:

The Stoic Philosophy of Seneca: Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BC–65 AD), a practitioner of Stoicism (c. 300 BC–200 AD) expressed the Golden Rule in his essay regarding the treatment of slaves: "Treat your inferior as you would wish your superior to treat you."
Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva (Hindu): By making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.
Sutrakritanga, 1.11.33 (Jain): A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated.
Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara (Jain): In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.
Dao de Jing (Daoism): The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.
T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien (Daoism): Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
Mozi (Mohism): If people regarded other people’s states in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own state to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. If people regarded other people’s cities in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own city to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. And so if states and cities do not attack one another and families do not wreak havoc upon and steal from one another, would this be a harm to the world or a benefit? Of course one must say it is a benefit to the world.


What is process eschatology? I'm looking for a concise bullet point breakdown :)

And some things specific to Christian Process eschatology. I have lots of books and articles with lots of information but am looking for a small summary of its main ideas and the principles that characterise and distinguish it from other eschatology.

Thank you :)

Process Eschatology is based on a foundation in the metaphysical system of Alfred North Whitehead (among others), a methodology that integrates both speculation and empirical verification. It seeks to use Process Theology to explain biblical eschatology.

But in an article titled, Process Eschatology and the Power of God (Part I), Sandalstraps declares:

  "Eschatological language has next to no place in a Process system. The
  future is, after all, undetermined, ultimately indeterminate, the
  product of both random events and the vast chorus of free agents
  acting out of their freedom. To speak of some ultimate end that
  represents God's final vision for creation - which is what eschatology
  often does - is, in Process thought, nonsense."
  http://sandalstraps.blogspot.com/2008/10/process-eschatology-and-power-of-god.html

However, theological debates are going on as to how process thought can be best applied to the field of eschatology. Meanwhile here is an excerpt from the works of Austin Roberts on process eschatology still under construction:

  "... Christian process theologians affirm life after death and the
  redemption of creation in a naturalistic, not supernatural way.
  Process philosophy views nature as made up of actual occasions of
  experience.

As Whitehead writes

  The actual temporal world can be analysed into a multiplicity of occasions of actualization. These are the primary actual units of which the temporal world is composed…each is a microcosm representing in itself the entire all-inclusive universe.”

Process theologians thus affirm a kind of relational atomism in which momentary actual occasions are constituted by their relations as experiencing subjects and then perish to become an object for new becoming occasions. Everything that exists is ultimately made up of actual occasions, while the things we normally experience with our senses that endure through time (e.g., a dog, chair, mountain, etc.) are groupings of occasions – what Whitehead called “societies.” As such, material bodies and living souls are in fact different kinds of interrelated societies of actual occasions. Souls are not a special kind of substance, as much traditional theology affirmed, but an especially complex part of nature.

With this in mind, we can understand what process theologians say about the immortality of the soul. As it turns out, there is nothing metaphysically implausible about an individual soul continuing to live on after the death of the body – although whether it will live forever is another question.
While Whitehead is more neutral on life after death, arguing that it should be decided on “more special evidence”, Cobb and Griffin are more open to it as Christians who affirm the resurrection appearances of Jesus (as for an empty tomb, Cobb is open to it but does not think it is very plausible). Christians can thus affirm the real hope of life after death. Note that process cannot be simply dismissed as Gnostic - it is nondual rather dualistic and thus does not place matter as an evil substance in opposition to the soul as a higher, spiritual substance...

Suchocki also takes the resurrection of Jesus seriously:

  “If we take the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus to be a revelation of God for us, then the resurrection is a vital part of this revelation.”

As such, many process theologians affirm the eschatological significance of the resurrection of Jesus, even though they do not agree with traditional theologians that it was a supernatural event that necessarily produced an empty tomb. But there is more to process eschatology than life after death.

For process theologians, the primary problem of existence to be overcome is not death but meaninglessness due to the perpetual perishing of occasions. Without some ground of permanence, our accomplishments would finally seem to be insignificant. It is ultimately God who is this ground of meaning, since process theologians see God as not only creative as the source of novelty but responsive to the world, eternally preserving every occasion that has ever existed in her own nature. As Mesle explains:

  “God shares the experience of becoming of the entire universe, and synthesizes it into God’s own, infinitely vast and complex experience.”

This means that occasions are given objective (not subjective) immortality in the divine life, forever preserved in their immediacy and woven into an ideal and growing harmony. As Whitehead wrote, this is the kingdom of heaven, which

  “... is not the isolation of good from evil. It is the overcoming of evil
  by good.”

As such, the ultimate eschatological 'fact' is the redemption of all things in God.  Suchocki is one of the few process theologians to argue that this is subjective not just objective immortality. Beyond the hope for subjective life after death of the soul and the objective redemption of creation (soul and body) in God, there is also an emphasis on historical eschatology in process thought that coheres with Borg’s view of Jesus. In cosmic history, there is no end to the process of creation or need for a final new creation, as in traditional eschatologies. The future is radically open, and God continuously creates by luring the world toward greater richness of experience and complexity.

As Borg argued, this means that Christian eschatological hope in history takes the form of participation: we are co-creators with God for the future kingdom or “commonwealth." As we respond more positively to God’s lure, we participate in God’s ongoing work for justice and shalom in creation. Cobb and Griffin conclude

  “There is no divine action apart from creaturely action, but equally the divine action is the principle of hope in the creaturely action…Trusting God is not assurance that whatever we do will work out well. It is instead confidence that God’s call is wise and good.
  http://austinroberts13.blogspot.com/2012/03/exploring-process-eschatology-how-is-it.html


Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe the 144 000 are from Israel? I understand that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that "exactly 144,000 faithful Christians go to heaven to rule with Christ in the kingdom of God."

However, in Revelation the 144 000 are from Israel Revelation 7:4:

  Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.

Indeed, the next four verses detail the tribes from which they came.

So do Jehovah's Witnesses believe the 144 000 are from Israel? If not, how do they explain this text?

Should go without saying, but just for clarity: I'm curious, not trying to start an argument!

Here's Revelation 7:4 from the New World Translation of the Bible

And I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty‐four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel:

In the article "Great Crowd" in the Watchtower Biblical/theological encyclopaedia Insight on the Scriptures, we find:

The apostle [Paul] wrote: “He is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision that which is on the outside upon the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit.” (Romans 2:28, 29) Why, too, would there be no mention of any ‘sealing’ of the Gentile Christians in this divine vision? And why would not the Gentile Christians be able to master the new song sung by the 144,000? (Revelation 14:3) It thus seems clear that the 144,000 sealed ones are of spiritual Israel, not fleshly Israel—hence include both Jewish and Gentile Christians.—Galatians 6:16.

The 144,000 sealed ones are of spiritual Israel.  In other words, adopted into one of the tribes.
Here's a further explanation from the article "Do All Faithful Christians Go to Heaven?" in the 1 June 2011 issue of The Watchtower magazine.

So, too, with this heavenly Kingdom. Jesus, the Lamb of God, rules with 144,000 co-rulers “bought from among mankind.”—Revelation 14:1, 4, 5.
True, 144,000 is a small number compared with the number of all faithful ones, past and present. But this is understandable because the 144,000 are resurrected to heaven for a specific sacred assignment of work. If you were to build a house, would you contract all the skilled builders in your area? No. You would need only as many as were required for the job. Similarly, not all faithful ones are chosen by God for the unique privilege of ruling with Christ in heaven.


According to the Catholic Church, is belief in trinitarianism required for salvation? According to the Catholic Church, is belief in trinitarianism required for salvation?
Note: this is not asking whether trinitarianism is true, or whether a valid baptism is required, but whether one must believe in trinitarianism for salvation.

According to the Catholic Church, is belief in trinitarianism required for salvation?
Most certainly yes, as from even before the Nicene creed was formulated, candidates for baptism were required to answer several questions to profess belief in the Trinitarian God.
From today's Rite of Catholic Baptism (Parents and Godparents answer on behalf of the infant; same answers are expected for adult initiates):

...
CELEBRANT: Do you believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth?
PARENTS AND GODPARENTS: I do.
CELEBRANT: Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of
the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?
PARENTS AND GODPARENTS: I do.
CELEBRANT: Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?
PARENTS AND GODPARENTS: I do.
...

Also, the Catholic Catechism clearly teaches this:

232 Christians are baptized "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"⁵³ Before receiving the sacrament, they respond to a three-part question when asked to confess the Father, the Son and the Spirit: "I do." "The faith of all Christians rests on the Trinity."⁵⁴
⁵³ Mt. 28:19
⁵⁴ St. Caesarius of Arles, Sermo 9, Exp. symb.:CCL 103,47.

Yes, but even if the wording of the a baptism involves holding to trinitarianism (I'm not sure it does given the wording above, TBH) most Catholics are baptized as infants, and so their beliefs aren't the ones being verified. (from comment)
Correct, but if we examine the whole context of the Rite of Baptism linked above, there is an expectation from the Parents to teach the child the Catholic faith:

CELEBRANT: You have asked to have your child baptized. In doing so you are accepting the responsibility of training him (her) in the practice of the faith. It will be your duty to bring him (her) up to keep God's commandments as Christ taught us, by loving God and our neighbor. Do you clearly understand what you are undertaking?
PARENTS: We do.

Therefore, when the child is old enough to take first communion, a common way for Catholic parents to discharge their promise is to give the child a mini catechism such as what this article describes using a popular text such as Saint Joseph First Communion catechism containing clear teaching of the Trinity suitable for 1st-2nd grade kids.
From Lesson 3 titled "The Blessed Trinity":

10. Is there only one God?
Yes, there is only one God.
 There cannot be more than one God.
 There never will be more than one God.

11. How many Persons are there in God?
In God there are three Persons -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
 The Father is God.
 The Son is God.
 The Holy Ghost is God.
 But they are all ONE God.
 The Father is the First Person.
 The Son is the Second Person.
 The Holy Ghost is the Third Person.
 There are THREE Persons in ONE God.

12. What do we call the three Persons in one God?
We call the three Persons in one God the Blessed Trinity.
[there is even a picture, see page 16]

13. How do we know that there are three Persons in one God?
We know that there are three Persons in one God because we have God's word for it.
 The Father sent His Son to us on earth
 The Son told us what the Blessed Trinity is like.
 The Blessed Trinity is God's family.
 But it is a family which is all one God.
 In this family all is love.
 They never fight.
 They always agree.
 They are always happy.

 Say this prayer often: O God, make my family holy.

Can you clarify how these aspects of baptism impinge on the question of whether one must believe in trinitarianism for salvation?  (from comment)
I understand that as adults we can ask theologically and philosophically complicated questions and I do appreciate how great Christian theologians cum philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas can develop whole systems of thoughts to plumb the depth of the Trinitarian doctrine from God's side (as mystery) and from our side (through reason).
But when it comes to salvation it is a highly PRACTICAL matter to undertake the LIFE of faith through the sacraments of the church, and in order to fully incorporate those sacraments (the primary being the Eucharist) into someone's spiritual life, the most basic assumption about God needs to be there for those sacraments to even make sense.  For example: if Jesus is not in essence God, the Catholic eucharist rite is tantamount to idolatry!  Hence the custom of First Communion catechism that I deliberately quoted at length above to show how even the most uneducated person should have no problem understanding it.
As you can see in the Catholic Order of Mass there is the reciting of the creed (step 18) prior to the Communion Rite (starting at step 124).  The expectation is to prepare our hearts to receive communion properly, which includes regarding the host to be the real presence of Jesus.  If we do not believe in Trinitarianism, then taking communion would amount to sacrilege which is mortal sin.  Reciting the creed with doubts is okay as long as we give the church a chance to explain.
Similarly, even someone baptized as an adult might change their views.  (from comment)
The moment a baptized Catholic deliberately refuses to believe that God is Trinity, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, the person has committed the sin of heresy or apostasy.  See my answer to another question.  As I explained in the answer, there is a big difference between having doubts and acting on them.  It is fine asking difficult questions about the Trinity (as I do myself), but while asking those questions, the PRACTICAL matter (the one that the Catholic Church sees as very important to shepherd her faithful) is whether the spiritual LIFE is healthy.  She does it through issuing and enforcing practical regulations on church practice.


What is the waving cloth in the Creed and what does it mean? I was recently at an Eastern Orthodox celebration of the Divine Liturgy. During the recitation of the Creed, there was a coloured cloth (I think the veil that had covered the chalice) which was waved up and down over the elements by the priests.

What is this called? What does it represent?

It is called as Aër.

is the largest and outermost of the veils covering the Chalice and Diskos (paten) in the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches which follow the Byzantine Rite. It is rectangular in shape and corresponds to the veil used to cover the chalice and paten in the Latin Rite, but is larger.

There was the following in Divine Lithurgy:

Just before the chanting of the Symbol of the Faith (Nicene Creed), the Priest will kiss the Diskos and Chalice (by kissing the Aër in the place where it touches each vessel) and the front edge of the Holy Table. During the Creed, the priest will hold the Aër above the Gifts and waive it slowly, indicating the activity of the Holy Spirit. When a bishop is serving the Liturgy, the concelebrating priests will hold the Aër during the Creed as the bishop kneels (or bows his head) underneath it. After the Creed, the Aër is folded and placed on the Holy Table.

And as for the Divine Lithurgy:

this symbolizes the descent of the Holy Spirit.
The aer also represents the shroud of Christ.

A priest taking the aer from Blessed Sacraments reminds about a stone, which had been shoven off from doors to Holy Sepulcher. Furthermore, taking the aer from the Blessed Sacraments is being completed in sign of the faith opens secrets of Divine Wisdom to us.
In time singing of the Credo the priest reads it himself, then take up, and fluctuate the aer over Blessed Sacraments. This takes place in sign of the breezing over them of coming descending of Holy Ghost, like breath of the wind precedes to the descending of the Holy Ghost unto Apostles.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. Act 2 KJV

Furthermore, taking up, and fluctuating of the aer reminds about the earthquake that took place during opening Holy Sepulcher, and about guard's run out of Holy Sepulcher. (In Russian).

2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. Matt 28 KJV


Why do LDS cross their arms during prayer? When praying, many Latter Day Saints will cross their arms during prayer:

This appears to be in lieu of folding hands as has been done by protestants and Catholics for centuries:

What is the origin of this practice? Why did the LDS church choose to deviate from the practice of folding hands and what was the purpose behind this change?

You'll notice in the second picture (the OP posted) the man does not have his arms folded, and I'll restate the comment that other forms of prayer (clasped hands, or clasping hands with others in a circle) are not discouraged as long as the person is reverent. (see other LDS pictures) 1

  Why do LDS cross their arms during prayer?

They are taught in primary how to get ready to pray by folding your arms, bowing your head, and closing your eyes.

There is no official reasoning that I can see other than that with folded arms children can not be as disruptive/un-revenant during prayer. When missionaries teach how to pray there is no mention of what the hands/arms do, leading me to the assumption that it doesn't matter as much as the prayer itself. 2

  What is the origin of this practice?

There are legends that the pretzel was invented by European monks in 610 AD as a reward to children who learn their prayers. He calls the strips of baked dough, folded to resemble arms crossing the chest, 'pretiola' ("little reward[s]")... Moreover, the three holes within the pretzel represent the three persons of the Holy Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. 3

Also, see this Q&A.

  Why did the LDS church choose to deviate from the practice of folding hands and what was the purpose behind this change?

See first statement and first answer.

1 https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/christ-praying-nephites-henninger-art-37745?category=category/book-of-mormon-all-gospel-art&&lang=eng, https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/family-kneeling-prayer-889739?lang=eng, https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/quote-andersen-prayer-1173305?lang=eng

2 https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-1-the-message-of-the-restoration-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng#p146

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretzel#History note there are no primary sources for this legend


Does Song of Solomon encourage pre-marital sex? Someone raised the following argument, claiming that the Bible, in the Song of Solomon,  encourages pornography and premarital sex. He had me read some verses from the book, which I've listed below, and told me these verses are the main reason why the Song of Solomon is hardly ever preached in churches today, because of its explicit contents and descriptions.

"Dear brothers, I'm a walled-in virgin still, but my breasts are full— And when my lover sees me, he knows he'll soon be satisfied" (Song of Solomon 8:10).
"If only you were to me like a brother, who was nursed at my mother's breasts! Then, if I found you outside, I would kiss you, and no one would despise me.  I would lead you and bring you to my mother's house she who has taught me. I would give you spiced wine to drink, the nectar of my pomegranates.  His left arm is under my head and his right arm embraces me" (Song of Songs 8:1-3).

He claims these two verses show that the woman being spoken of was not married.
Another example:

"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth-- for your love is more delightful than wine.   Pleasing is the fragrance of your perfumes; your name is like perfume poured out. No wonder the maidens love you!  Take me away with you let us hurry! Let the king bring me into his chambers. We rejoice and delight in you; we will praise your love more than wine. How right they are to adore you!" (Song of Songs 1:2-4).

How should a Christian defend himself against this type of argument?  Is there another interpretation of the Song of Solomon which refutes the claim that the Bible is in favor of premarital sex and pornography? If so, what is it? or better still what do these verses really mean?

No, what the heck!

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

  28 ¶If a man find a damsel that is a avirgin, which is not betrothed,
  and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

  29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father
  fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath
  humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Does that sound to you like "encouraging"?

As to pornography, just look at how David got into a big mess that caused him much trouble with God:

2 Samuel 11:2

  2 ¶And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off
  his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king’s house: and from the
  roof he asaw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful
  to blook upon.

Aaaaaaand, he commits adultery after that, and murder to cover up the adultery. Doesn't sound like encouraging looking at naked women that aren't one's wife (aka pornography). And of course what Jesus taught:

Matthew 5:27-28

  27 ¶Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt
  not commit aadultery:

  28 But I say unto you, That whosoever alooketh on a bwoman to clust
  after her hath committed dadultery with her already in his heart.

Of course you can say "oh he's not talking pre-marital here", but I tell you: you are on the wrong path here.

1 Corinthians 6:18

  18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body;
  but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Also, Song of Solomon 5:1 (KJV)

  1 I am come into my garden, my asister, my spouse: I have gathered
  my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I
  have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink
  abundantly, O beloved.

The KJV has for 8:10

  10 I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes as
  one that found favour.

With the image being not necessarily virginity, as the verses before read:

  8 ¶We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do
  for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?

  9 If she be a wall, we will build upon her a palace of silver: and if
  she be a door, we will inclose her with boards of cedar.

So, the image used here is buildings, and as we should probably assume the sister in question is a virgin, wall vs. door isn't necessarily about virginity.

As to verses 1 and 2, it is mostly about sucking breasts, I will now give a free translation to explain my understanding:

Verse 1: Oh that you would be like my little brother who sucks my mothers breasts = Suck my breasts. If I should find you without, I would kiss thee and no one would despise me = I want to kiss you, and no one would despise me, because you are my spouse

Verse 2: We go in a house and you suck my breasts.

The issue is really the second part of verse 1, but ask yourself: Does this really imply that they would be despised now for kissing in the open, and that him being like a little brother would change that, or that they would not be despised in the first place. Also, would married people kissing in the open be despised or not? Do you have enough knowledge of customs in these days to judge that? Does your friend have? As for me, I don't see the implication that something despicable is happening here.


Do any prominent theologians point to Old Testament prophecies of there being two comings of the Messiah? Christians believe there will be a second coming of Christ. They believe he will then fulfill many prophecies of the New Testament, as well as all the Old Testament messianic prophecies he left unfulfilled in his first coming.

Jews, however, often say that the second coming is merely a convenient device allowing a false messianic claimant to leave prophecies unfulfilled and claim they'll be fulfilled "later."

Christians have an answer to this. They say that the Messiah in the Old Testament is a man of tensions, familiar with contradiction. Would the messiah be a suffering servant or a conquering king? Some term these two groupings of prophecies "son of Joseph" (the first Joseph) and "son of David." Christians note that Jewish rabbis wrestled with how it could be possible for one man to fulfill such disparate sets of prophecies. They wrap up by saying that the fulfillment via two comings makes sense of it all -- first he comes as suffering servant then as conquering king.

But, Jews counter, why was there no explicit prophecy of that in the Old Testament? And that, my friends, is my question.

I'm looking for statements from prominent theologians/pastors/apologists throughout history which answer the question, "What passages speak of there being two comings of the messiah?" or "Why are there no prophecies speaking of two comings of the messiah?" with regard to the Old Testament.

The second century apologist Justin Martyr discussed the two comings in his Dialogue with the Jew Trypho. I'll give a chapter of it here and list a few chapter titles with a link to the entire text.

''
CHAPTER XXXII -- TRYPHO OBJECTING THAT CHRIST IS DESCRIBED AS GLORIOUS BY DANIEL, JUSTIN DISTINGUISHES TWO ADVENTS.

And when I had ceased, Trypho said, "These and such like Scriptures, sir, compel us to wait for Him who, as Son of man, receives from the Ancient of days the everlasting kingdom. But this so-called Christ of yours was dishonourable and inglorious, so much so that the last curse contained in the law of God fell on him, for he was crucified."

Then I replied to him, "If, sirs, it were not said by the Scriptures which I have already quoted, that His form was inglorious, and His generation not declared, and that for His death the rich would suffer death, and with His stripes we should be healed, and that He would be led away like a sheep; and if I had not explained that there would be two advents of His,--one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced, and your tribes shall mourn, each tribe by itself, the women apart, and the men apart, --then I must have been speaking dubious and obscure things. But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for the eternal salvation. In order, therefore, that the matter inquired into may be plainer to you, I will mention to you other words also spoken by the blessed David, from which you will perceive that the Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, the times now running on to their consummation; and he whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and an half, is even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring things against the Most High. But you, being ignorant of how long he will have dominion, hold another opinion. For you interpret the 'time' as being a hundred years. But if this is so, the man of sin must, at the shortest, reign three hundred and fifty years, in order that we may compute that which is said by the holy Daniel--'and times'--to be two times only. All this I have said to you in digression, in order that you at length may be persuaded of what has been declared against you by God, that you are foolish sons; and of this, 'Therefore, behold, I will proceed to take away this people, and shall take them away; and I will strip the wise of their wisdom, and will hide the understanding of their prudent men;' [Isa. xxix. 14.] and may cease to deceive yourselves and those who hear you, and may learn of us, who have been taught wisdom by the grace of Christ. The words, then, which were spoken by David, are these: 'The [Ps. cx.] Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. The Lord shall send the rod of Thy strength out of Sion: rule Thou also in the midst of Thine enemies. With Thee shall be, in the day, the chief of Thy power, in the beauties of Thy saints. From the womb, before the morning star, have I begotten Thee. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. The Lord is at Thy right hand: He has crushed kings in the day of His wrath: He shall judge among the heathen, He shall fill [with] the dead bodies. He shall drink of the brook in the way; therefore shall He lift up the head.'

CHAPTER XXXIII -- PS, CX. IS NOT SPOKEN OF HEZEKIAH. HE PROVES THAT CHRIST WAS FIRST HUMBLE, THEN SHALL BE GLORIOUS.

CHAPTER XXXIV -- NOR DOES PS. LXXII. APPLY TO SOLOMON, WHOSE FAULTS CHRISTIANS SHUDDER AT.

CHAPTER XLIX -- TO THOSE WHO OBJECT THAT ELIJAH HAS NOT YET COME, HE REPLIES THAT HE IS THE PRECURSOR OF THE FIRST ADVENT.

CHAPTER LII -- JACOB PREDICTED TWO ADVENTS OF CHRIST.

CHAPTER CX -- A PORTION OF THE PROPHECY ALREADY FULFILLED IN THE CHRISTIANS: THE REST SHALL BE FULFILLED AT THE SECOND ADVENT.

CHAPTER CXI -- THE TWO ADVENTS WERE SIGNIFIED BY THE TWO GOATS. OTHER FIGURES OF THE FIRST ADVENT, IN WHICH THE GENTILES ARE FREED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.''

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html


In Catholicism, why can deacons not celebrate all sacraments, but only Baptism (and Matrimony)? According to this post by an expert in Canon Law, deacons can only celebrate the sacrament of Baptism and Matrimony.

Similarly, Wikipedia states (apparently wrongly) that deacons can only celebrate baptism:

  Deacons, like priests and bishops, are ordinary ministers of the sacrament of Baptism and can serve as the church's witness at the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, which the bride and groom administer to each other (though if the exchange of vows takes place in a wedding Mass, or Nuptial Mass, the Mass is celebrated by the priest and the deacon acts as another witness). Deacons may preside at funeral rites not involving a Mass (e.g., the final commendation at the gravesite or the reception of the body at a service in the funeral home), and may assist the priest at the Requiem Mass. They can preside over various services such as Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, and they may give certain blessings. They cannot hear confession and give absolution, anoint the sick, or celebrate Mass.

I went to the respective entries in the Canon Law (e.g. Mass celebration here), but they do not state why the restriction (as expected, since it is only law).

I wonder which is the origin of these restrictions, i.e why the deacon cannot celebrate some sacraments. Is this part of the Tradition? I am particularly interested in the celebration of Mass. In fact, since deacons can be married, allowing deacons to celebrate Mass is a proxy for "married priests". This could perhaps be one of the reasons against it?

Confession and Mass (specifically, confection of the Eucharist) are the two sacraments where the priest (under the bishop) stands in the person of Christ. That is, in these two sacraments the priest is acting as if he were Christ, using the powers given by Christ to the apostles and handed down to today's bishops and priests.
A deacon, though he is ordained, does not have the call to ministry that priests (and bishops) do, though he does have the call to service:

"At a lower level of the hierarchy are to be found deacons, who receive the imposition of hands 'not unto the priesthood, but unto the ministry.'" At an ordination to the diaconate only the bishop lays hands on the candidate, thus signifying the deacon's special attachment to the bishop in the tasks of his "diakonia."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1569. The quote is from Lumen Gentium, section 29.)

Thus, a deacon, though ordained, does not have the God-given call, and is not given the ability, to stand in persona Christi, "in the person of Christ".
In Confession, the priest is using the power delegated by Christ to the apostles to forgive sins:

[Jesus] said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."
John 20:21–23, NABRE

Thus, the priest is, as it were, Christ to the penitent. He is standing here in the person and the ministry of Christ; the deacon is unable to do this.
Similarly, Jesus gave to his apostles the power to confect the Eucharist:

Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
1 Corinthians 11:23–24

Again, this is a delegation to the apostles (and thus to their successors, the bishops and priests) alone; deacons are not called to this ministry.
Finally, it might appear that Anointing of the Sick is a sacrament that may be conferred either by a deacon or by a priest. This sacrament, however, always includes at least an offer for the sick person to confess their sins; and its first description specifies that "the presbyters", that is, the priests, are to do this:

Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders [presbyters] of the Church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
James 5:14–15, NABRE; emphasis added

You don't mention the Sacrament of Holy Orders. This ordaining of priests is creating a man a delegate of his bishop. Thus only a bishop has this capacity. In much the same way, Confirmation can only be administered by the bishop; he is the direct successor of the apostles who received the Holy Spirit, and he alone has the capability of directly conferring this gift on others.
The remaining sacraments are Baptism and Matrimony. In an emergency, any human being (theoretically even an atheist!) has the capability of baptizing another. A deacon is given this permission even under ordinary circumstances, as part of his "ministry of service".
Finally, in the sacrament of marriage, the spouses are the ministers of the sacrament to each other. The Church merely desires to have an ordained person there as a witness on behalf of the Church. Any ordained man, therefore, can witness to a marriage.