Why are slaves and slave women mentioned distinctly in the Old Testament? Deuteronomy 5:14 reads:

  But the seventh day is a Sabbath unto Yahweh your God; you shall not do any work, or your son, or your daughter, or your slave, or your slave woman, or your ox, or your donkey, or any of your domestic animals, or your resident alien who is in your towns, so that your slave and your slave woman may rest as you rest.

There are also other references in the OT in which slave(men) and slave women are mentioned separately. Is it that the roles entrusted to them were different ? Is there any historical background mentioned in Catholic Church's teachings which would mandate such distinct mention of slaves and slave women ?

Most, but not all, English-language  Bibles include phrases such as  "male slave or female slave".  Many readers  find them puzzling.   What, they wonder, does "male slave or female slave"  mean?  It appears to mean neither more nor less than "slave".   But, in that case,  why doesn't it just say so?

To understand  this we must first look at the Hebrew text, and then at principles of translation. The Questioner particularly asks about whether there is an implied distinction between men's work and women's work, and whether there is any Catholic rule mandating that male and female  be mentioned separately.

Hebrew Text

The phrase from Deuteronomy 5 14, translated in the Lexham English Bible (LEB) version as "your slave or your slave woman" is based on two Hebrew words ebed and amah (Strong's 5650 and 519). These are often translated as "male servant" and "female servant".

These words are sometimes  used by  a speaker to refer to himself  or herself as "your servant" when respectfully addressing  a person as of higher status.  Hannah refers to herself in this way when addressing Eli, and Jacob refers to himself this way when meeting Esau.

The word ebed is also  applied to household servants in relation to the householder, government officials in relation to  a king, worshipers in relation to God, soldiers in relation to commanders, serfs in relation to owners, and a vanquished people in relation to a conqueror, amongst others.

The words do  not  apply to any specific occupation. Rather, they are relationship words. They describe the relationship of one person to another. The context is always relational. Just as nobody can simply be "a brother", but only a brother in relation to somebody else;  in the same way one can only be an ebed in relation to someone else, such as an employer, king, commander, overlord etc. As no particular type of work is meant, it follows that they do not distinguish between "men's work" and "women's work".

Like many relationship words in many languages a different word is used for a man or boy than is used for a woman or girl. The phrase immediately before the example in the question refers to "your son or your daughter".  Few English speakers will wonder why son and daughter are mentioned separately - it is simply the conventional way we speak.

So, in the Hebrew, mentioning male slave and female slave separately, is no more, and no less, significant or emphatic than mentioning son and daughter separately. (Indeed the point of the verse in question is that there is no distinction to be made, as regards the Sabbath, between  sons, daughters ,slaves, strangers  and even farmyard animals. All alike must rest.)

So then the question is why not simply say "slaves" in English. Some versions do, but most do mention male and female separately.

Translation

There are different ways in which meaning in language is conveyed. These include the  explicit, the implicit and the  tacit.

Consider the following three questions:

Do you have any siblings?
Do you have any brothers or sisters?
Do you have any male siblings or female siblings?

These three questions are identical in meaning, but differ in emphasis. The first question tacitly includes both sexes. It does not say so, but we understand that the question relates to both male and female  siblings, as well as older and younger siblings, hairy and smooth siblings, and any  other types of sibling. The second question implicitly includes both sexes, the distinction is there but it is not emphatic. To most English speakers it is the most natural way to ask the question. The third question explicitly includes both sexes, and  comes across as placing a certain emphasis on doing so.

The Hebrew  "ebed and amah" implicitly includes both sexes. It is simply not possible to translate this into modern English in  a way that preserves the implicitness. We can use a phrase which explicitly includes both sexes, and so introduce an emphasis which is not in the Hebrew. Or we can use a phrase such as "slaves" which only tacitly includes both sexes, and so, arguably, loses something from the Hebrew. But we cannot use a phrase which implicitly includes both sexes without any emphasis, because we do not have different words in modern English.   The King James version, and some other older versions,  use "manservant" and "maidservant" and this is fairly implicit, as it uses different words; but in  modern English we do not say manservant or maidservant.

So, if we must err, do we err on the side of explicitness, or on the side of tacitness?

One of  many considerations in Biblical, and other,  translation is the distinction between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.  Very basically,  formal equivalence aims at an almost word-for-word translation, whereas dynamic equivalence aims more at a thought-for-thought translation. This article, by Vern S. Poythress and Wayne A. Grudem goes into this, and many other aspects of Biblical translation.

It includes a list of several common Bible versions, which it arranges in a spectrum from those it regards as most formal and literal, to those most dynamic and paraphrastic. The ways some of these translate the phrase mentioned by our Questioner, is tabulated below (going from formal at the top to dynamic at the bottom):

NASB  or your male servant or your female servant
KJV   nor thy manservant nor thy maidservant
NKJV  or your male servant or your female servant
RSV   nor thy manservant nor thy maidservant
NRSV  or your male or female slave
NIV   nor your male or female servant
GNB   your slaves
NCV   your male or female slaves
GW    your male and female slaves
NLT   your male and female servants
CEV   your slaves
LB    your (sons, daughters,) slaves (, oxen)

Those translations which go for a formal equivalence tend to replace ebed by male servant and amah by female servant. Those in the middle are a little freer, the word servant or slave is mentioned only once with the male or female bit mentioned separately. Those at the bottom are more tacit, with no mention of the two sexes at all.

There is nothing  in Catholic teaching that mandates that male slaves and female slaves must be mentioned separately in English translations, or that opposes dynamic equivalence translation generally.. Both the CEV and the LB, and other dynamic translations, have Catholic editions, with all 73 books.

The version quoted in the question appears to be from the Lexham English Bible which is a very formal and literal translation, intended to assist people to understand the underlying Hebrew or Greek text as closely as possible.

It may be noted in passing that translations of almost anything other than the Bible, with the possible exception of legal documents, are typically much freer than even the most dynamic Bible translation. With the Bible we are dealing with what many believe to be a divinely inspired original, and so it is seen as important not to miss anything out, even if it appears merely incidental.  Even some with a generally low view of Biblical inspiration may accept  that the ten commandments (the Questioner's example) were, quite literally, written in stone, by God Himself.

A local newspaper reported that:

"The Pensioners' Christmas meal was cooked and served  by the kitchen staff, waiters and waitresses of the Carlton Hotel. Entertainment was provided by the boys and girls of St. Mary's School,  and transport was provided by their parents."

Probably few readers would notice that, although we are told the waiting staff and entertainers were of mixed sex, we are not told whether the pensioners, kitchen staff or parents were. The reporter was simply using the  usual terms, and almost certainly did not intend to convey or withhold the gender makeup of any of the groups. However, when translating the Bible, these sort of apparent minutiae, are not readily dismissed, but  very carefully considered and weighed.


Do Bible translations matter? I'm asking this from a born-again Christian perspective (so I guess this makes me an evangelical Protestant) and seeing how there's controversy over the KJV, NIV, ESV etc., does the type of Bible that you use really matter?

Most Bibles used by Protestants tend to be based off from the Masoretic Text but some websites indicate that the Septuagint is the earliest translation, which Jesus and Paul used during their time on Earth. So which is it? Or is it better safer than sorry to read a variety of translations and compare them?

As also born again Christian, I can offer you some insight, although I'm not sure this will be a suitable question for this website format overall.

Does Bible translation matter? Yes and no.

Bibles tend to be weighed according to two different qualities. Each translation is a mixture of the two. They are "Word for word" and "Thought for Thought".

A pure word for word translation of the greek/hebrew would be basically unreadable, because they do not use the same grammar, and all their words do not match 100% to english words. This makes pure word for word translations pretty uncommon, and not super helpful to the average reader. The best example of this you can probably get is what they call "interlinear" bibles, where they have the greek, and also a rough english translation side by side for each line.

The second is "thought for thought". This is the idea that the translator will read the greek text, and then capture the "thought" or "meaning" and translate it into english for you. This is a great idea, but runs the risk of the translator mixing his personal interpretation into the actual text. One of the more extreme examples of this would be a "version" like "The Message". Where the author has taken the liberty of drastically expanding most verses, in a way which makes them very readable, but adds considerably to the actual text.

The key to finding a good translation, is being convinced of the "accuracy" or mostly word for word comformity, while also being presented in English that is practical for actual reading.

for example, you could just stare at the original greek all day, and avoid translations, but if you don't understand greek thats not very helpful.

I first read the entire Bible doing a "reading plan" in the 'NLT' or "New Living Translation".

This Bible translation falls more under the "Thought for Thought" category than many evangelical Christians are comfortable with. At the time, I didn't know anything about this, but I can say that I really learned a lot from reading this version of the bible.

One small downside, is you are rarely familiar with commonly quoted Bible verses, because people usually use older more familiar phrasings such as found in the KJV. While the ideas are (hopefully) the same, the phraseology will be different.

I later fell in with a crowd which rather religiously uses the NKJV "New King James Version". Its a touch up of the king james version from the 80's. Its much more readable than the KJV, but less readable than the NLT.

I benefitted greatly from studying the NKJV, which is a more "word for word" translation, after having fallen in love with the NLT. Personally, I find it more fitting for closer reading and study, while less approachable for fast reading and overview.

The key, as mentioned in the comments to check various translations. You will find that in general, There are a handful of good translations that mostly agree on everything. The differences are mainly stylistic, and not much else. (NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV , etc).

If you download the bible app for your phone, you can compare multiple translations instantly. If ever I have a question about a certain verse, this is always my first check.


Was there any significance for the make of the tomb which was used to lay the body of Jesus? As per the Gospels of Matthew (27:60), Mark (15:46 ) and Luke (23:53) , the Body of Jesus, after his crucifixion was laid in a tomb 'hewn in the rock'. That all the evangelists except John mention the make of the tomb, suggests that there is some significance to it.  My question is: are there any official teachings from the side of Catholic Church on the significance of the make of the tomb viz. hewn in rock , in which Jesus was laid after his crucifixion ?

I hope that this was written to indicate that Jesus had, in his burial, fulfilled the prophecy   of Isaiah at 53:9 (RSVCE)

" And they made his grave with the wicked
    and with a rich man in his death..."

Clearly, only a rich man could afford to construct a grave hewn in rock. And, Matthew 27:57 in deed depicts Joseph of Arimathe'a as a rich man !


What was the "Sect of Nicolaus" and did elements of it's influence carry down to our day? In Revelation there is mention, in two congregations, concerning the "Sect of Nicolaus".

What exactly was this sect? What did it teach? And has it's influence survived into our day?

Revelation 2:6 and 2:15 refer to an  unidentified group of people called the  Nicolaitanes, commending the church at Ephesus for hating the "deeds" of the Nicolaitanes, and blaming the church of Pergamos for having them who hold their "doctrines".  John of Patmos opposed them for their doctrines, not just their deeds, however the church at Pergamos had been able to reconcile those doctrines to the extent that Nicolaitanes were members of the church.

The existence of a sect called Nicolaitanes in the second century is attested by Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexander.  Eusebius states, in Church History chapter 29, that members of the sect claimed it was named after Nicolaus, saying:

  "At this time the so-called sect of the Nicolaitans made its
  appearance and lasted for a very short time. Mention is made of it in
  the Apocalypse of John. They boasted that the author of their sect was
  Nicolaus, one of the deacons who, with Stephen, were appointed by the
  apostles for the purpose of ministering to the poor. Clement of
  Alexandria, in the third book of his Stromata, relates the following
  things concerning him..."

Another, apparently conflicting theory is based on a Greek analysis of the name, suggesting that Nicolaitanes insisted on separation of the clergy and the laity, resulting in ‘conquest’ or domination of the laity.

John Glyndwr Harris, in Gnosticism, at page 120, says that the Nicolaitanes, founded by Nicolaus (or Nicolas), were said to have lived promiscuously.

It has been suggested that Jude 1:4 is referring to the Nicolaitanes, who were said to lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. If so, there is no evidence of any real elements of their influence down to the present day.

We do not really know that the Nicolaitanes were promiscuous, since Eusebius wrote his Church History so many centuries later. The suggestion that Nicolaitanes insisted on separation of the clergy and the laity could even mean that the author of Revelation was referring to what has now become the mainstream, or orthodox, church, remembering  that there is no evidence that the Book of Revelation was written by the orthodox Christian Church. This scenario, although less likely, would certainly mean that the Nicolaitanes had influence down to the present day.


How do Trinitarians understand Peter's response to Jesus at Matthew 16:16? At Matthew 16:15-17, Jesus asks his disciples who they think he is, and Peter responds.

"“Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ,
the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon
son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but
by My Father in heaven."

Peter answers by saying Jesus is the Christ and Son of God - not God the Son. For biblical unitarians, this response makes complete sense, because those are the relevant aspects of Jesus' identity for salvation (compare John 20:31).
How do trinitarians understand this response - why was Jesus pleased even though Peter understates Jesus' identity, and why did God the Father not reveal to Peter that Jesus was not just the Christ and Son of God, but also God the Son?

The question appears to assume that "son of the living God" (a biblical phrase) is somehow a lesser term than "God the son" (a man-made phrase) however Trinitarians do not think that Peter's confession of Jesus as the son of the living God is an understatement of any kind.
Peter was not the only one to whom Jesus' true relationship within the Godhead was revealed.  The critical difference is that Peter received the revelation, as evidenced by his confession, whereas the others, acknowledging and understanding the revelation, rejected it.

And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. - John 5:16-18

What those who were persecuting and trying to entrap Jesus clearly understood was that when Jesus called God his Father he was not identifying God's fatherhood in the same way as all those who came before him.  Here are only a few examples of many harvested from this paper titled "The Fatherhood of God in the Old Testament":

You are the sons of the LORD your God. You shall not cut yourselves or make any baldness on your foreheads for the dead. - Deuteronomy 14:1

Do you thus repay the LORD, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you? - Deuteronomy 32:6

For you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us, and Israel does not acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name. - Isaiah 63:16

God is portrayed as Father/creator who formed man, formed a people for His own, protected, disciplined, and blessed as a Father, and, as a Father, grieved when his sons and daughters reject him over and over again.  This type of language and imagery is all throughout the Scriptures and Jesus would have raised no eyebrows at all employing language of this kind.
John however, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, explicitly declares (5:17) that when Jesus says "My Father is working until now, and I am working" he is not using the term Father in this generalized, national way.  Jesus is calling God his own Father; his "personal, individual* Father.  The Greek literally says "The Father of me" and not "the Father", "your Father", or "our Father".  It is clear in verse 18 that this is exactly what Jesus was understood to be saying.
Further clarity is given in that those who heard Jesus refer to God as the "Father of me" also understood that this phrasing placed Jesus in a different category than all others:  God, the Father of me, is a claim by Jesus to equality with God, which claim his enemies very clearly understood for the Scripture says "This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him"  The highly debated phrase "only-begotten Son" is pregnant with this understanding.
In Mark 14 we see a similar scenario where Jesus claims God as his personal Father and murderous intent results:

And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death. - Mark 14:60-64

"God the Son" is a man-made theological construct intended to capture, preserve, and focus upon what Jesus was claiming and what folks were hearing and either receiving or rejecting:  "... he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God".  When Peter confessed "You are the Christ, the son of the living God" this is what he was confessing; that Jesus is not a created son like every other person but he is God's begotten Son and equally God, just as Jesus claimed.


Understanding of "clean" and "unclean" animals before dietary laws In Genesis 7:2 we read

  Of every clean beast thou shall take...

Up until this point God never revealed the basis for His distinction between clean and unclean animals.

Does it mean the understanding of clean and unclean animals is common / written in our hearts?

God never revealed the basis for His distinction between clean and unclean animals

This is an assumption, and it may well be false. All we know is that such a revelation is not recorded in the Bible. In fact, the passage in question can be seen as evidence that God did revealed dietary laws to individuals such as Noah before revealing it to Moses and the Israelites. Because, as you observed, how else would he be able to understand this instruction?

That the distinction between clean and unclean was written in Noah's heart (and by inference, in our hearts) is only one speculative explanation. That God did explicitly reveal it, another. We  don't know with absolute certainty, since the Bible is silent on this matter.

That Noah received direct revelation in this matter is plausible in light of the fact he is recorded to have received a substantial amount of direct revelation - all of which, presumably, may not be recorded in its entirety.

  Does it mean the understanding of clean and unclean animals is common / written in our hearts?

As we have no certainty about the previous point, you are left to speculation on this point as well. The Bible makes no explicit statement about this question.


Why did Christ need to be the first person to be resurrected? Christ is the firstfruits; he was the first person to be resurrected. Why did he need to be the first? Why couldn't anybody else be resurrected until after Christ was first resurrected?

We are taught that Christ loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. What are the pains of death?

When we were born, some power enabled our spirits to enter our bodies. We also know that some people have been brought back to life; some power enabled their spirits to re-enter their bodies after having left. So what then are the bands of death, if not a power that keeps our spirits out of our bodies? Yet the power to put our spirits into our bodies already exists.

So what then did Christ's resurrection enable? What did it overcome? Why couldn't anybody be resurrected until after Christ was?

The answer is because Jesus was without sin.

When Adam and Eve first sinned, not only were they thrown out of the Garden of Eden, but they were also rendered mortal; they were now capable of dying. Everyone who sins dies, and everyone sins. Even those before Jesus who died and were returned to life (like Lazarus) still had to die again later.

Jesus however never sinned. When He died on the cross, Jesus paid the price for all of our sins. And when Jesus was reborn, He was reborn in a form that no longer had to die.

And that was why Jesus had to die: to be the sacrifice in payment for our sins. That is why no one could be resurrected as He was until after He was; the debt for our sin was still outstanding. Our resurrection will not be into these bodies we currently live in, but into new bodies that will be free of sin.


Since there is only one God who is not formed then how can the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is a created god? If there is only one God, how can Jesus be another "god" as taught by the Jehovah's Witnesses? Isaiah quotes Jehovah in Isaiah 43:10-11 the very verse from which the Jehovah's Witnesses derive their name, that there has never been "formed," either before him or after him, any other "god" of any kind.

Isaiah 43:10-11, (NWT): You are my witnesses, even my servant whom I have chosen in order that you man know and faith in me, and that you may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. I--I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.

Thus, Jesus cannot be a created god, and must be the God that Matthew and Isaiah said would come to be "with us." Matthew 1:23, "Behold, the virgin shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which translated means "God with us."
So if, the NWT and Jehovah's Witnesses claim, the Word was "a god," then that means that Yahweh was wrong when He said "Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me," because the Word would be a created/formed god. How do Jehovah's Witnesses resolve this issue?

You have unintentionally, I suggest, created a straw man argument by overlooking the usage of the word before, as found in the passage you cite from Isaiah 43.
Jehovahs Witnesses do not believe Jesus was a god who was created before Jehovah existed. They believe Jesus was created after Jehovah God already existed. In other words, Jesus Christ was the first of Jehovah's created beings.
The Isaiah passage is therefore not an issue with Jehovahs Witnesses. To them, there were no gods in existence before Jehovah because only Jehovah is eternal. No god can be in existence (or can be "formed," the word used in Isaiah 43) before an eternal being. In fact, Isaiah's use of the word formed implies that gods are products of human craftsmen that are meant to be representations of beings/gods who have no existence. (See Jeremiah 10:8-10.)
In conclusion, to the best of my knowledge, Jehovah's Witnesses do not see a contradiction in Isaiah 43:11, which reads, "Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me." I also assume that Jehovah's Witnesses, along with other bible-believing denominations, would define a biblical "god" or "gods" as non-existent beings whom idolaters worship in defiant ignorance.
ADDENDUM
And yes, the word god is used in at least one other way in Scripture, and that is as a name for God's nemesis, Satan. In 2 Corinthians 4, Paul refers to him as "the god of this world," though the argument could be made that the god of this world can be summed up in the words "Man is the measure of all things" (Protagoras of Abdera, l.c. 485-415 BCE). In other words, the god of this world involves self worship, and the engines of this worship are the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (see 1 John 2:16 NIV).


Catholic Church - What happens when a married couple will never have sex? Let's say that they just do not want to have sex for some reason after the wedding.
Does it mean that their marriage can be annulled by the Catholic Church even if they were married for 10 years?

In the general case marriage requires consummation, but the Catholic Church allows an exception which is called a "Josephite Marriage."  This is the kind of marriage that the Catholic Church believes Mary and Joseph entered into: a marriage without sex.

Despite the fact that no consummation took place, a Josephite marriage is not intrinsically invalid.  Even so, a marriage that has never been consummated would be more easily exited than a marriage that has been consummated.  Indeed the condition of consummation goes hand in hand with indissolubility.  If a marriage is consummated, it is indissoluble.  If it is not consummated, it is dissoluble.  Whether or not it is consummated, the marriage exists.

Dissolution of a marriage is actually different from annulment of a marriage.  Annulment says the marriage never existed; dissolution means that a partial marriage is being dissolved.  If a marriage is ratified and consummated then there exists the possibility of annulment, but not the possibility of dissolution.  If a marriage is ratified but not consummated then both the possibility of annulment and dissolution exist.

  Canon 1141 explains the Church's theological understanding of the
  significance of the consummation of a valid marriage: a marriage which
  has been ratified and consummated (ratum et consummatum) cannot be
  dissolved by any number power, or by any cause other than death.  If a
  couple have been validly married, and have consummated their
  marriage, the Church holds that their marriage is indissoluble.
  Period.

  But if the couple were validly married, yet had never consummated
  their marriage--a marriage ratum sed non sonsummatum, in other
  words--the situation is theologically quite different!  Such a
  marriage can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason,
  at the request of one or both parties to the marriage (canon
  1142).  A ratum sed non consummatum marriage is not
  indissoluble, because the indissolubility of a valid marriage comes
  about through its consummation.

  -Canon Law and Consummating a Marriage


Does Catholic Church condemn cruelty to animals? The Government  administrtion in my country, India, has of late been positively intervening against cruely to animals including stray dogs and domesticated cattle . I would like to know whether the Catholic Church in its teachings condemn cruelty to animals .

CCC 2415-2418 in the 7th commandment section concerns this.  Note, it is under the 7th commandment (thou shalt not steal) not the 5th commandment (thou shalt not kill) because animals are not people.

Animals are essentially good because they're made good by God.

  Animals are God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.

Man has a duty to look after animals

  God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure.

Mankind is justified in benefiting from using them as a means to and end (where this would be illicit use for other people)

  Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

The Catholic Church is against cruelty to animals for it's own sake.

  It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.

And she is also against the practice of affluent people who take up resources that would otherwise go towards alleviating human suffering to take care of pets or other animals.

  It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.


Did Luther consider Erasmus an unbeliever, and if so, why? The introduction to Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation mentions that Luther called Erasmus an unbeliever:

  [Luther's] letters and the gossip of his Table Talk are littered with scorn of Erasmus as a trifler with truth, a scoffer at religion, an unbeliever. (page 2)

Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising, given Luther's penchant for speaking his mind, and Erasmus's humanism.  Nonetheless, Erasmus was a committed Roman Catholic and a major biblical scholar.

Thus, I'm wondering: did Luther actually explicitly call Erasmus an unbeliever?  Where in his writings?  And if so, did he do so merely on the basis that he was a Roman Catholic (i.e., he considered any Roman Catholic to be unsaved) or on some other basis?

It is true that after Luther and Erasmus had their falling out, from an initial weak respect for one another, Luther made several comments that imply he considered Erasmus a man without genuine faith.

Most of what he said is recorded by others during conversations which has been compiled in the 'Table Talk' volume of Luther's works. Prior to this information there is a letter to Erasmus directly when they were on better terms and then of course their open dispute about predestination and free will explained here.

To answer the question of whether Luther considered him an unbeliever because he was Catholic, or for some other reason, I would say that Luther considered most Catholics unbelievers, but only if they rejected his teaching about the doctrine of justification by faith.  As Erasmus seemed to not believe in this fundamental article of what Luther saw as the most essential part of true Christianity, yes, he assumed Erasmus was like many Catholics, and was not a Christian as he had no genuine faith.

In the table talk volume there is around a dozen mentions of Erasmus, and actually Luther speaks much more harshly about many, many, others.  So these comments are actually mild according to Luther's style and wide scope of declaring the guilt of many in his day.

I think the most revealing comments are these two (from Luther's Table Talk):

  No. 4028: An Appraisal of the Deceased Erasmus September 30, 1538
  “Erasmus of Rotterdam wrote many excellent things because he had talent and leisure, was without worries and official duties, didn’t preach or lecture, and was no businessman. In his manner of life he was without God, lived with a sense of great security, and died the same way. When he was in the agony of death he didn’t ask for a minister of the Word or for the sacraments. It’s a fabrication that in the agony of death he may have spoken these words of confession, ‘O Son of God, have mercy on me!’ God forbid that in my last hour I shouldn’t want to have a godly minister of the Word, that I couldn’t summon the nearest one at hand, that I shouldn’t want to thank God! That fellow Erasmus learned such things in Rome. But now one ought not talk about this on account of his reputation and his books.”

This being the second:

  No. 3033b: Prefaces to the New Testament by Erasmus April 1, 1533
  On April 1 Martin Luther spent almost the whole day reading Erasmus’ prefaces to the New Testament. He said excitedly, “Even if this snake is so slippery that he can’t be caught, we’ll nevertheless condemn him with his writings, we and our church. Although many wise people in the church may be offended, yet it’s better that we lose them than deny Christ, the Savior. I’ve had more experience with this Savior than I can ever say and thank him for.

  “Erasmus has indeed put out very disgraceful prefaces, even if he did soften them, because he makes no distinction between Christ and Solon. Moreover, as the prefaces to Romans and to the canonical First Epistle of John show, he obscures the authority of Paul and John, as if these writings were of no moment, as if the Epistle to the Romans had no relevance for our time, as if the difficulty in this epistle outweighed its value, etc. Is this praise for the book’s author? For shame


How easy was it to get a Bible (Old Testament or both Testaments) in the Eastern Roman Empire during the early reign of Justinian? My question spawns from a book I am thinking about writing.  It is the story of how a young man (teenager) living in a tribe of nomads trading along the Silk Road.  He becomes a Christian and ransoms a girl out of slavery causing him to be estranged from his tribe and finding a new home in the Christian world.

This starts during the late reign of Emperor Justin and the early reign of Emperor Justinian in the Eastern Roman Empire, because I want his conversion to Christianity (as this is total fiction) to go in the order of: being curious, getting a Bible, realizing its true, going back to east Rome and asking a Christian how he must be saved.

The ease of this happening depends totally on how accessible copies of the Bible were to traders and common folk in east Rome during this time.

This is a writing question but I believe that this is a question about Christianity and so is proper here. As a Christian I am not doing this to advertise this book I will write (that I also might not publish), but trying to get a better understanding of this period as well.

How accessible were Bibles in the Eastern Roman Empire in the early reign of Emperor Justinian?

Generally speaking, I think the answer to your specific question of obtaining a Bible is "likelihood = 0". And the reason is pretty simple. There were no used book shops, no Amazon, no B&N, no Gideons, no etc. In other words, no way to even obtain a Bible.

Some things to consider:

Books in the 6th century were absolutely precious artifacts. Secular books were copied by hand by slaves trained as copyists. If you wanted a copy of Juvenal or Plato or something, you borrowed a book and took it to a copyist and haggled for his slaves' time and skill, quality of writing, etc. Either that, or you hired the slave and brought him to the book.

Bibles, of course were different. These were probably copied without thought of monetary cost --- they would have been copied as a spiritual work of love. By the sixth century, there are probably within the Church, copyists doing this work.

Bibles are also HUGE. The Codex Sinaiticus (oldest complete Bible MS) is 13x15 inches, made of vellum requiring the hides of more than 350 animals. It's said the cost in labour and materials would equal the wages of a single workman's entire career. This is not something a teenage boy will just happen across (unless he discovers a crime scene where a wandering monk has been robbed and the precious Bible he was carrying has been discarded as junk by the thieves).

The likelihood of a random teenager living in a tribe along the silk road even being literate enough to read a Bible in Greek or Syriac, to say nothing of Latin or Coptic, is about zero. The likelihood of there being a physical Bible for him to spend time with during that time frame is also about zero.

Much more likely scenario, especially given the time frame: a wandering priest or monk (who may or may not have some parts of a Bible with him) is travelling the Silk Road among the traders and your teenage boy hears him teach. He's attracted by the Truth and all the rest follows from there. Though, of course, he won't have to travel to Byzantium to learn about salvation! That he could learn directly from the monk, or even from the Gospel itself.

560s might be a little early for much Christian activity in the region. However, the Religion of Light (Christianity) was certainly established and flourishing in China by the 8th century, as one stele of the late 8th century there records 150 years of Christian activity in China (meaning activity since about 630s). So Christian activity along the Silk Road in the 560s might not be too far off, after all.

Interesting premise for a story, but I think you might have to scrap the idea of the hero getting a hold of an actual Bible.


Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis and the Prophecy of the Popes? I While reading the Prophecy of the Popes, I noticed that the entry for the 111 Pope in the series reads:  Glory of the olive (Gloria oliviae).

Wikipedia's article on this subject states:

  Proponents of the prophecies generally try to draw a connection between Benedict and the Olivetan order to explain this motto: Benedict's choice of papal name is after Saint Benedict of Nursia, founder of the Benedictine Order, of which the Olivetans are one branch. Other explanations make reference to him as being a pope dedicated to peace and reconciliations of which the olive branch is the symbol.

The olive is considered the symbol of peace.

  The use of a dove and olive branch as a symbol of peace originated with the early Christians, who portrayed the act of baptism accompanied by a dove holding an olive branch in its beak and also used the image on their sepulchres. The dove appears in many funerary inscriptions in the Roman catacombs, sometimes accompanied by the words in pace (Latin for "in peace"). - Peace symbols (Wikipedia)

When Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio became Pope, he took the papal name of Francis in honor of St Francis of Assisi.

Furthermore St Francis of Assisi is also one of the patron saints of peace.

My question is quite simple:

Are there any known Catholic authors who have tried to interpret the papal reigns of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis as being a single reign in order to make both of them fit into St Malachy's Gloria oliviae of his Prophecy of the Popes?

To be crystal clear, Pope Francis holds the keys of St. Peter and not Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

  “That is what I have said, indeed, that – if one wishes to specify it – it is very clear, the Plena Potestas, the Plenitudo Potestatis [full power, incarnate authority] is in the hands of Pope Francis. He is the man who has right now the succession of Peter. And then there are no difficulties left, as I also have said it. These two are also not in a competitive relationship. That is where one has to make use of common sense, as well as the Faith and a little bit of theology. Then one does not have at all difficulties to understand properly [sic] what I have said.” - Interview: Archbishop Gänswein on Benedict, The Two Popes, and Prophecy

Are there any known Catholic authors who have tried to interpret the papal reigns of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis as being a single reign in order to make both of them fit into St Malachy's Gloria oliviae of his Prophecy of the Popes?
The answer is YES. The papal reigns of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis was understood as a single reign, it is called "expanded Petrine Ministry".
Are there any known Catholic authors who have tried to interpret it this way? I think there was a book already released and it's author is an italian journalist.

The Secret of Benedict XVI: Is He Still the Pope?
ANTONIO SOCCI, a native of Siena, is an Italian journalist and the director of the Perugia School of Journalism. His most recent books from Rizzoli are The Final Prophecy (2016), The House of Young Heroes (2017), and Betrayed, Subjected, Invaded (2018).

The Secret of Benedict XVI: Is He Still the Pope?

The Connection to Fatima and St.Malachi prophecy:

Socci concludes his work with Part Three, entitled “Fatima and the Last Pope.” He draws on his prior extensive study of the message of Fatima, seeing it as a key to understanding the present moment in the Church, and reminding his readers that the message of Fatima emphasized the strong link between the intercession of the Mother of God and the protection of the pope. At the center of the vision of Fatima, there are two persons: “the ‘bishop dressed in white’ and an old pope,” and Socci ponders whether perhaps this vision could refer to the present situation, noting that on May 21, 2017, while visiting Fatima, Pope Francis called himself “the bishop dressed in white.” Socci sees in Benedict a figure similar to the pope in the children’s vision: “half tremulous, with faltering steps, afflicted with pain and sorrow, crossing a large, half-ruined city” (p. 182). Socci undertakes a detailed examination of overlooked words of the children of Fatima, stating that the Blessed Virgin told them that if humanity did not do penance and convert, what would happen was “the end of the world” (p. 195). Sister Lucia declared in an interview in 1957 that “Russia will be the instrument chosen by God to punish the whole world, if we do not first obtain the conversion of that wretched nation” (p. 198). Implicit in Socci’s analysis and reflection is the sense that the outcome of the present crisis is of the utmost importance for the fate not only of the entire Church, but also of the entire world.

Socci’s final observation is that the medieval “Prophecy of Malachy,” which proposed to give a mysterious title to each future pope, ends with Benedict XVI. After this pope, it mysteriously says that there follows “the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church” and the figure of “Peter the Roman.” When asked in 2016 whether this prophecy could mean he is “the last one to represent the figure of the pope as we have known him up until now,” Benedict mysteriously replied, “Tutto può essere [Everything can be].” Further asked if this means he would be seen as the last pope of the old world or the first pope of the new world, Benedict replied, “I would say both. I do not belong anymore to the old world, but the new one in reality has not yet begun” (p. 213). Socci understands these astonishing comments to mean that both the world and the Church are on the cusp of epochal upheavals, inviting his readers to further reflection on the various prophecies in Scripture of the destruction of the Temple and on paragraphs 675-677 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the final trial of the Church. -
In New Book, Antonio Socci Speculates on the “Secret of Benedict XVI”

But if there is one person who can shed light on the expanded petrine ministry, he is none other than the secretary of Pope Benedict XVI, his name is Archbishop Georg Gänswein. Why? If there is a person that would know or familiar with the mind & heart of Pope Benedict XVI it would be his secretary.

Archbishop Gänswein: Benedict XVI Sees Resignation as Expanding Petrine Ministry

Speaking at the presentation of a new book on Benedict’s pontificate at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome May 20, Archbishop Gänswein also said that Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”

Archbishop Gänswein, who doubles as the personal secretary of the Pope Emeritus and prefect of the Pontifical Household, said Benedict did not abandon the papacy like Pope Celestine V in the 13th century but rather sought to continue his Petrine Office in a more appropriate way given his frailty.

“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” he said. “It is and remains the foundation of the Catholic Church; and yet it is a foundation that Benedict XVI has profoundly and lastingly transformed during his exceptional pontificate.”*

He further stated the following reflections;

But in his speech, Gänswein insisted "it was fitting" for Benedict to resign because he "was aware that the necessary strength for such a very heavy office was lessening. He could do it [resign], because he had long thought through, from a theological point of view, the possibility of a pope emeritus in the future. So he did it.”

Drawing on the Latin words “munus petrinum” — “Petrine ministry” — Gänswein pointed out the word “munus” has many meanings such as “service, duty, guide or gift”. He said that “before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’.

“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something "quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.“

Instead, he said, "he has built a personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, almost a communal ministry, as if he had wanted to reiterate once again the invitation contained in the motto that the then-Joseph Ratzinger had as Archbishop of Munich and Freising and naturally maintained as Bishop of Rome: "cooperatores veritatis", which means ‘co-workers of the truth’.”

Archbishop Gänswein: Benedict XVI Sees Resignation as Expanding Petrine Ministry
But what is the significance of Pope Benedict XVI symbol gloria olivae and Pope Francis choosing the name of St.Francis as both of this symbolizes and represents Peace?
The significance of the symbol is connected to Our Lady of Fatima who is calling for Peace and it will end up in Medjugorje the Our Lady Queen of Peace.

The Call to Peace: the heart of the message of Our Lady of Fatima

Our Lady of Medjugorje (Croatian: Međugorska Gospa; also called Queen of Peace and Mother of the Redeemer) is the title given to the Blessed Virgin Mary by those who believe that she appeared in 1981 to six Herzegovinian teenagers in Medjugorje, Bosnia and Herzegovina (at the time in SFR Yugoslavia). Local Diocese as well as the Catholic Church have not recognised the apparitions as either supernatural or authentic.

...On May 13, 2017, a papal response came when Pope Francis declared that the original visions reported by the teenagers are worth studying in more depth, while the subsequent continued visions over the years are, in his view, of dubious value. - Our Lady of Medjugorje

The Two Great Popes reigning as one in our era representing peace symbol and link to the two Great Marian apparition in the span of century imploring the praying of the holy rosary daily for peace in the whole world is the preparation for the Church before it can enter to the New Era of Peace.


Reason for the choice of new 12th Apostle? In Acts 1:20–26, the Apostles are choosing the 12th Apostle who will replace Judas:

  20 Peter continued, “This was written in the book of Psalms, where it says, ‘Let his home become desolate, with no one living in it.’ It also says, ‘Let someone else take his position.’

  21 “So now we must choose a replacement for Judas from among the men who were with us the entire time we were traveling with the Lord Jesus—22 from the time he was baptized by John until the day he was taken from us. Whoever is chosen will join us as a witness of Jesus’ resurrection.”

  23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they all prayed, “O Lord, you know every heart. Show us which of these men you have chosen 25 as an apostle to replace Judas in this ministry, for he has deserted us and gone where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and Matthias was selected to become an apostle with the other eleven. [NLT]

Does bible say anything about the choice of the new Apostle? What did Matthias have that Judas did not? Does the Bible explain this?

I know the answer will be extremely unsatisfying, but the answer is right there in the question.  Verses 24-26.  They didn't know which to pick, so they prayed and asked God to show them by directing the outcome of casting lots, then they trusted Him to do so.  There's really nothing more said, and really no reason to say more.

In essence, they threw up their hands and said "We don't know who to choose, God.  We're just going to cast lots and trust you to pick the right man."

Casting lots, if you're not familiar with the term, is similar to drawing straws, or flipping a coin.  It's mentioned elsewhere in Scripture as well.  There's an article here about it:  http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-is-casting-lots.html


How does the LDS church back up the statement "I'm stronger than Satan"? I have heard that I'm stronger than Satan for a few reasons.

Because I have a body and he doesn't.
Because he only has as much power over me as I give him.
Because I am never beyond the influence of the Savior and his Atonement. There's always some heavenly power aiding me.

I'm especially looking for scriptures to back up the first reason. Maybe there aren't any. I can sort of see the story of Moses fighting Satan in Moses 1:9–22 as a scripture that backs up the 1st reason, but it fits better with the 3rd reason.

So ideally, I'm hoping to get a scripture that has specific mention of how having a body gives us an advantage over Satan. But I will probably have to settle for another answer, because a scripture like that probably doesn't exist.

Frankly, according to the Bible Christians are NOT stronger than Satan, and that is not because he is a spiritual being and they are physical/spiritual beings. If anything, having bodies makes Christians more vulnerable to his attacks, not less. As the apostle Paul observed, our bodies have "members," and since our members war against each other (Romans 7:23) Christians must allow "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus to set . . . [them] free from the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:2).
There is nothing inherently wrong with the human body, since it has been designed by God, but physical senses and appetites of necessity and by God's design interact with bodily members, sometimes in God-pleasing ways and sometimes not.
First John 4:4, quoted already in an answer, is a good starting place, but the verse needs to be unpacked a bit!
Notice in this verse that the Spirit (capital S) is greater than the spirit (lower-case S) who lives in the world (viz., the devil). The Holy Spirit, who indwells every believer, is the Spirit of Christ. Through Christ's Spirit within them, Christians are "more than conquerors" in spiritual warfare (Romans 8:37), since he fights on their behalf. Their duty is simply to stand in the power of his might (Ephesians 6:10). Jesus said,

"Without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5)

To grow and thrive in Christ, Christians must "abide in Christ" as he abides in them (John 15:4 ff.). Abiding in Christ requires Christians' heart commitment; it takes spiritual awareness of the warfare going on around them and within them; and it takes unbroken fellowship between them and Jesus, which requires frequent confession and repentance.
Yes, believers can choose to surrender control to the devil and his influence, but without an awareness of their vulnerability to his attacks they can surrender more control to him than they think they do. Forewarned is to be forearmed. Knowing that the devil prowls about as a lion seeking to devour true believers (1 Peter 5:8) requires spiritual diligence on their part. Do they therefore need to fear the devil? Yes and no.
Yes, Christians need to fear the devil because he is powerful, hateful, and well organized. His "world system" exerts a powerful influence on earth, and believers need only to read the headlines of today's newspapers to realize he is indeed very active in wreaking havoc in people's lives and in society at large.
Jesus likened the devil to a sheep-stealer who comes only to "steal and kill and destroy" (John 10:10). Jesus, on the other hand, comes only to give his children an abundant life. That abundant life is within reach of every Christian, but sometimes spiritual strongholds and besetting, entangling sins in their lives (Hebrews 12:1) short circuit that abundant life in Christ.
For that reason, believers must come back again and again to the cross of Christ, where Satan was defeated. As the old hymn puts it,

Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to thy cross I cling . . ..

So no, Christians need not fear the devil. When they cling to the cross of Christ, crucifying their old natures by taking up the cross daily (Luke 9:23), victorious living for them becomes a reality as the atoning blood of Christ and their whole-hearted witness to the truth of God come together through faith. Revelation 12 says the following:

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, "Now the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren [viz., Satan] has been thrown down, he who accuses them before our God day and night. And they [i.e., believers] overcame him because of the blood of the Lamb and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life even when faced with death" (vv.10-11 NASB Updated, my emphasis).

The blood of the Lamb is the atonement to which you referred in your question. The word of their testimony comprises the truths to which Christians cling, truths which assume 1) that their testimony is informed by the truth of God, and 2) that they are prepared and willing even to die for that truth.
In conclusion, Satan is a formidable foe. To fail to recognize this truth is to underestimate his influence and power, and failure in this regard opens believers up to his influence and attacks. The solution is to put on by faith the complete armor of God (Ephesians 6:13-17):

God's truth, which guards the loins

the breastplate of righteousness

battle shoes of the preparation of the gospel of peace

the shield of faith

the helmet of salvation

the sword of the Spirit

Having done these things, believers are then simply to "stand firm" (v.14), which means they are not in attack mode; rather, they are dependent on God and his armor to defend them.


What is an overview of how Christian commentators have explained rulers to be a terror to bad conduct? Paul writes in Romans 13:

  For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. (Romans 13:3a ESV)

If we interpret it as referring to all rulers at all times this statement does not seem to agree with reality. Many examples can be found of rulers terrorizing those who do good works.

Paul must have known this, too. Although he may have pre-dated the worst of the Roman emperors' persecution of Christians, he probably knew of Pilate's treatment of Jesus.

How does one reconcile this? Is "good rulers" implied? Is "not generally a terror" implied?

Can you give an overview of how scholars and theologians have interpreted this?

I think most commentators have understood "terror to good conduct" a little differently than you are understanding it. The phrase is φόβος τῷ ἀγαθῷ ἔργῳ (phobos tō agathō ergō) — literally, "fear [to] the good work". This is nonsensical English, so the ESV has used "terror", which works. I think the idea they intend convey, though, is made more explicit in the NASB (bold mine):

  For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.

The fear/terror is the emotion experienced rather than the objective historical fact of what is being done. Douglas Moo’s (widely regarded) commentary supports this view and further points out that "good behavior" and "evil" are likely personifications. We could expand the translation: rulers are not a cause of fear for those who do good works.

This still requires a bit of a leap: rulers do sometimes do things that are apt to cause virtuous people to fear. James Denney’s (older, but still highly regarded) commentary on Romans solves this problem with the little phrase about the term translated fear: "φόβος, as in Isa. viii, 13". Quoting the ESV:

  But the LORD of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.

Understood in this context, "not a cause of fear" in Rom. 13 assumes a realization of this exhortation. Those who do good are also those who submit to this view of reality. For them, fear of other authority is irrelevant.

This "idealization" view seems to have been taken by both Origen and Augustine who went on to assert that the praise promised in the latter part of the verse is praise from God (see Moo, p. 800, fn. 50). Moo explicitly disagrees with that view, pointing out the parallel with fear aroused by the secular ruler in the first part of the verse. His position is that Paul was thinking of a specific situation in ancient Rome. Paul is drawing out an axiom that is useful insofar as it is generally true, but it need not apply in every situation.

Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 800.

J.D. Denney, The expositor’s Greek Testament. (Hodder & Stoughton, 1897) vol. 2, 696.


According to Catholicism is feeling nostalgic a sin? According to a Doctor of Church (e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas), is feeling nostalgic a sin?

I think it is, because saints have advocated detachment from the world, and it is a constant theme of even Christ Himself to detach our hearts from all worldly things and keep our conversation in heaven, as St. Paul reiterated.

In a word, no.
First of all, merely feeling anything cannot possibly be a sin, because sin necessarily entails an act of the will.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (referencing two great doctors, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas) defines sin as

an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law” [St. Augustine, Contra Faustum 22:PL 42,418; St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,71,6.] (No. 1849, my emphasis).

For an action to be truly an offense, it must entail an act of the will. (Note that “desire” in this definition refers to willful desire, not the feeling of desire.)
Even supposing that the feeling of nostalgia is fostered by an act of the will, there is nothing necessarily wrong with it. It does not offend God or neighbor in any way.
According to dictionary.reference.com, nostalgia can be defined as

a wistful desire to return in thought or in fact to a former time in one's life, to one's home or homeland, or to one's family and friends; a sentimental yearning for the happiness of a former place or time.

There is nothing disordered as such about having a certain sadness for the absense of past happiness—it is (as far as it goes) a normal part of the human condition.
When the Church talks about “detachment from the world,” she means detachment from disordered desires—things that could, if fostered, lead to sinful behavior.
Here is what the Catechism states about detachment:

Jesus enjoins his disciples to prefer him to everything and everyone, and bids them “renounce all that [they have]” for his sake and that of the Gospel. Shortly before his passion he gave them the example of the poor widow of Jerusalem who, out of her poverty, gave all that she had to live on. The precept of detachment from riches is obligatory for entrance into the Kingdom of heaven (No. 2544).
All Christ’s faithful are to “direct their affections rightly, lest they be hindered in their pursuit of perfect charity by the use of worldly things and by an adherence to riches which is contrary to the spirit of evangelical poverty” [Lumen Gentium 42 § 3.] (No. 2545, my emphasis).

Hence, the problem does not lie with having affections (which are good, in and of themselves), but rather in directing them in a disordered way.
In any case, merely having an attachment (which is a kind of feeling), in and of itself, is not a sin; a sin consists in acting in a way that offends God.


What is the Biblical basis that individual gifts can be revoked by God? Some in the modern healing movements claim 'continued authority' for themselves and their ministry based upon the belief that God 'never' recalls a gift he has given to a person (such as wisdom, healing, etc.), or the office to which they were called (such as Apostle or Teacher, etc.).  From what I can tell the argument is produced to hold duty bound,  anyone who believes 'one' of their miracles to be true, to accept their office and all their miracles to be true 'always', because God never 'revokes' a particular individual gift or calling within the ministry.

The prooftext for this belief is often this:

  for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. (Romans 11:29, NIV)

It seems obvious that this proof text is a wresting of scripture rather than an exegesis.  My question is what is the biblical basis for concluding on an individual basis gifts and callings can most definitely be revoked.

Note: This question is not related to eternal security.  There are those in the healing movements that support Calvinism and some support Arminianism. This subject is not within the scope of the question.

Yes, that is a wrestling of scripture. The gifts in question here have more to do with God's plan for Israel, and more generally irrevocable covenants and irrevocable gifts such as Marriage and Baptism. See also Numbers 23:19 ("I was summoned to bless; I will bless; I cannot revoke it!").

The Bible is pretty clear, though: God will not revoke gifts and callings. You may have problems taking an approach that contradicts this... in addition to the problems you already face in explaining that passage to those who do not want to hear.

Consider the following, though:

Adam and Eve lost, among other things, the gift of eternal life
Samson lost his gift of strength, granted due to having been "a nazirite for God from my mother’s womb" (Judges 16:17)
Even Judas seems to have been chosen by Jesus in Luke 6:13, but should one follow Judas?
You might also mention figures like the Egyptian magicians and their staffs-turned-snakes, who could perform magic tricks, but who were not of God

The most appropriate way to address this might be to point out that, though God does not revoke His gifts, people may reject them through their own sin.


How does mainstream Christianity view "Heaven is for Real"? I was looking for books on what happens after death on Amazon, and came across Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back. I found this interesting review but I didn't get anything conclusive out of it.

I understand that there is a very fine line between using external sources to illuminate Bible verses and being deceived by the devil as in 2 Corinthians 11:14.

What is the biblical/Christian way to deal with this book (and others just like it)?

completely ignore it (since the Bible is sufficient)
read it, but only skeptically at an intellectual level
be prepared, because weird things = the end is near
[your answer here] ...

There are many, many things out there that claims similar events happening in their lives.
Obviously, it is common sense not to believe all those stories.
One story consists of someone visiting hell; one story consists of person going heaven and back.Some stories even tell the tale of being on footsteps on heaven.

How do we deal with these stories?
Here is the general answer:
Use Bible as Reference.

Check every aspect of the story to the Bible. If they disagree on certain aspects, than the story is definitely wrong.

Bible is not just some sort of story we consult. Bible is The Word.

  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - John 1:1.

Everything in the Bible is true, and will be proven true.

  "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." - Matthew 5:18


Was Christianity intended to have denominations? Does the Bible guide us to break into denominations? There are plenty of verses about unity and the church but then there's the 12 tribes of Israel.

From a biblical standpoint, are denominations our way of making Christianity fit our needs or are they options that are meant to attract more people to different parts of Christianity? Does the Bible approve of denominations?

The 12 tribes of Israel were separate but still part of God's one people, and part of the family of God. I would consider them more analogous to different traditions in a church (different cultural practices under the same theology), but not denominations (which remain separate because of theological differences, primarily).

Jesus prayed that we may be one (John 17:20-23). The analogy of the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12) and being one, as well as the analogy of the vine and the branches (John 15:5) also indicate that we are to be together, and not separated.

Denominations have split off because of human sin in general (with culpability on all sides), and not because it was Biblically appropriate. There was one church in the first centuries. It is because of human sin that people broke away. That is why we pray for unity and encourage interdenominational dialogue and reconciliation.


Did the disagreement between the Catholic Church and Protestant Church on the issue of salvation by grace alone end in 1999? This is question is for an effort to understand the current movement of bringing unity among Christian denominations.

A question was asked before: Is Pope Francis holding and professing different views from the traditional Catholic Church in the doctrine of salvation & teachings about marriage?

So I am asking this question with that one as the background.

There is a video BISHOP TONY PALMER DIES - Watch full original Pope Francis video here ! in which Bishop Tony Palmer & Kenneth Copeland are present and Bishop Tony says around the 26th minute that in 1999 a document was signed between Catholic Church & Protestant Church regarding the Doctrine of salvation that salvation is by Faith Alone equipping us for good works. And that it ended the protest between Catholics & Protestants.

Is that true?
If it is true which is that document?
Is that document in the Catholic Church website as Bishop Tony claims?

Bishop Tony further shows a video that he claims to have been taken by the request of the Pope. In that, the Pope requests Kenneth Copeland for unity among Christian Denominations and also his prayers.

Does the official Catholic teaching now agree with the Protestant church in the doctrine of salvation?
Is the division between Catholics & Protestants now just propaganda of some evangelical leaders as Bishop Tony claims?

What is the Catholic Church's official response regarding this call for unity with Protestants from the Pope? Where all have the Catholic churches and the Protestant churches agreed on doctrine after Luther brought the reformation?

Are there no irreconcilable differences between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church on fundamental doctrines?

The Joint Declaration on Justification

The document that bishop Palmer is likely referring to is the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, created in 1999 by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church and joined by the World Methodist Council in 2006 and the World Communion of Reformed Churches in 2017.  The Anglican Communion also "Welcomed and affirmed the substance of the Joint Declaration..."  The document attempts to address the disagreements between Catholics and Lutherans on the topic of justification, which is generally seen as the root issue of the Reformation.

It is a step towards agreement on justification, though it isn't the completion of that agreement.  The first reason for this is that not all Protestants agree with the document.  Not even all Lutherans agree:

  Support for the joint declaration was not universal among Lutherans. Of the 124 members of the Lutheran World Federation, 35 cast votes against JDDJ; these included many churches who are also members of the International Lutheran Council. Member churches of the Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference even stated that "JDDJ...should be repudiated by all Lutherans." (Wikipedia article on the document)

Cardinal Ratzinger--later Pope Benedict XVI--was one of the major players in the creation of the document.  In an interview given during the period of theological dialogues and preparation, Cardinal Ratzinger answered a Lutheran journalist as follows:

  After prayer, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger gave a brief overview of the work of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Questions followed. My question was this: Did he believe that it would be possible for Lutherans and Roman Catholics to develop a joint statement on the doctrine of justification? His response was immediate and emphatic: Yes, certainly. He said that the biblical work had been done on the topic. The theological work had been accomplished. As long as we clearly understood that such a statement would address only the specific doctrine of justification and would not resolve other issues, then the effort could proceed and be a fruitful one.The answer Cardinal Ratzinger gave during that meeting in February 1994 was a timely and encouraging one. We knew that any eventual success in approval of such a joint statement would depend on his willingness to support the project. (Joint Declaration on Justification: History Making or Precious Memory?)

The document is therefore very precisely about justification, not other theological topics.  It achieved imperfect success, as Aidan Nichols, O.P. explains:

  Preceded as it was by a lengthy theological dialogue between the Federation's members and representatives of the Catholic Church, notably in America and Germany, the Joint Declaration purported to express, in a carefully worded formula, 'a consensus on basic truths concerning the doctrine of justification'. This was a phrase which fell some way short of claiming full agreement on the doctrine itself, and that, as things transpired, was probably fortunate. The date for the solemn signing was chosen quite as deliberately as the place. Many Lutherans keep the last Sunday in October as 'Reformation Sunday', a day of thanksgiving for the blessings of the Reformation, while that year, 1999, the last Sunday of the month was also the last day of October and so kept in Catholic churches of the Latin rite as the Vigil of All the Saints. (The Lutheran-Catholic Agreement on Justification: Botch or Breakthrough?)

Primary Documents

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was followed by two more joint documents: a Common Statement and an annex to the Common Statement.  A fourth document "responding" to the Joint Declaration was then produced by the Catholic Church.  These documents are as follows:

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification
Official Common Statement
Annex to the Official Common Statement
Response of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration on Justification

Secondary Sources

Some secondary sources that may be of interest to those investigating this document are as follows:

Wikipedia article on the Joint Declaration on Justification
The Lutheran-Catholic Agreement on Justification: Botch or Breakthrough?
Joint Declaration on Justification: History Making or Precious Memory?
Lutheran Hailed Cardinal Ratzinger as Expert on Luther
A Betrayal of the Gospel: The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification


What is the nature of eternal security? Jon Ericson made a statement in this answer that is fascinating to me:

In other words, we aren't secure in our salvation because of the nature of salvation, but because of the nature of Jesus.

This is something that I've wondered about, but have never really formulated.  Among those who hold the doctrine of eternal security, what is considered the nature, or origin, of that security?
Some possible viewpoints that I see are:

Salvation is eternal in its very nature.  This implies that abiding in Christ is evidence of salvation
Salvation is not eternal in nature, but is eternal in practice because of God's keeping power.  In other words, though theoretically possible to forsake Christ and thus forsake salvation, God promises to keep us, never allowing us to do so.  This would seem to imply that abiding in Christ is the cause, or medium, of salvation, but the work behind that cause is performed by God.

What are the Biblical arguments for or against these viewpoints?

While there are probably an infinite number of aspects in regards to eternal security, I would like to discuss it from a stance of imputed righteousness.

  Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

  1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ESV)

If we look at this verse as a condemning statement we would all fall under one or more of these classifications that will not inherit the kingdom of God.  (our sinful nature implies that we all have idolatrous hearts)  I think that is the reason why this passage is often preached as a sermon on making changes in your life and doing works.  But, the pivotal point of these verses is that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God.

This leads me to the main point that I am trying to make.  When we accept Jesus Christ as our savior we inherit his righteousness and are consider justified in eyes of God.  It is a common misconception that God "forgets" our sins when we accept Jesus as our savior.  If that were true then God would not be omniscient.  Instead God chooses to not remember our sins.  In the same sense that God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Instead, our sins are paid for with Jesus's righteousness, and the only way to obtain righteousness is through Jesus.

  I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

  Galatians 2:21

So, logically we can say that we are eternally secure because:
1. The righteous will inherit the kingdom of God.
2. We have imputed righteousness at the time of salvation.


How could the Egyptian magicians do what God did through Moses? In Exodus when God performed miracles through Moses and Aaron, the Egyptian magicians did the same things that God did, How is that possible ?

The first time:

  Exodus 7:10-13

  So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord
  commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his
  officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men
  and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by
  their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a
  snake. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs. Yet Pharaoh's
  heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord
  had said.

The second time:

  Exodus 7:20-24

  Moses and Aaron did just as the Lord had commanded. He raised his
  staff in the presence of Pharaoh and his officials and struck the
  water of the Nile, and all the water was changed into blood. The
  fish in the Nile died, and the river smelled so bad that the Egyptians
  could not drink its water. Blood was everywhere in Egypt.

  But the Egyptian magicians did the same things by their secret
  arts, and Pharaoh's heart became hard; he would not listen to Moses
  and Aaron, just as the Lord had said. Instead, he turned and went
  into his palace, and did not take even this to heart. And all the
  Egyptians dug along the Nile to get drinking water, because they could
  not drink the water of the river.

The third time:

  Exodus 8:5-7

  Then the Lord said to Moses, "Tell Aaron, 'Stretch out your hand
  with your staff over the streams and canals and ponds, and make frogs
  come up on the land of Egypt.'"

  So Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt, and the
  frogs came up and covered the land. But the magicians did the same
  things by their secret arts; they also made frogs come up on the land
  of Egypt.

But lastly they couldn't do like Moses:

  Exodus 8:16-19

  Then the Lord said to Moses, "Tell Aaron, 'Stretch out your staff
  and strike the dust of the ground,' and throughout the land of Egypt
  the dust will become gnats." They did this, and when Aaron
  stretched out his hand with the staff and struck the dust of the
  ground, gnats came on people and animals. All the dust throughout the
  land of Egypt became gnats. But when the magicians tried to produce
  gnats by their secret arts, they could not.

  Since the gnats were on people and animals everywhere, the
  magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God." But Pharaoh's
  heart was hard and he would not listen, just as the Lord had said.

I don't have my notes on hand but the bible contains multiple examples of Satan performing God like signs to fool Gods people. The book of Revelations is the obvious example this, but there's more.

As far as men performing magic, you also had Bar Jesus.

Long story short, although it's not exactly a popular opinion, Satan is illustrated as a being with similar (although lesser) powers as God, and it has been written that he has and will use these powers through mankind to gather people to him.

Satan is illustrated as having powers on a similar level as the Angel Michael which makes sense as he was a great angel (even though Satan was/is  dark on the whole), but in regards to the first answer these powers are not of earthly origins, nor can they be assumed to he bound by earthly restrictions (physics, etc).


When did the Orthodox and Catholic Churches distinguish the manner in which the Sign of the Cross was to be made? From a comment on What is the role of “Sign of the cross” gesture in Catholicism?, it was noted that Catholics make the Sign of the Cross by starting at the top, going to the left and then right, while Orthodox go from right to left (after starting at the top).

What is the origin and reason for this distinction?  I'm also wondering if this distinction is universal in each church or if it differs to some degree inside each branch.

It seems to be down to an ambiguous instruction issued by Pope Innocent III around 1200.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has this [extract]:

  [In the eleventh century] the manner of making [the sign of the Cross] in the West seems to have been identical with that followed at present in the East, i.e. only three fingers were used, and the hand traveled from the right shoulder to the left. The point, it must be confessed, is not entirely clear ... Still, a rubric in a manuscript copy of the York Missal clearly requires the priest when signing himself with the paten to touch the left shoulder after the right.

This seems reasonable: up until the Great Schism in 1087, the entire Church was likely to have had a single custom which had built up over the previous seven hundred or more years. [The Use of York was celebrated in northern England until the Reformation in the sixteenth century].

Fr William Saunders appears to have done some research:

  The earliest formalized way of making the sign of the cross appeared about the 400s, during the Monophysite heresy which denied the two natures in the divine person of Christ and thereby the unity of the Holy Trinity. The sign of the cross was made from forehead to chest, and then from right shoulder to left shoulder with the right hand.

The use of two fingers to make a large gesture was a reaction to the heresy. The shape of the fingers and the hand was further formalised to indicate the Trinity (details in the article).

He continues:

  An instruction of Pope Innocent III (1198–1216) evidences the traditional practice but also indicates a shift in the Latin Rite practice of the Catholic Church: "The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity ... This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left)." While noting the custom of making the cross from the right to the left shoulder was for both the western and eastern Churches, Pope Innocent continued, "Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this — picture the priest facing the people for the blessing — when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right...." Therefore, about this time, the faithful began to imitate the priest imparting the blessing, going from the left shoulder to the right shoulder with an open hand. Eventually, this practice became the custom for the Western Church.

Even here, a thirteenth-century pope is specifying that clergy make the sign of the cross from the right to the left, but in order that they move the same way as the people (rather like a gym aerobics instructor) they may instead cross from  left to right. It would appear to be this ambiguous instruction which engendered the confusion, with some clergy going one way and some the other and the people copying them — either copying the direction of motion as they saw it, or copying the movement of the priest (that is, going in the opposite direction). Things got hopelessly confused and have settled down as left-to-right.

The decree of Innocent III would not have been recognised by the Eastern Church, and they have carried on just as they always did.


In Catholicism, what is the proper order of the sacraments of initiation and what are the summary arguments in support of this order? In my parish in the diocese of Honolulu, we are in discussions regarding transitioning the catechetical process so that in a few years, the sacraments of initiation [Baptism, Confirmation, and then First Holy Communion] will be administered in their [that] proper order. My understanding is that some other dioceses are doing that as well.

Before it was Baptism, First Holy Communion [with First Confession], and then Confirmation.

The question is what should be the proper order of the sacraments of initiation with support from scripture and early Church practice, and how and why, if that was the proper order, was there a reordering from the proper order?

In this proper order, when is First Reconciliation/Penance/Confession?

Until about 30-40 years ago, here in Italy the order of the sacraments of initiation was Baptism, Confirmation, First Communion - and it's the canonical order, following the Cathechism. That order is still used when an adult recieve the Sacraments: notice that usually adult pepole recieve all three sacraments in the same day, so the order is not really imprtant.
But when in 1910 Pope Pio X established that the First Communion should be received from children at 7-8 years old, the Church encountered a problem: it's very difficult to explain to such young children what and who is the Holy Spirit, and all the meanings of the sacrament of Confirmation.
So, today, each italian bishop is free to choose the order, but most of them follow this:

Baptism
First Communion (usually at 8 years old)
Confirmation (usually at 13 years old, but some bishops prefer to wait until 16)

As said, they follow that order, having in mind what Pope Benedict XVI said in Sacramentum Caritatis

"It must never be forgotten that our reception of Baptism and Confirmation is ordered to the Eucharist"

About First Confession, it's usually celebrated few days before first Communion


According to Roman Catholicism, is a person required to fast? From the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,

  For members of the Latin Catholic Church, the norms on fasting are obligatory from age 18 until age 59. When fasting, a person is permitted to eat one full meal, as well as two smaller meals that together are not equal to a full meal. The norms concerning abstinence from meat are binding upon members of the Latin Catholic Church from age 14 onwards.

What do "obligatory" and "binding" mean in this context? Is a person who fails to participate in a fast required to confess and offer penance?

Yes. "Binding" and "obligatory" mean exactly what it looks like: "are binding upon" means "apply to", and "obligatory" means "mandatory" or "compulsory."
From the Code of Canon Law:

1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.
1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

This means that a Catholic within the ages of 14/18 and 59 who does not practice abstinence on Fridays or does not fast on Holy Wednesday or Good Friday is guilty of violating Canon 1251.
However, you will find that Canon Law is rather forgiving in actually imposing penalties for violation of its canons, unless that lack of imposition were to constitute a scandal:

1399 In addition to the cases established here or in other laws, the external violation of a divine or canonical law can be punished by a just penalty only when the special gravity of the violation demands punishment and there is an urgent need to prevent or repair scandals.

That being said, attending Mass on Sunday is also an obligation:

1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass.

Here we see "obliged" again, and not participating in Sunday Mass is thus a violation of a Canon. But beyond that, it is a sin against the Third Commandment (cf. Ex 20:8–10). Analogously, not fasting or not abstaining from meat when demanded is a sin against Temperance (the virtue of self-restraint or moderation, opposed to the deadly sin of Gluttony), as well as against Obedience to one's Bishop, who requests this Work of Mercy from his flock.
Sins, however, can be classified as mortal or venial; a mortal sin rejects sanctifying grace and binds a soul to damnation, unless confessed, but a venial one, though it impedes the communion of a soul with the Lord, doesn't condemn them. The difference between the two is that the former involves "a grave matter," according to Canons 1854 and following:

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. the distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,Cf. I Jn 16–17 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 17 #12
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."Mk 10:19 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Because the Decalogue does not mandate fasting, I would be tempted to say that the sin of neglecting abstinence and fasting is venial, but I disclaim that my opinion here should be taken as authoritative. In doubt, it's best to consult one's spiritual director. Of course, we must strive to avoid even venial sins, so the possible venial character of neglect of abstinence and fast should not be taken as a license to ignore it.
In summary, while there is no canonical sanction against failing to uphold this obligation, it is still a violation of a Canon, as well as a sin. While it probably does not impede Holy Communion, it is still something we should try to avoid if we can and confess if we cannot.


What is the biblical basis for seeing Saint Peter at the gates of heaven? I was taught that Saint Peter is at the gates of heaven, and you have to pass him to get in.  Answers to a recent question suggest this is not true.

What is the biblical basis for seeing Saint Peter at the gates of heaven?

This view is based primarily on Matthew 16:18–19, in which Jesus says:

  And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (ESV)

When this concept of "keys" belonging to Peter is combined with the teaching from Revelation 21:12, that the New Jerusalem has walls and gates, it's not a huge leap to see Peter as being the gatekeeper of heaven, who allows entrance to some but not others.

However, this is as explicit as the Bible itself gets on this question.  There are a few other sources for Petrine authority, like Matthew 18:18, but the popular image of Peter standing at the pearly gates is a later interpretation or extrapolation of the scriptures.  Leading church historian Everett Ferguson identifies a possible source:

  The passage [Matthew 16:18–19] moves from a building, to gates, to keys.
   A popular image has Peter as the doorkeeper of heaven, deciding admission through the pearly gates to each person at death.  This understanding of Peter goes back to an early medieval interpretation that identified Peter with a figure in Germanic mythology who was the porter of heaven. (The Church of Christ, 53)

Numerous others make the same connection between the passage and the popular imagery, like Miriam Van Scott in Encyclopedia of Heaven, 208 and Howard Clarke, who ties this imagery to medieval drama (The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers, 146).


What is a "Daud of Sons" as stated in Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon? In my copy of Readings in World Christian History Volume 1: Earliest Christianity to 1453, edited by John W. Coakley & Andrea Sterk, the 35th text, starting on page 175, entitled "Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon", is a text regarding the Council of Chalcedon, and in it, the author says that "for it [Truth, as best I can tell] opposes those who would render the mystery of the dispensation [i.e. the Incarnation] in a Daud of Sons;" (emphasis mine)

My question is, what is a "Daud of Sons," and how would false teachers make the Incarnation into such a thing?

Here's a link to an online copy I found that seems to be the same translation
Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon

I suspect it should read a 'duad of sons', not a 'daud of sons'. A duad is something made two parts. Compare it with triad or monad.

The Nestorian position is sometimes described as teaching that Christ is a duad, composed of a divine person and a human person. According to this, Jesus was not a single person who was fully man and fully God. Instead, the human son of Mary and the Divine Son of God, the Word, were closely connected but not united. (The nature of this connection differs depending on the version of Nestorianism.) In particular, Nestorius argued that Mary was the mother of the man Christ, but was not the mother of the Word. As such, he was accused of dividing Jesus into two persons, two sons.

The Chalcedonian position is that Christ is a single person with two natures. This unity is such that it is not possible to separate the actions and experiences of Jesus into human parts or divine parts. In opposition to Nestorius, they taught that Mary is the Theotokos, mother to the  Theanthropos Jesus, both human and divine.


What are the main views on who created God? The question of man's creation is addressed quite thoroughly in the Bible (whether you believe it is metaphorical or not).  Does the Bible (or other relevant references) in any way answer who created God, or how he was created?

What is an overview of the major common or prevalent Christian* teachings on this topic?

Note, to the answers that say he was not created—some explanation, reasoning, and, ideally, references are what are being asked for here.  Without any of that, it is an answer that is simply begging the question and not an answer that helps a questioning person.

* Answers from any/all major denominations would be helpful.

This question is not answerable from a Christian perspective; it presupposes God was created, but the Bible clearly teaches that God is eternal (in the truest sense of the word).  An eternal being has no creator, no beginning, no end, and no cause.  Rather he is the creator of all that is, the beginning and the end of all that is, and the cause of all that is.

Note, don't confuse eternal (having no beginning or end) with everlasting (just having no end).  An eternal being is literally timeless, whereas an everlasting being exists in time and lasts from it's inception forever.  An eternal being is everlasting, but an everlasting being is not necessarily eternal.  Only God is eternal, though Christians will be raised to everlasting life in Christ.

Note also that when the Bible speaks of eternal life, it means the life that comes from Christ, which is itself eternal as Christ is; it is not speaking of those of us who receive this life somehow becoming eternal, per se.

For reference, Biblical teaching of God's eternal nature:

Genesis 21:33
 Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beersheba, and there he called on the name of the LORD, the Eternal God.
Deuteronomy 33:27
 The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms. He will drive out your enemies before you, saying, 'Destroy them!'
Psalm 111:10
 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.
Psalm 119:89
 Your word, LORD, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.
Psalm 119:160
 All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.
Isaiah 26:4
 Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD himself, is the Rock eternal.