The lie of the Old Prophet In the 1 Kings, We have man of God from Judah, who came to Bethel to warn Jeroboam and ends up getting killed on his way out by an Old Prophet who lied to him.

1 Kings 13:18
New International Version (NIV)
18: The old prophet answered, “I too am a prophet, as you are. And an angel said to me by the word of the Lord: ‘Bring him back with you to your house so that he may eat bread and drink water.’” (But he was lying to him.)
23: When the man of God had finished eating and drinking, the prophet who had brought him back saddled his donkey for him.
24: As he went on his way, a lion met him on the road and killed him, and his body was left lying on the road, with both the donkey and the lion standing beside it.

Obviously this is a jerk move on the Prophet's part. Lying to the man of God and getting him killed.
What justifies this man's actions? I have not read anything that points to his punishment for lying. What was the reason for the Prophet's actions?

As far as we can tell, the old prophet wanted some company for a meal. When he hears the man of God reply that the Lord had told him not to have such a meal, he does not believe and is dismissive, as if saying "sure, sure, I'm a prophet too, and I was told to ask you just now". This was a lie: God did not cause the old prophet to choose to lie in this way, God did not tell him to test the man of God by lying, but surely God knew that this old prophet would lie.

The man of God agrees to go with the old prophet, in direct disobedience to what God had told him. He is then killed by a danger that God had warned him against. He chose to disobey God, which is the very definition of sin. We should mourn him, but remember that he is the one most responsible for his own death.

As for the old prophet, he seems to avoid taking responsibility for the grave scandal he caused (scandal being the bringing of another person into sin). When he hears that the man of God was mauled and killed by the lion, he says:

  “It is the man of God who rebelled against the charge of the LORD. The LORD has delivered him to a lion, which mangled and killed him, according to the word which the LORD had spoken to him.”
  (1 Kings 13:26)

Clearly, being a prophet does not mean that one is without sin. Still, while the old prophet seems to publicly declare his own non-involvement, his actions suggest that he feels very serious remorse over what has happened, for he goes to get and then bury the body, and mourns saying "Alas, my brother!", and then instructs his sons that his own body should be placed in the very same grave as the man of God, who he recognizes as a prophet.


At what age should Christians be confirmed according to St. Thomas Aquinas? I've read this in Saint Thomas Aquinas' sermons on the Apostles' Creed (emphasis mine):

  “Confirmation.”—The second Sacrament is Confirmation. Just as they who
  are physically born need certain powers to act, so those who are
  reborn spiritually must have the strength of the Holy Spirit which is
  imparted to them in this Sacrament. In order that they might become
  strong, the Apostles received the Holy Spirit after the Ascension of
  Christ: “Stay you in the city till you be endowed with power from on
  high” [Lk 24:49]. This power is given in the Sacrament of
  Confirmation. They, therefore, who have the care of children should be
  very careful to see that they be confirmed, because great grace is
  conferred in Confirmation. He who is confirmed will, when he dies,
  enjoy greater glory than one not confirmed, because greater grace will
  be his.

Thomas speaks about "children" to be confirmed. The common practice today is to confirm young adults, to mark their maturity and mature acceptance of their faith. Thomas seems to advocate the other concept of the sacrament of confirmation: this sacrament should open the young boy or girl to the help of Holy Spirit to become a true adult Christian.

When should young Christian be confirmed according to st. Thomas? Or in other words: what were the common ages when people were confirmed in 13th century? Of these, it's easy to pick those that can be seen as "children".

By St Thomas's time, infant baptism would have been the norm for many centuries. However, confirmation has always had to fight for survival, in that it is not necessary for salvation and therefore once it was separated from baptism it was hard to get people to bring their children of any age to receive it on the rare occasions when the bishop happened to be available. (The word children can refer to relationship without restriction to age.) There is no set age when a person receives confirmation, either in St Thomas's day or our own. It depends not only on the readiness of the child/adult but also the availability of the bishop, who is normally the one who administers the sacrament since at least the second council of Lyons in 1274. Often a bishop has historically not been able to visit every parish in his see in a year, or even several years, especially in the days before modern roads. In St. Thomas's time most parishes probably didn't give much, if any, catechesis to prepare people for confirmation either, so it didn't matter so much what age they were when they received it. Education of any kind was a rarity.

In the Latin rite today, after infant baptism, childhood first communion (and first confession) precedes confirmation, usually by several years. No episcopal presence is needed for these earlier initiation rites. Simplified catechesis takes place before first communion, and more complete catechesis precedes confirmation. Of course, for adults in RCIA, baptism, confirmation and communion can all take place in a single ceremony at the Easter vigil, and is preceded by several months of adult catechesis.

A good reference for the history of the sacraments is "Doors to the Sacred" by Joseph Martos.


How do opponents of penal substitutionary atonement theory handle Isaiah 53? How do opponents of the penal substitution theory of atonement handle Isaiah 53?
This seems to describe penal substitution quite well:

53:4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:4-6, NIV)

Well I am an opponent of penal substitution and can give an answer that I believe is within the bounds of Eastern Orthodox tradition.

Note the part where the verse says: "yet we considered him punished by God". This phrase implies that it is wrong to consider him punished by God, which is explicitly what penal substitution teaches in the reformed tradition. He voluntarily took our pain; God was not punishing him because he needed some satisfaction. The iniquity was laid upon to accomplish the purpose of transforming man, not of fulfilling some need God had.

Notice that it says "by his wounds we are healed", and not "by his wounds God is satisfied". I personally think this is a very strong argument against substitution theories, because it only talks about Christ's work as healing us, not satisfying God.

My favorite quote to illustrate a more historical perspective of the atonement (as already done by myself here: What is the difference between "ransom theory" and "penal substitution"?) is from Gregory Nazianzus:

  But if the price is offered to the Father, I ask first of all, how? For it was not the Father who held us captive. Why then should be blood of His only begotten Son please the Father, who would not even receive Isaac when he was offered as a whole burnt offering by Abraham, but replaced the human sacrifice with a ram? Is it not evident that the Father accepts the sacrifice not because he demanded it or because He felt any need for it, but on account of economy: because man must be sanctified by the humanity of God, and God Himself must deliver us by overcoming the tyrant through His own power

I think the most damaging versions of substitutionary atonement are those that claim Christ's righteousness is a substitute for our own. I think a correct way to explain it is that Christ descended and "took our place" so that we might rise and take his. I think a deeper understanding of "taking our place" lies in understanding it as communion and not as replacement.

To end on a quote that may offend my Protestant brothers and sisters: St. Athanasius of Alexandria once said

  "The Son of God became man, that we might become god"

(https://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis), notice how this view doesn't really fit with a substitutionary view, because we are to actually become like Christ, not just accept his righteousness as a substitution.


How do deniers of Jesus' divinity explain that the angel at Revelation 22:9 did not include Jesus in the list of beings that can be worshipped? Note: this is an adaptation of a question asked on Hermenutics.SE. Check it out if interested in answers from different viewpoints.

When John fell down to worship the angel that had just showed him the prophetic visions of Revelation, the angel quickly stopped him in his tracks and corrected him for doing so, as he (the angel) was just a fellow servant and God is the only one to be worshipped:

8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, 9 but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.” [Revelation 22:8-9 ESV]

However, angels are reported to have worshipped Jesus as well. For example:
Hebrews 1:5-6 ESV:

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
“You are my Son, today I have begotten you”?
Or again,
“I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,
“Let all God's angels worship him.”

Revelation 5:11-14 ESV:

11 Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living
creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads
of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice,
“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and
wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!”
13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the
earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying,
“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor
and glory and might forever and ever!”
14 And the four living creatures said, “Amen!” and the elders fell
down and worshiped.

Why didn't the angel at Revelation 22:9 mention Jesus when he said to John that God is the one to be worshipped? Shouldn't the angel have concluded the verse with "Worship God and his Son"? Did the angel forget about Jesus?
I know that most trinitarians would quickly answer with something like "come on, these are trivial questions, Jesus is God, by saying God the angel is implicitly including Jesus in the list, He is part of the Godhead". Of course, that answer assumes that Jesus is God as a premise. But what about those who deny this premise? How would they answer these questions?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only Jehovah God should be worshipped. It would not be appropriate to worship any of Jehovah's creations, including Jesus or the angels. (Luke 4:8)
However, the matter is complicated by the fact that the Hebrew and Greek words that denote worship can also be applied to acts other than worship. This means that when translating these words, the Bible translator must be careful to take into consideration the context in order to get the intended meaning.
In the cases of Revelation 22:9, Hebrews 1:6, and Revelation 5:14, the Greek word used is pro·sky·neʹo. This word can be used to express a slave's act of obeisance towards a king (Matt. 18:26). In the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew scriptures, this word pro·sky·neʹo is used to denote the acts of obeisance that were done towards the kings of Israel, prophets, and other men.
In all of these situations, many Bible translators use various terms such as "do obeisance to", "do reverence to", "do honor to", "pay homage", or "bow down to" rather than "worship", because the context makes it clear that these are not acts of worship towards these men, which would be idolatry. Rather, they are acts of subjection and respect towards a person in authority.
For this reason, the New World Translation does not use the word "worship" in Hebrews 1:6. Instead, it says:

But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all of God’s angels do obeisance to him.”

It would logically be inappropriate for God to command the angels to worship Jesus because it would be in direct contradiction to God's commands against idolatry and giving exclusive devotion to himself. (Exodus 34:14) It would also be in contradiction to when Jesus stated that we must worship only God. (Matt. 4:8-10) So, it becomes clear that the kind of pro·sky·neʹo being expressed in Hebrews 1:6 is one of showing respect to a king, such as bowing down or kneeling. Or even if "worship" is the preferred rendering, it's clear that this worship is still given to God by means of Jesus being God's representative. (Hebrews 1:1-3)
Meanwhile, Revelation 22:9 and Revelation 5:14 are accounts where the worship is being directed towards Jehovah God (see also Revelation 4:10 and its context), so it would be Scripturally consistent to translate pro·sky·neʹo as "worship" in those verses, though the other various meanings of pro·sky·neʹo would also be acceptable.
See also:

"Is It Proper to Worship Jesus?" - Awake! April 8th, 2000; pages 26-27
"Do Angels Worship Jesus?" - Watchtower January 15th, 1992; page 23


Why Many Who Believe That “All Are Born Sinful” Hold That “None Are Born Gay Or Trans”? Many Protestants, though not technically or officially Reformed, are nevertheless strongly influenced by Calvinistic theology; as such, they espouse the doctrine of total depravity, teaching that all men are born under the power of sin (Psalm 51:5).
However, a large part of them are also politically active, and I couldn't help but notice that this important segment (ascribing to conversion therapy and associated with the ex-gay movement) also holds to the notion that no one is born gay, trans, etc., but rather, they embrace certain discarded psychoanalytical ideas about the latter being a product of upbringing; in other words, of nurture, rather than nature. Granted, I am not exactly arguing that all sin is inborn, and that no vices are learned or (self)taught, but the (religious) zeal with which they (communally) cling to this opinion seems to border on dogma.
My bewilderment stems from the (apparent or perceived) contradiction between the two views. Am I missing something ? If so, then what ? (Your contributions are greatly appreciated).

I can only speak from a UK context, where there isn't a Christian right like there is in the US. But I think the way the church has handled issues of sexuality is similar. In the last 10-20 years, the church here has come a long way in understanding sexuality. Organisations such as Living Out have been set up within the past few years, helping people to put the pieces of the Bible together.
Unfortunately, I think many in previous years held to traditional Christian ethical beliefs without really holding to other fundamental Christian beliefs (e.g. total depravity) - the morality became divorced from the theology. What you ended up with was a kind of Pharisaism where sexual sin such as this was seen as particularly bad. It was much more common in the mid-20th century to see homosexuality as something that was chosen, and many church leaders have simply inherited this view without thinking through how it fits with theology.
This is why, for example, in Tim Keller's review of Matthew Vines' book, he says:

And when I see people discarding their older beliefs that homosexuality is sinful after engaging with loving, wise, gay people, I’m inclined to agree that those earlier views were likely defective. In fact, they must have been essentially a form of bigotry. [My emphasis] They could not have been based on theological or ethical principles, or on an understanding of historical biblical teaching. They must have been grounded instead on a stereotype of gay people as worse sinners than others (which is itself a shallow theology of sin.) So I say good riddance to bigotry. However, the reality of bigotry cannot itself prove that the Bible never forbids homosexuality. We have to look to the text to determine that.

I think this is what has happened over the past 10-20 years. Many organisations and churches who own the name "Christian" have been shown that, although they may claim to hold to views such as total depravity, do not think it through when it comes to issues of morality.
I should add that I think this is a sensitive and complex area because different people have different views. For example, in the UK, the Core Issues Trust do not describe what they do as conversion therapy, but they believe that it is sometimes possible for someone to undergo change in their attraction. And having a strong view of sin (e.g. total depravity) I don't think is totally incompatible with believing that aspects of our desires, including sexuality, are a choice. But I don't think that's exactly what you were asking!


Can any catholic rite call themself Roman Catholic? I have seen some oriential catholic rites call themself as roman catholic. In my knowledge roman catholic church is the latin rite of the church. Can any rite of the catholic church call themself as Roman Catholic?

This is a bit of a difficult issue; the truth is that the Catholic Church herself does not usually define herself as "Roman Catholic Apostolic Church;" Most usually you will find simply "the Church", but sometimes "the Catholic Church" when needing to differentiate between the herself and the Eastern Patriarchates, or the Protestant Churches. For example:

Orientalium Ecclesiarum, the Vatican II conciliar document which deals with the Eastern Rites, only uses the adjective "Roman" in reference to the Roman Pontiff.
The Code of Canon Law also uses the term "Roman" basically to refer to the Roman Pontiff, Roman Curia, Roman See/Roman Church (here referring to the particular Church of the Diocese of Rome), and once the "Roman Synod" of Vatican II in the introduction.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church mentions the term Roman to refer to:

The Roman Catechism, created under the orders of the Conciliar Fathers of the Council of Trent, a predecessor to the modern CCC;
The Roman Rite, which is the Latin Rite developed in the City of Rome itself, as opposed to the Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Gallican, Dominican, Carthusian, and other Rites and Uses in the Latin family both past and present (see Paragraph 1203);
The Roman Missal, Roman Canon, and Roman Liturgy, the books, prayers and liturgy which the Roman Rite makes use of.

In all cases, these documents avoid the use of the term "Roman Catholic", which is in any case a term born of the interplay between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches, in order to emphasize (either positively or negatively) the communion with the Bishop of Rome. In this sense, the Eastern Rites are Roman due to communion, but not Roman due to liturgy. Since the term is thus ambiguous, we're better off avoiding it for more precise terminology.


What does "two becoming one flesh" refer to? In the Bible, when it refers to “two becoming one flesh”, does it mean that

the physical act of sex creates a position where both bodies are connected?

or

the flesh (DNA) from the man and and the woman unite to form one flesh (a child derived from both father and mother)?

or

something else entirely?

St. Paul assumes the quote to be talking about the intercourse in 1 Kor 6, 16

  16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh"


I'm looking for a multilingual glossary of Christian/Bible terminology I'd like to have multilingual translations of key terminology used in Christian literature and/or Bible in a translation glossary format, including the same list of key terms ideally in Hebrew, Latin, Greek, English, German, French, Spanish, Arabic, and possibly Turkish.

Unfortunately this isn't going to be as easy as finding a good glossary. That's not to say that there aren't some good resources, but you're going to have to pull from several sources.

In the end when trying to do a good translation nothing will substitute for domain knowledge. In technical fields like engineering, a good glossary can be indispensable and a decent translator can get by translating outside of their own area of expertise just by knowing the language and having the right equivalents for technical terms. Softer sciences like philosophy and theology don't work quite that way.

In hard sciences the thing itself is usually fixed and hanging a term onto the thing gives everybody a handle to work from. When it comes to theology the terminology is often the most tangible thing we have to hang our ideas on and hence there are not always agreed upon terms for everything.

For historic language and contexts (such as Biblical Greek and Hebrew) this is somewhat mitigated by time, the amount of research brought to bear and the limited amount of material. Good lexicon's exist that can help you parse how a word might have been used in, for example, the Greek New Testament. These will help parse the word in a given context and list off other contexts for the same word and how it got used, helping to narrow down the range of semantic meanings an author at a given time in history might have meant. However they certainly aren't a translators panacea. Biblical authors often hijacked words to mean something specific in the context of what they were writing that might not have been familiar to even native speakers familiar with the word. Context is king here and hearing the author out in any nuances they build into a passage is the only way to pick an accurate translation into another language.

Moving into the realm of modern language, I would say there are two main categories of problems that make life rough on a translator.

Much of the terminology used inside in Christianity doesn't actually come from the Bible or some fixed authoritative reference source. Don't get me wrong, the ideas do (hopefully) stem from the Bible and are fixed, but the words we use don't necessary come from there.

A classic example of this would be the concept of the Trinity (Üçlübirlik), one God existing in three persons. The concept of one single divine being God revealing himself as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is spelled out in the Bible, but the word "trinity" itself is an invention because people needed some shorter hand way to refer to the concept than rattling off the Athanasian Creed every time the subject came up.

In general the Trinity is a pretty well defined term and even in Turkish you won't have a lot of trouble making it fit across translations. (I'm not saying the concept of the Trinity is easy, it's pretty much universally agreed that's a mystery we can't quite wrap our minds around, I'm only saying we happen to have an agreed upon handy term to refer to it.) You might run into trouble when you start describing the beliefs on non-Trinitarian groups. For example the heresy of modalism (God revealing him self in three different forms or as playing different roles rather than as three distinct persons) is easy enough to label in English (as are specific instances of it such as Sabellianism or Patripassianism) but you'll have a rough time when it comes to Turkish. The somewhat unoriginal import term modalizm exists but only people that have studied theology in a second language will know what it means. You have to explain it in context nearly every time (Bu üç kişisel öz, ne tek bir kişi tarafından oynanan üç ayrı roldür (yani modalizm), ne de bir küme içinde üç tanrıdır (yani triteizm)).

That one is hard even though there is a very precisely defined meaning because either the words don't exist or people are always trying to explain it away as something simpler than it is.
Different traditions often use the same words to mean different things.

Knowing and understanding the theological background of an author will make all the difference it accurately representing them in another language. Even very basic words like "faith" or "merit" are used in very different senses by Catholics than they are by Protestants. Without knowing that the fundamentals of how salvation is achieved are understood differently between these two traditions you might not pick up when those terms are used attached to wholly different concepts.

Another good example of this might be "justification". While both Protestants and Catholics use the term, they imply a quite different set of events. While in a purely Protestant context using aklanma to translate justification is almost certainly your best bet for most contexts with an occasional use for doğru kılınma, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't work very well at all to describe Catholic theology.

Other concepts will come with other problems. For example even inside of specific theological traditions such as Calvinism you will run into things like "limited atonement" (kısıtlı kefaret). Many people don't like this term. Largely the objection comes from other theological traditions where it doesn't fit inside their system and therefore seems to imply something they cannot accept, but even inside of Calvinism some authors prefer to use a different term emphasizing the positive aspect, for example "definite redemption" (belirli kurtuluş) is basically a synonym for limited atonement. Whether a given author actually means something  different by it or is just avoiding the negative imagery is something you'll have to pick out from context.

In short you've got your work cut out for you if you want to do a quality translation of a theological into any language. For Turkish the situation is even worse. Christianity has a very old history in Turkey, but it's current presence is very small and only in it's infancy. As a result theological terminology in the Turkish language is not well rooted or widely agreed upon. Many terms just don't exist. It's like a bad joke, but Christians are regularly stuck making up new words as handles for established ideas that Turkish just doesn't have established terminology for. To add make matters worse an overwhelming percentage of books that have been translated into Turkish come from a very narrow theological spectrum: mostly Pentecostal / Charismatic. If you want to learn what words they use for things there are plenty of books to read, but it won't give you a very broad picture of Christian theology or terminology usage. Those traditions in particular aren't even big on using language in concrete ways to define their beliefs, often their own beliefs only have names because other people name them for them.

I already mentioned that not all theological terminology is found in the Bible, but that is at least one starting point. There are two full Bible and five New Testament only translations available (all available on incil.info). Unfortunately the most accurate translation (Kitab-ı Makaddes) uses very dated language that most Christians in Turkey today are not using. The more modern translation (Yeni Çeviri) is a much more dynamic equivalent translation and is rather inconsistent in its own usage, often translating the same term different ways in different contexts for no particular reason other than it sounded better. This makes it hard to discern how terms are actually used. As a translator trying to compare the Turkish to Greek or even English I would recommend Thomas Cosmades's translation for the New Testament. It doesn't flow very well from a literary aspect but he was much more selective in trying to use verbs that were a good match for the Greek. For the Old Testament you're just out of luck. Hit me up off-site and I'll hook you up with answers.

For general usage of terms that are not directly from the Bible, what you really need is a good Systematic Theology that covers a whole bunch of topics and what terms are connected to what. Sadly this doesn't exist yet in Turkish either. Tho closest thing out there is going to be J.I. Packer's Concise Theology (Teolojiye Giriş). This has 94 short chapters on various topics covering a pretty broad range of theological ideas. The author is an Anglican but covers theology from a Reformed Protestant perspective. In the book he does get into differences between different perspectives so there is quite a variety of terminology. Get in touch with Via Christus Yayınları for a copy.

Full disclosure: I'm directly involved in Via Christus and oversee both the Bible site and the publishing house linked above. My own theological biases tend towards the Reformed Presbyterian end of things.


How many persons did create the world? In Genesis 1 it says "Let us.."
So how many persons have to be it at least? At least two or at least three?

The most common interpretation oft this is that God is referring to himself, the three-person Trinity making up one God.


Did the apostle James the Greater travel to Spain and was he martyred in Jerusalem? There are some legends that say that the apostle James the Greater (brother of John) traveled to the actual territory of Spain where he spread the Word. Also there are some accounts that place his final days in Jerusalem where he was martyred.

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

Whether or not James the Greater traveled to Spain is highly contested.

The entry on St. James the Greater in the Catholic Encyclopedia from newadvent.org lists some reasons why this is contested.

  With regard to the preaching of the Gospel in Spain by St. James the
  greater, several difficulties have been raised:

  St. James suffered martyrdom A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2), and, according to
  the tradition of the early Church, he had not yet left Jerusalem at
  this time (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VI; Apollonius, quoted
  by Eusebius, Church History VI.18).
  St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (A.D. 58) expressed the
  intention to visit Spain (Romans 15:24) just after he had mentioned
  (15:20) that he did not "build upon another man's foundation."
  The argument ex silentio: although the tradition that James founded
  an Apostolic see in Spain was current in the year 700, no certain
  mention of such tradition is to be found in the genuine writings of
  early writers nor in the early councils; the first certain mention we
  find in the ninth century, in Notker, a monk of St. Gall (Martyrol.,
  25 July), Walafried Strabo (Poema de XII Apost.), and others.
  The tradition was not unanimously admitted afterwards, while
  numerous    scholars reject it. The Bollandists however defended it
  (see Acta    Sanctorum, July, VI and VII, where other sources are
  given).

The fact that James the Greater was martyred in Jerusalem is pretty widely accepted since it is mentioned in the Bible.

  Acts 12:1-2 NIV
  1 It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to
  the church, intending to persecute them. 2 He had James, the brother
  of John, put to death with the sword.


According to theistic evolutionists, at what point did humans evolve enough to be considered special to God? Disclaimer - Even though my personal views are well-established, I'd like to point out that I am not out to make a point with this question, and I am absolutely not out to establish whether any specific perspective is true.  I am simply curious about this.  I know the atheistic views, I know the day-age theory, the gap theory, etc, but I've never heard an answer to this, good or bad.  I'd like to know what the answer is from those who genuinely hold this view.

Theistic Evolution defined from Wikipedia:

  Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is a concept that asserts
  that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the
  modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short,
  theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the
  creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within,
  and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that
  creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God
  employed to develop human life. According to the American Scientific
  Affiliation:

In general, most Christian teachings assert that the relationship between God and Man is unique, and different than the relationship between God and other animals.

Assuming that theistic evolution is a valid point of view (and I'm not arguing that it's not), are there any established teachings from any denomination or proponents that explain at what point we evolved enough to have a unique relationship with God?

Barring that, what characteristics had to be present in order to have said relationship?  The ability to speak?  Cognitive reasoning?

The Wikipeda article lists several denominations that hold a theistic evolutionary view.  I'd like answers/reasoning from any of those perspectives, or from any established organization that holds/defends this view.

My lay, minimally-researched Catholic understanding may not necessarily qualify, since Catholicism doesn't require a belief in evolution. But ... well, here I go:

In my understanding, it would be the first creature capable of bearing God's image. That is, it would be the first creature capable of love, but with freedom of will, and capable of contemplating the divine mysteries.

  The human person participates in the light and power of the divine
  Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of
  things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of
  directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection “in
  seeking and loving what is true and good.” (Catechism of the Catholic
  Church)

The whole chapter on The Dignity of the Human Person explains in great detail the aspects of being human make us "special" or "in his likeness." But, the summation, I think, is the capacity for Godly things.

And, perhaps more of a side note, another "qualification" for human "God likeness" would be a creature capable of dominating all other earthly creatures.

  Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our
  likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds
  of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the
  creatures that crawl on the earth. (Genesis
  1:26)

In any case, if you're after a particular point in time or creature to which we could say, here's the baby that broke the barrier, I'm not sure that's a wholly religious discussion. If we did venture such a guess, it would be whenever the anthropologists told us it was! But, I think the general criteria apply to both the creationist and evolutionist-leaning perspectives.


In Moses' time, would freeing a slave be harmful to the slave? Exodus 21:26 is about letting a slave go free if they are injured by their owner. This appears to be a good thing, but I'm also wondering if it would be detrimental to a slave to be freed when they have now lost an eye.

I guess I see slavery at that time as similar to employment of today.  The Hebrews were to treat their slaves well.  It's not really that different from having a job in today's world - except room and board was provided.  So would freeing a slave be like firing an employee, and then the former slave having to go find a new owner?

Am I entirely wrong in my understanding of this culture?

I am not an expert, but the way I understand it, Hebrews were permitted to take slaves as prisoners of war, or as indentured servants, however they were required to take good care of them and free them in the seventh year, sending them off with gifts. Generally speaking, if the Hebrews were rich enough to own the land and the slaves to work it, he was expected to be able to afford to send them with some livestock and food. Many of the workers in those days were day-laborers, travelling from farm to farm during the harvest seasons and working for the day, as the ones did in later centuries in Jesus'parable of the Prodigal son and the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard and the Generous Employer. Thus, a freed slave, set with some livestock and food to last a few days could continue to work, for money, for his old master or a new master, rather than sell himself back into slavery.


Is compatibilism compatible with the doctrine of the Catholic Church? My usual reasoning was that it was not on the basis that:

Determinism would entail predestination, which is rejected by the Catholic Church;
The alternative - quantum mind - is trickier, but:

To my intuition, true randomness entailed by quantum mechanics make it impossible for people to be responsible for their actions, which is necessary for the doctrine of sin;
Quantum brain is dubious at best anyway.

However, it should be noted that in spite of scientific arguments against incompatibilist free will, I can't see the Church vehemently opposing these arguments, hinting that the Church might not view the rejection of incompatibilist free will as a threat to its doctrine; which hints that compatibilism is, in fact, compatible with the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

What is the state of affairs?

The Catholic Church Rejects Determinism and Compatibilism

My argument for the Catholic rejection of Compatibilism is this: Compatibilism entails the rejection of Libertarian Free Will*, but Catholicism affirms Libertarian Free Will and rejects determinism, therefore Catholicism rejects Compatibilism.  Here is some support for the second premise, the Catholic affirmation of the commonsensical understanding of free will:

  Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act,
  to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own
  responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. (Catechism of
  the Catholic Church, 1731)

  Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands,
  prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. (Thomas Aquinas,
  Summa Theologiae, Ia, Q 83, A 1)

  Some have held that the human will is necessarily moved to choose
  things.  But they did not hold that the will is coerced, since only
  something from an external source, not everything necessary, is
  coerced.  And so also some necessary movements are natural but not
  coerced.  For what is coerced is as contrary to what is natural as to
  what is voluntary, since the source of both the natural and the
  voluntary is internal, and the source of what is coerced is external.

  But this opinion is heretical.  For it takes away the reason for merit
  and demerit in human acts, as it does not seem meritorious or
  demeritorious for persons to do necessarily what they could not avoid
  doing.

  It is also to be counted among the oddest philosophical opinions,
  since it is not only contrary to faith but also subverts all the
  principles of moral philosophy.  For if nothing is within our power,
  and we are necessarily moved to will things, deliberation,
  exhortation, precept, punishment, and praise and blame, of which moral
  philosophy consists, are destroyed.  And we call like opinions that
  destroy the foundations of parts of philosophy odd, as, for example,
  the position that nothing is moving, which destroys the foundations of
  natural science.  And some individuals were indeed led to hold such
  positions partly because of impudence, partly because of sophistical
  arguments that they could not refute, as the
  Metaphysics15 says.

  -Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones Disputatae de Malo, Q 6, A 1 (Tr. Richard Regan)

  Man was not weakened to the point where the moral life would be
  impossible for him: he still retained free will, understood as freedom
  from necessity: not only from aviolence or
  bconstraint, but also with respect to cthat
  necessity which was voluntary only in the original sin as its cause
  (Adam), 1939, 1941, 1952, a1966f., b2003,
  c2301; free will is useful not only with respect to sin,
  1927-1930, 1965, 2438-2440; the value of free will is defended against the affirmations: [It was totally adestroyed,
  bit is an empty concept, cit is an invention
  of Satan], a331, a336, a339,
  b1486, abc1555, 6245f.; cf. L 1b (contingent
  freedom, obliged to the good); L 1f (moral act).

  -Denzinger Enchiridion, Systematic Index D 2bc

  The consciousness of freedom and human dignity as important
  characteristics of our time, 4750; cf. C 4kc (contemporary changes);
  the value of freedom promises an advance of man toward perfection,
  4505; cf. C 4ie (progress).

  Man also possesses freedom in the state of fallen nature: D 2bc
  (effect of original sin); if there were a fated necessity, it would
  suppress the responsible character of human actions such as reward and
  punishment, 283.

  Because of free will, man is autonomous and can act freely, 4752;
  freedom confers on him the dignity of having power over his actions,
  3245, 4752; his dignity demands that he act by a free and conscious
  choice, that is, personally, 4317; only in freedom can man direct
  himself toward the good, 4317; he is obliged to observe God's
  commandments through free will, 227, 245; freedom as an intrinsic
  attribute of the human person, 4765; vocation of man to full freedom,
  (4752), 4815; even if it is limited by circumstances, freedom is not
  entirely suppressed, 4754; cf. L 1b (contingent freedom, obliged to
  the good); L 1f (moral act).

  -Denzinger Enchiridion, Systematic Index C 4fc

It is perhaps worth noting that the Catholic position on issues such as these is inevitably nuanced and robust.  For example, philosophically and theologically it would be more common to say--rather than what you said in your question--, "Predestination would entail Determinism, which is rejected by the Catholic Church."  And yet the Catholic Church does not deny predestination, for She does not believe predestination to entail determinism.

*Libertarian Free Will can be a rabbit hole in philosophical discourse, but I am using it in a very simple and common way.  By the term I mean that commonsensical free will exists, humans have the ability to do otherwise, and determinism is false.  The ability to do otherwise means that if I chose A then I could have chosen B.

(Quoting from Denzinger's Systematic Index carries with it the danger of confusion, and yet I think it is warranted due to its comprehensiveness.  Each of the references from the SI points to a different Catholic dogma or doctrine promulgated at some point in the past 2,000 years.)


How is it possible to have a high view of the authority of the Bible and a positive view of textual criticism? I know not all people will have the view that is programmed into the question. But for someone who does, or who understands someone who does, how would you answer this?

Perhaps another way to answer the OP is to say that it is based on a false contrast. As an analogy, consider the following sentences:

  Jazz is the best kind of music and country is the best kind of music.
  Jazz is the best kind of music and the trumpet is the best instrument.

In the first sentence there is a contradiction because the contradictory opinions relate to the same category. But in the second sentence there is no contradiction because the categories are not the same. A musical style is not identical to a musical instrument.

In the same way, textual criticism and authority are not the same category. Textual criticism answers the question, "What is the correct content of the original document?" Authority answers the question, "Is this document one which I should accept as true and normative?" Two different questions.

A simple illustration may assist. The apocrypha are a set of inter-testamental writings that are accepted as authoritative by some but not all sections of the Christian church. A Catholic may accept 1 Maccabees as part of his authoritative bible; a Baptist may not. But both of them, if they choose to read 1 Maccabees, would want to read the most accurate version of that text that is available. The debate over the authority of 1 Maccabees is based on different grounds than the mere determination of the text.


Do Christians need to keep the 10 commandments? I have read different opinions. Do Christians need to keep the 10 commandments as explained in Exodus 20? Some people say we only have to keep the two commandments that Jesus said "To love God", "To love your neighbor", others mention that we should keep the 10 commandments, as even James mentions some of them in his letter.

From the 10 commandments the only one I see that Christians don't really do is the 4th, but also the other 9 could be said to be kept if you keep the two commandments that Jesus said. Any thoughts? Thanks!

The answer to this question depends on which broad system you accept when reading the Bible.

Those systems that see a sharp discontinuity between Old and New Testament (e.g., Dispensationalism, New Covenant Theology, Progressive Covenantalism) will say something like, "The Old Testament laws are done away with in the different era of the New Covenant," or "The OT laws are fulfilled by Christ, who has given us a new, higher ethic." This ethic usually includes nine of the Ten Commandments, excluding the sabbath.

Those systems that see more continuity between Old and New Covenants (usually labeled Covenant Theology as a group) will see continuing applicability of some or all of the OT laws. The approach of John Calvin and the Westminster Standards, two prominent representatives of this group, is to classify laws as moral, ceremonial, or civil, where the moral laws are still in effect but the ceremonial and civil have been fulfilled and abrogated in Christ. (Among the Ten Commandments, the sabbath alone is classified as a ceremonial law and no longer in effect.† The others still hold.) Other mainstream Covenant Theologians hold that all the OT laws are still in effect but apply in different ways (see here and here on the sabbath in particular). While Theonomists and Christian Reconstructionists hold that the whole law is still binding and in effect today.

If you accept one of these over-arching frameworks as the most persuasive, then you have implicitly answered the question, "Do Christians need to keep the Ten Commandments?"

† Calvin says, "[The Fourth Commandment] was a ceremonial precept, Paul clearly teaches, calling it a shadow of these things, the body of which is only Christ. (Colossians 2:17.) But if the outward rest was nothing but a ceremony, the substance of which must be sought in Christ, it now remains to be considered how Christ actually exhibited what was then prefigured...."


Who was the first Church Father to argue for executing heretics? When was it first said in Christianity by a church leader that heretics must be put to death? Who came up with this idea and presented it?

Technically, the first ecclesiastical authority to say that heretics should be persecuted was Pope Gregory IX in 1229.  The first Church Father to say that heretics should be compelled to recant would be Augustine around 400 AD.
The first heretic actually put to death (385AD) was killed by the Emperor - and the Pope was very annoyed at the development. It wasn't for another 800 years that the church followed suit.

That said...
The church typically did not execute heretics. Rather, the state, sometimes at the behest of the church or other times of a monarch desiring no discord amongst his subjects, would carry out such persecution and executions.
The earliest Christian heretics were not put to death by the Church, but rather by the Roman Empire. Note for example, the first "heretic" to be executed - Priscillian - was put to death not by the church, but rather the state.  Furthermore, those responsible for getting the state to put him to death were subsequently excommunicated by the Pope for their actions.
Per this article:

The first person to define what heresy was Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (2nd Century).  He simply warned about the dangers of a multitude of opinions on how God works.

The first person to make heresy a crime was Emporer Constantine (320s).  He made the assembling of heretics an offense, the penalty of which was the confiscation of property.

In 380 AD under the Christian Emperor Theodosius I laid down the rule that only the Catholic Christians could define orthodoxy within the confines of the Roman Empire. As noted already, it was under his reign that the first heretic was put to death.

Augustine (AD 354-430) taught that error has no rights. He cited biblical texts, notably Luke 14:16-23, to justify the use of compulsion

Emperor Justinian issued severe laws against heretics in AD 527 and 528. (It should be noted, this was in the aftermath of a severe series of riots that left thousands dead.)

Pope Paschal II (Pope from 1099 and 1118) was the first to say that anyone who disagreed with the apostolic see was a heretic.

Pope Innocent III (1199) was the first to declare heresy to be high treason against God, having already called for the execution of those who persisted in their heresies after being excommunicated.

It was not until 1229 that Pope Gregory IX declared that it is the duty of every Catholic to persecute heretics.

From Justinian:

"Henceforth those who dissented from the authorised line were debarred from public office, forbidden to practice certain professions, prohibited from holding meetings, and denied the civil rights of a Roman Citizen. For them, said Justinian "to exist is sufficient" - for the time being. In the middle of the fifth century Pope Leo the Great commended the Emperor for torturing and executing heretics on behalf of the Church."

Per Wikipedia on heresy:

The first known usage of the term heresy in a legal context was in AD 380 by the Edict of Thessalonica of Theodosius I,[12] which made Christianity the state church of the Roman Empire. Prior to the issuance of this edict, the church had no state-sponsored support for any particular legal mechanism to counter what it perceived as "heresy". By this edict the state's authority and that of the Catholic Church became somewhat overlapping. One of the outcomes of this blurring of church and state was the sharing of state powers of legal enforcement with church authorities. This reinforcement of the church's authority gave church leaders the power to, in effect, pronounce the death sentence upon those whom the church considered heretical.
Within five years of the official criminalization of heresy by the Emperor, the first Christian heretic to be prosecuted, Bishop Priscillian, was executed in 385 by Roman officials.
However, his accusers were excommunicated both by Ambrose of Milan and Pope Siricius.[13] For some years after the Reformation, Protestant churches were also known to execute those they considered heretics, including Catholics. The last known heretic executed by sentence of the Roman Catholic Church was Cayetano Ripoll in 1826. The number of people executed as heretics under the authority of the various "ecclesiastical authorities"[note 1] is not known.[note 2]
NOTE 2: ^ Only very fragmentary records have been found of the executions carried out under Christian "heresy laws" during the first millennium. Somewhat more complete records of such executions can be found for the second millennium. To estimate the total number of executions carried out under various Christian "heresy laws" from 385 AD until the last official Roman Catholic "heresy execution" in 1826 AD would require far more complete historical documentation than is currently available. The Roman Catholic Church by no means had a monopoly on the execution of heretics. The charge of heresy was a weapon that could fit many hands. A century and a half after heresy was made a state crime, the Vandals(a heretical Christian Germanic tribe), used the law to prosecute thousands of (orthodox) Catholics with penalties of torture, mutilation, slavery and banishment.[14] The Vandals were overthrown; orthodoxy was restored; "No toleration whatsoever was to be granted to heretics or schismatics."[15] Heretics were not the only casualties. 4000 Roman soldiers were killed by heretical peasants in one campaign.[16] Some lists of heretics and heresies are available. Thousands were burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Inquisition, which lasted for nearly seven centuries.[17] From time to time, heretics were burned at the stake by an enraged local populace, in a certain type of "vigilante justice" , without the official participation of the Church or State.[18] Religious Wars slaughtered millions. During these wars, the charge of "heresy" was often leveled by one side against another as a sort of propaganda or rationalization for the undertaking of such wars.


What do the Amish believe with respect to Creationism? I realize there are numerous denominations of the Amish, but I'm wondering whether any or all of them believe in the literal, six-day creation and a six-thousand-year-old earth. I've looked in many places but haven't found anything definitive.

I'm Amish -- sort of.* You are correct that there is a lot of variation within the Amish tradition (and even more if you include Mennonites, another branch of the Anabaptist heritage), so I can't speak for all. However, I think I'd be fairly safe to say that many, if not most, of us believe generally in a young earth and a literal six-day creation.

Historically, the issue was not a major focus, especially since Amish and conservative Mennonite involvement in higher education was (and still is) fairly limited. However, even the Amish and Mennonites have been influenced by fundamentalism, with its insistence on Biblical literalism and rejection of "modernism." Organizations like Answers in Genesis have had a large influence on many conservative Anabaptists.

...

*
I'm a member of the Beachy Amish-Mennonites, an offshoot of the Amish.  There is quite a bit of variation within the "Beachys" as well, but we all have cars and electricity and phones. Many of us utilize the internet regularly and live fairly normal American lives, while still maintaining some degree of distinctive dress and lifestyle. (The Mennonite Encyclopedia Online has more about our history and name, while this very unofficial but fairly informative site has some pictures, FAQs, and more.


Anathemas concerning the soul In pre-search-engine days, I once found a volume in the library that documented the outcomes of many church councils.  At the time, I was particularly interested in the doctrine of the soul, and I seem to recall finding several relevant pronouncements, e.g., one that said that if anyone says that the soul has parts, or is divisible, let him be anathema.

Unfortunately, I do not recall which book it was where I read this, and Googling around has proved frustratingly ineffective.  Does anyone recognize what I'm talking about?  Where can I find a list of official or semi-official documents pertaining to the doctrine of the soul?

I am not sure what you mean by "semi-official", but here are some writings of the Church Fathers that may be of interest:

John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, II.12
Gregory of Nyssa, On the Soul and the Resurrection
Anathasius the Great, Against the Heathen, II.30-34
Gregory Palamas, Philokalia, Vol. 4
Diadochus of Photike, Philokalia, Vol. 1

The first three references can be found at CCEL.

I don't think that any anathema would have been issued against a doctrine of the soul having parts, as that is stated clearly in some of the above (e.g. that the spirit is the higher part of the soul).  Origen was anathematized for professing the pre-existence of souls, but that doesn't sound like what you recall.


Why don't creationists teach a literal firmament anymore? People don't seem to believe in the firmament as a literal barrier of water up in the sky that collapsed at Noah's flood. I want to say they don't believe in the firmament anymore, but I am doubtful most creationists did. Why? Is it because it is too fantastical?

The problem is that such a notion seems to correlate with Genesis and seems to make a lot of other considerations more swallowable, such as the feasibility of centuries old lifespan, adequate conditions to sustain large animal life (dinosaurs, etc), and adequate water for a sudden flood. The only "scientific" model I've heard, coming from Dr Carl Baugh, asserts that waters from the deep under the earth came up and cracked open the firmament; his model is the only creation model that solves so many fundamental problems for creationism I am literally, truly perplexed as to how his model has been seemingly abandoned by the creationist community. I know of no direct arguments against this sort of firmament, except only alternative interpretations of its mention in Genesis. What am I missing?

--

It is the "canopy theory", I believe, that I had in mind in posting the question. My own only exposure to this was from a presentation by Dr Carl Baugh and by reading his old book, Panorama of Creation. I have had difficulty finding anyone endorsing his model, and his model is the only one that answers several questions. My frustration comes out of watching modern depictions via illustrations, 3D graphics, and simulated film artwork, attempting to use fine detail to tell what Genesis earth was like but not filling in these gaps. Blue skies, clouds, rainbows, all post-Noah, all completely against Baugh's model. Does it matter? In an age when modern illustrations like Hollywood are referenced in dialogue with apologetics and truth seekers, yes, I believe so.

People don't seem to believe in the firmament as a literal barrier of
  water up in the sky that collapsed at Noah's flood.

The answer to this is amazingly simple.

Many Young-Earth Creationists believe that there was a layer of water of some form (ice, water, other possibilities) in the upper atmosphere, or in space, surrounding the earth AND Young-Earth Creationists believe that there is a Firmament.

However, almost none believe that the Firmament is a solid layer of water because YEC-ers have a hyper-literal understanding of the Genesis account.  And...

It's impossible to get the idea that the firmament is a solid layer of water from the Genesis account.

That's the answer.  Here's the explanation:

From Genesis 1 (KJV)

  6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,
  and let it divide the waters from the waters.

  7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under
  the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it
  was so.

  8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning
  were the second day.

Jumping down to verse 20:

  20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
  creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the
  open firmament of heaven.

The Firmament is the place between the waters - it divides the waters above from below.  It's not a solid layer of water, it's the space between the waters.  It's where the birds fly.  It'd be a bit hard for birds to fly in a solid layer.

So, again, the reason Young Earth Creationists don't teach that the firmament is a solid layer of water is that YEC-ers are very literal in the interpretation of Genesis (by definition) and there's absolutely no way to get the idea that the firmament is a solid layer of water from the text.

The idea, however, that the layer of water (in whatever form it took) was part of the source of water for the flood (along with the fountains of the deep) is pretty common among Young-Earth creationists, however, and is taught widely.

Details on the nature of the waters vary. Some say clouds or water vapors.  Others think a layer of ice in the upper atmosphere or in space. There's not much agreement on what form it took, but it is widely believed to have existed in some form.


What Biblical basis supports the idea that questions and answers about Christianity could be sinful? I am pretty sure that within biblical language, knowledge and holiness can't be separated from each other. Even in Greek thought this was the case, the logos was moral not just intellectual. The rational and the moral are one.  However, in the world today, an idea is seen as often separate from a moral state or inclination, and questions are (almost always) good.

When trying to determine when it is holy to ask and answer questions, what biblical framework or basis supports a possible answer.

I'm going to start by being slightly off-topic for answering your question and then swing around to tie your question in.  And I'm going to stick to well-known Scriptural principles, so unless someone demands it, I'm going to omit the Scripture quotes that I would normally include, in the interest of keeping this shorter than my usual answer.

A good first question is "Is it sinful to question God?"  Since many questions about Christianity are basically questioning the truthfulness of God's word.

Before I get into the rest: An analogy

Driving a car is not illegal.  Hitting an unexpected patch of ice, and sliding into another vehicle, killing passengers in either car is unfortunate, but not illegal.  (Unless you are drinking, or the accident was caused by breaking other laws like speeding, negligence, cell-phone use while driving, etc.)  However, using a car to intentionally kill someone is.

The point of the example above is that driving the vehicle isn't the crime.  The vehicle is the tool to commit the crime.  Likewise, questions can be tools used to commit sins.

Scripturally, it's quite easy to show that questioning God in and of itself isn't sinful.  Job questioned God repeatedly.  David questioned Him.  Even Jesus questioned God the Father.  "Why have you forsaken me?"

However, there are several things that are undeniably considered sins that are acheived via asking questions:

Justifying your sin, or tempting others to sin by asking "Did God really say that"

Genesis 3:3: 3 "And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

Using questions to mock God.  (Your average refute-this atheist question that tries to show us that the whole idea of Christianity is stupid because God is a figment of our imagination, for example."

I'm sure there are more that I could list and think of, but the principle is pretty basic:  Questioning God isn't sinful in and of itself, but if your question is being used to deny, defy, or mock God, it is.

Likewise, an honest question seeking an answer, to clarify a point, or even to clarify a point that you understand, in order to help educate others about the Truth of God wouldn't be sinful.

Applied to Christianity as a whole, it's easy to see, as there are dozens of examples even on this site, it's easy to ask questions about Christianity where the sole purpose is to mock God, or deny/defy Him.  In that context, asking questions and answers about Christianity in general can be sinful.  But questions and answers that are honestly seeking would not be.


What is the purpose of minor basilicas? What is the purpose of minor basilicas? What is the difference between them and a normal cathedral? As far as I can tell its purely ceremonial. If that is true, what aren't all cathedrals designated basilicas? Is it just a tradition to have hierarchy of cathedrals?

A cathedral is the seat of the diocese, where the bishop conducts mass.

Cathedrals are given the precedence of the diocese: more important or influential dioceses have more precedence, with the Diocese of Rome (the seat of the Pope) having the highest precedence. Like getting a particularly influential ambassadorship or corporate title, it's a mark of honor to be assigned to a diocese with higher precedence.

One thing to keep in mind is that there is no higher ecclesiastical rank than bishop: even the Pope is a bishop. But as with most bodies of equals there is a pecking order, as it were: the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) is essentially the first among equals. The precedence of the bishops and their diocese is meant to provide some amount of order and structure to a large number of bishops.

If you're familiar with the United States Senate, another way to look at it is how seniority is established there. Even though they're both duly elected senators, Sen. Chuck Schumer has more seniority and influence than Sen. Kirsten Gillabrand.

A minor basilica is the formal designation of a church that is more notable than regular churches, but does not act as the seat of any bishop.

The purpose of designating a church a minor basilica is the recognize the historic nature and importance of the church; essentially it's an honorific that can be bestowed for a variety of reasons as long as the church has demonstrated its notability or magnificence to the Sacred Congregation of Rites. Robert F. McNamara mentions a few different ways a church can do that:

  The petition must show that the church in question is ancient, at least in a relative sense. Or if it has not the dignity of age, it must at least be truly "basilican," that is, "regal" in character. It must, of course, be a permanent church, and solemnly consecrated; and it must be large, spacious, and rich in its appointments. From a devotional standpoint, it must be in some way or other a notable religious center. If it is a shrine by reason of its possession of the body of a saint, so much the better. If it is not distinguished for its relics, it should at least be distinguished for its paintings, images, etc. The staff of the church should be large enough to permit the frequent and splendid performance of solemn rites. All this implies that it should have an ample and stable income; and, as a matter of fact, the Congregation insists that it be informed of the source of the income. In addition to satisfying the Roman authorities on these points, the bishop is requested to send along books or pamphlets containing a description of the exterior and interior of the church, together with photographs.

Because of its notability, minor basilicas have higher precedence than other churches, but they are outside of the cathedral hierarchy: a basilica that is not also a cathedral is not given precedence over a diocese's cathedral.

For the sake of completion, there's also the major basilicas, also known as the Papal basilicas, of which there are four (all in Rome):

Basilica of St. John Lateran
St. Peter's Basilica
Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls
Basilica of St. Mary Major

These are given the highest precedence, and only the Holy Father and his delegates are allowed to conduct mass in them.


Sons of Belial in 1 Kings 21-10 In 1 Kings 21-10 (KJB) you can read

  And set two men, sons of Belial, before him, to bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst blaspheme God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he may die.

I've seen many translations that use "wicked men" or similar phrases, but there are many other translations that use "sons of Belial" too.

Who were these men? Do we know of some kind of priest that was under the allegiance of Belial in the times of Ahab and Jezebel?

There are two other occurrences of this phrase:

Deuteronomy 13:13

  Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

and

Judges 19:22

  Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

Thanks for your responses and God bless you.

I found an article that explains the meaning of the name Belial and the use of the expression "sons of Belial" in the Old Testament.

  Belial is a compound word, believed to have been taken from the Hebrew beliy, meaning “not,” and ya'al, meaning “profit” or “benefit.” It is used twenty-six times in the Old Testament, usually translated as “worthless” in the New American Standard Bible, but also as “base,” “destruction,” “rascally,” and “wicked.” In the earlier books of the Old Testament, when describing a wicked person, the King James sometimes uses “son of Belial” (or “daughter,” “man,” or “people” of Belial). Like many other uses of the term son of, the expression “son of Belial” doesn’t imply that Belial is a real person who fathers children; rather, it’s a description of people characterized by worthlessness or corruption.

The article goes on to explore the name as used in Jewish literature and, more recently, the suggestion Belial is a demon.  The article concludes:

  In Scripture, Belial was used to personify wickedness and worthlessness. The only time the word is used to identify a person is 2 Corinthians 6:15, where the name is applied to Satan. There is no indication from Scripture that Belial is the proper name of a specific demon.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/who-Belial.html

I hope this information is helpful to you.


Why was God so upset with Moses for striking the rock the second time in the desert? In Exodus, God commands Moses to strike a rock, and promises to make water flow in the desert for the people.

  Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you
  shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people
  will drink.” And Moses did so, in the sight of the elders of Israel.
  (Exodus 17:6 ESV)

Later on, God tells Moses to speak to a rock, promising to make water flow in the desert again.  However, Moses strikes the rock again instead of speaking to it.  Because of just this one thing, God tells Moses that he will no longer be permitted bring the people into the Promised Land.

  “Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your
  brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water.
  So you shall bring water out of the rock for them and give drink to
  the congregation and their cattle.” 9 And Moses took the staff from
  before the Lord, as he commanded him. 10 Then Moses and Aaron gathered
  the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, “Hear now,
  you rebels: shall we bring water for you out of this rock?” 11 And
  Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice,
  and water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their
  livestock. 12 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did
  not believe in me, to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of
  Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land
  that I have given them.” (Numbers 20:8-12 ESV, emphasis added)

Why was the punishment so harsh for what seems like a small infraction?  Was there something greater or more symbolic going on here?

Like the forefathers of those who eventually ended up in the Promised Land, Moses's problem was that he failed to trust in God. In chapter 12 of Numbers, Aaron and Miriam oppose Moses as  God's messenger and their leader. As a result, they also are refused entry to the land (by death, like Moses).

Moses' problem wasn't that he misinterpreted God or thought that since he'd hit the rock before that it was okay to do it again. Rather, Moses was utterly rejecting God and trying to take control.

Moses was violent. He struck the rock twice when God just said to speak to it.
Moses was usurping God's place. He said to the people, "hear now, you rebels: shall we bring water for you out of this rock?" The emphasis is technically mine, but it was already there. Moses didn't say "God will bring water out of this rock for you." He (with Aaron, evidently) took God's place and assured them that he would do it for them.

Verse 12 is pretty revealing as to the nature of Moses's crime:

  "Because you did not believe in me," (emphasis mine)

Moses totally failed to trust God for the life-supplying water. He tried to take matters into his own hands. He was supposed the be the leader, but also the servant of God. He tried to usurp God's place.

Additionally, I think there might be some symbolism to the rock. Back in Exodus 17, God tells Moses

  "Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock at Horeb, and you
  shall strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people
  will drink" Ex. 17:6

To quote my study bible notes on this, "An astonishing statement. In this trial God takes the place of the accused, standing in the dock."

1 Corinthians 10:4 explains that "the Rock was Christ." In striking the Rock, Moses was striking God for the people. Christ was punished for the nourishment of his people.

Back to Numbers, it seems that maybe the situation is similar here. God has provided a rock (Christ) that will bring forth water (salvation) for his people.  This is somewhat speculative, but it seems that this time, Moses is in the position of the people. He's supposed to ask God for salvation, to request the water from the rock. But instead, he takes up his previous position as judge, and strikes the rock (Christ). Before, he was commanded to. This time, he willingly strikes his Savior.

It's interesting to note, in support of that theory, that the Hebrew word used for "strike"  is the same in both cases (link), and the words for rock are quite similar (Numbers word & Exodus. word)

Ultimately of course, it's because Moses did not believe that God could bring the water out of the rock, and hit it himself. (perhaps he was trying to knock loose rocks to open up a stream, or he thought that his staff held some special Mosaic power - either way, he thought he was the key to the equation)

I used my study bible a good deal on this one, the ESV Reformation Study Bible by Ligonier


What is the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God? What is an overview of the practices, doctrines, and goals of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God that distinguish it from other Evangelical and Pentecostal groups active in Latin America?

It's a charismatic denomination that has been founded in Brazil, in 1977. Its current leader is the bishop Edir Macedo, founder of this denomination. They affirm to have an orthodox doctrine, Bible-based stance (but close to Pentecostals), but in practice they sell miracles and healings, and the "power" of the Holy Ghost to perform those manifestations (like Simon the Magician, who has been baptised and then rebuked by the Apostle Peter because Simon offered money to buy the gift of the Holy Spirit, according to Acts 8:18-24). In some parts of Latin America (or all), this church is known as "Pare de sufrir" ("Stop suffering"). The orthodox Christianity, especially the most-conservative group, agrees that this church is heretic, counted as a sect or cult.

Important info about "Pare de sufrir", in Spanish


According to Catholicism, why was Adam alone given the charge of naming the animals and birds? Genesis 2:18–20 (NRSVCE) says:

  "Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.”   So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.   The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every animal of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper as his partner."

One feels that the ritual of naming the animals and birds could have taken place after the creation of Eve so that Adam would have had someone to consult with. My qustion is: Why did God entrust the duty of naming the animals and birds only to Adam? What do the teachings of the Catholic Church say on the subject?

From St. Augustine's Two Books on Genesis Against the Manichees, bk. 2, pp. 111-12:

CHAPTER 11
Man's Work in Paradise and Woman IsMade As His Helper

Although man was placed in paradise so as to work and guard it, [Gen. 2:15] that praiseworthy work was not toilsome. For the work in paradise is quite different from the work on the earth to which he was condemned after the sin. The addition "and to guard it" indicated the sort of work it was. For in the tranquility of the happy life, where there is no death, the only work is to guard what you possess. He also receives the command that we have already dealt with above.  This command ends so that it is not addressing one person, for it says, "On the day that you eat, you shall die the death." [Gen. 2:17] Hence, Scripture begins to explain how the woman was made. It says that she was made as man's helper so that by spiritual union she might bring forth spiritual offspring, that is, the good works of divine praise, while he rules and she obeys. He is ruled by wisdom, she by the man. For Christ is the head of the man, and the man is the head of the woman. [1 Cor. 11:3] Thus it said, "It is not good that man is alone." [Gen. 2:18] For there was still need to bring it about not only that the soul rule over the body, because the body has the position of a servant, but also that virile reason hold subject to itself its animal part, by the help of which it governs the body. The woman was made as an illustration of this, for the order of things makes her subject to man. Thus we can also come to see in one human what we can see more clearly in two humans, that is, in the male and the female. The interior mind, like virile reason, should hold subject the soul's appetite by means of which we control the members of the body, and by just law it should place a limit upon its helper, just as man ought to rule woman and ought not to allow her to rule him. When this happens, the home is perverted and unhappy.

Hence, God first showed man how much better he was than the cattle and all irrational animals, and this is signified by the statement that all the animals were brought to him that he might see what he would call them and give them names. [Gen. 2:19-20] This shows that man is better than the animals in virtue of reason, since only reason which judges concerning them is able to distinguish and know them by name. This latter idea is an easy one to grasp, for man quickly understands that he is better than the cattle. The former idea is a difficult one to grasp, namely, that by which he understands that the rational part in him that rules is distinct from the animal part which is ruled.

Thus, according to St. Augustine, Adam named the animals to show that he is distinct from and superior to them (having an intellect, unlike them) and that he is to rule them, just as his soul is distinct from and superior to his body, which must be subjected to reason. Similarly, man must rule woman and not let woman overrule him.


Catholic Equivalent of Systematic Theology Books I am looking for the “textbook” that catholic priests use when they are learning to become priests. A comprehensive book that covers everything Something like the systematic theology books that protestants study from in seminary.

Are there any catholic priests that can share what textbook they used? (Other than the bible of course)

Thank you.

St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica
The Summa Theologica* of St. Thomas Aquinas (✝1274) is the best "systematic theology†" work, as it summarizes and consolidates  all theology (sacra doctrina, "sacred doctrine") into a coherent whole. The Summa, rejected by Luther and Calvin, has great authority for Catholics and was placed on the altar alongside Holy Scriptures at the Council of Trent. Every pope since St. Thomas's time has endorsed his work, and even today Canon Law (can. 252 §3) requires that seminarians “are to learn to penetrate more intimately the mysteries of salvation, especially with St. Thomas as a teacher.” (cf. 1917 can. 1366 §2).
*cf. Thom's answer here†"Systematic theology" (theologia systematica) was coined c. 1635; Catholics use the term "dogmatic theology."
Here are some testimonies of the Summa:

St. Robert Bellarmine similarly speaks of St. Thomas in the introduction of his treatise on the Holy Trinity:

Certainly, if everyone proposes with such order, facility, and brevity to us, as I venture to affirm, that he who diligently studies a few of St. Thomas’s questions finds nothing difficult either in Scriptures, the Councils, or the future Fathers of the Trinity; he will make more all-around progress in two months devoted to the Summa than in several months’ study of the Scriptures and the Fathers.

Pope John XXII also said:

He (St. Thomas) has illuminated the Church more than all the other Doctors; to read his books for a year profits man more than to study the doctrine of others for his whole life.

Theological Manuals
Catholic seminarians use theological manuals based on St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa. Dozens have been published in the 20th century alone with titles like:

De Beatissima Virgine Maria Matre Dei (On the Holy Virgin Mary Mother of God)
De Deo Trino (On the Trinity)
De Deo Uno (On the One God)
De Ecclesia (On the Church)
De Gratia (On Grace)
De Peccato Originali (On Original Sin)
De Revelatione (On Revelation)
De Rubricis Missalis Romanis (On the Rubrics of the Roman Missal / liturgics)
De Sacramentis (On the Sacraments)
De Verbo Incarnato et Redemptore (On the Word Incarnate and Redeemer)
De Virtutibus (On the Virtues)
Jus Canonicum (Canon Law)
Theologia Ascetica et Mystica (Ascetical and Mystical Theology)
Theologia Moralis (Moral Theology)
Theologia Pastoralis (Pastoral Theology)

See the curriculum for this seminary. Many of its works are available online for download. Ludwig Ott's Fundemantals of Catholic Dogma and Pohle-Preuss's dogmatic theology series are some popular ones that have been translated into English.


According to Jehovah’s Witnesses what does the name Immanuel mean in light of their belief that Jesus is a created being and not God? This article goes on to say,

Without accurate knowledge, we may become ensnared by false teachings promoted by God's opposer, Satan the Devil. Therefore, if a doctrine contradicts God's Word, if it is a lie, then believing it and teaching it discredits Jehovah and brings us into opposition to him. So we need to examine the Scriptures carefully to distinguish truth from falsehood.

They quote Acts 17:11.

Now these were more noble minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things are true.

The Apostle Paul is telling us to check out what people say as it relates to the Bible to see if what they are saying conforms to what the Scriptures say and teach. (Acts 17:11).
Again, I could not agree more.
The Jehovah Witnesses teach in their NWT of the Bible that Jesus Christ is "a god" at John 1:1.
At Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy

 Therefore, Jehovah himself will give you a sign: Look! The young woman* will become pregnant and will give birth to a son,+ and she will name him Im·manʹu·el

(Immanuel meaning literally "God" or "Jehovah with us." since Jehovah is the only God).
The Apostle Matthew at Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14,

 “Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will name him Im·manʹu·el,”+ which means, when translated, “With Us Is God.”+

Isaiah also says at Isaiah 43:10-11,

"You are My witnesses, declares the Lord, And my servant whom I have chosen, In order that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He, Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. vs11, "I, even I, am the Lord; and there is no savior besides Me."

I believe since  there is no other God except for Jehovah, which even the Jehovah Witnesses attest too, that Jesus Christ and God the Father are one and the same being who are equal in nature/essence, power and eternal yet distinct in persons.
Then there is Isaiah 9:6

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

The Son, Jesus Christ in this verse is identified as "Mighty God."
Isaiah 10:21 says,

Only a remnant will return,

The remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God.+

Also Jeremiah 32:18.

O great and mighty God, The Lord of hosts is His name."

Obviously there cannot be two mighty Gods because for the Witnesses there is only one true God as Isaiah 45:22 and of course John 17:3 inform us.
Which viewpoint of "ACCURATE" knowledge of God and His Son does not contradict God's word?
Is it Matthew 1:23 which says
“God with us?"
Or is it John 1:1 in the NWT that teaches "a god" is with us in the form of a created creature known as Jesus Christ and His role as Michael the arc-angel?

The name Im·manʹu·el means "With Us Is God", and Jehovahs Witneses (JWs) believe that is the translation of that name it-1 pp. 1187-1189.
Not necessarily everyone with that name is a god, but we also consider the meaning of the name to be true in the case of Jesus. Jesus is a God, but we do not consider him to be equal or the same as Jehovah or Yahweh. (To avoid any confusion about where Lord refers to Jesus and where it refers to Jehovah i will use the ASV here.)

Isaiah 43:10-11 10 Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant
whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand
that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there
be after me. 11I, even I, am Jehovah; and besides me there is no
saviour. (ASV)

We believe that the titles mentioned in Isaiah 9:6: “His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace" all apply to Jesus. Note that it was not written almighty God, and note that a prince is typically defined as a son of the king.
The "mighty" god in Isaiah 9:6 is a translation of 'El Gib·bohr' not of 'El Shad·dai' (Almighty). We there fore do not consider the word mighty, or the combination 'mighty god' to have the necessity to be uniquely used for Jehovah God, although it can also be used for Jehovah God. More information about what JW's believe about the difference between mighty and Almighty can be read in it-1 pp. 77-79


How does the LDS Church handle verses that imply there is no one like God? There are quite a number of verses that seem to contrast the LDS teaching of exaltation, where man may become like God and God was once like man, in submission to a God like Him on a different world somewhere.

The most difficult ones to reconcile with this theology are in Isaiah 43, 44 and 45.

  "Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me."
  Isaiah 43:10

  "'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me."
  Isaiah 44:6

  "Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of
  none." Isaiah 44:8

  "I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God."
  Isaiah 45:5

  "Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God."
  Isaiah 45:14

  "I am Yahweh, and there is none else." Isaiah 45:18

  "Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A
  righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me." Isaiah 45:21

  "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like
  Me" Isaiah 46:9

There are more on this page here, which is where I got these, so I don't know what translation they are.

How does the LDS church respond to this?

The ones in the Old Testament are actually quite easy to reconcile. Latter-day Saints believe Jesus Christ to be the God of the Old Testament. In other words, Moses spoke with the antemortal Christ. Our Heavenly Father created worlds by Jesus Christ. And "beside me there is no God" as read in Isaiah would be spoken by Jesus Christ, who is our only Savior.

And it is consistent that there is no other like God. No other Gods concern us. We worship God our Heavenly Father only, and subject ourselves to His will. No other god, "as there be gods many," is of concern to us.

Quite frankly, Latter-day Saints do not focus on or even discuss other gods and worlds as they are not pertinent to our salvation. There are lots of questions lately about the topic of exaltation, which is fine, but be reminded that not much is understood about it and it is not our concern in mortality. We simply do our best, keep the commandments, and follow the Savior to return home where we want to be. We "hope through the atonement of Christ and the power of his resurrection to be raised unto life eternal." (Moroni 7:41) That is our concern.


Does Isaiah foretell any births that are not about Jesus? Are there any births foretold in the book of Isaiah which scholars have held NOT to be about Jesus, the Messiah?

What textual clues have been used to distinguish between passages that predict some other prophet versus Jesus himself?

From Isaiah 7 ESV (emphasis mine):

  1-4 In the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, son of Uzziah, king of Judah, Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah the king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but could not yet mount an attack against it. When the house of David was told, "Syria is in league with Ephraim," the heart of Ahaz and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind. And the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out to meet Ahaz, you and Shear-jashub your son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Washer's Field. And say to him, 'Be careful, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, at the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria and the son of Remaliah...
  10-16 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, "Ask a sign of the LORD your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven." But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, and I will not put the LORD to the test." And he said, "Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted.

To quote Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

  Its general original meaning is not difficult. It is, that in a short time - within the time when a young woman, then a virgin, should conceive and bring forth a child, and that child should grow old enough to distinguish between good and evils - the calamity which Ahaz feared would be entirely removed. The confederacy would be broken up, and the land forsaken by both those kings. The conception and birth of a child - which could be known only by him who knows “all” future events - would be the evidence of such a result. His appropriate “name” would be such as would be a “sign,” or an indication that God was the protector of the nation, or was still with them.

Isaiah 7:14 is well-known as a prophecy of Jesus Christ's birth; within context, we see that it is also prophesying the birth of another. Isaiah tells Ahab that a son will be born of a young woman, and that while this child is still young, these two kings he worries about will no longer be a threat to him. In fact, Assyria defeated both these nations (Syria and Israel), then turned to subjugate Judah (prophesied in verse 17).

The Keil && Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament says this of Immanuel:

  His eating only thickened milk and honey, at a time when he knew very well what was good and what was not, would arise from the desolation of the whole of the ancient territory of the Davidic kingdom that had preceded the riper years of his youth, when he would certainly have chosen other kinds of food, if they could possibly have been found. Consequently the birth of Immanuel apparently falls between the time then present and the Assyrian calamities, and his earliest childhood appears to run parallel to the Assyrian oppression. In any case, their consequences would be still felt at the time of his riper youth.


What are the earlier references to Mary? What are the earlier references, besides the bible, to Mary, be it as a devotion or just as someone that pleased God?
Could someone quote some of those references? If there are references besides the Catholic ones, I'd appreciate it.

What are the earlier references to Mary?

  Belief in the incarnation of God the Son through Mary is the basis for calling her the Mother of God, which was declared a dogma at the Council of Ephesus in 431.

  Development of Marian doctrine

  The theological development of devotion to Mary begins with Justin Martyr (100–165) who articulated Mary’s role in salvation history as the Second Eve. This was followed up by Irenæus, whom Herbert Thurston calls "the first theologian of the Virgin Mother".

  The Church's magisterium has identified four teachings about Mary as dogmas of faith. These include belief in her virginal conception of Jesus, taught by the First Council of Nicaea in 325. The Council of Ephesus in 431 applied to her the description "Mother of God", (Theotokos). The perpetual virginity of Mary was taught by the ecumenical Second Council of Constantinople in 553, which described her as "ever virgin", and was expressed also, by the Lateran synod of October 649. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception states that from the first moment of her existence Mary was without original sin. This doctrine was proclaimed a dogma ex cathedra by Pope Pius IX in 1854. The dogma of the Assumption of Mary, defined by Pope Pius XII in 1950, states that, at the end of her earthly life, she was assumed into heavenly glory body and soul.
  - Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church

The Sub tuum praesidium is the oldest preserved extant hymn to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  Sub tuum praesidium

  "Beneath Thy Protection" (Greek: Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν; Latin: Sub tuum praesidium) is a Christian hymn. It is the oldest preserved extant hymn to the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos. The hymn is well known in many Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox countries, and is often a favourite song used along with Salve Regina.

  The earliest text of this hymn was found in a Come the Coptic Orthodox Christmas liturgy. The papyrus records the hymn in Greek, dated to the 3rd century by papyrologist E. Lobel and by scholar C.H. Roberts to the 4th century. According to scholar Serafim Seppälä "there are no determinate theological or philological reasons to reject the 3rd century dating."

There is a pious tradition that holds that, in the early days of Christianity, the Apostles of Jesus spread the Gospel throughout the known world, with St. James the Greater evangelizing in modern-day Spain. He confronted great difficulties in his missionary efforts and faced severe discouragement. In AD 40, while he was praying by the banks of the Ebro at Zaragoza, Mary bilocated from Jerusalem, where she was living at the time, and appeared to James, accompanied by thousands of angels, to console and encourage him.

  Some of the earliest archaeological evidence of Marian devotion in Zaragoza is found in Christian tombs dating from Roman days, which appear to bear images representing the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin. In the 4th century, the presence of votive images placed on columns or pillars is attested. The oldest written testimony of devotion to the Blessed Virgin in Zaragoza is usually identified as that of Pedro Librana in 1155. There is evidence that the site attracted pilgrims from across the Iberian Peninsula during the 13th century, e.g. reflected in the work Milagros de Nuestra Señora by Gonzalo de Berceo, dated to the 1250s or early 1260s. The appellation Santa María del Pilar is attested for 1299. The claim that the first church had been the oldest in Hispania, built in AD 40 by James the Greater, is first recorded in 1318.

According to tradition Mary appeared to St. James on January 2, 40 AD. Spain celebrates this event on October 12 each year.

Tradition also says that St. Luke painted icons of Mary.

  Though not included in the canonic pictorial of Mary's life, the scene became increasingly popular as Saint Luke gained his own devotional following as the patron saint of artists in general, and more specifically as patron saint of the Guild of Saint Luke, the most common name of local painters' guilds. The legend of Saint Luke as the author of the first Christian icons had been developed in Byzantium during the Iconoclastic Controversy, as attested by 8th century sources. By the 11th century, a number of images started being attributed to his authorship and venerated as authentic portraits of Christ and the Virgin Mary. In the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Luke's ascendancy paralleled a rise in status of painters themselves, whereas before the Renaissance, sculptors' guilds and their associated craftsmen — which also included masons and architects, as all worked with stone — tended to be regarded more highly than painters. - Saint Luke painting the Virgin

More about the icons attributed to St. Luke can be seen in the following article:

Various traditions claim the Gospel writer drew one or more portraits of the Virgin Mary from life.

  Mary, as the mother of Jesus, is documented in Roman catacombs: paintings from the first half of the 2nd century show her holding the Christ Child. Excavations in the crypt of St Peter's Basilica uncovered a very early fresco of Mary together with Saint Peter. The Roman Priscilla catacombs depict the oldest Marian paintings from the middle of the 2nd century: Mary is shown with Jesus on her lap, a standing man with tunic left hand a book right hand a star over his head symbol of messiahs. Priscilla also has a depiction of the annunciation. Early veneration

[

Earliest fresco of the Virgin Mary, Catacomb of Priscilla, 2nd century.