Are birthday celebrations ungodly? Friday the 20th was my birthday and as usual, I'll just have a quiet time thanking God for my life. I don't fellowship with JWs anymore but my conscience will not allow me as to why at all I should hold this 'special' day for merry making. I couldn't  devalue their view of this as ungodly.

As far as I know, there are 3 instances of birthday celebrations which all ended in killing of people.
1st account is when Pharaoh puts his chief baker to death.

  And it came to pass the third day, which was Pharaoh’s birthday, that he made a feast unto all his servants: and he lifted up the head of the chief butler and of the chief baker among his servants...But he hanged the chief baker: as Joseph had interpreted to them.(Genesis 40:20-22).

2nd account is at Job who lost his children during their birthday feast. However and whenever they celebrated, Job knew it didn't please God.

  And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them. And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually. (Job 1:4-5).

  While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house: (Job 1:18).

From Job 3 we note that "their day" denotes birthdays.

3rd instance is where Herod beheaded John the Baptist on his birthday only to please his daughter.

  But when Herod’s birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask..."And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath’s sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison. (Matthew 14:6-10)

I personally think that God has shown us how to celebrate our lives keeping the true purpose in mind. ( John 10:10, John
17:17, II Tim. 3:16-17).

Today, people may not lose their lives at the celebrations and nowhere does the bible directly stop us from this activity but indirectly, what does it seem to be telling us, perhaps about the origin? All posts and counter-claims from any denomination will be helpful.

First to address a couple fuzzy or incorrect conclusions drawn in the question:

The book of Job does NOT say, "However and whenever they celebrated, Job knew it didn't please God." As you quoted, Job is being proactive to show God he cares about his children, and that on the off chance they have sinned, an atonement can be made.

Also, the beheading of John the Baptist coincided with Herod's birthday, but was not done for his birthday: it was done to please Herodias' daughter (who asked for her mother) after she apparently did some pretty exciting "dancing" for the guests at the party.

To the question itself. Firstly, a "birthday" is amoral - it is a day like any other. Days do not have morality associated with them (though the actions of celebrants/observers will have moral implications).

Secondly, @Marc's answer is a start. Hannah celebrated Samuel's birth (though perhaps not the "day") annually:

  Now Samuel was ministering before the LORD, as a boy wearing a linen ephod. And his mother would make him a little robe and bring it to him from year to year when she would come up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice. Then Eli would bless Elkanah and his wife and say, “May the LORD give you children from this woman in place of the one she dedicated to the LORD.” And they went to their own home.

Paul writes in Romans 14 a generally-applicable commentary on celebrations:

  Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
  One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s.

There is no condemnation of celebrating certain amoral days on their own - any commentary made about varied celebrations is always about what the participant(s) may be doing (or not doing). It is not about the day itself.


How was Solomon considered one of the wisest? According to Deuteronomy 17:14-17, there are a couple of rules a king should follow. From the NKJV:

  14 “When you come to the land which the Lord your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’ 15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. 16 But he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the Lord has said to you, ‘You shall not return that way again.’ 17 Neither shall he multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply silver and gold for himself.

Which roughly boils down to:

he must be chosen by the LORD
he can not be a foreigner
he must not acquire a great number of horses for himself
he must not return his people to Egypt
he must not have multiple wives
he must not acquire a lot of silver and gold

Solomon, a king considered among the wisest man in the Old Testament, appears to have violated at least 3 of those rules.

He had an awful lot of wives (700 plus 300 concubines, 1 Kings 11).
He had an awful lot of horses (40.000 stalls of horses (1 Kings 4) of which only 4.000 for military purposes (2 Chronicles 9).
He had an awful lot of gold (666 talents of gold each year, 1 Kings 10).

And still, he's considered one of wisest man in the history of Israel.

The rules of Deuteronomy are old. Solomon must've known them (Deuteronomy 17:18-20 is quite explicit about this). So how is a man like that considered one of the wisest if he's led astray by his women for which he is explicitly warned every day of his kingship? Even, Israel was torn apart by the sins of Salomon (1 Kings 11).

Still, In Luke 11, Jesus is considered greater than Solomon. Jesus being greater than anyone isn't a surprise, but Solomon being mentioned here as the next-best-thing despite his foolishness is.

How was Solomon still considered in such a high regard during the time of Jesus, a point at which I expect the Israelites to know of Solomon's foolishness?

I'm explicitly looking for a protestant-bible point-of-view.

I Kings seems to imply King Solomon was the wisest of all men in all nations at his time:

1 Kings 4:29-31 (DRB)
And God gave to Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart as the sand that is on the sea shore. And the wisdom of Solomon surpassed the wisdom of all the Orientals, and of the Egyptians, and he was wiser than all men: wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda the sons of Mahol, and he was renowned in all nations round about.

Solomon wasn't perfect (in fact, we don't even know if he finally repented of his apostasy with the idols of his heathen wives: cf. 1 Kings 11:4); but the reason he had so much wealth was because God gave him it, seeing that he asked for only wisdom, and not for riches etc:

2 Chronicles 1:9-12
[Solomon said:] Give me wisdom and knowledge that I may come in and go out before thy people: for who can worthily judge this thy people, which is so great? And God said to Solomon: Because this choice hath pleased thy heart, and thou hast not asked riches, and wealth, and glory, nor the lives of them that hate thee, nor many days of life: but hast asked wisdom and knowledge, to be able to judge my people, over which I have made thee king, wisdom and knowledge are granted to thee: and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and glory, so that none of the kings before thee, nor after thee, shall be like thee.

That is, the prohibition against these things which God rewards Solomon was because of the desire to have them, not them in themselves: God here judges that such who don't want these goods are worthy of them, since they did not have an inordinate want or longing for them.


Who was Chuck Smith, and what was his place in Christianity? Lately, the Christian Post uploaded several articles on the late beloved Pastor Chuck Smith. The reception was ambivalent. Some people said he was chosen by God to lead them, while others claimed he was on the other side of that spectrum. It is clear that he intended to live a Christian life and affected many people's lives positively.

Which Christian denomination(s) recognize his organization, and which ones do not? Why?
What was his leadership style like, and what made it distinctive?
Which Christian denomination(s) is/are in conflict with his theology, and which one(s) is/are most in harmony?
How were his congregants' lives any different than other Protestants' lives?
Who was Chuck Smith, and what was his place in Christianity?

I'll answer your questions from his book, A Memoir of Grace, by Chuck Smith (2009).

  Which Christian denomination(s) recognize his organization, and which ones do not? Why?

I don't know the answer to this question. Not sure what you mean by "recognize," for I would recognize any organization if it had regular meetings and members. Do you mean anything different from this?

  What was his leadership style like, and what made it distinctive?

The book did not address this, other than to say that he believed in not placing any programs or techniques above the sovereign work of God. He kept everything simple; just teach the whole Bible, book by book, chapter by chapter.

  Which Christian denomination(s) is/are in conflict with his theology, and which one(s) is/are most in harmony?

Any denomination that sets rigid plans and programs would be in conflict with his theology of the moving of the Spirit. He specifically talked about an earlier version of a Foursquare church that set church competing against church to do membership drives, and those who drove in the most members "won." Chuck rejected this program approach after a time of prayer where the Lord spoke to him that He Himself will "add to the church daily." He went on preaching as usual and got more members by simply preaching the word chapter by chapter. His superintendents invited him to come to the next convention and tell the others what techniques he used to such great success!

  How were his congregants' lives any different than other Protestants' lives?

Chuck found that by teaching through the whole Bible in depth, Genesis to Revelation, the people got more out of it. Expositional preaching, as opposed to topical preaching or gospel preaching. They were more grounded in their faith and were excited to tell others about Jesus and the Bible. Calvary Chapels sprung up all over the world without Chuck making 5-year church-planting plans or anything like that.

  Who was Chuck Smith, and what was his place in Christianity?

Chuck Smith will always be known as the person who started Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa and the person who helped the hippies' brand of Maranatha! rock/contemporary music spread everywhere.


Do any early Church Fathers record the event of the ceasing of spiritual gifts? A central belief held by an overwhelming majority of Cessationists is that the "supernatural spiritual gifts" (e.g., tongues, prophecy, healing, miracles, etc.) ceased with the end of the apostolic age.

Given the Early Church Fathers' meticulous writing and fervor for church history, an event such as the ceasing of the gifts should have been recorded at some point.

So, do any of the Early Church Fathers record the event of the ceasing of the spiritual gifts?

As bradimus has indicated, this is a tricky issue, because projecting the modern debate of cessationism vs. continuationism onto church fathers is anachronistic.  That said, some figures in the early church do talk about or infer a decline or end in at least some types supernatural occurrences, sometimes to what are often referred to as "spiritual gifts."
For this answer I'm leaning on two books for sources.  The first, Charismatic Gifts in the Early Church, is written by a continuationist, Ronald A. N. Kydd.  The second, Counterfeit Miracles, is by cessationist B. B. Warfield.  They actually agree that spiritual gifts came to an end during the early church period, though they disagree on precisely when – Kydd suggests the middle of the third century, while Warfield argues for the first century.
We'll look at two categories of evidence – early church figures who indicate signs of a decline in supernatural gifts, followed by those who say that they have ended.
Decline
Kydd identifies two third-century figures who indicate that the use of spiritual gifts, once common and accepted, had begun to decline.  The first is Cyprian, who relates objections to dreams and visions in his Epistle to Florentius Pupianus (no. 68, dated to about AD 254):

For I remember what has already been manifested to me, nay, what has been prescribed by the authority of our Lord and God to an obedient and fearing servant; and among other things which He condescended to show and to reveal, He also added this:  “Whoso therefore does not believe Christ, who maketh the priest, shall hereafter begin to believe Him who avengeth the priest.” Although I know that to some men dreams seem ridiculous and visions foolish, yet assuredly it is to such as would rather believe in opposition to the priest, than believe the priest. (§10, emphasis added)

The second writer is more explicit.  In several places in Against Celsus (AD 248), Origen refers to "traces" of workings of the Holy Spirit:

And there are still preserved among Christians traces of that Holy Spirit which appeared in the form of a dove.  They expel evil spirits, and perform many cures, and foresee certain events, according to the will of the Logos. (1.46)
For they have no longer prophets nor miracles, traces of which to a considerable extent are still found among Christians, and some of them more remarkable than any that existed among the Jews; and these we ourselves have witnessed, if our testimony may be received. (2.8)
Moreover, the Holy Spirit gave signs of His presence at the beginning of Christ’s ministry, and after His ascension He gave still more; but since that time these signs have diminished, although there are still traces of His presence in a few who have had their souls purified by the Gospel, and their actions regulated by its influence. (7.8)

Thus we see that both of these authors believed that visible supernatural workings of the Spirit were still occurring in their day, but they indicate that a decline had taken place.
End
B. B. Warfield cites several authors who speak of an end to supernatural gifts, two of which are Augustine (354–430) and Chrysostom (349–407).  In On the Profit of Believing, Augustine lists a variety of miracles done by Jesus, and says:

Why, say you, do not those things take place now? because they would not move, unless they were wonderful, and, if they were usual, they would not be wonderful. [...] They were done at a very suitable time, in order that, by these a multitude of believers having been gathered together and spread abroad, authority might be turned with effect upon habits. (§34)

Similarly, in On True Religion, 25.47:

When the Catholic Church had been founded and diffused throughout the whole world, on the one hand miracles were not allowed to continue till our time, lest the mind should always seek visible things, and the human race should grow cold by becoming accustomed to things which when they were novelties kindled its faith. (Augustine: Earlier Writings, Library of Christian Classics, 248)

In his Retractions, written significantly later in life, Augustine qualifies these statements, though he still says that some gifts have disappeared, specifically mentioning tongues and some healings:

For not even now, when a hand is laid on the baptized, do they receive the Holy Spirit in such a way that they speak with the tongues of all nations; nor are the sick now healed by the passing shadow of the preachers of Christ.  Even though such things happened at that time, manifestly these ceased later. (1.12.7)

Warfield identifies numerous places that Chrysostom refers to the ceasing of miracles.  For example:

Why, saith one, are there not now those who raise the dead, and perform cures? Yes, then, why, I say: why are there not now those who have a contempt for this present life? Do we serve God for hire? When man’s nature was weaker, when the Faith had to be planted, there were even many such; but now he would not have us to hang upon these signs, but to be ready for death. [...] For this cause it is that there are none such now; because that (future) life hath seemed to us honorless, seeing that for its sake we do nothing, whilst for this there is nothing we refuse to undergo. (Homily 8 on Colossians)
Even now there are some that seek them and say, Why do not miracles take place also at this present time? If you are faithful, as you ought to be, and lovest Christ as you ought to love Him, you have no need of signs, they are given to the unbelievers. (Homily 25 on John)

But, as mentioned in the beginning, we have to be careful not to conclude too much.  Warfield writes:

Chrysostom fairly teems with expressions implying that miracle-working of every kind had ceased [...] and yet he records instances from his day! (47)

Conclusion
We see here several prominent examples of early church writers who indicate both a decline and end to visible workings of the Holy Spirit, such as prophecy, healings, and tongues.  But we must be cautious so as not to conclude too much on this evidence alone.  Warfield writes of the challenges involved:

It is a very disturbing fact further that the very Fathers who record long lists of miracles contemporary with themselves, yet betray a consciousness that miracles had nevertheless, in some sense or other, ceased with the Apostolic age. (46)

On the other hand, Ronald Kydd is comfortable marking an end of the period of charismatic gifts, based on this and other evidence.  He writes:

[In the first half of the third century] it is clear that the importance granted to spiritual gifts was passing. [...] There came a point around AD 260 at which they no longer fitted in the highly organized, well-educated, wealthy, socially-powerful Christian communities. (87)


Does Roman Catholicism teach that man is body and soul (bipartite) or body, soul, and spirit (tripartite)? According to Rev. S. D. F. Salmond's English translation, John of Damascus wrote,(1)

  For since man’s nature is twofold, consisting of soul and body, He bestowed on us a twofold purification, of water and of the Spirit: the Spirit renewing that part in us which is after His image and likeness, and the water by the grace of the Spirit cleansing the body from sin and delivering it from corruption, the water indeed expressing the image of death, but the Spirit affording the earnest of life.

Does Roman Catholicism teach that a human consists of body and soul, or body, soul, and spirit?

References

(1) Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter IX.

Under II. "BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE", from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 365, the Church teaches that:

  365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body:1 i.e., it is
  because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a
  living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures
  united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

Therefore according to Catholic teaching, man's one nature is the union of spirit and matter, soul and body.

The section mentioned above continues

  367 Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people "wholly", with
  "spirit and soul and body" kept sound and blameless at the Lord's
  coming.2 The Church teaches that this distinction does not
  introduce a duality into the soul.3 "Spirit" signifies that
  from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul
  can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with
  God.4

Therefore the Church teaches that while the soul is sometimes distinguished from the spirit, the distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul.

1. Cf. Council of Vienne (1312): DS 902.
2. 1 Thess 5:23.
3. Cf. Council of Constantinople IV (870): DS 657.
4. Cf. Vatican Council I, Dei Filius: DS 3005; GS 22 § 5; Humani Generis: DS 3891.

Further reading:

The section The soul in Christian thought in the article Soul | New advent.

Addendum after reading @PeterTurner's answer.

  In the New Testament the word spirit and, perhaps, even the expression
  spirit of God signify at times the soul or man himself, inasmuch as he
  is under the influence of God and aspires to things above; more
  frequently, especially in St. Paul, they signify God acting in man[.]
  - Holy Ghost | New Advent.


What does the curse on the serpent mean? When God cursed the Earth He also cursed the serpent.

  Genesis 3:14 NASB

  The Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life;

Is the serpent specifically Satan? If not, is there a practical outworking of this curse seen in serpents today? We surely see the other curses of labor pains in childbirth and toilsome labor.

The curse continues with its most important point

  And I will put enmity   between you and the woman, and between your offspring[a] and hers; he will crush[b] your head,   and you will strike his heel.”

This is thought to mean Jesus (enmity) will crush serpent's head (defeat death), after Jesus suffers (heel struck).


According to the Catholic Church, if God is just and loving why is Nature so needlessly brutal and cruel sometimes? This question was brought about after reading a quote from Charles Darwin saying he couldn't believe in a benevolent creator due to the existence of parasitic wasps (which paralyze insects so that their young can eat them alive). I have to ask why would God created things like this and allow the world he created to be so awful and full of suffering. I understand that Adam and Eve sinning would lead to them being punished but why would God also make the existence of other innocent creations so awful and create living things whose very existence means suffering for others.

I am looking for an answer rooted in Catholic doctrine specifically.

The best possible answer to this, in my opinion, is none but the one given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, under the heading "Providence and the scandal of Evil". I quote in extenso:

  309 If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question: the goodness of creation, the drama of sin and the patient love of God who comes to meet man by his covenants, the redemptive Incarnation of his Son, his gift of the Spirit, his gathering of the Church, the power of the sacraments and his call to a blessed life to which free creatures are invited to consent in advance, but from which, by a terrible mystery, they can also turn away in advance. There is not a single aspect of the Christian message that is not in part an answer to the question of evil.

  310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better. But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.

  311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:

  For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.

  312 In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures: "It was not you", said Joseph to his brothers, "who sent me here, but God. . . You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive." From the greatest moral evil ever committed - the rejection and murder of God's only Son, caused by the sins of all men - God, by his grace that "abounded all the more", brought the greatest of goods: the glorification of Christ and our redemption. But for all that, evil never becomes a good.

  313 "We know that in everything God works for good for those who love him." The constant witness of the saints confirms this truth:

  St. Catherine of Siena said to "those who are scandalized and rebel against what happens to them": "Everything comes from love, all is ordained for the salvation of man, God does nothing without this goal in mind."

  St. Thomas More, shortly before his martyrdom, consoled his daughter: "Nothing can come but that that God wills. And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best."
  Dame Julian of Norwich: "Here I was taught by the grace of God that I should steadfastly keep me in the faith. . . and that at the same time I should take my stand on and earnestly believe in what our Lord shewed in this time - that 'all manner [of] thing shall be well.'"

  314 We firmly believe that God is master of the world and of its history. But the ways of his providence are often unknown to us. Only at the end, when our partial knowledge ceases, when we see God "face to face", will we fully know the ways by which - even through the dramas of evil and sin - God has guided his creation to that definitive sabbath rest for which he created heaven and earth.

(References eliminated. See original text to recover them.)

Thus, focusing particularly on natural disasters, we read that creation has not reached perfection. Naturally, we are part of the creation, and evidently we have not reached perfection yet (hence, as part of our freedom of will, evil exists). Notice that natural disasters could well be due to evil too (e.g. greed leading to global warming). What is important however is that, creation being God's plan, God would not allow evil (or natural disasters, in this case) to exist if good could not come out of it. This is patent in so many dimensions, like solidarity examples arising after a natural disaster. In a sense, like with every other thing which is beyond our control, natural disasters remind us that (i) we are temporarily on Earth, and (ii) we must trust God only. The latter is certainly consistent with the end of the quote above, that ultimately "the ways of his providence are often unknown to us.", and so we must trust in Him.


Did Jesus' disciples believe Jesus was God or a prophet? Did the disciples believe that Jesus was God or a prophet?  I presume that their opinion changed when he died.  They called Jesus "Lord".  However, "Lord" was a somewhat common title back then.

Matthew 16:16 is perhaps the most prominent answer to this question.

  Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
  Matthew 16:16 ESV

So, the disciples became convinced by the miracles, the teachings, and the character of Jesus through His ministry that Jesus was the very Son of God.

Yet, it wasn't when Jesus died that their belief and understanding became solidified, but after His resurrection.  The disciples were fearful prior to that.  In fact, many were hiding while He was being crucified.  All fled at His arrest, even though Peter made one valiant act in His defense.

If Jesus had only died, Christianity would not exist.  It was the resurrection that turned "unschooled, ordinary men" into bold witnesses of Jesus who willingly faced persecution and death for their teaching that Jesus is Lord.


In what ways is the term "priesthood" used in Catholic tradition? In what ways does "priesthood" get used within Catholic tradition and theology? Besides "ministerial" and the "universal priesthood of all believers," does the concept show up in any other forms? What are these forms? Are these metaphorical priesthoods or substantive orders?

In what ways is the term “priesthood” used in Catholic tradition?
Traditionally, there are only two ways that term priesthood is used within the Church as well as one in the Ancient Covenant of the Jewish people of the Old Testament, known as the  Aaronic priesthood.
The priesthood of the New Covenant is distinctly different from the priesthood of the Old Testament.
Yet other priesthood definitions are on the horizon.

The Jewish priesthood
In the age of the Patriarchs the offering of sacrifices was the function of the father or head of the family (cf. Genesis 8:20; 12:7, etc.; Job 1:5). But, even before Moses, there were also regular priests, who were not fathers of family (cf. Exodus 19:22 sqq.). Hummelauer's hypothesis "Das vormosaische Priestertum in Israel", Freiburg, 1899) that this pre-Mosaic priesthood was established by God Himself and made hereditary in the family of Manasses, but was subsequently abolished in punishment of the worship of the golden calf (cf. Exodus 32:26 sqq.), can hardly be scientifically established (cf. Rev. bibl. internat., 1899, pp. 470 sqq.). In the Mosaic priesthood we must distinguish: priests, Levites, and high-priest.
The Christian priesthood
In the New Testament bishops and priests are, according to Catholic teaching, the sole bearers of the priesthood, the former enjoying the fullness of the priesthood (summus sacerdos s. primi ordinis), while the presbyters are simple priests (simplex sacerdos s. secundi ordinis). The deacon, on the other hand, is a mere attendant of the priest, with no priestly powers. Omitting all special treatment of the bishop and the deacon, we here confine our attention primarily to the presbyterate, since the term "priest" without qualification is now taken to signify the presbyter. - Priesthood (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

The Church also speaks of the Royal Priesthood of the Faithful.

The share in the high priesthood of Christ received by everyone at baptism and strengthened by confirmation and the Eucharist. Essential to this priesthood is the right to receive the other sacraments, of participating in the Church's liturgy, and of being united with Christ the eternal priest as he offers himself, with the members of his Mystical Body, to the heavenly Father in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. - Priesthood of the Faithful

The terms simply do not end here. As the Church moves forward, new ways of expressing the term may be on the horizon.
The priesthood of Mary is seen as being part of the universal priesthood of the faithful, but at the same time needs a clearer understand which may come to light in future years.

After the council, the priesthood of Mary is still spoken of, but it is no longer linked to the ministerial priesthood nor to the supreme priesthood of Christ, but rather to the universal priesthood of the faithful. As figure and first fruits of the Church, she possessed in a personal way that "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9), that all the baptized possess in a collective way.
What can we retain of this long tradition that associates Mary to the priest and what meaning can we give to the "closeness " between Mary and the priest affirmed by John Paul II? It seems to me that what remains is the analogy or the correspondence between the different dimensions of the mystery of salvation. What Mary was once and for all times on the plane of historical reality, the priest is ever anew on the plane of the sacramental reality. - Mary, Mother and Model of the Priest - Cardinal Raniero Cantalamessa, OFMCap, Pontifical Household Preacher

What terms the Church will ultimately use to express Mary’s unique role within the priesthood of the faithful remains to be seen!
The Blessed Virgin Mary United to the Victimal Priesthood of Her Son
Marie Deluil Martiny presents the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of Christ the Victim Priest and of all who are called to follow Him in the way of His Victimal Priesthood. By her most intimate and perfect participation in the Victimal Priesthood of her Son, the Blessed Virgin Mary is both Coredemptrix and Mediatrix. She is the Virgo sacerdotalis, sacerdotal, not by virtue of sacramental ordination, but by virtue of her unique and entire adhesion to the Sacrifice of Christ. - A Life Offered for Priests
The term that I heard some theologians employing
the term of the priesthood of Mary as a ”priesthood  by association to the Passion of her Son” on Cross at Calvary. The term has yet to be defined.

Naming Mary's Sacerdotal Role
If the name "priest" cannot be fittingly applied to Mary, by what name should she be called?
Mary occupies a unique place between Christ and the rest of the human race. Philosophers tell us whatever is individual is inexpressible. This presents the difficulty of expressing the various functions of Mary in precise words. History records instances when, only after long discussion and multiplied distinctions, was agreement on certain proposed formulas attained. For the uninitiated, the expression "Mother of God" would signify quite normally that Mary gave birth to the Holy Trinity; or the word "co-redemptrix" would indicate that she redeemed us by a title equal to Christ's. It is not surprising then, that a formula sufficiently clear to everyone and capable of stating exactly Mary's role in Christ's priesthood has not been discovered. Since Mary's priestly role cannot be explained either in terms of the priesthood of Christ or in terms of the ordained ministers of the altar, some writers fall back on the "royal priesthood" mentioned by St. Peter. In comparing the disciples of Christ with unbelievers, St. Peter tells them, "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own."23 This royal priesthood enables all the faithful to offer God "spiritual sacrifice acceptable to God through Jesus Christ."24 This concerns sacrifices in the broad sense of the term, and not with the sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. In virtue of their union with Christ in the Mystical Body, all the faithful participate in Him perfections and in Him priesthood. They share in Him priesthood in as much as they offer to God the divine victim, whom the words of consecration uttered by the priest, make present on the altar. They also offer themselves as victims in union with Christ. But they do not participate in it by immolating the divine victim, an act possible only to the ordained minister of Christ at the time of consecration. It is this royal priesthood exercised in the highest degree, these writers conclude, that must be attributed to Mary.
But Laurentin and Neubert ask how anyone can subscribe to such an abasement of the sacerdotal role of her who was called by God to be Christ's associate in the divine sacrifice. Those writers reduce Mary's role to a common category and forget that she is absolutely unique in her functions. These functions are not identical with those of Christ; they are analogous to them. But neither are they identical with those of other persons. Mary's are of a transcendent order.
What term, then, can express this unique function of Mary? The best and clearest is the phrase derived from the term socia Christi, applied to her by Pseudo-Albert; that is the associate of Christ, our High Priest (socia Christi sacerdotis).
The word socia in itself is not clearer than the word consors, or the word particeps, and could indicate an equality in the priesthood of Christ and of Mary. Some associates are able to occupy the same rank. However, since the time of Pseudo-Albert, the expression socia Christi has a clearly-defined meaning in the history of theology. It designates a secondary action, analogous and united to that of Christ, the action of a "helper like himself." It is equivalent to the phrase employed by Blessed Pius IX, divini sacrificii socia.
The feminine form socia and the allusion to Eve, the first woman and the mother of the living, refer to a priestly role performed by a woman, by a mother. The sacerdotal aspect of Mary's mission consists in being mater et socia Christi sacerdotis. - Priestly Dimension of Mary

Thus it may deduced that there are five manners in which the term priesthood seems to be used within Catholic tradition:

Aaronic priesthood of the Ancient Israelian tradition.
Priesthood of Jesus Christ
Ministerial Priesthood of the Catholic Hierarchy.
Priesthood of the Faithful
Priesthood of Mary as yet to be officially defined as socia Christi sacerdotis.


In John 20:17 does Jesus have a God? John 20:17 says that Jesus has a God. I have looked it up in every translation. it says "Jesus said to her "touch me not;for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend to my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.                                                                         ...                                                                                As you know, this does not line up with the trinity as so many other scriptures. I found at least 40 references.As you know,most of the great minds in history that studied the scriptures such as Issac Newton, did not believe in the trinity, but took Jesus at his word.Why then does the conventional church this it?

This is not at odds with the belief in God's being triune ('the Trinity'). In fact, 'the trinity creed,' the Athanasian, says this:

(Notice the part highlighted by me)

  Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he
  hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and
  undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the
  Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity
  in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.
  For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another
  of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of
  the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal.
  Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.
  The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate.
  The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy
  Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the
  Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One
  Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three
  Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Incomprehensible. So
  likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost
  Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

  So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And
  yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is
  Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords
  but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to
  acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we
  forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or
  Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor
  begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but
  begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither
  made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

  So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons;
  One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is
  afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the
  whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in
  all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in
  Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus
  think of the Trinity.

  Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also
  believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the
  right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus
  Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

  God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and
  Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God
  and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting.
  Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the
  Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet
  He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead
  into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not
  by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the
  reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ.
  Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the
  third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the
  right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to
  judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again
  with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And
  they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that
  have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith,
  which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

A man definitionally has a God. Since Christ was and is a man, truly and really, He too had—and has—a God. But His having a God and our having a God is not equivalent, since His is personally, equal with the Father. Any doing of the will of the Father is not subservience, but pure love and obedience.

Since Christ is one Person with two natures, what is said of either of His natures can be said to belong to the one Person. Not that both natures are confused with one another, but that things pertaining to the two natures pertain to but one Person.

Scripture shows they are not at odds

Some examples come to mind to demonstrate this:

"The Lord of Glory" was crucified: 1 Corinthians 2:8. cf. Psalm 24.

"The First and the Last..was dead..and [lives] forevermore." Revelation 1:17-18. cf. Isaiah 44:6.

"God... ... [died]." John 1:1,14; 12:33/19:33. cf. Zechariah 12:10.

Etc. Both 'He is God' and 'He died' can be said of Jesus, while strictly speaking, whereas the Person died because death happened to Him indeed, only one of His natures, the human, can suffer. Similarly, only one of His natures can 'have a God' (Revelation 3:12) as it were—His human nature, "the man Christ Jesus." (1 Tithomy 2:5)


How have Christians who affirm traditional sin doctrines handled 'pathological' guilt in their preaching? Contemporary "theological liberals" have often argued that traditional doctrines about guilt and sin and repentance lead to feelings of guilt that can become pathology. This claim shouldn't be too hard to believe, because I believe it's the intended question behind a user's provocative question asked here not too long ago.

  insistence on holding people to an impossible standard and then instilling guilt in their minds (sin / confess / repeat) causes psychological distress and prevents some people from reaching their potential in life

Some of them have advocated this as a reason to jettison these doctrines outright. I have a strong memory of a seminary professor in ELCA Lutheranism explicitly making such a claim but couldn't find his web page, as perhaps he's now retired. I have often wondered to what extent when "extreme" guilt has happened, it can be said to be

The result of really bad (unorthodox, if "conservative") preaching?
The result of unrepentant hearts who insist on continuing the sin?, or
The neglect of great theological traditions in Christian theology?

I am of the conviction that this question can be answered straightforwardly in terms of a non-Truth question, if it is "How have Christians who affirm traditional sin doctrines handled 'pathological' guilt in their preaching or theological writings?"

(I'm not looking for medical diagnoses or answers of what is BEST. I am searching for what HAS BEEN SAID.)

My answer is option 3, that pathological guilt can stem from a preaching that neglects a Theology of the Cross. Here is an example of Martin Luther, writing to his friend George Spalatin, who had become distraught over the sin of giving really bad moral advice. The conversation is best recorded in Chapter 12 of Walther's Law and Gospel. The following text contains commentary from Walther himself, interspersed with a letter by Luther. It is the context of Luther's "sin boldly" quote, which you may be familiar with.

Summary

  Had you fully realized the awful corruption of your heart in its relation to God, you would not be so inconsolable; for you would say to yourself: Alas! the fountain is so polluted; that is why such filth has to flow from it.

Full quote

  Let me now cite you from Luther's writings, not so much passages in which he insists that the Gospel, pure and unalloyed, must be proclaimed to poor sinners, but rather a particular incident which illustrates how Luther brought consolation to a person who had fallen into a great and grievous sin. The party in question was that splendid man Spalatin (born 1482), who had a great share in the work of the Reformation. He became Ecclesiastical Counselor to the Elector of Saxony and lived at Altenburg. He was Luther's intimate friend. He had been party to an advice given to a certain pastor to marry the stepmother of his deceased wife. The marriage was absolutely contrary to God's Word, and the advice was the more appalling since the Apostle Paul, in dealing with a similar offense in 1 Cor. 5, had declared that it involved fornication such as is not so much as named among the Gentiles. When the truth dawned on good Spalatin, he refused to be comforted. Luther learned that he had fallen into melancholy. No comfort offered him would take effect. He imagined that no consolation of Scripture could apply to a man like him who had known the Word of God so well and had derived so much consolation from it.

  How did Luther proceed to comfort this man? He wrote him a letter, which began as follows: (St. L. Ed. X, 1729 ff.):

    Grace and peace from God in Christ and the consolations of the Holy Spirit to my worthy master in Christ, George Spalatin, superintendent of the churches in Misnia, most faithful pastor of Altenburg, my beloved in the Lord. Amen.

    My dearest Spalatin, I heartily sympathize with you and earnestly pray our Lord Jesus Christ to strengthen you and give you a cheerful heart. I should like to know, and am making diligent inquiries to find out, what your trouble may be or what has caused your breakdown. I am told by some that it is nothing else than depression and heaviness of heart, caused by the matrimonial affair of a parson who was publicly united in marriage to the stepmother of his deceased wife. If this is true, I beseech you most urgently not to become self-centered and heed the thoughts and sensations of your own heart, but to listen to me, your brother, who is speaking to you in the name of Christ. Otherwise your despondency will grow beyond endurance and kill you; for St. Paul says, 2 Cor. 7, 10: 'The sorrow of the world worketh death.' I have often passed through the same experience and witnessed the same in 1540, in the case of Magister Philip, who was nearly consumed by heaviness of heart and despondency on account of the landgrave's affair. However, Christ used my tongue to raise him up again. I say this on the supposition that you have sinned and are partly to blame for the aforementioned marriage, because you approved it.

  Observe that Luther grants that Spalatin had committed a grievous wrong by approving the marriage, by advising in favor of it before it was contracted. Luther proceeds:

    Yea, I shall go further and say: Even if you had committed more numerous and grievous sins in this present and other instances than Manasseh, the king of Judah, whose offenses and crimes could not be eradicated throughout his posterity down to the time when Jerusalem was destroyed, while your offense is very light, because it concerns a temporal interest and can be easily remedied; nevertheless, I repeat it, granted you are to blame, are you going to worry yourself to death over it and by thus killing yourself commit a still more horrible sin against God?

  Luther means to say: This marriage can be dissolved, for it is not legitimate. It would be a greater sin now to despair of the mercy of God than it was to advise this marriage. For despairing of God's mercy is always the most horrible sin, because it means that we declare God to be a liar. Luther goes on:

    It is bad enough to know that you made a mistake in this matter. Now do not let your sin stick in your mind, but get rid of it. Quit your despondency, which is a far greater sin. Listen to the blessed consolation which the Lord offers you by the prophet Ezekiel, who says, chap. 33, 11: 'As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.' Do you imagine that only in your case the Lord's hand is shortened? Isa. 59, 1. Or has He in your case alone forgotten to be gracious and shut up His tender mercies? Ps. 77, 10. Or are you the first man to aggravate his sin so awfully that henceforth there is no longer a High Priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities? Heb. 4, 15. Do you consider it a new marvel when a person living this life in the flesh, with innumerable arrows of so many devils flying about him, is occasionally wounded and laid prostrate?

  Luther means to say: Why are you surprised at your grievous fall? That is a common occurrence. The terrible part is only that we refuse to rise again and, like miserable reprobates, crawl back to the throne of grace. Luther continues:

    It seems to me, my dear Spalatin, that you have still but a limited experience in battling against sin, an evil conscience, the Law, and the terrors of death. Or Satan has removed from your vision and memory every consolation which you have read in the Scriptures. In days when you were not afflicted, you were well fortified and knew very well what the office and benefits of Christ are. To be sure, the devil has now plucked from your heart all the beautiful Christian sermons concerning the grace and mercy of God in Christ by which you used to teach, admonish, and comfort others with a cheerful spirit and a great, buoyant courage. Or it must surely be that heretofore you have been only a trifling sinner, conscious only of paltry and insignificant faults and frailties.

  There are only two ways in which Luther can explain to himself why Spalatin refuses to be comforted. Either he has hitherto failed to perceive his misery and wretchedness unders sin; he has not been aware of the fact that he is a great sinner by nature; his grievous fall had to occur in order that his eyes might be opened to these facts. Or Satan must have hidden every consolation out of Spalatin's sight. Practically Luther says to Spalatin: Had you fully realized the awful corruption of your heart in its relation to God, you would not be so inconsolable; for you would say to yourself: Alas! the fountain is so polluted; that is why such filth has to flow from it. To return to Luther:

    Therefore my faithful request and admonition is that you join our company and associate with us, who are real, great, and hard-boiled sinners. You must by no means make Christ to seem paltry and trifling to us, as though He could be our Helper only when we want to be rid from imaginary, nominal, and childish sins. No, no! That would not be good for us. He must rather be a Savior and Redeemer from real, great, grievous, and damnable transgressions and iniquities, yea, from the very greatest and most shocking sins; to be brief, from all sins added together in a grand total.

  To the company of real, great, abominable sinners to which Spalatin is invited Luther feels that he belongs himself. He argues that by making our sins small, we make Christ small. That would practically amount to saying: Christ can forgive small, but not great sins.


According to Protestants, why was Mary troubled at the greeting of Gabriel? We read the following in Luke's Gospel (1:26-38 DRB):

  And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, [kecharitomene], the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end. And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren: Because no word shall be impossible with God. And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Question

My question is two-fold:

Was Mary troubled at

a) the fact of Gabriel's speaking with her, or
b) what he said to her (i.e. the "manner of" the greeting)?

If (b), what does this imply for Protestants about a) Mary, and b) the uniqueness of the (manner of) greeting as relates to other angelic visitations in Scripture (if any).

Thank you in advance.

Part II - Mary, and the uniqueness of greeting.
1) Mary, Herself

Mary's place in scripture is very clearly that of a woman greatly blessed by being chosen to perform a quite unique service, but not to be promoted into a unique office. Gabriel's greeting underlines this, 'Highly favoured, among women'. She remains among women, as one of them, and is highly favoured.
Jesus never addresses Mary as mother. He calls her, 'Woman,' when she speaks to him in Cana at the wedding and he calls her, 'Woman,' from the cross when making provision for her with John. When Mary slips in her words and speaks of, 'Thy father and I,' she receives a mild rebuke from the twelve year old boy, 'Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business '

2) The Uniqueness of Circumstance

(Seven Appearances)
The LORD appeared to Abraham in the plains of Mamre, Genesis 18:1, and he looked and Lo, three men. 'My Lord,' he said. And the unnamed men rose up from thence. But the LORD continued to speak to Abraham. A messenger, malak, spoke to Moses out of a burning bush. The LORD saw and God called, Genesis 3:4. An unnamed angel spoke to the unnamed wife of Manoah, Judges 13, and later ascended up in the flame of the altar.
A man strove with Jacob till the breaking of the day and would not tell him his name, but he called Jacob 'Isra-el' for Jacob had power with God and had prevailed. Daniel saw the appearance of a man and he heard a man's voice say, 'Gabriel, make this one to understand. Later, Gabriel appears and says, 'O Daniel . . . .' One appeared to Daniel and told him, Daniel 10:13, that he was helped by Michael, the archangel.
And the greatest king upon earth, at the time, Nebuchadnezzar, saw four men in a furnace of flame, Daniel 3:25, and said, 'The form of the fourth is like unto the Son of God.' These seven occurrences are singular visitations of huge importance in the unfolding  revelation of the purposes of God upon earth. They rise like seven pinnacles over the rest of the comparatively trivial events recorded by humanity of its own history.
And then, after Daniel and Malachi, comes silence. Not a word, for four hundred years. But there are a few faithful, such as Simeon and Anna, Zacharias and Elizabeth - and Joseph and Mary.
Then comes not just an angel but an archangel. And not unnamed - this is Gabriel who announces to Zacharias, 'I am Gabriel, who stand in the presence of God - -  and behold thou shalt be dumb !' He has the power to strike a man dumb if his herald is not believed.
Michael is also called, apostolically by Jude, an archangel, Jude 9. John's visions indicate that Michael fights with the Lord's hosts, Revelation 12:7. But Gabriel stands in God's very presence.
There are three that appear significantly - two with personal names, Gabriel and Michael, and one who is only ever represented in ten descriptive terms, as Serpent, Satan, Diabolos, Antidikos, Poneros, Abbadon, Kategoros, Beelzebul, Apollyon, Lucifer, Animos and Drakon. This one is defeated by Michael, once it is righteously proper to do so.

3) The Uniqueness of Greeting

Only to Mary is it said that 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the Power of the Highest shall overshadow thee,' and only - ever - of that within Mary was it, or could it be, said that, 'Therefore, also, shall that generated holy be called Son of God.' [Literal Translation of TR.]
These words, and the circumstances of them, stand out even against the background of the seven previous singularities recorded in scripture. This event is breathtakingly momentous.
My wording - “generated holy ” - reflects the exactitude of the wording used, gennwmenon agion, of this momentous event . The English translation is unsatisfactory, even in the AV which I, otherwise, greatly respect. The wording comparison in Matthew and Luke is just stunning, utterly stunning, and deserves to be further highlighted.
[Edited after Post in order to keep closer to the text and to the answer required.]


Does Christianity solve personal problems? If I pray and truly believe God will turn around a personal problem, does Christianity support that will help solve the issue?

Example:

  What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive
  them, and ye shall have them.

—Mark 11:24

Is there some context I am missing with this quote or does it stand alone - and I can use it to solve personal problems?

Thanks.

Christianity solves a couple of "personal" problems.  It solves our struggle against sin (this is called sanctification), and it solves the problem of our well deserved awaiting judgement (this is called justification).  It also empowers us to further the kingdom of God.

  Mark 11:24 (NASB)
  24 Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.

In saying this, Jesus did not intend to place himself inside a genie lamp to fulfil our every whim.  When Jesus says "all things for which you pray and ask", there is an implied qualification on the "all things".  That is, what you ask for must be in accordance with God's will.

This concept is clarified if we take a look at 1 John.

  1 John 5:14-15 (NASB)
  14 This is the confidence which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him.

Here, John makes the qualification explicit.  What we ask must be in accordance to His will.  In James, we see something similar:

  James 4:3 (NASB)
  3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.

James's audience did not receive, because they did not ask in accordance with God's will.  They asked selfishly, in order to fulfil their own desires, and not to further the kingdom of God.


Ephesians 4:5 what does "One faith" mean? Paul says that there is one faith.
I'm guessing that this mean theres only one faith that can save you. And that faith is in "believing" that Jesus died for your sins, and you're no longer a slave to death or sin.

Is my understanding wrong, or does it mean something different?

When Paul refers to “one faith,” I think he is referring to “the faith” (i.e. Christianity) spoken of elsewhere (emphasis added):

  1 Corinthians 16:13 NASB
  Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.

  2 Corinthians 13:5 NASB
  Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?

  Galatians 1:23 NASB
  but only, they kept hearing, "He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy."

  1 Timothy 4:1 NASB
  But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,

  Jude 1:3 NASB
  Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

“The faith” refers primarily to “faith in Jesus,” which is trust/belief in Jesus as Lord, one and only son of God, creator, etc., and all that such belief entails. Paul (and others) implicitly assert that there is only one faith, and that we should all be united in it.

  Ephesians 4:13 NASB
  until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.


Why do Christians have different books in their Bible? Some Bibles have all 4 Maccabees books, for example, while others don't. Some Bibles have Esdras and Wisdom, and yet others don't.

Why is this? If there was an agreement on what books would be in the Bible in the early church, why are there so many differences between the books in various Bibles? Did some church leaders walk out and start there own churches with those books? Or is there some other reason?

Most of the books of the Bible were written by different people. An estimated 40 authors wrote the 70 or so books that various Christians accept as "the Bible". Most of these authors wrote independently from each other; if they were contemporaries, they typically did not confer with each other. If they were separated by time, the latter typically did not write with an apparent expectation that what he wrote would be considered scripture even though the former was during his time.

What you are referring to is the Bible Canon. A canon is

  a regulation or dogma decreed by a church council.
  Merriam Webster Dictionary

Basically, many Christians already followed many or even all of these books as scripture, then through councils called by early church leaders, a canon was set, decreeing them as scripture, indeed. These councils also set out to decree some theologies as Christian dogma and others as not Christian dogma. More rarely, some books were explicitly decreed not canon. These typically go by the names Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books, Gnostic Gospels, or Pseudepigrapha. These books were accepted by fringe groups and rejected by the larger majority. This and among real issues (some teach dissonant doctrine) is why they were not included in the Biblical Canon. Most of them were just ignored or so fringe they were unheard of among the council members. 1

Today, there are three primary canons: The Catholic bible canon, the Protestant bible canon, and the Eastern/Greek Orthodox bible canon. In general, there was only the Catholic bible canon until Martin Luther started the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. Martin Luther had many ideas that radically changed the face of Christianity, including views that led to the formation of the Protestant bible canon, which essentially removed 7 books from the Catholic bible canon and a few portions of some other books, but added nothing. Those books/portions present in the Catholic bible, but not in the Protestant bible are:

Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4–16:24)
Wisdom (also called the Wisdom of Solomon)
Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah (Additions to Jeremiah in the Septuagint)
Additions to Daniel:

Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24–90)
Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13, Septuagint prologue)
Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14, Septuagint epilogue)

1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
See "Deuterocanonical books - Wikipedia" for more information

The following table helps compare all the major canons. See the footnotes for a comprehensive list of all the books.

Source

There are a few other canons in some much smaller segments of the Christian population, but those are typically very small in their number of adherents. For example, the Church of Ethiopia has a few more books in their canon than the Catholic canon. 2

Summary

The books accepted by any Christian group is called a canon. There are three major canons, one for the Catholics, one for the Eastern Orthodox, and one for the Protestants. The canon was decreed as "scripture" by early church councils, mostly based on the widespread use of these books. Over the centuries, there has been plenty of debate on the actual authenticity of these books, from both historical and theological perspectives. To many theologians and historians, the authenticity of any given book is a matter of independent study of those individual books, and opinions tend to vary widely among theologians, but tend to fall one way or the other among historians.

Sources and further information

Biblical Canon - Wikipedia
Development of the Christian biblical canon - Wikipedia
Books of the Bible - Wikipedia

Other Questions on Christianity Stack Exchange
Resources to learn about Bible canonization
How long did it take to form the Biblical canon?
When was the Biblical canon formalised?
How were the books of the New Testament chosen?
What writings are held as "biblical canon" by Swedenborgians? (example of a small group with a unique and heavily trimmed canon)
How many 'Books' never made it to the Bible (Old and New Testament)?
When did the idea of a scriptural "canon" originate?

Footnotes:

Disclaimer: This is a gross simplification of a long and complicated topic rife with historical debate that goes back to the second century and continues today. For example, this brief synopsis implies that Martin Luther is responsible for all of it, but that is far from the case. The differences between the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches manifested a thousand years before Luther and came to a head in the 11th century with the Great Schism. Further complicating the issue, what Christians call the Old Testament was part of the Hebrew/Jewish Bible canon which has its own long history of development that for the most part, Christianity just inherited. If you want to have a solid grasp on what actually happened, you will need to read no fewer than 200 pages on the subject.
There are, of course, some modern churches that claim the Christian title that have wildly different canons. The LDS church, for example, accepts the Protestant Canon, in addition to the many books found in the Book of Mormon, Doctrines and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. There are no other Christians that accept these books as scripture.
Comprehensive list of all the books of "the bible" (Source):

  Hebrew Bible

  All extant manuscripts of the following texts:

  Torah (Books of Moses)

  Genesis
  Exodus
  Leviticus
  Numbers
  Deuteronomy

  The Samaritan Pentateuch is also included.

  Nevi'im (Prophets)

  Joshua
  Judges
  Kingdoms (I - IV)

  Samuel (I & II)
  Kings (I & II)

  Isaiah
  Jeremiah
  Ezekiel
  Twelve Prophets

  Hosea
  Joel
  Amos
  Obadiah
  Jonah
  Micah
  Nahum
  Habakkuk
  Zephaniah
  Haggai
  Zechariah
  Malachi

  Kethuvim (Writings)

  Psalms (including manuscripts containing 151 psalms)
  Proverbs
  Job
  The Song of Songs
  Ruth
  Lamentations
  Ecclesiastes
  Esther (including manuscripts containing The Additions)
  Daniel (including manuscripts containing Susanna, Bel and the Serpent/Dragon, and/or the Hymn of the Three Youths)
  Ezra-Nehemiah / Esdras (I & II)
  Chronicles / Paraleipomenon (I & II, including manuscripts containing the Prayer of Manasseh)

  Care should be taken to clearly refer to relevant sections of the
  Hebrew Bible as chapter and verse sections as well as the order of
  content is not consistent between many translations, manuscripts, and
  critical texts.

  Apocrypha

  All extant manuscripts of the following texts:

  Note that the use of the term Apocrypha as a proper title is
  defined on this site as referring specifically (and exclusively) to
  the following listed texts (and the word should always be capitalized
  when used in this manner on this site). It is known that other works
  such as the Gnostic gospels are commonly referred to as
  "apocryphal" texts, but as per our site standards only the
  below-listed texts constitute the Apocrypha.

  Texts and Additions to Esther and Daniel that are included in Roman Catholic, Greek, and Slavonic Bibles

  Tobit
  Judith
  Additions to the book of Esther in Greek manuscripts
  Wisdom of Solomon
  Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach)
  Baruch
  The Letter/Epistle of Jeremiah (6th chapter of Baruch)
  Additions to the book of Daniel in Greek manuscripts

  The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews
  Susanna
  Bel and the Serpent/Dragon

  Maccabees (I & II)

  Texts in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles but not in Roman Catholic Bibles

  1 Esdras (in Greek; 2 Esdras in Slavonic; 3 Esdras in Appendix to Vulgate)
  Prayer of Manasseh (in Appendix to Vulgate; included in some manuscripts of 2 Chronicles / Paraleipomenon)
  Psalm 151 (included in Greek manuscripts of Psalms)
  3 Maccabees

  Text in the Slavonic Bible and the Latin Vulgate Appendix

  2 Esdras (3 Esdras in Slavonic; 4 Esdras in Vulgate Appendix)

  Text in an Appendix to the Greek Bible

  4 Maccabees

  Care should be taken to clearly refer to relevant sections of the
  Apocrypha as text/book titles, chapter and verse sections as well as
  the order of content is not consistent between many translations,
  manuscripts, and critical texts.

  New Testament

  All extant manuscripts of the following texts:

  Homologoumena

  Gospels

  Matthew
  Mark
  Luke
  John

  Acts of the Apostles
  Epistles/Letters

  Romans
  Corinthians (I & II, although historically they are believed to be the II & III letters sent to Corinth, the first of which is extinct)
  Galatians
  Ephesians
  Philippians
  Colossians
  Thessalonians (I & II)
  Timothy (I & II)
  Titus
  Philemon
  I Peter
  I John (not to be confused with the Gospel of John)

  Antilegomena

  James
  Jude / Judah
  Hebrews
  II Peter
  John (II & III, not to be confused with the Gospel of John)
  Apocalypse of John / Revelation

  These are the primary texts which constitute 'the Bible.'


Would this confession be valid? If a priest prematurely says the prayer for absolution, is the confession still valid?

Is the confession still valid even when the priest is not wearing his normal vestments? Or if I didn't say the prayers the priest asked me to pray until I got home because I couldn't focus during the mass?

Is it necessary for a penitent to bring up unconfenssed sins the next time they receive the sacrament of reconciliation?

A few things concerning your confessor from the Catechism:

The confessor is not the master of God’s forgiveness, but its servant. The minister of this sacrament should unite himself to the intention and charity of Christ. He should have a proven knowledge of Christian behavior, experience of human affairs, respect and sensitivity toward the one who has fallen; he must love the truth, be faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, and lead the penitent with patience toward healing and full maturity. He must pray and do penance for his penitent, entrusting him to the Lord’s mercy.
CCC 1466

The sacraments comes from Christ, not from the person you are going to confession with.  Vestments, etc.. don't make it valid - it might make it illicit; then again, I don't think the things you mentioned are as grave as some of these things that make the sacrament truly illicit.
It is certainly OK to postpone the satisfaction that the priest has given to you as penance. I've never confessed much of anything that didn't involve going and saying a few prayers.  I have confessed things where I had to pray an entire Rosary (being quite a prolific sinner).  But the priest wouldn't expect me to do for that before Mass.

The penance the confessor imposes must take into account the penitent’s personal situation and must seek his spiritual good. It must correspond as far as possible with the gravity and nature of the sins committed. It can consist of prayer, an offering, works of mercy, service of neighbor, voluntary self-denial, sacrifices, and above all the patient acceptance of the cross we must bear. Such penances help configure us to Christ, who alone expiated our sins once for all. They allow us to become co-heirs with the risen Christ, “provided we suffer with him.”
CCC 1460

And the priest can give you some penance that requires more than a few seconds between Confession and Mass to perform; you're still absolved under the normal criteria.
That's what is important - if you are sorry and you confess your sins, they're all forgiven.
However (and this comes from the Handbook of Prayer's guide to confession that I've read a few times), if you remember some sins you didn't confession in previous confessions it is good to confess them at your next confession.  And it is even OK to bring up past sins that you have confessed, as context for the priest.
For instance, if you had a problem with pornography, but you watched an R-rated movie with nudity (as opposed to an X-rated one) then you shouldn't feel prohibited from mentioning that - it helps the priest to know what and why you're confession what you're confessing.
And, I'm not going to give pastoral advice (because that's verbotten on this site) but priests who don't show they're taking your confession seriously are probably telling you that they aren't the kinds of priests you want to visit to develop a habit of frequent confession.


Is all the land in the universe called Earth? The other day, me and my friends were discussing about End times pertaining to Mat 24, and came across this verse

  "My words are always true and always here with you. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away"
  Mat 24:35

Which says, the earth will be destroyed and a new earth and heaven will be formed according to Rev 21:1. And how Isiah predicts the calamities can be read from this answer.

But I was thinking, maybe if this earth will have such problems, what they can be avoided by migrating to other planets?

Hence the question, do those verses mean only our Earth or the whole land in both Mat 24:35 and Gen 1???

I think there is no mention of other planets of this universe in the Bible.

So, when God was referring to "Earth" in Gen 1, could it be considered as all the land in this universe that God is referring to as Earth? or Should it be considered as he's being specific about only our planet "Earth"?

So, my question is in general How is "earth" interpreted. Could the word be applied to the land of the whole universe?

I request you to focus on the title "Is all the land in the universe called Earth?"

The only good answer to this is "We don't know". And we don't know because the people writing the book had no concept of 'land outside of our planet'. For them there were only three parts to creation: Heavens, Earth and the Underworld, floating on a cosmic ocean. It is completely impossible to definitively state whether their words were intended to include parts of creation they had no idea existed.

People have attempted to deduce more about the writer's intentions, but the deductions are all subject to interpretation. You can choose somebody's interpretation if you wish.


Do the Catholics consider Orthodox Christians heretics? The Orthodox Christians consider Catholics heretics. But what is the opposite case?

No.  Perhaps the best statement of the current Roman Catholic position on the schism can be found in Unitatis Redintegratio from Vatican II.  Essentially, the Roman Catholic Church holds that the doctrinal issues that exist are minor if not meaningless, and often result as different ways of expressing or experiencing the same understanding of God rather than from a fundamentally different understanding of God in the first place; from the Catholic perspective, the split is primarily over matters of church organization and not theology.

For an example, consider the filioque: from the Catholic perspective, the difference between the single and double procession is a matter of choice of emphasis rather than of basically different belief.  Tellingly, the Roman church does not require Eastern-Rite Catholic churches to use it.


Can a Christian believe in Oni  (Japanese Demons)? I am a Christian but also I have a strong belief in demons Japanese (no better Tototro http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096283/ why edited anyway) style like beer demon, wine demon maybe cigars demon anyway good food demon. Now this belief helps a lot because from that I understand they are strong forces and shall be treated with respect but controlled. But then the Bible says little about demons and almost always like 'pagan gods' or something. That is not exactly it, I think. But then as Christian Colridge style I have my doubts maybe I shall not believe in such demons?

A brief description from Wikipedia:

  Depictions of oni vary widely but usually portray them as hideous,
  gigantic creatures with sharp claws, wild hair, and two long horns
  growing from their heads. They are humanoid for the most part, but
  occasionally, they are shown with unnatural features such as odd
  numbers of eyes or extra fingers and toes. Their skin may be any
  number of colors, but red and blue are particularly common. (totoro is not like that)

Regarding Christianity in Japan, one useful bit of previous experience is the history of Christian missionaries in the 16th-17th centuries. Francis Xavier, founder of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) was one of them! They encountered particular issues with how best to introduce Japanese people to Christian belief, and one of the biggest problems they faced was the tendency to syncretism - the instinctive attempt to meld Christian beliefs into existing Buddhist and Shinto practice. In 1598, the confessional text Salvator Mundi / Sarobatōru Munji challenged Kirishitan (Japanese Christian) believers by asking:

  Have you worshipped kami and hotoke since you became Kirishitan? If you have, how many times? Have you worried about the punishment of kami and hotoke? Also, have you thought that they could give human beings punishment or providence?Have you, according to pagan practices, performed the worshipping of the sun and the moon (tsuki machi hi machi), or called for a  miko and an onmyōji for prayer ritual (kitō) and incantation?Have you participated in pagan events even if you have remained Kirishitan inwardly?Have you performed fortune-telling for yourself or made others do it? 1

I believe that the oni may be regarded essentially as a special kind of kami 2, at least for our purposes here. These early missionaries certainly saw regard for the kami as problematic, and tried to stop people from worrying about such issues as how to placate them through worship or offerings.

A belief in oni or kami, along the lines of traditional Shinto practice, is not compatible with the Christian world-view, since Christianity has different opinions about the nature and origin of spiritual beings. While Christianity does include a concept of "demon", these are not the same as Shinto "demons"; it's not reasonable to drop oni into the context of normal Christian belief. That is, it doesn't make sense to combine orthodox Christianity with a belief in oni, as oni are traditionally understood in Japanese culture. Indeed, the history of Christianity in Japan shows some problems with this approach. During the suppression of the religion, one form of "underground" Christianity transmuted into a blend of ancestor-worship/Shinto/Buddhism, with a few Christian-looking elements, but without any real connection to the core of the faith. (See this answer by AffableGeek on the Kakure Kirishitan.)

1. From Christianity in Early Modern Japan: Kirishitan Belief and Practice, Ikuo Higashibaba (BRILL, 2001), p 36-37
2. Encyclopedia of Shinto (trans. of Shinto jiten, Kobundo, 1994) under oni, senses 1 and 3, sees oni as a subcategory of kami


Why isn’t the soul (ψυχή) considered to be a “person” (ὑπόστασις)? From my understanding, the unity of spirit, soul, and body is considered to be a ὑπόστασις, or “person.” But, what argument is there against the soul itself (apart from the body) being a ὑπόστασις? It seems the soul possesses reason. It exists by itself. So, why is it not considered to be a ὑπόστασις? Or, if it is considered to be a ὑπόστασις, where and by whom is such an argument affirmed? I am particularly interested in an answer in accordance with Catholic beliefs.

NOTE: To clarify, I am using «ὑπόστασις» as an equivalent to the Greek πρόσωπον and Latin persona as understood in Trinitarian creeds and theology.

Humans are living souls. Soul (psyche) means the breathing existence. The body (soma) is the outward appearance and the physique of the human.
It all means the same human being. Soul more in the sense of living and ability to feel. Body more in the sense of physical existence.

The spirit, pneuma, is what moves the person, what his thoughts are and his emotions.

It all is the human as one whole living being.

The difference is regarding what of a person one is looking at. It is about aspects to the human, not about entities or compound parts.

In certain instances the soul is considered the person, but in a more impersonal way to say. (Name, onoma, would be the more personal expression.)

Person (prosopon) is used for the human encounter, the facial and bodily appearance towards one another.


Where does the Bible say to read itself? It seems rather basic, but I'm having trouble finding verses that say to read God's Word often. It seems like something that Paul said quite a few times, and it's obviously a good thing, but I can't find any specific verses. Can someone help me?

I don't think there are any verses in the Bible that say "read the Bible", since the Bible as one book is a concept that came after the books were written.

But the following are some of the verses that talk about reading God's word or His teachings.

  8 This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall
  meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do
  according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your
  way prosperous, and then you will have success. Joshua 1:8 NASB

The Psalms have a lot on meditating on God's law.

  1 How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the
  wicked,  Nor stand in the path of sinners,  Nor sit in the seat of
  scoffers!  2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD,  And in His
  law he meditates day and night. Psalm 1: 1-2 NASB

And of course the famous Psalm 119, I'd suggest you read all of Psalm 119:

  12 Blessed are You, O LORD;  Teach me Your statutes.  13 With my lips
  I have told of  All the ordinances of Your mouth.  14 I have rejoiced
  in the way of Your testimonies,  As much as in all riches.  15 I will
  meditate on Your precepts  And regard Your ways.  16 I shall delight
  in Your statutes;  I shall not forget Your word. Psalm 119: 12-16 NASB

That's all I can think of for now. But I will update this answer as I remember/find more.


When Pope Francis dies, is Pope Benedict automatically the 'new' leader for a short period? Benedict XVI is, after his resignation in 2014, still pope. Does this mean that if the current Pope Francis suddenly dies that he will become automatically the new pope for a period until a new pope is chosen?

No, because Benedict XVI is an emeritus bishop of Rome, not a coadjutor bishop of Rome.
As the Canon Law says, when a bishop retires from office, he becomes an emeritus bishop:

Can. 402 §1. A bishop whose resignation from office has been accepted retains the title of emeritus of his diocese and can retain a place of residence in that diocese if he so desires, unless in certain cases the Apostolic See provides otherwise because of special circumstances.

In the case of Benedict, he is a Pope Emeritus because he is also the Bishop of Rome, which holds the title of Pope.
When a see becomes vacant, the Canon Law states that the coadjunt bishop (if there is one), takes the temporary vacancy:

Can. 409 §1. When the episcopal see is vacant, the coadjutor bishop immediately becomes the bishop of the diocese for which he had been appointed provided that he has legitimately taken possession of it.

Not all sees have one though:

Can. 403 §1. When the pastoral needs of a diocese suggest it, one or more auxiliary bishops are to be appointed at the request of the diocesan bishop. An auxiliary bishop does not possess the right of succession. [...]
§3. If it appears more opportune to the Holy See, it can appoint ex officio a coadjutor bishop who also has special faculties. A coadjutor bishop possesses the right of succession.

Since the coadjunt bishop has the right of succession, but the Bishop of Rome is elected through a Papal Conclave, there cannot be a coadjunct Bishop of Rome. Therefore, if Pope Francis dies, the see is vacant. Benedict XVI will have no temporary official leadership at all.
Actually, some of the temporary responsibilities, and the temporary "leader" of the see is the auxiliary bishop:

§2. When the episcopal see is vacant and unless competent authority has established otherwise, an auxiliary bishop preserves all and only those powers and faculties which he possessed as vicar general or episcopal vicar while the see was filled until a new bishop has taken possession of the see. If he has not been designated to the function of diocesan administrator, he is to exercise this same power, conferred by law, under the authority of the diocesan administrator who presides offer the governance of the diocese.

In the case of the Diocese of Rome, there are several auxiliary bishops (see list in the table to the right here). The highest of them are the Cardinal Vicar and the Vicar General.
However, in the special case of Rome, the functions of the diocese are reduced considerably during a vacancy. As this article says (based on this apostolic constitution of 1996):

According to Universi Dominici gregis, the government of the Holy See and the administration of the Catholic Church during sede vacante falls to the College of Cardinals, but in a very limited capacity. At the same time, all the heads of the departments of the Roman Curia "cease to exercise" their offices. The exceptions are the Cardinal Camerlengo, who is charged with managing the property of the Holy See, and the Major Penitentiary, who continues to exercise his normal role. If either has to do something which normally requires the assent of the Pope, he has to submit it to the College of Cardinals. Papal legates continue to exercise their diplomatic roles overseas, and both the Vicar General of Rome and the Vicar General for the Vatican City State continue to exercise their pastoral role during this period. The postal administration of the Vatican City State prepares and issues special postage stamps for use during this particular period, known as "sede vacante stamps".


Wilhelm Gesenius' vowel pointing of the tetragrammaton YHWH Is there a writing of Wilhelm Gesenius in which he discusses the vowel pointing of the Tetragrammaton that produces the English transliteration "Yahweh"?  Does someone have a URL for it?

He discusses the tetragrammaton at several places in the grammar.1 In §102m he includes the vowel pointing patach-šĕwă-sĕgōl that leads to our English “Yahweh”. That is: יַהְוֶה. Elsewhere throughout the grammar he either uses the unpointed יהוה or the Masoretic יְהוָֹה (šĕwă'-ḥōlem-qāmeṣ; that is, the vowels of אֲדֹנָי ʾădōnāy 2). The relationship between these forms and the nature of qere perpetuum is explained in §17c.

As noted in a comment, Gesenius’ lexicon3  also includes an entry for the tetragrammaton with discussion of the historical vocalization. He lists several possilibilities including pataḥ-ḥaṭef pataḥ-ḥōlem (something like yahăwōh) by analogy with  יַעֲקֹב (yaʿăqōb, Jacob), consistent with some ancient Greek writings indicating that the Hebrew God was ΙΑΩ (something like iaō). He also discusses some support for the vowels having been šĕwă'-ḥōlem-qāmeṣ (the Masoretic kĕtîb by way of which comes the Western “Jehovah”) and finally discusses the patach-šĕwă-sĕgōl (יַהְוֶה - yahweh), which is supported by the pointing of certain abbreviations for the divine name.

1. Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley, Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (2nd edn; Clarendon Press, 1910).

2. Almost. Just in case anyone is looking too carefully, though ... the first vowel looks different (simple šĕwă in י׳ rather than ḥăṭep̄  páṯaḥ in ădōnāy), but these are related and the change is virtually required by the consonants.

3. Gesenius’s Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. (Bagster and Sons, 1857).


Catholic view of Biblical saints Saints are present throughout the Bible. In my understanding, Protestant use of this word applies to all believers, which I understand is the New Testament (and OT?) meaning of the word.

In my limited understanding of Catholicism, it seems that the Roman Catholic church selects a subset of all believers and declares them to be saints.

Is this then to the exclusion of other believers, ie saying that not all believers are saints?

I am a Catholic, and though I'm certainly not professing to be an expert on doctrine... the answer I've been given goes along the lines that The Catholic church will not declare that any given deceased individual is in Hell (or not in Heaven) as we can't know the forgiveness of our Lord, but that there are individuals who, after careful examination of their earthly deeds and the fruits of their lives, we believe are in Heaven - those individuals we refer to as Saints.
It is (or should be) the goal of every Christian to become a saint after their death, and therefore to believe and behave in as saintly a manor as possible throughout their life.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that the Lord Jesus Christ DOES have blood in his incorruptible body? It seems some Christians deny that the Lord Jesus Christ presently possesses blood in his incorruptible body, citing Luke 24:39 as a basis for such a belief. That being said, what is the biblical basis for the belief that he does presently possess blood in his incorruptible body?

For the verse that you're referencing, it says that Jesus has flesh and bones. He was born as a human. In this portion of Luke, Jesus had just died and was dead for 3 days. On this day, Sunday, he was resurrected back to (human) life. The stone in front of his tomb was rolled away, and the body in the tomb was no longer there because he is alive and left the tomb.

Using the previous verses for context, the verse that you are quoting is related to the previous verses (Luke 24:37-38) when he appears to the disciples and the disciples, "were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost." (NIV).

Jesus is asking why are they frightened as if they saw a ghost? Because in fact, Jesus wasn't a ghost, he was a resurrected human with flesh and bones.

With regards to the dichotomy of the life in the flesh being in the blood vs. Jesus not having any blood post resurrection, after ressurrection the body is transformed. If you look at 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, it says there there are 2 bodies. The natural body (sown) and the spiritual body (raised).

  42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown
  is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor,
  it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
  44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

Therefore, after the body is resurrected, the body doesn't actually have "blood" anymore. The body is changed into a completely different body. And so the rule of "blood supporting life in the flesh" no longer applies because we are working with 2 different types of flesh, albeit flesh that can be touched.