Marriage invalid. Would a church annulment require a state annulment or state divorce? This question may be wrong. I think the right question is in the following link: How do Filipino Catholics get a church annulment when their state marriage is valid, considering the Philippines doesn't have divorce?

Example:
Let's say there's this Catholic couple married in the Catholic church and married in some state. Then one member of the two members of the couple discovers something that, for the sake of argument, would definitely render the marriage invalid:

Suppose this hypothetical something would be definitely be accepted as grounds for annulment in both church annulment and state annulment.

Suppose further that the member can definitely prove that hypothetical something beyond reasonable doubt in, again, both church and said state.

Can said member get a church annulment regardless of state annulment or divorce existence, proceedings or results? Please cite sources.

I don't see why the church would care if I'm state married, state annulled or state divorced if I could prove invalidity of my church marriage.
Related questions:
Why is it not that a state divorce is actually an argument AGAINST a church annulment petition rather than a necessary condition for such petition?
Why do Filipino Catholics have a harder time to get a church annulment?

Context:
Metropolitan Tribunal of Omaha says 'A copy of the divorce decree', but the article seems to be directed to Catholics who are civilly divorced and not civilly annulled and still church married.

Metropolitan Tribunal of Omaha also says in Myths and Truths that

Myth: 'A person’s divorce does not have to be final in order to apply for a declaration of nullity.'

Truth: 'To petition for a declaration of nullity you need to be civilly divorced. The Church presumes that all marriages are valid until proven otherwise and hopes that a couple in a troubled marriage will work at reconciliation.'

Elaboration:

To clarify: I get that state annulment (all the more for state divorce) is not a sufficient condition. My question is whether or not a state annulment (or divorce) is a necessary condition.

One thing that comes to mind is ecclesiastical judicial economy. Without a state annulment, perhaps the church can simply claim being too busy to even entertain your claim. I completely understand if the queues are long, but I mean, as long as the queues as exist. Anyway, if such is the case,  please cite a source.

Consider people who get married only in church but not in state, say, Antarctica or Mars. If the church in fact REQUIRES a state to marry people, please cite source.

Then again, it could be that I don't have a state annulment, not because my state marriage is valid, but because state divorce is cheaper.

Consider that I can't afford either a state annulment or state divorce.

Consider variations in state annulment laws. Then it would be possible that, say, for a Japanese Catholic and a Swedish Catholic with identical cases that the Japanese Catholic wouldn't be entertained because Japan doesn't recognise a certain thing as grounds for annulment while both Sweden and the Catholic church do, I think. Oh wait, the Japanese Catholic could always get a state divorce.

Consider places where there are no such possibilities of divorce such as the Philippines where annulments cost around USD$2,853. So, German Catholics in identical situations as Filipino Catholics would get entertained by the church because Germany has divorce, it seems. Also, the Philippines  is a third world country. Good luck obtaining that can kind of money for the sake of a religious procedure. I didn't realise the church was charging that kind of money for its sacraments (I guess annulment is part of the sacrament of marriage).

No, church annulment does not require state annulment or state divorce.

This misunderstanding could be caused by chruch tribunals that require a copy of divorce decree (as stated in the question). The tribunal does so because the couple is obligated to give a document about its civil status by Art. 116 § 2 Dignitatis Conubii (DC) and most often this is a divorce decree.

  Art. 116 § 2 There should be attached to the libellus [application] an authentic copy of the marriage certificate and, if need be, a document of the civil status of the parties.

The legislator does not assume a civil clarification of the couple's status, as can be seen by the phrase "if need be" and by the phrase "even civil [obligations]" in Art. 252 DC.

  Art. 252 In the sentence the parties are to be warned about the moral obligations or even civil ones by which they may be bound in regard to the other party or offspring concerning support and education to be provided (can. 1689).

So we see, your marriage can be nullified even if you are married in civil law. Though if the intent of nullification is to marry again, it would not make any sense to stay married in civil law. Additionally the church has an interest, that all canonical valid marriages are recogniced by state, because full sense of marriage includes responsibilities in civil law. (This argument of course only applies if it is possible to dissolve the marriage in civil law.)


Before anything was created, did God already know the events that would unfold? Before anything in our world was created, God was already there.  Also, there is biblical evidence for omniscience.

However, did God, prior to the creation of everything, already know the events that would unfold in our world?

What are the different viewpoints regarding God's foreknowledge of the events of this world?

The Bible indicates that God is eternal and outside of time.  As we understand from science, time, space, and matter all came into existence at once.  The Creator of time, space, and matter must of necessity be outside of time, space, and matter.  God reveals in the Scriptures that He is eternal (outside of time) and He is spirit (outside of space and matter).

Learning or growing in knowledge takes place inside of time, so, in a way, this concept is irrelevant to a Being who is outside of time.

Psalm 139 seems to indicate that God's knowledge includes what we will do in the future:

  Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it
  altogether.  Psalm 139:4 ESV

It also indicates that God was able to see what was yet unformed, and that every one of our days was written in a book before we were born.

  Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every
  one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was
  none of them.  Psalm 139:16 ESV

So, a very common position is that God has always known everything.  His knowledge has never grown, but has always been complete and infinite.

As one person questioned, "Has it ever occurred to you that nothing has ever occurred to God?"

This doctrine is one that provides us with exceedlingly abundant comfort, because it means that God will never be surprised at our failures.  There will never be a time when God gets buyer's remorse when our sins become greater than he originally anticipated.  His salvation accounts for all of our sins that we will ever commit--even sins we didn't know we would commit--from the very beginning.  He drew us to Himself knowing full well how frequently and how great we would fail and continue in our sin.


Did adding the Feast of Sts. Mary, Martha and Lazarus clear up anything about the identity of Mary? I was just reading in the National Catholic Register that Sts. Mary Martha and Lazarus have been added to the church calendar by Pope Francis and that the reason they weren't on before was because of some sort of concern over whether Martha and Lazarus's sister Mary was the same as Mary Magdalene (seem unlikely if Magdalene means where she's from and these siblings were from Bethany).
The article doesn't address that concern, so I'm wondering if any new stuff has come to light or what Catholic scholars think is the relevance prohibiting having this 3-saint feast and a separate feast for St. Mary Magdalene.  Does Pope Francis just not think it's a stumbling block worth worrying about or do we know for sure that they're separate people?

Did adding the Feast of Sts. Mary, Martha and Lazarus clear up anything about the identity of Mary?
The answer seems to be no.
The decree of Pope Francis does not clear up the uncertainty. It simply adds these three saints together in the General Calendar of the Roman Rite.

Decree on the Celebration of Saints Martha, Mary and Lazarus in the General Roman Calendar
In the household of Bethany the Lord Jesus experienced the family spirit and friendship of Martha, Mary and Lazarus, and for this reason the Gospel of John states that he loved them. Martha generously offered him hospitality, Mary listened attentively to his words and Lazarus promptly emerged from the tomb at the command of the One who humiliated death.
The traditional uncertainty of the Latin Church about the identity of Mary - the Magdalene to whom Christ appeared after his resurrection, the sister of Martha, the sinner whose sins the Lord had forgiven - which resulted in the inclusion of Martha alone on 29 July in the Roman Calendar, has been resolved in recent studies and times, as attested by the current Roman Martyrology, which also commemorates Mary and Lazarus on that day. Moreover, in some particular calendars the three siblings are already celebrated together.
Therefore, the Supreme Pontiff Pope FRANCIS, considering the important evangelical witness they offered in welcoming the Lord Jesus into their home, in listening to him attentively, in believing that he is the resurrection and the life, and accepting the proposal of this Dicastery, has decreed that 29 July be designated in the General Roman Calendar as the Memorial of Saints Martha, Mary and Lazarus.
The Memorial must therefore appear under this title in all Calendars and Liturgical Books for the celebration of Mass and the Liturgy of the Hours; the variations and additions to be adopted in the liturgical texts, attached to the present decree, must be translated, approved and, after confirmation by this Dicastery, published by the Episcopal Conferences.
Anything to the contrary notwithstanding.
From the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 26 January 2021, Memorial of Saints Timothy and Titus, Bishops.

Some of the Sacred Texts do not associate Mary with Magdalena, while others do! Were there one Mary or were there possibly two? The texts must be interpreted and some say one and others say there were more than one Mary. Regardless of this The name of Mary was extremely popular at the time.

“Mary therefore took a pound of ointment of right spikenard, of great price, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair, and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.” —John 12:3
“Mary hath chosen the best part, which shall not be taken away from her.” —Luke 10:42
“And when Jesus was in Bethania, in the house of Simon the leper, there came to him a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment, and poured it on his head as he was at table. And the disciples seeing it, had indignation, saying: To what purpose is this waste? For this might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. And Jesus knowing it, said to them: Why do you trouble this woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always. For she in pouring this ointment upon my body, hath done it for my burial. “Amen I say to you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she hath done, shall be told for a memory of her.” —Matthew 26:10-13
“And on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre; and she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre...Jesus saith to her: Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, thinking that it was the gardener, saith to him: Sir, if thou hast taken him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith to her: Mary. She turning, saith to him: Rabboni (which is to say, Master).” —John 20:1, 15-16

Some associate her with the woman had seven demons driven out of her.
In fact it gets more complicated if we look outside the box and look at the private revelation of Catherine Emmerich. Although Catholics are not obliged to accept the Revelations of Catherine Emmerich, she is the one who ultimate lead us to finding the House of Mary in present day Turkey!
According to Catherine Emmerich, Lazarus and Martha had another sister by the name of Mary, who was not named in Scripture.
It is complicated!

The Family of Lazarus, Martha and Magdalen
The parents of Lazarus had in all fifteen children, of whom six died young. Of the nine that survived, only four were living at the time of Christ’s teaching. These four were: Lazarus; Martha, about two years younger; Mary, looked upon as a simpleton, two years younger than Martha; and Mary Magdalen, five years younger than the simpleton. The simpleton is not named in Scripture, not reckoned among the Lazarus family; but she is known to God. She was always put aside in her family, and lived altogether unknown...Lazarus ...looked much older than Jesus; he appeared to me to be fully eight years His senior. Lazarus had large possessions, landed property, gardens, and many servants. Martha had her own house, and another sister named Mary, who lived entirely alone, had also her separate dwelling. Magdalen lived in her castle at Magdalum. Lazarus was already long acquainted with the Holy Family. He had at an early period aided Joseph and Mary with large alms and, from first to last, did much for the Community. The purse that Judas carried and all the early expenses, he supplied out of his own wealth...The father of Lazarus was named Zarah, or Zerah, and was of very noble Egyptian descent. He had dwelt in Syria, on the confines of Arabia, where he held a position under the Syrian king; but for services rendered in war, he received from the Roman emperor property near Jerusalem and in Galilee. He was like a prince, and was very rich. He had acquired still greater wealth by his wife Jezabel, a Jewess of the sect of the Pharisees. He became a Jew, and was pious and strict according to the Pharisaical laws. He owned part of the city on Mount Zion, on the side upon which the brook near the height on which the Temple stands, flows through the ravine. But the greater part of this property, he had bequeathed to the Temple, retaining, however, in his family some ancient privilege on its account. This property was on the road by which the Apostles went up to the Cenacle, but the Cenacle itself formed no longer a part of it. Zarah’s castle in Bethania was very large. It had numerous gardens, terraces, and fountains, and was surrounded by double ditches. The prophecies of Anna and Simeon were known to the family of Zarah, who were waiting for the Messiah. Even in Jesus’ youth, they were acquainted with the Holy Family, just as pious, noble people are wont to be with their humble, devout neighbors. (Vol. 1, pp. 334-335)

Rome simply seems to desire that St. Mary Magdalen, St. Lazarus and St. Martha be celebrated on the same date within the Latin Rite.


How do Protestants answer the Catholic accusation of historicity? The Roman Catholic Church has a claim of apostolic succession, from St. Peter transited by the laying on of hands.
Most Protestants reject this understanding of apostolic succession, and instead teach that apostolic succession simply means where "the Word and the Sacraments are purely administered and taught."
However, the Catholic accusation of historicity still stands.
So how do Protestants explain/justify the fact that their understanding of Christianity only started in the XVI century? Was the whole Church corrupt or in error till then? If not, how come, since there was only the Orthodox and Catholic Churches (+ others but not Protestants)?

Protestant reformers were at pains to argue that all they sought to do was restore the church to purity which had become corrupted in medieval times. They wanted to ensure that their teachings were not just in line with Scripture but with many of the church fathers e.g. Augustine. You will find that the writings of the reformers are full of quotes to many early church fathers.
Just to give one example, the first homily from the first Anglican book of homilies ("A fruitful exhortation to the reading and knowledge of Holy Scripture") quotes seven times from ancient writers - Chrysostom, Augustine, and Fulgentius.
John Calvin says this in his reply to Cardinal Sadeleto:

But here you bring a charge against us. For you teach that all which has been approved for fifteen hundred years or more, by the uniform consent of the faithful, is, by our headstrong rashness, torn up and destroyed. Here I will not require you to deal truly and candidly by us, (though this should be spontaneously offered by a philosopher, not to say a Christian.) I will only ask you not to stoop to an illiberal indulgence in calumny, which, even though we be silent, must be extremely injurious to your reputation with grave and honest men. You know, Sadolet, and if you venture to deny, I will make it palpable to all that you knew, yet cunningly and craftily disguised the fact, not only that our agreement with antiquity is far closer than yours, but that all we have attempted has been to renew that ancient form of the Church, which, at first sullied and distorted by illiterate men of indifferent character, was afterwards flagitiously mangled and almost destroyed by the Roman Pontiff and his faction. [My emphasis]

So the Protestant reformers did not believe their understanding of Christianity only started in the 16th century. They believed they were doing away with the corruptions of the faith which had come into the church in medieval times to a more pure Scriptural faith. They quoted from the Fathers to support what they were saying.


What do "sin" and "death" mean in Romans 5:12? Romans 5:12 NASB
  Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

In my country's language, the word "sinned" is translated as an act against God's will. And the word "death" means spiritually dead.

So my interpretation is that someone— either a very young child age of 3 or a teenager to adult— has to do something against God's will first, then this person is spiritually dead. So (for example) if a toddler has not done something which is against God's will yet, this toddler is still spiritually alive.

My questions:

In the English language world, does the word "sinned" in that verse also mean an act against God's will or something else?
In the English language world, what does the word "death" mean in that verse? Does it mean that the person is not breathing anymore, or that they are spiritually dead?

Your first question:

  In the English language world, does the word "sinned" in that verse also mean an act against God's will or something else?

My answer to this would be that the Oxford dictionary of English states that the word "sin {verb; sins, sinning, sinned}" means:

  "an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law {an act regarded as a serious or regrettable fault, offence, or omission}.

Your second question:

  In the English language world, what does the word "death" mean in that verse? Does it mean that the person is not breathing anymore, or that they are spiritually dead?

My answer to your second point is that the word "death" found in Romans 5:12 can be referenced as physical and spiritual death simultaneously {see below my understanding of the text where the emphasis is mine}.

  Therefore, just as through one man {Adam} sin entered into the world {because He disobeyed God in Eden thus cursing the whole creation}, and death through sin {because the creation is no longer perfect, but fallen due to sin; hence why we die}, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned {because we are all descendants of Adam it is in our nature to sin in thought, word and deed}.


Worklabor during construction of Solomon's palace? I am curious about non-Israelites employed in building of Solomon's palace?

Was it common to use such non-Israeli force, especially in position of foreman?

I would say yes, from scripture alone I think we can deduce Solomon used both 'Israeli' and 'non-Israeli' workers as both forced labor (employees) and salves.

As far as the Hebrew labor force I would say that since Ahishar was in charge of the palace (though at this time it would not have been built) and Adoniram in charge of the of the labor force, the probability that Hebrew's would have filled 'foreman' positions is high.  Since this still was an issue after Solomons death, and it took another 14 years to build the palace, it's likely that it was not constrained to only the temple.

  1 Kings 4:6
  Ahishar was in charge of the palace; and Adoniram the son of Abda was in charge of the forced labor.

  1 Kings 12:18
  Then King Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was taskmaster over the forced labor, and all Israel stoned him to death with stones. And King Rehoboam hurried to mount his chariot to flee to Jerusalem.

  1 Kings 12:9
  And he said to them, “What do you advise that we answer this people who have said to me, ‘Lighten the yoke that your father put on us’?”

  1 Kings 12:14
  he spoke to them according to the counsel of the young men, saying, “My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke. My father disciplined you with whips, but I will discipline you with scorpions.”

  1 Kings 9:20-22
  All the people who were left of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, who were not of the people of Israel— their descendants who were left after them in the land, whom the people of Israel were unable to devote to destruction—these Solomon drafted to be slaves, and so they are to this day.....


If I undergo baptized am I still Catholic? I am Catholic and theirs people came in to our boarding house and they undergo me for baptized.am I still Catholic? I need it.i don't want to change my religion.

There is a few parts to this simple question, but the simple answer is "Yes, you are still a Catholic."

Some one suggested to talk to a priest about this and that is the best way to confirm you are still a Catholic.  However, the thought that you are still (I assume) willing to talk to a priest means that you are still a Catholic.  Just like many other things we do, this may be a sin (talk to a priest they would know and assess best...though it doesn't sound like you had intent or full knowledge of the situation and even so it might only be a venial sin).

As with any sin, we may turn away from God for some time but we are always welcome back once we admit wrong, and we are even welcome as we repent and make reparations.  The Catholic Church takes the same attitude, and we and we may sin against her, but we are always welcome.  Just because you sin doesn't make you not Catholic, it just makes you a mortal human.  The Catholic Church is filled with mortal sinners trying to do better everyday, so you are right at home with everyone.

I just mentioned sin a lot, and in order for this to be a sin, you had to have full knowledge of what is happening, full knowledge of how it's wrong, and willingly choose and intend to do this action.  Not having all these components means that you may still have made a mistake but may not have sinned or it may just be a venial sin.  Again this depends on what exactly happened and you intent and knowledge.  A priest could discern this the best with more details that you may want to share.
Based on my limited knowledge of the situation and your knowledge, it does not sound like you sinned at all.  You didn't know and didn't fully participate with full knowledge and you definitely didn't participate to spite God, the church or someone, let alone intend to do harm with your participation (or know of any possible harm with your actions).

In order to NOT be a Catholic anymore, in a nutshell, you have to publicly state your intent.  Some write a letter to the bishop with this intent.  Others in a different drastic way will publicly denounce their religion possibly by speaking ill of it or by promoting heresies.. Even at those points, those people are still welcome back, though at that point they may possibly not be known as a Catholic anymore.

As a side topic with this, there are people who haven't been to mass in 40+ years and are still technically Catholic.  There are people who started to go to a Protestant church after going to. Catholic church for 40+ years and they are still Catholic, technically.  And there are people in between both and other situations, who are all still Catholic.  Some of those situations are sinful, all of whom we need to pray for and welcome back.

Depending on who they were and what they did, the "baptism" is probably nothing more than a blessing.
 I know of one group where they will "baptise" everyone they see and come in contact with and even people sleeping.  I forget the name of that group, but all they are doing is sprinkling "holy water" or "holy salt" (I use those terms loosely as they are blessed by their church leader and not a minister with spiritual authority)., And while sprinkling they say a basic informal prayer for you to accept Jesus I hour heart.
I know that many Protestant religions don't believe in baptism (ironically enough Baptists don't) and some have something similar they call a christening....which is very similar to a baptism but without a sacrament.
There is only a few that believe in baptism and call it such and perform it in a similar way as Catholics do.  The very few will do something similar as to what I just mentioned with people blessing others.
You, possibly being curious about it and asking as they go through the motions and prayers isn't necessarily sinful and isn't enough to get kicked out.  If you were just sleeping (or resting) as they did a "drive-by" baptism I don't think counts for anything really, and really is not even a blessing.
Knowing more about who these people and their intent would be helpful...we're they the Church of Satan trying to have people denounce Christianity and be baptised in their church, or were they a 7th day Adventist just trying to bless the world  through their version of "baptism", or what we Catholics might call a consecration.

A baptism is similar to a blessing and there is more to it, but in general you can only be blessed by someone whom you allow and by someone whom has authority over you.  A baptism, as a sacrament and as a blessing with more (as an over simplification), means that they would have to have spiritual authority over you, and that would only be valid if you gave them that authority by denouncing your religion and willingly joining theirs.
Spiritual authority is a big deal when it comes to blessings and sacraments.  Without that spiritual authority it would not be valid.


How are the 12 Anathemas of St. Cyril against Nestorius supposed to be read? I'd never seen this before today when I was trying to answer a question on the natures of God, but St. Cyril's 12 Anathemas against Nestorius is pretty interesting, and as a piece of literature, I think it's pretty unique.
This is from the first of the Anathemas:

If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, "The Word was made flesh"] let him be anathema.
Nestorius: If anyone says that the Emmanuel is true God, and not rather God with us, that is, that he has united himself to a like nature with ours, which he assumed from the Virgin Mary, and dwelt in it; and if anyone calls Mary the mother of God the Word, and not rather mother of him who is Emmanuel; and if he maintains that God the Word has changed himself into the flesh, which he only assumed in order to make his Godhead visible, and to be found in form as a man, let him be anathema.

Is the first part St. Cyril and the second part Nestorius himself? Or is the whole thing St. Cyril and the part that starts with Nestorius: just St. Cyril writing what he believe are the problems with Nestorius's theology?

It would seem that only the first paragraph was Cyril's side of the argument.  Here's another copy of the text:

  If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema.

It links to a copy on the CCEL.  The bit labeled as Nestorius: is included in a "Notes" section.  The scan of that page makes the situation slightly more clear.


Is the "belly of a whore" phrase from the Bible? Several times, I have heard a phrase along the lines of "It is better to plant thy seed in the belly of a whore than to be cast upon the ground."

Is there a biblical reference for this phrase? I can't find it in the protestant Bible...

There is no such verse in the Bible. The reference to spilling one's seed on the ground comes from Genesis 38:9 NASB:

  Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to
  his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not give
  offspring to his brother.

From here.

There's a fuller explanation from the site I linked to as well.

This is usually a saying that comes up in reference to masturbation.  That's not really what the verse is talking about, but that subject has been discussed on this site here.


Complementarianism - What are the roles of men and women in the church? Complementarians believe that men and women are equal but have different yet complementary roles assigned by God.

What do complementarian church leaders in history believe are the differing roles of men and women in the church?

There are two principal kinds of church that have 'complementarian' doctrines.

In the first case there are churches with ordained clergy that reserve the office of Priest for men. Chief among these is the Roman Catholic church, but there are others. The priestly role includes celebrating the Eucharist (Mass), and church leadership.

Not all churches with ordained clergy reserve the office of Priest for men. Those that do also reserve higher offices such as Bishop. Some churches are in transition, allowing women to be Priests but not Bishops, for example.

The second kind of complementarians are generally Evangelical Protestants. They can have very varied doctrines, but they almost invariably also reserve certain church roles for men, and those roles are centred around leadership, authority and teaching.

Example restrictions might be any or all of:

not allowing women to take the role of pastor
not allowing women to take the role of elder (which is often associated with certain leadership positions)
not allowing women to teach (except exclusively to other women or children)
not allowing women to teach on spiritual matters, or preach in church
not allowing women to be the overall leader of a congregation

Here are some references to specific examples: 1 2

Again, not all Evangelical Protestant churches reserve some roles to men.

I know of no church which reserves any roles for women as a matter of doctrine.


What is the Biblical basis for preachers to be paid from members' tithing? What is the Biblical basis for preachers to be paid from members' tithing?

That's an easy question to answer. The key is to know what the title pastor was referred to in both the Old Testament & also the New Testament. They didn't use the term pastor, like we do today. In the OT the term pastor was called a Priest. In the NT the same title pastor is known as an Elder. (Some of the synonyms for those titles, can be found at the bottom of this message.)

If you use a Bible search engine like these & look for "priest" plus "tithe", you can find the answers which you're looking for. (Or you can scroll down & keep reading.)

Bible Gateway
Lumina
Bible Hub
Bible.com

Here is the OT answer from Numbers 18:28 (NIV):

  In this way you also will present an offering to the Lord from all the
  tithes you receive from the Israelites. From these tithes you must
  give the Lord’s portion to Aaron the priest.

Aaron was the high priest. So the best part of the tithes was to go to him. We call that "the best of the best". It's the top 1%. (Formula: 100% / 10 = 10% / 10 = 1% = Best of the Best = the Lord's portion!)

Here are some NT answers:

Hebrews 7:5 (NIV):

  Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, from their fellow Israelites—even though they also are descended from Abraham.

This is the verse which you're looking for:

1 Corinthians 9:12-13 (NIV):

  Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

Here is why you're probably confused:

Paul didn't want to be a burden on anyone, so he chose tent making as his trade. Just remember that his calling was to be a traveling missionary to the Gentile world & not necessarily a stationary synagogue elder to the Jews in Jerusalem.

Part of Acts 18:2-3 (NET):

  ... Paul approached them, 3 and because he worked at the same trade, he stayed with them and worked with them (for they were tentmakers by trade).

Paul didn't want to take anything from the tithe as he wanted a reward. Paul just has a hard time explaining it though in 1st Corinthians 9:15-18. In v. 19, we see what his heart really wanted:

1 Corinthians 9:19 (ESV):

  For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.

There are some indirect verses too. Since I'm not going to do all of your Bible study homework for you, you can continue studying by checking out these verses too:

See: Galatians 6:6
See: 1 Corintians 9:11
See: Genesis 14:18-20
See: Luke 10 where Jesus sends out 72 local missionaries. Read verse 7.

If you're thinking about becoming a pastor, you'll need to read 1st Corinthians 9 plus the entire Bible, MANY MANY times & pray a lot to ask God if it's His will that you should become one! For the sake of your own eternal future, DO NOT choose the profession lightly! But seek His guidance through prayer & Bible study. Then patiently wait upon The Lord to answer you! If He says yes, then by all means pursue becoming a pastor! If He says no, then don't force it. See James 3:1 for the reason. Someday, I hope to see you in Heaven!

Here is a note about the title of the ordained office, for clarification purposes: One of the synonyms of the title for a priest/pastor/elder would be a Presbyter. Bible translations tend to refer to priests in the OT & elders in the NT. It's someone who reads the Words of God - AKA scrolls - and then teaches the congregation. The printing press wasn't invented until around 1440 A.D. Anyone who was called by God & then ordained by God & set apart where God gave them their primary job, which was to read His Word and/or copy His Word or translate His Word like Martin Luther did & preach + teach His Word to others, would be considered a priest, rabbi, elder, overseers, presbyter, bishop, reverend, pastor, etc... (The Internet wasn't invented until the 1960's with the WWW in 1990. Now we can easily get digital copies of the Bible for free!) Someone who didn't preach 2,000 years ago, but just copied scrolls, was a scribe. Someone who served under a priest, but isn't a full-time called & ordained pastor, but was allowed to serve in the church - like on weekends & is a full-time worker somewhere else... like in an office or a factory - is a deacon.


What belief system would combine both elements from Calvinism and Arminianism? I've often heard some people describe themselves as a "Calminianist" in an attempt to say through a portmanteau that they ascribe to both Calvinism and Arminianism.

Is/Are there some universally acknowledged belief system(s) that combines the overlapping elements in Calvinism and Arminianism? Perhaps some system(s) that accept all points of both or 2 points of one and 2 points of the other, for example?

There are a few that attempt to do so. Both Calvinists and Arminians would say that any such attempt is internally inconsistent.

I don't know of any "universally acknowledged system" of theology that does so, except perhaps for Amyraldism, which denies limited atonement but affirms the other four points of Calvinism. (Any Protestant denying a point of Calvinism is necessarily affirming the corresponding point in Arminianism, and vice versa.) In non-confessional churches you'll find Calvinists and Arminians freely intermingling and you'll find one-, two-, three-, or four-point Calvinists. There is great diversity in Christendom on these things, but as I said, I don't think you'll find any system of theology seamlessly incorporating one element of Calvinism with one element of Arminianism.


Who was Darius the Mede? And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old. [Daniel 5:31]

I have read much about the possible identities of Darius the Mede; to me, the most convincing alias is that of Gabaru (mentioned in Nabonidus Chronicle column iii line 20).

However, there are a number of other theories, and it causes me to wonder: Who exactly was Darius the Mede? I know we cant know for sure (?), but what would make the most sense, in light of our faith?

Prior to Cyrus the Great, a Persian, the Medians were overlords of the Persians and other tribes in what is now western Iran.  Cyrus overthrew the Median king, Astyages, and founded the Achaemenid Empire, with the Media as part of the empire.  Cyrus went on to conquer Babylon in 540 BCE and soon after allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem, for which he is mentioned extensively in 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Isaiah (Second Isaiah) by the grateful Jews.

Cyrus was killed in battle in about 530 BCE, in Central Asia, and was succeeded by his son, Cambyses. In 522 BCE, while Cambyses was campaigning in the west, a usurper, Bardia or Smerdis, occupied the throne. He was quickly overthrown by Darius, who, although a Mede, was a military commander in the Persian empire. Darius I ruled Persia from 522 until 486 BCE and was succeeded by his son Xerxes (known as 'Ahasuerus' in the Bible).

The Cambridge Ancient History Volume III Part 2, page 395, says the Book of Daniel is generally considered to be a historically unreliable compilation of the second century BCE. Two of the historical errors in the Book of Daniel were to describe to Darius "the Mede" as the son of Xerxes and as the king who conquered Babylon, at the age of sixty two (18 years before he overthrew Smerdis and really became king):

  Daniel 5:31: And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.

An alternative view

Sara Raup Johnson (Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity, page 58) provides the background to another interesting explanation of "Darius the Mede". She tells us that Josephus, writing late in the first century CE, was baffled by the reference to "Darius the Mede", who ruled before Cyrus according to the Book of Daniel. Jewish Antiquities Book 10 closely follows the Book of Daniel, but Josephus is unable to identify another historical Darius who would preserve Daniel as a book of history. Johnson says that Josephus came up with a characteristically ingenious solution. Josephus wrote that Darius the Mede was a son of Astyarges the Mede, maternal grandfather of Cyrus "but was called another name among the Greeks", and that he assisted Cyrus in the overthrow of Babylon. She says (Page 59) that Josephus stands at the head of a line leading to modern scholarship's vain attempts to make historical sense of texts never written as pure history.

Steven Anderson (https://www.academia.edu/9787699/Darius_the_Mede_A_Reappraisal) looks at some options for 'Darius the Mede' to have taken part in the conquest of Babylon. A critical assumption in this dissertation is that 'Darius the Mede' either existed or he did not; Anderson does not consider the possibility that Daniel's author displaced King Darius I in time.   At page 51, he acknowledges that mainstream scholarship says that the Book of Daniel was a compilation of the second century BCE, at the same time cautiously raising his own doubts on this. The problem is that if the Book of Daniel was a late, pseudepigraphical work, we have no reason to believe it to be historically accurate. Anderson acknowledges that Jerome cited Josephus, whom Anderson acknowledges (page 5) as appearing to have been the first  to identify Daniel’s Darius the Mede with Xenophon’s Cyaxares II. Thus, Josephus was the only independent source for this claim, and he is already well known for taking a biased view of history when it suited.


The Mormon Church teaches that Jesus Christ created under the direction of Heavenly Father and He did not create the world "out of nothing." The following is what they say. "Under the direction of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth (see Mosiah 3:8; Moses 2:1). From scripture revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith, we know that in the work of the Creation, the Lord organized elements that had already existed (see Abraham 3:24). He did not create the world “out of nothing,” as some people believe.  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/creation?lang=eng
If Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth under the direction of God the Father how do they reconcile this with Isaiah 44:24? "Thys says the Lord your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens BY MYSELF, And spreading out the earth ALL ALONE."
Also, according to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints it says, "He/God did not create the world "out of nothing," as some people believe but God "organized the elements that already existed.'
Notice that at Isaiah 44:24 it says, "I am the maker of all things." Would that not include the elements? That word "maker" literally means "Fashioner." The following site/Lexicon explains how the word is used.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3335&t=KJV
Then there is Hebrews 11:3, "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen WAS NOT MADE OUT OF THINGS WHICH ARE VISIBLE." I'm basically asking two questions? One, how is Jesus being directed in creating the heavens and the earth when God clearly says He created all alone and by Himself? Two, on what basis do you come to the conclusion that God organized the elements that had already existed? How do you know they already existed?

1. How is Jesus being directed in creating the heavens and the earth when God clearly says He created all alone and by Himself?
Isaiah is specifically speaking to encourage Israel to stop worshipping other divine beings/idols but to worship Yahweh alone.
Isaiah 44:6, 8-10,17,19:

6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

9 They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.

10 Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?

17 And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.

19 And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?

At first glance such language as no God beside me might be interpreted by some to mean that no other form of deity exits at all (including exalted man), but considering similar passages in other parts of scripture its clear that this type of interpretation is incorrect. For example in Isaiah 47:8-10 depicts the city of Babyon with the similar phrasing, but there are other cities such as Ninevah (which also has similar phrasing in Zephaniah 2:15):

8 Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the bloss of children:

9 But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood: they shall come upon thee in their perfection for the multitude of thy sorceries, and for the great abundance of thine enchantments.

10 For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.

Isaiah is speaking specifically against idols in the section, not the singularity of being of God.
2. On what basis do you come to the conclusion that God organized the elements that had already existed? How do you know they already existed?
Referencing the same lexicon seems to indicate organizing as opposed to creation ex-nihilo

Root Word: Probably identical with יָצַר (H3334) (through the squeezing into shape)

Outline of Biblical Usage:

to form, fashion frame
(Qal) to form, fashion

of divine activity
of creation

(Niphal) to be formed, be created
(Pual) to be predetermined, be pre-ordained
(Hophal) to be formed

Strong's definition: yatsar; probably identical with H3334 (through the squeezing into shape); to mould into a form; especially as a potter; figuratively, to determine: earthen, fashion, form, frame, make, potter, purpose

Several scriptures let us know material is eternal:
Abraham 3:24:

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

D&C 93:33

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

Several prophets have stated similar. Joseph Smith in the King Follett Sermon stated:

You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.

Hebrews 11:3 is not about inventing beliefs, but about putting our trust in God, based on what we can see, in order to rely on Him in areas where we cannot see.1 See Hebrews 11:1
1 BibleRef
All emphasis added by me


Based on what verse did Luther know that no sin can separate the believers from God? The article in this link said:

  Something has gone wrong in Lutheranism. It has been more than
  adequately shown that regarding the doctrine of the eternal
  predestination of God Martin Luther taught things directly contrary to
  the standards of Modern Lutheranism

Which to be honest, I still cannot understand that "the Modern Lutheran Church has gone wrong" is in a positive sense or a negative sense in the view of the writer in that article.

In other words, it's not clear to me whether the views of Modern Lutheran Church is an apostasy or not in the article's writer point of view.

Anyway, Luther said in this link:

  No sin can separate us from Him (Martin Luther: Letter to Melanchthon)

One of my commentator said:

  Luther knew that no sin is 'too great' to separate us from the love
  and forgiveness of God, in Christ

So the question is:
Based on what verse did Luther knows that no sin can separate the believers from God ?

My understanding is that the Lutheran Church believes it is possible for someone to lose their salvation because of unrepentant and persistent sin. I doubt they would interpret Romans 8:38-39 in the manner you suggest.  Here is some information I found that may be relevant:

  At times, our pastors, with considerable sorrow, may have to tell a person not to attend the Lord’s Supper until he or she has repented of sin. If the situation continues without repentance, the pastor may have to declare to the person, on behalf of the congregation that has made this decision, that he or she is excluded from the church until there is repentance.  Excommunication is a last resort to help a person recognize the extremely dangerous situation he has placed himself in because he will not repent of his sin. It is a final attempt to win someone back from Satan’s influence.   Source: https://www.faithlutherancorning.org/confession-absolution

The Lutheran Church believes that repeated sin hardens the heart and may lead to sinning against the Holy Spirit.  Also, as noted in the previous extract above, unrepentant and repeated sin could result in being excommunicated:

  SIN: Transgression of God's law (Ro 4:15; 1 Jn 3:4). Sin may be divided into original sin (see Sin, Original) and actual sin. Actual sin (every act, thought, emotion (e.g., lust*) conflicting with God's law) may be involuntary or may be done ignorantly (Acts 17:30) and includes sins of commission (cf., e.g., Mt 15:19; Ja 1:15) and sins of omission (Ja 4:17). Sin arouses God's righteous wrath and deserves His punishment. Willful sin sears conscience*; repeated, it hardens the heart; may lead to, but is not identical with, the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit.’  http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=s&word=SIN

This extract explains the Lutheran view of sin, but it does not suggest a believer can persist in unrepentant sin and "get away with it":

  VENIAL AND MORTAL SINS: The Lutheran Confessions speak of sin* that is mortal, or deadly, i. e., irreconcilable with faith (Ap IV 48, 64, 109, 115). When believers fall into open sin, faith has departed (SA-III III 43–44). One who obeys his lusts does not retain faith (Ap IV 144). Original sin (see Sin, Original) is mortal; it brings eternal death on those who are not born again (AC II 2 Lat.). One who is dead in sin is insensitive to sin (LC, V: The Sacrament of the Altar, 77–78). Sins remain in believers (SA-III III 40; FC SD II 34). Many regard the following as 7 deadly sins, fatal to spiritual progress: pride,* covetousness,* lust,* anger, gluttony, envy,* sloth. But man cannot weigh, distinguish, or differentiate sins; all sins manifest total corruption (SA-III III 36–38), merit God's wrath (Mt 5:18–19; Gl 3:10; Ja 2:10), and are deadly (Eze 18:4; Ro 6:23); every sin loses its deadly effect when Christ, apprehended by faith, intervenes (Ro 8:l; 1 Jn 1:7, 9; 2:1–2). Source: http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=s&word=SINS.VENIALANDMORTAL

I am not a Lutheran and I may have misunderstood what you are asking (because it is not clear).

Edit re your view that Martin Luther believed it was all right to continue in sin:  Wrong. Martin Luther nowhere supports that interpretation of Romans 8:38-39. That partial quote from the letter Luther wrote to Melanchthon has been taken out of context.  Please note: “The Modern Lutheran church does not stand with Martin Luther on the issue of predestination, and thus suffers from an internal contradiction. Its efforts to modify Luther's views and to present a more moderate case for predestination ultimately end in conflict with Luther's uncompromising doctrine of God's Sovereignty.”  https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/double_luther.html


If I was christened am I not Catholic? I was christened as an infant in the Catholic faith. Due to where I lived, a Catholic church was not available, so I attended a Baptist church. I married a Catholic man, when we went to mass with his family, I was told by his family not to partake. It offended me but were they in the right?

I would say they erred on the side of caution. Your baptism is fully valid in the Catholic Church and since you are mature enough to distinguish the Eucharist from regular food you have every right to partake.

However, because you were raised in a Baptist church, you did not receive a Catholic education nor did you have a Catholic confirmation. (In fact the Baptists do not Confirm since they do not baptize infants.) I also assume that you did not perform the sacrament of penance before taking Communion. Therefore, you partaking could present the appearance of impropriety. If you intend to continue worshiping in the Catholic church you should discuss taking the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults with a priest. This will include education, Penance, Confirmation, and Communion.


Were any of the Apostolic Fathers Jews? A simple question; I am reading the Apostolic Fathers and have noticed how they frequently refer to themselves as 'Gods Chosen' and speak of the Old Testament prophets as 'Our Forefathers'. This naturally leads us to ask whether or not any of them were ethnic Jews? Considering that Eusebius records the first fifteen Bishops of Jerusalem as 'being of the circumcision' it would be strange if none of the apostolic fathers were of that ethnicity.

Were any of the Apostolic Fathers Jews?

The short answer is yes!

St. Ignatius of Antioch

It is piously believed by many Catholics that St. Ignatius of Antioch was of Jewish origin. In fact, there is an ancient tradition that he was the child whom Christ took and presented to the apostles as the example of the one who is greater in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 18:1-4).

  St. Ignatius of Antioch, the child who is greater in the kingdom of heaven

  At that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:1-4)

  According to an ancient tradition, St. Ignatius of Antioch was the child whom Christ took and presented to the apostles as the example of the one who is greater in the kingdom of heaven. From that day the child, who was most beloved by the Savior and favored with the divine embrace, was also marked as the one upon whom lions would feast in the Roman Colosseum.

The Orthodox Church seem to piously hold to this tradition about St. Ignatius of Antioch also.

St. Barnabas

St. Barnabas was is considered an Apostolic Father and Barnabas was a Cypriot Jew.

  Barnabas, born Joseph, was according to tradition an early Christian, one of the prominent Christian disciples in Jerusalem. According to Acts 4:36, Barnabas was a Cypriot Jew. Named an apostle in Acts 14:14, he and Paul the Apostle undertook missionary journeys together and defended Gentile converts against the Judaizers. They traveled together making more converts (c. 45–47), and participated in the Council of Jerusalem (c. 50). Barnabas and Paul successfully evangelized among the "God-fearing" Gentiles who attended synagogues in various Hellenized cities of Anatolia.

  Barnabas' story appears in the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul mentions him in some of his epistles. Tertullian named him as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but this and other attributions are conjecture. Clement of Alexandria and some scholars have ascribed the Epistle of Barnabas to him, but his authorship is disputed.

  Although the date, place, and circumstances of his death are historically unverifiable, Christian tradition holds that Barnabas was martyred at Salamis, Cyprus, in 61 AD. He is traditionally identified as the founder of the Cypriot Orthodox Church. The feast day of Barnabas is celebrated on June 11. - Barnabas


How do deniers of Jesus preincarnate existence handle all the personal pronouns in John 1, particularly verse10? John 1:10 says:

He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.

It is made clear in the context that the "he" who was in the world is the same "he" who was in the beginning with God (v.2), the same "he" through whom all things were made (v.3), the same "he" in which was the life lighting all men (v.4), the same "he" who came unto his own and was not received (v.11), and the same "he" through whom we may receive the right to be called children of God (v.12).
Of the three "he" in verse 10 the first is 3rd person singular and the last two are 3rd person singular, masculine.  How do those who deny that Jesus preexisted his incarnation as a personal being handle the inspired usage of all of these 3rd person personal pronouns in describing the one who made the world and was later made flesh and dwelt among us?

1. Hold that the personal pronouns up to John 1:11 or 1:14 refer to the Logos but not Jesus.
In the particular line you are quoting, John 1:10, the pronouns can be understood to refer to the Logos. It can be translated as

"The Logos was in the world, and the world came into being through the Logos, and
the world did not know the Logos."

Logos is a masculine noun, and so fits the pronouns here. If you think the Logos is not = to Jesus, then this line isn't stating Jesus pre-existed.
Indeed, this is basically how the Revised English Version translates this line, where they use 'it' instead of 'he' or 'him'. In commentary on John 1:10 they say

"John 1:10 shows that the logos, God’s express purpose and plan was in
the world, and it also repeats in a different way what had been stated
in John 1:3, that it was through the logos that God made the world.
However, John 1:10 adds that the world did not know the logos and thus
by implication the world did not know God."

It is possible to hold that the masculine pronouns are referring to the Logos right up to John 1:14's introduction of the 'only begotten'.
In the case of the Revised English Version commentary, they hold that John 1:1-10 is "a kind of inclusio," and then at John 1:11 John switches from the Logos to 'the Logos made flesh'.
2. Hold that the pronouns referred to above may or may not refer to Jesus, but also hold that the 'beginning' which is being talked about in John 1 isn't the beginning of Genesis, but the beginning of Jesus' ministry and the 'new creation'.
You see this with the Racovian catechism (p. 63).

"As then the matter of which John is treating is the Gospel, or the
things transacted under the Gospel, nothing else ought to be
understood here besides the beginning of the Gospel; a matter
clearly known to the Christians whom he addressed, namely, the advent
and preaching of John the Baptist, according to the testimony of all
the evangelists, each of whom begins his history with the coming and
preaching of the Baptist. Mark indeed (chap. i. 1,) expressly states
that this was the beginning."

Compare John 15:27 ("you have been with Me from the beginning.") or John 16:4 ("from the beginning"). So what is being described at John 1:11 according to this is the new creation which has come into being.
3. Hold that John 1:1-5 refers to God's word, Jesus is referred to first at John 1:7, and is the referent straight through to John 1:18. This is the approach Anthony Buzzard takes in The One God, the Father, One Man Messiah Translation: New Testament with Commentary.

"1 In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the
word was fully expressive of God Himself. 2 This was with God in the
beginning. 3 Everything came into existence through it, and without it
nothing of what came into being existed. 4 In it there was life and
that life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness
and the darkness does not overwhelm it.
6 There came on the scene of history a man sent from God. His name was
John. 7 This man came as a witness so that he might bear witness to
the Light and that everyone might believe through him. 8 He was not
the Light himself, but he witnessed concerning the Light.
9 This was the genuine Light which enlightens every man coming into
the world. 10 He was in the world and the world came into existence
through him, and the world did not recognize him, the Light. 11 He
came to his own land and his own people did not accept him. 12 As
many, however, as did accept him, to these he gave the right to become
children of God — namely the ones believing in his Gospel revelation.
13 These were born not from blood, nor from the desire of the flesh,
nor from the desire of a male, but from God.
14 And the word came into existence, a human being, and tabernacled
among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory such as a uniquely
begotten Son enjoys from his Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John
gave his witness concerning him and cried out with these words, "This
was the one of whom I said, 'The one coming after me has now moved
ahead of me, because he always was my superior.'" 16 For from his
fullness all of us have received grace and more grace. 17 For the Law
was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus
Messiah. 18 No one has seen God at any time. A uniquely begotten Son,
one who is in the bosom of the Father — he has explained God."

I have preserved the paragraph formatting from Buzzard's translation, as it helps highlight the flow of ideas.
Note the lower-case 'light' until John 1:7, which indicates the shift to a reference to Jesus (the logos made flesh). A key here is that the 'beginning' of John 1:1 on a straightforward reading refers to Genesis' beginning, but John 1:10 which seems largely a repetition is rather a development of John 1:3, applying the idea to the 'new beginning' which is the ministry of Jesus. So the 'world came into existence' at John 1:10 is referring to the new creation brought about through Jesus, not the original creation in Genesis.
Buzzard's translation is the first of John 1 (whether trinitarian or unitarian) I have read to make sense to me, as a whole and in terms of how it develops the narrative through John 1.


According to Mormons, Jesus is Jehovah in OT. Therefore do they view all the occurrences of the Tetragrammaton as referring to Jesus? Lesson 5 in the "Jesus Christ and the Everlasting Gospel Teacher Manual" (link) has the title Jesus Christ Was Jehovah of the Old Testament.

In the introduction this lesson says that:

  In testifying of the Savior Jesus Christ, modern prophets have
  declared: “He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament” (“The Living
  Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles,” Ensign or Liahona, Apr. 2000,
  2). Jesus Christ, as Jehovah, established Heavenly Father’s
  everlasting gospel on the earth in every dispensation of time in order
  to gather in every one of God’s children who were lost.

According to the LDS are all occurrences of the Tetragrammaton in Old Testament then references to Jesus?

This is correct, and easily supported by the Bible, particularly the writings of John.

John chapter 1 states that "all things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." So we see that Jehovah, the creator of the world, is Jesus.
In John 14:6, Jesus says that "no man cometh unto the Father but by me," and 1 John 2: 1 calls Jesus our "advocate with the Father", showing that interactions between man and God -- such as those experienced by Old Testament prophets -- are with Jesus, rather than with the Father.
In Isaiah 44:6, the LORD (tegragrammaton) states "I am the first and I am the last"; Jesus similarly identifies himself as "the First and the Last" in Revelation 22:13.  (See verse 16 to clear up any ambiguity as to the identity of the speaker here.)
In the end of John chapter 8, Jesus angered the local Jews by equating himself with "I AM," the name by which Jehovah identified himself to Moses in Exodus chapter 3.  In verse 14 the being in the burning bush calls himself I AM, and in verse 15 he calls himself the tegragrammaton.

So we see that Jehovah is identified quite clearly with Jesus, rather than with the Father, and that interaction between mankind and deity occurs exclusively through the mediation of the Son.  LDS doctrine holds that this is a consequence of the Fall, separating mankind from the Father.

Interestingly enough, the first chapters of Genesis use a rather unique term for deity: Jehovah Elohim, translated to English as "The LORD God", created the world and interacted with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and then ended up casting them out after they partook of the forbidden fruit.  From that point on, starting in the next chapter, the God they interact with is simply Jehovah.  LDS doctrine holds that Elohim ("God" in Hebrew) refers to the Father when used as a personal name, (the term is also used as a generic word for any god, including the false gods of other peoples,) and that these early chapters, before the Fall, spoke of the Father and the Son together creating the world and interacting with Adam and Eve, but after being driven out of Eden, the privilege of direct communion with the Father was lost.


Is the "righteousness of God" more than a life of perfect submission? Many reformed protestants believe in "double imputation" - the idea that our sin is imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. 2 Corinthians 5 is often the source quoted for this:

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthains 5:21 (NIV)

The way this has often been explained to me is that we are not able to live a life perfectly obeying God, but Jesus did, and so his life counts for us. But is this all Jesus' righteousness is - the same as if we (theoretically) we to live a life in perfect submission? Or is it correct to say that even if we were to live a perfect life, the "righteousness of God" would still be greater than the righteousness we had achieved?
I'm aware that this is an area of theology I struggle with, so perhaps this question doesn't make sense to people more learned than me. But do any of the greater Reformers, or other notable writers, comment on this comparison?
Note that I am specifically asking about those who believe we are imputed with the righteousness of Christ, as opposed to those who understand this verse differently.

Ten times, the expression 'righteousness of God' is used in the New Testament scriptures. Never once is the collocation 'righteousness of Christ' ever found.
The idea of 'active and passive obedience' was introduced by Dr Owen into the Savoy Declaration in 1658. It is not present in the Westminster Confession of 1647.
Luther never mentions it, nor Calvin.
It is a legal concept, the idea that 'Jesus kept the law' and that, somehow (never expressed in scripture) this is 'transferable'.
It is absent from Romans and Galatians which is where Paul would have expounded it, did it exist. Which it doesn't.
Some attempt to squeeze it into various texts like Romans 5:18 where the correct translation reads 'by one righteousness' (the special word for 'righteousness' in this place conveying 'the execution of judgment' and referring to God's righteousness who exacted righteousness upon his own Son at Golgotha) and 2 Peter 1:1 where righteousness is a matter of justification by faith, not legal works.
But these very attempts, by their clumsiness, more attest to the truth of the righteousness of God being a divine matter (not a legal matter) than they support their own theory.
The theory detracts from justification by faith which, in scripture, is a matter of God seeing his own righteousness in the faith of the believer (Abraham believed God) and rightly evaluating (logizomai) that to the believer.
And Abraham believed God and there was evaluated to him unto righteousness : is the exact wording which is extremely precise in the several places it appears.
It is a matter of God's rightness. It is not a matter of law at all. God is righteous because he is whom he is and he is what he is (I am that I am).
If law be greater than God, and if God keep the law to be righteous then Law is to be worshipped. Which breaks the second commandment of the law.
And any scheme of 'righteousness' which is based on a legal righteousness detracts from the 'righteousness of God' which is what we find in holy scripture : ten times over.

Humanity was forbidden by God to address itself to the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of Eden. Doing so was catastrophic and led to death. It was sin to do so.
That some suggest Jesus Christ should, in humanity, do what was forbidden to humanity in the beginning just reveals how little they truly understand what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil really is.
The tree of life was that which was in the midst of the garden. Not the knowledge of good and evil. And the word of God, the word of life, was that which, in the midst, spoke truth and testified to the true nature (and source) of rightness.


What is the Catholic Church's answer to whether one is really Catholic if they don't accept some of the Church's teachings? A reader posed this question to CRUX magazine and obtained an answer.

This question is seeking the Catholic Church's answer to whether one is really Catholic if they pick and choose in what they believe in.

A comprehensive answer will state what the Church teaches on the matter and include what the Church Fathers have said with arguments from scripture.

What is the status of the Catholic when the picking and choosing involves faith, and when it involves morality?

The official catholic teaching is that a person who is a Catholic by virtue of having received the Sacraments of Baptism or Confirmation in the Church remains a Catholic unless or until he or she deliberately and voluntarily repudiates the Church. As a separate matter, a Catholic is bound by Canon Law

  to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church. [Can. 212 §1.]

To the extent that they fail to comply, or deliberately violate that to which they are bound, they are in impaired communion with the rest of the church, but remain Catholics. A consequence of the impaired communion may be liability to certain penal consequences as laid out in the Code of Canon Law, and there are some consequences that have automatic consequences. Failing to accept, adhere to, and promote the Church's teaching on abortion, for example, carries the penalty of automatic self-excommunication by the individual. Ex-communication, however, simply bars a Catholic from all sacraments, except confession, but does not mean that the person is considered by the Church not to be a Catholic.

I am not sufficiently familiar with the writings of the Fathers to discuss which of them might have written on this matter, but in general my understanding is that most of the current teaching on this matter developed after the time of the Fathers, and thus, after the time of Scripture. Given my lack of knowledge of the Fathers on this matter, I welcome any who might be able to write definitively on this matter to edit this answer.


Counterarguments to "Numerology"? Background:  I am interested in learning more about numerology.  In this post I am specifically interested in the arguments used by those who reject this doctrine.

My current impression of what "numerology" is:  Certain numbers in scripture have special symbolic meaning.  Examples: "7 is the number of divine perfection", "6 is the number of man", etc.

What I am looking for:  I am sure there are "countless" examples in favor of this doctrine, but I am curious what the counterarguments are?  I am interested in maybe the top 3-5 counterarguments that a "non-numerologist" would use.

If there is no such thing as a "non-numerologist", or there are no counterarguments, please provide some sort of evidence or reference to this effect.  Thanks!

I can't answer the question in the way you're asking it, but I can 'disarm' numerology for you. When you encounter something, like say, a set of best practices in an activity, the number of units you decide to divide the information into determines the symbolic meaning you are essentially attaching to the set. This is possible with pretty much everything, so when you see 'ten commandments', if you affix too much significance to the ten, you lose sight of the fact that God could have given them four or twelve commandments with the same content, but Ten is chosen because of its symbolic meaning.

Take the cross; it is one thing. You can divide it into the cross bar and the pole, that's two. You can divide it into the top, middle and bottom, that's three. You can divide it into each of the cardinal directions: four. You can divide it into cardinal directions plus the center: five. Or, you can get four by including more details, such as cross bar, pole, sign (above) and footrest. The cross has six elevations (forward, back, top, bottom, left, right). The five pieces before plus the footrest and the sign is seven; with the footrest and sign you get eight points. Take the seven before and include the spear of longinus and the reed with the sponge, you get nine objects. Ten if you then count the rock it was planted on. You get twelve by counting the sides in two dimensions, fourteen in three dimensions, and so on.

The problem and weakness of numerology generally is that it assumes the numbering and the content are coeval, that the ten-ness of the ten commandments is somehow essential to its content. Consider the four Gospels; four were kept because of the symbolism of four; at one time a Syriac wanted to combine them into a single gospel for accuracy (this was a long, long time ago.)

The difficulty with numbers is teasing out the meaning of the number itself and not confusing it with the thing being numbered. All numberings aside from perhaps one and three are arbitrary; but even then the threeness of God is his decision.

This position essentially refutes numerology because instead of seeing the numbers as a noumena, I.e a revelation of the underlying reality, it sees them as phenomena, that is, an arrangement applied to the underlying reality. Their use has a meaning, but it is not itself the meaning.


Are non-Catholics allowed to go to confession? As an Episcopalian, we technically have the rite of Confession and Reconciliation as one of the things we are supposed to do, but I've never seen it done in actual practice.

In contrast, I know that most Roman Catholics do regularly incorporate the practice, and it seems like a wonderful thing—tangibly hearing the sacramental words of absolution from a man who is understood to speaking in God's stead. As one who deals with abstract things all day long, it would be nice to hear "God with flesh" sometimes.

The question is, would a Roman Catholic priest technically be able to hear the confession of a non-Catholic?  I mean, since I'm not a Papist (I don't mean that pejoratively, I promise!), technically I'm a heretic.  As such, could a Roman Catholic priest hear my confession even if he wanted to? More importantly, can he pronounce absolution?

Perhaps surprisingly, Canon Law appears to allow it.

  Can.  959 In the sacrament of penance the faithful who confess their sins to a legitimate minister, are sorry for them, and intend to reform themselves obtain from God through the absolution imparted by the same minister forgiveness for the sins they have committed after baptism and, at the same, time are reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by sinning.

So who are "the faithful"? Naturally, that question is answered, too:

  Can. 204 §1. The Christian faithful are those who, inasmuch as they have been incorporated in Christ through baptism, have been constituted as the people of God. For this reason, made sharers in their own way in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and royal function, they are called to exercise the mission which God has entrusted to the Church to fulfill in the world, in accord with the condition proper to each.

The issue, therefore, is whether the penitent regards the priest as competent (in the legal sense of that word) — does he regard the priest as a priest and able to forgive sins? Many in other denominations would not; it may well be that they do not regard such an earthly representative of the heavenly as necessary at all.

Supplementary issue: if the penitent does regard the priest as competent, and presumably does not wish to approach clergy of his own denomination, why is he not a Catholic? That may be a basis for another question.

Disclaimer: Although I know where to find things in Canon Law, I'm not a lawyer. We could do with a Catholic priest in these hallowed halls.


What is the scriptural basis that the Devil or Satan understood God's salvation plan? Extending from this question and the accepted answer, what is the scriptural basis that the Devil or Satan understood God's salvation Plan?

Please see OP's answer to What is the scriptural basis that the Devil or Satan did NOT understand God's salvation plan?

Satan had a good idea of God's plan of salvation for men.

The first clue was the prophecy pronounced directly against him after the fall of men.

  I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel (Genesis 3:15)

Then there was the sacrificial system, where lambs without blemish were offered to God as a propitiation for sin. Clearly there was a substitute offered in place of the sinful repentant men. He would have been experienced enough to know that the blood of lambs and bulls do not actually have power to take away sin.

Satan would have also seen that not all men died. Enoch and Elijah were translated to heaven, though they were born in sin. Also when he contented for the body of Moses after his death, God has power and righteous justification to take him to heaven (Jude 9).

Satan had centuries and millenniums to study the prophecies, he knew of the Son of God and knows the references made of a Divine redeemer must have been about Him.

When Jesus came to the world, Satan made amble provisions to kill Him and tempt Him, because Jesus was "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29).

When Jesus told the disciples that he would "be killed, and raised again on the third day",  Peter said "be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee". Jesus immediately recognized that this was Satan working in Peter to to counter the plan of salvation. Jesus rebuked Peter, "Get thee behind me Satan: thou art an offence unto me" (Matthew 16:21-23).


What terms have been used by missionaries to Islamic countries to describe Islam? I am hearing with increasing frequency that Islam is not a religion. Here's one citation, from the upcoming "Value Voters Summit"

  “Why would Satan use Islam? Same reason. It’s not a religion. It’s a movement to dominate the world under the guise of religion."

How have missionaries to Islamic countries (or other prominent evangelists) described or worded the "incorrectness" of Islam?  What criteria have been used, if this phrase has roots in church history, between a non-salvific religion, and "not a religion?"

From what I know from speaking with those who have been missionaries in Islamic countries and from reading books written by such people, it seems that the strategy is not to demonstrate that Islam is incorrect, but to simply present Jesus (the prophet Isa) to people.  Jesus is acknowledged as a prophet by Islam.

The Koran on Jesus

The Koran talks about Jesus and says quite a few good things about him.  I actually met a man who was formerly a Muslim from a very Islamic country who discovered for himself from the Koran that Moses received the Law, Mohammed received the Koran, but Jesus received the Spirit.  He reasoned that what Jesus received was greater than the Law or the Koran, and so he went in search of Jesus.  So, pointing Muslims to the verses in the Koran about Jesus is one strategy that is used.

The Koran on the Word of God

Another tactic is to read the verses in the Koran that teach how God's word cannot be changed and its commands to read the Scriptures given beforehand.  Many Muslims are taught that the Bible is corrupted, but the Koran contradicts this by saying that God's word cannot be altered.  This often leads Muslims to start reading the Bible.

Dreams

Finally, it seems that quite a few Muslims have had dreams where Jesus appears to them.  So common is this that some missionaries have simply started to ask Muslims that they meet if they have ever had a dream about Jesus.

Conclusion

So, again, the strategy with followers of Islam is pretty much the same with anyone else.  Jesus is presented as the eternal Son of God, crucified, and risen from the dead.  The point is not to criticize other teachings, but to exalt the Lord Jesus Christ.


Were the Magi believers? If so, then why were the Magi still labelled that way? Why call a believer a member of the pagan Zoroastrian religion? Or am I missing something here?

And by believers, I meant how the Magi believed in Yahweh BEFORE they saw the star of Bethlehem and arrived to baby Jesus's house.

  "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.” When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: “‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel."-Matthew 2:1-6.

The wise men were spoken to, by God himself (not, as stated, by an angel) in a dream :

  And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. [Matthew 2:12, KJV.]

If God spoke to them - and they clearly heard him, since they took note of it - then, being in communication with God (himself, not an angel), they thus believed in God.

And having gone on a journey which took two years to complete (the time which Herod took note of, in his calculation as to which children to slaughter) and which would necessitate another two years in which to get home, surely they did so not to merely visit the entry into the world of just another human being (not to belittle such events, but really, four years !) they came for a serious purpose.

  Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. [Matthew 2:16, KJV.]

They were wise. Wiser, in context, than the Jews who had received so much divine revelation, it appears. And is probably the whole point of Matthew recording the matter, in his particular account and with his particular aspect of Christ in mind, to highlight this devotion from outside of Israel as a testimony to unbelieving Israel.

Yes, I would say these men were believers and remarkably and devoted so, it appears.

  When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: [Matthew 2:11, KJV.]


Does Jesus eat food in heaven? Jesus said there will be no marriage in heaven, but after He rose He ate food. Does Jesus eat food in heaven? Is there any reason for us to suppose He does not?

This is the kind of question kids ask me in Sunday School.

I must admit, I chuckled at This is the kind of question kids ask me in Sunday School.. Anyway...

First off, Revelations 19 has a wedding feast.

  Revelation 19:9 (NIV)
  9 Then the angel said to me,   “Write this:   Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!”   And he added, “These are the true words of God.”

(Emphasis mine.)

You can't really have a feast without food or drink. There is also the promise of Jesus that He will not drink wine again until this very same feast.

  Matthew 26:29 (NLT)

  29 Mark my words—I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

  Mark 14:25 (NLT)

  25 I tell you the truth, I will not drink wine again until the day I drink it new in the Kingdom of God.”

  Luke 22:18 (NLT)

  18 For I will not drink wine again until the Kingdom of God has come.”

This statement takes place immediately after Jesus offers wine and bread at the first Communion. Now, if there weren't any grapes in Heaven, could there be wine? Now, obviously, God could very easily simply produce wine on the spot, and a miracle should never be excluded from the set of possibilities.

Now to actually answer your real question: we can't really know. I know of no verse that talks about whether or not there is any food or drink being consumed in Heaven right now. That said, what is there to keep Jesus and other people already up there from enjoying the gift of eating that God gave them? I mean...I could totally imagine Jesus munching on some fish with Peter, James, and John right now...