What evidence is there to suggest that Daniel never existed? In the Wikipedia article on Daniel, the writer states: "the broad consensus is that Daniel never existed.[1]" One book from 1999 written by John J. Collins is referenced with this statement, but I do not have access to it.

What is the evidence to suggest that Daniel was a legendary figure and not an actual living person as the Bible seems to describe him to be?

In order to prove a negative, you need to demonstrate that the biblical figure is mentioned nowhere outside the one ancient book that contains information about him, and then show that the book is not historically true.

In most cases, the absence of any information about a famous person from the past can be explained away by the paucity of extant records from the relevant period, or simply that the person was not of sufficient repute to have been mentioned by most of his contemporaries. However, plentiful records do exist from both Babylon and Persia. And if Daniel rose up to become the second most powerful person in the Babylonian Empire, then soon after became the second most powerful person in the Persian Empire, there ought to be many manuscripts and tablets that mention him. Yet there is no mention of him in any other Hebrew writings, nor in the extensive Babylonian and Persian records available to scholars.

Leonard J. Greenspoon, in 'Between Alexandria and Antioch: Jews and Judaism in the Hellenistic Period', published in The Oxford History of the Biblical World (edited by Michael D. Coogan), page 322, describes the Book of Daniel as a Jewish novel. This view, also held by most biblical scholars, is partly based on the book's historical errors and fragmented authorship.  A very clear historical error is to be found the account of the Persian conquest of Babylon, in Daniel 5:31: "And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old." It was Cyrus the Great who conquered Babylon. Darius I was a successor who followed Cyrus somewhat later, but Daniel 6:28 places Cyrus after Darius. An error in respect to Belshazzar is explained by the Jewish Encyclopedia:

  The following important differences between Belsharusur and the Belshazzar of Daniel are patent. The former was the son of the last king of Babylon [Nabonidus], but never reigned, except possibly as coregent with his father; while the latter is distinctly called the last king and the son of Nebuchadnezzar, both of which statements are undoubtedly made in perfectly good faith by the author of Daniel.

The chief character in a work of fiction is often not a person who ever existed. Parallels to another Daniel briefly mentioned in the Book of Ezekiel point to Daniel as a literary creation.


On what basis is Genesis 1 said to be Hebrew poetry? I've heard several knowledgeable people state that Genesis 1 is using Hebrew poetic language, but I recently ran across some counter arguments against the view that Genesis 1 contains poetry in the original language.*

What basis do interpreters use to support their idea that Genesis 1 is using poetic language? I am Catholic and thus am interested in anything consistent with that Tradition.

*Those arguments included the idea that Hebrew poetry appears to repeat ideas twice in the same statement; however it then only then addressed other parts of Genesis, as if it were assumed that if Gen 1 is poetry, the whole book must be.

Genesis 1 is constrained writing, and most poetry is a kind of constrained writing. My guess is that this is what has led a lot of people to say that Genesis 1 is a kind of poetry. But not all constrained writing is poetry, and Genesis 1 is very dissimilar from the typical Hebrew poetry of the rest of the Bible (ie., the Psalms, most of the prophets etc.)

To explain how Genesis 1 is constrained writing, I'll quote this list from John Dickson explaining all the ways in which the number seven and multiples of seven are used in the chapter:

  The first sentence has 7 Hebrew words
  The second sentence has 14 Hebrew words
  The words for 'earth' and 'heaven' each occur 21 times
  God is mentioned 35 times
  'and it was so' occurs 7 times
  'God saw that it was good' occurs 7 times
  The chapter is structured around 7 days

The number seven symbolises wholeness and perfection, the very quality of the completed creation. Genesis 1 reinforces the goodness of the creation both through what it teaches, but also how it teaches, using these subtle (and invisible in English translations) constraints on its writing.


Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego - who is understood as the fourth person in the fire? Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who is understood as the fourth person in the fire?

In the third chapter of book of Daniel after King Nebicanesor throws Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego into the furnace he sees four people in the furnace instead of three, who are talking with each other.

What is understand of who this person is? An angel, a Christophany?
What is the current Christian understanding of this?
How would a Jewish person in ancient times have understood this?
Is there any extra biblical Jewish sources/tradition naming the fourth person (such as a specific angel, etc)?

The King said that the fourth person looked like "a son of the Gods."  This is translated as "the son of God" in the King James Version, which has led some people to conflate the fourth figure with Christ, but it's important to remember that the concept of "the son of God (singular)" makes no sense to the King, who was a polytheist.

He calls out to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and calls them servants of "the Most High God," which is to be understood literally.  He saw that their God was higher (more powerful) than the Gods he worshipped, none of whom had ever been known to protect someone from incineration in a furnace.

It's most likely that the fourth figure was an angel, much like the one sent to Daniel to pacify the lions just a few chapters away from this story.


If salvation is possible from all religions, then is proselytizing required? There are some Christian groups who believe that all religions are inherently good
and that a good person who rejects Jesus Christ will still go to Heaven. According to them, if good people can go to Heaven regardless of what their religion is, then do we still have to tell them about Jesus Christ or we can just leave them alone to worship their own god, gods or goddesses?

Short answer
Because Jesus is that important to you, and you want him known to all the world.

Swedenborgianism
From the linked question, I am assuming you are asking on the perspective of Swedenborgianism, which is forms the doctrinal foundation of the New Church
Evangelism
According to Dream Prophecy

New Church tends not to evangelize, and respects people's free will in thinking on their own. Nor does it condemn other religions to hell.

That said, according to NewChurch.org historically they did evangelize, in the form of spreading awareness.

In the latter part of the century, the ministry almost doubled in size and an expansion of evangelization work was initiated to spread awareness of the new teachings and further grow the church.

Salvation
According to Swedenborg.org

Salvation is an inner experience rather than acceptance of a particular doctrine.
The Second Coming is an active process that is happening within us and the world. As we increase compassion, integrity, understanding, and healing in our lives, we are helping God create a "new Heaven and a new Earth."

From Arcana Coelestia 6488

A discussion about predestination once took place and many of the
spirits, owing to the chief ideas they had adopted in the world, were of
the opinion that some people have been predestined to heaven and others
to hell. But I heard a response to this from heaven, which was that no one
has ever been predestined to hell, but that all have been predestined to
eternal life

Why Evangelize?
From the above, it seems that in a Swedenborgianism perspective it is not necessary to evangelize concerning salvation.
From Swedenborg Study

The Lord Jesus Christ is our God. There is no other. To Him we owe all that is good and all that is true. All power in heaven and on earth is His. To Him alone should we pray. To Him alone should be our worship, our love, and the service of our lives.

From Heavenly Doctrines.org

To make known that the Lord is here

The agencies for this Proclamation are many,-organization, the priesthood, preaching and public worship, printing and publishing the books of the new Revelation, and other modes of evangelization, that men may know that the Lord is here.

Even if you believe that Salvation is for all, but you believe that Jesus is the only one true God, you will still want others to know Him as well.


What did the carnivores/predators eat on the Ark? It's something that has stumped me since I was a kid:

What did the carnivores/predators eat on the Ark?

Did Noah also round up sufficient vegetation to feed all of the animals? Or did they somehow maintain the circle of life on the Ark for 40 days and 40 nights?

Genesis 6:21 has your answer

  You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”


Did Paul write other letters that are not in the Bible? I've heard it said that Paul wrote other letters that didn't make it into the Bible, including at least one more letter to the church at Corinth, and a letter to the church at Laodicea. What is the source for these claims, and what might have happened to these letters?

Paul certainly wrote other letters, but they were either lost or were not theological. For example, 1 Corinthians 16:3:

  Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem.

Regarding one more letter to Corinth, that is the implication in 1 Corinthians 5:9 when he refers to an earlier letter:

  I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.

Finally, it is worth noting that all genuine letters by Paul could be identified by people at the time as he ended them in his own writing (rather than dictating). 2 Thessalonians 3:17 says:

  I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write.


Is an intellectual comprehension of the gospel by the earthly mind required for salvation? The root of this question stems from wondering whether someone can have a saving relationship with Jesus without having the mental capacity or maturity that would be required to understand the gospel even as a little child. Three specific types of people who might fall into this category are:

People with profound mental disabilities
Unborn (or newborn) children
People in a "vegetative" state due to some trauma or medical condition

One example that might apply to this is John the Baptist, who was filled with the Holy Spirit "from the womb" (Luke 1:15). Are there any other scriptures that speak to the possibility of knowing God apart from an active, intellectual assent by the "understanding" part of the human mind?

UPDATE:
If it helps to clarify, the underlying element I'm most interested in is whether or not there is a scripturally identifiable division between the spiritual part of us and the physical part of us in terms of how we relate to God. Perhaps it sounds pretty simple when phrased this way, as most people would probably say "yes", but I've not heard much discussed on how that division actually plays out. Perhaps because in life we attempt to worship him with every part of our being, there isn't as much need to understand the division. But in the case of a person whose natural mental faculties are diminished or undeveloped, it seems to me that the spiritual/soul part of them should still be able to relate to God on that level. And my question, then, is do the scriptures speak to how the spiritual/soul part of us may still be able to commune with God in such circumstances. The salvation part of it is important (because true fellowship/communion with God can't be separated from salvation), but it's the "can such a person still relate to God on a deep level in the spiritual/soul plane though facing limitations in the capacity of their earthly mind" question that I'm interested in.

Can such a person still relate to God on a deep level in the
  spiritual/soul plane though facing limitations in the capacity of
  their earthly mind?

  Blesses are the pure in heart: for they will see God. (Matt 5:8)

God does not judge us by what we know. He judges us by what we love, and how much we love.

  We are saved or damned according to what we love. If we love God, we
  shall ultimately get God: we shall be saved. If we love self in
  preference to God then we shall get self apart from God:  we shall be
  damned. (Frank Sheed, Theology and Sanity)

Scripture isn't clear as to how exactly how a mentally handicapped person is saved (using "handicapped" in the modern sense of the word).  From the Apostolic period to relatively recent times mental disabilities and vegetative states of existence were addressed more as some sort of retribution from God.  Today the science of psychology and medicine have revealed much more depth about what causes these afflictions.

The closest Sacred Scripture comes to expliclty addressing the handicap of ingnorance is when Jesus speaks of children.

  Luke 18:17 - Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the
  kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

  Matthew 18:3 - And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be
  converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the
  kingdom of heaven.

  Mark 10:13-16 - And they brought young children to him, that he should
  touch them: and [his] disciples rebuked those that brought [them].
  (Read More...)

  Matthew 21:16 - And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And
  Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of
  babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

The Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church has no official policy about the sacraments and the developmentally disabled as such. The nearest parallel can be found in the principles relating to infant communion, specifically, the age of reason. According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Communion of Children:

  In the best-supported view of theologians this phrase means, not the
  attainment of a definite number of years, but rather the arrival at a
  certain stage in mental development, when children become able to
  discern the Eucharistic from ordinary bread, to realize in some
  measure the dignity and excellence of the Sacrament of the Altar, to
  believe in the Real Presence, and adore Christ under the sacramental
  veils.

Canon 913 states:

  §1. The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires
  that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that
  they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and
  are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion.

  §2. The Most Holy Eucharist, however, can be administered to children
  in danger of death if they can distinguish the body of Christ from
  ordinary food and receive communion reverently.

Outside of Canon Law, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Guidelines for the Celebration of the Sacraments with Persons with Disabilities states that:

  The criterion for reception of holy communion is the same for persons
  with developmental and mental disabilities as for all persons, namely,
  that the person be able to distinguish the Body of Christ from
  ordinary food, even if this recognition is evidenced through manner,
  gesture, or reverential silence rather than verbally. Pastors are
  encouraged to consult with parents, those who take the place of
  parents, diocesan personnel involved with disability issues,
  psychologists, religious educators, and other experts in making their
  judgment. If it is determined that a parishioner who is disabled is
  not ready to receive the sacrament, great care is to be taken in
  explaining the reasons for this decision. Cases of doubt should be
  resolved in favor of the right of the baptized person to receive the
  sacrament. The existence of a disability is not considered in and of
  itself as disqualifying a person from receiving the eucharist.

  It is essential that all forms of the liturgy be completely accessible
  to persons with disabilities, since these forms are the essence of the
  spiritual tie that binds the Christian community together. To exclude
  members of the parish from these celebrations of the life of the
  Church, even by passive omission, is to deny the reality of that
  community. Accessibility involves far more than physical alterations
  to parish buildings. Realistic provision must be made for persons with
  disabilities to participate fully in the eucharist and other
  liturgical celebrations such as the sacraments of reconciliation,
  confirmation, and anointing of the sick (Pastoral Statement of U.S.
  Catholic Bishops on Persons with Disabilities, November 1978; revised
  1989).

Speaking from  a parent's perspective with a child with autism, I have learned more from my son about living the Gospel by loving unconditionally than I ever could from any of the best theologians.  I've observed from working with disabled children in the field of Psychology that the more severely handicapped a child is, the more beatific their disposition - at least in most cases.

For more detailed resources about the implementation of programs that draw people with disabilities visit the National Catholic Partnership on Disabilities.


How do you reconcile Hebrews 9:27 with Elijah and Enoch? Hebrews 9:27 says

  Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment
  (NIV)

Elijah and Enoch are both presented in the bible as men who do not die. Are they exceptions to the rule that all men die once, or is there another explanation?

Answers from a protestant viewpoint would be appreciated.

John Calvin says (Commentarium in epistolam ad Hebraeos, translated by John Owen in 1853):

  Were any one to object and say, that some had died twice, such as Lazarus, and not once; the answer would be this, - that the Apostle speaks here of the ordinary lot of men; but they are to be excepted from this condition, who shall by an instantaneous change put off corruption, (1 Corinthians 15:51;) for he includes none but those who wait for a long time in the dust for the redemption of their bodies.1

Therefore, he reads this text as referring to a general rule: the scope of the passage is not meant to speak about these various special cases. In particular, Calvin thinks the author is primarily addressing the normal case of people who die once and then stay dead for a long time. The cross-reference inserted by Owen is illuminating; Paul writes there:

  Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed. KJV

This chimes with other New Testament references to the living and the dead (traditionally, in English, "the quick and the dead") as in Acts 10:42, 2 Timothy 4:1, 1 Peter 4:5. In 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, we read:

  We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. KJV

The fates of Elijah and Enoch are basically this, but earlier: they were taken up by God in the same way, albeit in anticipation of the coming of Christ, rather than after it. They have been seen as prototypes (in the sense of "characteristic or normative" rather than "rudimentary experiments") for the transformation Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 15.

If we accept Calvin's scoping, then Elijah and Enoch are also explained. Lazarus is not a counterexample to the basic point of the author of Hebrews, and neither are they. In the same way, the judgement of those who are alive at the time of Jesus's return isn't a counterexample either. For one thing, everybody does eventually face a final judgement following the end of their earthly life, whether that period of their existence is terminated by normal death or by something else.

1. Si quis obiiciat, bis quosdam esse mortuos, ut Lazarum et similes: expedita est solutio, apostolum hic de ordinaria hominum conditione disputare, quin etiam ab hoc ordine eximuntur quos subita immutatio corruptione exuet: quia non comprehendit nisi eos qui diu in pulvere corporum suorum redemptionem exspectant.


Was Christ the man created? In historical Christian belief (of almost any type), it would be considered heresy to say that God the Son was created. The term "begat" is preferred, where this term does not imply creation.

In such a tradition, Christ became incarnate. Is it correct/acceptable in such a tradition to refer to the body of this incarnation as being created? Why or why not?

The problem that you run into is John 1 - in which it says of Jesus, that by him all things were made, and there is nothing that was made that He didn't make. This is why the Nicene Creed is so careful to say he was begotten not made. If God the Father made Jesus, then John made a boo-boo.

The incarnation, on the other hand, is merely putting flesh to that which already existed, namely the spirit of Christ in the man Jesus. The physical manifestation is well known to anyone who has watched a science film on conception.

In other words, the spirit is eternal, but the flesh is temporary, and created.

The fun part, however, is that since it is something made, it means that God the Son got to make his own body. (Reminds me of an episode of ST:TNG called The Offspring, in which Lt. Cmdr. Data's daughter gets to choose her form) I find it interesting that He chose to be so normal and plain- but that's who our God is- he wants so desperately to be with us, that he chooses to be just like us.

The debated part of the incarnation is the nature of the Spirit/Soul/whatever of that flesh in relationship to the pre-existant Spirit of God the Son. The relationship of that spirit of God to the flesh of that baby born is the root of most Christological heresies like Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, and Monophysitism.  Here's the "problem" of each:

Apollinarism: Says that the flesh that was created had no mind of its own.  The problem with this idea is that God was never actually a man. In its most extreme form docetism Jesus only appeared to be human, and was in fact, merely a 'phantasm' of the flesh - a solid spirit that had no human substance whatsoever.  That basically denies the incarnation altogether.
Nestorianism: Says that the flesh was just a normal guy whom God the Son indwelt.  In this idea, Jesus was schizophrenic, having two distinct personalities in one body.
Monophysitism: Says that there was only one nature, in that the human nature was so dissolved in the divine that it basically ceased to exist.  Of the "heresies" listed, this is probably the closest to Orthodoxy, but fails insofar as it denies the existence of a human will.

The orthodox position is the so called hypostatic union.  It says that Jesus was fully God and fully man.  (Hey, Jesus is just 200% that's all!) It's a bit tricky, but the basic idea is to ensure that any Christology recognizes that Jesus was fully able to fully be both things to fully accomplish what he was sent to do.


Is It Possible for a Penitent to Bypass a Refusal of Absolution and If So How? Sometimes priests will explicitly refuse to give absolution to the penitent, is it possible to bypass the refusal of a specific priest and be forgiven of the sins another way when this happens? Whether it is by ordinary or extraordinary means. I would like to hear of all methods, if any.

In the extremely unlikely event that a priest denied me absolution and gave no reason for the denial, I'd confess to a different priest.

But normally, a priest who denies absolution would also tell the penitent why --- perhaps the penitent isn't really contrite ("I'm sorry I stole that money, but I'm going to keep it.") or clearly hasn't done an adequate examination of conscience. In that situation, the penitent should go and remove the reasons for the denial (e.g., return the stolen money) and then confess again (to the same priest or a different one).

Your sins are also forgiven, even before confession, if you have perfect contrition for them, which means contrition based on love of God (not fear, not shame, etc.) but perfect contrition must include the intention to go to confession when possible, i.e., to use the means that God has prescribed for obtaining forgiveness.

So the bottom line is that, to circumvent a refusal of absolution, you should remove the cause of the refusal and then go to confession again to obtain absolution.


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses hold a "commemoration of the death of Jesus Christ"? For the last several years, I have received mailings from Jehovah's Witnesses that say the following:

Lo invitamos a acompañarnos a la Conmemoración anual de la muerete de Jesuscristo. Este es el día, la hora y el lugar donde se celebrará:
(My translation) We invite you to join us in the annual commemoration of the death of Jesus Christ. This is the day, the time and the place where it will be held:

It then gives the address of a local Jehovah's Witnesses church and the time of a service, which is on the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. But nowhere in the pamphlet does it mention those two days, the resurrection of Jesus, or anything else that's related to it.
Why would Jehovah's Witnesses hold a "commemoration of the death of Jesus Christ" on the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter when other Christian denominations do not? And is it noteworthy that this pamphlet doesn't mention the resurrection of Jesus on the following day?

Jehovah's Witnesses observe the Memorial of Jesus' Death (also called the Lord's Evening Meal) after sundown on the day that coincides with Nisan 14th according to the ancient Jewish calendar. Nisan 14th may be on any day of the week from year to year, so the fact that it's on a Saturday this year has no relevance. In 2017 it was on a Tuesday, and in 2016 it was on a Wednesday.

Jehovah's Witnesses commemorate the death of Jesus Christ because Jesus commanded that we do so at Luke 22:19 saying, "Keep doing this in remembrance of me." This command is reemphasized by Paul at 1 Corinthians 11:23-25.

Jesus' resurrection is also core to the Christian faith, but we are not commanded to commemorate it, nor is there evidence that early Christians celebrated it until the 2nd century. Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Easter because of its association with pagan customs. God does not permit his servants to mix false religion with true religion. (1 Corinthians 10:21)


How long did the drought that Elijah prayed for really last? James and Luke say the drought lasted for three and a half years.

  Elijah was as human as we are, and yet when he prayed earnestly that no rain would fall, none fell for three and a half years
  (James 5:17 NLT)

  "Certainly there were many needy widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the heavens were closed for three and a half years, and a severe famine devastated the land.  (Luke 4:25 NLT)

But according to the actual account in the Old Testament the drought was not even a full three years.

  Now Elijah, who was from Tishbe in Gilead, told King Ahab, “As surely as the LORD, the God of Israel, lives—the God I serve—there will be no dew or rain during the next few years until I give the word!”   (1 Kings 17:1 NLT)

  Later on, IN THE THIRD YEAR of the drought, the LORD said to Elijah, “Go and present yourself to King Ahab. Tell him that I will soon send rain!”
  (1 Kings 18:1 NLT)

  And soon the sky was black with clouds. A heavy wind brought a terrific rainstorm, and Ahab left quickly for Jezreel     (1 Kings 18:45 NLT)

So it was in the third year of the drought that the rains came ending it.

Why do Luke and James both say the drought lasted 3 years  and 6  months?

There are two common ways to explain this:

The "third year" refers to the third year of Elijah's stay in Zarephath, following a stay of some months at the brook Cherith (Adam Clarke, Barnes, Haydock, Keil and Delitzsch)
The "third year" refers to the time of Elijah's exile, which did not begin until the dry period had already been underway for six months (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown; Thomas Coke)

In both cases, it's important to note that the text does not actually say "in the third year of the drought."  See, for example:

After many days the word of the Lord came to Elijah, in the third year, saying... [ESV]
And it came to pass after many days, that the word of the Lord came to Elijah in the third year, saying... [KJV]
Now it happened after many days that the word of the Lord came to Elijah in the third year, saying... [NASB]
After a long time, in the third year, the word of the Lord came to Elijah... [NIV]

Many modern translations add "of the drought" or "of the famine," but it's not actually in the text.
Third year of Elijah's stay in Zarephath
One explanation for the alleged contradiction depends on this: rather than the "third year of the drought," the text is referring to the third year of Elijah's residence in Zarephath (1 Kings 17:9), where is staying at the end of 1 Kings 17.
Prior to this, but after the beginning of the drought, Elijah lived by the brook Cherith for an unspecified length of time (1 Kings 17:5).
Thus, if he lived at Cherith for some months, and this time is added to the 2+ years he lived in Zarephath, the time mentioned by Jesus and James (3 years, 6 months) is not necessarily contradictory to the 1 Kings account.
Keil and Delitzsch call this the "most simple and natural" understanding:

The time given, "the third year," is not to be reckoned, as the Rabbins, Clericus, Thenius, and others assume, from the commencement of the drought, but from the event last mentioned, namely, the sojourn of Elijah at Zarephath. This view merits the preference as the simplest and most natural one, and is shown to be the oldest by Luke 4:25 and James 5:17, where Christ and James both say, that in the time of Ahab it did not rain for three years and six months. And this length of time can only be obtained by allowing more than two years for Elijah's stay at Zarephath.

Third year in exile
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, among others, take a different approach.  They argue that the two periods of rain in ancient Israel normally occurred in March and October, and that the king's anger would have driven Elijah away only after these rains failed:

The early rain fell in our March, the latter rain in our October. Though Ahab might have at first ridiculed Elijah‘s announcement, yet when neither of these rains fell in their season, he was incensed against the prophet as the cause of the national judgment, and compelled him, with God‘s direction, to consult his safety in flight. This was six months after the king was told there would be neither dew nor rain, and from this period the three years in this passage are computed.

Summary
Either approach addresses the apparent contradiction, and some commentators, such as John Wesley, mention both and do not express a preference.


What is the difference between a Use and a Rite? This wikipedia page gives a list of all the liturgical Rites and Uses that have been employed throughout history in the Roman Catholic Church. It lists many rites, such as the Ambrosian, Braga and Mozarabic Rites, and it also has a couple of Uses, such as the Anglican Use, Zaire Use, Use of York and Cologne Use.

I'm wondering what it is that determines whether a liturgy will be considered a "Rite" or a "Use"? They both just seem like unique liturgies to me so I'm not sure what the distinction is between them.

Looks like a "Use":

denote[s] the special liturgical customs which prevailed in a particular diocese or group of dioceses
Old Catholic Encyclopedia - Use of York

and a "Rite" is :

the whole complex of the services of any Church or group of Churches
Old Catholic Encyclopedia - Rite

In practice, it looks like a "Use" is an accommodation granted by the Pope acknowledging the Bishop's desire for local customs (or a religious order's customs) to form part of worship and a rite is the state of a local church as it formed and took shape because of geographic boundaries in the early church.


Where is the reference in bible that JESUS preached for three and Half years? Required bible reference that JESUS Preached for three and half years.

I agree that this is a tricky question and the answer depends on the tradition to which the answerer belongs.  Here is a simple, yet plausible scheme that not everyone will agree.

In the Gospel of John, who appears to be quite careful about his time elements, we have a series of Jewish feasts mentioned.  The most significant of these feasts for chronological purposes is the Passover feast which occurred about March/April in our modern calendar.

John 2:13, 23 - Passover feast a few months after Jesus' baptism
John 5:1 - unnamed feast but probably the Passover.
John 6:4 - Passover feast
John 7:2 - feast of booth (or tabernacles) 6 months after feast of Passover
John 10:22 - feast of dedication - a few months later
John 12:1 - Passover feast when Jesus was crucified

By this simple account Jesus ministry began several months before His first Passover during the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1) and ended at His crucifixion about 3½ years later.


Where in God's promises did it show that Abram needed to have a child through Sarai? I've been studying Genesis 15-16 and I am wondering, why was it wrong for Abram to have a child through Hagar?

After all, it was a common practice in those times that if a woman were barren, she could have a child via a surrogate mother and it would be considered her child.  It was a completely normal cultural practice so it wouldn't have been unheard of for Sarai to suggest it and Abram to agree to it.

I was looking over God's promises to Abram and all God says is that he would have a promised heir from his own body and that his descendants would be numerous.  Nowhere does it specifically state that it had to be through Sarai physically (not via a surrogate).  So why do we view the Hagar/Ishmael deal as a big blunder in Abram's life?  Why wasn't God more specific?

Why couldn't the heir have been Ishmael?

According to a literal interpretation of the text:

It depends on what you mean by wrong. Looking at the narrative totally and literally, Abraham could not have known that the promised nation would come through Sarah's offspring, since God did not tell him that until after the birth of Ishmael. In Genesis 12, God promises Abram three (main) things:

I will show you a land, Canaan, which I will give to your descendants.
I will make you a nation
I will bless you.

God continues to make these promises clearer as the narrative continues. In Genesis 13, God elucidates

I will give the land, Canaan, to you and your descendants forever.
I will make your descendants number greater than the sands of the Earth you can count.

Note that these aren't strictly new promises. God is revealing his plan to Abram as he is carrying it out. God has not revealed to Abram how these things will come about, but only "I will do this." Up to this point, Abram has no children, he is getting older, and so is his wife. Genesis 15 reveals that as far as Abram knew, a servant of his would inherit his estate, since he had no son. It's not until this point, many years after he originally revealed himself to Abram, that God actually promises a son to Abram. He says:

  Genesis 15:4-6
  This man will not be your heir; but one who will come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.” And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

So, God further specifies his promises to Abram. Only now does he begin to reveal to Abram how his plan will come to pass:

I will make for you an heir of your own body.
I will make your descendants number greater than the stars you can count.
Your descendants will sojourn in a foreign land for 400 years, where they will be oppressed and enslaved.
They will come out of oppression with many possessions.
You will die at an old age, at peace.
This will happen from this place in the fourth generation.

Abram had received promises from God before, but notice that it's on this day that God makes a covenant with Abram. A covenant is different than a promise, as a covenant is an agreement of a legal nature that holds both sides of the agreement to certain terms. The terms of the covenant have not yet been revealed, or at least the terms of the covenant at that point are not described as to go beyond the ritualistic practice of the animal sacrifice described in the passage.

Now, Sarai's barrenness and Hagar her maidservant only just now come full view into the narrative in Genesis 16. Abram has been living in Canaan for ten years at this point. He's eighty-six years old- sixteen years older than his father was when he and his brothers were born. God has not yet told him when his heir would be born. God has not yet told him by whom his heir would be born. As far as we can know, the terms up to this point of the covenant God made with Abram did not include Sarai. Given the practice described in the question, Abram was just trying to accomplish something according to the promise of God that he had no power to do himself. Only God could make Abram into a nation, Abraham's vanity was to think he could do it himself. In the same way, only God can bring us into that nation, our vanity is to think we can do it ourselves.

A resounding truth pops out of the text in regard to your question, and it can be observed in almost every other biblical narrative: God often withholds specific instruction. He obscures and hides the totality of his plan, always leaving room for men to act righteously or unrighteously. Had Abram acted righteously, with perfect patience, we would be discussing his only son, Isaac. But graciously and thankfully for Abram, it is belief that God counts as righteousness, and not perfect right action. Indeed, God ignores Abram's unrighteous impatience when he says (in Gen 22:2), "Take your only son up to the mountain..."

We see fully the blunder of Abram's impatience because we can count its consequences- we have the benefit of bearing whiteness to The Heir According to the Promise, Jesus, who is the Messiah. Because we have seen him and known him, we know that the heir could not have been of Ishmael because he was not- it was by Isaac that Abraham's seed, who is Messiah, was born according to Sarah's freedom and the miraculous power of God, and not as a result of Hagar's bondage and the impatience of flesh. Abram did not know this, as God did not reveal it to him until after Ishmael's birth, in Genesis 17.


Does God need our praise and glory? From what I've heard, God wants us to glorify him and give him praise, and he enjoys when we do this.  Does God need us to do this for some reason?

There is a sense in which an attribute which is an action is not fully realized until it is enacted. Love isn't real without an object of affection. Forgiveness is ethereal until somebody has crossed you. Being a redeemer requires something to save.

I would not go so far as to say there was an incompleteness in God that he needed to fill ... that he had a NEED of recognition, but in there is a sense in which his had to have creatures to reveal himself to in order for all the fullness of his being to be legitimized. His Glory is glorified as it is beheld, even if it is beyond the grasp of the beholder.

I believe God is a full-on egoist in that his is fully self centered. Whatever he does he does for himself, and he expects/demands the same of others. Egoist can also have another connotation of being conceited and limited to caring about ones-self. I am not reffering to this. Being omnipotent it's impossible for God to have a delusional or exaggerated sense of self worth. If you leave out the definition of of megalomania that includes being delusional, I think it is safe to say that God is a megalomaniac in so-far as he is obsessed with his own power and importance.

  Isaiah 48:11 (ESV)
  For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,
  for how should my name1 be profaned?
  My glory I will not give to another.

He desires and will have all glory for himself. Satan tried to reach out and take this from Him, and was cast out of heaven. Man was deceived and wanted to be like God in a way that was not his place to be.

For a man, or any other being, to be an egoist is sin. All created things were made by, for and in Christ.

  Colossians 1:15-20 (ESV)
  15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

For any of those created things to focus on themselves rather than on the one-preeminent-being is sin. Being ego-centric is rightly considered to be a bad attribute when applied to a human, but not when speaking of God.

Being ego-centric is OK when you are The I Am. It is right for us to praise Him and serves a purpose of putting his Glory on display.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism states that "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever." If that question had been about the chief end of God I would say it would read "God's chief end is to glorify Himself, and to enjoy himself for ever."


Are there Christian groups that speak in tongues but as a policy require translation of the God-given language? If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?—1st Corinthians 14:23 (ESV)

There are passages in Scripture that caution those who speak in tongues to refrain if there is no one to translate. In my very limited exposure to the practice, I don't believe I've observed such a discipline. Are there specific cases of congregations / denominations with such rules?

There are denominations who emphasize the use of tongues, for example, Assemblies of God.
In such kind of Churches, there are occasions where someone would prophesy while speaking in tongues and the same person or sometimes others will interpret it.
There are many prophets who always start their prophetic words with tongues first and then interpret it again. I don't know why they always utter those tongues first and then interpret it instead of directly speaking out the words in their own language. I can only guess that they receive the message first in heavenly language, which we call it tongues, and at the same time God gives them the meaning also.
I don't know if there are any denomination which has a strict policy that tongues should have interpretations. What I know is that it is interpreted whenever there is a need. What I observed is that many times, those who speak in tongues also don't know what they are uttering but when it is required, God gives them the meaning.


God loves everyone... Even dictators? God loves all humans, but does his love have limits? Can God love a person like Adolf Hitler, who killed millions of people who believed in him? What about serial murderers? Could God forgive a person like Hitler, if he was to come to faith?

ericgorr's answer is really good, but let me write a slightly simpler one.

Yes, absolutely God does love everyone. He totally wants the best for them and wants them to be the perfect person they were intended to be.

Now the trouble is that for Hitler, being the best he was intended to be absolutely involves not killing millions of people and starting a huge war. So God really really wants him to stop doing that - and not just because millions of people are dying, but also because doing this is screwing up Hitler as well and turning him into something he wasn't meant to be. Because of this God hates all the things that Hitler is doing, but still loves Hitler himself. Christians say that God "hates the sin but loves the sinner".

So let's imagine that in 1945 Hitler, instead of killing himself in a bunker, realises that he has been doing entirely the wrong thing this whole time, and is really sorry and genuinely wishes he had never done all those bad things, and asks God for forgiveness. Christians call that repentence. It's as vital to the process of getting right with God as 'coming to faith' is. Because God loves him, and because of Christ's death, God would forgive Hitler. That's pretty fundamental to Christianity.

Forgiveness doesn't mean there are no consequences. Had Hitler repented and lived he would probably still have been tried for war crimes, would certainly have been punished and hated by many people, would probably have been executed. Some Christians believe he might have spent a long time after death in a place called purgatory before going to heaven, possibly to get over the horror of understanding what he had done. Repentance is not an 'easy way out' like a get-out-of-jail-free card. And doing bad things and planning to repent afterwards doesn't work, because that means you thought the things you were doing weren't really bad after all.

There you go. I hope that's a helpful alternative to the more complete answer.


Does the Catholic church today require for you to pay taxes? I am a student at a private Catholic high school in New York. I am currently doing a project on the Middle Ages and had this question: does the Catholic church today require for you to pay taxes?

What a great question. The answer depends very much on what church we are talking about, where you are in the world, and what we mean by 'require'.

Let's consider the slightly different question: "Can churches legally enforce the collection of taxes for themselves". The answer is strictly no. There is nowhere in the world where churches can collect taxes. However, in some parts of the world the government will collect taxes on behalf of the church. The rate is set by the government and not the church, and is usually quite low. Germany, Italy and Sweden are among the countries that do that. Wikipedia has a page on the subject if you want more details.

As well as that there are some churches that require their members to pay some fixed contribution towards the church. The Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) is an example. They cannot legally enforce this, but they can, and do, remove some membership privileges from anyone who does not pay 10% of their income.

Those examples aside, most churches get their income from voluntary donations, mostly from their members. Some strongly encourage their members to give a fixed percentage of income (usually 10%) but most allow people to give whatever they feel is right. There is good biblical justification for this approach.


Why do Protestants say: "In Jesus' name. Amen.", whereas Catholics say: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."? Why do Protestants oftentimes seem to say: "In Jesus' name. Amen.", whereas Catholics generally begin and end prayers saying: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."?

Do Protestants object to praying "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.", or, conversely, do Catholics object to praying only "In Jesus' name."?

Protestants do not see that Christ ever instructed his followers to pray (only to baptize) "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". On the other hand, Christians are repeatedly called to invoke the name of the Lord:

To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ ...

(1 Corinthians 1:2a, New International Version)

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you ... so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.

(John 15:16, New International Version)

"Let everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord avoid evil."

(2 Timothy 2:19, New International Version)
Thus, there is solid Scriptural evidence that the early Christians directly invoked, and were instructed (directly or indirectly) to directly invoke, the name of the Lord, rather than speaking the names of the Trinity; the only occurrence of the phrase "the name of the Father" refers to the "Great Commission" passage in Matthew:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ..."

(Matthew 28:19, New International Version)
Jesus, furthermore, is the only one to whom humans need turn in order to approach God. This is pounded into the heads of Christians especially in the Letter to the Hebrews:

... Jesus the mediator of a new covenant ... (Hebrews 12:24)
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (Hebrews 9:15)

And most famously

For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. (1 Timothy 2:5–6a)

He is not only mediator, but mediator in the sense that the Jewish high priests were mediators between God and the nation of Israel:

We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure.  It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 6:19–20)

(All quotations from the New International Version)
Thus many Protestants, following the example of Scripture, feel that it is far more appropriate to invoke the assistance of God by calling upon the name of Jesus.

I should note that not all Protestants follow this example all the time, or perhaps even much of the time. For example, the website of the United States Conference of Seventh Day Baptists contains a prayer for the sick and shut-in which ends "These things we pray in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." Thus, perhaps the question should be phrased "Why do some Protestants say ..."

Catholics, on the other hand, use "in the name of the Father ..." as part of "the Sign of the Cross"—a sacramental (that is, a sacred activity which resembles a sacrament; see Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 1667–1668). In this sacramental, the Catholic makes the outline of a cross on his body: he touches his forehead as he says "In the name of the Father...", then his chest or stomach, saying "... and of the Son, ...", then each shoulder in turn, saying "... and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
The Catechism explains:

The Christian begins his day, his prayers, and his activities with the Sign of the Cross: "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." The baptized person dedicates the day to the glory of God and calls on the Savior’s grace which lets him act in the Spirit as a child of the Father.

This is not done as a Biblical command, but as a reminder of the One who saved us by his death.


What is the origin of 'omnipotence' as an attribute of God in the ecumenical councils and other Christian authorities? It is customary in Christian theological discourse and affiliated philosophy of religion literature to affirm that God is omnipotent. Often this attribute is joined to omniscience and moral perfection so as to form part of a triadic set of divine properties. What is the origin, if any, of the attribution of omnipotence to God in the ecumenical councils or other authorities binding for Christian churches?

The omnipotence of God is affirmed in the Creed set forth at the first Ecumenical Council in Nicea in 325: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty [παντοκράτορ - pantokrator] ..."

As the Creed further affirmed that the Son and the Holy Spirit were of the same substance (ὁμοούσιον) as the Father, the Creed affirmed that all three persons of the share in the omnipotence of God.


Does a Christian have to believe in Hell? I do remember I've read somewhere that modern Christians are no longer required to believe in Hell. Like, it's optional. I've now googled but no such info appeared again. Therefore asking knowlegeable people here - which Church document says the Hell is optional if it is really so.

If you consider the words of Christ as authoritative for describing Christianity, I'd say "Ya." (See Matt. 5:22, 29, 30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15, 33, etc.)

But of course, you can call yourself a Christian and believe whatever you want.  There don't seem to be any "Christianity police" regulating what people associate with the faith.

Of course, it is also possible to be a Christian and be ignorant of the doctrine of hell, which doesn't necessarily preclude you from being a Christian. (That actually seems to be the norm.)


What is the role of Mohammed in the Bible? John 14:16 and 14:26, which refer to a Paraclete ("comforter"), have been read by Muslims as a prediction that Muhammad will succeed Jesus.

  "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever." (John 14:16)

  "But the Comforter (Paraclete) whom the Father will send in my name, he shall speak to you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (John 14:26)

What does Christianity say about the role of Mohammed in the Bible?  What is relationship between Christianity and Islam?

Introduction
Muḥammad has absolutely no role in Christianity, and there is no explicit mention of him in the Christian Bible.
The Comforters
The first «παράκλητος» (“Comforter”) was the Lord Jesus Christ.
In 1 John 2:1, it is written,

1 My little children, I write these things to you so that you do not sin. And if anyone sins, we have a comforter with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
Αʹ Τεκνία μου ταῦτα γράφω ὑμῖν ἵνα μὴ ἁμάρτητε καὶ ἐάν τις ἁμάρτῃ παράκλητον ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον TR, 1550

Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Christ mentions «ἄλλον παράκλητον» (“another Comforter”).
In John 14:16-17, it is written,

16 And I shall ask the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, so that he may dwell with you forever, 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see him, neither does it know him, but you know him, for he dwells with you, and he shall be in you.
ΙϚʹ καὶ ἐγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν ἵνα μένῃ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ΙΖʹ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει αὐτό ὑμεῖς δὲ γινώσκετε αὐτὸ ὅτι παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται TR, 1550

The Greek word ἄλλον (“another”) implies that there is an original Comforter. As mentioned, the original Comforter is the Lord Jesus Christ. The one who is “another Comforter” is the Holy Spirit.
In his commentary on 1 John 2:1, Henry Alford wrote,1

In addition, regarding the Spirit of truth, the Lord Jesus Christ told the apostles that “he dwells with you, and he shall be in you.”2 The Greek verb «μένει», translated as “dwells,” is conjugated in the present tense, meaning that the Spirit of truth was dwelling with the apostles, right then, and right there, in the present. Muḥammad was not born for another 500-600 years. Therefore, Muḥammad could not be the other Comforter, the Spirit of truth. In addition, even Muslims would never admit that Muḥammad is actually in them. On the other hand, the Holy Spirit dwells in Christians.3
The reason that the Spirit of truth was dwelling with the apostles in the present, although the Holy Spirit would not be given until Pentecost,4 is because the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of the Son, Jesus Christ.5 The Lord Jesus Christ was dwelling with the apostles, and there exists a divine community between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit – the Holy Trinity.
The Prophecy of Joel
Many Muslims assert that the Holy Spirit cannot be the “Spirit of truth” or the “Comforter” because the Holy Spirit had always been with the faithful. However, there is no evidence that everyone who had faith in God prior to Pentecost possessed the Holy Spirit. Rather, God gave the Holy Spirit to whom He willed.
The prophet Joel prophesied of a time when God would pour out His Spirit (i.e., the Holy Spirit) upon all flesh, meaning both Jews and Gentiles, bondmen and freemen, men and women, children and adults, rather than upon select individuals. Logically, if God would in the future pour out His Spirit upon all flesh, then it had not been done so prior to that time.
In Joel 2:28-29, it is written,

28 And it shall come to pass afterwards, I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions. 29 And in those days, I shall also pour out My Spirit upon the servants and upon the handmaids.
כח וְהָיָ֣ה אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֗ן אֶשְׁפֹּ֤וךְ אֶת־רוּחִי֙ עַל־כָּל־בָּשָׂ֔ר וְנִבְּא֖וּ בְּנֵיכֶ֣ם וּבְנֹֽותֵיכֶ֑ם זִקְנֵיכֶם֙ חֲלֹמֹ֣ות יַחֲלֹמ֔וּן בַּח֣וּרֵיכֶ֔ם חֶזְיֹנֹ֖ות יִרְאֽוּ׃ כט וְגַ֥ם עַל־הָֽעֲבָדִ֖ים וְעַל־הַשְּׁפָחֹ֑ות בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֔מָּה אֶשְׁפֹּ֖וךְ אֶת־רוּחִֽי׃ WLC

In the New Testament, the apostle Peter confirms that this event occurred at Pentecost.

Acts 2:1

1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all of one accord in one place.

Acts 2:4

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2:16-18

16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, 17 “And it shall come to pass in the last days,” said God, “I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams. 18 And in those days, I shall pour out My Spirit upon My servants and upon My handmaidens, and they shall prophesy.”

The Inadequacy of any Future Revelation
If indeed the Lord Jesus Christ is God as the majority of Christianity confesses, then any future revelation is inadequate compared to the revelation which came from the Lord Jesus Christ, God incarnate.
The reason is simple. A messenger is sent by, and delivers a message or revelation on behalf of, someone greater in authority. In the case of Moses, a man, he was sent by Yahveh, God, to deliver Yahveh’s message and revelation to the people of Israel.6 However, because Moses was a man, this left open the possibility that someone “greater than Moses” (i.e., a greater man) could come thereafter to deliver another message or revelation on behalf of Yahveh to the people of Israel. Of course, the one “greater than Moses” was the Lord Jesus Christ.7
Had the Lord Jesus Christ been just a man, the possibility would then exist that someone “greater than Jesus” could come after him with another message or revelation on behalf of Yahveh to the people of Israel. But, because the Lord Jesus Christ is God incarnate, “the same yesterday, today, and forever,”8 no later message or revelation from someone who is just a man can supercede the message and revelation given by the Lord Jesus Christ, God the Son, on behalf of God the Father.
Since Muḥammad is just a man, and in addition, he claimed to have received the Qurʿān, not directly from God, but from the angel Gabriel, his message and revelation can in no way supersede that of the Gospel delivered by the Lord Jesus Christ, God incarnate, who spoke only what God the Father gave him to speak.9
A Contrary Gospel
There is one more thought that I feel is necessary to include. In Gal. 1:8-9, the apostle Paul wrote,

8 But if we, or an angel from heaven, preach [a gospel] to you other than what we have preached to you, let him be anathema! 9 As we said before, so now I say again — if anyone preaches [a gospel] other than what you have received, let him be anathema!
Ηʹ ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται ὑμῖν παρ᾽ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν ἀνάθεμα ἔστω Θʹ ὡς προειρήκαμεν καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται παρ᾽ ὃ παρελάβετε ἀνάθεμα ἔστω TR, 1550

Since the revelation of Muḥammad which he claimed to have received from an angel contradicts the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ that was later preached by the apostle Paul and the other apostles, Muḥammad is considered anathema, or “accursed.”

References
Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. Vol 4. Boston: Lee, 1878.
Footnotes
1 p. 432
2 John 14:17: «παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται»
3 2 Tim. 1:14
4 Acts 2:4
5 Rom. 8:9
6 Exo. 3:15
7 Heb. 3:3
8 Heb. 13:8
9 John 12:50


According to Catholics, what is the law placed within the Israelite in the New Covenant? In Jer. 31:31-34, it is written,

  31 “Behold, the days are coming,” said Yahveh, “that I shall cut a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day that I took their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they broke, although I was a husband to them,” said Yahveh. 33 “But this shall be the covenant that I shall cut with the house of Israel. After those days,” said Yahveh, “I shall put My Law within them, and I shall write it upon their hearts, and I shall be their god, and they shall be My people. 34 And a man shall no longer teach his neighbor, and a man his brother, saying, “Know Yahveh!” for they all shall know Me, from the least of them even unto the greatest of them, for I shall forgive their iniquity, and I will no longer remember their sin.”

In the New Covenant, the prophet Jeremiah states that Yahveh shall put His Law within the Israelites and write it upon their hearts.

According to Catholics, what is this Law that Yahveh puts within the Israelites?

Here's what the Catholic Haydock Commentary says about those verses:

Ver. 31. Covenant. That made with the captives was not such. Their covenant is grown old, and at an end, as St. Paul shews, Hebrews viii. 8. They were not indeed divided, as they had been, Ezechiel xxxvii. 16.
Ver. 32. Dominion. As a husband, (Hebrew; Calmet) or "Lord." (Haydock) --- "I despised them." (Septuagint) (Hebrews viii.)
Ver. 33. Heart. They were more docile after their return: yet still their service was very imperfect and forced. How many false traditions were received, at the coming of Christ! This of course, regards his disciples.
Ver. 34. Lord. Christ himself came to instruct mankind. The true God was better known than ever, even by the illiterate. Yet God requires us to have recourse to men, in order to know his truths, as St. Paul was sent to Hananias, and the eunuch to Philip. [Acts viii., and ix.] (Haydock) --- The apostles were enlightened by the Holy Ghost, (John vi. 45.; St. Augustine, de Spir.; Calmet) who still guides the flock by his pastors. The private spirit is too fanatical and delusive. (Haydock) --- The most ignorant shall easily become acquainted with the truths of salvation. External preaching is requisite, though of little use unless grace touch the mind and the heart. (Tirinus) --- All will hear successively, (Haydock) or embrace the gospel at the same time, for several years before the last day. (Houbigant, pref. in Prop. 356) (Isaias xi. 9., and xlv. 23., and Sophonias iii. 9., &c.) (Haydock)


Should a Christian watch horror movies? A lot of Christians seem to think that it's wrong to watch horror movies. Others say that it's just another form of entertainment.

I don't know for sure which position is right.

Though whenever I watch the Exorcist it usually makes me pray for days on end. So for me it's good.

Anyway, what are the common objections against it?

In 1 Corinthians Paul writes

  “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All
  things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. (1
  Cor 6:12 ESV)

  “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things
  are lawful,” but not all things build up. (1 Cor 10:23 ESV)

There is no law against watching horror films, however is it going to be helpful to build you up in Christ?

Also, you need to remember who you are seeing the movie with.

  Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but
  rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way
  of a brother (Romans 14:13 ESV)

While something may be lawful for you to do, out of love you should give up that freedom if it causes others to "stumble"


How would Jesus have addressed St. Joseph? At Luke 2:48 we read of  St. Mary's complaint to Jesus for giving them a scare, by `getting lost'at the Temple:

"His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

We see Jesus addressing Mary as `woman' on two occasions viz.  At the wedding of Cana and on the Cross (Jn 2:4 and Jn 19:27).

We do not see any occasion in the Gospels where Jesus directly addresses St. Joseph. He, however, addresses God the Father as Abba (Mk 14:36).

Be that as it may, I am eager to know how Jesus addressed  St. Joseph. Do the teachings of Catholic Church mention the possibility of Jesus having addressed St. Joseph as Abba?

How would Jesus have addressed St. Joseph?

Answer

Jesus by being humble and meek of heart and grew-up in an atmosphere of love and prayer would certainly be a loving child. Joseph and Mary since Jesus emptied himself will have to learn the ways of man thru his parents guidance. Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, whatever the child in his time accustom to call their father & mother, Jesus would also call their parents the same way logically to embraced the Jewish customs of respect.

  The Aramaic term for father is אבא (abba).

Here is a good article relating the aramaic, hebrew and arabic of Father & Mother.

  immah
  Interesting etymology. Something similar happened in Hebrew and some of the other Semitic languages. The Hebrew word for mother is emm, the Aramaic word is immah, and the Arabic word is umm. The liturgical word amen, which at its core means “confirmation, support”, is derived from the words for “mother”.

  "Av is Hebrew for father. Abba is Aramaic for father. Ab is Arabic for father. I know that P and B are considered pretty much the same in historical linguistics, so we’re not too far here from papa, pappas, and the like. [The only difference between [p] and [b] is that we vibrate our vocal cords when pronouncing the latter. –RB] The noun abbot, referring to the Christian religious authority, comes from Aramaic abba."

  Mothers and Fathers in European and Semitic Languages

Jesus no doubt even without the Catholic Church officially entered in Catechism how He called Joseph and Mary certainly by virtue of the fourth commandment, Jesus would call them "Abba & Imma" lovingly and tenderly with the highest respect.

Others

You've mentioned this example;

At Luke 2:48 we read of St. Mary's complaint to Jesus for giving them a scare, by `getting lost'at the Temple:

"His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

Others or perhaps most Christians interpreted this as Joseph and Mary is at fault, but let us not forget that Mary is "full of grace" already and still growing in virtues while in the mystery of "Finding Jesus in the Temple", the gospel describes Jesus still need to grow in "wisdom and stature" meaning not yet "full of wisdom". That's why Jesus eagerness to do His mission troubled the heart of Mary and Joseph because he was too young to start His redemptive mission.

Lastly, you also stated this example:

We see Jesus addressing Mary as `woman' on two occasions viz. At the wedding of Cana and on the Cross (Jn 2:4 and Jn 19:27).

St. John gospel mentioned Jesus calling Mary as the Woman instead of the aramaic word for mother "immah" is not really hard to comprehend as the mystery in the "Wedding at Cana" marked the start of Jesus Redemptive Mission and He pointed out the role of Mary in the Divine Plan of God by calling Her "Woman" in relation to God's Holy Decree in Genesis 3:15.

  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.”

The Wedding at Cana signifies by the word of Jesus to Mary calling Her "Woman", means the battle had begun.And the other instance is At the Foot of the Cross were Jesus gave us His greatest gift to humanity, the means of salvation of mankind that encompasses the Wisdom of God after He finished the work of redemption. The Salvation of all the Redeemed will be "entrusted" to the Woman just like the Abba Father "entrusted" Jesus His only begotten Son to Mary the Woman in John 19:27 to form & accompany all the redeemed to become the perfect image of Jesus Christ by embracing the "Way of the Cross".

  "Woman behold your son, Son behold your Mother"


Original Sin as described in The Poem of the Man-God How do the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the nature of Original Sin conflict with the (alleged) private revelations of Maria Valtorta, as documented in her book The Poem of the Man-God?

My own research is detailed below.  Thus far I am not aware of any teachings of the Church which would conflict with the parts of The Poem of the Man-God relating specifically to Original Sin.

What I am looking for

The ideal answer will contain all of the following elements:

Specific doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church regarding original sin, including:

The degree of binding authority conferred by the Magisterium upon the teachings (i.e. solemn or ordinary, universal or non-universal).
How the teachings were added to the deposit of faith (i.e. Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition).

Teachings derived from Sacred Scripture should also furnish quotation of the applicable verse(s) from a Catholic English Bible (i.e. an English-language translation of the Bible containing only the 73 canonical books and having the imprimatur of a Catholic bishop).
Teachings derived from Sacred Tradition should furnish quotations from the applicable conciliar canons or decrees, as well as links to the sources of their full texts.

A clear and detailed analysis of agreements and contradictions between The Poem of the Man-God and the cited Catholic doctrines.

What I am not looking for

Discussion of Maria Valtorta's (alleged) revelations on topics other than Original Sin and the Fall of Man.
Discussion of the validity of Maria Valtorta's (alleged) revelations, either in part or in their entirety.  Christianity.SE is not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith!
Discussion, analysis, or answers from non-Catholic perspectives.

It should be noted that:

The Poem of the Man-God is a controversial topic within the Church, and the alleged apparitions of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary to
Maria Valtorta have not been classified as constat de
supernaturalite -- at least not at present.  As far as I am aware, it has either not received a full and proper evaluation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or else is currently non constat de supernaturalite.
The Poem of the Man-God was placed on the Index Liborum Prohibitorum which -- although abolished on June 14th 1966 by Pope Paul VI -- still "retains its moral force" (i.e. the work may contain moral and/or doctrinal errors, perhaps even serious ones, and Christians should be appropriately cautious regarding its contents).

Note: This question is a follow up to this one.

I apologize in advance for the huge wall of text.  I actually had to trim this down quite a bit to fit under the 30,000 character limit!

My own research and analysis

The first revelation (at least in the sequence they are presented in The Poem of the Man-God) to deal with God's creation of humans is part of the section titled Birth of the Virgin Mary.  In particular, Jesus speaks to Maria Valtorta of this in a revelation given on Sunday August 27th, 1944.  For the sake of convenience, I will refer to this as "Passage 1".

The revelation which relates to original sin is given in the context of clarifying the profound significance of the Annunciation and the Virgin Mary's role in God's plan for Salvation.  The Poem of the Man-God reports this revelation as having been given on Sunday March 5th, 1944, which was the Second Sunday of Lent.  The passage is titled The Disobedience of Eve and the Obedience of Mary, which (for the sake of convenience) I will refer to as "Passage 2".

Jesus brings up the topic of original sin in Passage 2.

  Jesus says:
  «To make you understand how grateful you must be to Him Who died to elevate you to Heaven and to defeat Satan's concupiscence, I wanted to speak to you, in this period of preparation for Easter, of what was the first link of the chain by which the Word of the Father was dragged to death, the Divine Lamb to the slaughterhouse. I wanted to speak to you about it, because at present ninety per cent of you are like Eve intoxicated by Lucifer's breath and words, and you do not live, to love one another, but to glut yourselves with sensuality, you do not live for Heaven but for filth, you are no longer creatures gifted with soul and reason, but dogs without soul and without reason. You have killed your souls and perverted your reason. I solemnly tell you that brutes surpass you in the honesty of their love.

  ...Do we not read in Genesis that God made man the overlord of everything on the earth, that is everything except God and His angelical ministers? Do we not read that He made the woman the companion of man in his joy and his domination over all living beings? Do we not read that they were allowed to eat of everything with the exception of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil? Why? What is the meaning of the words "that he might rule"? And what is the meaning of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil? Have you ever asked these questions, you man, who ask so many useless ones and never ask your soul about heavenly truths?»

Why did God create humans?

Genesis 1:27 --

  So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Passage 1 --

  Jesus says:
  «God desired to put a king in the universe that He had created out of nothing. A king, who by the nature of matter should be the first amongst all the creatures created with matter and endowed with matter. A king, who by nature of the spirit should be little less than divine, united to Grace as he was in his first innocent day. But the Supreme Mind, to Whom all the most remote events in centuries are known, incessantly sees what was, is and will be; and while It contemplates the past, and observes the present, It penetrates deeply with Its foresight into the most distant future and knows in every detail how the last man will die. Without confusion or discontinuity the Supreme Mind has always known that the king created to be demigod at Its side in Heaven, heir of the Father, would arrive adult in His Kingdom, after living in the house of his mother -the earth, with which he was made- during his childhood, as child of the Eternal Father for his day on earth...»

Passage 2 --

  Jesus says:
  «How many truths your soul would tell you, if you only knew how to converse with it, if you loved your soul that makes you like God, Who is a spirit, as your soul is a spirit.»

God has created humans to be the crowning jewel of Creation.  Having a soul, Man is the one thing on the Earth God has created that is most like Himself.  That being the case, it seems only fitting that Man should be permitted to rule over the Earth.

What does it mean for God to give dominion to humans?

Genesis 1:26 --

  ... and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Passage 2 --

  Jesus says:
  «If you knew how to question your soul, you would be told that the true, extensive meaning -as comprehensive as creation itself- of the words "that he might rule" is this:

  "That man might dominate everything, that is his three states. The lower state, the animal one. The middle state, the moral one. The superior state, the spiritual one. And all three of them are to be directed to one sole aim: to possess God".

  To possess Him by deserving Him through a strict control which subdues all the power of one's ego and conveys it to one only purpose: to deserve to possess God.»

Apparently man's dominion over the Earth includes a sort of self-mastery.  It seems to me the implication is that free will is a necessary prerequisite for man's dominion over the Earth to truly be considered complete, since mastery of the self means having control over our own decisions and actions.

Where did evil come from?

Passage 2 --

  Jesus says:
  «Lucifer was an angel, the most beautiful of all the angels, a perfect spirit, inferior only to God, and yet in his bright essence a vapour of pride arose and he did not scatter it. On the contrary, he condensed it by brooding over it. And Evil was born of this incubation. It existed before man. God had hurled him out of Paradise, the cursed incubator of Evil, who had desecrated Paradise. But he is the eternal incubator of Evil and as he can no longer soil Paradise, he has soiled the earth.»

According to the revelation, Satan's pride is the source of evil.

This particular excerpt, I think, has great importance in that it explicitly identifies the Serpent as Satan.  Although , the identity of the Serpent is only implied to be Satan in Biblical verses like Wisdom 2:24 and Revelation 12:9, and titles applied to him like "The Tempter" in Matthew 4:3 and "The Ancient Serpent" in Revelation 20:2.

Additionally, this excerpt explicitly identifies Pride as the root of all evil, justifying classifications of Pride as the most foul of the Seven Deadly Sins.

Why did God forbid Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge?

Genesis 2:16 --

  And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden;  17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

Passage 2 --

  Jesus says:
  «Your soul would tell you that God had forbidden the knowledge of good and evil, because He had already granted good to His creatures gratuitously, and He did not want you to know evil, because it is a sweet fruit to taste, but once its juice becomes part of your blood, it causes a fever that kills you and produces a parching thirst, so that the more one drinks of that false juice, the more thirsty one becomes...

  Also Eve knew what was good for her to know. But not more, because it is valueless to know what is not good.»

God has already given Adam and Eve each other's companionship.  God has given them dominion and made them King and Queen of the Earth.  He has even made them in His own image; Adam and Eve are -- in almost every way -- already like God, who is Perfect.

The reason for God's command not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil becomes clear: God has already given to Adam and Eve everything that is Good; indeed "every tree in the garden"!  The only thing that God has kept from them is Evil -- and even knowledge of what Evil is -- because Evil has no value, and God does not give gifts which have no value.

This is supported by the following from Passage 1:

  Jesus says:
  «He treats you as if you were good children, who are taught and granted everything so that their lives might be happier and more pleasant. What you know, you know by the light of God. What you discover, you discover through the guidance of God. In Goodness. Other knowledge and discoveries that bear the mark of evil, come from the Supreme Evil: Satan.»

Why did God put the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden in the first place?

Passage 2 --

  Jesus says:
  «You may object: "And why did He put it there?" Because evil is a force that originated by itself like certain monstrous diseases in the most wholesome body.»

  «I said: "metaphorical tree". Now I will say: "symbolical tree". Perhaps you will understand better. Its symbol is clear: the inclination to good and to evil of the two children of God, would be understood by their behaviour towards the tree. Like 'aqua regia' that tests gold and the scales of the goldsmith that weigh its carats, that tree, by God's command, became a means of testing and it gave the measure of Adam's and Eve's symbolic metal purity.»

As we already know, God is Infinitely Just.  Having already received so much from God, Adam and Eve must prove themselves worthy of the may gifts God has bestowed upon them in His Infinite Magnanimity.  As previously established, Evil has already been brought about by the pride of Satan, but it has not yet corrupted the Earth.

The Tree of Knowledge is metaphorical; there is no literal fruit for them to eat.  The test of Adam and Eve, the command which God gives them -- the only command that God gives them -- seems to be that they are not to ask God for more than what He has already given them (viz. everything that is Good).

Inded, the statement "they were not to eat (viz. ask/take for themselves) of the Tree of Knowledge" would seem better expressed as "the act itself of eating (viz. asking/taking for themselves) was the Tree of Knowledge".

A revelation from the Virgin Mary in Passage 2 supports this idea:

  Mary says:
  «The tree: the means to test their obedience. What does obedience to God's commands imply? It implies all possible good, because God commands nothing but good. What is disobedience? It is evil, because it brings about a rebellious mental state in which Satan can be active.»

What exactly was the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge?

If God made Adam and Eve in His Image and gave them all that was Good, what was left that distinguished God from Man?

One of the distinguishing factors was obvious: Adam and Eve were creatures with flesh and physical form; God is Spirit.  But physical form is something that Adam and Eve already had.

The only thing remaining that distinguished them was that Adam and Eve were created by God, whereas God is Eternal, Infinite and Uncreated.  Before the Fall of Man, God was the sole Creator of human life.

Passage 2 --

  Jesus says:
  «That metaphorical tree proves this truth. God had said to the man and the woman: "You know all the laws and the mysteries of creation. But do not infringe on My right of being the Creator of man... I have given you everything. I am only keeping for Myself this mystery of the formation of man".»

What is the meaning of the symbolic eating of the fruit?

Genesis 3:1-7

  Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

To eat the fruit of the tree can mean only one thing: to take the one thing that God has reserved for Himself -- the knowledge and act of creating human life -- and to do it without Him or His involvement.  But Adam and Eve went one step further...

The previous excerpt, unabridged, reads (emphasis mine):

  «That metaphorical tree proves this truth. God had said to the man and the woman: "You know all the laws and the mysteries of creation. But do not infringe on My right of being the Creator of man. My love will suffice for the propagation of the human race and it will spread among you and will excite the new Adams of the race without any lust of the senses but with purely charitable pulsations. I have given you everything. I am only keeping for Myself this mystery of the formation of man".»

From other excerpts, it appears that sexual activity itself was not what went against God's Plan, but the fact that the first man and the first woman carried out the act with lust in their hearts.  The act was performed not for the purpose of creating life, but to satisfy the craving for sensual pleasures.  The creation of life became a mere afterthought, and in this the act of creating was profaned.

The passages further clarify that not only was the knowledge of how to create life something God meant to keep for Himself (or at the very least something that He planned to reveal to Adam and Eve at a time and in a manner that He pleased), but that the act of creation and the multiplication of human life was intended as a means for the multiplication of love.  Not the sensual or erotic things that we humans often confuse with love, but a love that would be deep and true and holy; a love that would be a reflection of God's Infinite and Perfect Love for his creatures, worthy of being called "love"!

Passage 1 --

  Jesus says:
  «God, the Father Creator, had created man and woman with such a perfect law of love that you cannot even understand its perfection any longer. And you become lost in wondering how the human species would have come to be, if man had not been taught by Satan how to obtain it.

  Look at the fruit and seed plants. Do they produce seed and fruit by means of fornication, by means of one fecundation out of one hundred copulations? No. The pollen emerges from the male flower and driven by a complex of meteoric and magnetic laws it proceeds to the ovary of the female flower. The latter opens, receives it and produces. It does not pollute itself and then refuse it, as you do, to enjoy the same sensation the following day. It produces and until the new season, it does not get pollinated and when it does, it is only to produce.

  Look at the animals. All of them. Have you ever seen a male animal and a female one approach each other for a sterile embrace and lascivious dealings? No. From near or far, they fly, crawl, jump or run, they go, when it is time, to the fecundation rite. Neither do they evade stopping at the pleasure, but they go further, to the serious and holy consequences of the offspring, the only reason that should cause a man, a demigod by his origin of Grace which I have made complete, to accept the animality of the act, necessary since you descended by one degree towards animals.

  You do not act as plants and animals do. You had as your teacher Satan. You wanted him as your teacher and you still want him. And the works you do are what one would expect of the teacher you wanted. Had you been faithful to God, you would have had the joy of children, in a holy way, without pain, without exhausting yourselves in obscene and shameful intercourses, which even beasts are unacquainted with, although beasts are without a reasoning and spiritual soul.»

Passage 2 --

  Jesus says:
  «Satan wanted to deprive man of this intellectual virginity and with his venomous tongue he blandished and caressed Eve's limbs and eyes, exciting reflections and a perspicacity which they did not have before, because malice had not yet intoxicated them.

  She "saw". And seeing, she wanted to try. Her flesh was aroused. Oh! If she had called to God! If she had hurried to Him saying: "Father! The Serpent has caressed me and I am upset". The Father would have purified and healed her with His breath, which could have infused new innocence into her as it had infused life. And it would have made her forget the snake's poison, nay it would have engendered in her a disgust for the Serpent, as it happens in those who bear an instinctive dislike for diseases of which they have just been cured. But Eve does not go to the Father. Eve goes back to the Serpent. The sensation is a sweet one for her. "Seeing that the fruit of the tree was good to eat and pleasing and agreeable to the eye, she took it and ate it".

  And "she understood". Now Malice was inside her and was gnawing at her intestines. She saw with new eyes and heard with new ears the habits and voices of beasts. And she craved for them with insane greed.

  She began the sin by herself. She accomplished it with her companion. That is why a heavier sentence is laid on woman. Because of her, man has become rebellious towards God and has become acquainted with lewdness and death. Because of her, he was no longer capable of dominating his three reigns: the reign of the spirit, because he allowed the spirit to disobey God; the moral reign, because he allowed passions to master him; the reign of the flesh, because he lowered it down to the instinctive level of beasts. "The Serpent seduced me" says Eve. "The woman offered me the fruit and I ate of it" says Adam. And the triple greed has ruled the three dominions since then.»

The Virgin Mary, too, gives explanation in Passage 2.

  Mary says:
  «The Spirit of God had informed Me of the pain of the Father because of the corruption of Eve, who had lowered herself to the level of inferior creatures, whereas she was a creature of grace...

  Disobedience was the beginning of the downfall: "Do not eat and do not touch of that tree" said God. And man and woman did not respect that prohibition, although as kings of creation they were allowed to touch and eat of everything except of that tree because God wanted them to be inferior only to angels.

  The tree: the means to test their obedience. What does obedience to God's commands imply? It implies all possible good, because God commands nothing but good. What is disobedience? It is evil, because it brings about a rebellious mental state in which Satan can be active.

  Eve goes toward the tree, which, if avoided, would have caused her welfare, if approached, would cause her ruin. She goes there led by the childish curiosity of seeing what is special about it, and by a rashness that makes her consider God's command a useless one since she is strong and pure, the queen of Eden, where everything is subject to her and nothing can hurt her. Her presumption is her ruin. Presumption is the yeast of pride.

  At the tree she finds the Seducer, who sings his song of lies to her inexperience, to her beautiful virginal inexperience, to her badly guarded inexperience. "You think there is evil here? No, there isn't. God told you because He wants to keep you as slaves under His power. You think you are king and queen? You are not even as free as wild animals. Animals can love one another with true love. You cannot. Animals are granted the gift of being creators like God. Animals generate little ones and see their families grow as much as they like. You do not. You are denied this joy. Why make you man and woman if you have to live thus? Be gods. You do not know the joy of being two in one flesh, that creates a third one and many more. Do not believe God when He promised you the joy of posterity seeing your children forming new families, leaving their father and mother for their families. He has given you a sham life: real life is to know the laws of life. Then you will be like gods and will be able to say to God: 'We are equal to You' ".

  And the allurement continued because there was no will to break it, on the contrary there was the will to continue it and to learn what did not belong to man. And the forbidden tree becomes really mortal for the human race because from its branches there hangs the fruit of bitter knowledge that comes from Satan. And the woman becomes a female and with the yeast of Satanic knowledge in her heart, she moves on to corrupt Adam. With their bodies and souls degraded and their morals corrupted, they became acquainted with sorrow and the death of both their souls deprived of Grace and of their bodies divested of immortality. And Eve's wound engendered suffering, which will not subside until the last couple on earth are dead.»

Jesus continues (bold emphasis mine):

  «Also the fruit that was offered and eaten was symbolical. It was the fruit of an experience they wanted to have at Satan's instigation to break God's command. I had not forbidden men love. I only wanted them to love each other without malice; as I loved them in My holiness, they were to love each other in the holiness of affections unsoiled by lewdness...

  But she [Eve] did not have faith in God's word, and was not faithful to her promise of obedience. She believed in Satan, she broke her promise, she wanted to know what was not good, she loved it without regret, she turned love into something corrupt and degraded, which I instead had permitted as something holy. A sullied angel, she wallowed in mud and litter, whereas she could have run happily amongst the flowers of the earthly Paradise and she could have seen her offspring flourish around her, like a plant that is covered with flowers without bending its leaves into the mire.»

Jesus goes on to explain that, by this first sin, Man permitted misery to enter the world:

  «...o Cursed One, who deprived God of the joy of being the Father of all men created!

  In vain you have corrupted them, who had been created innocent, leading them to knowledge and conception by means of the sensuousness of lust, depriving God, in His beloved creature, of being the benefactor of the children according to rules, which, had they been respected, would have kept a balance on earth between sexes and races, a balance capable of averting wars between peoples and calamities between families.

  By obeying, they would have also known love. Nay, only by obeying they would have known love and possessed it. A complete and peaceful possession of this gift from God, Who from the supernatural descends to the inferior, so that also the flesh may rejoice devoutly, since it is united to the spirit and created by Him Who created the spirit.

  Now, men, what is your love, what are your loves? Either lewdness disguised as love or an incurable fear of losing the love of your partner through her or other people's lewdness. You are never sure of possessing the heart of your husband or wife, since lust entered the world. And you tremble and cry and become overwrought with jealousy, sometimes you kill to avenge a betrayal, sometimes you despair, and sometimes you lack will or even become insane.

  This is what you have done, Satan, to the children of God. Those whom you have corrupted, would have known the joy of having children without suffering any pain and would have experienced the joy of being born without fear of dying.»

What does this mean for us, the descendants of Adam and Eve?

As the Church teaches, we have inherited the stain of original sin.  However, Jesus clarifies that although we bear the consequences of original sin (which are dissolved through Baptism), we do not share in Adam and Eve's original guilt:

  «I can already hear your objection: "Was the punishment not excessive and the means used to condemn them not childish?"

  Not so. Actual disobedience in you, who are their heirs, is not so grave as if it were in them. You have been redeemed by Me. But Satan's poison is always ready to rise again, like certain diseases that never disappear completely in the blood. The First Parents possessed Grace without ever even nearing Disgrace. They were therefore stronger and more firmly supported by Grace that generated love and innocence. The gift given them by God was infinite. Much graver is therefore their fall notwithstanding that gift.»

In effect, our disobedience to God when we sin (as bad as it is) is still not as bad as the disobedience of Adam and Eve since -- never having risen as high as them -- we have a much shorter distance to fall.


Why is the fish often used as a symbol of Christ? In the United States, you've probably seen it.  Many Christians like to put a fish on their cars to show their faith.

What is the origin of this symbol?

The fish or "Ikthyus" is Greek, is a very ancient symbol.  In addition to the obvious parallels with Jesus commissioning the disciples as "fishers of men," there was another reason for using the fish.

The phrase -

Jesus
Christ
God('s)
Son
Savior

is in Greek

Ίησοῦς
Χριστός,
Θεοῦ
Υἱός,
Σωτήρ

ΊΧΘΥΣ (the first letter of each word, pronounced 'Ikthyus') also means fish.