Mormonism view on God as a physical being According to the BBC website on religions.  Its states the following about the doctrine held by Mormonism about the physical body of God:

Mormons believe that:
God is an exalted, perfected man.
God has a physical body.

An explantation of Mormon beliefs about God.
I really struggle with this concept and way of thinking about God.  I am seeking clarity on the subject as to why Mormons believe such a doctrine.
Thank you.

David,
Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (colloq. Mormons) believe that we are literally spirit children of God, that He is an exalted being, and that we can become like Him.  Jesus Christ also has a physical body and He was the only begotten of The Father (God).  Our physical bodies were not begotten of The Father, but we are all His spirit children, and Christ is our brother.
Paul explained it clearly when he said, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device." Acts 17:29
There are many Bible and other LDS canonized scriptures to support this doctrine.  Here are some of the many references:
King James Bible

Gen 1:27 God created man image
Ps. 82:6 Ye are gods, children of the most High:
Heb. 12:9 Be in subjection unto the Father of spirits
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God
Phil. 3:21 His glorified body
1 Jn 3:1-2 Now are we the sons of God

LDS Canonized Scriptures
Book of Mormon

Mosiah 5:7 You shall be called the children of Christ, his sons and his daughters
Mosiah 27:25 All people must be born again, becoming his sons and daughters
Ether 3:14 They shall become my sons and my daughters
Moro. 7:19 Ye certainly will become a child of Christ

Pearl of Great Price
Moses 1:13 I am a son of God
Doctrine and Covenants
D&C 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s
Bonus
There are many other Bible references to God and his physical body:

Gen 32:30 His face
Ex. 24:10 His feet
Ex. 31:18 His finger
Num. 12:8 His mouth


How do United Pentecostals and other Oneness groups interpret Hebrews 2:9? But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels,
  namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of
  death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
  (Hebrews 2:9 ESV)

If there is no distinction between the Father and the Son, as Oneness adherents believe, how could God who "upholds the universe by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3 ESV) die without the universe falling apart?

United Pentecostals do not deny that there is a Father and there is a Son.  They believe the Father and Son are one Spirit.  They believe that there is a distinction between Father and Son.  The Son is God in the Flesh.  The Father is God not in the flesh.  The United Pentecostals point out that in Scripture, the term "Son" is always used in reference to God in the flesh. If you would like to read more of what the UPC doctrine is, I suggest "The Oneness of God," by David Bernard. (I am not UPC, thus, I hesitate to go any further specifically regarding their doctrine, lest I misrepresent them).

As a Oneness adherent, I would continue thus in regard to this verse and your question:

Flesh is mortal, spirit is not. Flesh can suffer, flesh can die, the spirit experiences the suffering of the body, but the spirit does not die; Thus, When Christ died on the cross, God did not die.    Note:

  Luke 23
  46 Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last (NKJV).  /"gave up the ghost" (KJV).

So, God did come in the flesh, and did experienced death in the Body he took on; He suffered, and in the sense that any man dies, he died.  But God (Spirit) did not die.


What is the Biblical basis against being able to predict the date of the end of the world? Recently, there have been a few people (e.g. Harold Camping) who have predicted the end of the world.  Historically, the Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society) have also predicted the end of the world several times.

What is the Biblical basis for the claim that no one can predict the date that the world will end?

Jesus taught that we might be able to read the signs that it was near, but that no one would be able to know what day the end would come:

  "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. Therefore, keep awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly. And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake." —Mark 13:28-37


Was chaos the initial state of the earth at creation? We read in Genesis 1:1-2

  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
  2 And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Does this mean that God initially created the heaven and the earth in a chaotic state? This is contrary to all creative processes that we find either in nature or that are the results of man's actions. Therefore should we understand Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 as sequential events that occurs one after the other in time or would that mean there is a time gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 and that during that time the earth's state degraded and God reshapedit to make it a suitable home for Adam and Eve?

Thank you for any help on this.

Most English-language Bibles begin with "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth," although the first three Hebrew words of Genesis are: "בראשית ברא אלהים" (B'reishit bara Elohim). There is no definite article and the grammar is complex, if not confusing, but there is a general consensus among scholars that this can not be translated correctly as "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth" - for example, Leon R. Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom, page 27. Some believe the earth was pre-existing, and the beginning of  God's creation was the firmament that separates the waters above from the waters below. In the 'Gap theory', others see God as creating the earth and then, for some reason, allowing a time gap before beginning to create other things.  Apart from this, the creation story in Genesis 1:1-2:4a seems orderly and unchaotic, although the precise order of creation would be surprising to a scientist.

Digressing for a moment, we find that other cultures in the ancient Near East did believe that chaos accompanied the creation and that chaos monsters had to be conquered, especially Leviathan. Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, in Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God, page 43, explains that Baal was acclaimed in Canaan as victor over Litanu / Leviathan. In the Book of Job, we find that God was the victor over Leviathan. These creation fragments in Job (and in Psalms 74:14, 104:26) do not invalidate the creation account in Genesis chapter 1.

The creation story in Genesis chapter 1 need not be regarded as a literal story and indeed was not seen this way by some of the early Christian Church Fathers, who regarded it as an allegory. For example, Origen (De Principiis, Book 4.1.16):

  ... as even these do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur. Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally...


If you promise or swear to do something evil or sinful, do you have an obligation to fulfill that promise? If you promise or swear to do something evil or sinful, do you have an obligation to fulfill that promise? I know this is probably a silly question, but it's been bothering me. My main biblical source on this that I could find is Leviticus 5:4–5: "Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these. 5 And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing:". I think it's implied that you shouldn't fulfill an evil promise either, but I"m not sure. I'd really like some help understanding the verse and with addressing this question.

Scripture teaches God's absolute righteousness and holiness (Is 6, Rev 4:8). Like the priests of old, a Christian's life ought to be "HOLINESS TO THE LORD" (Ex 39:30).

1 Jn 1:3-9 3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you,
that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is
with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.   4 And these things
write we unto you, that your joy may be full.   5 This then is the
message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is
light, and in him is no darkness at all.   6 If we say that we have
fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the
truth:   7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have
fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son
cleanseth us from all sin.   8 If we say that we have no sin, we
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.   9 If we confess our
sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse
us from all unrighteousness.

Here we read of the believer's responsibility and privilege to walk in the light - that is, to do what is right. If we sin, we are to confess our sins, but we ought not go back to sin more.
The 10 commandments - as non-optional commands given to Israel - give strict direction, and never take into account if they had promised to sin.
If a believer were to make a promise to do evil, he ought to repent of it and bring it to God for forgiveness by the blood of Christ, as above in 1 Jn 1:9, but he ought not to sin more by fulfilling a promise to do what displeases God.

Jn 8:10-11   10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the
woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath
no man condemned thee?    11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said
unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.


Does the Bible say anything about our human relations being kept after death? Does death separate us from the people we love forever? Do we keep our human relations or do we start over?

I'm looking for any scripture passages that backup this claim or the contrary.

TL;DR The answer seems to be a clear "Yes" on this matter.
David Legg has an excellent sermon on the subject here, from which I obtained much of this research.
Many people have heard the passage about there being no marriage in Heaven:

Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." (Matthew 22:29-30)

There is some evidence that persons will be recognizable even after they are in heaven. At the Mount of Transfiguration, the disciples with Jesus were able to recognize Moses and Elijah. Legg treats with the question of how the disciples were able to recognize figures who died hundreds of years before their time, but it appears that there is at least the ability to recognize others.
But what about interpersonal relationships? Will we be able to spend time with those we knew on Earth, all while worshiping God forever? 1 Thessalonians 2:19 says:

For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?

Legg also goes into a deep analysis of the consistent use of the phrase "gathered together", which we see in 1 Thess 4:17 and 2 Thess 2:1. The point he makes is that in saying "gathered together", the Bible says that we will be participating with our friends and family in worship.
Then the question becomes on what level will our relationships be? We already know from above that we will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but how will relate with those we recognize?
Hebrews 8:5 says:

They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”

Because the earth is but a shadow of heaven, that is the reason people are not given in marriage in heaven. Legg says explicitly:

...marriage was a shadow, or if you like a signpost, relating to a greater relationship which is the relationship of the Christian, the church, with their Bridegroom, Christ Jesus.
Now a signpost becomes unnecessary when we reach our destination. You see, marriage, as we have known it down here on earth is a copy, it is an echo of the true, ultimate marriage that will take place at the marriage supper of the Lamb when Christ, the Bridegroom, is wed to His bride, the church. The purpose of earthly human marriage for us down here is in order to point us to that day, and even prepare us for that day in heaven.

The relationships we develop on this earth will not go away when we get to heaven, but they will be deepened with each other, and new friendships can be formed with those that died hundreds or thousands of years before us.
Further evidence is given in the wording used when the patriarchs of ancient Israel died:

Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years; and he was gathered to his people. (Genesis 25:8)
And Isaac breathed his last, and he died and was gathered to his people, old and full of days. And his sons Esau and Jacob buried him. (Genesis 35:29)

That article closes with an excellent point:

We will be reunited not only with our own families and loved ones, but also with the people of God from all ages. In heaven we will all be one loving family. The immense size of the family will not matter in the infinite perfection of heaven. There will be ample opportunity for close relationships with everyone, and our eternity will be spent in just that kind of rich, unending fellowship.


About statues and pictures What is the catholic argument that justifies the usage of statues and pictures of Jesus Christ and saints?

Obviously this depends on the meaning of "usage". If you're using a statue to clobber an innocent person to death, clearly there is no Catholic argument that justifies this. This is called murder. Catholics think that's bad.

Treating a statue of Jesus as if the statue itself was Jesus or as if it had some sort of "divine element" inside is also bad. This is called idolatry, or the worship of something in place of God. There's no Catholic argument for this either, Catholics think that's bad.

Now think of a mother who shows a friend a photo of her youngest child. Think of a soldier who cherishes a picture of his wife that his youngest child drew. These people aren't worshipping other humans. Think of a barber who talks to the image of his client in the mirror while cutting hair. The barber isn't talking to the mirror. There is no Catholic argument here, and no need for one. Using images and statues in this way is ok, according to both the Bible and common sense.


Did God's moral principles change with the change of OT times to NT times? It is a universal moral concept in the Christian era that the family members of a criminal are not responsible for his crime (unless they participated in that crime), and that the subordinates are not responsible for the personal crimes committed by their superior (unless they participated in his crime). This morality now is characteristic of any Christian group and no Christian group would argue against it.
However, if we look into the Old Testament, we will see cases, in which God Himself put to death or was ready to put to death relatives or subordinates for the sins committed by one of their relatives or by their superior, respectively. For example,

But God came to Abimelek in a dream one night and said to him, “You
are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a
married woman.” Now Abimelek had not gone near her, so he said, “Lord,
will you destroy an innocent nation? Did he not say to me, ‘She is my
sister,’ and didn’t she also say, ‘He is my brother’? I have done this
with a clear conscience and clean hands.” Then God said to him in the
dream, “Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I
have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you
touch her. Now return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet, and he will
pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may
be sure that you and all who belong to you will die.” (Genesis 20:3-7, NIV)

On one hand, we can see in this chapter that God did not eventually kill Abimelek and even prevented Abimelek from sin. However, God did tell him that if he didn't return Sarah to Abraham, He would most definitely kill Abimelek and all those who belonged to him.
Another passage that puzzles me is this:

Then he sent to Elijah a captain with his company of fifty men. The
captain went up to Elijah, who was sitting on the top of a hill, and
said to him, “Man of God, the king says, ‘Come down!’ ” Elijah
answered the captain, “If I am a man of God, may fire come down from
heaven and consume you and your fifty men!” Then fire fell from heaven
and consumed the captain and his men. At this the king sent to Elijah
another captain with his fifty men. The captain said to him, “Man of
God, this is what the king says, ‘Come down at once!’ ” “If I am a man
of God,” Elijah replied, “may fire come down from heaven and consume
you and your fifty men!” Then the fire of God fell from heaven and
consumed him and his fifty men.  (2Kings 1:9-12, NIV)

Even if one can argue that the first two captains here were too bold and disrespectful toward Elijah and, therefore, might have also been involved in the sinful behavior of their sinful king Ahaziah (barely), the soldiers that were under those two captains, were definitely innocent – they simply had no word in it and didn't decide anything. However, we don't see any hint in this chapter that what was done by Elijah (and, therefore, allowed by God, too) was in any way wrong.
So, does this mean that God's moral principles have changed with the change of OT times to NT times? Or is there any other explanation to this in the major Christianity?
(By major Christianity I mean Oriental Orthodox Churches, Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, and all the Protestant Churches that pray to Jesus in their prayers)

While I understand why we would question God for killing seemingly innocent people in those 2 stories, I think we need to remember that the primary focus of those 2 stories is to demonstrate God's protection of His prophets: Abraham and Elijah.  In the narration of the stories then, we shouldn't expect God to explain the morality of His actions, keeping in mind the following factors:

How this is similar to how God told Joshua to kill everyone (including women and children) when taking Canaanite cities in the promised land or in the (possible) innocence among some of the firstborns in Egypt killed in the 10th plague.  Most commentators are very uncomfortable with God's action in Canaan, in what seem to look like genocide, but try to mitigate this in terms of Gen 15:16: God's giving them time.

That out of His foreknowledge and omniscience God could have taken into account His personal dealings with each of the 50 men in the Elijah story.  This is maybe similar to how Abraham asked God whether He would destroy Sodom if there are more than 50, 40, 30, 20, 10 righteous people (Gen 18:16-33).

That in the Abimelech story, it was a threat not carried out, and that Abimelech was dealing with God as either a King or a head of the household where in ancient practice at the time puts the King / head of the household as a rightful representative of the fate of people "belonging" to him.  Thus, for the original audience, they wouldn't see God as unjust.

That in the Elijah story, we may see those 50 men as war combatants in God's war against a rebellious king of Israel, just as God became enemy to Samaria when He executed judgment in the Assyrian exile.

That in these 2 stories we are talking about God's actions, not human actions against another, which are regulated by Deut 24:16. Morality rules for human are only a subset of God's justice; thus, we cannot limit evaluation of God's justice from Deut 24:16 alone.  See this article for more discussion.

That life on earth is temporary.  If we are killed as part of God's greater plan so good can come from evil, God will reward us in the afterlife.

Of course the above factors are not completely satisfactory to answer your good question, but in my mind still gives room to allow consistency with the moral concept you cited in your first paragraph, especially given the narrative perspective of the stories where we should not infer too much from them.  I think when it comes to knowing God's moral principles, His direct commandments in the Pentateuch and the Psalmist's teaching about God are a much better source to argue for consistency between OT and NT.  Furthermore, as I argued in point #5 above, the two stories are not proper illustrations of Deut 24:16 or of Ez 18:20, which is the basis of the moral principle you cited in your question.
CONCLUSION: Given the larger factors that we have to consider about the morality of God's own acts as opposed to God's moral principles imposed on us humans, the 2 stories you cited are not a valid basis to support the contention that God's moral principles have changed from OT to NT.  Deut 24:16 is still applicable for us in both testaments, but is not applicable to God.


Can you find scholarly support that Behemoth is an example of humble submission? In the Book of Job, chapter 40 describes Behemoth, a large land animal that may be mythical, a hippo, an herbivourous dinosaur, or an as yet uncreated beast that God has in the works for the future. I am not interested in what Behemoth was, but what it represents. My bias, based on previous reading, was to consider Behemoth (a beast of the earth) and Leviathan (a beast from the sea) to be referring to the two creatures that are found in Revelation 13. That would mean that each represented a facet of evil, an evil kingdom, Satan or one of his demons.

However, I am reading a commentary on Job by William Wells:

http://www.newwinemedia.com/media/classic_books/William_W_Wells-Commentary_on_the_Book_of_Job.pdf

A short quote from Wells:

  God is sending Job an important message. Behemoth is “the chief of the
  ways of God” (40:19), and is linked with Job's deliverance. “Then will
  I also confess unto thee that thine own right hand can save thee.
  Behold now Behemoth...” (40:14-15). Leviathan, on the other hand, “is
  a king over all the children of pride” (41:34). Leviathan is blocking
  Job's path to God.

Wells claims that Behemoth is a contrast to Leviathan. Leviathan represents the person that chooses pride and the chaos it leaves in its wake, whereas Behemoth is placid, trusting, secure and humble, and represents the life submitted to God, the opposite choice. This is the first author that I have ever read that attributed positive, noble characteristics and interpretation to this creature. It is easy to find writers that take the opposite view. Do you know of any other writers who would agree with Wells? Is Behemoth good?

You are quite correct, that very few writers try to explain Behemoth, dealing instead with Leviathan. I also note a heavy tendency to try to say what animals they might have been, whereas the book of Job is dealing with massive, eternal issues of suffering, pain, and God’s justice. Surely we should see God’s comments about Behemoth and Leviathan as His answer to those issues?

Yet some years ago I read this comment by a Christian (using a pseudonym), on a Website where a Q had been asked about this. He dealt with a literal interpretation of Behemoth, what kind of a creature it could have been:

  The description of Behemoth matches that of a sauropod. In the Congo,
  when indigenous tribes are shown pictures of bears, moose and other
  animals not native to the region, they understandably do not recognize
  the creatures; however, when shown a picture of a sauropod, they
  excitedly recognize the creature, claiming it's about the size of an
  elephant and lives in the water, but is rarely seen. So there is the
  possibility that it may exist. … Alexander the Great, Marco Polo and
  others claim in their writings to have encountered dragons during
  their expeditions. "Dragons" were what large reptiles were called back
  then. (Leviathan appears to have been some aquatic species of
  dragon/dinosaur.) When partially fossilized dinosaur bones are found
  containing soft tissue, that could be evidence for them.”

However, a scientist has written about this in his book (below) viewing the biblical account of Job as an early pointer for us to understand the natural world but without any need to delve into taxonomy.  He uses the Bible book of Job to urge us to ask different questions, to put science and faith together, to get a better understanding that will give us biblical wisdom. Tom McLeish says in Faith & Wisdom in Science,

  “Chapters 40 and 41 of Job sing "in exquisitely detailed praise the
  power of two monstrous creatures, the Behemoth and Leviathan
  (sometimes interpreted as the hippopotamus and the crocodile, but
  textually more splendid and terrible)… this is a 'decentralising' text
  that places humans at the periphery of the world, looking on in wonder
  at its centerpieces... Although the book of Job is the least
  anthropocentric of ancient cosmologies, passing by humans to exalt the
  great Leviathan as the pinnacle of creation, still mankind retains a
  special place in regard to the potential possession of wisdom. Our
  examinations of the Lord's answer to Job has identified the same
  unreasonable optimism that the great wisdom questions of nature can
  one day be answered... The double Hebraic encouragement to search for
  'wisdom and understanding' (the practical and cognitive aspects of
  knowing) that we have met in Job and elsewhere resonates strongly with
  the dual methodology of experiment and theory, and with the
  deeply-lying longing for wisdom that their meeting can release."

This scientist author, who is also a Christian, then considers Behemoth as the climax of God’s response to Job’s human questioning about pain. In one sense Job was asking the wrong question, yet Job’s thread of God’s justice in managing His creation is woven into Job’s disputation. A surprising new picture enters the tapestry – Behemoth. The author says:

  “With trepidation, and against the weight of opinion, I am therefore
  suggesting that the Lord’s answer is an answer to Job’s complaint –
  possibly the only adequate answer. There are five lines of argument
  that point this way.”

(1) Creation is not out of control. The way Job and his friends viewed ‘control’ was wrong.

(2) The experience of pain cannot be divorced from the confrontation of human hope and a universe of freedom, and this perspective is foundational to the acquisition of wisdom that deals with matters in extreme tension with each other.

(3) God invites a new relationship with the physical world that leaves behind the irresponsibly polarised positions of Job and his friends.

(4) God’s physical structures are not a sideshow; the failure to acquire wisdom in working with nature hurts both the world and ourselves; there is a biblical ‘creation covenant’.

(5) God’s answer is eschatological. Science affirms that nature matters; knowledge has an ancient history and we need to participate in learning and understanding more. There is to be reconciliation between the human and the non-human, a theme of the New Testament. (Tom McLeish, "Faith & Wisdom in Science", pp110 & 145-6 (Oxford University Press 2014)

I cannot do justice to the author with my brief selection of points but I refer to him for his use of those two creatures to advocate combining science and faith to grasp God’s answers to our oft-misguided questions that can show ignorance on our part which a deeper knowledge of God’s created order could rectify.


Why didn't Martin Luther provide for his family to be taken care of after his death? I recently heard Professor Stephen Nichols of Reformed Theological Seminary state that following Martin Luther's death, his wife, Katie, and his children struggled financially for some time.

Did Luther simply neglect to provide for the care of his family? Did he make some provision which was later misappropriated? Was there no church to care for his survivors?

I always find these questions about Luther interesting because the more I follow a questions about Luther, which are often curiously raised, the more impressed I am in his admirable character. Basically there is no story here, other than that Luther was a humble and responsible person who left all he had faithfully to his wife.

  Luther’s income was very small, even for the standard of his times, and presents a striking contrast to the royal splendor and luxury of bishops and cardinals. (Schaff, P., & Schaff, D. S. (1910). History of the Christian church (Vol. 7, p. 470). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.)

Although a humble minister who had few sources of income, he was diligent with what little he had and managed to earn and seems to have invested it all into his family:

  He bought in 1540 from his brother-in-law a little farm, Zulsdorf, between Leipzig and Borna, for six hundred and ten guilders, as a home for his family. His wife cultivated a little garden with fruit-trees, even mulberry and fig trees, raised hops and brewed beer for domestic use, as was then the custom. She also had a small fish-pond. She enjoyed hard work. Luther assisted her in gardening and fishing. In 1541 he purchased a small house near the convent, for his wife. He willed all his property, which amounted to about nine thousand guilders, to his wife during her lifetime, wishing that “she should not receive from her children, but the children from her; that they must honor and obey her, as God has commanded.”
  His widow survived him seven years, and suffered from poverty and affliction. The Elector, the Counts of Mansfeld, and the King of Denmark added small sums to her income; but the unfortunate issue of the Smalkaldian war (1547) disturbed her peace, and drove her from Wittenberg. She returned after the war. Melanchthon and Bugenhagen did for her what they could. When the pestilence broke out at Wittenberg in 1552, and the university was moved to Torgau, she followed with her children; but on the journey she was thrown from the wagon into a ditch, and contracted a cold which soon passed into consumption. She died Dec. 20, 1552, at Torgau; her last prayer was for her children and the Lutheran Church.( Schaff, P., & Schaff, D. S. (1910). History of the Christian church (Vol. 7, pp. 471–472). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.)

Compared to the poverty of some who survive their husbands (we must remember that the husband's salary was the source of income) it does not actually sound that bad. Aside from a local war between Catholics and Protestant powers that seems to have aggravated otherwise fairly manageable conditions, his wife did OK and did not seem to need the support of her children. Simply speaking, Luther left what he had to his loved one, but was not a rich man. I suppose many prophets and Apostles left less for their wives than Luther but judging a man for his wealth seems inadvisable, as their whole ambition was concerning the world hereafter and so did not accumulate much in this life.


Is salvation acheived by faith alone, or does it in fact require some works? I was raised a Lutheran, and am looking for an answer from someone (like a Lutheran) who believes in salvation by grace alone (by faith alone, etc.). I still believe in salvation by faith alone because much of the New Testament seems to indicate this (John 3:16, Romans 3:28, 1 Corinthians 3:11, etc), but I am wondering how we rationalize these words of Jesus (below) and how they can be reconciled with the 'faith alone' philosophy. They seem to explicitly state that one 'must do the will of the father' in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (have salvation, right?).

Jesus said, in Matt 7:21-23
(NASB)
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a] miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

James 2:14-26 answers your question perfectly.

Faith is shown through works. I've included the excerpt below *.

Symbolically, sin can be likened to nakedness, whereas clean white robes represent good deeds which are obviously tied with faith.

Revelation 19:8

  8 She has been permitted to dress in fine (radiant) linen, dazzling
  and white—for the fine linen is (signifies, represents) the
  righteousness (the upright, just, and godly living, deeds, and
  conduct, and right standing with God) of the saints (God’s holy
  people).

With the amount of reference to "white robes" in Revelation (such as Revelation 7:14 ), and their correlation to faith (deeds) which is the result of both Christ's sacrifice and good works on the part of the follower, we can conclude that works are a large part of faith.

There is a definite correlation between good works (by which faith can be measured) and being counted among Christ's people.

Matthew 25:36 Compare to James below:

  36 I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited Me
  [j]with help and ministering care, I was in prison and you came to see
  Me.

James 2:14-26

  14 What is the use (profit), my brethren, for anyone to profess to
  have faith if he has no [good] works [to show for it]? Can [such]
  faith save [his soul]?

  15 If a brother or sister is poorly clad and lacks food for each day,

  16 And one of you says to him, Good-bye! Keep [yourself] warm and well
  fed, without giving him the necessities for the body, what good does
  that do?

  17 So also faith, if it does not have works (deeds and actions of
  obedience to back it up), by itself is destitute of power
  (inoperative, dead).

  18 But someone will say [to you then], You [say you] have faith, and I
  have [good] works. Now you show me your [alleged] faith apart from any
  [good] works [if you can], and I by [good] works [of obedience] will
  show you my faith.

  19 You believe that God is one; you do well. So do the demons believe
  and shudder [in terror and horror such as [a]make a man’s hair stand
  on end and contract the surface of his skin]!

  20 Are you willing to be shown [proof], you foolish (unproductive,
  spiritually deficient) fellow, that faith apart from [good] works is
  inactive and ineffective and worthless?

  21 Was not our forefather Abraham [shown to be] justified (made
  acceptable to God) by [his] works when he brought to the altar as an
  offering his [own] son Isaac?

  22 You see that [his] faith was cooperating with his works, and [his]
  faith was completed and reached its supreme expression [when he
  implemented it] by [good] works.

  23 And [so] the Scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed in
  (adhered to, trusted in, and relied on) God, and this was accounted to
  him as righteousness (as conformity to God’s will in thought and
  deed), and he was called God’s friend.

  24 You see that a man is justified (pronounced righteous before God)
  through what he does and not alone through faith [through works of
  obedience as well as by what he believes].

  25 So also with Rahab the harlot—was she not shown to be justified
  (pronounced righteous before God) by [good] deeds when she took in the
  scouts (spies) and sent them away by a different route?

  26 For as the human body apart from the spirit is lifeless, so faith
  apart from [its] works of obedience is also dead.


What does Sinclair Ferguson (a reformed theologian) mean by a 'new identity'? I watched some of the Youtube recordings of lectures given by Sinclair Ferguson and I am now uncertain which one it was in which he stated that in Colossians we see that 'we are given a new identity'. So I cannot now refer to it but I remember the wording distinctly.
However, just searching under the words indicates that is is a concept common in what might be considered evangelical Christianity today.
But I am personally unfamiliar with this concept, myself, and can think of nowhere in scripture where wording like this, as such, is used.
I know that the Son of man states, Revelation 2:17, that 'to him that overcometh ... I will give ... a white stone and in the stone a new name written ...' but that does not - exactly - say that the new name is the person's new name. And a new name is not, necessarily, the same as a new 'identity'.
Jesus gave Simon a new name (Peter) but that did not change his identity and he was thereafter known as 'Simon', 'Simon Peter'or 'Peter'.
The names written upon persons in Revelation 3:12 are the name of God, the name of the city of God and the new name of the Son of man : not their own name, new or otherwise.
Paul says 'I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ liveth in me', Galatians 2:20, but the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, in union with the spirit of the believer, is not anything to do with an alteration to identity. It is a union of spirit, in which union (of Holy Spirit) Christ himself dwells within.
I am therefore left somewhat mystified by the expression 'given a new identity' and would like to ask if anyone can further enlighten me either from Sinclair Ferguson's other utterances or from reformed theology generally, what is meant by the expression and what texts are brought forward in order to support the concept.

I'm not aware of the specific lectures you are referring to, but I have listened to / read a fair amount of his work. I imagine Sinclair Ferguson would be thinking along these lines:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: the old has gone, the new is here! (2 Corinthians 5:17)

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

The point is that coming to Christ is the most significant thing that can happen to someone - Jesus likens it to being "born again" (John 3:3).
This is how Paul describes the Christian life:

You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. (Ephesians 4:22-24)

It's significant enough that we can talk about an "old self" and a "new self". Of course the word 'identity' isn't used - that's a more modern construct - but I think the concept is there.
I should add that it's not being given a new identity doesn't mean a totally new identity in the sense that it's alien to us: rather, it's the restoration of an identity which sin had distorted and defiled. In Christ we become the people who God designed us to be.
Without wishing to put words in Dr Ferguson's mouth, I think he is probably meaning something like that!


What is the Catholic Church's position on the scientific theory of evolution? Understanding the scientific [Biological] theory of evolution simply as descent [from a common ancestor] with modification through Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection, starting from the time Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859, what is the Catholic Church's position on the scientific theory of evolution as expressed through papal magisterium?

What is/is not acceptable for a Catholic as regards this theory?

What are the proscribed limits set forth by the papal magisterium?

From the papal teaching, why is the theory of evolution of interest to the Church?

Science as understood in

  Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and
  the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways,
  such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and
  religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and
  moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm,
  which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.
  Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part
  of science. - Source: 1999 report "Science and Creationism: A View
  from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition"

Please note that this question is not asking about Theistic Evolution, a non-scientific theory.

A quick Google search provides a link indicating there is (perhaps intentionally) no official authoritative declaration on the subject, leaving "no burden upon conscience".

To quote,

  [The advantage of Catholics] lies in the simple fact that they do not have to decide either for Evolution or against it.  Authority has not spoken on the subject; hence it puts no burden upon conscience, and may be discussed realistically and without prejudice.  A certain wariness, of course, is necessary.  I say that authority has not spoken; it may, however, speak tomorrow, and so the prudent man remembers his step.  But in the meanwhile there is nothing to prevent him examining all available facts, and even offering arguments in support of them or against them—so long as those arguments are not presented as dogma.  (STJ, 163)

And, again, referencing Pope Pius in the 1950s,

  In other words, the Pope could live with evolution, so long as the process of “ensouling” humans was left to God.  (He also insisted on a role for Adam, whom he believed committed a sin— mysteriously passed along through the “doctrine of original sin”—that has affected all subsequent generations.) Pius XII cautioned, however, that he considered the jury still out on the question of evolution’s validity.  It should not be accepted, without more evidence, “as though it were a certain proven doctrine.”  (ROA, 81)


Does God will the diversity of religion? According to this article: Pope Francis signed a document stating:

  The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and
  language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created
  human beings,

The article says:

  theologian says it must be read in the proper context

The context is:

  Catholics, Muslims and all who believe in God must work together to
  build a culture of love, peace and human fraternity

My question is how does the Catholic Church understand it within the context of the first commandment? Is this the teaching of the Catholic Church that diversity of religion is the will of God?

  I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out
  of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You
  shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of
  anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
  that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them
  or serve them.3 It is written: "You shall worship the Lord your God
  and him only shall you serve."4 Catechism

No, the diversity of sects is due to the sin of man.

  2 Peter 2:1But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition (αιρέσεις απωλείας) [lit. "heresies of perdition", false religions] and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

All false religions begin with false teachings. For example: Judaism denies Christ is the Messias. Islam denies Christ's divinity and thus also the Trinity. Protestantism denies the visibility of the Church, the ministerial priesthood, the transubstantiation, and that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is truly a propitiatory sacrifice.

God does not will that believers mingle with non-believers:

  2 Cor 6:14-16Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God: as God saith: I will dwell in them and walk among them. And I will be their God: and they shall be my people.

See also "The Church's Constant Teaching on our dealings with Non-Catholics."

Religious indifferentism and liberty of conscience is a heresy. Bl. Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition in his Syllabus of Errors:

  Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.


What major translations of the Bible are in the Public Domain? Quoting Biblical text is technically a dicey proposition.  While the original manuscripts are obviously public domain, not every translation is.
Indeed, the NIV even posts the following copyright notice on BibleGateway:

Copyright Information
The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.
When the NIV is quoted in works that exercise the above fair use clause, notice of copyright must appear on the title or copyright page or opening screen of the work (whichever is appropriate) as follows:
THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.
These Scriptures are copyrighted by the Biblica, Inc.™ and have been made available on the Internet for your personal use only. Any other use including, but not limited to, copying or reposting on the Internet is prohibited. These Scriptures may not be altered or modified in any form and must remain in their original context. These Scriptures may not be sold or otherwise offered for sale.

Given this, what significant translations of the Bible can I actually quote at length?

The issue with copyright translations.

One translation that was produced with the specific intention of avoiding copyright entanglements is the World English Bible.  It is modernization of the American Standard Version (ASV) placed into the public domain.  A paragraph from the site's FAQ is worth quoting:

  The copyright laws of most nations and the international treaties that support them are a mixed blessing. By granting authors and translators a legal monopoly (for a limited, but very long, time) on the right of copying and “first sale” of their works, the law makers have made writing and translating very profitable for some people whose works are in great demand. This has, no doubt, been a factor in the creation of many of the good Modern English translations of the Holy Bible that we now enjoy. The problem with this system, with respect to the Holy Bible, is that it has had the effect of limiting distribution of God’s Word in modern languages. For example, I cannot legally post copies of the entire New International Version of the Holy Bible on my web site in a downloadable, searchable, and readily copyable format without the permission of the International Bible Society and Zondervan (copyright owner and publisher). Zondervan won’t grant such permission unless they get a significant royalty (they quoted me $10,000 + $10/copy distributed) and unless I convince them that my Bible search software is “good enough” for them. Needless to say, the Bible search software that I am writing with the intention of distributing as donorware will not come with the NIV.

Further, organizations such as The Gideons International that distribute Bibles must pay copyright holders a fee if they wish to give away a modern translation (such as the New King James Version) rather than the King James with all of it's Elizabethanisms.  The restrictions can also have an impact on smaller scales.  The NASB licence reads (emphasis in the original):

  The text of the New American Standard Bible® may be quoted and/or reprinted up to and inclusive of one thousand (1,000) verses without express written permission of The Lockman Foundation, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for more than 50% of the total work in which they are quoted.

These restrictions mean it's (probably) fine to quote a passage or two in an answer on Stack Exchange or in an article or book.  But it's not possible to reprint an entire book of the Bible for the purposes of a "Manuscript Study" (AKA, "Communal Discovery Bible Study Method").  While I doubt the Lockman Foundation will have agents tracking down people who print out Mark for their devotional group to mark up, such a practice violates the intentions of the publisher who fronted the money and commissioned the translation.  As Paul says:

  The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”—1st Timothy 5:17-18 (NASB)

Finally, many translations restrict derivative works (such as the WEB effort and my idea of making a Southern American Version™).  The US laws concerning derivative works is complicated, but creators who don't want to deal with lawyers would be advised to base their work on translations free of copyright restrictions.

But God's Word should be free, man!

The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts of the Bible are public domain (and a cornerstone of our cultural heritage).  But it turns out that even the critical text is protected by copyright laws.  For the general public, this is no great loss as there are plenty of unrestricted options and the licences for most translations allow for the most common uses of the texts.  But all of this has serious implications for scholars who honor the wishes of the Bible publishers.  It's tempting to get angry with the publishers or to ignore the restrictions.

However, we have a duty to comply with the licences of our translations so that the hard-working folks who produce them can afford to keep laboring.  Most of them are reasonable people who are as interested in seeing God's Word preached as you are.  In fact I'll let the Crossway (publishers of the ESV) blog have the final word:

  We're not going to come after you if you don't cite quotes from the ESV according to these guidelines. But we'd appreciate it if you did. Using the letters “ESV” also helps us track the popularity of the ESV in the blogosphere.


Do Mormons respect the EU "Data Protection Directive" of right of access to personal data? For some background: the EU "Data Protection Directive" is a European Union directive which regulates the processing of personal data within the European Union, as explained in this Wikipedia article. Among these regulations is the rule that individuals have right for a copy of the data that has been collected about them.

About this the document A European Perspective on Data Protection and Access Rights says (on. p. 6):

  Hence, although with a veiled expression, Art. 12 entitles the data
  subject to exercise the following four rights:

  the right to confirmation as to whether or not data relating to the data subject are being processed by a particular controller and, if
  so, to obtain details of the processing (Art. 12 (a), first indent);
  the right of access to one’s data, including the right to have a copy of the data in question with any available information as to
  their source (Art. 12 (a), second indent);
  the right to have the data rectified, erased or blocked if they do not conform to the Directive, in particular if they are incomplete or
  inaccurate (Art. 12 (b));
  the right to be informed about the logic used in case of automated decisions (Art. 12 (a), third indent).

Similar sentiments have been expressed in other documents, such as the "Charter of Fundamental Rights of The European Union", p.10:

So on this note, I was browsing Wikileaks earlier today and noticed an image listed on a page titled "LDS Church exclusion of members access to their own records 2008" (This page is under the Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

The image, shown below, shows a screen shot of a dialog from software application. The text on the dialog starts with "Members may not have copies of their membership records. Under no circumstances may membership records be given to anyone other than the bishop or a clerk."

The question I wanted to ask is, how does the LDS church handle requests for copies of personal data that come from EU?

I know that software first-hand because I served as a ward clerk.

The quote is misleading. On the "members record" appears information about parents, children and husband/wife, along with their member number.

Members may have access to a so-called "summary of ordinances" (translation from german, i don't know the english  name). The only difference is that the member number of other persons (parents  etc.) do not appear. Clerks are encouraged to regularly show that summary to the member to check correctness, and members can keep it if they want.

The member number is identifying information that is used, for example, to register an account on lds.org. Giving that number to someone else would be the actual data protection issue.

I am aware this may only partially answer your question, but maybe it clears up some confusion.


Does the Mormon doctrine of exaltation implicitly require acknowledging the existence of sentient extra-terrestrial life? The Mormon doctrine of exaltation is that we can become like God is, and in essence, attain godhood. This has sometimes been summarized, "As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become." I understand that this means, in part, that a believer can become his own "God" and ruler of his own world.

Under what circumstances does a believer become his own "God" and ruler of his own world? Is that world their own planet?
What is the LDS scriptural backing for this doctrine? (I'm pretty sure it is not in the Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox canon, but I do suspect it is somewhere in the Book of Mormon or D&C. If I wanted to read the primary source of the doctrine, where would I go?)
Is there an "alternate universe" with other gods and sentient beings? What is the nature of this "alternate universe" or world?

Is such a world a physical planet, an alternate universe, or something else?
Is this promotion to divinity concurrent with our timeline?
Is this world or universe something that interacts with our own? In other words, could we communicate a denizen of such a place using purely natural or physical means (rather than "divine" or "spiritual" means)? (For example, assuming we somehow had the technology to transcend light-years of distance with instantaneous communication, would we be able to speak with them?) Would a denizen of one of these "other universes" be able to interact with ours?
Are there already other such universes in existence, or is our God the first?

Before we dive into the answers, we need to understand the Mormon perspective on the doctrine of exaltation.

The focus of all LDS teaching is on salvation through Christ and His Atonement. Exaltation is all about bringing us back to Christ and to know Him by becoming like Him. Exaltation is not "getting your own planet." That phrase is foreign to Mormons. The Gospel Principles manual says:

  Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in
  great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom.
  He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become
  like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

And with exaltation come these things as some blessings:

  Our Heavenly Father is perfect, and He glories in the fact that it is
  possible for His children to become like Him. His work and glory is
  “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses
  1:39).

  Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in
  Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised,
  “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings
  given to exalted people:

  They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).
  They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).
  They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.
  They will receive a fulness of joy.
  They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20).
  President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised
  through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are
  obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge,
  wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the
  perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp.
  Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original).

Exaltation is a broad and deep topic of LDS doctrine, much of which can only be learned, as the LDS believe, by revelation and attending the temple and receiving those ordinances. It is sacred to them.

With that in mind, remember that the teaching of any speculation or topic not directly relevant to our salvation is discouraged in the LDS church. You know how it can be: opinions or ideas get taught in class or over the pulpit, and maybe get misconstrued as truth, then all of a sudden you have congregations teaching and absorbing false doctrine, and their focus is removed from the Atonement of Christ.

So as far as I know, there is no official doctrine in the LDS church at this time which directly answers your third question. The LDS would probably say, "We don't know. It hasn't been revealed." Any other attempted answer would merely be speculation based on reasoning and maybe science, but not on the revelations from God which the LDS would require in order to account it as doctrine.

But your first two questions have more secure answers:

1. In the same chapter in that manual referenced above, it says

  To be exalted, we first must place our faith in Jesus Christ and then
  endure in that faith to the end of our lives. Our faith in Him must be
  such that we repent of our sins and obey His commandments.

  He commands us all to receive certain ordinances:

  We must be baptized.
  We must receive the laying on of hands to be confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ and to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
  Brethren must receive the Melchizedek Priesthood and magnify their callings in the priesthood.
  We must receive the temple endowment.
  We must be married for eternity, either in this life or in the next.

  In addition to receiving the required ordinances, the Lord
  commands all of us to:

  Love God and our neighbors.
  Keep the commandments.
  Repent of our wrongdoings.
  Search out our kindred dead and receive the saving ordinances of the gospel for them.
  Attend our Church meetings as regularly as possible so we can renew our baptismal covenants by partaking of the sacrament.
  Love our family members and strengthen them in the ways of the Lord.
  Have family and individual prayers every day.
  Teach the gospel to others by word and example.
  Study the scriptures.
  Listen to and obey the inspired words of the prophets of the Lord.

  Finally, each of us needs to receive the Holy Ghost and learn to
  follow His direction in our individual lives.

2.  From the same source as above, there are some scriptures referenced:

D&C 132:3–4, 16–26, 37 (pertaining to exaltation)
D&C 131:1–4 (eternal marriage is key to exaltation)
D&C 76:59–70 (blessings of celestial glory explained)
D&C 84:20–21 (the power of godliness is manifest through priesthood ordinances)

I was going to quote them, but it got kind of long. You can read them here.

There are also more scriptures to be found in the Bible and other books. A satisfying, but perhaps not comprehensive list, can be found in the Topical Guide under "Exaltation."

I would not expect this answer to satisfy some of the readers. Mason Wheeler has already explained, in the comments, the reason for this, and I will quote it here for emphasis, because I would suggest the same in this case:

  It's worth noting that a good, concise explanation of Exaltation is very difficult to give, as it's basically the highest point of LDS doctrine, and to understand it well--beyond a brief overview that's more of a caricature than anything actually useful--requires an understanding of a lot of other doctrine first. You would get a better explanation by speaking with LDS missionaries, (who do explain Exaltation, after building up to it in a well-structured manner,) than by looking for specific answers here without laying the groundwork. "Line upon line, precept upon precept." (Isaiah 28:10)

(On a personal note, I often do this type of thing in my studies. For example, if I wanted to learn calculus but only knew arithmetic, I wouldn't go check out a calculus book and expect to understand it. I visit with professors and practice the problems on my own until I can grasp the more advanced concepts.)


What is the Biblical basis for the Holy Spirit being God? I know that Trinitarians believe that God exists as one God in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
That God the Father is God is patently obvious from the entire Old Testament.
That God the Son is God is made forcefully in John, Colossians, and throughout the New Testament.
We also know that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, but...
Where in the Bible does it say that the Holy Spirit is God?

In Acts 5:1-4 it says Ananias has lied to the Holy Spirit and has therefore lied to God:

  Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a
  piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part
  of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the
  apostles’ feet.
  Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your
  heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself
  some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you
  before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your
  disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied
  just to human beings but to God."

In 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 we see the Spirit is the Lord:

  Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there
  is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the
  Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with
  ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

The bold text is my emphasis of course.


What does it means INRI in Jesus Cross? Possible Duplicate:
  What does INRI stand for?

In Jesus Cross there is symbol like INRI, What does it exactly means and why they are keeping this still in cross any conditions or story behind this steel plate or this symbol in cross.Please refer the following location : INRI in Cross

IESVS NAZARENVS REX IVDAEORVM and it means jessus the nazarinean king of jews, it was wrote so that everyone could mock Him.


What is the LDS Church's affiliation with the Boy Scouts? The LDS church sponsors scouting programs for their boys, and I understand that many LDS young men attain the rank of Eagle, the highest rank in Boy Scouts.

Regardless of the possible implications of the imminent decision of the BSA related to gays in scouts, what is the LDS Church's affiliation with scouting? What religious significance does the Boy Scouts have with Mormon young men?

Update: The LDS Church recently issued this statement about their partnership with the Boy Scouts.

Another Update: One more statement by the LDS Church regarding the Boy Scout membership policy decision.

The Boy Scouts of America's website states:

  The Boy Scouts of America is one of the nation's largest and most prominent values-based youth development organizations. The BSA provides a program for young people that builds character, trains them in the responsibilities of participating citizenship, and develops personal fitness.

In addition, the BSA requires all members to espouse a belief in some "higher power", in other words, whoever you believe to be god.

The 13th Article of Faith of the LDS Church states:

  We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Clearly both organizations are seeking after character-filled and moral members. Specifically, the BSA's Scout Law states:

  A Scout is:
  Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful,
  Friendly, Courteous, Kind,
  Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty,
  Brave, Clean, Reverent

(bolded entries emphasizing those that appear in the Article of Faith in some form)

As an Eagle Scout myself, and having got to know many Mormon Boy Scouts, I can attest that many are there because they believe in the principles of both organizations. The strong overlap between the two sets of values is likely what makes Scouting so appealing to Mormon young men.

The Church's statement on Scouting:

  Where Scouting is authorized by the Church, quorums may participate in Scouting activities during Mutual. Under priesthood leadership, Scouting can complement the efforts of Aaronic Priesthood quorums and Primary classes in building testimonies in young men and boys.”

For more resources, you could check out the LDS-BSA Relationships website. As for the LDS Church's affiliation with scouting, it is the largest chartering organization (sponsor for local troop), with 37,856 units containing 430,557 youth, almost 70,000 more than the next-largest organization.


What is the difference between original sin and original guilt? This is a question that every convert to Eastern Orthodoxy always asked. The question can be stated differently: Does the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin include Original Guilt? Fr. John Romanides famously distinguish Ancestral Sin from St. Augustine's Original Sin, claiming the later was erroneously introducing Manichaean view of Original Guilt into Latin theology. Fr. Vladimir Moss wrote extensively to show why the doctrine of Original Sin is Apostolic in origin and dogmatically sound in Orthodoxy. To further clarify why original sin and ancestral sin are not substantially different? It's important to address what is the difference between Original Sin and later theological development from Protestant on Original Guilt?

There isn't a Catholic definition of guilt, therefore the Catholic understanding of guilt is how it is often understood:

  "That state of a moral agent which results from his commission of a
  crime or an offense wilfully or by consent" - cf. guilt (n.) | Online
  Etymology Dictionary.

There is a Catholic definition of sin:

  113. What is sin?
  Sin is an offense against God, by any thought, word, deed or omission against the law of God. - cf. re Article 10 of Apostle's Creed | Penny Catechism.

And of Original Sin:

  115. What is original sin?
  Original sin is that guilt and stain of sin which we inherit from Adam, who was the origin and head of all mankind. - cf. re Article 10 of Apostle's Creed | Penny Catechism.

In other words:

Original sin is that state resulting from the sin committed and stain of sin which we inherit from Adam, when he sinned by disobeying God's Commandment. Cf. (CCC 396-409).


According to Molinism, what is the meaning of a counterfactual of freedom? If I understand correctly, Molinists consider it important that counterfactuals of freedom ("If person P experienced circumstances C, she would perform action A") are meaningful. In fact, if I understand correctly, the crux of Molinism is the doctrine that the truth or falsity of a counterfactual of freedom is logically prior to Creation.

But I'm struggling to understand what a counterfactual of freedom even means from a Molinist perspective. It seems clear that the circumstances C do not logically entail the action A; we can coherently imagine P experiencing circumstances C but nevertheless refraining from A. But if I understand correctly, Molinists endorse a libertarian notion of free will, in the sense that the circumstances C do not cause the action A, either.

So in what sense is A the unique action that P "would" perform, were she to experience circumstances C?

The confusion may arise from the way you've stated the view.  A clearer version might be:

"If person P experienced circumstances C, she would freely choose to perform action A."

This doesn't mean that P must choose A, it means that P will freely choose A.  If P were to freely choose not-A, then God would know something different from eternity, namely P will choose not-A, given C.

An example: if you offered your friend the opportunity to freely choose to stick his hand in a pot of boiling water for the fun of it, you
"know" (really "assume", since you're not omniscient) that he would never do so.  The Molinist view is similar, but stronger. Since God knows all things infallibly, he knows with absolute certainty what you would freely do in all possible circumstances, not just the extreme, boiling water contrivances.

An excellent (and short) book on this topic is The Only Wise God:  The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom  by Dr. William Lane Craig.


What isn't spiritual communion? Spiritual communion is a prayer one can pray if they can't receive the Eucharist at Mass and it's a good prayer to pray if you're making a visit to a tabernacle outside of Mass.  Sacramental communion can be conferred in extraordinary circumstances outside of Mass, and I would think that the same graces conferred through reception of the Body and Blood of Christ during Mass would be conferred outside of the Mass setting. (Is conferred the right word?)

But what graces are not conferred on the pray-er who asks for spiritual communion?  Or, less specifically, what is found in sacramental communion that is not found in spiritual communion?

According to the Council of Trent Catechism for Parish Priests,

  those who, having it in their power to receive with fitting preparation the Sacrament of the body of the Lord, are yet satisfied with a spiritual Communion only, deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages.

The text states that the first grace required to receive the Eucharist (sacramental communion) is "given to none unless they receive in wish and desire" (spiritual communion). Spiritual communion recalls the soul to life, giving the grace required to receive "the fountain of all graces", sacramental communion. The text states that language is inadequate to fully describe the fruits of the Eucharist itself, but gives as examples:

feeds, invigorates, and delights the soul
unites the soul with the substance of the sacrament, i.e., Christ
remits venial sins
strengthens against temptation by displacing the lusts of the flesh with the love of charity
in short, facilitates the attainment of eternal life


How is the resurrected Jesus related to the Trinity? The Doctrine of the Trinity is affirmed by the Catholic Church and more in general by the large majority of Christian denominations, Orthodox, "mainline" Protestant etc., with some relevant exceptions (Jehovah's Witnesses, Biblical  Unitarians, Christadelphians, etc.)
How is Jesus, resurrected and sitting on the right hand of the Father, related to the Trinity? Is he the same as God-the-Son? Does God-the-Son somehow "incorporate" the humanity of Jesus?

According to Nicene Christianity, the answer is simple: Jesus is the same being and person from the moment of his incarnate conception through to his life on earth, his death, his resurrection, and his ascension into heaven. That is, the second person of the Godhead, the Son of God, took on a complete human nature, which was united to the divine nature in his person, or hypostasis, hence the hypostatic union. The humanity of Christ did not exist prior to the incarnation, so it is confusing at best if not misleading to say that the Son of God "incorporated the humanity of Jesus", as a normal English reading of that phrase would infer that the humanity of Jesus existed prior to being united to the divine nature.  The person of the Son of God died in his human nature, and then was raised back to life in his human nature, which he continues to possess after the ascension.


What is meant by "atheism is a religion"? I have heard this statement used by Christians. Atheists counter that the lack of belief isn't a religion or belief system. Is there a logical justification for the charge that atheism is a religion?

I'm looking for more than just appropriately defining the terms to make the sentence technically correct.

Atheism is a belief system which makes claims about spiritual things. Atheism says there are no gods, but so do other belief systems which no one denies are religions, such as some forms of Buddhism. Atheism contrasts with religions, rather than social or political movements like egalitarianism, anarchism, communism, so it makes sense to classify it as a religion. In a way, atheism is the religious parallel of anarchism - just as anarchists deny political structures as being valid, atheists deny spiritual beings as valid. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be classified as political and religious systems respectively.

There are some belief systems which are harder to classify as a religion or a philosophy, such as Confucianism. Compared to that there is no doubt which box atheism belongs in: the truths it claims are solely about spiritual things, and there is no shared philosophical or ethical framework among atheists.


What is the historical Christian view on the rebuilding of David's Tabernacle? I come from an Evangelical-Charismatic background, and for many years, I've heard much teaching and emphasis on the rebuilding of David's Tabernacle/Tent in the end times. The verses used are seen in parallel in the prophecy of Amos 9:11-12 and the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15:16-18.

  In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name, declares the LORD, who will do these things. (Amos 9:11-12, NIV)

  After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things' that have been known for ages. (Acts 15:16-18, NIV)

The way I've seen these verses used is in the creation of 24/7 houses of worship modeled after David's tabernacle, with singers and musicians offering up constant praise to God. These ministries are intended to usher in salvation and revival, as glory is offered up to God.

As far as I can tell, this interpretation of the verses (or at least the action taken in response to them) is a fairly new phenomenon, perhaps arising only in the last thirty years. Not that I disagree with this action, but I'm curious, how has the Church historically viewed this prophetic concept?

The Vine's Dictionary entry for the word for "Tabernacle" used in Acts 15:

  (f) the house of David, i.e., metaphorically of his people, Acts 15:16;

Vine's seems to imply that it's only a metaphorical concept describing the entire body of Christ, under the headship of Christ(the heir to the throne of David).

So, my question remains: what is the historic Christian teaching on this rebuilding? Does orthodoxy teach that this will be one literal tabernacle, that it's a metaphor for the Church, or that it's a model we should build into?

I think if you read Acts 15:15 you'll see James' perspective on the fulfillment of this prophecy.

  Acts 15:15

  And this conversion of Gentiles is exactly what the prophets predicted. As it is written:

So read together I think we can make some logical conclusions.

  Acts 15:15-18

  15 And this conversion of Gentiles is exactly what the prophets predicted. As it is written:

  16 ‘Afterward I will return
      and restore the fallen house of David. I will rebuild its ruins
      and restore it,

  17 so that the rest of humanity might seek the Lord,
      including the Gentiles—
      all those I have called to be mine. The Lord has spoken—

  18 he who made these things known so long ago.’

God says through Amos that He will return and restore the fallen house (or tabernacle) of David. So that the rest of humanity can be saved (called his). So if James is saying that the second half of this prophecy is coming true through the Gentiles who were being saved at his time, then it seems to follow logically that the first half of this is already true. Then how was David's house restored? While I don't have sources to back me up I think it's pretty safe to put forward that it was Jesus who restored the house of David.

Mathew 1:1 calls Jesus a son of David:

  This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:

And there are numerous other places where Jesus is referred to as the Son of David.

Luke 1:32 might be the best example in this case:

  He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,

I believe based on this that Jesus has already fulfilled this prophecy. I don't know if that answers your question on the historic Christian teaching, but it does appear to be what James taught.


Is it known who first associated the Beast of Revelation with the Antichrist, and when? I am NOT asking the similar question "Why is the second beast of Revelation called the Antichrist?" Rather, my question is specifically, when was the first connection made between the two--equating one of the beasts in Revelation with THE Antichrist--and if known, who made the connection?

I am looking for a firm connection here. For example, Justin Martyr spoke of "the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High". This is a clear reference to Revelation 13, but he never uses the title "Antichrist".

Does Irenaeus, writing between about 175 and 185 AD make the connection? If so, was there someone before him?

Reading the new testament texts within a systematic eschatology, readers could conceivably equate the 'antichrist' of the Johannine epistles with either of the beasts from the Revelation, or the 'man of lawlessness' from Paul, but this is purely reader inference; such connections are not made explicit within these individual texts (e.g. the author of 1 John does not make any verbal references that he has 'the beast' of Revelation in mind).

The earliest known use of the term 'antichrist' outside of the Johannine epistles comes from a letter from Polycarp, a student of John, to the church in Philippi. He wrote some ten or fifteen years after the Johannine epistles, but clearly is working within the teaching represented by 1 and 2 John. With corroborating material from Polycarp's fellow student of John, Ignatius, the context of each of these three men's letters highly suggests 'antichrist' was originally used to describe some manner of docetism.

That I can find, Irenaeus was the earliest one to explicitly connect 'antichrist' to the beast of Revelation. In his Against Heresies, written around 180 AD, Irenaeus says the following:

Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies, and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, according to the Greek mode of calculation by the the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six. (5.30.1)
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign. (5.30.3)

Here 'the name of the Antichrist' is identified with some passage of 'the apocalyptic vision'. Irenaeus is talking about the 'name of the beast' from Revelation 13.16-18. Contextually, Irenaeus is clearly talking about the first beast, from the sea, not the second beast, from the earth.
Other points in this chapter of Irenaeus' book also equate 'the Antichrist' with the first beast of Revelation, such as applying Revelation 13.5 or 17.8 to him.


Did Jesus help drunk people in Cana to be even more drunk? This question have a bunch of subquestions. Not sure whether I should split that.

People in Canae are drinking "Oinos" (which could mean wine/beer/grape juice). The party goers seem to prepare enough drink. Yet, the guests drink enough to deplete all "Oinos".

Jesus then went on manufacturing even half a ton Oinos.

The party leader told patron, that people usually serve the good Oinos first. Once people are "Methuo" (i.e. drunk), they give the bad Oinos. Yet the patron gave the good Oinos last.

The word Methuo means drunk. However, it's miraculously translated as "have drunk freely" or have "drunk satisfiedly" in various bible translation for reasons beyond me. Some bible translations correctly translate that as were drunk.

My question:

Did Jesus produce non alcoholic or alcoholic beverage?
Do parties at that time serve alcoholic or non alcoholic beverage?
Was there anyone getting drunk at the party?
If some people are already drunk, why Jesus produces more wine?
If no body at a party was drunk, how was that accomplished? Did Jesus create another miracle making everyone sobber?
Why many bible translations translate methuo as "have drunk freely" instead of "was drunk"?

Basically it's one simple question. Did Jesus help drunk people get even more drunk? If the answer is yes, then we got issue of whether getting drunk is sin or not. If the answer is no, then we got a lot to explain there.

The story of turning real water into real wine (most scholars would argue that the wine was real) presumes the moderation of the wedding guests.

There is no more reason to think that the guests were drunk then there is reason to think that Jesus fed 5000 gluttons a huge amount of fish and bread.  On one hand the story clearly suggests that the guests at a respectable Jewish wedding were a little 'tipsy' (the Greek word can be a little tipsy, as it just means affected by the alcohol). If they were drunk they would not be able to judge the quality of wine being served afterwards, which was comparatively good. This is why wine tasters spit out the wine.

To balance the moderate influence of the wine at the wedding we should take note that the alcohol content of wine at the time of Christ is not like today. Wine today is much stronger then it used to be. Also wine was commonly mixed with water. This was even the practice of the paschal supper back then, mixing the red wine with warm water that is.

Possibly this fact of mixing wine with water will make it clearer that moderation is assumed in the story which makes most questions about it less relevant.

  Ample evidence is available to demonstrate that wine, though always fermented, was usually mixed with water in the classical and Hellenistic world. The wine was stored in large jugs called amphorae, from which the wine was poured through a strainer into a large mixing bowl call a krater. In the krater the wine was mixed with water. Then the drinking bowls or cups were filled.
  The amount of wine per volume varied. The mixture that represented the greatest amount of water to wine was 20 to 1, apparently because the wine was so strong (Homer, Odyssey 10. 208f).  Baker Encyclopedia
  of the Bible, p2147)


In which Christian denomination(s), do people plan their weddings around the bride's menstrual periods? I am a Russian Orthodox Christian, and I know other Russian Orthodox Christians who consider a woman's menses to be impure. As a woman, this monthly bleeding is not saying that I am evil or bad during that time. I am simply not pure. Here is a good explanation of this.

However, I know we Orthodox Christians plan our weddings around the bride's menstruation cycle, because she should be completely pure at that time.

Do other Christian denominations do this too?

Though I'm not a woman or a confidant of women, I've never heard this spoken of before in Protestant circles. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I don't think this is a typical consideration.

Assigning (religious) impurity to menses would require adherence to the Law of Moses, I think. As a personal matter, there's nothing to prohibit someone from concluding that about herself, but since such a link between impurity and menstruation is ever made in the New Testament, I suspect that most protestants won't ever say that the two are inherently linked.


What is the Full Preterist perspective on ghosts and paranormal activity? Generally, according to the Full Preterist position, the resurrection of the dead occurred in 70 AD, when all the Old Covenant saints and prophets in Sheol were liberated and allowed into heaven at the time that the Temple was destroyed. This would mean that when people die they either immediately go to heaven or hell upon death.

How exactly are paranormal activity and ghost/apparition sightings compatible with the Full Preterist perspective? Can one believe in ghosts while being a Full Preterist?

Great question and one I have dealt with as I became a full preterist.

I used to believe in ghosts, departed souls and demons impersonating loved ones through palm readers, etc, but that would mean Biblical verses such as 1 John 3:8 (Jesus came to destroy the works of Satan) would be a hollow statement and actually a lie.  Jesus said the strong man was bound.  (Matt. 12:29). Another hollow victory if Jesus only bound the strongman and not his little demons.

The word "Destroy" has a different meaning in the context of usage elsewhere in Scripture than to mean just crush.  The only other time Jesus used the word was when He said he could destroy this temple and he would rebuild it in three days.

The word he used had the meaning of taking all the remaining parts, pounding them into small particles similar to grain, then removing all the particles so that they could never be reassembled.  This was the same "Destroy" that John mentions Jesus did to Satan's kingdom.

If that was so, then there is no element of Satan's realm left or Jesus and John were wrong or lied.  I choose to believe both were right and we have/are misinterpreting Scripture.

Summary

If Jesus said he bound the enemy and John Said Jesus destroyed Satan's work, and Jesus said after his resurrection that He possessed all authority and power (none left to share with Lucifer), but he didn't say that before the Resurrection, then it would necessarily cause one to accept that there really is nothing for Satan to reside over.


Is there an equivalent to cantillation or tajweed in Christianity? In both Islam and Hebrew, the respective holy books have rules for pronunciation and recitation so that they can be sung.

  Cantillation is the ritual chanting of readings from the Hebrew Bible in synagogue services. The chants are written and notated in accordance with the special signs or marks printed in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible (or Tanakh) to complement the letters and vowel points.

  These marks are known in English as accents, notes or trope symbols, and in Hebrew as טעמי המקרא taamei ha-mikra or just טעמים teamim. Some of these signs were also sometimes used in medieval manuscripts of the Mishnah. The musical motifs associated with the signs are known in Hebrew as niggun or neginot (not to be confused with Hasidic nigun) and in Yiddish as טראָפ trop: the word trope is sometimes used in English with the same meaning. Cantillation (Wikipedia)

  Tajweed sometimes rendered as tajwid, refers to the rules governing pronunciation during recitation of the Quran. The term is derived from the triliteral root j-w-d meaning "to make well, make better, improve". Tajweed is a mustahab (preferred, but not an obligation) when reciting the Quran to the best of one's ability. Tajwid (Wikipedia)

Examples of cantillation:

  Haftorah Audio - B'reisheet

  Torah Lessons (2015)

Examples of tawjeed (al-Fatihah):

  Al-Fatihah (TvQuran)

Has there been any attempt to do so with any Christian Bible?

There are indeed methods for singing / chanting the scriptures. Here is some explanation & teaching of the (Catholic) mechanics.

Some lovely Catholic examples:

Latin

Greek

Arabic

English

Some lovely Orthodox examples:

English

English

Russian (Gospel at about 51:00)

Ge'ez


Are Catholic priests not supposed to get paid or have any belongings? According to some Catholic friends, a Catholic priest is not supposed to own any belongings and they're not supposed to get paid. They are to be "married to the church" in that sense.

Is there an official Catholic doctrine that states this or something like it?

Parish priests do not take a vow of poverty and thus may possess a bank account and have belongings. They also receive a stipend from the parishes they work in. I do not know how much the average stipend is, but I do not think that it is very much. They also receive a Mass stipend for offering the Mass for a particular intention.

Religious priest from a particular Religious Order do make vows of Poverty and may not possess  any belongings. They simply have the use of various things, like a car.


Was the near-stoning of the adulterous woman something to be considered common practice, or was it strictly to trick Jesus? I have heard the argument that, in the time of Jesus, stoning and other forms of severe punishment according to the law had basically ceased, and therefore was only seen here to try to trick Jesus into doing, well, something (exactly what wasn't expressed).

Does this argument seem historically, textually, or logically consistent with the text?

In short, the argument you heard is sound. In John 18:31, the Jewish leaders make it clear they are unable to execute anyone by Roman law:

  So Pilate said to them, "Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law." The Jews said to him, "We are not permitted to put anyone to death," —John 18:31 NASB

The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopaedia and Scriptural Dictionary, Fully Defining Explaining All Religious Terms, Including Biographical, Geographical, Historical, and Archaeological Doctrinal Themes, Volume 2 by Herbert Lockwood Willett confirms this on page 951:

  But the Sanhedrin could only pass, not execute, the death sentence.

Here is a similar sentiment from Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

  The Jews themselves say that the power of inflicting capital punishment was taken away about 40 years before the destruction of the temple

And the same from Bengel's Gnomen:

  Jewish history accordingly tells us that on that very year, the fortieth before the overthrow of the city, the power was taken from them.

A list of arguments is provided by the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:

  On the one hand we have (1) this verse; (2) the statement of the Talmud that 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem the Jews lost this power; (3) the evidence of Josephus (Ant. xx. ix. 1; comp. xviii. i. 1; xvi. ii. 4, and vi.) that the high priest could not summon a judicial court of the Sanhedrin without the Procurator’s leave; (4) the analogy of Roman law.

Matthew Poole's Commentary provides another argument:

  We are assured by such as are exercised in the Jewish writings, that the power of putting any to death was taken away from the Jews forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Some say it was not taken away by the Romans, but by their own court. They thought it so horrid a thing to put an Israelite to death, that wickedness of all sorts grew to such a height amongst them, through the impunity, or too light punishment, of criminals, that their courts durst not execute their just authority.

The Pharisees may have risked the execution of the woman in question because it was not anything the Roman government would take notice of. They could not stone Jesus outright because he was a figure the Romans were aware of. As for the woman accused of committing adultery, this website has a fairly thorough, straightforward explanation:

  Under Roman rule, the power to impose capital punishment, including by stoning, had been taken away from all Jewish authorities. Only a Roman tribunal could impose the death penalty. That is why even after Jesus was eventually arrested and condemned to death by the Jewish Sanhedrin, they didn’t stone him immediately themselves; he had to be taken before the Roman governor, Pilate, to actually impose the death penalty. And when it was imposed he was killed using the Roman method — crucifixion– not stoning. The Jewish leaders had no legal authority to put him to death.

The rest of the article appears to be the writer's personal opinions on the state of the Church today, but the logic in the above paragraph is sound.

To specifically address the commonality of illegal lynchings at the time, it is reasonable to assume they were a rare occurrence. On the contrary, it was seen as an abhorrent thing. Poole's Commentary above summarizes the Jewish people's attitudes towards the execution of Israelites. In addition, it is common knowledge that the Romans actively oppressed the Israelites. They would not risk the wrath of Rome to perform an action that they already hated.

This is completely unrelated to the question, but I found it while researching.
 It's pretty interesting. Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary by John J. Rousseau provides a description of how extralegal stonings such as this one occurred in Jesus' time. Here is an excerpt from page 264:

  In the time of Jesus, the [Jewish] legal procedure was probably closer to that of the Mishnah. It allowed for new evidence in favor of the offender until the last minute and for confession before death. According to this text the condemned was first stripped of his garments and thrown down from a platform nine feet high by the first witness. If he survived the fall, the second witness cast a heavy stone on his chest and, if death did not occur at this point, all those present stoned him. After stoning, the body was hanged on a tree.