How could a loving, just, merciful God have created such an unfair test for humans? According to the Bible, God is loving:

  1 John 4 (NIV)

  8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

  1 John 4 (NIV)

  16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

... as well as just, merciful, and compassionate:

  2 Thessalonians 1 (NIV)

  6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you

  Deuteronomy 4 (NIV)

  31 For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your ancestors, which he confirmed to them by oath.

  2 Corinthians 1 (NIV)

  3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,

Now, Jesus said:

  John 14 (NIV)

  6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

This means that the only way to salvation (rather than eternal torment) is by genuinely accepting Jesus - being a good person, for example, is not enough.

So, how could any God to whom the aforementioned adjectives (loving, just, etc.) could reasonably be applied possibly impose such an unfair test for humans to have to pass in order to attain salvation?

I say 'unfair', because people born into a devout Christian community basically have a ticket to heaven from birth, whereas those who are born into a devout community of another religion basically have a ticket to hell.  At the bare minimum, it is dramatically easier for the former to get into heaven and dramatically harder for the latter... and that's not touching on those who are simply unable to believe in any god, in a society of unbelievers where certain people have seen enough evidence of various different conflicting religions that they cannot believe in any one, even if they wanted to.  Belief isn't a choice, after all; it's more like a function of your experiences.

So, how does this dramatically skewed playing-field (in favour of devout Christian communities) square with a God that loves his creations?  Why would he be so unfair/unequal in his judgment of them?  Surely the fair way would be for him to appear to every human at birth, giving them an equal knowledge of him.  This, by the way, would presumably lead to there only really being one religion - if every child had an innate knowledge of God's nature, there couldn't be such drastically different religious dogmas because many would simply go against what a child had been told by God at birth.

I believe the best way to address your question is to take apart what you've written, and address it piece by piece, looking especially at the assumptions you have made going into your argument. Please understand that while you may not agree with many of the statements I will make here, they do represent a Christian perspective. In particular, I will be writing from a Reformed Protestant perspective, and using some of their language. Most of the major concepts can be found in many other Christian traditions as well, although the presentation and emphasis varies. Also, you will not find unanimous agreement on these points, as many conflicting ideologies make a claim to be Christian. At some point, you must dig into the evidence and decide who's holding the picture right-side-up. I don't claim to have everything right, but I do claim that the following major points both answer your question and represent the way the world really is -- that when you look at the world this way, you suddenly find the view is in focus.

Let's start with your first point:

  "God is love"

This is true. However, the definition and nature of love is often misunderstood in secular culture, and the theological claim that God is love must be understood inside the context of what else we understand about the nature of God. Most importantly, in order to love, one  must also hate. Love is a defining feature of God, but in order to love a good thing, one must hate whatever is opposed to that thing. You cannot love Jews without hating the Holocaust. You cannot love babies and not hate when they are murdered. You cannot love good without hating evil. You cannot love righteousness without hating sin.

This brings up an issue you skipped over in your second point. 2 Thessalonians 1:6 deserves a little attention before we move on to the merciful bit you emphasized:

  "God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you"

The justice of God is a big topic, but it strikes at the heart of your question. You ask, "How could a just God do something unfair?". Christianity's answer is that he did not. What God does is entirely fair, and he even explains why. Even the second part of this verse has a clue about what's going on. He groups men into more than one category. The verse is NOT addressed to all of humanity. It is addressed to a group of believers -- in this case, a specific gathering of believers (or church). With this in mind, you can see -- even in the fragments of text that you quoted -- that God treats some people one way, and some people another.

Your question goes on to emphasize the ways God shows compassion. For example, you used Deuteronomy 4:31:

  "[God] will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your ancestors..."

Even here, I hope you see a hint of the answer. That covenant he references wasn't something God made with humankind, it was something he made with a subset of the human race. Originally, this promise was focused around one line of family descendants (Abraham to Isaac to Jacob etc.). Through history, you can trace this promise that is now open to a much broader swath of humanity -- namely, all of those that, through Jesus, have been adopted into that same family.

So let's move on to your issue with John 14:6:

  "being a good person [...] is not enough"

This highlights the biggest piece of the puzzle that you are missing. There are no good people. None. Anywhere. From Adam, right on down the line to you and me, all have sinned and missed the mark, fallen short of the standard of what a good person must be in order to qualify to be accepted by God. All, that is, except one. Jesus Christ. The thing that is most emphatically different about Him is that He was without sin.

Let's stop there, and go back to 'fairness'. One of the core tenets of the Christian faith is the unapologetic claim that ALL MEN, having trespassed against God, justly deserve His wrath. In fact, it would be unjust of God to not punish all men. In this sense, to be merciful would be a disgrace to justice. So how can God also be merciful? For that, we go back to Jesus.

Jesus satisfied the divine demands of living a 100% sinless life, then He surrendered Himself, and was made to be sin in our place. Having rightly deserved everything we do not, He took on Himself the iniquities of men, and was punished for them. The wrath of God was emptied upon him. Forget the cross and the Romans and the whips and the crown of thorns for a minute, because those were only props -- hints and clues at what the real story is about. He drank from the cup of God's wrath, so that men wouldn't have to.

So now we come to the issue of who. All of humanity stood condemned. Jesus came and said "See that man over there, and that one too, and those over there ... I want them to be mine -- and I'm willing to pay." God granted Him His wish, allowed Him to pay the price (even though it meant subjecting His own beloved Son to torture and death, both at the lowly hands of created men, and at His own hand, as He crushed Him with the punishment for sin).

So if Jesus says "I paid for that one.", who are we to argue and say it isn't fair that He doesn't choose another? We do know several things about His choice:

He doesn't base His choice on the good works or worthiness of individual people.
He does not leave it up to men to find Him, but goes out and hunts down His lost sheep, however far out of the fold they might be.
He does often extend His mercy and call through to descendants of ones He has already called and saved, but this is not a guarantee. Some that grew from the same branches are also pruned.
It isn't the job of Christians to do the picking and choosing. In fact, quite the opposite: those who have been chosen are also commanded to go out and proclaim what Christ did to ALL: announcing to them that there is One who has taken away the sins of the world, and that through Him they might be saved.

There are quite a number of other points that could be made about your question. I'll address a few more in brief:

  "those who are simply unable to believe in any god"

The Bible does not acknowledge the validity of atheism. On the contrary, it states that all men, whether they acknowledge it or not, have an innate knowledge of God. It also says that all of creation declares Him, albeit in a general way. Quite simply, this is not a valid excuse.

  "Belief isn't a choice..."

After a fashion, I would actually agree with this, but not in the way you are thinking. I would say men did have a choice, and they choose wrong. And now you don't have the power to make a right choice. In that sense, without God's intervention, you cannot just up and decide to change your fate. One theologian humorously addresses this point this way:

  Augustus Toplady: “A man’s free will cannot cure him even of the toothache, or a sore finger; and yet he madly thinks it is in its power to cure his soul.”

Adam was a prototype; you are of the same stock. You choose, and continue to choose, sin. Your own free will, left to its own ends, will never choose anything else. Yet Christianity calls men to make a new choice, to believe in Christ, to put their trust in Him, and stake their lives on the work that He did in removing our guilt from sin in the eyes of God. It also holds that this is only possible through a supernatural work --the intervention of the Holy Spirit-- in which God rips out your faithless heart of stone, and gives you a heart of flesh that is able to believe, love and obey -- but this, being His work, does not excuse you from searching out, wanting, and submitting to this new birth.

  "the fair way would be for him to appear to every human at birth"

Who are you to say what is or isn't fair? What is a pot to say to the potter that "you should have made me with a handle"? There are some aspects of faith that are a mystery --that we don't have answers for-- but even human logic could present an argument about this scenario being 'fair'. If the outcome you expect is for everybody to be united under one unanimous belief, then whatever God must have done to make that happen would have destroyed any pretense of free-will they had. Would you have us all be robots? Is being a free-willed but fallen human who is then chosen to be resurrected from a living death and eventually restored to perfection in Glory not enough drama and beauty for you? Will you not bow in recognition that the Christ who did this is Lord -- and do so now willingly... before being left no other choice?

TL;DR: All of God's creation stands in rebellion of Him, and justly deserves to be destroyed. Only one Man was ever sinless, and that Man laid down His life so that others might live. How He picks who to adopt isn't the business of the newly adopted children. It is their job to turn around and tell others that He's still in the adoption business. If "fairness" is being stretched, it is being stretched in the direction of no-one deserves anything, so anything we get is all grace.


Will I get answers to all my questions when I die? Sorry if this is way too open but I have so many questions about this world, religion, gods and what on earth is going on. I can't imagine anyone really would be able to answer these type of questions now but will I find out at the end? I've probably watched and read too many conspiracy theories about stuff like this and dug myself into a hole but I just get sucked in and want to know. Will I ever find out?
Also while I was thinking about what to ask on here and put myself out there, hoping not to come across as a moron, why did I start to get a little upset?? Is it wrong to ask these things?
I won't go on and see what I get back from this.

Before Jesus began preaching in Israel, there came a 'man sent from God' whose name was John. John the Baptist, we know him as.
When the people asked John what should they do, he gave very specific insructions.

If anyone is lacking in food or clothing, and we have more than we need, we are to give it to them.

Those who collect taxes for Government are only to collect what they are authorised to collect. They are not to over charge.

Soldiers who are paid to keep order in the nation are to do only that, without resorting to inappropriate brutality.

John also rebuked the King (Herod) for his inappropriate conduct regarding marriage. Marriage is important to the order of society and is not to be tampered with.

Some, receiving these instructions, desired more and those he baptised with water and they confessed their sins.
This is the background, immediately before Jesus 'came preaching'.
There is nothing difficult or grievous or mysterious about any of this.
You can see it in the bible, in Matthew, Mark and Luke. John is different, but John shows the spiritual reasons for it.
This is how we are to live . . . .
. . . .  until the day we die.

There is much, much more to learn, regarding Christianity.
But this is how we begin.


Why was the name of St Joseph not mentioned at Luke 2: 19? At Luke 2:15-19 (NRSVCE) we see:

  When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let us go now to Bethlehem and see this thing that has taken place, which the Lord has made known to us.”  So they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the child lying in the manger.  When they saw this, they made known what had been told them about this child;  and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds told them. But Mary treasured all these words and pondered them in her heart.

My question is: Why was St. Joseph who was also privy to the happenings around Infant Jesus,  left out of mention when Luke wrote about St.Mary pondering over the incidents ? What do the Catholic teachings say about that ?

There are a few, related reasons that the Blessed Mother, and not St. Joseph, is said to have "kept all these words, pondering them in her heart" (Lk. 2:19):
On the nativity, Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., writes (Mother of the Saviour and Our Interior Life ch. 3):

Mary grew in humility, poverty and love of God by giving birth to her Son in a stable. His cradle was but a manger. But, by contrast, there were the angels there to sing “Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.” Those words were sweet to the ears of the shepherds and of St. Joseph, and still more sweet to the ears of Mary. They were the beginning of a Gloria which the Church does not cease to sing at Mass while this world endures, and the liturgy of eternity has not yet replaced that of time.
It is said of Mary that she kept all these words, pondering them in her heart. Though her joy at the birth of her Son was intense, she treasured it up in silence. St. Elisabeth alone received her confidences. God’s greatest actions defy human expression. What could Mary say to equal what she had experienced?

St. Ambrose wrote (quoted in St. Thomas's Catena Aurea on St. Luke's Gospel):

Esteem not the words of the shepherds as mean and despicable: For from the shepherds Mary increases her faith, as it follows: Mary kept all these sayings, and pondered them in her heart. Let us learn the chastity of the sacred Virgin in all things, who no less chaste in her words than in her body, gathered up in her heart the materials of faith.

The third reason Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, S.J., gives in his Commentary on St. Luke, pp. 100-101, is

that in good time she might unfold all these things and narrate them in order to the apostles, and especially to S. Luke, who was destined to write of them. Observe here in the Virgin the rare example of maidenly silence and modesty,* of heavenly prudence, and of the firmest faith and hope, as she wonders at the present and waits for the future.

*cf. 1 Timothy 2:11:

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

Her prompt, unquestioning, silent obedience to St. Joseph telling her they needed to flee to Egypt (Mt. 2:13-14) is another example of her womanly virtues.


Have any Wesleyan theologians compared Outler's Quadrilateral to PaRDeS? In 1964, Methodist theologian Albert C. Outler outlined the Wesleyan Quadrilateral in his introduction to John Wesley's anthology of works.

This establishes a hermeneutic framework in which truth, revelation and so forth are interpreted through the lenses of Scripture and Tradition, reason and Experience.

Similarly, Jewish Scholarship has a similar framework, PaRDeS, an acronym formed from the following hermeneutic approaches:

  Peshat (פְּשָׁט) — "surface" ("straight") or the literal (direct) meaning.[1]
  Remez (רֶמֶז) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
  Derash (דְּרַשׁ) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
  Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in 'soda') — "secret" ("mystery") or the esoteric/mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.

Have there been any Weslyan theologians and scholars that have sought to compare and equate the two frameworks and methodologies.

As a United Methodist pastor for nearly forty years, a contemplative mystic, I have found PaRDeS to be illuminating in all facets of spirituality.  In short, PaRDeS points to four ways of seeing the world (i.e., worldviews).
The quadrilateral pertains to only one worldview.

Peshat: the worldview of followers, or the multitude;

Remez; the worldview of discipleship;

Derasha: the worldview of the prophets and apostles of the
Spirit-led early Church

Sod: the mystics and those whose worldview is the kingdom of heaven.
Each of the Gospels emphasizes a particular perspective:
Mark: Peshat; Matthew: Remez; Luke: Derasha; John: Sod.

{I am currently writing commentaries on the Scriptures (the whole N.T. plus) based on PaRDeS}.  The whole of Scriptures can be illuminated and understood by PaRDeS.


Why are many Protestant Churches not practicing Confession? Recently, I come to know that Lutheran Church practice Confession, though there is some difference in theology on it compared to the Roman Catholic Church.

As a man brought up in a place where Evangelicals, Presbyterians and Pentecostals are majority, I am very much surprised to know that Confession is still practiced in Lutheran church. I would never do this and I find this type of practice very awkward. I always thought that confession is practiced only by Catholics and Orthodox.

Is the practice of Confession strange(bizarre) to other Protestants?
If Lutheran is one of the first (or the first, I'm not sure) Protestant church, then why are other Protestant churches not practicing Confession?

The Protestant Reformation is based on, among other things, "sola scriptura"--that the Bible alone is the basis for all doctrine and practice.  There are probably two essential points in this matter.
The Priesthood of All Believers
First, a common doctrine of Protestants is the priesthood of all believers.  It is believed that there is no biblical precedent in the New Covenant for a priestly class that is above the laity.  Rather, the New Testament appears to affirm that all believers are priests.

You also, [God's elect, scattered throughout Pontius, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia] as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.  1 Peter 2:5 NASB
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;  1 Peter 2:9 NASB

No Precedent for Hierarchical Confession
Secondly, there is no biblical precedent, so it is believed, for the practice of hierarchical confession--that the laity would be obliged to confess all their sins to a man of the clergy.
Perhaps the closest verse that supports confession to men is James 5:16:

Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.  James 5:16 NASB

However, this does not support the idea of hierarchical confession, but merely confession of sins to one another.  It would seem appropriate, then, for a layman, after confessing his sins to a priest, to then switch places with the priest and have the priest confess his sins to the layman.
Even in the Old Testament, David confessed his sin to God in Psalm 32.

I acknowledged my sin to You, And my iniquity I did not hide; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord”; And You forgave the guilt of my sin. Selah.  Psalm 32:5 NASB

Conclusion
So, based on the conclusion that there is no biblical foundation for the priestly class of clergy, but rather an affirmation of the priesthood of all believers, and also based on the lack of biblical foundation for hierarchical confession, the vast majority of Protestant churches do not practice confession in the Catholic manner.


Historical Apologetic used by 7th Century Christians towards Early Muslims Regarding the Hypostatic Union and Jesus' Title "Son of God" According to my research Jesus is called the Son of God about 40 times in the NT. When interacting with Muslims, a common objection they give against Christ's deity, and the Trinity is that the Quran says God does not have a son.

  O FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a trinity". Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God. - 4:171

Obviously Christian's have never historically taught that Jesus is the physical progeny of the Father and Mary. However, this is the first reaction I have always gotten when discussing Jesus' nature with Muslims. Is there any way to get some idea what the apologetic Christians interacting with early Muslims were using? I understand that the term "early Muslims" may not be entirely accurate since Mohammed had not amassed a large following when engaging with Christians and Jews in the area, but for now I think it's alright to use that label.

Please add other appropriate tags if you think of them.

James White discusses this in What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur'an. Here is the relevant quote with some emphasis added:

  One early source, the Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr Ibn ’Abbās, directly connects the encounter with the Najran Christians with the text of Surah 4:

    Allah then revealed about the Nestorian Christians of Najran who claimed that Jesus was the son of Allah and that Jesus and the Lord are partners, saying: (O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate) do not be extreme (in your religion) for this is not the right course (nor utter aught concerning Allah save the Truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary) and through His word he became a created being, (and a spirit from Him) and through His command, Jesus became a son without a father. (So believe in Allah and His messengers) all the messengers including Jesus, (and say not “Three”) a son, father and wife. (Cease!) from making such a claim and repent ((it is) better for you!) than such a claim. (Allah is only One God) without a son or partner. (Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth) are His servants. (And Allah is sufficient as Defender) as Lord of all created beings and He is witness of what He says about Jesus.

  Chapter 4

(A complete copy of this Muslim source is available here).

This Muslim source claims that Jesus is not the progeny of God the Father and Mary -- which Christians would agree with -- and that it is an error to say that God is the Trinity ("Three") composed of the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the wife (Mary) -- which is a misstatement of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (this is part of an argument by White that the Qur'an is ignorant of the Christian understanding of the Trinitarian God and that therefore the Qur'an is not divinely inspired). A similar argument using the same Muslim source can be found online here.

The other interesting information from this Muslim source is that the Christian teachings were given to the Muslims by Najran Christians who adhered to Nestorianism. Since Nestorianism is heterodox and claims that Jesus has separate divine and human natures it's possible that the Muslims understood the Nestorian Christians as claiming that Jesus' human nature was the progeny of God the Father and Mary.

White mentions the Najran Christians a bit later in his book, too (emphasis added):

  The earliest biography of Muhammad’s life, of Ibn Ishaq, contains a passage that not only demonstrates how primitive is this understanding of the Qur’anic teaching of “three” but also makes an astounding claim. Referring back to the deputation from Najran, we read,

    They were Christians according to the Byzantine rite, though they differed among themselves in some points, saying He is God; and He is the son of God; and He is the third person of the Trinity, which is the doctrine of Christianity. They argue that he is God because he used to raise the dead, and heal the sick, and declare the unseen; and make clay birds and then breathe into them so that they flew away; and all this was by the command of God Almighty, “We will make him a sign to men.” They argue that he is the son of God in that they say he had no known father; and he spoke in the cradle and this is something that no child of Adam has ever done. They argue that he is the third of three in that God says: We have done, We have commanded, We have created and We have decreed, and they say, If He were one he would have said I have done, I have created, and so on, but He is He and Jesus and Mary. Concerning all these assertions the Quran came down.

  Ibn Ishaq records that Christians believe the Trinity is “He and Jesus and Mary,” as do numerous other sources...

  Chapter 4

From this Muslim source it sounds like the Christians were not in agreement regarding the nature of Jesus and the Trinity, and that the Muslims understood them as claiming that Jesus was the third person of the Trinity (with the Father and Mary as the other two).

White mentions in the footnotes that the Muslim encounter with the Najran Christians is traditionally dated to be AD 632.


Modern musical instruments in Catholic church service These days we can see many churches using latest musical instruments to worship God in the church, example - Assembly of God.

Once I attended a Catholic church. Some sisters were sitting at the front and singing songs from a hymn book. There was no music, no musical instruments. I wonder if this is how they worship always.

Does the Catholic Church allow latest musical instruments(guitars, drum set, piano etc.) to be played while worshiping in the church?

Pope Pius X issued a motu proprio in 1903, Tra le Sollecitudini:

15. Although the music proper to the Church is purely vocal music, music with the accompaniment of the organ is also permitted. In some special cases, within due limits and with proper safeguards, other instruments may be allowed, but never without the special permission of the Ordinary, according to prescriptions of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum.
19. The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.
20. It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the place provided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ.

This formed the basis for De musica sacra et sacra liturgia issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1958:

68. Other instruments besides the organ, especially the smaller bowed instruments, may be used during the liturgical functions, particularly on days of greater solemnity. These may be used together with the organ or without it, for instrumental numbers of for accompanying the singing. However, the following rules ... are to strictly observed:
a) the instruments are truly suitable for sacred use;
b) they are to be played with such seriousness, and religious devotion that every suggestion of raucous secular music is avoided, and the devotion of the faithful is fostered;
c) the director, organist, and other instrumentalists should be well trained in instrumental techniques, and the laws of sacred music.
70. Musical instruments which by common acception, and use are suitable only for secular music must be entirely excluded from all liturgical functions, and private devotions.

The use of bands and particularly drums may suggest "raucous secular music", so they are to be avoided.
Musicam Sacram was promulgated by the Second Vatican Council in 1967.

63. In permitting and using musical instruments, the culture and traditions of individual peoples must be taken into account. However, those instruments which are, by common opinion and use, suitable for secular music only, are to be altogether prohibited from every liturgical celebration and from popular devotions.[De music sacra etc n.70 [above]]

This Vatican II Constitution allows a little more leeway by permitting appeal to local culture and tradition and whether a particular instrument is suitable only for secular music. This decision would be made by the local bishop or Bishops' Conference. However, the earlier documents indicate the direction that decision should go.
Despite the 1903 rules, the use of the piano and acoustic guitar is not uncommon in the UK.


Can a priest resign? Is a priest permitted to resign from his position? By this I mean, can he voluntarily choose to stop serving as a priest, and no longer be under the restrictions of a priest (e.g. that they cannot marry)?

The answer is both 'yes' and 'no'.  A priest can resign from the priesthood and seek dispensation from his clerical obligations, yet the Church will always regard him as a 'laicised' priest, since ordination is regarded as irrevocable.

Canon 1583: It is true that someone validly ordained can, for a just reason, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense, because the character imprinted by ordination is for ever. the vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently.
Canon 291: Apart from the case mentioned in can. 290, n. 1, loss of the clerical state does not entail a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy, which only the Roman Pontiff grants.
Canon 292: A cleric who loses the clerical state according to the norm of law loses with it the rights proper to the clerical state and is no longer bound by any obligations of the clerical state, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 291. He is prohibited from exercising the power of orders, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 976. By the loss of the clerical state, he is deprived of all offices, functions, and any delegated power.
Canon 293: A cleric who loses the clerical state cannot be enrolled among clerics again except through a rescript of the Apostolic See.

GianPaolo Salvini, S.J. says, in 'Priests Who "Desert," Priests Who "Come Back" ', Of the 1,076 priests who leave the ministry each year, 554 ask for a dispensation from the obligations imposed by the priestly state: celibacy, and the recitation of the breviary. Salvini estimates the number of former priests who became married as in the thousands, but concedes that no statistic is available.
This Press Statement was issued online by John Wijngaards in 1998, giving his reasons for resignation from ministry as "Catholic Priest Resigns Due To Conflict Of Conscience".
This Letter of Resignation by Athanasio Dzadagu, giving his reason as the wish to marry, was reproduced by Zim Catholic news in its blog. The letter received both favourable and unfavourable comments.


Was Antipas a person or is the word a symbolism for Christian? In the Revelation chapter two verse thirteen Jesus refers to Antipas being martyred:

Revelation 2:13  KJV

  I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

Mickelson lists the original Greek word as:

Ἀντίπας Antipas (an-tee'-pas) n/p. Antipas, a Christian

The Greek revised version also uses that same word  αντιπας and is also defined as a Christian.

So I am confused as to whether Jesus is referring to a specific person named Antipas or simply saying one of his followers, was slain among them.

Many Christian traditions believe Saint Antipas to be the Antipas referred to in the Book of Revelation (Revelation 2:13) as the "faithful martyr" of Pergamon, "where Satan dwells".

According to Christian tradition, John the Apostle ordained Antipas as bishop of Pergamon during the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian. The traditional account goes on to say Antipas was martyred in ca. 92 AD by burning in a brazen bull-shaped altar used for casting out demons worshiped by the local population.


What is the Mormon position on keeping weapons and on war? I have come across a chapter in the Book of Mormon that is very interesting. It details how the Nephites thought it would be better to bury their swords and never kill another person again. The Lamanites came against them for war, but the Nephites did nothing and about 1000 of them were killed. After that some of the Lamanites felt regret for killing them anyway and repented of their sins. They then joined the Nephites and buried their swords as well.

Alma 24:18 Sums up the Nephites' disposition:

  And this they did, it being in their view a testimony to God, and also to men, that they never would use weapons again for the shedding of man’s blood; and this they did, vouching and covenanting with God, that rather than shed the blood of their brethren they would give up their own lives; and rather than take away from a brother they would give unto him; and rather than spend their days in idleness they would labor abundantly with their hands.

With this story in mind, what is the LDS position on war, self-defense, and keeping weapons?

If you read a bit further on, you see that this particular group of Nephites--known as the Ammonites after Ammon, who converted them to the Gospel--was exceptional. The Ammonites made this covenant to bury their weapons and never take them up again as part of their repentance for past sins before they accepted the gospel, and the rest of the Nephite nation was a lot more pragmatic on the subject of weapons, warfare, and self-defense.

The Ammonites were given land to settle on in an area that was well behind the border, where Nephite armies could protect them in the case of another war, and because the covenant that they had made kept them from contributing men to the army, they received additional taxes instead.  And when the next war finally did break out several years later, and things were going very badly for the Nephites, it got to the point where many of the Ammonites were very seriously considering the possibility of taking up arms to defend themselves.  They were urged not to by their spiritual leaders, though, and instead a few thousand of their sons, who had never made the oath to never take up arms due to being either too young or not alive yet when it happened, ended up enlisting instead, and nobody seemed to think that this constituted "breaking the rules" in some way.

Having said that, the law given to Latter-Day Saints in the Doctrine & Covenants regarding war is that it is justifiable to fight in self-defense, but more blessed to choose not to.  It can be found in Section 98, verses 23-48.  It's fairly long, so I won't quote the whole thing here, but the gist of it is:

It is always justified to fight back in self-defense, but if "ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded," particularly in the case of multiple offenses.
If a person attacks you, but then sincerely repents and seeks forgiveness, they are to be forgiven, always.
Neither a person nor a nation is justified in going out to battle against their enemy (offensively, not defensively) except on a direct command by the Lord, and if an enemy comes upon your nation to battle, you should offer peace first, and only go to war when it becomes clear that they are not looking for a peaceful resolution.
Even when you are in the process of making war upon them, if an enemy repents of their sins against you and seeks peace, you are to forgive them and accept their offer of peace.

As for the personal ownership of weapons, this is a highly contentious political issue in the United States and various other places in the world.  As far as I know, the LDS church does not have any doctrine on the subject either way.


What is the position of the Episcopal Church on the evolution of man? Pope Francis, in a speech given at a Pontifical Academy of Sciences, has declared his support of evolution as the scientific explanation of the origin of man. Following on the statements of his recent predecessors, it seems that the Catholic position is now firm.

What is the position of the Episcopal Church on this issue?

In 2006,  the General Convention of the Episcopal Church affirmed its support for the theory of evolution, resolving by Resolution 2006-A129:

That God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture and
the ancient Creeds of the Church; and
That the theory of evolution
provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the
emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of
origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an
acceptance of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and
living Christian faith; and
That Episcopalians strongly encourage
state legislatures and state and local boards of education to
establish standards for science education based on the best available
scientific knowledge as accepted by a consensus of the scientific
community; and
That Episcopal dioceses and congregations seek the
assistance of scientists and science educators in understanding what
constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.


Elijah "The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither shall the cruse of oil fail" miracle or not? In 1 Kings 17:14 we have the following passage (NV):

  ‘The jar of flour will not be used up and the jug of oil will not run dry until the day the Lord sends rain on the land.’”

Now every single preacher I've heard have a literary interpretation of this passage and consider it a miracle (like the multiplying of bread and fish).

However, P.Coelho in his book "The fifth mountain" suggests that Elijah worked in that city so the jar of flour was always full as a result of his income.

The latter interpretation is also favored by the last verse:

  Now by this I know that thou art a man of God

So after the widow sees her son is alive (which was undoubtedly a miracle) is convinced about Elijah. Thus, if the flour multiplying was also a miracle, she would have probably already been convinced.

Is there anything else which might help understand whether this was indeed a miracle or not ?

It is quite explicitly mentioned as a miracle from God. How else can verse 16 be interpreted?

For the jar of flour was not used up and the jug of oil did not run dry, in keeping with the word of the Lord spoken by Elijah.

I've highlighted "the jar" and "the jug", both singular. And it says, in keeping with the word of the Lord. So this was God's promise, not Elijah's occupation.
Furthermore, the passage implies these events happen as Elijah enters the city. Consider verses 8-16:

Then the word of the Lord came to him: ‘Go at once to Zarephath in the region of Sidon and stay there. I have instructed a widow there to supply you with food.’ So he went to Zarephath. When he came to the town gate, a widow was there gathering sticks. He called to her and asked, ‘Would you bring me a little water in a jar so I may have a drink?’ As she was going to get it, he called, ‘And bring me, please, a piece of bread.’
‘As surely as the Lord your God lives,’ she replied, ‘I don’t have any bread – only a handful of flour in a jar and a little olive oil in a jug. I am gathering a few sticks to take home and make a meal for myself and my son, that we may eat it – and die.’
Elijah said to her, ‘Don’t be afraid. Go home and do as you have said. But first make a small loaf of bread for me from what you have and bring it to me, and then make something for yourself and your son. For this is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: “The jar of flour will not be used up and the jug of oil will not run dry until the day the Lord sends rain on the land.”’
She went away and did as Elijah had told her. So there was food every day for Elijah and for the woman and her family. For the jar of flour was not used up and the jug of oil did not run dry, in keeping with the word of the Lord spoken by Elijah.

I've highlighted some words to show the pace of the story. It all happens very fast, as soon as Elijah reaches the city gates. This implies he did not have time to find employment. Finally, he wasn't even from the area, so it is not as if he returned to a previous occupation or had business contacts there.


Catholic Baptism Process Pre-Vatican II Today the Catholic Church makes potential converts participate in the RCIA program. Before Vatican II could someone go into a Church and tell the priest he wants to be Catholic and receive baptism on the spot? If so, could this still be done?

This is not clear purely from Church law, but it appears unlikely. Canon 752, section 1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law reads:

  Adultus, nisi sciens et volens probeque instructus, ne baptizetur; insuper admonendus ut de peccatis suis doleat.

That is:

  An adult is not to be baptized, unless knowing and willing, and having been properly instructed; moreover he is to be admonished so that he is sorry for his sins.

This is very nearly the same wording as in the current Code of Canon Law:

  For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

(Code of Canon Law [1983], Canon 865, section 1)

Current canon law thus requires the catechumenate (participation in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults). But the Rite itself was not promulgated until 1972; thus, until that time it would be up to the bishop to decide what exactly constituted "proper instruction".


Why does God say we shouldn't eat Crab & Pork but Jesus says that doesn't really matter Leviticus 11:7,8 say not to eat pork.

Leviticus 11:9 says you can't eat crab / lobster.

Jesus says it doesn't matter what you eat.

Matthew 15:10,11 NIV: Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

My question is, what is the logic in scripture for this? Why is God explicitly saying we shouldn't eat these things and then Jesus is saying it's not a sin to eat these things really, like I'm really confused on the correlation. Is Jesus suggesting that we can eat these things but we shouldn't?

No, Jesus is not 'lessening' the dietery law ('can but shouldn't'). He is explaining that it does not pertain to the New Covenant ('what you eat cannot be a sin intrinsically').

The Law

The Law had several aspects, such as the ceremonial and dietary laws particular to the Jews as a nation (for the purpose of creating a nation humble under the rule of God, typifying the 'grafted in' new "Israel of God," the church 1), not to the New Covenant people which would necessarily adopt the moral-law aspect of the Law (necessarily, since they are intrinsic moral laws, such as "thou shalt not murder," which is universal, not something extrinsically forbidden by God for some purpose other than that it is intrinsically sinful—such as sanctification: a kind of penance).

1 Gal 6:16; Rom 9:6; 11:17

An Important Distinction

Just as St. Paul makes the distinction and clarification that it is not the outward working out of the evil or good that makes a man accountable for evil or for righteousness, but the inward disposition and intention to do such (if it is something that can be 'done' visibly), Our Lord makes the distinction between the outward appearance or result of an evil thought, and the evil within the heart from which it sprang:

  Luke 6:45

  A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that
  which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth
  that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth
  speaketh.

  Mark 7:14-23

  And calling again the multitude unto him, he said to them: Hear ye me all, and understand. There is nothing from without a man that entering into him, can defile him. But the things which come from a man, those are they that defile a man. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. And when he was come into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked him the parable. And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? understand you not that every thing from without, entering into a man cannot defile him: Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats? But he said that the things which come out from a man, **they defile a man. For from within out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and defile a man.

A very important truth is taught here, not just about food—even more important than St. Paul's distinction about grace and works (void of or insolation from grace)! And that is that evil is accounted as evil (and good accounted as good) based on the intention of the heart, and not the playing out in space and time of that intention (the work of good or evil).

Consider a Scriptural analogy:

Abraham was considered righteous before he did the act God commanded him to do: on account of his faith that God could raise even the dead, he in an equivalent manner to having recieved back his son from having died, he recieves his son's life from his expected, and from Abraham's perspective, sure death. 3  In this, his intention was to do the will of God, and so as far as God and Abraham were concerned, Abraham was as good as having already fulfilled his intention currently, and so could presently be considered righteous—all without his having physically brought about his intention! This proves that Jesus said, in that a man's evil or good is all in his intention, not in that which is external to him. Not foods. Not physically touching a woman—intending or desiring to, which is equivalent here in God's eyes, and in our conscience, to which the New Covenant gives much focus. 4

3 Heb 11:19

4 Mt 5:28

The playing out of the good or bad intentions of the heart (by which is meant works of whatever kind) are, so to speak, 'additional evils,' in that they create more offense to God than He would have to otherwise bear from your being prevented from having worked out your evil intention: tempting others to the same sin, showing bad example, degrading your body and the temple of the Holy Ghost, etc.

One is reminded of a related Scripture passage:

  1 Samuel 16:7 (cf. Lk 16:15)

  And the Lord said to Samuel: Look not on his countenance, nor on the
  height of his stature: because I have rejected him, nor do I judge
  according to the look of man: for man seeth those things that appear,
  but the Lord beholdeth the heart.

Why Foods Cannot Be Intrinsically Evil

Foods cannot be intrinsically evil any more than Satan was intrinsically evil before he misused his will. Any more than a gun is intrinsically evil. Any more than a sword, etc. It takes an agent (someone with a will) to will evil from the heart, who, if he is not hindered, he will commit an 'additional evil' of actually carrying out that evil intention for which, in God's eyes, he has already murdered.

This is why Our Lord makes gives us the following shocking doctrine, as recounted by St. John:

  1 John 3:15 (from Our Lord's teaching in Mt 5:21-22):

  Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. And you know that no
  murderer hath eternal life abiding in himself.

This is because God knows that on some level, we sometimes wish our brother were dead, when we hate him. Not in an explicit thought, but as a vague desire in the heat of the moment, as it were. Jesus wants us to avoid have such a heinous, even instantaneous, desire. Which in His eyes, because He sees it for what it is, it is murder.

Similarly, it cannot be sin in and of itself to eat a lobster. But what can be even gravely sinful is directly disobeying God who said (for reasons other than that it intrinsically offends him) you are not to eat this thing.

God made it sinful to eat lobster not because He doesn't like lobsters, nor did God want the life of Isaac. ('Killing Isaacs' isn't a way to be justified, for example). He wants obedience in those things He asks, no matter what they are: even seemingly arbitrary things. And in obedience to God's laws will bring you into right relationship with Him: being justified.


When do we as Christians draw the line on self-defense? At what line do Christians stop at self defense? Take a look here:
Matthew 5:39

  But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

So where do we draw the line to defend ourselves? Or are we supposed to let them go as far to seriously hurt us or even to kill us?

This verse is easy to misunderstand without an understanding of the culture that produced it.  It helps to read it very literally: If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Why is that significant?  Think back to the Old Testament, where it would explicitly point out anytime someone was left-handed, because that was thought to be really weird.  Being right-handed was the norm, and that's an important part of this verse.

It would be very awkward for a right-handed person bent on doing harm to attack someone standing in front of them by striking them on the right side of their face.  The only convenient strike that works this way is a backhanded slap, which is very different in nature: an insult, not an assault.  Understanding this changes the meaning of the verse greatly:

  Do not let evil men provoke you.  If someone insults you with a backhanded slap, do not respond to the provocation, but turn your other cheek instead.

This is in the same character as the other verses around it, particularly the one about being forced to go a mile with someone (which a Roman citizen could legally force a Jew to do).  There were Jews at that time who thought their religious duty was to resist Roman occupation in any way they could, including by killing Romans.  If the followers of Christ got mixed up in that, they would have ended up sharing his fate, execution at Roman hands, which would have seriously impeded the church's ability to grow.  So the message is, make it absolutely clear that you're going along with the law, so no one has any excuse to try to use the law to make even more trouble for you.

Also, keep in mind that when they were actually in real danger from people who were determined not to let the law get in the way of what they wanted:

  Luke 22: 35-36

  35 he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

  36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Two different directives for two different points in time, but both with the same objective: to keep his disciples safe from harm.  These two principles should provide a firm foundation for a Christian to base his understanding of self-defense on.


Does the Catholic Church put the death of Samson in the category of suicide? At Judges 16: 289-30 (NRSVCE) we see the account of death of Samson:

  Then Samson called to the Lord and said, “Lord God, remember me and strengthen me only this once, O God, so that with this one act of revenge I may pay back the Philistines for my two eyes.” And Samson grasped the two middle pillars on which the house rested, and he leaned his weight against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other.   Then Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines.” He strained with all his might; and the house fell on the lords and all the people who were in it. So those he killed at his death were more than those he had killed during his life.

One is inclined to refer to the death of Samson as one akin to death at wartime. But then, he was also aware that he would kill himself if he brought down the structure. My question therefore is: Does the Catholic Church put the death of Samson in the category of suicide ?

St. Thomas Aquinas gives this precise objection in his question on "Whether it is lawful to kill oneself?" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 64 a. 5 arg 4):

Samson killed himself, as related in Judges 16:30, and yet he is numbered among the saints (Heb. 11:32). Therefore it is lawful for a man to kill himself.

To which he replies (ibid. ad 4):

As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i , 21*),

not even Samson is to be excused that he crushed himself together with his enemies under the ruins of the house, except the Holy Ghost, Who had wrought many wonders through him, had secretly commanded him to do this.

He assigns the same reason [De Civ. Dei i, 26**] in the case of certain holy women, who at the time of persecution took their own lives, and who are commemorated by the Church.

*"Of the Cases in Which We May Put Men to Death Without Incurring the Guilt of Murder"**"That in Certain Peculiar Cases the Examples of the Saints are Not to Be Followed". He shows that if a soldier obeying his commander to kill does not commit murder, then a fortiori someone obeying God's command to kill himself does not murder himself.


As a Catholic, am I obliged to believe in visions and saints? I am a Catholic.

There are many visions and ecstasy and saints.

As a Catholic, am I obliged to believe in visions and saints?

The Church distinguishes between two ways God has spoken to the world: the "public revelation" beginning with the Old Testament prophets and culminating in the life of Jesus, and the "private revelations" of miracles, visions, etc., which have been given to various individuals throughout history since then.

You are only obliged to believe in the public revelation.  CCC paragraphs 65-66 read:

  65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the
  prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."
  Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect and
  unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no
  other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others,
  commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

    In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he
    spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more
    to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he
    has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any
    person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be
    guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not
    fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for
    some other novelty. There will be no further Revelation

  66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and
  definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public
  revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our
  Lord Jesus Christ." Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it
  has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith
  gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the
  centuries.

So not only are you not required to believe in any subsequent visions, you are warned not to go looking for them out of a desire for novelty.  Since revelation is already complete, then any new (apparent) revelation that contradicts prior teachings is certainly false.

However...

  67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private"
  revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of
  the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It
  is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive
  Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of
  history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium
  knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever
  constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Some of the claims of miracles, apparitions of Mary, and the like, are almost certainly true.  Guadalupe, Lourdes, and Fatima come to mind.  None of these were sent to change the faith or add new teachings, but each did serve an important role at a certain place and time in history. (Guadalupe, for example, was very important in converting the New World to Christianity.)

There are probably also many claims of miracles and visions that are exaggerated or false.  Even some of the saints may be little more than legends.  You are free to decide for yourself which of those claims are credible and which are not.

The bottom line, though, is that none of these "private revelations" actually change the teachings of the church, so whether you accept them or not, your faith still rests firmly on the teachings given to the Apostles by Jesus in the first century, and no "update" is expected until He comes again.


Were other sins possible in the paradise? Except for not eating from the tree of knowledge were there any other things that Adam and Eve weren't allowed to do or was everything else allowed?

Adam and Eve were given only one restriction but they were also given a few instructions.  They were to "tend and dress" the garden, and they were to multiply and replenish the earth.  Failure to do these things would also have been contrary to the word of God and thus a sin.

Eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was the only sin that carried a promised punishment; "in that day you shall surely die".

There existed, certainly, many other evil things that should not have been done in the garden.  Adam must not kill Eve.  But there was no need to give that sort of instruction since he had not yet been influenced by Satan and had not learned to kill, to lie, to hate, etc.  These sins would have been a possibility for you and I but not for Adam who was in a state of innocence.


How much of the Catholic Mass is inherited from the Jewish Shabbat service? I was watching this Shabbat video (a service to mark the beginning of the Sabbath, in Friday night), and there seems to be several similarities with the Mass rite (at least the Catholic one). (Notice the service is that of a Reformed Jewish community, and not Orthodox one).

There is the introduction rite (including lighting of candles) and concluding one, singing and reading of Torah (Psalms included), sermon by the Rabbi (?), a sacred place where the Torah is kept (a bit like the Tabernacle), a prayer for the coming of the messianic age, where people get closer together and hold arms or hands (like the Our Father), and so on.

Now, on the one hand, since the first Christians were Jews, it is reasonable to expect that the Christian worship be based on the Jewish one, with the introduction/modification of key elements, like the Eucharist itself (related to the Passover and etc). But also it is true that (early) Church fathers wrote against the "Judaization" of Christian practices (e.g. here and more general here).

The video I showed is however of the Reformed Judaism, a form of Judaism which seems not to have existed in Early Christianity. A more reasonable question is then how Orthodox ritual practices inspired the Mass. If this video gives some light on the Orthodox practice, in the second Century Ignatius of Antioch, arguing against Judaization of Christian practices wrote:

  But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them.

Is there some formal analysis of the relationship between the Jewish service and the (Catholic) Mass?

The Jewish Sabbath service is an elaboration on the daily service, and a central element of the daily service is the Amidah, or standing prayer.  The structure of the Amidah in modern Jewish liturgy is built up of 19 blessings (one of which was added after or even because of the split between Judaism and Christianity, so 18 matter here).  The modern order and central content of these blessings seems to have settled into solid form by the 4th century (see Tractate Brachot of the Palestinian Talmud), and it's pretty obvious that the structure of these blessings is a response to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70.

However, the daily prayer cycle is connected to the cycle of sacrifices in the Temple.  It's pretty clear that the synagogue services of 2000 years ago were synchronized to the times of the sacrifices, and even today, two of the daily services and the extra service on the Sabbath are named after the sacrifices they paralleled and then replaced.  My guess is that the Amidah preserves elements of the liturgical structure that was used in the sacrificial ritual.

On the Christian side, it is clear that the Mass takes the place of the sacrificial service -- it's not just a reenactment of the Last supper.  That is why a cycle of daily masses fits tightly into the canonical hours, which are themselves an elaboration on the Jewish daily prayer cycle.

There are parallel structures in text of the Mass and the Amidah.  The "dona nobis pachem" at the end of the traditonal mass parallels the "oseh shalom" at the end of the Amidah, for example.

I strongly suspect that these parallels are no accident.  The Mass and the Amidah as we know them today both developed after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, and it's extraordinarily likely that their common ancestor would be found in the synagogue rituals of the first century.

Christians from denominations that have simplified or lost the traditional liturgy, reduced the mass to just bread and wine and forgotten the daily prayer cycle tend not to notice these parallels, but if you read a Catholic Missal that preserves the traditional text, and compare it with the text in a weekday Siddur (read both in English unless you know Latin and Hebrew), the parallels are obvious enough that 12-year-old kids who know one tend to notice them when they see the other.


What are all the things that can contain the Holy Spirit? Based on biblical text, what are all the different kinds of "things" that can be filled/indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

The first and most obvious answer is a person, but also apparently a marriage:

  Malachi 2:14-15 ESV But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union?

This got me thinking: what else can have the Spirit of God in them? A country? An animal? An inanimate object?

A good answer can provide a couple non-obvious things or a comprehensive list of all things. Please note that this is not a "list/shopping question" because I'm asking the answers to be sourced from a closed set of data→the bible.

Your question is misleading.

  Did He not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union?

this doesn't say that the marriage is filled with the Spirit, it says that He blessed the marriage by the Holy Spirit, with the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is a thing that takes action, It does things like filling, blessing, anointing, joining  etc.

The Spirit is not in the Marriage, the Spirit is among them in the Marriage.

The point I am trying to make is that really anything can be affected by the Holy Spirit.


Who was the intended audience for the Book of Matthew? See my other question first.

I have heard it taught in several places that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and its intended audience was the Jew (which does help explain why it seems a bit more vague on key Christian concepts). But recently I have been told that there are no Hebrew manuscripts of this text. I assume at least that he meant there are no Hebrew manuscripts that out date the Greek ones.

So this makes me wonder that if there are no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew why would one argue this point? Essentially the question is then, who is the intended audience?

Ultimately it's everybody, right, but I mean were a specific people in mind when it was written?

Matthew was likely written for Greek-speaking Christians of Jewish descent.
In my answer to your first question, I discussed reasons for believing Matthew was written in Greek rather than Hebrew. And it should be self-evident that the gospels were written to Christians. So here I'm going to list the reasons for believing the intended audience was specifically Christians of Jewish descent.
Scriptural fulfillment
The Gospel of Matthew, more than the other gospels, often concludes a passage by introducing a Jewish Scripture and claiming Jesus has now fulfilled it.
In many cases, Matthew is simply drawing a parallel between events from the life of Jesus and events from Israel's history. Examples are Matthew 1:22-23 quoting a passage about a sign given to King Ahaz, Matthew 2:15 quoting a passage about the exodus from Egypt, and Matthew 12:17-21 quoting a passage about God's servant Israel (see Isaiah 41:8-9 for identification of the servant with Israel).
Structure of the Gospel
Just as Matthew draws parallels between Jesus' experiences and those of Israel, the gospel itself parallels the Torah, the five books of Moses. In Matthew, Jesus' teachings are combined into five long discourses.

Sermon on the Mount - Matthew 5-7
Missionary Discourse - Matthew 10
Parabolic Discourse - Matthew 13
Discourse on the Church - Matthew 18
Olivet Discourse - Matthew 24

Each of these discourses contains more uninterrupted teaching than the parallel sections of Mark or Luke.
Respect for Jewish law and customs
The phrase "kingdom of God" appears 62 times in the New Testament, but Matthew uses the substitute phrase "kingdom of heaven" 31 times, even where the parallel accounts in other gospels say "kingdom of God". This is likely due to a Jewish custom of never writing the word "God" as a precaution against using God's name in vain.
In Jesus' teaching about handwashing, Mark 7:19 indicates that Jesus thereby "declared all foods clean".

He said to them, "Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

But in the parallel in Matthew 15, this parenthetical comment is omitted. We know from Paul's letters that some Jewish Christians kept part of their unique dietary restrictions as a matter of conscience. Matthew perhaps did not want to offend their sensibilities.
In Mark 10 Jesus prohibits all divorce. However, in the parallel in Matthew 19, Jesus makes an exception for marital unfaithfulness. The version found in Matthew acknowledges that divorce is allowed in Deuteronomy under certain circumstances.
Furthermore, Jesus says in Matthew 5:17, in a statement not found in the other gospels, that he has come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. (Fulfill is probably used here in the same sense as above.)
Conclusion
Matthew's attention to the Jewish scriptures and respect for Jewish customs, as well as the structure of this gospel, indicate that it was written primarily for Jewish Christians rather than pagan converts.


What does the Bible say about "bad" words? I know the Bible says not to let "unwholesome talk" come out of our mouths (Ephesians 4:29), but to my knowledge it doesn't speak specifically about "bad words."

In fact, to my knowledge, the English language (and especially American English) is somewhat unique in that it has words that are always considered bad, in any context. In my (limited) study of other languages (which is mostly Spanish), most "bad words" are perfectly good words, used in a specifically "bad" context.

Is it possible to use a "bad" word in a context that is not "unwholesome?"

I have a very close (Christian) friend, and he and I occasionally use "bad" words in our conversation, but always in a joking sense. Never out of anger or malice toward the other person. Is this okay, or should we change our behavior?

Ephesians 4:29 says:

  Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.

Ephesians 5:4 says:

  Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.

Language is a collective memory or cultural history. In other words, the meaning of words are defined by society. Per Ephesians 5:4, there could be no obscenity, foolishness or joking apart from an audience to interpret the message. Just as words in English have no meaning to people that don't speak English, the words can have certain meanings in certain sub-cultures or circles.

If certain words are not interpreted as obscene in a given circle, then the use of these words do not violate the command in Ephesians 5:4 and they will not have the appearance of evil per 1 Thessalonians 5:22. Same thing with Ephesians 4:29. The words are not sinful in themselves.

That said, in my experience it will be very tough for someone that incorporates this kind of language into their regular routine to refrain from using it around people that might not interpret it the same way. One way or another it always slips out. Furthermore, one has to be discerning enough not to cause another Christian to stumble by using this language improperly. It's probably safest not to use it and not flirt with violating these commands.


What is the biblical basis that people who are attracted to the same sex were not created by God that way? cf. Does God create some people Heterosexual and others Homosexual? [closed]

  It is quite common for people who identify themselves as homosexual to
  say that God created them this way. Some way even go so far as to say
  it was a misfortune that they were born into:

    "Unfortunately for me, God made me gay."

  This line of reasoning usually continues with
  - "so I can't do anything about it"
  - "it's not my fault, it's God's fault that I sin"

  Others claim that since they were created that way it must not be a
  sin.

  What does Christianity hold about the way people were created? Does
  having something in our natures make it not a sin?

The question here is what is the biblical basis that God does NOT create homosexual people as homosexuals (i.e those who say that since they were born that way, God must have created them that way, what is the biblical basis that God has not created [/and does not create] those people that way)?

Note:

[I take people at their word when they say they were born that way and see no reason to discount their testimony and that of their parents until some other refuting evidence becomes available.]

One of the best Biblical bases is the Law of God itself.  Is God unjust?

But, while some would certainly object, consider,

  Surely I was sinful at birth,
  sinful from the time my mother
  conceived me.

  Psalm 51:5

The issue is sin, and whether or not someone was born in sin, conceived even in it, is not the issue.

Whether one is born in sin is not the issue of righteousness, being born again is, and the removal of it.

As for same sex attraction, the argument actually fails for the above description.  Generally, sexual attraction is something that develops in puberty.  With those who claim to be "born that way", they actually exhibit SSA often much earlier, indicating something else entirely.  It is not normal, but sometimes is an indicator of abuse or some other issue.

They may have been indeed born and formed in iniquity, but that's just all the more reason for the cross, and getting rid of it.  God did not create them that way, but they are merely receiving the consequences of sin in their souls.

The other corollary is Exodus 34:6-7 where God said He revisits the sins of the Father's to the children to the third and fourth generation.

Again, the issue that one is born in sin can more than account for the subjective testimony that one is born a certain way.

We were all born rebellious and evil, and no believer makes the case that therefore it is "Ok".


Can a Catholic be denied communion for the way they want to receive Communion? I was at a gathering of group leaders for the Federation of North American Explorers, (a group operating under the FSE; a Vatican approved lay association of the faithful).  A leader from Quebec said that they were either denied communion or told to leave by a priest because they would only receive Communion on the tongue.  One of the rules of FNE is that members receive the Eucharist kneeling and on the tongue.

Regardless of the plot holes in the above example (I should have asked more, but there was a bit of a language barrier), does a priest have the right to tell anyone to leave Mass (or deny them Communion) because of how they choose to receive?

Receiving the Communion on the tongue or kneeling is never a legal reason for denying Communion.
The instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum "On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist" of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments deals with this topic [bold by me]:

In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.[177] Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

[177] Code of Canon Law, can. 843 § 1; cf. can. 915.
[178] Cf. Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, n. 161.
[179] Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Dubium: Notitiae 35 (1999) pp. 160-161.

This passage comes in a series of "grave matters" (n. 173). I think most Catholic will find some of these "litugical abuses" in their parish, so it does not mean the "abuse" is rare. That it is explicitly named means instead it happens (in some regions) often.
If - on the other hand - such a rule of FNE is legal, is another question and remains open.


What is the meaning of 'scandalous' associated with the crucifixion of Jesus? There is a song, "Beautiful Scandalous Night." Also, I have heard this term used with regards to the crucifixion. I assume this does not have the colloquial meaning. What does it mean?

Perhaps the closest biblical connection is to 1 Corinthians 1:23:

  we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles (ESV)

Ravi Zacharias makes this connection in an article entitled "The Scandal of the Cross":

  To the Greek, the cross was foolishness. To the Jew, it was a stumbling block. What is it about the cross of Christ that so roundly defies everything that power relishes? Crucifixion was humiliating. It was so humiliating that the Romans who specialized in the art of torture assured their own citizenry that a Roman could never be crucified. But not only was it humiliating, it was excruciating. In fact, the very word “excruciating” comes from two Latin words: ex cruciatus, or out of the cross. Crucifixion was the defining word for pain.

Mark Baker and Joel Green, in Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, also see a connection between this passage and the "scandal" of the crucifixion:

  Paul himself provides evidence that we have too easily made sense of the scandal of the death of God's Messiah.  In 1 Corinthians 1:18–25, Paul outlines a perspective on the cross many of us have learned to overlook.  Here he testifies to the lunacy of the cross for the first-century Roman, matched by its ignominious character among the Jewish people.  [...] In Paul's argument with the Corinthians the cross does not have the appearance of "good news" but of absurdity. (33)

And finally, D. A. Carson titles his 2010 book on the crucifixion and resurrection Scandalous, emphasizing the ironies and absurdities associated with the crucifixion (cf. Matthew 27, Romans 3, and Revelation 12).  So to many Christian writers, the typical understanding of the word scandalous as "shocking" and "upsetting" (see Merriam-Webster) is perfectly, even eminently, applicable to the cross.


Can a non-orthodox layman arrive to Hesychia? After reading about Hesychasm and the related topics such as Jesus' Prayer, Philokalia and palamism I'm stuck with a question. In Hesychasm, the main objective is to arrive to Hesychia, which is stillness or quietness.

My question is straightforward: without living as a hermit and without being orthodox, are there any chances to practice Hesychasm successfully?

If the answer is positive, how may this be?
If the answer is negative, why is it impossible?

I suppose the answer depends entirely on how you define success.  To be an authentic Hesychast  monk, you would really need to move to Mt. Athos.

But there's no reason you couldn't successfully integrate some Hesychast methods into your current life.  In particular, contemplation, meditation and recital of the Jesus Prayer seems entirely within the reach of all believers and captures the core of the tradition as I understand it.  Being an outsider myself, I can't say if it's possible to reach the sort of peace the tradition sets as the end state, however.

As a word of caution: like other sorts of spiritual gifts and experiences, it seems to me we go off course if we begin to pursue them for their own sake.  As Paul warns:

  If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.—1 Corinthians 13:1-3 (ESV)


How did the Catholic Church function logistically/liturgically prior to the invention of the printing press? During a Catholic Mass, there are a great amount of readings and prayers and scripture extracts/arrangements. There are different reading and set of prayers for almost every day of the year. This applies to both the Novus Ordo and the older, Tridentine Mass, as well as to various liturgies that existed before that too.

I've noticed that a lot of parts gets read by the priest from liturgical books (I think the most important one is called a Missal) during the mass.

This has got me wondering, how did the church function liturgically for the first 1600 years before the printing press? As I understand it, books were insanely and prohibitively expensive to produce back in the day. I seriously doubt that your average parish in the countryside of the British Isles could afford a handwritten missal. But that leads me to wonder, how did the average parish cope?

Readings from the bible and set prayers from the missal are absolutely essential to the liturgy. There is way too much there for a priest to memorise it all, so what did they do if they had to say mass but didn't have access to a bible or missal for the readings and prayers?

Or maybe I'm underestimating the Church and in actual fact your average countryside parish did have access to all the liturgical books, in which case my question is instead, how did they afford it?

From Herbert Thurston's Catholic Encyclopedia article "Missal" (§ "Origin of the Missal"):

  The printed Missal of the present day, reproducing in substance the manuscript forms of the latter part of the Middle Ages, has resulted from the amalgamation of a number of separate service books. In the early centuries, owing to the lack of competent scribes, the scarcity of writing materials, and various other causes, economy had greatly to be studied in the production of books. The book used by the priest at the altar for the prayers of the Mass usually contained no more than it belonged to him to say. It was known commonly as a "Sacramentary" (Sacramentarium) because all its contents centred round the great act of the consecration of the sacrifice. On the other hand those portions of the service which, like the Introit and the Gradual, the Offertory and the Communion, were rendered by the choir, were inscribed in a separate book, the "Antiphonarium Missae" or "Graduale" (q.v.). So again the passages to be read to the people by the deacons or rectors in the ambo (pulpit) — the Epistle and Gospel, with lessons from the Old Testament on particular occasions — were collected in the "Epistolarium" or "Apostolus", the "Evangeliarium", and other lectionaries. Besides this an "Ordo" or "Directorium" (q.v.) was required to determine the proper service. Only by a slow process of development were the contents of the sacramentary, the gradual, the various lectionaries, and the "Ordo" amalgamated so that all that was needed for the celebration of Mass was to be found within the covers of one volume. …

Medieval Books of the Hours (and illuminated manuscripts in general) were common, especially among the wealthy laity, before the printing press.

See also the "Manuscript" Catholic Encyclopedia article for the history of manuscripts and copyists.


What is the source of hatred often perceived by Christians in western society? Not everyone hates Christians, but it seems that most Christians have felt hated at some time by someone because of their faith.

Is there a specific reason behind the hatred I've seen towards Christians as a group? Is the reason different among former Christians than with those who never held the faith?

I don't think that Christians face any more bigotry than any other group.  As TRiG pointed out in his answer, there are many American Christians who have chosen to interpret their loss of special privilege in our culture to be "hatred against Christians", when in reality it results not from hatred, but from a desire for equality.

However, there are those who fear Christians, and fear is easy to mistake for hatred. There was a time when I just didn't get the fear that some people showed toward Christians.  Then the military stationed my family in the Bible Belt...

A Christian neighbor found out that my family is not Christian.  She called a local Christian preacher, who tried to break into my house with the stated goal of beating me until I miscarried (I was 6.5 months pregnant).  The (apparently Christian) police refused to come to my aid.
My (Jewish) friend's child innocently and accidentally outed himself to his Christian first grade classmates; they beat him so badly he spent three days in intensive care.
My Catholic mother was harassed and kicked out of a quilt shop for not being the "right" kind of Christian.
I spent time with a Red Cross worker who had come from trying to restore the economies in third-world communities where Christian missionaries had disrupted the food supply, local medical care, and more in their attempts to convert the locals.
I watched Christian babies in the NICU denied the breast milk that could have bolstered their immune systems because the local Christian sects taught that breastfeeding was a sin.
I saw a Christian chaplain deny needed services to people who put their lives on the line for our country, because he did not believe that non-Christians were deserving of his time.

Because much of my extended family is Christian, I have exposure to Christians who aren't violent, destructive, sex offenders, or trying to force their religion on others through economic and/or political coercion.  The thing is, most non-Christians only run into Christians when they are doing these things, so they believe that such behavior is emblematic of mainstream Christianity.  To my knowledge, of these practices only missionary work is mainstream -- and the destruction caused is usually not intentional, but the result of ignorance about social and economic systems they are affecting.

Unfortunately, most Christians seem to think that if they quietly ignore these problems, they will go away.  However, until the sane Christians publicly step in when the fringe gets out of control, the fringe will continue to be all that non-Christians see, and they'll have defined Christianity for most outsiders.


Where is it documented that some people didn't want Gospel of John to be included as canonical? I have heard in some debates that the Gospel of John had some push back from people (Church Fathers?) from being included into the Canon.

Can someone shed some light on this topic?  Or provide a book reference?

The pushback against the Gospel of John has been in force nearly from the beginnings of Christianity.  It began with Marcion’s total rejection of the Book as too “Jewish”.  Tertullian and others prevailed that it was part of the Christian Canon.  Yet there remained that underlying feeling.  Some focused on a key discrepancy between John and Matthew, Mark, and Luke.  This dilemma surfaced in 155 between Asia Minor and Rome, at Nicea, and then at the Great Schism.  It finally erupted again forcefully in the 19th century out from the Tubingen School of Theology.

This primary problem that led from outright rejection to included suspicion was the so-called “contradiction” between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) over the day and date of the death of Christ.  The Synoptics say Christ ate the Passover before His crucifixion (Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12, Luke 22:15), while John states Passover is after His crucifixion (John 18:28).

CONTRADICTION

Marcion taught about the year 144 CE in Rome.  He emphatically tried to separate the old Jewish ideas from the new Christians ideas as he interpreted Pauline theology and the Passover.  He rejected all of the Hebrew Bible and most of what we consider to be the 27 books of the New Testament writings.  He excluded the Gospel of John as too “Jewish” for example.  In his much abbreviated canon, he included some of Luke’s Gospel and 10 of the 13 Pauline epistles.

From about the same time, there arose a dispute in the Church over the “contradiction”.  Asia Minor was following John’s chronology, while Rome was following the Synoptic timeline.  This Passover argument surfaced first between Polycarp and Anicetus of Rome and then with Polycrates and Victor of Rome.  Although they finally settled on the days and dates (Friday the 15th of Nisan) as the day of death at Nicaea, the issue, not being actually solved, bubbled along under the surface.  They had succeeded in enforcing a view, but were not able to solve the riddle of the contradiction.  It was the contributing cause to the schism in 1054.

While Marcion’s heresy and canon came and went in its season, the Tubingen teaching has been more pernicious, pervasive, and problematic.  After all, by this time, we had found out that the emperor had no clothes on.  Everyone can read and interpret the Gospels, note the contradictions, and come to so-called solutions.  Eventually this one book challenge morphed into the modern era of questioning the veracity and inerrancy of the Bible as a whole.

We could have seen it coming.  How can truth contradict itself?  The founding professor of the Tubingen School was F.C. Baur a German Protestant.  His two primary pupils were Adolf Hilgenfeld and Albert Schwegler.  They too were perplexed about the contradiction so-called about the historic Passover events.  Did Christ use leavened or unleavened bread?  Unable to reconcile the problem, their solution was to question the authenticity of the Gospel of John.

To be clear, unlike Marcion at the beginning, the Tubingen argument did not form around whether the Gospel of John should or should not be in the Canon, but it was directed rather at its author; that is, they taught that the Gospel of John was not and could not have been written by John the Apostle of Christ.  It was a later, idealized tome written by someone unknown.

SOLUTIONS

How does one reconcile this foundational, yet persistently divisive teaching?  For those at Nicea, it was to use Constantine as the enforcer of one’s view.  Doesn’t matter what John the Apostle taught.  At the Great Schism, mutual anathemas were pronounced.  Doesn’t matter what the other taught.  For the Tubingen School, it was to explain that the Gospel of John was not written by the eyewitness Apostle John, but rather later by an unknown someone in order to spiritualize the meanings of Passover as fulfilled in Christ.

Suffice to say that no solution, including ridding our Canon of John or undermining the Biblical eyewitness accounts, has been satisfactorily presented, but this is not to say one does not yet exist.

CONCLUSION

The problem of the Gospel of John lies in its supposed contradictions from the Synoptic Gospels over precisely when Christ observed the Passover and died and was thus resurrected.  To the OP, yes some have tried to exclude the book.  Others essentially “exclude” the parts beyond their understanding.  Others dismiss it as a later interpolation to explain spiritual matters, rather than view it as a recording of historical actual events.

For some others, we view the author as an historic eyewitness to the Last Supper (aka Passover).

REFERENCES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcionism

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.iv.i.html

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/tubingen.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Christian_Baur

https://archive.org/stream/churchhistoryoff01baur#page/174/mode/2up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Bernhard_Christoph_Hilgenfeld

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schwegler

https://www.amazon.com/Tubingen-School-Historical-Theological-Investigation/dp/0801043441