What is the very least a Catholic needs to believe about Genesis 2 and 3? There have been a couple skeptical questions asked here recently based off of what some people think are either false premises or assumptions or something.  But I am still confused as to what the Catholic Church requires her members to believe as actual fact concerning Genesis 2 and 3 and what lessons there are to be learned from a literal reading of these Chapters which aren't also contained in the moral, metaphorical and anagogical senses of reading of these chapters.

Could someone create a verse-by-verse breakdown of what is a metaphor, what is a fact, and what is a basis for such-and-such a dogma?

Your question seems to be from a perspective of what is taught as historically
accurate and what is considered metaphor. I think there are some foundational ideas which need to be dealt with first in order for you to truly understand the answer to your question.
First, in your question there is an implicit assumption about the Catholic Church's relationship to Scripture which is skewed. The Catholic Church does not go through scripture and declare the meaning of every sentence or whether is it historically accurate or metaphor. There are actually very few passages in which the Church would definitively teach a particular meaning. For example, Mark 14:22:  While they were eating, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is my body.” This definitive interpretation comes about from the experience of the Church.
It is better to ask if the Church has defined anything in regard to Genesis 1 and 2.
Second, metaphor can be true. Its truth, though, may be harder to comprehend and less precise than the truth of a mathematical statement such as 2 + 2 = 4. I think you meant what is historically true and what is metaphor.
When looking for 'official' Catholic teaching, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is the first place to go to. (In the CCC, sections are numbered for easy reference, as in the 289 that follows.)
Here is sampling:

289 Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation—its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation.
375 The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice.” This grace of original holiness was “to share in... divine life.”
390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

You could actually read from 279-481 of the CCC. These have resulted from millennia of contemplating the Scriptures.
I think some other answers will delve into the Papal Encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII which will deal with Adam and Eve and polygenism (the human race is of different origins). For a betting understanding of what is in this Encyclical, a few other ideas are needed for background.

There are different levels of Church teaching. There is a difference between Church teaching and dogmatic Church teaching. A Papal Encyclical is not dogmatic Church teaching, but it can be said to be Church teaching.

With regard to polygenism, the definition of human being can be different between a biological view and a philosophical view. For example, from a philosophical view of human being could be a creature with a rational soul, while a biological one would focus on physical traits. So, from a philosophical view not all Homo Sapiens need be humans. An excellent explanation of this can be found here

This reply may not answer your question in the way you want, but I think it provides some necessary context for the answer.


Christian denominations that view Jesus as a human moral teacher? Are there any current Christian denominations that view Jesus as a human moral teacher, rather than as the supernatural Son of God?  I am looking for specific examples of denominations that state this viewpoint (or some variation) as part of their creed.

Unitarian Universalists maintain the Jesus was only a man, but with a unique relationship to God. Unitarians makeup the majority of a sect of Christianity known as nontrinitarianism. Nontrinitarians reject many parts of christian doctrine that other sects find essential. The most notably difference is their rejection of the concept of the Holy Trinity, the idea that God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus Christ are all equal parts to a whole. This rejection of the trinity leads to the belief that Jesus was not supernatural but only a great prophet. Other belief systems that maintain this are:  Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, and the United Church of God. Islam and the sects of several sects of Judaism maintain the Jesus was only a great prophet as well.


According to Protestants, what is the lesson being taught by scripture when God killed so many men for looking into the Ark? Many people find a short passage in the Old Testament to be both disturbing and very peculiar; that being 1st Samuel 6:19,

  and He (God) smote (killed) the men of Beth-she-mesh, because they
  had looked into the Ark of the Lord, even He smote of the people
  50,070 men.

The disturbing question is why God would kill so many men for simply looking into the Ark.  It seems to be a very peculiar thing to do.  One thing is obvious, God is using this event and recording it in His Word as a historical parable. A teaching lesson with a spiritual meaning.

What is that meaning?

I am not attempting to ask God's motivation for killing these men; but I am asking, what God is teaching through this story?  Are there different interpretations of this lesson between the different denominations of Christianity?

Sin really did abound when the Law was given in the old testament, and every form of disobedience or sin, as little as it can be, was dealt with strict punishment or Death.

Jesus came to fulfil all laws (Matthew 5:17-20) and destroy sin and death.
This means that we no longer live in sin but by Grace and we can walk boldly to his throne (Hebrews 4:16) without fear or guilt like Old Testament people.

The Law has been abolished and Jesus took every judgement upon Himself.


Was it culturally acceptable for the sinful woman to enter the Pharisee's house to see Jesus? This is an odd question I know and I'm not very hopeful I'll find a good answer. But has it ever stricken you odd that in Luke 7, the woman who comes to see Jesus just straight walks into the Pharisee's house unannounced? I'm an American, and I could never imagine a random stranger walking into anyone's house and it be acceptable.

So, was this a normal thing in Jewish culture at this time period?

Many of the homes of the time had a courtyard around which were situated various rooms.  The courtyard was used for cooking and eating.  In John McCray's book Archaeology and the New Testament, he has some diagrams of typical houses of the period.

The point being that to "enter" someone's house was not like it is today.  The courtyard was open and people could, conceivably, wander in.  In fact, later in Luke's Gospel when Jesus is brought to the high priest's house for questioning you get the sense that there are quite a few people lingering in the courtyard (see Luke 22:54 and following).  For example, Peter is in the courtyard, seemingly uninvited; i.e. he doesn't converse with the high priest, but also denies knowing Jesus.  No one seems to think it odd that he's there, per se.

One other note is the eating position during feasts ("reclining at table").  The participants would have leaned forward on their left arms, eating with their right hands (the left hand being reserved for sanitary uses, which is why it is considered rude in some cultures even today to use one's left hand for food).  The point, though, is that Jesus' feet would have been behind him, making it easy for the woman to anoint them.

A fascinating article about eating customs of the time is at this link.


Why did God kill Uzzah ? - 2 Samuel 6:6-7 6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out
  and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The
  Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act;
  therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God.

After reading those verses, I often think this was over-reacted. Maybe Uzzah wasn't thinking badly, maybe was he just taking care of the ark of God ?

So what are the deep/fundamental reasons God killed him ?

What's your opinion ?

The implication of Numbers 4:15 is that God forbids non-priests from touching holy things like the Ark of the Covenant.  Apparently, God killed Uzzah because he, not being a priest, touched a holy thing contrary to God's commandment.


Did George Muller have a Biblical basis for not accepting illegitimate orphans? I admired George Muller's works in caring for orphans and his faith in God to provide for his need. However, I find it troubling that he didn't accept illegitimate orphans.

  George Muller was a Prussian who came to Britain in 1829 in order to
  train for Christian missionary service. Some years later, inspired by
  the example of August Francke's orphanage in Halle (founded in 1696),
  George Muller began a similar work in Bristol. Muller's Homes - a
  complex of five gigantic barracks at Ashley Down, Bristol - provided
  accommodation for over sixteen hundred orphans mainly aged from seven
  to twelve years, who received an elementary education and were trained
  for trade or domestic service. The outstanding characteristic of
  Muller's work was that it depended entirely on faith in God: George
  Muller had no personal resources, yet he never asked for money; his
  Institution never went into debt; all his assistants were committed
  Christian believers and, on leaving, children were apprenticed to
  Christian employers or placed in service in Christian homes. His
  orphanages never attempted to be children's hospitals or
  reformatories; incorrigible delinquents were reluctantly expelled,
  and, curiously enough, George Muller did not accept illegitimate
  children. But the scale of Muller's work created a public awareness of
  the problem of orphan children, and aroused Christians to their
  responsibilities. George Muller was one of the early founders of the
  (open) Christian Brethren.

  link
  Emphasis mine

What is his Biblical reason for not accepting illegitimate children?

Update

While searching, I found this article and learned that it was not easy to adopt illegitimate child during their times:

  I know it’s hard to believe, but foundlings [illegitimate children]
  generally died in the streets because there was no home for them, and
  adoption, as it is known today in the western world, has generally been illegal throughout most of history.

-

  British almshouses (poorhouses) were more difficult to get into than
  either of the other institutions [Charles Spurgeon's and Muller's orphanages]
  mentioned in the first paragraph.
  Spurgeon and Muller both lamented the cruel system of gathering
  signatures, securing votes, and the complex paper work necessary to
  place a child into an almshouse. Most almshouses were notoriously
  horrible places. 90% of the foundlings who went into almshouses died
  before reaching 10 years old. It took Thomas Coram, a wealthy retired
  shipbuilder who was shocked to see dead babies in the streets of
  London, years to get legal permission to open the first home for
  foundlings. Afterwords his legal charter was repeatedly debated, and
  at one point rescinded, because saving foundlings was considered a
  corrupting influence on society.

Could it be that George Muller tried to avoid running afoul with the law or is it that, sadly, he shared with the his society the social stigma on illegitimate children?

According to The Life of Trust: Being a Narrative of the Lord's Dealings With George Müller, his autobiography:

  I began the service of caring for children who are bereaved of both parents, by death, born in wedlock, and are in destitute circumstances, on Dec. 9, 1835. —Chapter XVII, "Reaping Bountifully", p. 294.

That, it seems, confirms the criteria he used.  Later he explains his primary purpose in establishing a house for orphans:

  This, then, was the primary reason for establishing the orphan house. I certainly did from my heart desire to be used by God to benefit the bodies of poor children, bereaved of both parents, and seek in other respects, with the help of God, to do them good for this life. I also particularly longed to be used by God in getting the dear orphans trained up in the fear of God; but still, the first and primary object of the work was, and still is, that God might be magnified by the fact that the orphans under my care are provided with all they need, only by prayer and faith, without any one being asked by me or my fellow-laborers, whereby it may be seen that God is faithful still, and hears prayer still. That I was not mistaken, has been abundantly proved since November, 1835, both by the conversion of many sinners who have read the accounts which have been published in connection with this work, and also by the abundance of fruit that has followed in the hearts of the saints, for which, from my inmost soul, I desire to be grateful to God, and the honor and glory of which not only is due to him alone, but which I, by his help, am enabled to ascribe to him.—Chapter VII. "Home for Destitute Orphans", p. 115.

In other words, his goals were in order:

Show that God answers prayers,
Do good for orphans in this life, and
Bring orphans to faith.

He further explains when considering the possibility of opening another house:

  The many distressing cases of children, bereaved of both parents, who have no helper. I have received two hundred and seven orphans within the last sixteen months, and have now seventy-eight waiting for admission, without having vacancies for any. I had about sixty children waiting for admission about sixteen months since, so about two hundred and thirty children have been applied for within these sixteen months. But, humanly speaking, for the next sixteen months the number of applications will be far greater, as the work is now so much more widely known; except it be that persons may hear that the new Orphan House is quite full, and on that account may consider it useless to apply.—Chapter XX, "A New Victory of Faith", p. 366.

He goes further to explain the difficulty orphans who don't have influential sponsors have getting help from other charitable institutions for orphans. Because of this, Müller seems to have been willing to make certain exceptions:

  I feel myself particularly called upon to be the friend of the orphan, by making an easy way for admission, provided it is really a destitute case.—Chapter XX, "A New Victory of Faith", p. 365.

Whether admitting a child born out of wedlock was one possible exception, I don't know.

Summary

Without further information, we can only speculate what his reasons were.  Certainly the general attitude toward marriage and legitimacy played a part.  But limited space and an abundance of applicants likely had a role as well.


According to Catholicism, why do we worship Christ? According to the Catholic understanding of Christology, Worship and the Trinity; would it be accurate to state that we worship Jesus because He is the Person who is the 2nd Person of the Trinity? Stated differently, we worship the Personality of Jesus because that Person is God (the 2nd Person of the Trinity); and not necessarily because He is the God-Man.

That God became Man and wrought our Salvation is a reason to worship God, and by extension, Jesus.

Background: I'm a Catholic and I was thinking about this, but wasn't sure if it would separate the Divinity from Jesus. I came up with this understanding while trying to figure out how to respond to someone who suggests that we worship a human. In the plain sense, I want to say Yes we do- but not because He is human, but because He as a Person is God who simply became incarnate. I wanted to see if this was a sound understanding of why we worship Jesus.

The fact that Jesus is our creator is the main reason why we worship Him.

  "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for
  thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were
  created" (Rev 4:11)

  "Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is
  come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and
  the fountains of waters." (Rev 14:7)

  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
  Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things
  were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was
  made." (John 1:1-3)

The fact that He chose to take on our nature and save us is a demonstration of His infinite love and makes us even more capable of rendering Him worship.


How do theistic evolutionists explain moral reasoning? If you are a theistic evolutionist, then I see two possible explanations for the existence of human moral reasoning.

1) That at some point in the evolution of primates (or even a more distant common ancestor), God bestowed the capability for moral reasoning.

2) That moral reasoning evolved in a sociobiological way just like every other cognitive faculty.

(There may be other explanations, but I suspect they would generally fall under these two broad possibilities).

If 1) is true, then this seems inconsistent with the general view that God used evolutionary processes to produce life, in the way that secular science would suggest. This would place it in contrast to the majority of scientific consensus (which seems to be the primary motivation for theistic evolution)

If 2) then this would seem to undermine the special place that moral reasoning has in relation to humans being made in the image of God.

How have published theistic evolutionists addressed this issue before?

AnswersInGenesis.com did a review of theistic evolutionists positions. One unedited excerpt pertinent to this question is below. The paragraphs in italics of book quotations give succinct answers.

  On the one hand, according to theistic evolutionists, young-earth
  creationists make a mistake to read Genesis 1–3 in a literal sense. On
  the other hand, they cannot consult science on questions of the nature
  of the soul, spirit, and/or the mind to explain their moral sense and
  awareness, for science cannot tell us anything about the existence of
  entities that cannot be studied by their methods. I can put the
  dilemma which theistic evolutionists create for creationists slightly
  different. On the one hand, Scripture cannot make an appeal to
  knowledge, unless sanctioned by science. If it does, then it must wait
  until validated by or accepted by the methods of the scientific
  community. This point is clearly implied by Collins when he said:
  “Science is the only reliable way to understand the natural world...”
  (Collins 2007, p. 6). But on the other hand, immaterial entities such
  as God, the soul, spirit, and mind cannot be invoked to explain our
  moral sense, because “methodological atheism” (to use Murphy’s words)
  has already “discovered” that God, the soul, spirit, mind, self, I or
  me do not exist (see, for example, atheist psychologist Steven Pinker
  2002, pp. 31, 42). Here is how Murphy expressed her agreement with
  methodological atheism:

  [N]euroscience is now completing the Darwinian revolution, bringing the mind into the purview of biology. My claim, in short, is this: all
  of the human capacities once attributed to the immaterial mind or soul
  are now yielding to the insights of neurobiology... (N. Murphy 2006,
  p. 88).

  Elsewhere Murphy (1998) concluded that there is a “massive amount of
  evidence” which suggests that we no longer “need to postulate the
  existence of a soul or mind in order to explain life and
  consciousness” (Brown, Murphy, and Malony 1998, p. 17).11 The real
  reason why she and fellow theistic evolutionists found such “evidence”
  in the neuro-sciences is very simple:

  Immaterial souls just do not fit with what we know about the natural
  world. We human persons evolved by natural selection...[which is] part
  of the natural order, but immaterial souls are not” (Baker 2007,
  p. 341).

From: https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/can-theistic-evolutionism-explain-the-origin-of-morality/


Did Adam and Eve understand death? What did death mean to them? This answer says that the serpent convinced Eve to eat the apple to avoid death by saying "surely not die".

Since they are described as the first people that existed, what could death mean to them?

Every recorded interaction that Adam and Eve had in Genesis portrays them as active, reasoning adults, so there is no particular reason to assume they had less than normal intelligence. That said, there had been no killing in the garden, so Adam would not have had any first hand knowledge, that is true. (Unless if you want to get into the apocraphyal story of Lillith, but that's a whole other story!)

What Adam probably would have understood, however, is the concept of alive and not alive. He was alive before Eve, and while he wasn't awake for it, probably understood ru'ach - breath inside of Eve animating her.

The idea of not having breath, of being inanimate, probably would have made sense, because Adam in naming the animals, would have understood what is not animal, and therefore what is not alive.

What became clear, upon The sin, was the new way in which God was no longer felt. Being scared of God led Adam and Eve to cover up after the fall- so if they didn't know what death was, they learned quickly.

What is strange about the question, however, is the implicit understanding that if Adam and Eve didn't know what death was, then the punishment should not necessarily have been a deterrent.  That postulate itself is questionable, however. An understanding of the consequences is not necessarily a prerequisite for obedience.

If I tell my kids, "you had better do so and so, or else you will be in trouble," is sufficient reason alone to do what I say. Punishments are equally valid even when they only teach lessons after the fact.

That Adam and Eve Died to God that day taught them that God must be obeyed. A lack of understanding of the consequences is not a justifiable defense.


How many copies of the Bible are there per capita? How many Bibles are in existence, at libraries, warehouses, bookstores, etc.?  Also, how many are being produced annually?  I am primarily interested in the United States, but a worldwide figure would also be appreciated.

In many nations Bibles are hard to come by, because owning even a single page is cause for imprisonment and torture.

The latest from Barna Research says there are 4.7 Bibles per household. An interesting New Yorker article (about how publishers love printing new editions of the Bible) touches on the difficulty of estimating such figures, but gives the printed-per-year number as about 25 million. I'm sure that difficulty would be greatly compounded for international figures given the variety of versions, languages, illegal copies, etc. At any rate, I couldn't find any reliable sources with worldwide figures, but the websites that I have found with figures seem to put it in the .5 to 1 Bible per person ballpark.


Is it a common view among Christains that Satan is the lord of this world? As I drove past a church (not sure the denomination) on a country road, the sign out front read "Satan is the lord of this world. Be careful!" Is this a widely accepted view?

If so, how do we explain Matthew 28:18-20 where a resurrected Jesus says "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me"?

According to apostle Paul in Bible, Satan is the "god" of this world 2 Cor 4:4
However the term "god of this world" means the ruler, the one who is being worshiped or obeyed. Satan got that title by deceiving the first Adam and leading him to sin against God (Genesis 3).

However like you said at the resurrection, all power was given to Jesus Matthew 28:18-20 and he gave us back his (power) name (to the church, every born again believer) and at the mention of the name of Jesus that we have received EVERY knees shall bow in heaven, on earth and under the earth Philippians 2:10. Which means, Satan is the "god" of this world and we (born again believers) are "god over Satan and the World". That is why demons flee when we cast them out using the name of Jesus.

In a nutshell, those who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior (Rom 10:9/John 1:12) are the "god of this world". They have authority. So, the church sign board that you saw.. It depends on what they meant by Satan being the Lord of this world.


Was there any case of a homosexual priest in the early Church and how did the Church handle that? Was there any case of a homosexual priest in the early Church and how did the Church handle that (if it occurred)?

St. Basil and Pope St. Siricius (4th cen.) condemned sodomy among those in the religious life.*

*cf. pp. 41-42 (PDF p. 68-69) of Randy Engel's Rite of Sodomy (vol. 1).

In the times of St. Peter Damian (11th cen.), too, the Church has had to deal with the sin of sodomy, which is closely related to the sin of usury, a fact Dante (14th cen.) noted when he put sodomites and usurers in the same circle of hell in his Divine Comedy*, as there is a close connection between sexual and financial sins.**

*Seventh Circle (Violence), ring 3 "sins against nature"**They both involve sterile transactions; cf. Catholic historian E. Michael Jones's Barren Metal: A History of Capitalism as the Conflict between Labor and Usury or "Bankers & Wankers".

St. Peter Damian aided Pope St. Leo IX, who valiantly worked toward combating this issue, by writing the Book of Gomorrah, which contains chapters titled, e.g.:

VII. On rectors of the Church who are soiled with their spiritual children
IX. Just as is the case with those who violate nuns, a prostitutor of monks must be deposed in accordance with the law
X. That both he who falls with his carnal or spiritual daughter, and he who is soiled with his penitential son, should be accountable for the same offense
XVI. Of clerics or monks who persecute males

The following (or similar) law was observed in the Church even before its codification in 1917:

  Canon 2359§ 2. If they [clerics] engage in a delict against the sixth precept of the Decalogue ["Thou shalt not commit adultery", which forbids all sexual sins] with a minor below the age of sixteen, or engage in adultery, debauchery, bestiality, sodomy, pandering, incest with blood-relatives or affines in the first degree, they are suspended, declared infamous, and are deprived of any office, benefice, dignity, responsibility, if they have such, whatsoever, and in more serious cases, they are to be deposed.


Why do adherents in laestadianism consider watching television and listening popular music as sin? Why do adherents in laestadianism consider watching television and listening popular music as sin? Is this true?

I don't know, but I got that idea from this Travel Guide.

  Especially younger Finns speak usually excellent English due to the
  policy of subtitling foreign language movies and TV series instead of
  dubbing them. However, particularly in Northern Finland there is a
  strong religious movement (laestadianism) which considers watching
  television and listening popular music as sin. This may explain why
  English is not as widely spoken in Northern Finland as it is in the
  south of the country.

The Laestadian Lutheran Church (LLC), the American branch of the Laestadians, defines sin by quoting Ro. 14:23 saying sin is "whatsoever is not of faith". One reason they think it's sinful is that there's a whole lot on TV and in popular music that meets that criterion. And since it is part of their mission to promote "Christian values and ethics", seeing any show or movie rated higher than G would pretty much make them hypocrites (some make exceptions for documentaries). It's not the act of watching or listening or the TV or iPod that is sinful, it's the content of what is being seen or heard.

Those who have left the Laestadian church state that there are no rules prohibiting these acts but that they are severely frowned upon. That alone can be enough to deter someone living in such a tightly knit community from going against their group's norms. See these heartfelt testimonies here, and here, and especially here.

The last link is actually a book that is free to read online. If you want an in-depth perspective from someone who knows, it's a great resource. Essentially, it is an apologetic by the author (Edwin Suominen) documenting why he left. It is as objective as an ex-insider can possibly make it. In Section 4.6, he lists and explains what might motivate these two, and a whole host of other, sins. Those motivations include: authoritarianism; Christian asceticism; societal differentiation; keeping people within the fold; selective adherence to biblical edicts; and maintaining ample material for the forgiveness of sins to work with.


Did Thomas actually touch Jesus's side? John 20:24-29
  24Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
  26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
  28Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
  29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

I either always lazily read or remember being taught that Thomas actually touched Jesus's side (or maybe The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio influenced me). But under close reading it appears that Thomas didn't touch Jesus, he merely saw Jesus because the scripture doesn't explicitly say he touched Jesus and Jesus said "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” (emphasis added mine).

Is this a good interpretation and/or is there any other scripture that would support or not support this?

Safe answer: John 20 is the only passage of scripture that discusses this event, so the short answer is - we can't say for sure.  In general, we need to be cautious about "reasoning from an absence of scripture."

My guess: Thomas made a statement to the effect of "I refuse to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and the only thing that could change my mind would be if He Himself appeared and proved it to me".  He is pretty "over the top" with his demand, because not only did he say Jesus had to appear, but that Thomas would have to actually stick his fingers in each of Jesus' wounds!  I think he was trying to make it very clear where he stood on the matter!

Jesus responded by appearing to him and offering to grant his request.  Thomas appears to have been shocked and humbled by this, and seems very repentant, judging by his statement, "My Lord and my God!"  I have a very hard time believing that Thomas proceeded to probe each of His wounds with his fingers, but that's just a guess.


Who was the first person ordered executed by a Roman Catholic pope? I was wondering who and when was the first person executed on orders of a pope or if there is no name information, when was the first such execution.

The first person formally condemned to death by the papacy was Arnold of Brescia (c. 1090 – June 1155), an Italian canon regular from Lombardy. He called on the Church to renounce property ownership and participated in the failed Commune of Rome.

Exiled at least three times and eventually arrested, Arnold was hanged by the papacy, then was burned posthumously and (his ashes) thrown into the River Tiber. Though he failed as a religious reformer and a political leader, his teachings on apostolic poverty gained currency after his death among "Arnoldists" and more widely among Waldensians and the Spiritual Franciscans, though no written word of his has survived the official condemnation. Protestants rank him among the precursors of the Reformation.
After Pope Eugene's death, Pope Adrian IV swiftly took steps to regain control of Rome. He allied with Frederick Barbarossa, who took Rome by force in 1155 after a Holy Week interdict and forced Arnold again into exile. Arnold was seized by Imperial forces and tried by the Roman Curia as a rebel. Importantly, he was never accused of heresy. Faced with the stake, he refused to recant any of his positions. Convicted of rebellion, Arnold was hanged in June and his body burnt. Because he remained a hero to large sections of the Roman people and the minor clergy, his ashes were cast into the Tiber, to prevent his burial place becoming venerated as the shrine of a martyr.
In 1882, after the collapse of Papal temporal powers, the city of Brescia erected a monument to its native son. - Arnold of Brescia Wikipedia)

The first known persons directly ordered to be executed by the a pope himself seems to be the brothers Cardinal Carlo Carafa and Giovanni Carafa, Duke of Paliano, nephews of Paul IV, sentenced to strangulation in prison and beheading, respectively, by Pius IV, as his first public act (March 5, 1561).

Giovanni Carafa (died 5 March 1561), Duke of Paliano, was a papal nephew and minor Italian prince.
After the failure of the Pope's war with Spain in 1558, their notoriety became a liability, and they were banished from Rome on 27 January 1559. Paul IV died in August of that year, and Giovanni and Carlo were put on trial by the new Pope, Pius IV, in July 1560. The trial's proceedings were concluded in March 1561 when, under sealed orders of the Pope, the brothers were executed in Rome. Carlo, as a cardinal, was strangled in the Castel San Angelo, while, two days later, Giovanni was beheaded at the Tor di Nona prison along with two companions. The sentence was overturned under the next pope, Pius V, in 1567, after a petition by their surviving brother, and their prosecutor was executed for having deceived Pius IV. Giovanni Carafa, Duke of Paliano

As for the Cardinal Callo Carafa, Wikipedia reads as follows:

Carlo Carafa (29 March 1517 - 6 March 1561) of a distinguished family of Naples, vicious and talented3 was successively condottiero in the service of France and of Spain, vying for their protectorates in Italy until 1555, when he was made a cardinal,3 to 1559 the all-powerful favourite and Cardinal Nephew of Pope Paul IV Carafa, whose policies he directed and whom he served as papal legate in Paris, Venice and Brussels. According to the Jesuit, later Cardinal, Francesco Sforza Pallavicino, writing the history of the Council of Trent, his subtlety of spirit and grace of address, physical courage and instinct for glory were overridden by his insatiable thirst for power.
In June 1560, Paul's successor, Pope Pius IV arrested the leading members of the family - Carlo, his brother Duke Giovanni, and their nephew the Cardinal Archbishop of Naples, seizing their papers, and levying a range of charges relating to abuses of power during Paul's reign. Carlo was charged with murder, sodomy, and the promotion of Protestantism. After a nine-month trial, he was condemned along with his brother, and was executed by strangulation at Castel Sant' Angelo on the night of 6 March 1561. His execution was considered at the time to have been motivated primarily by political factors such as his pro-French, anti-Spanish policies.
On September 26, 1567, the sentence was declared unjust by Pope Pius V. The memory of the victims was vindicated and their estates restored. Carlo Carafa


Can English people go to Greek Orthodox churches in England? I have been a non-churchgoing Christian now for a couple of years and have really taken Christian values to heart. I have so far learned how sinning was bringing me to a bad place and now I feel in love with humanity again.

I decided I wanted to go to the Orthodox Christian Church but have been terrified of even speaking to them. I have lingering rejection issues from childhood.

The reason I like this Church is not only the Orthodox values, but I feel it would be interesting to worship with Greeks as I already know the alphabet and it might help me to get a fresh perspective on things.

Do Greek Orthodox churches in England welcome and accept English attendees?

First of all, please note that Greek Orthodoxy is one ethnicity/jurisdiction within Eastern Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodox Christians speak many languages and there are generally Orthodox churches in the native language of many countries in the world.

So to answer your question: Yes.

The Greek Orthodox Church has even published the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in English due to the increasing number of non-Greek-speaking people in the Church.

For Eastern Orthodox churches in general, here's a list of English-speaking Orthodox churches in the UK. If you are only interested in Greek Orthodox churches, then check this out. Each Greek Orthodox church will have its own preferences on the language of the Divine Liturgy, with many being blended between English and other languages. You will need to visit to determine what each parish's practice/preferences are.


Did Martin Luther believe in guardian angels? In some traditions, the concept of "guardian angels" is often looked upon with suspicion.  While there might be agreement that angels (generally speaking) protect people (generally speaking), the idea that each individual has an assigned guardian angel for life is met with skepticism. Such an approach is found in Calvin, for example:

  The words of Christ do not mean that a single angel is continually occupied with this or the other person; and such an idea is inconsistent with the whole doctrine of Scripture, which declares that the angels encamp around (Psalm 34:7) the godly, and that not one angel only, but many, have been commissioned to guard every one of the faithful. (commentary on Matthew 18:10)

However, in contrast to Calvin and other later reformers, Martin Luther often had a closer affinity to the beliefs of Catholicism (which does accept the idea of guardian angels).  Thus I'm curious – did Martin Luther believe in guardian angels?

Naturally we'll want to limit this to his post-1517 writings.  But given the amount of evolution in his views on many subjects, great answers will include sources from different periods in his life, not just a single piece of evidence.

With regards to the question as to whether Luther believed that each individual has an assigned guardian angel, from his comments on the subject that I've read, he held that not just one angel looks after each individual but that many do, but whether he believed they're specially assigned to each individual is harder to assess. He held that different ranks of angels are assigned to different ranks of people but that's not quite the same.  Here's an excerpt from his sermon on Matthew 18:1-10 preached on The Day of St. Michael and all Angels in 1532:

What we should learn today is that our Lord God has so ordained that each Christian should have not only one but many angels protecting him, just as each also has his own particular devils who slink after him and, if unable to do more, trouble a person with bad dreams, saddle you with scandalmongers who slander, thwart, and defame you. Be aware that these are all wicked henchmen of the devil and be careful that you do not live as do the heathen; they, too, see and experience such misfortune, but in their thinking it just happens accidentally, for they know nothing about the devil. But let us learn to recognize that this is the accursed devil's doing. On the other hand, when you see that something has turned out well, be ready to say that a good angel prompted it, otherwise things would have gone worse for a person. To illustrate, when a person is saved from a flood or is unharmed when a stone falls on him, this is not luck but the work of a beloved angel.
But there are distinctions among angels, as well as among the devils. Princes and lords have great and special angels, as we see in Daniel 10. Children and common folks have ordinary angels. For there will always be a given angel who is greater, mightier, and wiser than the rest. The same is true, also, of the devils. That explains why, as Christ says, that they belong to a kingdom (Luke 11). For just as many persons and different offices constitute a kingdom, so also among the devils there are different ranks. There are the lesser devils who tempt with adultery, greed, vain arrogance, and other similar sins. But then there are higher spirits who tempt with unbelief, with despair, with heresies, and have misled the factious spirits and the pope. It is extremely important, therefore, that we accustom ourselves to prayer, and in time of grave danger conscientiously petition God not to take from us the protection of the beloved angels, lest we come to nought, for we are too weak for the devil. (pages 380,381; The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Volume 7, published by Baker Book House, 2007)

I need to add something to my answer above. I've come across a statement Luther made two years later in 1534, when he preached on the same feast day, where he says the following:

Also, we are to know for a certainty that every human being has his own appointed angel who looks after and watches over him. We are familiar with the common proverb that expresses people's customary comment when someone is shielded from harm, You had a good angel! or, Your holy angel was with you and protected you. That is well said and, in fact, nicely reminds us of the benefaction God bestows on us through his beloved angels. (page 387, ibid)

So Luther did believe we each have our own guardian angel.


Can one pray for something "bad" to happen to yourself? Short version: In the context of Christianity and in particular the New Testament, is it possible to pray for something that one perceives as "bad" for oneself, and receive it?

Long version: The New Testament states that "Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." (John 14:13-14). Assuming "in my Name" and "Father glorified in the Son" as the two sufficient precondition for a prayer's success, is it possible to intentionally pray for something that one (initially) considers something bad (because one does not see any benefit in its execution), and receive it?

Most prayers that I've come across have a "good" intention, i.e. the issuer of the prayer hopes a benefit of some sort (healing, wealth etc.) Then there's outright evil prayers (death upon someone else etc.).

As an example for the kind of prayer I'm talking about, consider the following situation: A person desires to participate in a regular event. However, due to the nature and schedule of his work, he won't be able to do so because when the events are on, he's at work. Apart from making it somehow possible to reconcile both job and attending the events, one alternative is to accept the futility of reconciling both, and instead asking God to just remove the desire to attend those events. The only benefit lies in the fact that he doesn't struggle any longer with those desires, but that's a rather self-fulfilling benefit. On the flip side, losing an interest is something I consider something "bad" if it is not replaced with something else meaningful.

I have seen many such prayers to be seemingly fulfilled (rather easily, with very little effort, almost immediately, universally whatever the prayer was), which is somewhat concerning, as the Father's glorification is not really clear in these cases. It seems like God opened a prayer trap, as it appears that it is easier to just pray for an increasingly empty life and receive it, rather than have it fulfilled with the joys God can give through his mercy. To draw a comparison: Rather than asking your parents for allowing to stay over at someone else's house, you give up and just never ask and never do a stay over, and accept that as normality. Rather than asking your parents to have some chocolate, you give up and just never ask, and never eat chocolate, and accept that as normality. Where is the benefit in this? While a single such occurrence is certainly ok in everyone's life (there are people who never eat chocolate), all taken together, this seems to lead to lifes not lived to their maximum capacity. How is this reconcilable to the gift of salvation that declares Christians as the Children of God, and the mercy of God that wants to give, not take away?

Short Answer

As a child of God who is right in asking God for joy and fulfillment, do not ask God to remove a desire unless you simultaneously ask for a better one, because God is most glorified when we are satisfied in Him.

General principles

John 14:13-14 has been abused by many not-so-Christian groups so we should be very careful to understand what the writer himself (Apostle John) meant by it.  There is already a fine answer about it, so I will not repeat it here other than saying that it hinges on what "asking in Jesus name" means:

  So when we pray "in Jesus' name" we are praying "according to who Jesus is", that is to say according to his nature as the revelation of God; the salvation of his people; the way, the truth and the life; the gate of salvation. We are praying according to who Jesus most fundamentally is. To pray in Jesus' name is to conform ourselves to that identity.

Another aspect to consider is who is praying: is the person someone who has made Jesus his/her Lord?  Does the person want the "gift" or the "Giver"?  Does the person consider how the request is aligned with the purpose of the Kingdom, one of the utmost reasons why Jesus came to earth?  Even Santa Claus would not give a child a gift that would harm the child, would he?

About "gift of salvation", some Christian groups teach that after we have joined the Kingdom of God (because Jesus has redeemed us) we are now eligible for the blessings that pre-fall Adam forfeited AND the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant because we have been grafted into the olive tree (Rom 11:11-24). This includes receiving answers to our prayers made in Jesus name as long as they are aligned with Jesus's own heart.

Proper way of relinquishing

In my opinion, there are 2 ways of relinquishing a desire.  One is the Buddhist way: simply kill it, because increasing desire is increasing "self" which makes one further away from obtaining Nirvana, conceived as losing one's self (a drop of water) into the vast ocean of "bliss" (but the wrong kind of bliss, according to Christianity).

The other way is the Saints's way, illustrated by Ken Graham's St. Bridgid example.  She relinquished beauty for a better desire, similar to a monk's taking a vow of poverty.  Buddhist poverty is very different than a Christian saint's poverty.  Right desire for a Christian is to align ourselves with what Jesus desires, not to kill it.  The Saints desire the growth of the Kingdom which is established on earth in many ways, which explain why Saints's lives are radically different from one another.  Some worked in the world (like the Jesuits), some retreat into the desert to pray for believers, some build hospitals, some minister to the despised like Mother Teresa, etc.  But all Saints relinquish something personal for a greater good that pleases God.  All Saints don't just ask for something "bad"; they simultaneously ask for something greater to replace the "bad" with.

Application and responses to your questions

Applying the above to the situation you were talking about requires us to know what the event is about.  Rather than reconciling to "futility", the person should instead ask himself how God would have used the event to bless him and others participating in the event.  God works in mysterious way, opening and closing the doors, which should NOT discourage us since our trust is in the Giver.  So rather than NOT asking, the person should instead ask God to reveal His purpose for him in relation to the event.

  Rather than asking your parents to have some chocolate, you give up and just never ask, and never eat chocolate, and accept that as normality. Where is the benefit in this?

I agree with you; there is no benefit in this.  If a parent does this to a child, the parent has harmed the child psychologically!  I personally feel that behind the invitation of John 14:13-14 is a revelation from God to His Kingdom people, who are experiencing hardship in the world of suffering, to NOT give up asking.  Assuming the desire for chocolate is healthy (i.e. not driven by obsession / greediness / substitute for nutritious food), God wants us to keep asking and to praise God when He delivers.  Instead of giving us chocolate, God may want to give us something else that is better for us in the long run, such as chocolate ice cream after we finish a work of mercy to others.

  losing an interest is something I consider "bad" if it is not replaced with something else meaningful.

I totally agree.  So unless relinquishing desire for the event is for a "greater good" (like Ken Graham's St. Bridgid example), then it is suspect.  In St. Brigid's example, her request to make herself look ugly was to pave the way for something far more meaningful: being a consecrated virgin for Jesus.

  Would it be ok for a child tell Santa Claus "Don't bother with this and that toy, I won't be getting it anyway." Would Santa Claus be ok with that, or would he be miffed? And how would that serve Santa other than his Elves don't have to make the toy? God has no material costs incurred when fulfilling a prayer, so how can God benefit from "Pack it in, God. I don't want it any longer!", and how can this serve His kingdom if no such intent is implied in prayer? Lastly, can the rejection (read: giving up) of anything purely due to its unattainability be a token of mercy to the person praying?

Santa Claus / Jesus would be sad. There are a few things wrong with that view:

That attitude seems like a mask for accepting destiny, which is not Christian. Serving in the Kingdom is instead a joyful participation with fellow believers following Jesus to victory! If the thing to be given up is morally wrong, that's a different story.  But giving up a potential blessing to me is contrary to being a child of God.  God may say no to our request (when it's not aligned with his purpose), but He would give us other avenues to bless us.  So closing door would open our desire for another opportunity, not leaving us unfulfilled.
Yes, because of God's unlimited wealth of blessings, God wouldn't "incur material costs" when fulfilling prayer, but it's God's will to share his blessings with us, as is clear in the parables of Jesus and elsewhere in the Bible.  If the blessings don't come in the form we expect then probably we need to adjust our expectation, but ceasing to ask is not the way.
About "token of mercy" it's possible if God considers the request to be harmful for us, but that implies that we ask Him first. As a matter of courtesy, we shouldn't ask God with a stoic expectation / stiff upper lip that it wouldn't matter whether God gives it or not. That's a beggar's mentality, not suitable for a child of God !  What parent likes a child who asks with that attitude?  At best, God would be sad.  We should instead be like Jacob who asks for what he desires and not give up, or like David (when his & Bathsheba's kid was dying) until he found out God says "no".

  It seems like God opened a prayer trap, as it appears that it is easier to just pray for an increasingly empty life and receive it, rather than have it fulfilled with the joys God can give through his mercy.

I agree that praying for empty life (and receive it as though it's God's answer) is WRONG.  Instead, joy should be primary.  For an antidote of that feeling please check out What is Christian Hedonism? by John Piper who says: "Over the years the name that I have given to my understanding of the massive role joy plays not only in the Christian life, but in all of creation and    God’s purposes in it — is Christian Hedonism. And the shortest description  of Christian Hedonism is God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him."


Who first explicitly understood "works of the law" in Galatians 3:10 as referring to only the ritual law, and not the Mosaic law generally? One of the key verses used to defend the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone is Galatians 3:10:

  For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” [ESV]

Proponents of "faith + works" justification often argue that "works of the law" in this verse actually refers to the ritual or ceremonial law, not to the entire Mosaic law, in spite of the word "all" in Paul's quotation.

J. Gresham Machen critiques one such opponent of sola fide and calls his commentary on Galatians "medieval," saying that this sort of exegesis is "a return to the religion of the Middle Ages" (Christianity and Liberalism, 121).  In at least one sense he's right, since this was the typical understanding prior to the Reformation.  But his implication, perhaps, is that this view was not held in the early church.

So my question is: when do we first see an explicit claim that "works of the law" in Galatians 3:10 refers not to the Mosaic law generally but only to a subset of it (i.e., ritual/ceremonial law, excluding moral law)? Is Machen's implication correct, or does such analysis originate in the early church?

Related: In the NPP, if Paul's “works of the law” are only circumcision and diet, how is Galatians 3:10 interpreted?

Marius Victorinus
The earliest clear instance of this interpretation of this verse that I've found appears to be in Marius Victorinus's commentary on Galatians (written mid-4th century).  He describes the "works which belong to Christianity" as:

those works which the apostle frequently commands (and also what has been commanded to him: let us be mindful of the poor) and the additional precepts for living which are included in this apostle's writings.  Each one of these works is commanded by the apostle to be fulfilled by every Christian.

Against these moral instructions he contrasts the "works of the Law":

The works of the Law, then, are something else: religious observances, obviously, offerings of a lamb (although the Passover has now been fulfilled through Christ); and there are further works which they do as well, pertaining to circumcision and foods to be observed or prepared. (source, emphasis in original)

Sadly, a large gap appears in Victorinus's commentary immediately after this section, so we don't know how he develops the theme.  A modern editor, Stephen Cooper, argues that he is pointing out "that there are other works whose obligatory performance by Christians do not bring a curse," not that justification comes from such works.  Even so, the distinction is made – Victorinus makes it clear that he sees at least some aspects of the moral law as not in view in Galatians 3:10.
Origen
An earlier example of this view is found in the writings of Origen (early to middle third century).  Unfortunately, his commentaries on Galatians have been lost, but it seems likely that something like the following would have been included in them.  In his commentary on Romans, 8.7.6, he writes:

One should know that the works that Paul repudiates and frequently criticizes are not the works of righteousness that are commanded in the law, but those in which those who keep the law according to the flesh boast; i.e., the circumcision of the flesh, the sacrificial rituals, the observance of Sabbaths or new moon festivals. (source)

So we see that this is certainly not merely a "medieval" interpretation; at least some in the early church held to it as well.


How does the Tree of Life fit in Evolutionary Creationism I understand how the creation narrative in Genesis can be interpreted to fit within an Evolutionary Creation perspective. In such a paradigm God used Evolution to beautifully create the biodiversity that we see in nature as well as create sufficiently intelligent beings (us humans) to enter into a growing relationship of responsibility and trust with. I can see how the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil can represent both humanities willful disobedience to God’s revealed will (Sin) as well as an image of humanity choosing to determine morality for ourselves, and in the process alienating ourselves from God and suffering spiritual death as the result. Yet, in Genesis 3:22-24 God seems to be afraid of Adam and Eve reaching out and eating of the Tree of Life because they would live forever.
So my questions are as follows:

What does the Tree of Life represent in the Evolutionary Creationist interpretation of Genesis 3?

Why would God be afraid of Adam becoming immortal? Is God not able to prevent such an event?

Physical immortality seems to run counter to natural selection and the cycling of resources and space that is required for evolution to work. If the Tree of Life is what it seems (an antidote to physical death) was it part of God’s plan for Humanity to never suffer physical death? If so why create with a method that requires physical death to begin with?

If the Tree of Life is the antidote to the death that Adam suffered after sinning and that death is Spiritual death then why would God be afraid of him partaking of such a tree? Isn’t this exactly what Jesus is/does for us?

Thank you for your insight. This question is one of the only ones keeping me from feeling that my Biblical faith is compatible with the truth of evolutionary biology.

*cross-posted in Biologos Forum

Q1.  How does the Tree of Life fit in Evolutionary Creationism?

I don't think it does.  Trying to fit the tree of life into the philosophy of evolutionary creationism is like trying to fit a catapult into into the Ferber method of sleep training a baby.  You are taking the description of a physical object with it's purposes and trying to view it through a lens of something that is not related.  The best place to start for a comprehensive view of the tree of life would be to do a biblical search on that phrase and write down observations.

  Q2.  Why would God be afraid of Adam becoming immortal? Is God not
  able to prevent such an event?

First, we would have to justify God being 'afraid'.  While that's an interpretive option, i don't think there's enough evidence to justify "fear" with certainty.  In this chapter we see consequences for sin combined with continual care for the man.  My best guess on how to interpret this section is: 1.  Taking from the tree of life means Adam will live forever and 2.  God didn't want Adam to live forever - maybe it was because Adam has experienced fallen-ness and because of God's love for Adam, He didn't want him to live forever in a fallen state.

  Q3.  If the Tree of Life is what it seems (an antidote to physical death)
  was it part of God’s plan for Humanity to never suffer physical death?

I think so.

  Q4. If so why create with a method that requires physical death to
  begin with?

God created life not death.  This physical death was warned about, the warning was ignored, man sinned, and the consequence of physical death took place.  From the text one could conclude that death could have been completely avoided by not sinning.

  Q5 If the Tree of Life is the antidote to the death that Adam suffered
  after sinning and that death is Spiritual death then why would God be
  afraid of him partaking of such a tree? Isn’t this exactly what Jesus
  is/does for us?

If we observe the details of the resurrected Jesus along with 1 Cor 15, I think the resurrected body is something entirely different than a person in his/her sinful state not being able to physically die.


If God is beyond our comprehension how can we comprehend what he wants? According to many christian practitioners one of their most famous answers to a lot of questions in that "God is above our understanding" or another similar answer.

If this is true then how can we comprehend what god wants from us? The bible is written by many people who aren't God, so how can we base anything off of mere mortals who cannot comprehend such a supreme being?

PS Please no cryptic responses

If by "comprehension" you mean "completely understanding God," then, yes, God is not comprehensible. But if by "comprehension" you mean "knowing God," then, no. God's existence and divinity are knowable to unaided human reason and even demonstrable:

  Rom. 1:20: For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they [the unbelieving Romans] are inexcusable [for not knowing God].

We also know what God wants for us:

  1 Thess. 4:3: For this is the will of God, your sanctification


What effect did the Reformation have inside the Catholic Church? I confess my knowledge of church history branches at about the Reformation. I know a quite a bit about Catholicism today, and I have an idea of what it was before the Reformation. These are not at all the same thing.

What changes inside the Roman Catholic church, either in practice or doctrine, are directly attributed to the events of the Reformation? How soon after the reformation was this change visible/acknowledged?

I found this Wikipedia article on the Counter-Reformation.  Which is apparently a useful phrase to Google for, if you want more information.

Summary of the link:  The biggest responses of the Catholic church to the Reformation were:

The Council of Trent, which was "a commission of cardinals tasked with institutional reform, addressing contentious issues such as corrupt bishops and priests, indulgences, and other financial abuses".
The institution of new Orders of the religious; notably, this includes the Jesuits.


How was Pelagianism originally formally defined? The terms "Pelagianism" and "Semipelagianism" are often used in polemical contexts, but what was specifically anathematized by the church when the Pelagian heresy was originally condemned?

The Council of Carthage (418) was called to address the issue of Pelagius and the charges against him that Jerome and Augustine had brought, as well as Donatus and his own heresy. The council drew up eight canons, condemning a heresy it ascribed to Pelagius. This has become known as Pelagianism.
From the anathemas in the first eight canons of the Council of Carthage, we can deduce the following points of Pelagian doctrine, all of which were condemned at the council:

Grace is not completely necessary for obedience (Canons 3-5)
People are not born sinful (Canon 2)
Death is natural and inevitable, not in any sense a result of sin (Canon 1)
Christians need not call themselves "sinners," or ask for forgiveness, except out of humility (Canons 6-8)

The following summary of Pelagianism from B.B. Warfield in The Plan of Salvation [PDF] therefore seems apt:

[The Pelagians] built up a complete autosoteric system. On the one side this system was protected by the denial of any "fall" suffered by mankind in its first head, and accordingly of any entail of evil, whether of sin or mere weakness, derived from its past history. Every man is born in the same condition in which Adam was created; and every man continues throughout life in the same condition in which he is born. By his fall Adam at most has set us a bad example, which, however, we need not follow unless we choose; and our past sins, while of course we may be called to account for them and must endure righteous punishment on their account, cannot in any way abridge or contract our inherent power of doing what is right. ...  At any moment he chooses, therefore, any man can cease all sinning and from that instant onward be and continue perfect. ...
The Pelagian scheme therefore embraces the following points. God has endowed man with an inalienable freedom of will, by virtue of which he is fully able to do all that can be required of him. To this great gift God has added the gifts of the law and the gospel to illuminate the way of righteousness and to persuade man to walk in it; and even the gift of Christ to supply an expiation for past sins for all who will do righteousness, and especially to set a good example. Those who, under these inducements and in the power of their ineradicable freedom, turn from their sins and do righteousness, will be accepted by the righteous God and rewarded according to their deeds.

According to Warfield in the same document, while Pelagianism ascribed to man "the whole of salvation," Semipelagianism ascribed to man "the initiation of salvation," which the Second Council of Orange (529) condemned. However, Warfield (a Calvinist) laments that the council denied the "certain efficacy" or "irresistibility" of saving grace, which he and many others believe to have been a cardinal doctrine of Augustine's in his fight against Pelagius.
The blogger Turretinfan provides a helpful summary of Warfield's summary. Note that what he refers to as the "sufficiency" of grace is simply what Warfield calls "certain efficacy" or "irresistibility":

In the set of definitions by Warfield:
Pelagianism [condemned at the Council of Carthage] Denies:

The sufficiency of grace;
The necessity of initial grace; and
The general necessity of grace.

Semi-Pelagianism [condemned at the Council of Orange] Denies:

The sufficiency of grace; and
The necessity of initial grace.

Semi-semi-Pelagianism [condemned by Calvinists] Denies:

The sufficiency of grace.


How did Adam and Eve die? I have a few related questions:

How did Adam and Eve die?
Who died first - Adam or Eve?
Were Adam and Eve buried after their deaths?

Adam (and presumably Eve) simply died of old age.

  Genesis 5:5 (NIV)
  5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

As for where they're buried, I don't think that's recorded anywhere in the Bible. Who died first certainly isn't recorded; that bit of trivia likely wouldn't have been important to people of the time.


Who is this cardinal in this picture? Who is this pope's auxiliary? I see him with the Pope in many pictures. Thanks

The answer to your question is Mgr. Guido Marini.
Unfortunately, he is not a Cardinal or even a Bishop.

Mgr. Guido Marini is the Papal Master of Ceremonies also known as the Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations. The title was once known as the Priest Assistant in the days of old.

Guido Marini (born 31 January 1965) is an Italian priest of the Catholic Church, who has been the Master of Pontifical Liturgical Ceremonies since 1 October 2007. Pope Francis has extended his appointment to 2022. He previously served as chief liturgist for the Archdiocese of Genoa.
Marini was named Master of Pontifical Liturgical Ceremonies on 1 October 2007, appointed to another five-year term by Benedict XVI, confirmed in that office by Pope Francis in April 2014, and appointed to another five-year term in 2017. Francis also named him a member of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches on 19 February 2014.
Marini, following his appointment as Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations, restored some traditional elements of papal ceremonial. During his time as Master of Ceremonies the Papal Altar was rearranged. The seven candles and crucifix were placed in a line across the Altar rather than clustered on the sides. This arrangement has become known as the "Benedictine arrangement".
In a January 2010 speech, Marini supported calls in the church for a "reform of the reform" of liturgy. He said: "For some years now, several voices have been heard within church circles talking about the necessity of a new liturgical renewal," adding that a new renewal movement would be "capable of operating a reform of the reform, or rather, move one more step ahead in understanding the authentic spirit of the liturgy and its celebration."
In 2015 Pope Francis made changes to the public ceremony of investiture of the pallium on metropolitan archbishops emphasizing that the investiture is an ecclesial event of the whole diocese, and not merely a juridical or ceremonial event. Marini said that from now on – starting from 29 June this year – the ceremony of investiture of the pallium will take place in the Metropolitan Archbishops' home dioceses and not in the Vatican.
During Marini's time as Master of Ceremonies Pope Benedict ceased to use the papal staff made for Paul VI and began to use an older one made for Pius XI. Due to the weight of that staff, Benedict had his own made which is much lighter, and shares a similar style with the previous one. Pope Francis occasionally makes use of this one also in order to emphasize continuity with his predecessor. He also made decisions about the use of papal vestments at Mass and other pontifical celebrations, dressing Cardinal-Deacons in dalmatics when serving pontifical celebrations.


Do I Belong to Christianity? I've recently started doing bible study with a good friend (a devoted Christian). I started at first out of curiosity about what Christianity really is about. However, as the study went on (half way through Luke, beginning of Romans, and bits and pits elsewhere), I started having more and more questions despite some of my initial questions being answered.

A bit of background about myself: I grew up learning religion is often not a good thing. All my close family members are atheists or just in general don't care much about religion. I would consider myself an atheist, but my friend said I'm agnostic.

I knew very little about Christianity (Jesus and Heaven that's all...) before I started bible study. Now I know a little bit more but of course still very far away from the full picture. However, I'm already filled with so many questions that it's almost painful to go about with my daily life without having them answered. (My friend has done a great job in answering a lot of my questions such as what is trinity, what is heaven, how Jesus has paid for our sins, difference between faith and religion, etc. But even he doesn't have the answers to all my questions...)

In general, I've so far come to really enjoy reading the bible. I've come to really like Jesus as a person (living a life like Jesus's is very admirable in any era). Emotionally, I agree with a lot of what Jesus said. But I can't bring myself to really follow his teaching. There is a part of me that really wants to become a Christian, but I feel like I have no right to be one if I can't (not willing to) even follow what Jesus commands.

Jesus has said to love my enemies and give them all I have. I agree with this, emotionally. Vengeance will only lead to more harm. However, if you really follow this and do not stand up to the evil people who harm you, won't that just give them even more chance to take advantage of you? It's indeed noble that you will do what the evil people won't do (love the enemies). And I really wish I had the courage, determination, and faith to follow it. But as of now, I really cannot bring myself to it.

I've always been taught that one should never do another harm, but in the case of being harmed by another, one should strike back as hard as possible. While I've never really fully agreed with this view, I do take a similar stance: never harm, but if harmed, always seek for justice. Not that I believe this is the right thing to do, but simply the most practical thing to do. I'm really afraid to put myself fully in God and follow Jesus's teaching. I'm afraid others will take advantage of me. Perhaps, I'm just selfish.

Jesus also said not to judge others for only the God can judge us at the end of the time. How should I approach this saying? I agree that none of us is perfect, and very often we accuse others of faults without knowing the full picture. However, does that mean we should never judge others? What if a person commits crimes? Do we condemn him or do we withhold our judgment? What if this person had down great injustice to my family or myself?

I admire the way Jesus lived and wish I had the courage, determination, and faith to follow his teaching. I want to believe in God and I want to believe in Jesus. But as of now, I can't bring myself to. I wonder if my atheist view is simply too deeply rooted in me. Is Christianity really for me?

Any help/guidance is appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Christianity is for everyone.

Your question is more like a "Pastoral Advice" which is less welcomed here. However, let me try to sum up about Christianity, which I think, is what you need.

God's perfect creation: God created man perfectly along with woman (see Genesis 1:27). Everything was fine. No death*, no suffering and no sin.
The fall of man: Satan the deceiver came to the woman and deceived her to disobey God, the man also followed (see Genesis 3). This results in separation of God and man. Man belongs to Satan now. Man is now a sinner by nature and cannot change by himself.
The redemption plan: Then God made a plan to redeem man and his inheritance from the slavery of Satan and sin. God selected a people called Israel and instituted them of the Laws of God and the requirements to purge sins from man. Animal blood was required to receive forgiveness of sins from God. (see Leviticus 4)  Old Testament sacrificial laws are the shadows of the things to come, which is the New Testament.
Jesus Christ paid the penalty: The redemption plan was completed successfully by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He paid the price for our sins by pouring out His own blood as a sacrifice to God for the forgiveness of sins. He died on the cross but was resurrected on the third day.
Salvation through Jesus Christ: Now, by believing in the death and resurrection of Jesus, and by following his commands, God forgives our sins and we become the children of God. We no longer need to try to achieve holiness and perfection. We simply rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us. God no longer demands your perfection but your faith alone.

  John 3:16 (NIV) For God so loved the
  world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him
  shall not perish but have eternal life.

  If you are ready to believe this and receive Jesus Christ in your heart by prayer, you become a Christian! It's simpler than you think but it takes time, of course. It is also important to join any Christian congregation which will help you to grow in your faith.

May God bless you.

*Different Christian groups interpret this differently, some believing literally that nothing (including animals) died prior to the fall of mankind. Other groups say the death mentioned in Genesis was strictly a spritual death (separation of man from God). And there are a number of interpretations that fall somewhere between.


Can a Catholic hold the position that some homosexual priests should be punished by the death penalty? Can Catholics hold the position that some homosexual (=any sexual relation to the other man) priests should be punished by the death penalty? (What about homosexuals in general?)

In his Book of Gomorrah, the Doctor of the Church St. Peter Damian

notes the severe penalties historically attached to such offenses in the Scriptures as well as the canons of Church councils, and argues that such penalties should be even stronger for members of the clergy, who are to be held to a higher standard than the laity. The strongest punishments in the Church’s historic legislation are reserved for those who abuse children and adolescents. They are to be “publicly beaten” and humiliated, “bound in iron chains, worn down with six months of imprisonment, and three days every week to fast on barley bread at sundown,” and confined to a monastery in perpetuity under constant guard.

The Book of Gomorrah: St. Peter Damian's Struggle Against Ecclesiastical Corruption, introduction by translator Hoffman
St. Peter Damian writes in ch. 6 of his Book of Gomorrah that such priests are worthy of death (cf. Rom. 1:32):

May idle prelates of clerics and priests hear! May they hear, and although they might be secure from personal guilt, may they fear themselves to be participants in the guilt of others! Undoubtedly, those who turn a blind eye to the sins of their subjects that they are obligated to correct, also grant to their subjects a license to sin through their ill-considered silence. May they hear, I say, and wisely understand, that all are uniformly worthy of death, indeed, “not only they that do them, but they also who consent to them that do them.”

But, as Hoffman notes (fn. 179),

Damian is not, as some hostile commentators have claimed, recommending the death penalty for sodomy. He is quoting part of Romans 1:29–32, in which the St. Paul lists a large number of sins, including pride, disobedience to parents, dissoluteness, contumely, avarice, sodomy, and others, and concludes that “they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.” The reference is to the gravity of the sin, not a recommendation for capital punishment by the state.

St. Thomas, commentating on Rom. 1:32, seems to agree it is a spiritual (not corporal) death, because he cites Rom. 6:23: "The wages of sin is death."
However, Pope St. Pius V's 1 April 1566 constitution Cum primum treats clerical sodomites similarly to incorrigible heretics:

§. 11. Si quis crimen nefandum contra naturam, propter quod ira Dei venit in filios diffidentiæ, perpetraverit, Curiæ sæculari puniendus tradatur, & si clericus fuerit, omnibus ordinibus degradatus simili pœnæ subiciatur.
[Engl. transl.:] §. 11. If someone commits that nefarious crime against nature that caused divine wrath to be unleashed against the children of iniquity, he will be given over to the secular arm for punishment [of death?*]; and if he is a cleric, he will be subject to the same punishment after having been stripped of all his degrees [of ecclesiastical dignity].

*I don't know what the secular punishment for sodomy was at the time, but, like with heretics, it doesn't seem the Church is opposed to capital punishment of clerical sodomites.
What he says is reminiscent of St. Thomas saying that excommunicated, obstinate, incorrigible heretics should be delivered "to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death".


In Catholicism, is skipping weekly Mass a mortal sin? The statistical blog FiveThirtyEight states:

  Weekly Mass attendance is a natural place to divide Catholics by practice — skipping weekly Mass is a mortal sin, so Catholics who don’t attend as often are likely to view the church differently than those who show up every Sunday.

Is this correct? Is skipping weekly Mass considered to be a mortal sin in Catholicism?

Yes, willfully skipping mass is a grave (mortal) sin.  The key word here is willfully - being physically unable to attend, sick, or having other (legitimate) obligations is a valid excuse for not attending.  From the Catechism:

  The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin. (#2181)

The reason is because not attending mass is considered a violation of the third commandment - "keep holy the Sabbath" - and thus a serious offense against God's will.


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Michael is not Jesus? Many Christians believe that the Archangel Michael is actually Jesus, most notably the Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon.

We have a question asking for the Biblical basis for this belief.

This question asks: what is the Biblical basis against this belief, that Michael is not Jesus, but a separate angelic being?

The "archangel" Michael is named in only three books in the Bible: in Daniel, Revelation, and Jude. While what Daniel and Revelation say about Michael is compatible with the idea that Michael is another name for Jesus, I cannot see how this can be the case for Jude:

Jude 8-9 (NIV): In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings.
But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”

I read these verses as indicating that there were some people in the church whose sins included a faulty self-exaltation over these "celestial beings" and abuse towards the same. Jude contrasts these people with the archangel Michael who evidently did not have authority over the devil, nor did he even think it appropriate to condemn or rebuke the devil in his own name, but only in the name of the Lord. Christians have many different ideas about Satan, and the Bible is thin on details, but it's possible that Satan in his role as The Accuser truly did outrank the other angels, or was at least of the same rank.
But Jesus, the Son of God, has never been in any way subservient to the devil. Satan has never had authority over the Son of God, and Jesus does not need to invoke his Father to rebuke Satan. And when Jesus did directly engage with Satan, seen most clearly in his tempting, I think it shows a very different attitude to that of Michael, with Jesus being willing to directly correct and rebuke Satan.

Matthew 4:9-10 (NIV): Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”


In what ways do human beings reflect God? As far I can tell, being made in the image of God refers to how human beings reflect God's nature since an image, according to Google definition, is "a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art".

In what way, exactly, do we reflect God? Perspectives from any Christian denomination are allowable.

In what ways do human beings reflect God?

The ways we as human beings should in some way reflect the image of our Divine Creator. This may be done in many ways.

To start with let love Jesus with all our heart.

  For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

God has created the heavens and the earth and as such we should be good stewards of his creations. That means we should do the following:

Do not pollute.
Respect and show dignity to all life.
Do not waste what God has given us, in our daily life and try to maintain the earth in good fashion at all times, in our own little ways.

  6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. - John 14:6

We should also imitate Our Lord Jesus Christ to the best best of our ability. He is after all the way to the truth and the life.

  The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:9

As God is love, we should not only love one another, but also our enemies and pray for the conversion of sinners. These things God desires us to do and we should with all our hearts!

  St. Athanasius of Alexandria offered a beautiful image for this teaching. He imagined that each human life was a portrait of God. Because of spiritual blindness, most of these portraits were poorly executed. Some even suffered from outside forces that tarnished and damaged the canvas or frame. Instead of discarding the portraits, God sent the son to sit as a model for a second painting. The incarnate son gives us a clearer image of the divine after which to fashion our lives.

  Our great work, then, is to model our lives on the life of Jesus in the Gospels. In today’s Gospel passage, the beatitudes guide our brushstrokes. Each beatitude is a path to grace, and each time we live one out, the image of Christ shines through a little brighter.

  This is no easy task. Although each beatitude promises a different encounter with grace, the path to each of those encounters often comes through suffering. This is the paradox of Christian life. To encounter the grace we desire, we have to face struggles we might otherwise have tried to avoid. Some of these are the struggles of human existence: poverty, grief, humiliation. Others are struggles we take on to advance the kingdom: living righteously, making peace with and among enemies, showing mercy. Although some of these actions might require exceptional effort, none require extraordinary searching. Opportunities to live the beatitudes come our way each day. It is up to us to accept the grace that is being offered.

  These beatitudes are insights from Jesus’ own spiritual life. He struggled in the ways he describes, but in each struggle he found the grace he promises us. Many of the great saints typify one or more of the beatitudes. St. Francis of Assisi, son of a wealthy family, founded an entire spiritual tradition around poverty—Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven! St. Catherine of Siena braved an assassination attempt and worked tirelessly to end division in the church—Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God! St. Ignatius Loyola, whose dynamic interior life both fascinated and frightened him, developed spiritual techniques to keep his attention fixed on God—Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God! St. Thérèse of Lisieux, who lived in obscurity, has shared her love of Christ with people all over the globe—Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the land!

  The church understands the fundamental ministry of the saints to be holiness itself. This is holiness as Jesus taught it: to stand with the poor and meek, to mourn and show mercy, to burn with a desire to set the world aright and establish peace, to struggle and suffer for God and for each other, and in so doing to become a little more like God, who became like one of us. - How can we reflect the image of God?

Remember you are man and be faithful to the Gospels.


What were the three miracles that St. Stephen performed to be canonized? Why was saint Stephen canonized? I know that you have to perform three miracles   to be canonized, but I don't know what his were.

Veneration of martyrs (such as Saint Stephen) as Saints among the Christian faithful long predated the formal process (to include miracles) which later became a standard and evolved into canonization.  Martyrs were prominent among the early saints venerated by Christians.

  Among other things, persecution sparked the devotion of the saints,
  facilitated the rapid growth and spread of Christianity, prompted
  defenses and explanations of Christianity (the "apologies") and, in
  its aftermath, raised fundamental questions about the nature of the
  church.

Put a different way, you have asked an anachronistic question.  There was no formal requirement for having performed three miracles when Stephen was recognized as a saint. (credit to @bruisedreed, for how to say that concisely).

You will find related questions here and also here.


Does the parable of the Unforgiving Servant have implications re: "once saved, always saved"? My question is coming from a Protestant / Evangelical perspective.

I've always been taught that once one is saved, nothing and no one can snatch him from the Father's hand. That is to say, one cannot lose one's salvation. Now, we know from the parable of the seeds that there are those who come enthusiastically to Christ and then gradually lose interest as the cares of the world 'choke out' their initial interest. That case is pretty clear cut; These people were never saved to begin with.

But the parable of the Unforgiving Servant is different. In this story, the master (God) grants the servant (us) full forgiveness. But the servant's hardness of heart towards those in his debt leads the master to revoke the forgiveness He previously provided, and hand that servant over to be tortured (hell) until the servant's debt is paid in full (for eternity presumably, since our debt to God can never be paid via our own work).

This parable is a bit bewildering to me, to be completely honest. This doesn't appear to be a case of a man who was offered salvation and then demonstrated his rejection of that offer through his lack of good works (i.e. a forgiving attitude toward his peers). Instead, this appears to be a man who had earnestly repented, received salvation, stumbled immediately out of the gate in the sanctification department, and then had the offer of salvation completely revoked as a result.

GotQuestions, which I typically turn to for information on parables, doesn't seem to address the issue at all. So I'll ask the question here: Does the parable of the Unforgiving Servant have implications re: "once saved, always saved" ?

I'm looking for an answer from those who hold the view of "Once Saved, Always Saved" or are familiar with it.

What the parable teaches

Jesus's parables are not comprehensive systematic theology lectures. They teach particular things through analogies but without telling the whole story. What this parable teaches us is:

That our sin is like a zillion dollar debt that we owe to God. It is so immense we can hardly put a number to it, and there is no possible payment plan we could make to repay it.
That God forgives our debt in its entirety because he is supremely compassionate.
That we are not immediately freed from the power of sin, and acquiescing to the temptation of not forgiving our brothers and sisters is so serious that it should make us seriously question whether we have been saved and are living in a way that accords with what God has done for us.

But this parable does not teach us everything about God's forgiveness. In fact, if all you knew of God's forgiveness was this parable, it could lead you to a fundamentally broken understanding of that forgiveness. Because God does not actually just waive our debt with a wave of the hand.

The foundation of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints

The only reason why our debt to God can be forgiven is because his son took on our debt himself. And to pay our zillion dollar debt it cost him the only thing infinitely valuable in the universe, himself. Whenever we come across something which seems odd theologically, one of the first questions to ask is "where is the cross?" This parable has no cross, so that shows us that it cannot be a comprehensive explanation of God's forgiveness.

To understand how Christ's death on the cross enables our forgiveness we have to understand that in the centre of Reformed Theology is the doctrine of Union with Christ. In faith we are united to Jesus Christ by the holy spirit. This union is what applies all of Christ's works to us. In being united to Christ he takes our debt on himself, and not just the debts of all our past sins, but all the debts of our future sins as well. To stretch the financial analogy, being united to Christ is like us having a single joint bank account with him; once he has paid our debt God can only look in our account and see the positive balance of Christ's faithful obedience to God and his law.

Union with Christ also solves the tension of the warning over falling away. It is our being united to Christ that effects our transformation and conformity to Christ; we do not become more like Christ through our own effort, but through God making us be like him. And we know that in this life sin still remains, there will always be temptations, and we will never stop giving into some of them. But with the indwelling Holy Spirit as the guarantee of our eternal salvation and glorification (2 Cor 5:4-5) we can be confident that we won't be lost even if we do sin by not forgiving others. But sin is still extremely serious; it not only grieves God, but eventually it will have to be purged as we go through the furnace of death before being resurrected as sinless new creations (1 Cor 3:11-15).

I think this passage from Colossians 2 shows how all these threads are tied together. Reading this and the parable together will give us a much more well rounded understanding of the forgiveness of God.

  For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ, and you have been filled by him, who is the head over every ruler and authority. You were also circumcised in him with a circumcision not done with hands, by putting off the body of flesh, in the circumcision of Christ, when you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And when you were dead in trespasses and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive with him and forgave us all our trespasses. He erased the certificate of debt, with its obligations, that was against us and opposed to us, and has taken it away by nailing it to the cross. (Colossians 2:9-14, CSB)


Was Jesus good at singing? At Matthew 26: 27-30 we see:

  Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you;   for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.   I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” When they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.

That is perhaps, the only narrative in the Gospels where we see Jesus singing.  There is a school of thought which says that Jesus taught many things, including the Lord's Prayer, in verses. The Catholic Church is yet to come up with a confirmatory statement on the said prospects. Be that as it may, I am eager to know if Jesus was good at singing, just as his forefather David was. Does any apocryphal teaching endorsed by the Catholic Church say that Jesus was good at singing ?

There is no information on the quality of Jesus' singing

The Catena Aurea includes commentaries on this verse from Origen, Bede, Rabanus, Chrysostom, Hilary, and Jerome and not one of them talk about the quality of Jesus' singing. No other commentaries I found talked about Jesus quality of singing either, nor made reference to any extrabiblical traditions.

On the contrary, Isaiah 53:2 (NIV), which Christians say describes Jesus, says as follows:

  He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

While this passage is referring to his physical appearance being unremarkable, it would follow that "he had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him" also with regards to his singing ability.


What is the cross in the mantra "carry your own cross"? Why did Jesus carry the cross and why did he say that everyone should take up their own cross?
And what is the cross anyway?

I believe that we can get a definitive answer on this from the Apostle Paul. He spoke of the Cross as the summation of Christ and His Mission to redeem man.

He stated that the Message of the Cross is the Power and Wisdom of God to those who are saved (1 Cor 1:18, 23), and emphatically stated that he would not preach or know anything other than "Christ and Him Crucified" (1 Cor 2:2). He taught in many places that the very life we have as Christians stems from being planted together with Christ in His Death (Gal 2:20, Romans 6:6). If we compare what Paul says about the Wisdom of God from 1 Cor 1:23 and Eph 3:9-10, we see that he is wrapping up in the term "Cross" the entire, eternal mission of Christ. We can confirm that with Phil 2:8-9. So, when we are to take up His Cross, the Cross, our Cross, being that we are planted together with Him in the likeness of His Death, it means to take up His Redemptive Mission. We are to "seek first the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness" (Matt 6:33) (also flows from Calvary [Rom 3-4]). We are to live by faith in His Blood (Rom 3:25). We are to look to Calvary.

Since Grace flows through faith (Eph 2:8-9), and Satan knows that in order for him to remove us from the Grace of God, he must destroy our faith, he knows that he must eliminate our faith in the Atoning Work of Christ that reconciles us to God. Therefore, with believing properly comes a struggle of faith... a good fight of the faith. (1 Tim 6:12). This struggle (fight, literally "agony") to keep one's faith off of self (the world, the flesh, and the devil all fight against this faith) and unto Christ is what it means to "take up one's Cross". It means to carry the Cross in your faith, which will allow Grace (Eph 2:8-9), which will allow the Holy Spirit to conform us into the Image of Christ  (Rom 8:29, 2 Cor 3:18), which will enable us to build the Kingdom of God in Resurrection Power (Acts 2:8; Romans 6:5).