How was Jesus the Seed of David if Jesus is God who created Man (Adam), and David is the seed of Adam? How is Jesus the Messiah, the seed of David, if Jesus is God, and God created Man (Adam), and David is the seed of Adam? This is a never-ending circle, and can't physically be possible. We are told in the Old Testament that the Messiah will be the seed of David. This prophecy is fulfilled in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Joseph was not the father of Jesus; God was. So if Jesus is God, he is his own Father?

This is very confusing to me.

How has this apparent contradiction—between Jesus being the seed of David and Jesus being God—been resolved by Christian theologians and denominations that affirm the Incarnation: that Jesus is fully human and fully God?

"How is Jesus the Messiah, the seed of David"? Simple: Jesus is the human aspect of the offspring of David. Before that, Jesus was spirit.

Jesus created all things, including humanity, as one of the persons of the Godhead before He was flesh and blood. It was only after Mary gave birth to Him that Jesus became flesh and blood. So this is not a circle.

To clarify your points:

As the Son of God in spirit form, Jesus created all things (John 1:1-3).
The Messianic prophecies foretold of Jesus the Son of God as coming in the flesh, as the offspring of a woman. So Jesus, the Word, became flesh (John 1:14).


Orthodox churches recognized by Catholic Church Which Orthodox churches are recognized by the Catholic church? Are there any churches older than the split that are not recognized by the Catholic Church and that are still active?

Edit: "recognize" can be exemplified by that it is possible for an orthodox to receive a sacrament from a catholic priest.

The Catholic Church allows both Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox churches to receive the sacrament if they request it of their own accord and are properly disposed. However, both Orthodox groups don't recognize that and tell their members they should not.

This came up in my Bulgarian friend's wedding.  His wife is Catholic and he's Orthodox; the church was willing to let his parents take the sacrament but they refused it on that basis.

The Catholics consider the Orthodox sacraments to be valid, but not so much vice versa, is the problem.


Is prayer obligated in Christianity, and if so how many times a day? Is prayer obligated in Christianity (as it's in Judaism and Islam), and if so how many times a day?
I've heard so many different pieces of information and I'm confused about it.

There is no common rule to Christians.
Most monastic traditions know frequent fixed prayer times. They are not fixed by any OT or NT scripture but on the rules of the order or the monastery or convent. Commonly, there are the Laudes in the morning, several hour prayers during the daytime, the Vesper in the evening and the Complet in the night.
Protestants usually pray before the meals (morning, lunch, dinner) and in the sunday service. They may pray at any time they want. There is no fixed obligation for prayer for laic Christians.


Who was house of Chloe? In 1 Corinthians 1:11 Paul says:

  11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by members
  of Chloe’s household, that there is rivalry among you.

Who is Chloe here?

I'm looking to expand my understanding from a historical/traditional perspective. So any extra Biblical source is acceptable.

Looking through several Bible commentaries, it looks like not a lot known definitively about Chloe.
While some have speculated that Chloe refers to a place, most commentators are reasonably sure that the name refers to a person:

Some take Chloe to be the name of a place; a city so called is said to have been in Cappadocia; but it seems rather to have been the name of a woman. Horace (b) several times makes mention of a woman of this name, and so does Martial (c). Pausanias (d) calls the goddess Ceres by it, the goddess of husbandry; the word signifying green grass of the field.
—Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

There is disagreement as to whether she belonged to the church of Corinth or not:

It is uncertain whether she belonged to the Corinthian or to the Ephesian church.
—Vincent's Word Studies
The person the apostle speaks of was one that very probably lived at Corinth, and was a member of the church there, and at the head of a family of great worth and credit…
—Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

It seems likely that the "members of Chloe's household" who provided Paul with the report of the rivalry were slaves

Her name [Chloe] was evidently well known to the Corinthians, and some slaves of her household, probably travelling between Ephesus and Corinth, on their owner’s business, had brought to St. Paul the account of the distracted state of the church in their city.
—Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

The slaves mentioned later in 1 Corinthians may have been those slaves:

It has been conjectured that Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, Corinthians who were now with St. Paul at Ephesus (1 Corinthians 16:16), may have been Chloe's slaves or freedmen.
—Pulpit Commentary

In general though, we don't know much more about her as she is never mentioned beyond this passage.


How to receive the gift of tongues according to the New Testament? 1 Corinthians 14:39 (NIV)

  Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not
  forbid speaking in tongues.

In the early church, the gift of tongues was a common gift which almost everyone received, as we see in the church in Corinth as an example. Paul had to give advice on how to utilize their spiritual gifts in an orderly manner in the church.

However, I can't find any specific method/instruction given in the New Testament on how to receive the gift of tongues. If I want to receive the gift of tongues, what must I do? Is there any instruction given in the New Testament on how to receive the gift of tongues?

The New Testament does not give us a method for receiving the gift of tongues.  On the contrary, we are taught that the Holy Spirit distributes various gifts according to His own will.  Thus, it may not be His will that you or me receive the gift of tongues.

The twelfth chapter of 1 Corinthians is the key text on all of this:

  4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord. 6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit; 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.  1 Corinthians 12:4-11 NASB

So, the Spirit will give believers gifts as He Himself wills--not as we will.  We may desire the greater gifts, but that is all.  From the following passage, it appears the the gift of tongues is not considered one of the greater gifts, as apostleship, prophecy and teaching are given as the first three.

  27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts.  1 Corinthians 12:27-31


What is the falling out between Tullian Tchividjian and The Gospel Coalition about? Recently there has been a falling out between Tullian Tchividjian and The Gospel Coalition. Tullian Tchividjian was requested to move his blog away from The Gospel Coalition website.

Can anyone summarise what this falling out is about? From The Gospel Coalition's announcement below it appears that the issue was about sanctification, but none of the pages below link to where he wrote about it. What exactly did Tullian Tchividjian say that TGC disagreed with?

Some links:

On some recent changes at TGC (The Gospel Coalition's
announcement)
“I’ve come to set the captives free” (Tullian Tchividjian's announcement)
Reflections On My “Break-Up” With The Gospel Coalition (a follow up post by Tullian Tchividjian)

Tullian, in his blog, mentions that over the past several years he felt the messaging of the Gospel Coalition had changed (he used the word "morphed") to the point where he was finding himself for drawn to Liberate's specific message, also saying that

  "So, now is the right time to pull the trigger. In fact, it's probably over due.

It was also noted that he publicly criticized (and I say publicly because it was an interview, which was made public) members of TGC for their defense of CJ Mahaney:

  "the good-old boys club covering up with own"

as well as

  "I've just been sort of disgusted by the whole thing."
  As well as alleging that CJ Mahaney knew about what was going on.

We then have Tim Keller and Don Caron who said he was "asked to leave" because of the sanctification debate, which they said it was becoming apparent that "the dispute was becoming increasingly sharp and divisive."

Tullian said his decision to leave was his own, but the timing was TGC's doing. According to him, no one had even said anything before he was told to leave:

  "No one ever said anything to me from the Gospel Coalition staff, not Don Carson, Tim Keller, the president, the vice president, no one from the Gospel Coalition ever even uttered a word about concern, which is why, when I was told 'You need to go immediately,' I was shocked."

Tullian does not believe it a result of clashing theology, and he himself summed it up best here I think:

  "Theology is not to blame here. You can't blame theology for the way that you handle it. It's good theology in the hand of bad sinners. That becomes dangerous," said Tchividjian. "When the Christian faith becomes little more than theological propositions and categories, you're not actually thinking about how theology serves people, it can become divisive."

http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/51352/20140524/tullian-tchividjian-refutes-tim-keller-d-a-carsons-gospel-coalition-statement-on-his-exit.htm

EDIT: Here's a little bit more from his article with the Christian Post. It appears TGC started taking on a very critical, we're right-your wrong vibe that he didn't agree with. The following is an excerpt:

  Tchividjian believes that some at TGC have adopted a very critical tone. “I think that’s their tone. That has become their tone. That’s not the tone of everybody there but that is the tone of some prominent voices there: critical, very, very quick to point out what’s theologically wrong out there, very slow to pick apart what’s theologically wrong in here in terms of their own position … and I think people pick up on that,” he said.
  Tchividjian, who considers himself Reformed, noted that just because these voices also considered themselves Reformed, one should not see their behavior as the fruits of their doctrine.

  “Theology is not to blame here. You can’t blame theology for the way that you handle it. It’s good theology in the hand of bad sinners. That becomes dangerous,” said Tchividjian. “When the Christian faith becomes little more than theological propositions and categories, you’re not actually thinking about how theology serves people, it can become divisive.“
  “Anytime you associate yourself with a movement, you think that is at the center of the universe, and there is a much larger Christian and Evangelical world out there that is now looking at The Gospel Coalition, which seemed to start out as a positive movement that was for Gospel centrality and cultural engagement,” continued Tchividjian. “And now the tone from all the people I hear and my opinion is very much ‘what we’re against.‘ People just aren’t attracted to that.”


Was there a non-Augustinian response to universalism in the early Church? Most are aware of Augustine's abandonment of his universalism and his later adoption of eternal conscious torment in literal fire. His rejection of universalism is ultimately founded upon a predestination of the elect and a passive reprobation of the damned for the purposes of accomplishing God's love and justice.

In contemporary debates, however, universalists are not only rebutted by Augustinians like Thomists and Calvinists, but are also rebutted by non-Augustinians like Molinist and Arminians.

Were there any teachers in the early Church who offered theological arguments against universalism which were not Augustinian?

Two church fathers who (a) reject Origen's universal salvation and (b)  are not influenced by Augustine are Basil (d. 379) and Chrysostom (d. 407).  Their theological systems, however, are not nearly as well-developed as that of Augustine with respect to the interaction of divine and human will.  More speculatively, Pelagius (d. 420?) may also have assumed anti-universalistic premises in developing his anti-Augustinian theology.
Basil
Brian Edward Daley, The Hope of the Early Church, remarks that Basil was "an admirer of Origen in his younger days" (81) and was closely familiar with his work.  However, in his later years he became "more severe in his own expectations of the future" and found the teaching of judgment valuable for the spiritual development of Christians.
Basil deals with this most clearly in Question 267 of his Shorter Rule, where he calls Matthew 25:46 ("These shall go away into eternal punishment") an "explicit statement" that there is no end of punishment.   The editor of a critical edition, Anna Silvas, comments on the controversy, noting that Basil affirms Origen's "alienation of God" understanding of hell, but rejecting the idea that it has an end (418).  Daley summarizes Basil's comments:

To imagine that the fires of hell will ever go out, he insists, is a deceit of the devil: eternal punishment can no more come to an end than can eternal life. (81)

Thus, we can see Basil rejected universalism. However, he seems to do so on scriptural and prudential grounds, unlike Augustine who developed a theology in defense of an eternal hell.
Chrysostom
Like Basil, Chrysostom saw eschatological themes as a crucial part of his preaching ministry.  And thus he makes repeated reference to them, and explicitly teaches eternal punishment, for example, in his Homilies on Matthew, 43:

But we have a sea of fire, a sea not like that, either in kind or in size, but far greater and fiercer, having its waves of fire, of some strange and horrible fire. A great abyss is there, of most intolerable flame. [...] Concerning that day, hear the prophets, saying, “The day of the Lord is incurable, full of anger and wrath.” For there will be none to stand by, none to rescue, nowhere the face of Christ, so mild and calm. But as those who work in the mines are delivered over to certain cruel men, and see none of their friends, but those only that are set over them; so will it be then also: or rather not so, but even far more grievous. For here it is possible to go unto the king, and entreat, and free the condemned person: but there, no longer; for He permits it not, but they continue in the scorching torment, and in so great anguish, as it is not possible for words to tell.

Chrysostom explains the need for such eternal punishment elsewhere. For example, in his 15th homily on 1 Timothy, he emphasizes the value of fear in constraining sin:

Since the greater part are virtuous from constraint rather than from choice, the principle of fear is of great advantage to them in eradicating their desires. Let us therefore listen to the threatenings of hell fire, that we may be benefited by the wholesome fear of it.

And ultimately, the existence of such punishments is a sign of God's regard for human dignity (in comparison to animals), and of the responsibility men have for their deeds:

For, say, if He did not call us to account, would human life then have endured? Should we not then have fallen into the state of beasts? [...]
In the case of men then, it is a mark of goodness to punish, and of cruelty not to punish, and is it not so in the case of God? So that because He is good, therefore He has prepared a hell.  [...]
The men before the flood, if they had feared the threat, would not have experienced the execution of it. And we, if we fear the threat, shall not expose ourselves to experience the reality. God forbid we should. (Third homily on Philemon)

Daley writes that Chrysostom "often shows a self-consciously anti-Origenist bias" (108) and clearly rejects tenets of that system, like the "the notion that God's punishment is always medicinal" and that "demons have hope of redemption."  He also makes it clear that repentance is not possible after death:

As long as we are here we have good hope, but when we come there, we no longer have it in our power to repent nor to cleanse ourselves from our sins. (Second discourse on Lazarus and the Rich man, 3)

So like Basil, Chrysostom argues against universalism on scriptural and prudential grounds. He sees scripture teaching eternal hell and sees the benefit the doctrine has in scaring sinners away from their sins.
What about Pelagius?
Pelagius, the founder of Pelagianism, was a theologian whose system of thought emphasized the free will of man: he strongly opposed the doctrine of original sin, and claimed that perfection in this life was possible for followers of God.
This system was opposed by the likes of Augustine and Jerome, among others, and many of his beliefs were condemned in AD 418 at the Council of Carthage.  However, none of the condemned views relate specifically to the question of eternal suffering in hell.  And in more recent times, several books have been written on the thought of Pelagius, based on his own writings (not just those of his opponents).
Two such books (both entitled Pelagius), by Robert Evans and John Ferguson, devote significant space to explaining many details of his thought regarding salvation, sin, and grace, but do not cover his views on hell or judgment.
Based on this evidence, it seems likely, but not certain, that Pelagius did hold to the doctrine of eternal torment, or that at least he did not address it.
Thus we might conjecture that Pelagius developed his views on the free will of man while operating on the premise that evildoers would be subjected to eternal suffering in hell.  This seems plausible, as an uncorrupted free will would both allow individual men to avoid hell (if they so choose) and would protect God from the charge of unilaterally sending sinners to hell.  But it is difficult to explicitly demonstrated that this is Pelagius's rationale.
More difficulty arises in that scholarship on Pelagius has tended to show that Pelagius may not have held to what Augustine accused him of. Thus, it is far too difficult to really say if Pelagius actually developed a theological rational for his (probable) belief in an eternal hell.
Summary
So here we see two church fathers, and perhaps a third early church writer, who believed in the eternality of hell, and who did not base their views on those of Augustine.  Basil and Chrysostom see the doctrine of hell as clearly biblical, and reject the spiritual interpretations of Origen that weaken the threat of hell. However, in Basil and Chrysostom there is no systemic, theological explanation for their eschatology as is present in the writings of Augustine and Origen. Therefore, it is likely that if a non-Augustian theology existed in the early Church which explicitly defended the notion of an eternal hell, we can only know of it by speculating.


How widespread is panentheism within Protestant schools of thought? I'm confused about what panentheism is. The Wikipedia article and the few mentions of it here on Stack Exchange both indicate that some Christians identify as panentheists and some don't. I'm guessing it largely comes down to how you define it, but the Oxford English Dictionary has only one definition and I have a hard time seeing what separates it from an orthodox understanding of omnipresence:

panentheism, n.
The theory or belief that God encompasses and interpenetrates the universe but at the same time is greater than and independent of it. Freq. contrasted with pantheism.

Wikipedia mentions that panentheism influences process theology, open theism, universalism, and other doctrines generally regarded as unorthodox, as well as Hinduism, but it doesn't state that such beliefs are a necessary consequence of adhering to panentheism.
My questions, then, are:

What does panentheism imply that a classical Christian formulation of omnipresence does not?

How widespread is panentheism within Protestantism?

What problems do Protestants who reject basic panentheism have with it? By basic panentheism, I mean a panentheism that isn't attached to open theism and the other problematic doctrines mentioned above.

This is a fantastic question. Here's my answer.

Firstly, I would argue that the definition you use from Oxford English Dictionary is actually not as encompassing of the actual theology as it could be. Going against Oxford English Dictionary is a bold claim, so I'll provide another definition.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

  “Panentheism” is a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms “pan”, meaning all, “en”, meaning in, and “theism”, meaning God. Panentheism considers God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. It offers an increasingly popular alternative to both traditional theism and pantheism. Panentheism seeks to avoid either isolating God from the world as traditional theism often does or identifying God with the world as pantheism does. Traditional theistic systems emphasize the difference between God and the world while panentheism stresses God's active presence in the world. Pantheism emphasizes God's presence in the world but panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine.

With this more elaborate denotation we can move on to the questions.

  What does panentheism imply that a classical Christian formulation of omnipresence does not?

Panentheism implies that creation itself is 'in' God, and that God is 'in' creation. The latter phraseology does not seem very threatening to classical theists. So it is that Thomas Aquinas writes the following:

  God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works. For an agent must be joined to that wherein it acts immediately and touch it by its power.

Aquinas, who is often regarded as the greatest classical theistic thinker of all time, makes note of the difference between two understandings of how God is present in all things; though Aquinas does not name them, it is clear to the reader that Aquinas is comparing panentheism and omnipresence. While God is 'in' all things, God is not in the essence of the said things, but rather is present to them, so as to ground their own essence in His essence of 'being'. This is very complicated speech for one unfamiliar with Aristotelian language.

To simplify the argument, think about moving a ball. The essence of the ball's motion is grounded in your moving it, but in some capacity there is a distinction between yourself and the moving ball as regards the nature of movement in both. You are not 'in' the motion of the ball; your type of 'motion' is the independent source of the moving ball. This analogy is primitive and should not be too deeply analyzed, but it is somewhat a more simple way of looking at the panentheism-omnipresence discussion. Panentheism holds that God is in the reality of our being, as a part of our essence. It holds that your movement is 'in' the ball, as a part of its own essence. Omnipresence holds that God is present to creation in order to sustain their independent essences of 'being'. It holds that your movement is distinct from the ball's movement, and that the ball's movement is due to your presence, that is by necessity outside of itself entirely, but also 'present' to and 'in' the ball. God in His entirety is not within and bound to His creation anymore than you are within the ball; God is present to the creation, just as you are present to the ball. Omnipresence does not imply that God is within everything's essence; only that He is present to everything's essence, sustaining its existence.

Although panentheism might seem the more 'mystical' and 'complicated' view of God, it holds poorly against the far more mysterious doctrine of omnipresence. Panentheism can be dismissed in a rather short paragraph. Omnipresence requires far more extensive understanding of the universe and God.

  How widespread is panentheism within Protestantism?

The most predominant denomination that I would say actually supports panentheism (the real deal, not Orthodox or Roman Catholic 'mysticism') is the Unitarian Church. As of 2012 there were about 343,000 adherents to Unitarian Universalism worldwide. The problem with noticing panentheism's influence is in the obscurity of its meaning; it is very closely associated with omnipresence and many people who state that God is 'in' creation typically do not mean it in the way panentheism is implying. As stated above, I don't buy into attempts to think that many Orthodox and Catholic thinkers hold to panentheism. The result of people believing such is likely selective reading and a misinterpretation of poetical speech.

  What problems do Protestants who reject basic panentheism have with it? By basic panentheism, I mean a panentheism that isn't attached to open theism and the other problematic doctrines mentioned above.

The problem with panentheism as a philosophy remains the same in its most basic sense without any additional interpretations or doctrines added to it. It is this same problem that most Protestants understand if they reject panentheism. Famous Protestant theologian William Lane Craig thus writes the following:

  It should go without saying that the justification for panentheism cannot be biblical revelation or teaching. For the Bible knows nothing of the doctrine that the world is part of God.


What is the biblical basis for the belief that Satan was the serpent in the Garden of Eden? This seems to be the generally accepted belief, and it's taught to children in Sunday School in many churches, but is there biblical basis for it? Here's the actual text:

  1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the
  Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye
  shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto
  the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But
  of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath
  said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
  4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For
  God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be
  opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the
  woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to
  the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the
  fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her;
  and he did eat.

  —Genesis 3:1-6

What biblical basis is there for this belief? I did see another question addressing Satan being referred to as a serpent a lot in the bible, but then there are verses like John 3:14, where Jesus makes an analogy where he is a serpent:

  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the
  Son of man be lifted up:

People may say that this is a trivial and unimportant question, but I think it has serious implications on whose fault sin is. If it's Satan, who is still here today, maybe it is as some churches make it out to be, that the only reason anyone sins is because of Satan, and that if he were to be stricken from existence, we would no longer sin. If it wasn't Satan, that leaves open the possibility of us actually voluntarily sinning, back then and today. Thanks in advance :)

(This is the 6,000th question :))

The answer to the question regarding the first book of the Bible actually comes from the last book of the Bible:

And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.  Revelation 12:9 NASB
And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.  Revelation 20:2 NASB

It is understood by many that "the serpent of the old" ties back to Genesis 3, where the serpent deceived the woman, and through her, the entire world.
The Serpent in John 3:14 does not refer back to Genesis 3, but to Numbers 21, which gives the account of the Israelites in the wilderness. God sent a plague of "fiery serpents" to punish the people for their rebellion against Him. The cure for the fashioning of a serpent and raising it up on a pole. Anyone who looked up on the serpent, having been bitten, would be healed. Jesus makes the connection to looking upon Him with faith, as He would be raised up on the Cross. The bronze serpent is a type of Christ and really illustrates the Gospel quite well.

And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived.  Numbers 21:9 NASB


Could the Pope be removed from office for lapses in judgment? While the question is brushed up against in What would happen if the Pope were to abuse his power?, that question focused more on heresy and the Pope's ability to make heretical statements under ex cathedra (i.e. The Pope instructs Catholics to practice open idolatry). My question is broader in the sense that any man is fallible and may make errors in judgment not related to doctrine that could harm the Catholic Church as a body. What options exist to remove a sitting Pope who has committed egregious errors that have damaged the credibility of The Church (and/or the position), but refuses to step down? Or is the position itself unimpeachable under all circumstances?

A valid Pope's subjects cannot depose him. That would be conciliarism, which Fr. John Hardon, S.J., in his Modern Catholic Dictionary as:

The theory that a general council of the Church is higher in authority than the Pope. It began in the fourteenth century, when respect for the papacy was undermined by confusion in Church and State. William of Ockham (1280-1349), in his battle with Pope John XXII (c. 1249-1334), questioned the divine institution of the primacy. Marsilius of Padua (1324) and John Jandun (1324) declared it was only a primacy of honor. During the great Western Schism (1378-1417) many otherwise reputable theologians, such as Peter of Ailly (1394) and John Gerson (1409) saw in the doctrine of the council's superiority over the Pope the only means of once more reuniting a divided Church. The viewpoint appeared that the Church in general was free from error, but the Church of Rome could err, and in fact had erred and fallen into heresy. The Council of Constance (1414-18), in its fourth and fifth sessions, declared for the superiority of council over Pope. However, these decisions never received papal approbation. In Gallicanism the conciliarist theory lived on for hundreds of years. Conciliarism was formally condemned by the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which defined papal primacy, declaring that the Pope had "full and supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world." He therefore possesses not merely the principal part but "all the fullness of this supreme power." Moreover, this power is ordinary or constant, and immediate or direct; it extends the Pope's authority over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the churches, whether local or territorial, and over each and all the pastors and the faithful (Denzinger, 3063).
In more recent times, conciliarism has been renewed by those who appeal to a "magisterium of theologians" or "consensus of the people of God" against ordinary or even solemn teachings of the popes. (Etym. Latin concilium, council, assembly for consultation.)

(source: this answer)


According to Catholicism and Revelation are we going to be able to eat meat in Heaven or the Garden of Eden? Will be able to eat meat or will we be like Adam and Eve eating a non-meat based diet in heaven or the Garden of Eden?

According to Catholicism and Revelation are we going to be able to eat meat in Heaven or the Garden of Eden?

Interesting question as it deals with two separate locations in one question.

We might eat in heaven and the Prophets Elijah and Enoch might also eat in the Garden of Eden, but meat would not be found in either.

First of all we can suppress the idea that we are not talking about any random restaurant which may incidental be called Heaven.

St. Thomas says that animals will not be in heaven:

  Will there be animals in Heaven?Are there animals in Heaven?

  St. Thomas Aquinas says no. I say yes. Please keep this in mind for the rest of this column: while the Church has never taught definitively on either side of the question, St. Thomas Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church. He is The Man when it comes to all things theological. I am a doctor of nothing. Let’s allow the Doctors to be the people we pay more attention to. If you are interested in reading why St. Thomas Aquinas arrives at his theological opinion, you can find his argument online if you click here. This was written for graduate students who had completed five years of study in philosophy. If you find his argument simplistic, it may be one’s ability to understand the nuance of his argument that is lacking rather than his argument.

As for responding to this question, I would like to treat the ideas of Heaven and the Garden of Eden as two separate places.

Will we eat food in heaven?

  Many people ask whether we will eat food in heaven because eating is not only necessary to stay alive, but it is also so very enjoyable! Because eating is enjoyable, many people conclude that what is enjoyable on earth (sex, family relationships, etc.) will naturally be present in heaven. Although the Bible does not give us a detailed answer to the question of eating food in heaven, a few observations from the Scriptures are in order.

  It is interesting to note that when the Lord Jesus celebrated the Passover with His disciples shortly before His crucifixion, He referred to eating and drinking in the kingdom. “Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the Kingdom of God’” (Mark 14:25). The earthly millennial kingdom is certainly in view here, and in that kingdom all who are His followers will have already received their resurrection bodies. It would appear from this statement that we, in our glorified bodies, will eat and drink in the millennial kingdom. But what about the heavenly kingdom?

  When John the Apostle was given a vision of the New Jerusalem, he was shown “a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse…” (Revelation 22:1-3). The text does not say whether we will actually eat the fruit of the tree of life, but that is certainly possible.

  If we will be eating in heaven, we don’t know for sure what the heavenly menu may contain, although it has been suggested that perhaps our diet will be like that of Adam and Eve in paradise before the fall. “And God said, ‘See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food’” (Genesis 1:29).

  In the end, we don’t really know if, or what, we will eat in heaven. Believers only “know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9). The joys of being forever with our Savior who is the Bread of Life are beyond our limited abilities to comprehend, for “it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, even as He is pure” (1 John 3:2-3).

At a Catholic viewpoint Heaven and the Garden of Eden are not the same place.

Many believe that the earthly paradise, known as the Garden of Eden no longer exists. However this go against the constant tradition of the Church. Tradition places the Two Witnesses from the Book of Revelation in the Garden of Eden waiting for their allotted time to bare testimony to the truth in the last days.

So where is the Garden of Eden and what do the two Prophets eat?

  On the last day of liturgical season of Advent, the Church reads the concluding verses of the Old Testament prophecy of Malachi. These verses explicitly forecast the miraculous arrival of the real prophet Elijah to the Earth from Paradise so as to perform a mission in preparation for the Return of Jesus. It is also written and implied in other books that the ancient Enoch will return with Elijah. Here is a summary of all the writings concerning this predicted event: See the following article - The Future Return of Enoch and Elijah

In essence, the Church has no idea where the Earthly Paradise is located, but Scripture, tradition and various Catholic mystics gives us glimpses to various possibilities.

St. Thomas tells us that both of the Prophets Enoch and Elijah are in the Garden of Eden which is situated in what he calls an atmospheric heaven. Where exactly this is he does not say.

  Enoch lived before the great Flood. We read the following about him:

  “And all the days of Henoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. And he walked with God, and was seen no more: because God took him.” (Genesis 5:23–24, D-R)
  Concerning Elias we read that he was taken up in a Chariot of Fire:

  “And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold, a fiery chariot and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” (2 Kings 2:11, D-R)

  As you can see, these two men did not die. According to St Thomas Aquinas, they are preserved in the atmospheric heaven (which is identified with earthly paradise), but not in the empyrean heaven (Heaven proper). See Summa theologiae III, q. 49, a. 5.

  Saint Thomas, in agreement with the Church Fathers explains why Enoch and Elias are waiting out there in outer space. Saint Thomas writes these two men will return at the end of time to do battle with the Antichrist. It is unthinkable that these two men would never die since this is contrary to the Apostolic teaching:

  “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:” (Hebrews 9:27, D-R)

  Enoch will evangelize and organize the Jews who will seek baptism and convert to the Catholic Faith during the reign of the Antichrist. Elijah will evangelize and organize the last wave of Gentiles that will convert to Christ during the Antichrist’s reign of terror. Both prophets will be slain, rise again, and ascend to Heaven as explained in Apocalypse chapter 11.

  I cannot help but wonder about the identity of “atmospheric heaven.” Saint Thomas Aquinas sees it as synonymous with “earthly paradise.” This could be a location in “outer space.” It could be a place hidden on earth. Or perhaps it is the Garden of Eden transferred to another place. There state, I imagine, would be one of natural paradise without the beatific vision. - Enoch and Elias are in the Atmosphere…They will return to battle the Antichrist

The Catholic mystic Blessed Catherine Emmerich has this to say about the Garden of Eden:

  I now see Paradise far, far off like a strip of land directly under the point of sunrise. When the sun rises, it mounts up from the right of that strip of land which lies east of the Prophet Mountain and just where the sun rises. It looks to me like an egg hanging over indescribably clear water which separates it from the earth. The Prophet Mountain is, as it were, a promontory rising up through that water. On that mountain, one sees extraordinarily verdant regions broken here and there by deep abysses and ravines full of water. I have, indeed, seen people climbing up the Prophet Mountain, but they did not go far.

  Flesh meat was not eaten before Abel's death. - Life of Jesus Christ by Anne Catherine Emmerich, 1774-1824, Vol 1

Mount Ararat, like an egg...over water. Where is the Garden of Eden now and does an angel with a flaming sword still guard it?

No sources say that meat will be eaten in either Heaven or the Earthly Paradise called Eden.

Eden will cease to exist when this world passes away.


How would a Catholic explain the absence of the mass in the Epistle to the Hebrews? I noticed Hebrews is really the place where the Priesthood is discussed as how the priestly ceremonies are related to the Christian faith. It seem rather complete and in depth. Hebrews says a whole lot about the priesthood and even goes into ‘great depth’ explaining things ‘difficult to understand’. It covers many great mysteries fulfilled in Christ through the priesthood.

As far as I know, Catholics view the mass as kind of mystical repetition of the sacrifice of Christ. Not that Christ is sacrificed again but that his one and only past sacrifice is somehow 'redone' by himself in an unexplainable way. Catholic priests officiate in the mass so that Christ, as the high priest ‘sacrifices himself’ in the present tense. This is done in order to further sanctify those who partake of the ceremony.  If this were true, I can’t fathom why the author of the Hebrews would not somewhere indicate recognition of the existence of this practice. Would he not link it into his teaching of the priesthood and the high priest? If believers were regularly partaking in a ‘mass’ with an understanding that Christ was sacrificed over and over, why does the Epistle to the Hebrews not seem to be aware of such an important aspect of the priesthood while it explains the meaning of the priesthood?

The Epistle to the Hebrews is not aware of the Mass because it is not a person. It's a letter on a certain subject to certain people. It talks about the High Priesthood; it isn't an instruction manual on what today has come to be called the Mass. Not all teachings will be in all books.

Hebrews isn't an instruction manual for saying the Mass. It's a letter directed to Jewish Christians in danger of apostasy (Hebrews 2:1), explaining the sacrifice of Christ with particular emphasis on themes in the Old Testament that would have been very familiar to the audience. It is by not intended to be comprehensive ("I have written to you rather briefly", Hebrews 13:22), but it does mean to explore in-depth a particular theme. The author invokes Melchizedek and the High Priesthood, and stresses the importance of Christ's precious blood, in comparison to the blood of animals. He calls the bloody sacrifices that came before, now abolished, mere shadows of Christ's perpetual sacrifice. The High Priesthood of Christ is the primary message, and it's directed to those who have lost clear sight of even basic teachings:

  Hebrews 5
  [...] 8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered;
  9 and when he was made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him,
  10 declared by God high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.
  11 About this we have much to say, and it is difficult to explain, for you have become sluggish in hearing.
  12 Although you should be teachers by this time, you need to have someone teach you again the basic elements of the utterances of God. You need milk, [and] not solid food.

So he would prefer to discuss the basics, but the problem, he judges, has now advanced far beyond the basics, and can only be remedied by detailed discussion of the High Priesthood of Christ.

Not all teachings will be repeated in all books, and the books will have different themes and will emphasize different points. For example, the following teaching (on an aspect of what today is called the Mass) is also not present in Hebrews:

  1 Corinthians 11
  26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
  27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
  28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
  29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Apparently, there is something very important about not eating the bread, not drinking the cup. Does "drinking" mean that you should not try to have faith if you are unworthy? That you should not do good if you are unworthy? Or that you should starve until you are worthy? No, it means you must literally not drink and eat something (Someone, Catholics might say, but let's not get into that), because "proclaiming the death of the Lord" with His blood on your own hands is going to end badly for you. Where is this vital teaching in Hebrews? Nowhere, because in Hebrews something else was at issue: Jewish Christians focused on bloody sacrifices, and not the sacrifice of the High Priest.

For the record, some Catholics do use Hebrews to talk extensively on the subject of the Eucharist. I found, for example, "The Eucharist as the Meal of Melchizedek". Two relevant paragraphs can be found in that document by searching for "clean priesthood" and "brick in the face".


Are there rules regarding the content of Roman Catholic artwork? It stands to reason that one cannot display anything that one desires within a Roman Catholic place of worship.  In regards to paintings, statuary, stained glass, and iconography on display withing Roman Catholic facilities (churches, schools, monestaries, etc.), are there rules or guidelines regarding what may or may not be depicted?
For instance, one would never expect to see a statue of the Virgin Mary holding a second infant child.  Obviously this is because Roman Catholicism holds to the perpetual virginity of Mary, but is the dogmatic content of the faith the only rule to follow?  Is the decision left to the individual parish/diocese or are there official rules or guidelines determined farther up the hierarchy?  Where might one find such guidelines?

Are there rules regarding the content of Roman Catholic artwork?
Of coarse there are guidelines, but they are merely to be seen as general norms to be followed. For details about a specific piece of art, one has to try to find a particular decree or pronouncement about it.
Catholic art is art produced by or for members of the Catholic Church. This includes visual art (iconography), sculpture, decorative arts, applied arts, and architecture. In a broader sense, Catholic music and other art may be included as well.
Christian art is nearly as old as Christianity itself. The oldest Christian sculptures are from Roman sarcophagi, dating to the beginning of the 2nd century. As a persecuted sect, however, the earliest Christian images were arcane and meant to be intelligible only to the initiated. Early Christian symbols include the dove, the fish, the lamb, the cross, symbolic representation of the Four Evangelists as beasts, and the Good Shepherd. Early Christians also adapted Roman decorative motifs like the peacock, grapevines, and the good shepherd. It is in the Catacombs of Rome that recognizable representations of Christian figures first appear in number.
In the final session of the Council of Trent in 1563, included a short and rather inexplicit passages concerning religious images, which were to have great impact on the development of Catholic art. Previous Catholic Church councils had rarely felt the need to pronounce on these matters, unlike Orthodox ones which have often ruled on specific types of images.
Images are to be approved of by the local bishop! In cases of doubt one is to proceed to Rome.
The following decree confirmed the traditional doctrine that images only represented the person depicted, and that veneration to them was paid to the person themselves, not the image:

On the Invocation, Veneration, and Relics of the Saints and on Sacred Images
The holy Synod enjoins on all bishops, and others who sustain the office and charge of teaching, that, agreeably to the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and agreeably to the consent of the holy Fathers, and to the decrees of sacred Councils, they especially instruct the faithful diligently concerning the intercession and invocation of saints; the honour (paid) to [Page 234] relics; and the legitimate use of images: teaching them, that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, (and) help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer and Saviour; but that they think impiously, who deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invocated; or who assert either that they do not pray for men; or, that the invocation of them to pray for each of us even in particular, is idolatry; or, that it is repugnant to the word of God; and is opposed to the honour of the one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus; or, that it is foolish to supplicate, vocally, or mentally, those who reign in heaven. Also, that the holy bodies of holy martyrs, and of others now living with Christ,-which bodies were the living members of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Ghost, and which are by Him to be raised unto eternal life, and to be glorified,--are to be venerated by the faithful; through which (bodies) many benefits are bestowed by God on men; so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of saints; or, that these, and other sacred monuments, are uselessly honoured by the faithful; and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid; are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and now also condemns them.
Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed [Page 235] their hope in idols; but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images.
And the bishops shall carefully teach this,-that, by means of the histories of the mysteries of our Redemption, portrayed by paintings or other representations, the people is instructed, and confirmed in (the habit of) remembering, and continually revolving in mind the articles of faith; as also that great profit is derived from all sacred images, not only because the people are thereby admonished of the benefits and gifts bestowed upon them by Christ, but also because the miracles which God has performed by means of the saints, and their salutary examples, are set before the eyes of the faithful; that so they may give God thanks for those things; may order their own lives and manners in imitation of the saints; and may be excited to adore and love God, and to cultivate piety. But if any one shall teach, or entertain sentiments, contrary to these decrees; let him be anathema.
And if any abuses have crept in amongst these holy and salutary observances, the holy Synod ardently desires that they be utterly abolished; in such wise that no images, (suggestive) of false doctrine, and furnishing occasion of dangerous error to the uneducated, be set up. And if at times, when expedient for the unlettered people; it happen that the facts and narratives of sacred Scripture are portrayed and represented; the people shall be taught, that not thereby is the Divinity represented, as though it could be seen by the eyes of the body, or be portrayed by colours or figures.
Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished; finally, all lasciviousness be [Page 236] avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust; nor the celebration of the saints, and the visitation of relics be by any perverted into revellings and drunkenness; as if festivals are celebrated to the honour of the saints by luxury and wantonness.
In fine, let so great care and diligence be used herein by bishops, as that there be nothing seen that is disorderly, or that is unbecomingly or confusedly arranged, nothing that is profane, nothing indecorous, seeing that holiness becometh the house of God.
And that these things may be the more faithfully observed, the holy Synod ordains, that no one be allowed to place, or cause to be placed, any unusual image, in any place, or church, howsoever exempted, except that image have been approved of by the bishop: also, that no new miracles are to be acknowledged, or new relics recognised, unless the said bishop has taken cognizance and approved thereof; who, as soon as he has obtained some certain information in regard to these matters, shall, after having taken the advice of theologians, and of other pious men, act therein as he shall judge to be consonant with truth and piety. But if any doubtful, or difficult abuse has to be extirpated; or, in fine, if any more grave question shall arise touching these matters, the bishop, before deciding the controversy, shall await the sentence of the metropolitan and of the bishops of the province, in a provincial Council; yet so, that nothing new, or that previously has not been usual in the Church, shall be resolved on, without having first consulted the most holy Roman Pontiff.

A few cases that I am aware of that have been forbidden by the Church includes those depicting Mary wearing priestly vestments.

First of all I would like to refer to the question of the title of priest attributed to the Virgin in tradition. A writer of the end of the fifth century calls Mary "Virgin, and at the same time priest, and altar who has given us Christ -- bread of Heaven for the remission of sins."1 After this, there were frequent references to the topic of Mary as priest, which subsequently became the object of theological developments in the 17th century, in the French school of St. Sulpice. In it, Mary's priesthood is not placed so much in the context of a relationship with the ministerial priesthood, but rather with that of Christ.
At the end of the 19th century a true and proper devotion to the Virgin-priest spread, and St. Pius X even accorded an indulgence to its relative practice. However, when the danger was perceived of confusing the priesthood of Mary with the ministerial priesthood, the magisterium of the Church became reticent and two interventions of the Holy Office practically put an end to such devotion.2
After the council, the priesthood of Mary is still spoken of, but it is no longer linked to the ministerial priesthood nor to the supreme priesthood of Christ, but rather to the universal priesthood of the faithful. As figure and first fruits of the Church, she possessed in a personal way that "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9), that all the baptized possess in a collective way. - Mary, Mother and Model of the Priest Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, OFMCap, Pontifical Household Preacher

Thus images depicting Mary as a priest are now forbidden.

Pope Pius X was originally in favour of this!

"In 1906, Pope Pius X approved a prayer which says "Mary, Virgin Priest, pray for us." (emphasis mine). However, a Holy Office decree of 1916 forbade the use of any image that had Mary wearing vestments – some say for fear of the possibilty of an argument for women’s ordination, others that Mary as a priest was a metaphorical image taken too far."- The Priesthood of Mary

The Church sets out that specific colours are to be used within the liturgy for particular liturgical seasons. She also apparently forbids skull and crossbones as well as memento mori or images of the dead (imagines mortuorum) are forbidden on sacred vestments.

Over the years I have shared many photos of black requiem vestments replete with skulls, scythes, bones, even the poor souls in Purgatory. These vestments usually inspire a great deal of interest for reason of their relative rarity and also for reason of these symbols. Reaction to them is either one of great interest or, alternatively, a certain hesitancy and discomfort.
Most of the extant examples of this sort of work comes from the 18th century. In the realm of liturgical books we also find a number examples from the first half of the 19th century. Interestingly, however, such inclusions -- at least as far as paraments were concerned -- were already excluded at least as early as the 1600 edition of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum. The text of the C.E. notes that images of the dead (imagines mortuorum), as well as white crosses (cruces albae), were not permitted on the paraments of the altar, the sacred ministers' vestments, the seldom used missal covering, for the coverings of the faldstool and so on. (See Book II, Chapter XI, No. 1) Later, in the 19th century, clarification was asked of the Sacred Congregation of Rites as to whether the prohibition against images of the dead was meant to only exclude those of the souls in purgatory as opposed to skulls and such, however the answer came back in the negative. It excluded both. (See SRC 4174.)

Here follows three examples of images that are forbidden on sacred vestments:

One last source I would like to add here is the book entitled Matters Liturgical (Collectio Rerum Liturgicarium). This book contains some helpful information, but is dispersed here and there throughout the liturgical norms presented.
Although not forbidden, St. Bernard of Clairvaux was famous for speaking out against gargoyles carved on the walls of his monastery's cloister.

The primary use of the gargoyle was to illustrate evil through the form of the gargoyle,[citation needed] while another theory posits that grotesques in architecture were apotropaic devices. Sometimes the use of the gargoyles illustrated pagan beliefs to reflect the unique cultural history of the community the cathedral is part of. In the 12th century, before the use of gargoyles as rain spouts, St. Bernard of Clairvaux was famous for speaking out against gargoyles carved on the walls of his monastery's cloister:

What are these fantastic monsters doing in the cloisters before the eyes of the brothers as they read? What is the meaning of these unclean monkeys, these strange savage lions, and monsters? To what purpose are here placed these creatures, half beast, half man, or these spotted tigers? I see several bodies with one head and several heads with one body. Here is a quadruped with a serpent's head, there a fish with a quadruped's head, then again an animal half horse, half goat... Surely if we do not blush for such absurdities, we should at least regret what we have spent on them. Gargoyle

A gargoyle on the Basilique du Sacré-Cœur, Paris, France, showing the water channel
I am sure more images have been forbidden by Rome, but I can not locate the particular circumstances.


What is the view of Jehovah's Witnesses on John 18:36 "My kingdom is not from this world"? A lot of people don't consider JWs to be Christian, usually for the reason of their view on the Kingdom of Jesus to be a kingdom here on Earth. I respect the guidelines of this site, so I do not wish to discuss who is considered Christian and who isn't. I'm only curious about how they view John 18:36 and similar statements. Despite Jesus explicitly stating multiple times, that Heaven is something totally different from what we can perceive, and is not from this world, they still believe the following two views, which very few if any Christian denominations accept:

The number of people admitted into the "real Heaven" is limited, and already filled.
All the rest have only a chance in the best case to live here in an earthly utopian kingdom, which is not eternal.

What biblical basis do they have for it? Their door-to-door preachers I had seen, neither could say anything except a small handful of Bible verses they memorized, but nothing in this topic. I don't have the occasion (neither do I have the intention) to start lengthy debates with some of their better qualified members, this is why I'm asking here.

It would be good if someone here was a Jehovah's Witness, who could tell their view on this question. It might even be possible that the two points I listed come from a misunderstanding and they don't really have those views, could someone more knowledgeable clear this?

Of course, you don't have to be a a JW to post an answer :)

This is actually a verse that Witnesses would know well, and quote often. It is on the basis of this verse that Witnesses avoid politics (and, generally, careers which would result in fame). Witnesses do not vote; do not join political campaigns; do not donate to political causes; and do not join political parties. This is all on the basis of John 18:36:

  Jesus answered: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.”

To the Witnesses, Christ's “Kingdom” is not a simple synonym for “Heaven”. Furthermore, “this world” is not a synonym for “planet Earth” or “the physical universe”. In other words, the verse you reference has, to the Witnesses, very little relevance to the beliefs you’re asking about.

“This world” is the current political/social system. Witnesses try to avoid being caught up in it much, as explained above.

“The Kingdom” is God’s system, implying a structured rulership over subjects, living here on Earth in the “new system”. That Kingdom is, in fact, eternal. I don’t know where you got the idea that it isn’t. (It will be briefly interrupted 1,000 years in, but after that it’ll go on eternally.)

Living on Earth is not supposed to be a second-best. It is, in fact, the original plan for humanity. The few who go to heaven to be kings of the Kingdom (“joint heirs with Christ”) are the anomaly.


Why (and when) did the empty cross v.s. crucifix split happen? Today, we have Catholic and Orthodox churches (and a few others) using the crucifix whereas most Protestant denominations make exclusive use of an empty cross.  When and why did the Protestant churches reject the crucifix as an icon?

I have read this, but the answer exclusively addresses the empty cross's preferential use in the the very early church.  I worry about Manichaeistic influences on that point, but, more importantly, I want to know why the modern Protestant factions do this, not why the very early church did this.  If the modern Protestant factions do this for the same reasons as the early church (from what I understand: fear of persecution, discomfort with bodily images of Christ, feeling that images of Christ's humanness lessens his divinity) having those reasons explained from a Protestant perspective nonetheless would be helpful to me.

I am making the assumption that it is the newer churches that have changed.  If this is incorrect, please point this out and explain why all of the older churches took up the crucifix after the Reformation.

While I cannot tell you when the practice of wearing an empty cross began, I can give you the reason that I was given for doing so.

As a Southern Baptist I was taught that the empty cross symbolizes that Jesus is no longer dead, but that he took up his life again as he said he would.

This is not my interpretation nor is it my feeling, I wear a crucifix since it reminds me that he died for my sins. a lot of people died on a cross, and so to my mind, the empty cross does not conjure up thoughts about Jesus dying for my sins, but the crucifix does. None of my fellow Christians have ever criticized my wearing of the crucifix.

So I suppose it only matters what the cross or crucifix means to you personally.


What do churches that prohibit the use of icons think an idol is? In the Orthodox and the Catholic Church icons and statues are permitted, and members of those churches look at such in much the same way they look at photographs of loved ones. We also talk to people depicted in certain icons, who we believe are in heaven, and we ask them to pray to God for us. (We ask the people, not the artistic renderings of those people.) Other churches that are opposed to icons and statues sometimes draw a comparison to idolatry. Usually this point makes reference to the commandment to not make idols: idols are a certain kind of image or likeness.

So what's an idol, according to these churches? Presumably idols must include things like the Golden Calf. But they must exclude things like the cherubim mentioned in Exodus 25:18-19, since God would not command the construction of idols:

  Make two cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the propitiatory,
  fastening them so that one cherub springs direct from each end.

The question isn't "what practices of the Catholic Church involving images are disapproved of". The question is, these other churches must have some sort of definition of what counts as an idol. Is an idol something made of gold? Stone? Wood? Is it anything that depicts an animal, a human, or Jesus? Under what conditions do these churches consider something an idol?

From a Protestant perspective, an idol is anything that is worshiped and served in place of (or in addition to) God.

This could potentially include a statue of Buddha, an icon of a Saint, a girlfriend, a hobby, wealth, an iPhone, etc. None of these things are inherently sinful, but when worshiped and served they become an idol.

I think the accusation from some Christians against the Catholic & Orthodox churches that the icons are idols comes partially from misunderstanding, and partially from a concern that the prayers and attention directed to Mary and others detracts from prayer and attention to Christ.


In Theistic Evolution when do the genealogies in Genesis become real? In Genesis there is the genealogy of Adam to Noah, then the account of the flood. After that is the genealogy of Noah to Abraham. The accounts of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's sons then follow. After that is an unspecific number of persons to Moses.

Theistic Evolution, I would think, must reject the creation account as literal, therefore, the created Adam was not a real person. I would also think that Theistic Evolutionists reject the Flood as factual, at least in its scope being global, but the point is that I would bet there are many who say that Noah was not a real person, either. After that I have not heard much discussion from Theistic Evolutionists.

So, moving down the genealogy in Genesis, when is there majority consensus among Theistic Evolutionists that the persons become real and are no longer figurative? Seeing as how the Theistic Evolution movement is not really unified perhaps this question is too broad, but Catholicism has a stance that is very close to it so I would accept answers from that perspective, if there are any.

Traditionally, many liberal theologians (e.g. Walter Bruggeman) have separated Genesis into two parts - Genesis 1 - 11 and Genesis 12 - 50.  The dividing point begins with Abraham, and the tone of Genesis does change significantly at that point.

In the first 11 chapters, Adam through Noah and Babel represent nearly 2000 years of human history.  A broad sweep of characters, tied by chronology of "kings" that closely corresponds with Sumerian and Babylonian myth, places Genesis in a worldwide perspective. Beginning with Abraham, however, the narrative slows down dramatically and focuses on just one guy - Abraham, and three generations of his descendants.

It is thus, for this reason that liberal scholars, having divided the book in two, tend to mythologize the first - the table of nations included - but lend more credence to the geneologies beginning with Abraham.  The link summarizes Unger's conclusion that Abraham fits well with what we "know" of the Middle Bronze Age

Interestingly, Matthew's genealogy of Jesus also begins not with Adam, but with Abraham. While Matthew may have simply been trying to show Jesus' Jewish identity, it is also possible that he believed Abraham was simply far enough.

Due to the widespread popularity of Abraham (Muslims, Christians, and Jews all claim lineage), most scholars do not doubt that there was "an Abraham," although there is nothing extra-biblical to pinpoint him to a specific date.

Moses, likewise, is such a revered figure that very few scholars doubt there was "a Moses" but again, pinning him down to an exact date is still an inexact science.  Primarily scholars tend to settle on one of two dates - either 1440BC (more closely matching the traditional genealogy) or 1290BC, which tends to be preferred by secular historians. Between Moses and the Kingdom of Israel, however, genealogies would still be expected to be more problematic, as there was no one 'leading authority' at the time.  (In any event, neither Aaron nor Moses was in Jesus' line, so for Christians, the point would be a little bit moot.)

The earliest recorded person attested to by name in extra-bibilical authority, however, is David - roughly 1000BC.  Beginning with the Tel Dan Stele, mentioning his name, theistic evolutionists become sufficiently convinced to pronounce dates with something approaching "certainty" - although even David's historicity was questioned until the end of the 20th Century.


Intelligent design - Creationism by a different name? I've heard that many believe that intelligent design is creationism by a different name.

However, if my understanding of intelligent design is correct, it does not deny the the big bang or evolution occurred. It does not even deny that abiogenesis occurred by anything but natural means.

It just means that the universe exists or was created in such a state that allowed for the extra unlikely sequence of events that lead to life existing on earth and eventually humanity.

Is my interpretation of Intelligent Design off base? If not then it hardly seems that it is a form a creationism, although I cannot speak for it being a illegitimate scientific theory or not. Or is this incorrect and why?

There are young earth creationists and old earth creationists. Young earth creationists tend to literally translate the opening chapters of Genesis as a literal 6 day creation cycle and an earth approximately 10,000 years old.

Old earth creationists will generally meld evolutionary theory with with looser interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis.

Both creationist beliefs state the spiritual source is the God of the Bible.

Intelligent design advocates don't specify where everything started or who started it. They just say there's a point at which matter must have begun and before that there's something non-physical that must be the source. Also, they'll argue that the order we observe in nature speaks to something will intelligence directing evolutionary or creationary forces.

In a way you could say Creationism is a sub-set of Intelligent Design, and Young earth/Old earth creationist are the two primary sub-sets of creationism.


Was there a "cessation of church fathers" in Catholicism? I read somewhere in passing that the Orthodox church never set a limit for who can be a church father, and it is therefore possible for someone today to be a church father, or even someone in the future.

Is it the same case in Catholicism? If not, then who was considered the last church father? (What year of history is the cut-off for being considered a church father?)

I'm interested because as I understand it, interpretation of scripture/tradition is supposed to be done "through the eyes of the church fathers". However if the list of church fathers is still expanding even today then it seems to me that there is the potential for new and unique interpretations to become mainstream.

There isn't really a bright line distinction, but John of Damascus (died ~750) is often cited as the last one.  For example, Catholic.com:

the death of St. John Damascene [cir. A.D. 750] is generally regarded as the close of the age of the Fathers

The Catholic encyclopedia takes a somewhat nuanced approach, allowing for the suggestion of some later medieval authors, but ultimately prefers John as the last:

"The Fathers" must undoubtedly include, in the West, St. Gregory the Great (d. 604), and in the East, St. John Damascene (d. about 754).
St. John of Damascus (c. 750) closes the patristic period with his polemics against heresies, his exegetical and ascetical writings, his beautiful hymns, and above all his "Fountain of Wisdom", which is a compendium of patristic theology and a kind of anticipation of scholasticism. [emphasis added]

It's perhaps worth noting that while the title of "Father" is no longer applied, the Catholic Church continues to recognize important contributors to theology/doctrine, calling them "Doctors of the Church."  The most recent of these, Thérèse of Lisieux, died in 1897.


What are the biblical arguments for and against the "two books" view of God's revelation? I think it was Francis Bacon who said that the Bible and nature were God's two books and that one would do well to study both in great detail. What are the biblical arguments for and against this view? In particular, I want to highlight Matthew 11:25

  At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and
  earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned,
  and revealed them to little children.

Could these hidden things involve, for example, the historical Adam and Eve, forever concealed from scientific scrutiny?

Also, for some reason I cannot pinpoint, I am a little skeptical about placing the study of nature on equal footing with the Bible, as much as I love what science has given us. Perhaps some good answers can clarify my own thinking on this.

I'm sure someone will downvote this for presenting useful information other than that which directly answers the question, but before we can really know what scripture says about Bacon's theory, we must know what he actually meant (as the other answer also points out).  He clearly doesn't mean it in an atheistic sense, as if the book of creation is meant to replace the Bible or some such. We live in the age of google books, so if one wants to know what he actually meant, one can read his book here (The two books of Francis Bacon: of the proficience and ...). In there he says on page 8:

  But farther, it is an assured truth, and a conclusion of experience, that a little or superficial knowledge of philosophy may incline the mind of man to atheism, but a farther proceeding therein doth bring the mind back again to religion:...

This reminds me of such passages as Romans 1 and Psalm 8 which speak of how nature declares God's existence.  Context shows that by philosophy Bacon means natural philosophy, that is, what wee call "science," or simply knowledge of the natural world.

Further down, again on page 8, he says:

  To conclude therefore, let no man upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation think or maintain, that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both; only let men beware that they apply both to charity, and not to swelling; to use, and not to ostentation; and again, that they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together.

That is, he does not assume that both books are to be used in the same way or treat of the same subject, as the OP apparently assumes he means.  He doesn't mean that God wrote two books on religious practice.  The Bible is a book on religious practice; creation is not.  One is not to criss-cross (as he calls it "confound") nor "unwisely mingle" the disciplines of these two books.  The phrase "to use, and not to ostentation" obviously means natural philosophy is to be studied for its practical benefits for humanity, not in an attempt to disprove the Bible.

That being his meaning, surely the Bible does not oppose it.  The Bible presents itself as the rule for religious practice, but the study of nature for how to understand and use nature to our physical benefit.  Certainly this is covered by

  Genesis 1:28 (KJV) "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

God has given man dominion over the earth, and the task of "subduing" it. Certainly with this comes the task of seeking to understand the natural world and use it to human benefit.  This is the true purpose of real "science," not to tell us how the world was made or how life arose, which is answered by the Bible not "science."

I want now to also add a quote from Bacon on page 86 which demonstrates he does not intend for the book of nature to be used to alter religious beliefs:

  And as concerning divine philosophy or natural theology, it is that knowledge or rudiment knowledge concerning God, which may be obtained by the contemplation of His creatures; which knowledge may be truly termed divine in respect of the object, and natural in respect of the light. The bounds of this knowledge are, that it sufficeth to convince atheism [of God's existence], but not to inform religion: and therefore there was never miracle wrought by God to convert an atheist, because the light of nature might have led him to confess a God: but miracles have been wrought to convert idolaters and the superstitious, because no light of nature extendeth to declare the will and true worship of God.

Those, therefore, who think Bacon was trying to put natural philosophy on a par with the Bible with respect to being a sourcebook of religious belief or practice, have clearly received their information on Bacon from really bad superficial summaries, and not from reading Bacon himself.  For an example of such, see this article from ICR (The Two-Book Fallacy) the author of which is clearly clueless as to the authentic meaning of Bacon.


What is the Mormon view of Matthew 7:13-14? This question is about statements by Latter-Day Saints that seem to indicate that a majority of humankind will be "saved".

For example, this page on resurrection says (emphasis added):

  Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people will be resurrected
  and saved from physical death

And this passage in Doctrine & Covenants 76:43-44 says (emphasis added):

  43 Who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands, except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the
  Father has revealed him.44 Wherefore, he saves all except
  them—they shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless
  punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and
  his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is
  not quenched, which is their torment—

Similarly the answer to this question says (emphasis added):

  Finally, the eternal sense of the word hell is reserved for those who
  reject God, refuse the gospel, and deny the Holy Ghost. It's
  understood that these will be relatively few in number, but the sons
  of perdition, having departed in a sense the family of God, will not
  receive any glory.

Because of these statements I wanted to ask about Jesus' words in Matthew 7:13-14 (KJV):

  13 ¶ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which
  go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the
  way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

How do Mormons interpret these words of Jesus in light of their view that most of humankind will be saved?

Let's begin with the basic LDS doctrine.  From Moses 1:39:

  For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the
  immortality and eternal life of man.

To us, immortality and eternal life are two things.  The first is simply the continuation of the body through time.  The second refers to the quality of our life in the hereafter.  Building on this we find from LDS.org:

  Eternal life is the phrase used in scripture to define the quality of
  life that our Eternal Father lives. ... Immortality is to live forever as a resurrected
  being. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, everyone will receive
  this gift. Eternal life, or exaltation, is to live in God's presence
  and to continue as families (see D&C 131:1–4). Like immortality, this
  gift is made possible through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. However,
  to inherit eternal life requires our "obedience to the laws and
  ordinances of the Gospel" (Articles of Faith 1:3).

We therefore interpret Matthew 7:13-14 to refer to eternal life, not immortality, and indeed we believe few there will be who find it.

Now, to complicate the story a bit, the verb "to save" has a more complex meaning in LDS theology than it does in most other Christian religions.  That's because we believe the "second death" referred to in Revelations 2:11 and 20:6,14 describes a permanent, spiritual death or separation from our Father and His Son.  The Bible no longer describes the First Death (AofF 1:8), but the Book of Mormon does in 2 Nephi 9:15 (and other scriptures):

  ...when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life,
  insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the
  judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel....

For us, you can be saved from both the First Death and the Second.  Everybody will be saved from the First Death (through resurrection), but only those who have availed themselves of the atonment of Jesus Christ to any degree will be saved from the Second Death.  Doctrine & Covenants 76:43-44, which you quoted, clearly states that there are people who will receive no glory after judgement.  These are they who died the Second Death.  Everyone else receives some glory, depending on their faithfulness and willingness to obey the commandments of Christ and live according to His example throughout their lives.

However, the verse from D&C alone does not fully interpret Matthew.  It draws the line between Perdition (which we more commonly name "Outer Darkness" and the other three kingdoms of glory (the Telestial, the Terrestrial, and the Celestial).  Mathew is drawing the line below the Celestial, which we believe few will receive.  The distinction doesn't bother us for a number of reasons begining with the fact that Jesus was giving instructions to two completely different sets of people for two completely different reasons.  Anyone who has tried to give talks to different groups of people with known differences in their needs knows you can't write and deliver an entire book so that both deliveries provide all of the information both parties would need.  So, why are we happy with the interpretation I've given you for Matthew?

It's because of Doctrine & Covenants 76:53-70(62), which teaches that our Heavenly Father dwells in the Celestial Kingdom, and Doctrine & Covenants 76:71-89(77, 86), which teaches people not in the Celestial Kingdom will be eternally separated from Him.  Though not the Second Death because these people will enjoy some glory, they have not obtained eternal life, or life with our Heavenly Father.

We believe those exalted to the Celestial Kingdom will be few, and that this is what Jesus spoke of in Matthew.


How does the Catholic Church explain the differences in the verses of Lk 4:18 vis-a-vis Isiah 61:1 We read at Lk 4:16-18 (NRSVCE):
"When he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read,

and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,

Isiah  61:1 (NRSVCE), the scriptural text  read out by Jesus goes like this:

"The spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me;
he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed,
to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and release to the prisoners  "

Now, one notices  certain differences between the text of Isiah we now have, and the one which was read out by Jesus at the Synagogue, specifically towards the end. It could be that the Evangelist wrote down the event from memory, not referring to the authentic text of Isiah. My question therefore is: how does the Catholic Church explain the differences  in the verses of Lk 4:18 vis-a-vis Isiah 61:1, the former having been  recorded as verbatim reproduction of the latter?

This is the full discussion from a Roman Catholic commentary.  It gives specific details, which I am unable to summarize.

18-19. In quoting from Is 61:1-2, Jesus leaves out one of the lines, “to heal the brokenhearted.” Luke reserves the Gk word, “to heal” (iaomai), for physical cures; a little later (v. 23), Jesus refuses to work any such cures in Nazareth, for his concern here is with preaching and interior renewal. A line, therefore, is added instead from Is 58:6; “to send away free the oppressed.” Although the Vg and some late Gk mss. include the line “and the day of vindication” at the end of v. 19, important mss. do not contain the words, which for Luke put too much emphasis upon punishment; he deletes the same words in 7:22 when he once more cites Is. 18. the spirit of the Lord is upon me: In Lk this would refer to Jesus’ own baptism (3:22; Acts 10:38). to bring good news to the poor: In 7:22 Jesus points to this action as indicative of his Messianic mission. Used without an article in Greek, the word “poor” refers to a quality or state rather than to individual poor persons (cf. GrBib § 171). he has sent me: The pf. tense of the Gk verb means more than merely to be sent; it declares that the one sent has already arrived and is to be found in the person of Jesus. to announce the year of grace accorded by the Lord: All the hopes of the jubilee year (Lv 25:8-55), when debts were wiped out and all possessions returned to their original owner, are fulfilled in the Messianic presence of Jesus. Universalism characterizes the jubilee year, for the celebration rests on the explanation given by God that “[all] land is mine, and you are but aliens” (Lv 25:23). God graciously divides it among all his elect. --
Brown, R. E., Fitzmyer, J. A., & Murphy, R. E. (1996). The Jerome Biblical commentary (Vol. 2, p. 131). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.


How do Oneness Pentecostals (and other modalistic denominations) interpret Revelation 3:21? New International Version

  To the one who is victorious, I will give
  the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and
  sat down with my Father on his throne.

New Living Translation

  Those who are victorious will sit with me on my
  throne, just as I was victorious and sat with my Father on his throne.

English Standard Version

  The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit
  with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father
  on his throne.

From what I can gather, there are two thrones spoken of here. How do modalist sects explain this verse?

Such a good question deserves answers from Oneness Pentecostals, who are the modern-day advocates of ancient Modalism (as well as some other groups). After five years, no Oneness Pentecostal has yet answered, so I hope that my answer will prompt some to do so now.
First, it needs to be made clear what Modalism is.
Marcion lived in the middle of the second century and incurred the wrath of Tertullian who wrote “Against Marcion” (circa 201).  Marcion had a gnostic view of the spiritual Father who revealed himself in Jesus, making a dualistic distinction between the Creator and the true (but unknown) God, the Father. He denied that Jesus was truly incarnate, being “the spirit of salvation”. He further claimed that because God cannot suffer and die, neither did Jesus when on the cross. His successors so fully identified Christ with the Father that they presented Jesus as but a mode of the Father – Modalism.
Another who incurred the scathing, written wrath of Tertullian was Praxeas. I quote:

“Praxeas was perhaps the first Christian theologian to attempt to
explain the doctrine of the Trinity in systematic detail.  In the
process, however, he apparently explained away the real ontological
threeness of the persons of God.  That is, Praxeas denied that
Christians believed in three distinct identities or even relations
within the one divine being.  If Tertullian’s account of what Praxeas
taught is correct, he reduces the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to three
aspects or roles of the one-person God.  Praxeas’s view later came to
be known as modalism and was revived by another later teacher of
Christians in Rome named Sabellius.  Thus it is also sometimes known
as Sabellianism.” (The Story of Christian Theology p92 by Roger E.
Olson, Apollos 1999)

Although today’s Oneness Pentecostals uphold the deity of Christ in a way that avoids the trap of having a main God plus a secondary god, they deny the distinct personhood of Christ who thus cannot fully represent the Father to us. They infer that Christ was human in appearance only, suggesting that God himself died on the cross. They believe in a strictly singular person who acted in different forms at different times.
This means that, when it comes to Revelation 3:21, they do not see any problem. That is because the Revelation depicts one throne of God in Heaven which is equally shared by the risen Christ. The Lamb as was slain stands in the midst of the Father’s throne. God’s throne becomes (in the Revelation) a shared throne. There are other thrones surrounding the one where Jesus is “set down with my Farther in his throne” but none of those is Christ’s throne. No, he is in the midst of God’s throne.
You have not asked about the Holy Spirit in all of this, but about ten years ago, when I was in correspondence with a Oneness Pentecostal, he wrote,

“Oneness view of the Holy Spirit [is]: God IS a Spirit. That Spirit is
the Holy Spirit. The Holy Ghost is the very essence of who God is…
[He] is the Father of Jesus. And who is Jesus? The same Spirit that is
His Father inhabited the body of His son (2 Cor. 5:19) so that ALL the
fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus.”

It appears that they have so ‘merged’ all three that it doesn’t matter whether the Bible speaks of the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; to them they are but modes of the one God. This means that your question is invalid, as your idea that two thrones are spoken of (that of the Father, and that of the Son) actually has no bearing on their theology; they might point out that Revelation mentions 24 heavenly thrones surrounding the one, central throne of God, but that Christ is in that midst of that one throne of God.
This is not to say, or suggest, that any such view is correct, but I hope it will prompt you to ask another question, based on scriptures that ARE a problem to Oneness Pentecostals.


Do Catholics believe in other apparitions like Mary? Or is she unique in this respect? From the outside looking in, it appears that the Catholic believe that Mary has and does appear to people somewhat frequently. It seems to be called "apparitions" .

You read more about them on this page: Marian Apparitions (Wikipedia).

Is this unique to Mary? Or does Paul and company make appearances also? Maybe others who are not known by name from the Bible.

Obviously, individuals can claim they see any number of things, but It is my understanding that the Catholic Church has "vouched" for many of these appearances.

My question is thus: Is Mary Unique in this regard?

Yes, other saints and angels as well as Jesus Himself have appeared to visionaries throughout the ages.

I can give three examples:

St. Joan of Arc received visions of Saint Michael the Archangel, Saint Catherine of Alexandria, and Saint Margaret of Antioch
St. Faustina Kowalska recieved visions of Jesus (and authorized a painting of that vision)
The seers at Fatima received visions of St. Michael as well as Our Lady and a vision of Hell.

Mary is certainly unique and there is some very great significance to her apparitions that is mysterious and will probably remain so. At the core of her apparitions is always a return to love of Jesus and faith and obedience in the Church.  Her main message at the one approved apparition in North America in my home state of Wisconsin was just to read and teach the Catechism.

The other saints messages and purposes seem to be to strengthen the seers, but Our Lady's singular purpose is bring everyone to her Son.   So I think you're right in observing that there is a difference.


Why is incorruptibility of saints' relics used as proof of their sanctity? Why is the notion of incorruptibility advanced by some Catholics and some Orthodox when determining the corruptibility or incorruptibility of a saint's relics has never been a part of the beatification or canonization process?

The short answer is no.

Not every saint is expected to have an incorruptible corpse. Although incorruptibility is recognized as supernatural, it is no longer counted as a miracle in the recognition of a saint (The Incorruptibles).

Embalmed bodies were not recognized as incorruptibles. For example, although the body of Pope John XXIII remained in a remarkably intact state after its exhumation, Church officials remarked that the body had been embalmed (Christianity Today) and additionally there was a lack of oxygen in his sealed triple coffin.

Incorruptibility is seen as distinct from the good preservation of a body, or from mummification. Incorruptible bodies are often said to have the odour of sanctity, exuding a sweet or floral, pleasant aroma.

Incorruptibility is not reserved to the Catholic Church alone. There are a number of Orthodox Saints who have incorrupt bodies.

Nowadays the Catholic Church is striving to better understand why some Saints are preserved from corruption, thus seeing if the preservation is indeed miraculous or not. "These saints are in a class by themselves. Even though incorruptibility does not automatically confer sainthood upon the subject, it is still properly appreciated by the Church as a supernatural occurrences. The Church thus seeks the help of scientists and other professional to understand this question in a more modern light!

The lack of formal explanations on this subject seems to stem from the fact that this is an area of expertise for the scientific (professional) community and not the Church to investigate.

  "Over the last 15 years, however, a new view of the Incorruptibles has begun to emerge. At the Vatican's request, Italian pathologists, chemists, and radiologists have been poring over the bodies of the ancient men and women interred in church reliquaries. Charged with gleaning new information about the lives of the saints and assisting in the conservation of sacred remains, they have also brought science to the altars of Europe's cathedrals. Already, they have examined more than two dozen saints and beati, shedding light on the mystery of their preservation. While some saints were clearly mummified by their devout followers, others were protected from decay by environmental conditions, raising new questions about incorruptibility. "What is a miracle?" asks Ezio Fulcheri, a pathologist at the University of Genoa and one of the leading researchers on the Incorruptibles. "It's something unexplainable, a special event that may occur in different ways." The causes may seem mysterious "but don't exclude [rare] natural processes that are different from the normal course of things." - The Incorruptible.

Nota Bene: This is my answer to this question.