What is the earliest name ascribed to the book of Revelation? I was teaching Catechism last night, going over 'Revelation'.  I asked, "what's revelation?" and one girl answered, "It's the last book in the Bible". and I was like, "um yeah..." Well I wanted to say, it's also the entire Bible and I was kind of stumbling over my words there.

What I was wondering was, what was the Revelation/Apocalypse of John originally called?

Eusebius called it the 'so-called Apocalypse of John', but if it was 'so-called' then what else might have it been called and when did it begin to go by the name 'Revelation'?

In many languages, the book is called "Apocalypse", which is Greek for "Revelation". It seems that the modern English convention is to use a translated, rather than transliterated, title.
I am not aware of any title other than "Apocalypse", or a translation of "Apocalypse", for this book, in any language.

In the early English translations, there is some dissent about what to call it.

Wycliffe's Bible (1382-1395) used "Apocalips"
Tyndale's Bible (1525) used "Revelation"
Coverdale's (1535) called it "The apocalips or revelacion of S. John"
Douay-Rheims (1582) uses just "Apocalypse".

The King James (1611) called it "The Revelation of S. John the Divine" and, as the legally authorized English version, its usage seems to have stuck.

I checked the Koine text of Eusebius - he says "τῇ Ἰωάννου λεγομένῃ Ἀποκαλύψει", the relevant word being that middle "legomene". This often means just "called", without a negative slant, as in Luke 22:1 "the Festival of Unleavened Bread, which is called (legomene) Passover", or Matthew 2:23 "in a city called (legomenen) Nazareth". So I am not convinced that Eusebius is doing anything other than giving the name by which the book is known.

Later in the book (7.25) he says:

  Some before us have set aside and rejected the book altogether, criticising it chapter by chapter, and pronouncing it without sense or argument, and maintaining that the title is fraudulent. For they say that it is not the work of John, nor is it a revelation, because it is covered thickly and densely by a veil of obscurity. [...]  But I could not venture to reject the book, as many brethren hold it in high esteem. But I suppose that it is beyond my comprehension, and that there is a certain concealed and more wonderful meaning in every part. For if I do not understand I suspect that a deeper sense lies beneath the words.

He does not mention what these others call the book instead, though he does say they attribute it to the heretic Cerinthus. He says that the John who wrote this book was not the same John who wrote the gospel, but he is happy to say on the basis of the text that some John wrote it.


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that there are humans in heaven now? Most Christians believe that Enoch, Elijah, Moses, the thief on the cross who was pardoned by Jesus and all the saints who were resurrected during the crucifixion were all translated to heaven.

What is the Biblical evidence for this belief?

There are no explicit statements in the Bible that any of the people mentioned in the question are now in heaven. The belief on the part of many Christians that they are now in heaven is based on reading key Bible passages about their death and their status after death in light of a more generalized belief that humans go to heaven after they die.
On the people specifically mentioned in the question, here are the Bible passages commonly quoted to support a belief that they are now in heaven:
Enoch

Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty-five years. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him. (Genesis 5:23-24)

And:

By faith Enoch was taken so that he did not experience death; and "he was not found, because God had taken him." For it was attested before he was taken away that
"he had pleased God." (Hebrews 11:5)

Neither of these passages state that Enoch is in heaven now. But in light of the generalized belief among many Christians that people go to heaven after they die, these verses are read by such Christians as meaning that God took Enoch directly to heaven.
Moses & Elijah
These two are taken together because the Bible passages most commonly referred to as saying that they are now in heaven are the accounts of the Transfiguration of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. The full accounts are found in Matthew 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-8; Luke 9:28-36.
Here are the verses from these accounts in which Moses and Elijah are specifically mentioned, with the lead-in verse about the transfiguration of Jesus quoted only for the first one:

And [Jesus] was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." (Matthew 17:2-4)
And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. Then Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." (Mark 9:4-5)
Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake, they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him. Just as they were leaving him, Peter said to Jesus, "Master, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah"—not knowing what he said. (Luke 9:30-33)

Here Moses and Elijah appear with Jesus, very much alive, and in the Luke account even "appearing in glory" and talking about upcoming events. The three disciples who witnessed this event perceived Moses and Elijah as being present in person with them—hence Peter's offer to make dwellings for all three figures: Jesus, Moses, and Elijah.
The natural conclusion for Christians who believe that human beings go to heaven right after death is that Moses and Elijah could appear with Jesus because they are not still in the grave awaiting resurrection, but are currently very much alive and well and living in heaven.
The thief on the cross
Of all the figures mentioned in the question, the incident of the thief on the cross comes closest to providing an explicit statement that a human being is now in heaven. Here is the full passage:

One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding him and saying, "Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!" But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong." Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." He replied, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise." (Luke 23:39-43)

Here Jesus tells the repentant thief, who witnessed to his fellow thief on the cross, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 24:43).
Some have argued that since there is no punctuation in the original Greek, it could read instead, "Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in Paradise," so that it could refer to a future resurrection to Paradise. However, that would be a somewhat strained parsing of the Greek. That's why it is almost always translated in the traditional manner, as "today you will be with me in Paradise." In the list of all translations of Luke 24:43 at BibleGateway, though the specific wording varies, every single translation interprets the verse this way.
Though "Paradise" is not necessarily identical to "heaven," most Christians do interpret "Paradise," especially when it is mentioned in the New Testament, as a reference to heaven.
The saints who were resurrected during the crucifixion
Here is the relevant passage in its context:

Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. Now when the centurion and those with him, who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were terrified and said, "Truly this man was God’s Son!" (Matthew 27:50-54)

Here there is no explicit statement that these saints who were raised from the dead (or from having "fallen asleep," to use the Biblical term) went to heaven. It says only that they were raised, came out of the tombs, and entered the holy city—meaning Jerusalem—and appeared to many people there. However, the idea that they would then go back into their tombs after being resurrected seems unlikely to many Christians. So many Christians believe that they then went on to heaven.
Other Bible passages providing support for humans now being in heaven
As I mentioned earlier, none of these Bible passages about the figures specifically mentioned in the question explicitly and unequivocally say that these people are now in heaven. In fact, no matter what passages you care to quote, there are Christians who dispute that they point to humans currently being in heaven.
Having said that, here are a few other passages in the Bible that can easily be read as saying that there are humans currently residing in heaven.
First, two passages from the Gospels:

"And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is God not of the dead, but of the living." And when the crowd heard it, they were astounded at his teaching. (Matthew 22:31-33, and see the parallel passages in Mark 12:26-27; Luke 20:37-38)

Here Jesus uses the example of the words of God at the burning bush (in Exodus 3:6) in support of a resurrection. And the way he interprets God's words make it clear that he is speaking of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as being alive now, not still dead in their graves awaiting a future resurrection.
Another passage from the Gospels that speaks of human beings currently alive in the afterlife is Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. Here is the most relevant part of the story:

The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. (Luke 16:22-23)

Here Jesus speaks of two men dying and immediately being carried to their place either with Abraham (commonly interpreted as heaven) or in Hades, the Greek word for the underworld. The entire action and dialogue of the story is presented as currently taking place in the afterlife. And even if this is read as a parable rather than as Jesus narrating a literal occurrence, his reference to these two people being immediately carried to their eternal dwelling place supports the idea of immediate resurrection of human beings to heaven (or hell) after death.
And two passages from the book of Revelation:

After this I looked, and there was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, robed in white, with palm branches in their hands. They cried out in a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb!" (Revelation 7:9-10)

Here John describes seeing a huge crowd of people from every nation standing before God's throne and praising God. And though the book of Revelation is commonly interpreted as referring to future events, John narrates it in the present tense, as things he was currently seeing in heaven. This is therefore another passage providing Biblical support for Christians to believe that humans go to heaven directly after death.

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered for the word of God and for the testimony they had given; they cried out with a loud voice, "Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?" They were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number would be complete both of their fellow servants and of their brothers and sisters, who were soon to be killed as they themselves had been killed. (Revelation 6:9-11)

Here the book of Revelation speaks of souls slaughtered as pleading their case, receiving white robes, and being told to "rest," or wait, a while longer. This implies that they are currently alive in some state, which is most easily interpreted as their being alive in some part of heaven.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of passages providing Biblical support for the belief that there are humans in heaven now. But these are a few of the key passages related to the question.
Even more broadly, it has become a common belief among Christians that human beings become angels, and that this happens immediately after death. For the Biblical basis of this belief, see this Christianity.SE question: What is the biblical basis for humans becoming angels after they die?
On the origins of this belief in Christian history, see this Christianity.SE question: What is the source of the belief that the deceased become angels?


Christ as primordial sacrament The theologian Edward  Schillebeeckx described Christ as the primordial sacrament.  What does that mean?

Edward Schillebeeckx was a Dominican priest, born in Belgium in 1914, taught theology  at the  University of Nijmegen in the Netherlands, and was influential at the Vatican Council. He was a very prolific writer. He expired in 2009.
William J Hill OP, a fellow Dominican, wrote a "non-technical" summary of Schillebeeckx work in this field called "Christ, the Sacrament of the Encounter with God". Google William J Hill Christ Sacrament Encounter
Fundamental is the concept of Encounter.
An Encounter with God is always sacramental, in that it must involve some visibility or physical expression, capable of human perception; and yet that this must point to, signify, and be, a reality beyond our conception. Encounter as a human confrontation can only happen through physical expression.
Jesus, when on Earth, was a human being, outwardly and visibly, and truly. Yet He was also the Manifestation of God, His hidden Reality as the Express Image of the Father. HIs Redemptive Incarnation was a sign, and an instrument of God's love for mankind, delivering God's grace.
The very existence of Christ makes possible encounter with God. This applies to every detail of His life, but most particularly to His Passion and Death. This revealed both God's will to save, and Christ's love for His Father. The Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ both signifies and causes, is sign and effect, of the Reconciliation of Man to God.
Now that Christ is in Glory, His continuing action in the World demands a tangible prolongation of His Incarnation.  This is the Church,  and Christ acts, through the Church, in and by the Sacraments. The Sacraments signify what they effect, and effect what they signify, but more importantly they are Acts of Christ. Though done at one time and in one place, they transcend both time and place.
Christ is the greatest and original Sacrament, so primordial; and also primordial in that all other sacraments  derive from His actions and so from Him.


Who's talking to John in Revelation 22? This short chapter raised a few extra questions for me lately. The basic premise seems to be some heavenly being speaking to John.  And, grammatically, it appears to be a single one. Verses 13-16 in particular are quite explicitly Jesus talking, as he says "I, Jesus..." And verses 7 and 12 both start "See, I am coming quickly"... which I assume to be Jesus, and it seems to be confirmed in verse 20 where John responds "even so, come, Lord Jesus."

This all seems rather simple and straight forward except immediately after Jesus is talking in verse 7, and in verse 8, John saw these things and heard these things and bowed before the person speaking to him.  Not too much of a problem as people have done this before Jesus in the past.  But verse 9 "And he said to me, see you do it not, I am your brother-servant with you and with your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book.  Give worship to God."

And then this goes directly into Jesus speaking again.  So... Did Jesus say this?  Some say that in the middle of Jesus speaking in verse 7, some other unnamed angel just happened by in the middle of the conversation, and although John never thought to bow to Jesus, he immediately started bowing to this angel, who only stopped to tell him not to bow, and Jesus just kept talking without acknowledging this second person in any way.  ... but I'm not seeing any textual justification for this beyond "Seeing Jesus say this doesn't fit my preconception, so it must be someone else that said it."

So... is there any textual justification beyond that?  Or did Jesus, while in heaven deny worship, referring to himself as a "fellow servant," and direct worship to the Father?

"Behold I come quickly" and all such 'divine prerogative epithets' are indeed Jesus' here.

Revelation 22 (DRB)
1 And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the midst of the street thereof, and on both sides of the river, was the tree of life, bearing twelve fruits, yielding its fruits every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no curse any more; but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and his servants shall serve him. 4 And they shall see his face: and his name shall be on their foreheads. 5 And night shall be no more: and they shall not need the light of the lamp, nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall enlighten them, and they shall reign for ever and ever.
6 And he said to me: These words are most faithful and true. And the Lord God of the spirits of the prophets sent his angel to shew his servants the things which must be done shortly. 7 And, Behold I come quickly. Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book. 8 And I, John, who have heard and seen these things. And after I had heard and seen, I fell down to adore before the feet of the angel, who shewed me these things. 9 And he said to me: See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them that keep the words of the prophecy of this book. Adore God. 10 And he saith to me: Seal not the words of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. 11 He that hurteth, let him hurt still: and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is just, let him be justified still: and he that is holy, let him be sanctified still. 12 Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. 14 Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. 15 Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie. 16 I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and stock of David, the bright and morning star. 17 And the spirit and the bride say: Come. And he that heareth, let him say: Come. And he that thirsteth, let him come: and he that will, let him take the water of life, freely. 18 For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book. 20 He that giveth testimony of these things, saith, Surely I come quickly: Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. 21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

You said: " John saw these things and heard these things and bowed before the person speaking to him." But he bowed before an angel, not Jesus:

...I fell down to adore before the feet of the angel, who shewed me these things.

The lesson to take away here is that angels must be pretty awesome creatures to behold.


Was Christmas a replacement of the feast of Hanukkah or of the 'Invincible Sun'? Was Christmas a replacement of the Jewish festival of Hanukkah that was celebrated by the early Christians or was it to replace the Pagan festival of the 'Invincible Sun' instituted in 274 CE.

Why should Christmas be meant to replace anything?

The liturgical year is riddled with merriment, every other day is a feast or a solemnity or at least an observance of some pious memorial.

Other than to denounce Christ or the Churches that keep Christmas, there is no reason to conflate some pagan festivity no one cares about with Christmas.  If there was a conspiracy back in the fourth Century, then St. Augustine would have said something about it.  What he did say was that when the barbarians came to sack Rome, they left the churches alone, out of respect for traditions that were foreign to them, but which they could see were clearly holy.  They didn't see in them their own idolatry, they saw the city of God made manifest.

Hanukkah on the other hand, has never been as big a thing as Christmas.  Christmas has been an important marker in the eyes of the Catholic Church purely out of necessity.  Consider the lectionary and how the Bible itself was formed.  The books we use at Mass were the same books and letters mentioned by St. Justin Martyr when he wrote about what it is that Christians do during their get togethers. Naturally, a book can't go on ad infinitum so it makes sense that at some point you're going to finish the book and start over again.  So, it makes sense that you'd want to put the events leading up to Jesus' birth in the first part of the book and go on from there.

So, we know Jesus died around Passover, we posit that the two most important truths in history took place on the same day of the year (The Incarnation and The Resurrection) and we do a +=9 months to get a good approximation of where Christmas should be.

Pagans and Jews aside, the question to be asked is, is there really a better day for Christmas?


Why did Jesus refer to humans as salt? As with reference to the verse Matthew 5:13

  13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how  can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

Why did Jesus refer to people as salt?  Why it is so important as many more valuables are available in this world?

In early times, salt was substantially more significant than it is today. (E.g., see the etymology for salarium at Wikipedia.)

Salt has some association with holiness; it was part of the grain offerings (Leviticus 2:13 [NIV]):

  Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings, add salt to all your offerings.

This contrasts with verse 11 (NIV) prohibiting the inclusion of yeast:

  'Every grain offering you bring to the LORD must be made without yeast, for you are not to burn any yeast or honey in an offering made to the LORD by fire.

In 1 Corinthians 5:8, Paul associates yeast with "malice and wickedness" (NIV).

Salt is also important as a preservative and a seasoning. This points to the fact that Christians are supposed to be positively effective in the world.

Perhaps most significantly salt is similar to light (another image Jesus used) in being beneficial, distinctive (salty is a major aspect of the sense of taste, light defines the sense of sight), powerful (a little salt or light goes a long way), present in the world (salt was part of everyday life, a light is not hidden under a basket), and even a bit disruptive or annoying (e.g., early morning light can be annoying when one is tired, salt can be similarly unpleasant) while also being attractive (one tends to be drawn to eating salty foods not unlike how one tends to be drawn to a lighted area).


When did animals begin to die? When did animals begin to die?
Did animals begin slowly dying at the time of the fall of Adam and Eve or had it happened earlier at the fall of Satan, which may be what Romans 8:20 is hinting at?

For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by
reason of him who hath subjected it (Rom 8:20)

Were animals already dying when God gave humans to have dominion over them in Gen. 1:28?:

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. (Gen. 1:28, KJV)

Or were animals originally created by God as already dying?
What do the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the main-stream Protestants -- that is, those Protestants who pray to Jesus Christ in their prayers -- officially teach regarding this matter?
EDIT 4: Following one remark in comments (stating that senescence by definition is not only the process of aging, but also the process of maturing that precedes the process of aging) decided to switch to "dying" again;
EDIT 3: Following a suggestion in the comments, rephrased the question as "When did senescence enter the animal kingdom?"
EDIT 2: Originally I used the term "mortal" in my question, but since the word "mortal" may mean only "being able to be killed" (see sequoia trees example in the EDIT 1 or Adam before his fall), I decided to switch to "dying".
EDIT 1: By "dying" or "already dying" I mean the very state, in which all animals are now: each species is born, lives a certain number of years, gets old and then dies. This is different from being able to be killed, yet not having the process of dying taking place within (consider sequoia trees - some of them don't die by themselves, but can be killed by, say, fire or being cut)

When did senescence enter the animal kingdom?
To speak openly we may not know the exact moment when they became dying? But we have a few key points that the Scriptures can help in giving some perspectives on the question.
Immediately after Adam and Eve sinned, we are told that they made clothing for themselves.

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. Genesis 3:7 ESV

However, after God comes into the garden, He also makes clothing for them.

And the Lord God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them. - Genesis 3:21 ESV

This seems to indicate that animals seemed to die immediately after the fall of Adam. But we do not know definitively in this was actually the case.
When one asks the question whether animals ”become dying at the time of the fall of Adam and Eve or had it happened earlier at the fall of Satan, which may be what Romans 8:20 is hinting at?”

For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope. (Rom 8:20)

The material universe was created by God and when man was created, he was given dominion over God’s creation; but when Adam and Eve sinned, sin and death entered the world.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. - Romans 5:12-21

St. Paul alludes to this in Romans:

For we know that the whole creation groans together and travails in pain together until now. - Romans 8:22

Ultimately we may never truly know or understand when animals become dying?
Many Catholics, Orthodox and other fellow Christians  may believe in evolution. In this scenario, it would be obvious the animals died before sin entered the world. What  percentage of Christian hold to this theory I am not aware of.
The Catholic Church holds no official position on the theory of creation or evolution, leaving the specifics of either theistic evolution or literal creationism to the individual within certain parameters established by the Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six-day, twenty-four-hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God. Catholicism holds that God initiated and continued the process of his evolutionary creation and that all humans, whether specially created or evolved, have and have always had specially created souls for each individual.
To say the least, the fact is that the Church has been very comfortable with evolution as a scientific theory since at least the pontificate of Pius XII and his encyclical Humani Generis (1950). Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI in particular have made strong statements in favour of evolution and its compatibility with Christian teaching about God and creation.

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

This evolution theory is to some degree accepted by major Christian churches, including the Catholic Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church (United States), and some other mainline Protestant denominations; virtually all Jewish denominations; and other religious groups that lack a literalist stance concerning some holy scriptures. Various biblical literalists have accepted or noted openness to this stance, including theologian B.B. Warfield and evangelist Billy Graham.
See: Acceptance of evolution by religious groups.
For further information, one may peruse the following articles at one’s leisure:

Did Animals Die before the Fall?
Death before Sin?
Animal Death Before the Fall: What Does the Bible Say?


What is the proper use of money in Luke 16:1-13? This is the parable of the dishonest manager, about to sacked for squandering his master's property.  (We don't know if used the property for personal gain, or made bad investments, or what have you.)  The manager secures his future by slashing the bills of his master's debtors.  As the old joke goes, he made friends in low places.

Jesus says: "Make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth [mammon] so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes."

The story is clearly rich in irony: the bad manager saves himself by becoming an even worse manager.  But does Jesus's conclusion rise (or perhaps sink) to the level of sarcasm?  In other words, how am I to understand what Jesus is saying specifically about mammon?

Update (previously posted outside the question as fodder):

In long form, here are some of the readings and questions that it would be helpful to have clarified by an interpretation aligned with doctrine:

Taken as straight sarcasm (an oxymoron): "Go ahead, use money to make friends, and when it's gone and you're gone, then you'll know who your friends are. No doubt they too have a mansion of many rooms, and you can take the guest house by the pool."

Taken straight (albeit also with irony): There is a use even for money, and how you use it can, guess what, buy your way into heaven.  (Obviously there is no quid pro quo, so it's not as crude as that.)

This is a different policy from "render unto Caesar," and is closer to the rich man who followed all the commandments but could not give away his wealth (any more than the camel could squeeze through the needle's eye). That is, there is a direct call to dispose of wealth, but how does making friends enter into it?

The policy position is laid out in the rest of the passage: you can't serve God and mammon, you must love one and despise the other. But you must be "faithful" with mammon, that is, trustworthy with it.

What does it mean in this context to be faithful with mammon, a very little thing? Jesus doesn't seem to be talking about tithes or donations to good causes or avoidance of greed (cf Luke 12). Nor is he talking about money management per se, putting coins in a bank to learn deferred gratification. In particular, the dishonest manager was praised for acting shrewdly, "for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light."

If this shrewdness is just a kind of carnal wisdom, a sophia of mammon, can we take this praise at face value? If the master who praises the manager is the Lord, as usual in these parables, then perhaps it just means that you have to cut the children of darkness some slack. But it's a backhanded sort of praise at best; Jesus is telling his disciples, But don't you children of light go acting that way. What is this shrewdness? Knowing whom to buy off? How big a discount to give? Maybe that's why the children of light must go whole-hog and give it all away. Otherwise, they'd just get taken.

Even in this view, I'm not sure which of the first two conjectures is more stable: that his crack about the proper use of mammon to buy friends and influence or at least grease the pearly gates is sarcasm of a high sort, or that his crack about the proper use of mammon reveals the deep irony in pursuing Christian ideals when dealing with our own generation.

Note: @AffableGeek's link to a broader bounty question is fruitful. A recent comment suggests plainly that Jesus is being sarcastic; there are interesting suggestions that the discounts dispensed by the manager represent his own cut, i.e., what he was skimming from the accounts, so that maybe he had learned to sacrifice money for more enduring relationships; there are suggestions that Jesus does mean for the children of light to learn from the worldly; and also a suggestion that the text is corrupt.

Your question is based on a misunderstanding.  Rather than addressing the base question, I'm going to address the misunderstanding on which the question is based.  Once the misunderstanding is cleared up, the question itself becomes moot.

Before doing so, I'd like to remind you that this site isn't about what we believe, but rather what Christianity teaches.  We're not here to convince you that any particular part of Christianity, or Christianity as a whole is true, we're here to ask about and teach what Christianity teaches, separate from personal opinions on Truthfulness.

The Parable of talents is not generally understood to be about money.  Parables are not meant to be literal.  They are stories that teach a lesson, and they are often figurative.

From Wikipedia (Not my favorite source, but it'll do here).

  Jesus' parables are seemingly simple and memorable stories, often with
  imagery, and all convey messages. Scholars have commented that
  although these parables seem simple, the messages they convey are
  deep, and central to the teachings of Jesus. Christian authors view
  them not as mere similitudes which serve the purpose of illustration,
  but as internal analogies where nature becomes a witness for the
  spiritual world.

So the question becomes, what is the analogy being taught here. Most Christian teachings agree that the message is simple:  Those who show that they are responsible are trusted with more responsibility.

Example from https://bible.org/seriespage/parable-talents-matthew-2514-30-luke-1912-28:

  We should carefully note the outcome of faithful service, and of
  unfaithful service, in this parable. Faithful service led to increased
  responsibilities in the kingdom of heaven, and eternal joy in the
  presence of the Master, Jesus Christ. Unfaithful service led to
  condemnation, the removal of one’s stewardship, and an eternity of
  weeping and gnashing of teeth in outer darkness, away from the
  presence of our Lord.

  One must surely conclude that this parable is not just an interesting
  story, but a message of eternal significance. Let us listen carefully
  then, looking to God’s Spirit to enlighten our hearts and minds, and
  to empower our service, to the glory of God and our eternal good.

This parable isn't about materialism.  It's not about money.  It's about that one undeniably true lesson - that responsibility is something that is given to those who can handle it.  This is true in real life, on the job, in public service, in volunteer work, and in life in general. People in charge give responsibility to those who show that they can handle it.

Therefore, the idea that this teaches materialism is inaccurate.


When and why did the Catholic Church stop the Crusades? When and why did the Catholic Church stop the Crusades?

Was there a specific reason why they stopped? Or were they no longer necessary at some point in time?

This answer takes from the article

The Real History of the Crusades, by THOMAS F. MADDEN1 | MARCH 19, 2011 Crisis Magazine.

1. (At the time of the article) Thomas F. Madden is associate professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University.

Has the record been set straight on the Crusades?

  No. Many historians had been trying to set the record straight on the
  Crusades.

So what is the truth about the Crusades?

  Scholars are still working some of that out.

For what purpose were they?

  [The] Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were
  a direct response to Muslim aggression — an attempt to turn back or
  defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Why were they deemed no longer necessary? The answer is in bold.

  The Protestant Reformation, which rejected the papacy and the doctrine
  of indulgence, made Crusades unthinkable for many Europeans, thus
  leaving the fighting to the Catholics. In 1571, a Holy League, which
  was itself a Crusade, defeated the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto. Yet
  military victories like that remained rare. The Muslim threat was
  neutralized economically. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the once
  awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic —
  no longer worth a Crusade. The “Sick Man of Europe” limped along
  until the 20th century, when he finally expired, leaving behind the
  present mess of the modern Middle East.

Addendum

As a response to a possible misconception implied in the original phrasing: the Crusades are certainly not a monolithic campaign that ended on a certain date. They were a series of campaigns conducted intermittently over two centuries by different levels of authority (the first was called by a Pope; the seventh was almost exclusive to Louis IX; etc.) When we speak of the Crusades "stopping," we are not talking of an ongoing Crusade being called off, but of a new Crusade not being convoked.

Please see also:

Crash Course on the Crusades, July 24, 2012, by STEVE WEIDENKOPF | Crisis Magazine.


Are there theological differences between the Greek Orthodox church and the Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox church? Is there a theological difference between the Greek Orthodox church and the Coptic (Egyptian) Orthodox church?

The basic between the two is over the Christological definition accepted at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, where Christ was recognized as being worshiped both 'in' two natures that exist 'inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably'. The Copts and other miaphysites believed that this definition was ambiguous and could be understood in a Nestorian manner. They preferred to speak of Christ being worshiped in one human-divine nature 'out of' two natures. Much of the difficulty here arises from the ambiguity of the term 'nature'-- is it a particular, in the manner the Nestorians used it (equivalent to hypostasis) or a universal (equivalent to 'ousia', essence)? If it is the former, then the story of the Incarnation is the story of the Word of God uniting to a particular human being named Jesus at the moment of his conception, which is in fact how Nestorius and his followers understood the incarnation. If 'nature' is a universal, however, then the Incarnation is the story of the Word of God uniting with human nature and becoming Jesus. That is, in this theology, the person of Jesus is identical to the person of the Word of God who has taken on humanity, not a person who is somehow united to the Word. In any case, the Second Council of Constantinople of 553 affirms the latter narrative as the understanding of the Incarnation accepted by the Greeks as well.

So, at this point, the differences between Coptic and Greek theology become a very subtle game of parsing technical language. However, the Copts do not officially accept any of the ecumenical councils accepted by the Greeks, from Chalcedon on. This leads to the often-overlooked theological difference of Copts speaking of one will in Christ while Greeks, following the Third Council of Council of Constantinople of 680-681, speak of two wills in Christ, human and divine in perfect harmony.


What are the good Bahasa / Malay / Indonesian words to refer to the Christian God? Recently there has been a ban on the use of the word Allah to refer to the Christian God.

What are the good alternatives to the word Allah in countries where it is banned?

I heard Tuhan is one of them.

The Christian God is given a wide range of names in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

My first thought was to clarify with a generational phrase. You might say "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob," but that might confuse you with Jews. Also, Since "Allah" is the usual translation for "God" you would risk offending Muslims and breaking the law.

My second thought is "Yahweh." In the Old Testament God refers to himself as "I am." The transliteration of the Hebrew for this is "YHWH." The original vowels are unknown, but it has become common to pronounce it "Yaw - way" and spell it "Yahweh." A less popular pronunciation that has fallen out of vogue is "Jehovah."

You might also choose to say Jesus Christ, but I suspect that would even be more offensive to Muslims. It seems that believing Jesus is God is a major sticking point that upsets many Muslims.

Wikipedia has an interesting article on the names of God and gives a few other options that might work for you.

  Some Quakers often refer to God as The Light. Another term used is 'King of Kings' or 'Lord of Lords' and Lord of the Hosts. Other names used by Christians include Ancient of Days, Father/Abba, 'Most High' and the Hebrew names Elohim, El-Shaddai, and Adonai. The name, "Abba/Father" is the most common term used for the creator within Christianity,[citation needed] because it was the name Jesus Christ (Yeshua Messiah) himself used to refer to God.

I am partial to "King of Kings" or "Lord of Lords." I'm sure there are those are common words, once translated into Arabic, that will not offend Muslims or break the law. From what I can tell "Tuhan" means "Lord," so using it in "Tuhan of Tuhans" would work (obviously I have Englishized the Arabic word).


Biblical Prophecy and Fulfillment I often hear the argument that the veracity of Christ's claims in the gospels can be considered reliable based upon two things: miracles and fulfilled prophecy. This pre-supposes the validity of the gospels. When scripture authors such as Isaiah have provably written their works before Christ acted, we can consider the gospels as accounts of fulfilling these prophecies.

It is my understanding that there are early historians such as Josephus who wrote in support of these topics, but it is believed that most writings like this contain interpolations from Christians at later times.

My question is in two parts:

1) What fulfilled prophecies most validate the gospels?

2) What may we look to for assertion that these are indeed fulfilled prophecies and note merely works of men who had access to the prophetic writings and used them to invent stories that appear valid?

Key Old Testament Prophecies Jesus Fulfilled?

1A) Psalm 22 ~1,000 B.C. (NASB)

  Death: "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?... [I am] despised by the people. All who see me sneer at me... saying, “Commit yourself to the LORD; let Him deliver him; Let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.”... I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws; And You lay me in the dust of death. For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet... They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots..."

  Resurrection: "But You, O LORD, be not far off; O You my help, hasten to my assistance... I will tell of Your name to my brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You... You who fear the LORD, praise Him;... And stand in awe of Him, all you descendants of Israel. For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard... The afflicted will eat and be satisfied; Those who seek Him will praise the LORD. Let your heart live forever!"

  Legacy / Destiny: "All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations will worship before You. For the kingdom is the LORD’S And He rules over the nations... All those who go down to the dust will bow before Him... Posterity will serve Him; It will be told of the Lord to the coming generation. They will come and will declare His righteousness To a people who will be born, that He has performed it."

1B) Isaiah 53 ~700 B.C. (NASB)

  Life and Sacrifice: "...He grew up before Him like a tender shoot... He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief... Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed... the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
  So He did not open His mouth. By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
  And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living... His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth."

  Reward: "But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; ...the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great... Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors."

Wow.  (I will assume the reader can make a few connections here; there are a LOT of fulfilled prophecies just from these two passages.)

Proof of Authenticity?

I am tempted to start talking about the testimony of historians, logic based on the life choices of the Apostles, the conversion of Saul, the impossibility of pulling off a resurrection hoax... but at the end of the day, there is no "natural" argument for which skeptics will not have a counterargument.  So here is my real answer:

2) If you want to know if God is real, or if Jesus is the Messiah, or if the Bible is trustworthy, or how to be saved... ask Him.  If you sincerely seek Him, you can bet you will find your answers.

  "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened."  (Matthew 7:8, NASB)

I know this doesn't satisfy the desire for a rational proof, but in my opinion, the desire itself is based on flawed logic.  It assumes spiritual truth is knowable through natural reasoning, which it is not.

  "Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe."  (1 Corinthians 1:20-21, NASB)

While God is patient with us and sometimes willing to humor our requests for signs and proof, ultimately He requires faith.

  "At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants."  (Matthew 11:25, NASB)


Is ex-nihilo creationism irreconcilable with the concept of individual free will? Looking on this site in many answers involving the problem of evil I see affirmations of belief in free-will.

According to Calvinist Mark Hausam, who presented a paper at a conference on Mormonism, the assertion that God gave us free-will and that God created everything ex-nihilo, beliefs that he asserts are held by many evangelicals, are incompatible. He argues:

  Creation ex nihilo implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon
  God, one that logically guarantees that the creature will not be independent from God or
  be capable of independent contributions to reality in the ways envisioned in Arminian
  thought. In fact, creation ex nihilo logically leads directly to Calvinistic determinism.

Hausam continues to argue that Arminian thought is not all that dissimilar from Mormonism. Mormonism explicitly rejects the notion of creation ex-nihilo and as such resolves the problem of evil as well as the paradox: If God created everything, how is our will independent of him? He argues that Arminians, in order to believe in our having free-will, must reject the concept of ex-nihilo creation as well.

My question is directed to those who hold both these views. I am not entirely convinced that these views are irreconcilable as argued, but I cannot produce a good counter-argument. How do you resolve the paradox presented here by Hausam?

Note: I recognize one way to argue this is that God, being all-powerful, created our free wills out of nothing, but this is still the same paradox. How can God determine (create) something that is undetermined? (free-will). If you could present a logical argument for this view, I would gladly hear it.

With all due respect to Mark Hausam, the logic just doesn't hold water.  That sounds like a category error.

  Category Errors

  These fallacies occur because the author mistakenly assumes that the
  whole is nothing more than the sum of its parts. However, things
  joined together may have different properties as a whole than any of
  them do separately. The following fallacies are category errors:

  Composition (Because the parts have a property, the whole is said to have that property)
  Division (Because the whole has a property, the parts are said to have that property)

Free will is not dependent on our origins. To illustrate this, we can look at a polar opposite theory of origins and show that the same argument can be stated, and it's equally nonsensical.

Creationism implies a first cause, which is God. It deals with the origin of everything. Ex-nihilo creationism claims God as a first cause, leaving the question "where did God come from?"

Current Atheistic Naturalism also assumes a first cause - the Big Bang, and question "what existed before it?  Where did the energy, which eventually became matter, come from?"

Both claim either a first cause, or a first known cause, leaving the question of whether or not this known first cause is truly first... But I'm getting off the subject.

Let's rephrase the question attempting to tie free will to this alternate theory of origins:

  The Big Bang theory implies a radical metaphysical dependence upon
  energy and matter.

To which we can only reply "duh."

If the Big Bang is true, and we have a metaphysical dependence on matter and energy, that has nothing to do with whether or not we have free will.

The existence of free will has nothing to do with origins. It doesn't matter if the proposed theory of origins is the Big Bang, or Ex-nihilo Creationism, or the idea that a Turtle god barfed up the universe. (Sorry. I've been reading some odd legends lately.)


Detail about lamb sacrifice I was listening to a homily and here is what the priest said:

  "You would travel with your family to Jerusalem and you would have
  either brought a lamb or you would have acquired a lamb and what you
  do is live with that lamb in your home, the lamb would not leave your
  house, the lamb had to be good, spotless, male, unblemished; the lamb
  would live in your house, typically eating from your table for one
  week. Why? So that you would begin to love the lamb, so that this is not
  just some anonymous sacrifice..."

My issue is about the lamb "eating from your table" part of that preaching. I understand that the priest was trying to make a point and the homily was great. I can take that it might be possible that, in Jewish tradition, an animal might be able to stay inside a house temporarily. However, I understand that Jewish people were obsessed with purity and it just seems fair to believe that having an animal eat from your table might have been deemed as improper.

So my questions are:

Is it possible that Jewish people would keep a lamb inside their house, have them eat from their table, during one week prior to sacrifice?
Are there any reliable resources that support or correct this assertion?

The origins of the preparation for the sacrificial lamb go back to the Exodus when God told his people to prepare a lamb for slaughter prior on the evening before they were to be released.  It was called the Passover, because God’s angel would literally pass over the homes of the Hebrews who had followed God’s instructions as detailed in Exodus 12: 1-10.

Each household was to choose a year old unblemished male lamb (or female kid).  It was taken into the house on the 10th day of the month Abib (pronounced Aviv) and kept until the 14th, before it was slaughtered and its blood was splashed with a bunch of hyssop on the doorposts and the upper part of the doorway of the dwelling in which they were to eat it.  The lamb (or goat) was slaughtered, skinned, its interior parts cleansed and replaced, and it was roasted whole, well-done, with no bones broken. (See also 2 Chronicles 35:11 and Numbers 9:12)

No mention is made of the lamb “eating from the table” of the Hebrews.  The animal was to be kept indoors for four days and fed, but lambs don’t eat human food.  Lambs need milk from their mothers and then they move on to eating grass.  I should like to see any biblical reference to the lamb literally “eating from the table”.  I think that is a figure of speech, not a literal description.

Neither does the Bible suggest the purpose was to “bond” with the lamb and feel an emotional attachment to it.  The purpose was to obey God’s instructions so the angel of death would pass over the house.  Jews still celebrate the Passover, although these days, I don’t think they have to bring the sacrificial lamb into their house for four days!

Instructions on the preparation of the Passover lamb:

  Exodus 12: 1-10: “And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.  Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb. Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.  And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.  And they shall eat he flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.  Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof.  And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.”

Information on the sacrifice of a goat from Leviticus: http://www.blbclassic.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=goat+offering&t=KJV&sf=5

Information on ‘Offer’ and ‘Offerings’:  http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app43.html


Why did Ananias die? In Acts 4:32-5:11, Ananias dies when Peter asks him why he has held some of the proceeds of the sale of his property back from the communal pot. However, it is not made clear that he promised to give them all the money in the first place.

Is this simply implied by the later lie of Sapphira who claims that this was the whole price? Is there anything illuminating from tradition or external Biblical sources? Should this passage be interpretted entirely differently?

So, why did Ananias die?

Perhaps the first failure in the churches was that of hypocrisy (Acts 5:1-11). Hypocrisy is a matter of pretending to be somebody in order to get a name that they may have vainglory. It could be ambition was the seed of the failures in the churches.

Ananias and his wife Sapphira was probably seeking a position. They wanted to be somebody and to have a name so that they could enjoy vainglory. They did not offer everything to the church for the Lord’s sake but pretended to do this.

Acts 5:4 indicates that selling possessions and distributing them to others was not considered by the apostles a practice of legality. The believers were not required to have all things common. That was something that should have been done willingly.

If Ananias and Sapphira did not want to sell their property, they were not required to do so. It would not have been sinful for them to keep their property or to keep the proceeds from the sale of the property. Their sin consisted in lying to the Holy Spirit. Their intention was to cheat the church and to get a name for themselves by lying.


Why is the Catholic Church called "The Roman Catholic Church"? If the word "catholic", from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), means "universal", why The Catholic Church is known as "The Roman Catholic Church"?

Is it possible be "universal" and "roman" at the same time?

The Catholic Church does indeed usually refer to itself just as "The Catholic Church". That is what it's Wikipedia article calls it (Wikipedia usually names all organizations according to what they call themselves). Many Catholic-related organizations just use the word "Catholic" in their names - CAFOD is an example; Catholic School boards are another.

The term 'Roman Catholic' was originally applied by people who disagree with the Catholic church's claim to be the church (when they were not just referring to it as 'the Roman Church'). Over the centuries the usage has mutated, and term has been applied for various reasons, and is used by many people as if it were the official name of the church. However the history of the usage is extremely complicated. Even the Catholic Church sometimes refers to itself as the "Roman Catholic Church", especially if there is any danger of confusion, or of offence. This Wikipedia article gives some history of the usage of the term Catholic.

Those of you with way too much time on your hands can go and look through the Wikipedia debates on the correct naming of the church in the Catholic Church talk pages.


According to catholicism, what is the signification of burning incense during the liturgy? What is the signification of burning incense during mass and other liturgical functions?

One commentary on this survives from a time when the Roman Catholic Church was united with the eastern Sees.  It is from a work in Greek by Germanus I, Patriarch of Constantinople from 715 to 730, entitled Ecclesiastical History and Mystical Contemplation, available in a dual Greek-English format from St. Vladimir Seminary Press (Germanus is regarded as a Saint within both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches).

Although he is explaining the eastern, Byzantine liturgical rite and not the western, I think that his explanation would also be accepted within the context of the Roman Catholic Mass:

  The censer demonstrates the humanity of Christ, and the fire His
  divinity.  The sweet-smelling smoke reveals the fragrance of the Holy
  Spirit which precedes.  For the censer denotes sweet joy.

  Again, the interior of the censer is understood as the [sanctified]
  womb of the [holy] virgin [and Theotokos] who bore the divine coal,
  Christ, in whom the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily (Col. 2:9).
  All together, therefore, give forth the sweet-smelling fragrance.  Or
  again, the interior of the censer points to the font of holy baptism,
  taking into itself the coal of divine fire, the sweetness of the
  operation of the Holy Spirit, which is the adoption of divine grace
  through faith, and exuding a good odor.


According to Catholicism, why did the Blessed Mother stay a virgin during her pregnancy with Jesus? Why was Jesus born of a Virgin instead of just being conceived of a Virgin?

I know the Bible teaches the virgin birth, but why did the Blessed Mother refrain from sex during her pregnancy with Jesus (9 month gestation period)? After all, she was married to St. Joseph.

Do any Catholic theologians deal with this topic?

An answer from catholic church teaching to satisfy your curiosity regarding

  Why was Jesus born of a Virgin instead of just being conceived of a Virgin?

Short answer: she was conforming her will to God's.  This short answer is supported by the following points that the Catechism of the Catholic Church does a decent job of explaining.

It is worth noting that she was fulfilling the prophesy in Isaiah Chapter 7, but that may not directly bear on your question:

  13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for
  you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?  14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive,
  and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

I. CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

  CCC 484 The Annunciation to Mary inaugurates "the fullness of time", the time of the fulfilment of God's promises and preparations.  Mary was invited to conceive him in whom the "whole fullness of deity" would dwell "bodily". The divine response to her question, "How can this be, since I know not man?", was given by the power of the Spirit: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you."  { ~ As told in Luke, Chapter 1 ~ }

No carnal act was necessary for conception.  Since she had not had (per scripture) carnal acts before conception, there's little reason to believe that she'd change her habits and begin to have carnal acts afterwards, particularly when she understands that she's about to become filled with the Holy Spirit1.  From Luke 1:38

  38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; may it be done to me according to your word.”

I've seen some translations render that as "according to thy will."

What is God's will in this case?

Remembering that Catholic belief is Trinitarian, the Holy Spirit's acts align with God's will by default.

  485 The mission of the Holy Spirit is always conjoined and ordered to that of the Son. The Holy Spirit, "the Lord, the giver of Life", is sent to sanctify the womb of the Virgin Mary and divinely fecundate it, causing her to conceive the eternal Son of the Father in a humanity drawn from her own.

So far, after conception and before birth, no sin touches the vessel that bears Christ up to the point of birth.  Since Mary is aware that something very special is going on, and she has assented to God's will in this, it is unreasonable to conclude that she would start having sex once all of the above took place and she had conceived by the Holy Spirit.   (That answers why the Blessed Mother refrained from sex even after the incarnation).

  CCC 507 At once virgin and mother, Mary is the symbol and the most perfect realization of the Church: "the Church indeed. . . by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother.  By preaching and Baptism she {the Church} brings forth sons, who are conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of God, to a new and immortal life.

The above is supported by theological teaching and scripture as follows:
Lumen Gentium 63; 1 Corinthians 7:34-35; St. Augustine, De Virginante. 3: PL 40, 398; Lumen Gentium 64; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica III q. 28 a. 2; Luke Chapter 1.

Given her commitment to God's will in this, remaining virgin is both a matter of consistency, and a way that Mary fulfills her role as the model of faith and adherence to will of God that the Church is to follow.

1 Matthew 1: 24-25 shows Mary still being a virgin at the time of birth, and with the marriage not being consummated until afterwards.


Other than JWs, which denominations (or religions) recognize God's personal name as the form "Jehovah"? Background

Referring to God as Jehovah is a known practice by Jehovah's Witnesses as written by Raymond Franz in In Search of Christian Freedom in 1991:

  The fact remains that today no religious group of any size uses the
  name "Jehovah" with such intense frequency as does that of Jehovah's
  Witnesses. That name predominates throughout their literature. Among
  Jehovah's Witnesses it has become almost strange to speak of "God"
  without prefacing the term by saying "Jehovah God", while the term
  "Lord" is quite rare in their expressions. They read "Lord" in the
  Bible but hardly ever use it in their own speech extemporaneously. It
  is almost a liturgical form for them in most prayers to initially
  address these to "Jehovah" or "Jehovah God".

However, the above was written after his expulsion, and thus may not carry any significant doctrinal weight.

Question

Are there other denominations or religions that understand God's personal name as the form "Jehovah"?

Matt Slick answers the question, What is the real name of God? YHWH, Jehovah, Yahweh? on his site. He says,

  The real name of God is YHWH, the four letters that make up His name found in Exodus 3:14.  However, there is no correct pronunciation for the name of God because the letters are only consonants, no vowels.

There is no Christian group that I know of that would disagree with that statement. The answer to your specific question is that essentially all Christian groups believe that the Hebrew word transliterated as YHWH or YHVH, and commonly represented in English as Jehovah, is God's personal name.

Two closely related questions are, how should the name be spelled and pronounced; and when should the name be used in addressing or talking about God? Until recently, the word rarely used. Early Christians often used the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, which substituted the Greek word Kyrios for God's personal name, and the Jews came to believe the name should not be used outside of the Temple.

In modern times many Christians are becoming aware of God's original name, and have come to believe it is appropriate to use it in worship. Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the first groups to do so, and have made it an important part of their practice. Many other Christians use a form of the name, either Jehovah, Yehovah, or Yahweh to affirm their personal attachment to God, but there are few or no doctrinal statements about using the name.


Why isn't God mentioned in Esther? As you may know, God is never mentioned in the book of Esther, either by name (Yahweh), title (Adonai), or being (El). Neither is prayer.

Why not? I realize this is rather open ended, so I'll try to give some objective criteria:

If it never mentions God, why is it in the canon?
What is the theological application to be gained from Esther given the lack of any reference to God.
waves hands

I have a few thoughts on this myself, but i'll try to hold them until I can get a good sampling of answers.

(also, why hasn't this been asked yet? Have I missed an obvious duplicate? Or stumbled into the Area51 of ✝.SE?)

The Book of Esther's legitimacy as part of the canon of Christian scripture  has been the subject of debate because there is no direct reference to God. The compilation of the original Bible is largely obscured in history (e.g. the Song of Solomon has been likewise disputed because of its romantic content), but Esther may have been included because of its rich demonstration of Christian values such as loyalty, courage, faith, and fasting (and by implication, prayer).
Even though God is never directly mentioned in the book, His Providence is distinctly evidenced in the deliverance of the Jews in the face of great opposition and terrible odds. It is a witness of God's mindfulness of His people, His recognition of their faith, and His direct intervention in their lives despite His indirect presence among them. In fact, the refrain of mention of His name emphasizes this contrast: that even though God isn't directly with us (as it would seem), His hand is still mighty on behalf of His faithful, and thus, is actually with us.

This answer by Warren suggests that Esther prefigures Mary, a significant example of faith and virtue.

Embedded in Esther 4:13-16 is the confidence in a sure deliverance by Providence:  whether by Esther's house or by some other means, the Jews would be delivered. So while the historical accuracy of Esther is debated here or there, I for one personally love the book because of the inspiring display of virtues, and the profound example of faith by fasting, courage/loyalty, and patriotism.


Which sects interpret "Day and Hour unknown" literally? “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming.
  Matthew 25:13 (NKJV)

Is there any Christian sect which literally interprets this verse and says that even if there is no way of knowing the exact day or hour, there are some clues available from the scripture to calculate or know the season, year or century when Jesus will come again? If so, what is the basis of their calculations or arguments?

I would argue that most churches accept this quite literally, and that the exceptions prove the rule.

Three great examples in the last 150 years of trying to pick a date are as follows:

The Millerites who, in following Miller, were convinced Jesus was coming back in 1844.
Ed Whiseant's "88 Reasons the Lord is Coming Back in 1988"
Harold Camping's date of May 21, 2011

In all cases, these predictions did not come to pass. (I realize that since all three dates have come to pass, this may come as a shock to some people - but so far the record is zero :)

In at least the later two cases, most Protestants dismissed the prophecies as heresy, using precisely the justification you state.  Here, for example is a post from March 2011, using precisely the same justification.

The most interesting of the three, however, is clearly that of the Millerites. Like Camping, William Miller stuck his neck out and said the Lord was coming back in 1843.  When that didn't happen, he recalculated and figured out it was 1844.  When that discredited him, he slipped off the stage - but not before providing the essential ingredients to help launch the Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witness.

But again, these are hardly indicative of the mainstream.  Most of us just say, "Really?"


Was Jesus referring to 1 Kings 19 while delivering His teaching on pursuit of the Kingdom of God? (Roman Catholic perspective) Luke 9:62 (NRSVCE) reads:

  Jesus said to him, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

One finds a parallel in 1 Kings 19:19–21:

  So he set out from there, and found Elisha son of Shaphat, who was plowing. There were twelve yoke of oxen ahead of him, and he was with the twelfth. Elijah passed by him and threw his mantle over him.   He left the oxen, ran after Elijah, and said, “Let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you.” Then Elijah said to him, “Go back again; for what have I done to you?”   He returned from following him, took the yoke of oxen, and slaughtered them; using the equipment from the oxen, he boiled their flesh, and gave it to the people, and they ate. Then he set out and followed Elijah, and became his servant.

My question is:

Are there any official interpretations available from the perspective of the Catholic Church suggesting that Jesus was referring to the demand of Elijah in this passage, while emphasising the need for earnest pursuit of the Kingdom of Heaven?

Calmet recognized this. As it says in the Catholic Haydock Commentary for Luke 9:62:

  Christ seems here to allude to the call of Eliseus by Elias. The former was at the plough, and the latter called him. Immediately Eliseus quits his plough, runs with Elias's permission to bid adieu to his father and mother, sacrifices two of his oxen, roasts them with the wood of the plough, and joins the company of the prophets. Jesus Christ wishes that all who follow him, should in like manner think of nothing else. (Calmet)


Are there any specific food / slaughter / butchery / preparation rites in Christianity? I noticed on islam.SE, Ansari here refers to "Christian practices during the slaughter", which made me raise an eyebrow - as an ex-Christian, I can't remember anything of this form coming up (I was RC, if that skews things). After querying this, Ansari replied:

  I believe some of the Eastern Christianity sects have some ritual requirements, in particular, the mention of God's name. For example, in the Syriac-language Nomocanon of Barhebraeus (d. 1286), a Christian butcher is instructed to recite the phrase ba-shma d'elaha haya, “In the name of the living God.” Gregorius Barhebraeus, Nomocanon, ed. Paul Bedjan (Paris: Harrassowitz, 1898); (citation taken from here)

When trying to look this up, I can only really find references to it on Islamic sites, and it doesn't sound like something with a Biblical basis (but please correct me if I am mistaken).

But I guess, both on the specific point above, and in the more general: are there any explicit Christian practices (generally, or in specific sections of Christianity) of slaughter / butchery / preparation that I am being ignorant of? (I'm not talking about "fish on Friday", here).

Not sure how definitive an answer I can provide to this question, but thought I'd contribute a few thoughts that came to mind.

The "law," or "law of Moses," was codified by the Rabbi's in ancient times into the mitzvot, a collection of 613 laws compiled from a close reading of the Pentateuch.

The mitzvot consists of "positive" (ie "do this") and "negative" ("do not do this") requirements, and is traditionally divided into three basic categories:

The "ceremonial law"
The "judicial law"
The "moral law"

Christians, believing that Christ is the "fulfillment of the law," believe that his atonement rendered the ceremonial and dietary laws void. Peter's vision in Acts 10:9-15 is sometimes offered as a proof that the Old Testament dietary law does not apply to Christians.

(Note that the requirements in the "moral law" category still apply, because, AFAIK, they are consistent with -- and, essentially, the basis for -- Christ's teachings about how to love others).
Edit: A link to the mitzvot follows -- however, please note that I am no scholar of Judaism, and I don't know if the site is credible or not. It's apparently a personal project maintained by a Tracey R. Rich, and is currently ranked fourth for a Google search of "mitzvot." "Judaism 101" link. Their list uses a different set of classifications, which the page says was created by the site's editor. Some examples of the Jewish dietary laws can be found in items 143-169.
< /edit >
1 Corinthians 10 is also germane to the question; see v. 14-31, esp. v. 25-30. In 1Cor 10, Paul emphasizes that what's important to God is Christians' love for one another, rather than their legalistic compliance with things like dietary requirements. See v. 28-30. This is consistent with the Christian concept of God's grace, and its priority over legalism. The section headings in the NIV translation are helpful in this chapter.
Also, in Acts 15, Luke quotes James as elaborating the requirements that would apply to Gentiles who wanted to join the church. In verse 20, he says that they are not to eat meat from animals that had been strangled, and they are not to drink blood. I think I recall hearing at some point that strangulation of animals was a common practice in pagan ceremonies of the time, and that the overwhelming majority of the meat that could be purchased in the market in cities like Corinth had been slaughtered in such ceremonies.
I wish I had some references to good commentaries to substantiate more of this response for you, but I'm a bit out of my depth here. And I'm not familiar with the teachings & traditions of the Eastern Orthodox church, so I can't address that element. FWIW, I hope this response provides something of a starting point for further inquiry. Cheers.
Edit: Also useful here is Paul's discussion of vegetarianism in Romans 14.
Edit: Here are a few related Christianity.SE questions:

Does Christianity have any dietary guidelines?
Did the ancient Hebrews believe that blood had unique spiritual properties?
Have the dietary prohibitions of Acts 15:20 been applied to Christians today?


Where in the Pentateuch does it indicate that it's better to sin against God than against your spiritual director? From The Ladder of Divine Ascent:

  Do not be surprised at what I am going to say (for I have Moses to
  support me). It is better to sin against God than against our father;
  for when we anger God, our director can reconcile us; but when he is
  incensed against us, there is no one to propitiate him for us. But it
  seems to me that both cases amount to the same thing. (4-121)

I have tried to find the passage to which St. John Climacus is referring but have failed. What verses is he referring to?

I suspect that John Climacus has Exodus 32 in mind:1

  11 But Moses implored the Lord his God and said, “O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from your burning anger and relent from this disaster against your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your offspring, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14 And the Lord relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people. (ESV)

Moses could be seen here as the "spiritual director" who turns God's wrath away from his "spiritual children." On the other hand, if the Israelites anger Moses, they have no one to stand between themselves and Moses.  Thus, it is "better" to anger God, rather than the spiritual director.

Given the way John presents this, it seems doubtful that he would extend this teaching beyond this perhaps tongue-in-cheek usage.  He introduces it as something that would sound strange to his audience, and then closes by calling the two sins "the same thing." Thus, his argument seems to be: it's bad to sin against God, and it's bad to sin against your spiritual director, but at least if you sin against God, you have a spiritual director who can plead with God on your behalf.

For what it is worth, this Eastern Orthodox blogger recommends the same passage with respect this quote.


What is the significance of Mary treasuring and pondering in her heart? In "the Christmas parts" in Luke Mary's reaction to many great occurrences is to treasure and ponder them in her heart.

Is there specific significance to this phrasing or is it simply to highlight Mary's humility?

I suppose Luke got his information from Mary, and for her to have given them as though quoting them after many years proved she pondered and cherished those words, and was watching out for their fulfilment.


Can the grace of God depart from a Christian? Can a Christian fall from grace? Please refer to the verse below and shed some light.

Galatians 5:4 “You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.”

As with many things in scripture, the first thing to do is zoom out and grab some context.

  For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. (Galatians 5:1-6)

First, Paul is talking about the circumcision party of the Jews and how they are making the grace of God meaningless by their adherence to the old law. You can see that in the previous sentence he is using hyperbole to make a point, so it makes sense to take this phrase as well in that tone.

Second, the greek word εκπιπτω (ekpipto) which here is translated as "to fall away" is also used in the phrase "to run aground" (as in a ship at sea) (Acts 27:26) or "lose your balance" (2 Peter 3:17). The idea is that you are falling away from the vertical line you once held, not that you are being severed from something.

This is just a cursory examination of this particular verse and it's context. The arguments for and against the preservation of salvation are many and varied.

For a more in depth answer, I recommend wikipedia: Perseverance of the Saints


According to Catholicism which parts of the Bible actually happened historically? One of the things that have tested my faith is the question: Did the bible really happen? Was there really a "garden of Eden"? Was there a universal flood"

And perhaps more importantly, how important is it for the bible books to be accurate? If Genesis didn't really happen, what impact does it have on our faith?

Modern scientific research clearly shows that the creation story from the bible did not really happen.

According to Catholicism which parts of the Bible really happened historically?

What parts should we ready historically and what parts figuratively?

The Catholic Church Magisterium has not committed to reading the first few chapters of Genesis (from Adam to Noah, at least) as historical / scientific account.  Instead, both the Catholic Church and a growing segment of Protestants and Evangelicals, emphasize that scientific truth and the theological truth are compatible with each other.  What has to be taken by faith is what those first chapters teach us about God's nature and our nature, and the Church Magisterium has the authority to interpret them accordingly.
The solution: identifying the genre of the Creation story, Adam and Eve, and the Flood story as theological truth cast in ancient Hebrew cosmology which in turn adopts elements of other mythologies of the Ancient Near East.  Thus, we notice similarities of the Creation Story to Enûma Eliš and the Noah Story to the Epic of Gilgamesh.  For example, this article shows some parallels.
The Hebrew author of Genesis thus was countering the theology embedded in the Mesopotamian myths by recasting the story in terms of Hebrew theology.  In Hebrew theology, the True and Real God of the Universe (who also is the Personal God who chose Israel as His special people) created human being as His Imager In the World.  Notice the big contrast to the Babylonian myth where their gods created human beings to be slaves for the gods.  In the Hebrew author's hand, the story thus highly "upgraded" the status of human beings, and that's one of the key point of the Hebrew theology.  (Note: see LBD entry on 'image of God' why the functional 'God's imager' is a better translation.)
Some quotes from a Catholic apologetics website article How to Read the First Chapter of Genesis quoting Pope John Paul II, Pope, Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, and St. Augustine (emphasis mine):

The confusion over this issue, which Pope John Paul II addressed in 1996 in his highly publicized letter about evolution, boils down to the question of how to read the biblical creation account.  In his letter, John Paul simply reiterated what the Magisterium has argued tirelessly since Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus (1893): The author of Genesis did not intend to provide a scientific explanation of how God created the world.  Unfortunately there are still biblical fundamentalists, Catholic and Protestant, who do not embrace this point.
When Christ said that the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds — and it is about the size of a speck of dust — He was not laying down a principle of botany.  In fact, botanists tell us there are smaller seeds.  Our Lord was simply talking to the men of His time in their own language, and with reference to their own experience.  Similarly, the Hebrew word for "day" used in Genesis ("yom") can mean a 24-hour day, or a longer period.  Hence the warning of Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943), that the true sense of a biblical passage is not always obvious.  The sacred authors wrote in the idioms of their time and place.
As Catholics, we must believe that every word of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, a claim the Church will not make even for her infallible pronouncements.  However, we must not imagine the biblical authors as going into a trance and taking automatic dictation in a "pure" language untouched by historical contingency.  Rather, God made full use of the writers habits of mind and expression.  It's the old mystery of grace and free will.
A modern reader of Genesis must bear in mind the principles of biblical exegesis laid down by St. Augustine in his great work De Genesi Ad Litteram (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis).  Augustine taught that whenever reason established with certainty a fact about the physical world, seemingly contrary statements in the Bible must be interpreted accordingly.  He opposed the idea of a "Christian account" of natural phenomena in opposition to what could be known by science.  He viewed such accounts as "most deplorable and harmful, and to be avoided at any cost," because on hearing them the non-believer "could hardly hold his laughter on seeing, as the saying goes, the error rise sky-high."

But the Magisterium did clarify the boundaries of acceptable position in this Catholic Answers article Adam, Eve, and Evolution, specifically ruling that "the human race have to descend from an original pair of two human beings" to preserve the doctrine of original sin:

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).


What 'cubit' did the Lord refer to in Genesis 6:15? Original: Genesis 6:15, 'the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits':

According to King James Bible, Genesis 6:15, when the Lord told Noah to make an ark of gopher wood, He specified that

  'the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits'.

Romans, Egyptians, Sumerians, and Persians at least all have different measurements for a "cubit." Is there an explanation regarding how Noah known what God was talking about?

A cubit is a general form of measure - it is approximately the length of your arm, from the elbow to your finger.  As such, a cubit isn't specific to a culture, it is specific to a man.  On average, 18 inches is a good approximation, but that can differ from person to person - for some people it might be 15" for others, 21". The various cubits that you see reflect later legislative (and historians') attempts to "standardize" the measure.  The exactitude you look for in modern groups didn't exist then.

As Robert Creese points out in his wonderful book World in the Balance: The Historic Quest for an Absolute System of Measurement, human based measures were never intended to match the precision we look for today.  Cecil Adams points out that the 'mile' has varied in length over time as well. "18 inches" is specific. Cubits are not that specific.

As such, there are two good options to answer your question:

God was saying to Noah - "Use your cubit."
God didn't care about the exact dimensions to the precision you are looking for.

And of course Narnian is right on when he points out that Persia, Rome, Sumer, and Egypt were hundreds of years after Noah.

Incidentally, Creese specifically mentions that there are even different kinds of cubits - sacred cubits were 25 inches!

  Indeed, Taylor said, the pyramid had been built to provide “the measure of the Earth” for humans. Furthermore, the unit used to measure the stones was the “sacred cubit” (about 25 inches) that had been used by God’s chosen people throughout the ancient world in their holy construction projects—Noah in his ark, Abraham in the tabernacle, and Solomon in the temple.7

Crease, Robert P. (2011-10-17). World in the Balance: The Historic Quest for an Absolute System of Measurement (Kindle Locations 2295-2298). Norton. Kindle Edition.