What is the rationale for forbidding priests to marry in traditions where already-married men are allowed to become priests? As everyone knows, married men are unable to be ordained as priests in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church, nor are priests allowed to get married for as long as they remain priests. This is not quite the case in other ancient churches. According to Wikipedia, married men are allowed to be ordained as priests in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic traditions, but even in these traditions unmarried priests are not allowed to get married after ordination.

What is the rationale for allowing men to marry and then become priests, but forbidding them to become priests and then marry?

I am a part of the Antiochian Orthodox Church.

I asked my Priest this (who is married), and what I recall him telling me is it has to do with the fact that if you were allowed to marry after becoming a priest, things regarding courtship and all that are likely to get in the way of being an effective and focused priest. Whereas if you are already married, then all that drama is out of the way, and though that does give you a family to concern yourself with in addition to the Church, you are firmly grounded and it doesn't get in the way of being the kind of priest you should be.

But you are allowed to become married and then become a Priest because Marriage is considered a Sacrament, and so to experience this Sacrament as laity, as long as you are being the husband / father you should be, then it is still acceptable to become a Priest (and in having a wife it's easier to not give in to earthly desires).  Personally I think this is a much more grounded and sensible reasoning than saying you cannot become a Priest if you are married.

This is what my Priest sent me:

  1) "the husband of one wife" (I Timothy 3:2) this is from the Pastoral
  Epistles of St. Paul.  This has been the core teaching on the
  priesthood since it was written.

  2) the generally, the priests are held to the standard that all
  Christians called to, but often don't live up to.

  This may give you a little background if you'd like it:
  http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/10/of-marriage-and-orthodox-priests

It is the view that celibacy is better, as is described in that article and by my Priest.  And one such Bible reference example comes from 1 Cor 7:

  [32] But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried
  careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the
  Lord: [33] But he that is married careth for the things that are of
  the world, how he may please his wife.

But thankfully it's also recognized that celibacy is a very high calling, and fares better for monks rather than priests.


Why do Catholics ask for things from an omniscient and omnibenevolent God? Prayer as praise is rational. It makes sense for people to tell a loving God that they love him too. But I don't understand why Catholics ask things of a God who is omniscient (“all knowing”), omnipotent (“all powerful”) and omnibenevolent (“good”). Given His omniscience, He knows what each of us wants and what is best for each us, and, given His omnibenevolence, He is already doing what is best for each of us. None of us can be sure that what we want is best for us or best for others. God knows that rational believers understand all these things and so, if my reasoning is correct, He also knows and they know that it would be irrational of them to ask Him for anything.

Praise is rational, but requests seem irrational. Yet even the Old Testament prophets and Jesus asked for things from God (understanding that Jesus too was God, but we can leave that puzzle aside for this question as it only adds complexity).

If the rationality of prayer as requests can't be justified, then it threatens a foundational feature of Catholic belief and practice. Perhaps someone here can provide the explanation I am looking for.

One nice thing about the Catholic Church is that, because they have 2000 years of history to draw from, they have written a great deal about most every question of faith and have codified it as well. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) #2629-2633 discusses a prayer of petition (which is the technical term for a prayer where you ask God for something), and the reasons that it is done. In all the passages below, the bolding for emphasis is mine, any italics were in the original.
To express our reliance on God
By asking things of God, we acknowledge that we are not able to do everything ourselves and are reliant on him. When we ask God for things outside our control, we begin a process of turning away from our sin (I imagine that pride would be a notable sin in this case) and turning instead to him. In other words, God knows our needs, but we are acknowledging that we cannot provide for those needs ourselves and that instead we must rely on him to fulfill those needs.

2629: The vocabulary of supplication in the New Testament is rich in shades of meaning: ask, beseech, plead, invoke, entreat, cry out, even "struggle in prayer."102 Its most usual form, because the most spontaneous, is petition: by prayer of petition we express awareness of our relationship with God. We are creatures who are not our own beginning, not the masters of adversity, not our own last end. We are sinners who as Christians know that we have turned away from our Father. Our petition is already a turning back to him.
102 Cf. Rom 15:30; Col 4:12.

To give us hope in our lamentation, and to receive help in our other prayers
By asking God for things, we are provided hope from our struggles. Additionally, the Holy Spirit helps us to pray both in petition and other types of prayers.

2630: The New Testament contains scarcely any prayers of lamentation, so frequent in the Old Testament. In the risen Christ the Church's petition is buoyed by hope, even if we still wait in a state of expectation and must be converted anew every day. Christian petition, what St. Paul calls {"groaning," arises from another depth, that of creation "in labor pains" and that of ourselves "as we wait for the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved."103 In the end, however, "with sighs too deep for words" the Holy Spirit "helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words."104
103 Rom 8:22-24.
104 Rom 8:26.

In the case of asking for forgiveness, to be able to make other types of prayers
Other types of prayer, as well as the Eucharistic liturgy, require asking for forgiveness before they can be performed.

2631: The first movement of the prayer of petition is asking forgiveness, like the tax collector in the parable: "God, be merciful to me a sinner!"105 It is a prerequisite for righteous and pure prayer. A trusting humility brings us back into the light of communion between the Father and his Son Jesus Christ and with one another, so that "we receive from him whatever we ask."106 Asking forgiveness is the prerequisite for both the Eucharistic liturgy and personal prayer.
105 Lk 18:13.
106 1 Jn 3:22; cf. 1:7-2:2.

To express our desire and search for the Kingdom of God
We are desiring and searching ourselves for the Kingdom of God, and our petitions should be for things that will help in that.

2632: Christian petition is centered on the desire and search for the Kingdom to come, in keeping with the teaching of Christ.107 There is a hierarchy in these petitions: we pray first for the Kingdom, then for what is necessary to welcome it and cooperate with its coming. This collaboration with the mission of Christ and the Holy Spirit, which is now that of the Church, is the object of the prayer of the apostolic community.108 It is the prayer of Paul, the apostle par excellence, which reveals to us how the divine solicitude for all the churches ought to inspire Christian prayer.109 By prayer every baptized person works for the coming of the Kingdom.
107 Cf. Mt 6:10,33; Lk 11:2,13.
108 Cf. Acts 6:6; 13:3.
109 Cf. Rom 10:1; Eph 1:16-23; Phil 1:9-11; Col 1:3-6; 4:3-4,12.

I'd like to highlight Matthew 6:33 (from footnote 107), which says "But seek first the kingdom [of God] and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides."
This passage also makes it clear that the things that we should ask for are those that are necessary to bring the Kingdom of God.
To make us prepared for what God is intending to give
In the section of filial piety in prayer, CCC #2737 talks about why we don't immediately receive what we ask for and quotes St. Augustine (b. 334–d. 440) in a passage that is relevant for this as well:

God wills that our desire should be exercised in prayer, that we may be able to receive what He is prepared to give.

Summary
It's clear from the Catechism that the reasons for prayer are less about helping God out (because God certainly has the capability and desire to give us what we he knows we need), but more about aligning ourselves to God's desires. Prayer makes us able to understand that we need God to fulfill our needs and prepares us to receive them, while also providing us hope through Christ. In the case of asking for forgiveness, it also a prerequisite for other types of prayer.


If Genesis is not to be taken literally by the Roman Catholics, what is the basis of the original sin? According to this answer, Genesis is not to be taken literally by the Roman Catholic church due to the scientific evidence contradicting it. In this view, what is the basis of the original sin?

Catholicism teaches that we were in a perpetual state of grace and "did something" that opposed God's commands, which took us out of that state of grace.

The rest is just footnotes.

For Catholics, we subscribe to the notion that much of the early Old Testament is not a literal "this happened, then that happened" scenario. Genesis is a prime example of where we believe the specifics of the creation stories and the "Fall" are irrelevant to the Theology that is being expressed within.

So, that being said, we really don't concern ourselves with the specifics, other than to say we strongly doubt there was a literal tree, a literal apple, etc. The Theology being expressed within, however, is a different matter. That Theology suggests that there was a time immediately following our creation when Humanity lived in an idyllic state and were close to God (in the "I can see God face-to-face" kind of close). Faith was not a requirement, because we could see and interact with God. In other words, belief was not in question.

Flash forward to some point after creation. We voluntarily chose evil over good. The specifics of what we chose and how we chose it don't really matter (to Catholics). The "take away" is that we did something that God asked us not to do. This "something" was so fundamental and so "essence-changing" that it was simply impossible for us to live in that idyllic state of being any longer. We suddenly found ourselves in a less-than-idyllic state.

For Catholics, that is the essence of Original Sin.

References

Catholic Encyclopedia - Original sin; specifically read the section Nature of Original Sin

Official Catechism of Catholic Church - How to Read the Account of the Fall


Jeremiah 23:6 - “The LORD Our Righteousness” or “The LORD shall call him “Our Righteousness””? In the Hebrew Aleppo, Leningrad And Cairo codices, there is a separation mark between Yahweh and Our Righteousness. This is how it looks:
״יהוה | צדקנו״, Separating God’s name from Our Righteousness. But, there are some English versions that say “The Lord Our Righteousness”, but I don’t know why. There is a Hebrew version online that says “the LORD Our Righteousness”, but the website says it’s based on the Leningrad codex, but the Leningrad codex has the separation mark. There is another version which is based on the Aleppo codex and “The manuscripts close to it”, and it also does not have the separation mark, but if we go to the Aleppo codex online, I think it has it. What is true and how? “The LORD will call him ‘Our Righteousness’” or “He shall be called: the LORD our Righteousness”?

The matter is understood and completed!
Here is a link to a picture from the Dead Sea Scrolls, containing the end of Jeremiah 33:16, where it says יהוה צד (It’s not completed) without the separating line! https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-360205
Praise God for revealing his truth! Amen!


A question on 'leadership' Why is it common for pastors to advocate leadership (including their own) when it is easy to conclude that it is anti-biblical according to what Jesus had said?

"Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ." - Matthew 23:10 NASB

Note: some translations use "instructors" or "teachers" instead of "leaders"

Clarification: I would like someone to try their best to explain the original context of what Jesus said here. Preferably including Greek references.

The NASB is very much in the minority when it renders the word here as 'leaders'. Most translations have either 'masters' or 'instructors'. Even the NASB admits that 'teachers' is a possible meaning. So it is really far from clear that there is a prohibition on being called a leader.

Elsewhere in the New Testament it is clear that there were 'leaders' among the church. Hebrews 13 instructs Christians to be obedient to the leaders in the church, and in Luke 22 Jesus gives instructions for what Christian leaders are to be like (and uses the same word). So it seems pretty clear that Jesus isn't forbidding the existence of leaders (or leadership) in the church, or indeed the calling of those people 'leader'.


Why was neither David nor Solomon stoned to death? David was a murderer and an adulterer. Both crimes were punishable by death under the law of Moses.

Solomon had . . . how many wives and concubines? I don't even remember.

Why was neither David nor Solomon stoned to death? Was there any provision in the law for special cases when the one who commits a crime is the king of Israel?

Solomon married his concubines, so he wasn't practicing adultery - just polygamy, which was not forbidden.

David murdered Uriah, but did it by proxy. He did not kill Uriah, rather he set up a situation in which he would fall in battle. Beyond that, yes David "killed his ten thousands," but did so in battle, and thus it isn't murder. And as Caleb pointed out, God punished David.


How does a Catholic church support itself without Tithe? Usually, in Protestant churches, the church's income is mostly from tithes and then offerings, and secondarily from any outside sponsors the church may have. I am less informed how the Catholic church raises their funds.

I learned from this post that Catholics don't tithe. As a protestant, I wonder how Catholic churches support themselves.

How does a Catholic church support itself without the money from Tithe?

How generous are Catholics in giving offerings to the church?

Your question seems to imply there must be some secret source, some behind the scenes force. I'm not sure what you expect to find, but money doesn't grow on trees for Catholics any more than for Protestants.

In fact, if anything, Protestants have a harder time with this than Catholics do. The question you linked to has answers that explain very clearly that Catholics are obligated to give. This sort of obligation tends to be taken much more seriously in Catholicism than in Protestant circles. Even in countries where belief is nominal, fulfillment of such obligations often outpaces other aspects of devotion. In addition, since the Catholic church is centralized, the local ups and downs of giving are averaged out and the expenses are spread out over a larger giving base.

Just because some Protestants define a tithe as a regular 10% offering doesn't mean that actually happens. In practice it is usually much much smaller than this. Since the funds aren't centralized, this often means local churches may have noticeable shortfalls at various times.

  I still feel that only offerings may not be sufficient.

It doesn't matter too much what you feel, the account ledgers say otherwise. Of course they have hard times too and giving shortfalls mean less ability to carry out projects etc, but the fact of the matter is that Catholics do give and these offerings do support the church.

The Catholic church benefits from a large member base and their obligation to give out of their ability to the needs of the church. This is the major source of income for the church. End of story. There isn't some vast hidden business network or other money making scheme.


What do JW, Evangelicals and Mormons believe about hastening the Return of Jesus? I've found some Protestant and Catholic articles about interpreting (Peter 3:12, Revelation 22:20, Matthew 6:9-13, Luke 18:1-8) as the opportunity, for Christians, to hasten the Return of the Lord through prayers.

Are there other interpretation, according to JW, Evangelicals, and Mormons?

Some sources on the matter:

Among Protestant Etc.

http://learnbibleprophecy.blogspot.it/2010/12/come-lord-jesus-maranatha.html

http://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/pray-for-the-end-of-the-world#sthash.GiV7mAO7.7QHYMEE5.dpbs

https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/love-worth-finding/read/articles/can-we-hasten-the-second-coming-of-christ-15204.html

http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/Timeline/Hastening.Lords.Return.html

http://christianteaching.org.uk/blog/eschatology/hastening-the-return-of-christ/#comment-32538

http://folkslisten.blogspot.it/2010/06/can-i-speed-up-return-of-jesus.html

https://nathanaelflock.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/scriptural-conviction-hastening-the-day-of-the-lord/

http://quailandmanna.com/god-justice/

Among Catholics:

From the Catechism:

2817 This petition is "Marana tha," the cry of the Spirit and the Bride: "Come, Lord Jesus."

2818 In the Lord's Prayer, "thy kingdom come" refers primarily to the final coming of the reign of God through Christ's return.88

Jehovah's Witnesses have an interesting perspective on this question because they believe the signs of Christ's presence (Matthew 24:7-14) are already visible.
JWs don't believe we can literally "speed up" the end of this system of things, because the Father already knows when it will be (Matthew 24:36). However, they still pray for God's Kingdom to come. Jesus commanded us to pray for God's Kingdom by including it in the model prayer:

Matthew 6:9-13 (NWT)
9 “You must pray, then, this way:
“‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. 10 Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth. 11 Give us today our bread for this day; 12 and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the wicked one.’

But then, why do JWs pray for God's Kingdom to come? Here's the answer:

Why pray for God’s Kingdom to come?
God’s Kingdom is a heavenly government. Jesus told his followers to pray for it to come because it will restore righteousness and peace to the earth. No human government can completely eliminate violence, injustice, or disease, but God’s Kingdom can and will. God has chosen his Son, Jesus, to be King of the Kingdom. Jehovah has also chosen a group of Jesus’ followers to be associate rulers with Jesus in the Kingdom.—Read Luke 11:2; 22:28-30.
Soon, God’s Kingdom will take action against all opposers of God’s rule. So the prayer for God’s Kingdom to come is a request for God’s government to replace all human governments.—Read Daniel 7:13, 14; Revelation 11:15, 18.
Why will God’s Kingdom benefit people?
Jesus is an ideal King because he is compassionate. As God’s Son, he also has the power to provide help for all who cry to God for aid.—Read Psalm 72:8, 12-14.
God’s Kingdom will benefit all who sincerely pray for it to come and who bring their lives into harmony with God’s will. You will never regret learning what the Bible says about God’s Kingdom.—Read Luke 18:16, 17; John 4:23.


How do Protestants understand the "unforgivable" sin? Scripture refers to an unpardonable sin in Matthew 12:31–32, Mark 3:29–30, and Luke 12:10, as well as Hebrews 6:4–6.

There's also "sin that leads to death" (1 John 5:16–17).

Given the Protestant understanding of sin, what is an overview of the doctrines they develop from these passages?  To Protestants, what is the unforgivable sin?

Related, but not tradition-specific: What is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

Protestants basically fall into three main camps, claiming that the unpardonable sin is:

attributing the works of the Holy Spirit to the devil; or,
refusal to repent even to the end of one's life; or,
hatefully and willfully slandering the Holy Spirit's testimony of Christ.

Within (3), there are three views regarding who can commit the sin: 3a) only the regenerate (saved), 3b) both regenerate and unregenerate (unsaved), and 3c) only the unregenerate.

(1) Some, particularly dispensationalists like Lewis S. Chafer, take the view (also held by Jerome and Chrysostom) that the unpardonable sin could only be performed during Jesus' time on earth, since the sin specifically "consisted in asserting that Christ’s works, which were wrought by the Holy Spirit, were accomplished on the contrary by Satan."1  Charismatics like J. Rodman Williams similarly view it as the "utterly perverse ascription of the work of God to Satan," but argue that it can still be committed today.2

(2) The second position was held by Augustine,3 some early Lutherans, and several Scottish theologians.  One of the latter was Thomas Chalmers, who writes that "it is a sin which can be charged upon every man who has put the overtures of forgiveness away from him."  Expressing his disagreement with other views, he writes:

  So that this sin, looked upon by many as the sin of one particular age, or, if possible to realise it in the present day, as only to be met with in a few solitary instances of enourmous and unexpiable transgression, is the very sin upon which may be made to turn the condemnation and the ruin of the existing majority of our species.4

(3) The third position is held by later Lutherans, Arminians, and Calvinists.  The Lutherans espouse the first subdivision, the Arminians the second, and Calvinists the third.

(3a) Lutheran John Mueller explains that the sin is "committed only when the Holy Spirit has clearly revealed the divine truth to the sinner and the sinner nevertheless utters blasphemies against it."5  He notes that most dogmaticians6 in his tradition "teach that the sin against the Holy Ghost can be committed only by those who were regernerated," with the exception of those who argue that it can also occur in the unregenerate "in the very moment when the Holy Ghost is about to convert them."

(3b) The second subdivision, that either regenerate or unregenerate can commit the sin, is held by Arminians.  Jacobus Arminius described the sin as the "rejection and refusing of Jesus Christ through determined malice and hatred against Christ [...] against conscience."7

(3c) The third subdivision (only the unregenerate commit the sin) is believed by those in the reformed tradition, like John Calvin and Louis Berkhof. Calvin writes that the sin is committed by those "whose consciences, though convinced that what they repudiate and impugn is the Word of God, yet cease not to impugn it,"8 but that "he who has been truly regenerated by the Spirit cannot possibly fall into so horrid a crime."9 Berkhof's definition reads:

  The sin consists in the conscious, malicious, and wilful rejection and slandering, against evidence and conviction, of the testimony of the Holy Spirit respecting the grace of God in Christ, attributing it out of hatred and enmity to the prince of darkness.10

Notes and References: Berkhof and Combs provide helpful summaries; Combs in particular includes additional quotes, including some from church fathers and medieval theologians, and a review of how modern theologians fall into the camps above.

Combs, William W., "The Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit," Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (2004), p64–67.
Williams, Renewal Theology, Volume I, p256.
Cited in Aquinas, Summa Theologica.
Chalmers, "On the Nature of the Sin against the Holy Ghost" (alt source, p192).  More from Chalmers on this is available in his Institutes of Theology, Vol. II, Lecture 4 (p472).
Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, p233.
A number of quotes are given in Schmid, Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, p276–77.
Arminius, Works of James Arminius, Volume 2, p528–29.  For who can commit the sin, see p523–24.  (Alternate source)
Calvin, Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 3, 22.
Calvin, Harmony of the Gospels, Vol. 2.
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2.2.4, p252–54.


What does "persecute with cups" refer to in Augustine's first homily on 1 John? Augustine, in his first homily on 1 John has a phrase that reads:

  ut passiones martyrum imitetur, non eos calcibus persequamur!

Online it is translated:

  that we should imitate the sufferings of the martyrs, not persecute
  them with our cups!

What is the background to the statement "persecute them with cups"?

“Calcibus” is the ablative or dative plural of calx, which means “limestone” (from which we get the term “calcium”) or, alternatively, “heel.”
I believe the translator mistook “calcibus” for “calicibus.”
If we take the “limestone” meaning, based on the context, the phrase almost certainly refers to the fact that many prophets were stoned to death because what they preached was uncomfortable. (See, e.g., Mt. 23:37.)
Hence,

ut passiones martyrum imitetur, non eos calcibus persequamur!

would be rendered

In order that the sufferings of the martyrs may be imitated, let us not persecute them with stones.

If we take calx to mean heel, we would have:

In order that the sufferings of the martyrs may be imitated, let us not persecute them with [our] heels [i.e., let us not tread them underfoot].

Although the translation is uncertain, it certainly does not involve cups (calices, with an extra I).
Some other translations
A survey of translations favors the “heel” interpretation:
The English translation by Boniface Ramsey reads

And would that it might also dwell in our hearts such that we may imitate the martyrs’ sufferings and not trample them underfoot!

Likewise, the Italian translation on augustinus.it has

Potesse quel nome stabilirsi anche nel cuore, tanto da farci imitare le sofferenze dei martiri e non metterle invece sotto i piedi.
May that name be established also in the heart, so as to imitate the sufferings of the martyrs and not to tread them, instead, underfoot (a rather loose, but valid, translation, as can be seen).

The Spanish translation on the same site makes the same choice:

Y ¡ojalá habite también en el corazón de tal modo que, en vez de ponerlos bajo nuestros pies, imitemos sus pasiones!
May [the word martyr] live in your heart un such a way that, instead of putting them under our feet, we may imitate their sufferings!


What does "live in you" mean? John 15:4 has the phrase "Live in me, and I will live in you." What does it mean to live in someone or to live in God?

Apostle Paul in the book of Ephesians continues this thought known as the “Christocentric” principle.  This principle introduces Christ in us the hope of Glory.  To me it means that we live our lives with Christ being the center of it, and by doing so we find ourselves taking on a new life in Christ.  As Paul stated in Acts 17:28, “In Him we live, and move, and have our being.”  This life is made possible by the “indwelling” holy spirit that Jesus said he would send to us so that we could live in Him, and He in us.


Paintings of the Holy Family with a young St. Joseph? Most paintings seem to portray St. Joseph as an old man and his wife St. Mary as much younger. Abp. Fulton Sheen—arguing in "The World's Happiest Marriage" that "Joseph was probably a young man, strong, virile, athletic, handsome, chaste, and disciplined"—gives the example of Guido Reni, who "pictured Joseph as an old man with white hair":

Which paintings portray a young St. Joseph (i.e., one nearer to St. Mary's age)?

St. Joseph and St. John numerous portrait depicting and older man is good way for the artist to convey an image of a chaste man. We know that a young man struggles to control the urges of flesh which is associated to concupiscence.Even St. Paul who experienced mystical conversion still had to struggle with the law of the flesh.

  Romans 7:15-24 New International Version (NIV)

  15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

  21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?

Artist depicting a young man would convey doubts, if St. Joseph can be able to hold on his Church given title invoking his powerful intercession on the following litanies;

  LITANY OF SAINT JOSEPH

  Illustrious Scion of David,
  Light of Patriarchs,
  Spouse of the Mother of God,
  Chaste guardian of the Virgin,
  Foster-father of the Son of God,
  Watchful defender of Christ,
  Head of the Holy Family,

  Joseph most just,
  Joseph most chaste,
  Joseph most prudent,
  Joseph most valiant,
  Joseph most obedient,
  Joseph most faithful,

  Mirror of patience,
  Lover of poverty,
  Model of workmen,
  Example to parents,
  Guardian of virgins,
  Pillar of families,
  Solace of the afflicted,
  Hope of the sick,
  Patron of the dying,
  Terror of demons,
  Protector of the Church, pray for us.

Prayers and Litany of Saint Joseph

From the Litany of St. Joseph which the Church acknowledged, it depicted a young and strong worker and defender. It is nowhere described St. Joseph as an old man.Let's see how Blessed Catherine Emmerich describe the appearance of St. Joseph before marrying the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  Then I saw that messengers were sent throughout the land and all unmarried men of the line of David summoned to the Temple. When these were assembled in large numbers at the Temple in festal garments, the Blessed Virgin was presented to them. Among them I saw a very devout youth from the region of Bethlehem; he had always prayed with great fervor for the fulfillment of the Promise, and I discerned in his heart an ardent longing to become Mary’s husband. She, however, withdrew again into her cell in tears, unable to bear the thought that she should not remain a virgin.

MARRIAGE OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN TO JOSEPH (Catherine Emmerich)

Based on the sketch drawing of the vision of Blessed Catherine Emmerich, if we based it on the caricature of the face and try to match it with available painting the closest I found of a young image of St. Joseph is this one;

The biblical account of St. Joseph in the "Flight into Egypt" following the angel command for him to accompanied Jesus & Mary to travel by foot from Jerusalem to Egypt, an old man could not make it physically. Not to mentioned they will return to Jerusalem after King Herod death by foot again. Also, carpentry works requires physical strength which St.Joseph teaches for 18 long years Jesus hidden life in Galilee.

In closing, St. Joseph depicted by so many artist as an old does not represent his true physical appearance but more of an artist way of presenting a just man living a chaste life. An old man depicted and acknowledge by the world as already passed or no longer interested in the affairs of the flesh.


Is God really Merciful according to the Bible? 1st Samuel 15, Saul disobeys God but the Bible says that God is Merciful also He commanded that "Thou shall not kill". Why did He ask Saul to kill all the Amalekite people without sparing their livestock too. I mean that really sounds Wicked to me asides it contradicting the commandment. How is God Merciful? If He's sending Israel to kill her enemies when Jesus commands we love and pray for our enemies or for not stopping Jephtah from sacrificing his daughter(a ram was provided in the case of Isaac). How is this bloodbath Mercy or rather How is He still a Merciful God?

  P.S. An in depth answer would be appreciated

It is really more like "Thou shalt not murder" rather than just kill.
According to a correct formulation of divine command theory, which is grounded in God's nature as the ultimate source of good, what God commands people to do is always good. It may or may not be obvious to us why, but typically makes sense upon 1) further study or 2) looking back at the big picture.
The big picture is that in the Old Testament, Israelite military victory and conquest ultimately 1) brings glory to God and 2) brings people to salvation. This is because as God's chosen people, God continuously command them ways in which they would be set apart, hence many of the rules in Old Testament, even wearing strands of different types of clothing (Deut. 22:11). That way the nations may know that Israel is unique because they serve Yahweh. God's desire is that all nations would know Him, not just Israel (Isaiah 42:6, 49:6), so anything that makes the nations realize that Yahweh is the true God would be a good thing, such as God demonstrating His power to the prophets of Baal in 1 Kings 18. Unstoppable military victories many times helped nations realize that Israel's God is the real God. It is a demonstration of God's power.
This action of God (the "bloodbath") is just. It is people getting what they deserve. We all deserve the same thing that they received. I would say that not every action of God is merciful because I think it is not possible for any single action of God to be both merciful and just. However, this "bloodbath" is most certainly just. In fact, if God was not merciful and was only just, we all would be dead and already in hell forever (Romans 3:23, Romans 6:23, James 2:10). That is what justice is. People getting what they deserve. We all deserve death because we have so often violated the moral law of a holy God. The fact that you are still breathing is a sign of God's mercy.
God doesn't enjoy killing people (Ezekiel 18:23, 32). He truly desires that people will repent and be saved (Ezekiel 18:21). He often gives them ample opportunity for this, though they are rarely take it.
The pattern in the Old Testament is Rebel-Repent-Redeem. Over and over again. God is slow to anger (Exodus 34:6, Psalm 103:8), and he is indeed very merciful (2 Samuel 24:14, 2 Corinthians 1:3). He, many times, waits generations to carry out judgment on a people (including Israel) even though they are filled with sin and wickedness. He also relents when people repent (Jonah and Ninevah). He wouldn't destroy peoples if there were good people in them (recall Sodom and Gomorrah?).

I think the reason so many people have questions like this is people forgetting

1) what it means for God to be just

2) what it means for God to be holy

3) the big picture of how God set Israel apart with his laws and how it lead to other nations realizing that Yahweh was the One True God.

We can trust that what God does is good because He is essentially good (Luke 18:19, Psalm 34:8, 100:5, 106:1, 107:1, 119:68, etc.). It is one of His essential attributes, which means that there is no possible world in which God exists but is not good. So, wow, do we have a good God!


Was Jeanne d'Arc crazy: Did Catherine of Alexandria exist according to the Catholic church? I've found on atheistic site that Jeanne d'Arc was crazy, because she heard voices from Catherine of Alexandria, and that this saint never existed and was recognized as such by the Catholic church.

Non, Mélenchon ne diffame pas Jeanne d'Arc

In French:

Parmi les "voix" qu'elle entendait : sainte Catherine d’Alexandrie. Or l'Eglise a reconnu depuis que cette sainte n'avait pas existé, que c'était une légende.

Translation, after a text explaining why she was crazy:

  Among the "voices", Ste Catherine of Alexandria, but the (Catholic) Church has since recognized that this saint did never exist, that it was only a legend.

On the other hand, the wikipedia page about this saint, or Christian sites explain the opposite. So who is right, and who is lying here?

So, was Jeanne d'Arc crazy or a real saint?

Considering the other points in this same French page, I will probably open another question if there's a lot to say about Saint Catherine.

St. Catherine of Alexandria is very much a recognized saint by the Catholic Church. She was taken off the the General Liturgical Calendar in 1970 due to many legends surrounding her life. But she is very much still recognized as a saint. In fact she is still listed as such in the Roman Martyrology, the official catalogue of saints and blesseds recognized by Rome. We celebrated her feast day on November 25th.

  Her principal symbol is the spiked wheel, which has become known as the Catherine wheel, and her feast day is celebrated on 25 November by most Christian churches. However, the Russian, Polish, Serbian and Bulgarian Orthodox Churches celebrate it on 24 November. The exact origin of this tradition is not known. In 11th-century Kyivan-Rus, the feast day was celebrated on 25 November. Saint Dimitry of Rostov in his Kniga zhyttia sviatykh (Book of the Lives of the Saints), T.1 (1689) places the date of celebration on 24 November. A story that Empress Catherine the Great did not wish to share her patronal feast with the Leavetaking of the feast of the Presentation of the Theotokos and hence changed the date is not supported by historical evidence. One of the first Roman Catholic churches to be built in Russia, the Catholic Church of St. Catherine, was named after Catherine of Alexandria because she was Catherine the Great's patron. A footnote to the entry for 25 November in The Synaxarion compiled by Hieromonk Makarios of Simonos Petra states: "Until the 16th century, the memory of St Catherine was observed on 24 Nov. According to a note by Bartholomew of Koutloumousiou inserted in the Menaion, the Fathers of Sinai transferred the date to 25 Nov. in order that the feast might be kept with greater solemnity."

  The 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia describes her historical importance:

    Ranked with St Margaret and St Barbara as one of the fourteen most helpful saints in heaven, she was unceasingly praised by preachers and sung by poets. It is believed that Jacques-Benigne Bossuet dedicated to her one of his most beautiful panegyrics and that Adam of St. Victor wrote a magnificent poem in her honour: Vox Sonora nostri chori. - Catherine of Alexandria

Thus if Catherine of Alexandria is recognized as a Catholic saint, then  Jeanne d'Arc is not crazy and is also recognized as a Catholic saint.

  One of five children born to Jacques d’Arc and Isabelle Romee. Shepherdess. Mystic. From age 13 she received visions from Saint Margaret of Antioch, Saint Catherine of Alexandria, and Michael the Archangel.

  In the early 15th century, England, in alliance with Burgundy, controlled most of what is modern France. In May 1428 Joan’s visions told her to find the true king of France and help him reclaim his throne. She resisted for more than three years, but finally went to Charles VII in Chinon and told him of her visions. Carrying a banner that read “Jesus, Mary”, she led troops from one battle to another. She was severely wounded, but her victories from 23 February 1429 to 23 May 1430 brought Charles VII to the throne. Captured by the Burgundians during the defence of Compiegne, she was sold to the English for 10 thousand francs. She was put on trial by an ecclesiastical court conducted by Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, a supporter of England, and was excuted as a heretic. In 1456 her case was re-tried, and Joan was acquitted (23 years too late).

  “About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter.” – Saint Joan of Arc, as recorded at her trial.

On February 14,1969 Pope Paul VI in his Moto Proprio Mysterii Paschalis the the New Calendar would go into effect on January 1st, 1970.

  In order to execute this decision of the Ecumenical Council, the names of some saints have been removed from the universal Calendar, and the faculty has been given of re-establishing in regions concerned, if it is desired, the commemorations and cult of other saints. The suppression of reference to a certain number of saints who are not universally known has permitted the insertion, within the Roman Calendar, of names of some martyrs of regions where the proclaiming of the Gospel arrived at a later date. Thus, as representatives of their countries, those who have won renown by the shedding of their blood for Christ or by their outstanding virtues enjoy the same dignity in this same catalogue.

  For these reasons we think that the new universal Calendar, prepared for the Latin rite, is more in harmony with the piety and the needs of our times, and that it better reflects the universality of the Church, in the sense that it proposes the names of the most important saints, who present to all the People of God a shining example of sanctity in a variety of ways. It is superfluous to say that this will contribute to the spiritual well-being of the entire Christian world.


How does the Catholic church distinguish between the human soul and spirit? I see questions about the creation of the human soul, and the soul's "infusion" into the body. But the Bible considers a human being to "have" three parts or concepts: spirit, soul, and body. How does the Catholic church regard the relationship between these three concepts?

In the bible we read that God breathed "the breath of life" into Adam, and he "became" a living soul. Elsewhere we read that at death a human's spirit "returns to God, who gave it", and Paul says that the human spirit is "dead" until regeneration takes place.

A good answer will reference official Catholic teaching on the meaning of the bible passages and the nature of (tri-partite?) humans as spirit, body, and soul. If there is no official position on some point, the view of church teachers is requested.

Bible Passages from WEB (World English Bible) -- emphasis and [] mine

  (Gen 2:7 [WEB])
  Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground [body], and breathed into his nostrils the breath [spirit?] of life; and man became a living soul.

  (Eccl 12:7 [WEB])
  and the dust [body] returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

  (Rom 8:10 [WEB])
  If Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is alive because of righteousness. [spirit was dead, but now lives?]

Regarding "spirit", the New Catholic Encyclopedia states:

  For those of the Christian tradition, spirit is always personal and subjective, and all other
  manifestations of spirit can be reduced to their source in
  the person. Within this tradition, the radical and essential
  manifestation of spirit has been variously singled out as:
  creative activity, self-consciousness, interiority or subjectivity, intelligence, reason, knowledge of universals,
  love, freedom, and communication (dialogue). These are
  activities by which the presence of spirit may be known,
  and they furnish a clue to the nature of spirit in itself as
  a form of subsistent being.

  Christian thought also recognizes three main kinds
  of spirit: (1) the human soul, incomplete in its mode of
  subsisting and extrinsically dependent on the body; (2)
  pure finite spirit, i.e., the angel, perfectly subsisting and
  independent of matter; and (3) Absolute Spirit, or God,
  infinite, utterly pure, and fully actual being (subsistent
  existence) without any limitation. Man’s primary apprehension of these forms of spirit is gained through self-
  knowledge. The spiritual being most proportionate to his
  way of knowing is his own soul, manifesting its nature
  through activities that are immediately present to his consciousness. His knowledge of other spiritual realities is
  in turn based on such knowledge (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, C. gent. 3.46).

So, human beings, because have body, and the soul is the form of the body (e.g. here), have souls. The soul is the spirit.

Angels, it seems, have no soul because have no body. In effect, the encyclopedia states regarding angels:

  The Church has defined as dogma that besides the visible world God also created
  a kingdom of invisible spirits, called angels, and that He
  created them before the creation of the world (Lateran Council IV, 1215, ch. 1, H. Denzinger Enchiridion symbolorum [Freiburg 1963] 800; repeated at Vatican Council I, 1870, ibid. 3002; cf., earlier, the Nicene Creed of 25, ibid. )

Same seems to apply to God. Being immaterial, It has spirit, but no soul.

PS: unless the dogma that the soul is the form of the body refers to human souls only, it might be possible for angels to have another form of soul. I haven't found a definitive teaching on this.


Are there any traditions regarding the non-disciple casting out demons in Jesus' name? Luke 9:49-50 (NLT)
  49 John said to Jesus, “Master, we saw someone using your name to cast out demons, but we told him to stop because he isn’t in our group.”
  50 But Jesus said, “Don’t stop him! Anyone who is not against you is for you.”

I'm seeking traditions (early church/Roman Catholic/Orthodox) that answer questions such as (but not necessarily including):

What is this guy's name?
Who is he in general?
How and why did he start using Jesus' name to drive out demons?
Why isn't he one of Jesus' disciples?

Again, I know that some of these questions may not be answered in any ancient tradition, but I mainly just want to know: what are the traditions related to this non-disciple who casts out demons in Jesus' name?

The earliest tradition could have been any eye witness To the works of Jesus. Yet as a specific tradition passed down from the non-disciple. I have not read about in any of the apocrypha. However the tradition is explained in both Matthew and Luke (Matthew 5:39). Learning how to cast out a demon, may help you gain perspective on how this non-disciple did this.

First we must really understand what a demon / evil spirit / unclean spirit means. Think about the word possession. In this context the word possess means "To have as a quality, characteristic" [a]. Next one must really understand what your spirit means. In the context of what the New Testament uses the word spirit the definition is "A mood or an emotional state" [b]. For example the three parts of God, his Mind, his Word / Flesh, his mood or an emotional state / his Love.

We all are made in his image. So we also have these three parts of us as well. When a thought is in our mind, we have a choice. This choice is whether or not we will speak that thought. For the word only does what the father tells him. Our mood is a reflection to our thoughts what is being said and what is being heard (1 Corinthians 2:11).

So then what does it mean to be of an evil spirit, the simple answer is a "bad mood". Now if one is in a bad mood, they might say things they don't truly mean these things said are Lies. Lies as we know are evil. Therefore a solid connection between a bad mood and an evil mood can be established. A bad mood without sin would logically be an unclean spirit.

Then what is a demon? In standard Christianity, a demon is defined as a fallen angel. But the Greek definition for the word translated as demon means "to be under the power of a demon." So when you see the translation a "demon possessed man". Another way that could be translated would be "A man that has a quality or characteristic of being under the power of a demon." Or simply someone doing what the devil wants and not what God wants. If that trait can be found on you, then you are in possession of that trait. That trait being evil, doing as that trait desires shows who has the control. If a demon can be identified by its traits of doing evil, and you have that trait as well, then the identity of the demon controlling you can be identified. Yet the control or power is given in free will. So blame can still fall on the man.

But since we are much more accustomed today with the word mood. To learn how to expel demons it will be much easier to explain using the word mood. So recorded in Luke is a man who also cast away someones bad mood. He did this using the name of Jesus. Much confusion on using the name of Jesus is active today. If you asked most people how to use the name of Jesus, you would most likely get "do this in the name of Jesus!" or "In the name of Jesus I command you!"

So next, to really understand how this "non-follower" used Jesus name. We go back in time to the time of Jesus. Doing something in the "old Jewish form of someones name" in today's standards is similar to a job position title. For example we expect a certain persona when we hear the word Waitress. We can tell that there is a lot of difference we we think of a Politician, or a Used Car Sales Man.

Well in those days they did not have a copyright office so specific talents where associated to ones name. Hopefully this helps you understand why the Disciples tried to stop the man because he wasn't one of them (Luke 9:49). Back in those days if you tried to use someones name, it would be similar to copyright infringement. The Disciples truly felt that the man was stealing away Jesus identity, by treating the guy in a bad mood the way Jesus did. That also is why they felt it was important to tell Jesus what they had done. So as to make him aware that his identity was at stake.

The use of someones name would have specific characteristics, for example posture, methods of doing things, fancy sayings, ect. We still have a bit of that today. If I lower my voice and say "I'll be back" you can see that I was impersonating Arnold Schwarzenegger. Or in Jewish days I would have been in the name of Arnold. Luck for us we are all called to impersonate Jesus. By doing this we can be saved.

But he has told us his name, bless those that curse you, turn the other cheek, listen, and love. This is how he got rid of those bad moods. So this non-disciple was pretty smart, he was able to understand the advantages of what Jesus was doing. The question of the traditions should be in the light now. Let us all go and cast out some demons =)

[a] www.thefreedictionary.com/possess
[b] www.thefreedictionary.com/spirit


What exactly is the purpose of a Patron Saint? From this question: How can a particular trade of modern times get a patron saint?, I learned that St. Isadore is the patron saint of computer programmers, a group of people in desparate need of a saint if there ever was one.

That said, as a Protestant, I'm not exactly sure what St. Isadore is supposed to be doing for computer programmers.  I know that saints aren't worshipped, nor are they even prayed "to" in the sense that they would answer prayers with something magical - but what exactly is their function? I'm assuming that if the church is going to go through all the trouble of recognizing and naming a saint, there's gotta be a reason for it.

From http://www.catholic.org/saints/patron.php

Patron saints are chosen as special protectors or guardians over areas
of life. These areas can include occupations, illnesses, churches,
countries, causes -- anything that is important to us. The earliest
records show that people and churches were named after apostles and
martyrs as early as the fourth century.

The purpose of a Patron saint is two-fold.

One purpose is that they are someone to use as a model - to pattern our behavior after them in a certain area of our life, or,  as the article says, we can follow their example.

"I do also say it is well to keep before our eyes the supreme adventure of a virtue. If you are brave, think of the man who was braver than you. If you are kind, think of the man who was kinder than you. That is what was meant by having a patron saint."
– G.K. Chesterton (“The Supreme Adventure,” Utopia of Usurers)

The other is that we can turn to them for intercessory prayer:
Apparently, we can ask them to pray to God for us, which is an alien though to most protestants, but common among Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Catholic practice.


Is there a name for the low wall that is often in front of a choir? There's typically a low wall, about hip-high, in front of the first row of the choir. Religious architecture typically has its own terminology, and Christian architecture in particular. So is there a special name for that wall? Or is it just "that wall that keeps the first row of ladies from being embarrassed?"

Alternately, is there a name for the low wall that's sometimes in front of the first row of the congregation?

The low wall that separates the first row of the choir from the chancel is called a "choir rail."

The low wall that goes in front of the first pew is called a "pew screen," and also a "modesty screen" or "frontal," as seen in this church furniture page (scroll down for pictures of sample pew screens).

And to round things out: The low wall that separates the chancel from the rest of the church is called an "altar rail" or "communion rail."


In which writing(s) does Hugo Grotius set forth the "Governmental Theory of the Atonement"? I'm trying to locate, in book form in English, the writings of Hugo Grotius in relation to the "Governmental View of the Atonement". I see very little of his writings available in book form in English and can't seem to identify any texts that do or would likely contain his writings on this subject. Does anybody know where I can obtain such? Thanks.

Hugo Grotius develops this in Defensio Fidei Catholicae de Satisfactione Christi  ("Defense of the Catholic Faith on the Satisfaction of Christ").  An 1889 translation, by Frank Hugh Foster, is available on yoel.info.

On Google Books the work has no preview, so there we are limited to excerpts published in books on the topic.  For example, in Atonement Theories by Ben Pugh, Grotius is quoted:

  The end of the matter which is being discussed, as to the intention of God and of Christ, is twofold: the display of the Divine justice; and, so far as we are concerned, the remission of sins, that is, our release from punishment.  For if you take the exaction of penalty impersonally, its end is the display of the Divine justice; but if personally, that is, why Christ is punished, its end is that we may gain release form punishment.

More extensive quotes are available in Introducing Christian Theologies by Victor I. Ezigbo, pages 92–93.


How does God speak today? I've heard people say, "God has spoken to me." In the OT there were prophets proclaiming what God said. Sometimes in the Bible God speaks audibly (e.g. to Samuel).

But today: in what way does God speak to people today?

*Related: How does one know if God is talking to him?

God has spoken to me in the past

with an audible external voice,
with a distinct voice inside my mind,
by a vision in my minds-eye,
by opening my eyes to a song or scripture I was singing or reading in a way I had not seen before,
through Godly council and direct prophecy of other trustworthy believers,
by my conscience, and, of course
via systematic study of his Scripture which guides my life-system.

These are listed in order of (exponential) increasing frequency, and are just what I've personally experienced.


What does Catholic Church say about the post-resurrection wound marks of Jesus? At John 20:24-27 (NRSVCE) we see:

  But Thomas (who was called the Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came.  So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.

A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”  Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.”

My question is: Why was it necessary for Jesus to retain the wounds he had received at the cross, even after His glorious resurrection? Was it done to convince the disciples that it was Jesus Himself appearing before them, or was it a symbolic statement that Jesus continues to suffer for the sins of mankind? What do the teachings of Catholic Church say about the post-resurrection wound marks of Jesus?

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the question of "Whether Christ's body ought to have risen with its scars?" in Summa Theologica III q. 54 a. 4. He gives five reasons (c.):

  It was fitting for Christ's soul at His Resurrection to resume the body with its scars.

  for Christ's own glory. For Bede says on Lk. 24:40 that He kept His scars not from inability to heal them, "but to wear them as an everlasting trophy of His victory." Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii):Perhaps in that kingdom we shall see on the bodies of the Martyrs the traces of the wounds which they bore for Christ's name: because it will not be a deformity, but a dignity in them; and a certain kind of beauty will shine in them, in the body, though not of the body.
  to confirm the hearts of the disciples as to "the faith in His Resurrection" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40).
  "that when He pleads for us with the Father, He may always show the manner of death He endured for us" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40).
  "that He may convince those redeemed in His blood, how mercifully they have been helped, as He exposes before them the traces of the same death" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40).
  "that in the Judgment-day He may upbraid them with their just condemnation" (Bede, on Lk. 24:40). Hence, as Augustine says (De Symb. ii):Christ knew why He kept the scars in His body. For, as He showed them to Thomas who would not believe except he handled and saw them, so will He show His wounds to His enemies, so that He who is the Truth may convict them, saying:Behold the man whom you crucified; see the wounds you inflicted; recognize the side you pierced, since it was opened by you and for you, yet you would not enter.


Did Jesus commit any sin pertaining to the Sabbath? Please keep in mind #4 (or #3 depending on the version) of the 10 commandments:

Exodus 20:8-11

  “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor,
  and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD
  your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your
  daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your
  livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days
  the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and
  rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day
  and made it holy.
  and

Deuteronomy 5:12-15

  "Observe the Sabbath day, to keep it holy, as the LORD your God
  commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the
  seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do
  any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or
  your female servant, or your ox or your donkey or any of your
  livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that your male
  servant and your female servant may rest as well as you. You shall
  remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your
  God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched
  arm. Therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath
  day.

As we know from John 5:8-11 NIV

  Then Jesus said to him, “Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” At
  once the man was cured; he picked up his mat and walked.

  The day on which this took place was a Sabbath, and so the Jewish
  leaders said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath; the
  law forbids you to carry your mat.”

  But he replied, “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your
  mat and walk.’ ”

Per the Pharisees via
Matthew 12:10 NIV

  and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to
  bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on
  the Sabbath?"

The following list is from this site:

  Jesus gave at least eleven different reasons for apparently breaking
  the Sabbath

  Pulling an ox out of a ditch on the Sabbath was permitted.
  Circumcision is permitted on the Sabbath.
  It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.
  The precedent of David and his men eating the shewbread.
  Priests work on the Sabbath and are blameless.
  The ministry of the Messiah is greater than the ministry of the Temple.
  God desires mercy from His people and not sacrifice.
  The son of man is Lord of the Sabbath.
  The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
  It is lawful to lead animals to water on the Sabbath.
  The Father works on the Sabbath.

Do we say that Jesus did not commit any sin based on the New Testament?  Or do we say that he did not commit any sin based on Mosiac Law?

Just imagine if I commit a sin and someone says,

  "Hey, you broke the law!"

and I say,

  "I am [some blasphemous saying that I won't even type for example],
  I make a new law with my authority."

I can completely understand the Jewish concerns.

Part of the confusion as modern readers is that we miss what the Pharisees meant when they referenced "the Law." For the Pharisees, "the Law" had two parts. There was the "Written Law" (תורה שבכתב), and there was the "Oral Law" (תורה שבעל פה), which they claimed was also given to Moses at Mt. Sinai. You can read more about this in the Mishnah.

The Old Testament certainly does not prohibit anything that Jesus did; His whole life was lived in fulfillment of the (OT) Law. However, the oral tradition that the Pharisees also considered part of the Law did forbid many things that Jesus and His disciples did.

Regarding the Sabbath, the Mishnah contains a list of 39 classes of work that were not permitted on the Sabbath, per the "Oral Law." Many of these prohibitions were quite nit-picky. (For example, they could only walk a certain distance on the Sabbath.)

Jesus, for His part, showed very little concern (or respect) for the so-called "Oral Law," and constantly refuted it using the Old Testament. This was, of course, outrageous to the Pharisees, and this led to many conflicts between them.


When people sin against us but don't repent, should we forgive and forget? Someone sins against us, e.g. says something unkind. They are completely unrepentant. That might be because they don't think it is a sin or they don't care (yes, I'm deliberately mentioning two different attitudes).

Should we forgive?

And should we forget?

I know Jesus forgave on the cross, saying, "they don't know what they are doing." Was this attitude something we should always try to copy?

Depends, are they a believer or an unbeliever?
Unbeliever
(Mark 11:25 ESV)
"And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”
When you forgive an unbeliever you are acknowledging that they have wronged you but you will not try to seek justice yourself, you will leave that to God. In this way you may live peacefully not worrying about getting tit-for-tat in a never ending cycle with the other person.
Believer
(Luke 17:3, ASV)
"Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him."
In the first part of this verse Jesus issues a warning, what follows is important. Next comes two If/Then's which start out addressing the cause if your brother sins. Most people would agree that 'brother' here means fellow believer. So if a fellow believer sins your first action is to rebuke him not forgive him. From here there are two options. Either he repents and you forgive him (the second If/Then) or he doesn't repent. In the second cause we can look to the Gospel of Matthew.
(Matthew 18:15-17, ASV)
"And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican."
Once again this verse is addressing what to do when a brother (fellow believer) sins against you. If he hears you, not necessarily agrees with you, he is still your brother. Otherwise if he doesn't hear you then you gather witnesses. If he still doesn't hear you then he should not be in community with you like another believer since the both of you would not be able to live in harmony. And @ChoasGamer has some verses that also point that out.
Now Jesus didn't say that he must repent first but it is in your best interest to not forgive him till he repents otherwise you pass judgement on him.

Should we forget?

Not necessarily. If someone sins against you, especially someone close to you, it will take time for them to gain your trust and most people would agree that this is healthy. Also trying to forget something you know to be true can be unhealthy.  Forgiveness is stating your will that you will not try to get justice back from the other person it doesn't necessarily deal with your emotional response.
This is just a brief answer on the topic. For more information check out this site which I used to form this answer.
The main difference between this approach and the answer by Sonic is the Biblical consideration of NOT ignoring the person. 1st Corinthians 5:10 shows that we remove the unbeliever from community SO THAT WE CAN fellowship with them in order to win them back to Christ!


What is the modern origin of the phrase "hell is the absence of God"? I'm familiar with debates about the theological implications of the statement "Hell is the absence of God" (see here for instance), but I have not been able to find a source for the phrase nor in what context it has typically been used. Most references seem to assume the reader is already familiar with the concept, or simply refer to it as a common saying. Eg:

  These days Christians rarely assert that hell is a place where people get burned alive. It’s become de rigueur for Christians to instead say that hell is “the absence of God.” We’ve all heard that a million times; Christians — especially of the emergent/leftist/progressive persuasion (my peeps!) — fairly love saying it.

Was there an observable shift as described here, and if so, among what groups? I have occasionally seen "separation from" instead of "absence of", but in general the wording is extremely consistent - when did this specific phrasing become prominent?

What is the modern origin of the phrase “hell is the absence of God”?

I do not believe that this phrase is a modern one. It has echoes that have come down to us throughout the centuries. But that said, I believe the modern phrase "hell is the absence of God" possibly became in a sense more common in popular culture due to the 2001 fantasy novelette by American writer Ted Chiang: "Hell Is the Absence of God" Ted Chiang certainly made this phrase popular.

  The novelette is set in a world where the existence of God, souls, heaven, and hell are obvious and indisputable, and where miracles and angelic visitations are commonplace—albeit not necessarily benevolent. The wife of Neil, the main protagonist, is killed by the collateral damage of an angel's visitation. Knowing that his wife has ascended to heaven, the previously non-devout protagonist struggles to achieve the required love of God to join her.

  The story also follows Janice, a woman born without legs who is made able-bodied in an angelic visitation, and Ethan, who cannot discern the meaning of an angelic encounter he experiences. - Hell Is the Absence of God

Prior to Ted Cheang's, Hell is the Absence of God, there appeared in February 1942 C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters

This could possibly be another source of the popularity of the phrase in question in the 1950's - 1980's. Back in the 1980's this book was quite popular reading in Catholic high schools. I remember reading it in high school myself. The idea that God is not in hell comes across quite well in The Screwtape Letters.

The separation from God is pivotal to C. S. Lewis' vision of hell:

  Separation seems for Lewis to describe the essential idea of hell, capturing what is conveyed by the biblical imagery of torture, destruction, and privation. To be forever cut off from God’s presence, eternally unable to know God’s love and mercy, would be a torture best described by being burned ceaselessly by fire. To be totally separated from other creatures, to be wholly and increasingly self-absorbed, makes that self smaller and smaller, and ultimately will result in the person ceasing to be a self. To someone who has been wholly centered on self, having that self cease to exist would be the ultimate possible loss, a horror describable for us, Lewis says, only through images of physical destruction. The torture of separation and the terror of ceasing to exist are better seen not as punishments imposed by God, but as the natural and inevitable outcome of choices humans themselves make and attitudes they themselves develop. - Heaven and Hell Idea and Image in C. S. Lewis

Nevertheless, I still feel the need to show that concept of "hell being the absence of God" in a more historical sense. There are echoes of it throughout the ages.

When I was a lad, I was taught how to make a perfect Act of Contrition, so I could pray it when I went to confession to a priest. Here is the one that I learned as a child:

  O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee, and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven, and the pains of hell; but most of all because they offend Thee, my God, Who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life. Amen. Perfect Contrition

One can see that I put the words the pains of hell in bold. This is done because one of the greatest pains one could possibly endure would be the fact that the damned are deprived of the presence of God.

  ”The pain of the damned,” says St. Thomas, ”is infinite, because it is the loss of an infinite good.” (1. 2, qu. 87, a. 4.) Such, too, is the doctrine of St. Bernard, who says, that the value of the loss of the damned is measured from the infinitude of God the supreme good.

  Hence, hell does not consist in its devouring fire, nor in its intolerable stench, nor in the unceasing shrieks and bowlings of the damned, nor in the terrific sight of the devils, nor in the narrowness of that pit of torments, in which the damned are thrown one over the other: the pain which constitutes hell is the loss of God. In comparison of this pain, all the other torments of hell are trifling.

  The reward of God’s faithful servants in heaven is, as he said to Abraham, God himself. ”I am thy reward, exceeding great.” (Gen. xv. 1.) Hence, as God is the reward of the blessed in heaven, so the loss of God is the punishment of the damned in hell.

  Hence, St. Bruno has truly said, that how great soever the torments which may be inflicted on the damned, they never can equal the great pain of being deprived of God. Add torments to torments, but do not deprive them of God. ”Addantur tormenta tormentis, et Deo non priventur.” (Serm. de Jud. Fin.) According to St. Chrysostom, a thousand hells are not equal to this pain. Speaking of the loss of God, he said: ”Si mille dixeris gehennas, nihil par dices illius doloris.” (Hom, xlix., ad Pop.) God is so lovely that he deserves infinite love.

  The sinner, drowned in sensual pleasures, scarcely knows God: he sees him only in the dark, and therefore he disregards the loss of God. But in hell he shall know God, and shall be tormented for ever by the thought of having voluntarily lost his infinite good. A certain Parisian doctor appeared after death to his bishop, and said that he was damned. His bishop asked him if he remembered the sciences in which he was so well versed in this life. He answered, that in hell the damned think only of the pain of having lost God.

  ”Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. ” (Matt. xxv. 41.) “Depart from me.” This command constitutes the hell of the damned. Begone from me; you shall be no longer mine, and I shall be no longer yours. ”You are not my people, and I will not be yours.” (Osee i. 9.)

  St. Augustine says, that if the damned saw the beauty of God, “they should feel no pain, and hell itself would be converted into a Paradise.” (Lib. de Trip. Hab.) But the damned shall never see God. When David forbade his son Absalom to appear in his presence, the sorrow of Absalom was so great, that he entreated Joab to tell his father that he would rather be put to death than never more be permitted to see his face. ”I beseech thee, therefore, that I may see the face of the king; and if he be mindful of my iniquity, let him kill me.” (2 Kings xiv. <32.) - ON THE PAIN OF LOSS WHICH THE DAMNED SUFFER IN HELL – St. Alphonsus

In hell there is no love. God is love. The damned hate and curse all the angels and saints. They curse particularly their guardian angels their special advocates and above all, the Virgin Mary, the Mother of Jesus. They hate the wounds of Jesus Christ, the blood of Jesus Christ, and the death of Jesus Christ. They hate the living of this world, especially those in the state of grace. Moreover they hate one another and themselves. How can God be present amongst such emptiness. The reprobates are thus left to themselves without God!

For those who are more into private revelation, here is something to ponder:

  Our greatest torment consists in knowing with certainty that we will never see God. How greatly we are tortured by that which we were indifferent to while on earth! - Letter from a Soul in Hell

St. Augustine said, “The separation from God is a torment as great as God." Cf. Houdry,  Bibliotheca concionatorum (Venice, 1786), vol 2, “Infernus,” No. 4, p. 427.


James first or Paul's letters Is the letter of James promoting "Faith without deeds . . .is empty" in response to Paul or are the Pauline references to "Faith alone" a response to James? In reading them it seems James might the oldest New Testament document.

The letter of James is believed to have been written in A.D. 45, before Paul began his ministry.  Paul’s writings are dated from A.D. 50 to A.D. 70.  Therefore James’ letter predates Paul’s letters.
I found an article that helps to answer your question about the seeming conflict between faith alone and faith without works being dead:

The Book of James is probably the oldest book of the New Testament, written perhaps as early as A.D. 45, before the first council of Jerusalem in A.D. 50. James was martyred in approximately A.D. 62, according to the historian Josephus.
Some think that this epistle was written in response to an overzealous interpretation of Paul’s teaching regarding faith. This extreme view, called antinomianism, held that through faith in Christ one is completely free from all Old Testament law, all legalism, all secular law, and all the morality of a society.
The Book of James is directed to Jewish Christians scattered among all the nations (James 1:1). Martin Luther, who detested this letter and called it “the epistle of straw,” failed to recognize that James’s teaching on works complemented—not contradicted—Paul’s teaching on faith. While Pauline teachings concentrate on our justification with God, James’ teachings concentrate on the works that exemplify that justification. James was writing to Jews to encourage them to continue growing in this new Christian faith. James emphasizes that good actions will naturally flow from those who are filled with the Spirit and questions whether someone may or may not have a saving faith if the fruits of the Spirit cannot be seen, much as Paul describes in Galatians 5:22-23.  https://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-James.html

Another article I found gives a Protestant view on the subject of salvation by faith alone versus faith plus works: https://www.gotquestions.org/salvation-faith-alone.html


What if Israel had accepted Jesus as their Lord? (Catholic perspective) Reading Romans 11:11-12

  Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

Is there a theological base, from a Catholic perspective, that would allow for an answer to the following question?

God from an evil brought forth a greater good. What would have happened if Israel had accepted Jesus as their Lord? Would there have been an even greater good than the present one? Or in line with what we may read earlier, in Romans 9:13: "Just as it is written: 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.'"

This question reminds me of the "felix culpa" ("happy fault [of Adam]")¹ question of whether Christ would have become incarnate had Adam not sinned. If Adam had not sinned, how could've God worked greater goods?

Similarly in the case of the fall of the Jews: If the Jews had not fallen, how could there be "the salvation of the Gentiles by means of the death of Christ, the rejection of the apostles, and the subsequent Jewish Diaspora…[or] [t]he shedding of Christ's blood, the apostles' preaching mission to the Gentiles after a largely unsuccessful Jewish mission, and the spread of the books and prophecies concerning the Christ",² great goods St. Thomas Aquinas lists in his Commentary on Romans³ §881?

St. Thomas Aquinas also states, in Commentary on Romans⁴ §884:

  …si Deus propter utilitatem totius mundi permisit Iudaeos delinquere et diminui, multo magis implebit ruinas eorum propter totius mundi utilitatem…[…if God, on account of the benefit (utilitatem) for the whole world permitted the Jews to be wanting and to diminish, much more will he fulfill their downfalls on account of the benefit for the whole world…]³

Sources:

St. Thomas writes: "in the blessing of the Paschal candle, we say: 'O happy fault, that merited such and so great a Redeemer!'"
Boguslawski, Steven C. Thomas Aquinas on the Jews: Insights into His Commentary on Romans 9-11. Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 2008. p. 115fn74.
Thomas, Fabian R Larcher, John Mortensen, and Enrique Alarcón. Commentary on the letter of Saint Paul to the Romans. Lander, Wyo.: Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012.
(Latin only version) ch. 11, lecture 2
translation from Boguslawski p. 98, § "Fall of the Jews"


What is considered Gnosticism (within the context of Christianity)? My background is not religion, it's closer to philosophy, so I lack necessary context. Gnosticism translates to 'knowledge', so what is it a Gnostic 'knows'? What is an example of Gnosticism or Gnostic arguments?

The key difference between orthodox Christianity and gnostic Christianity was that the orthodox required faith in what was taught by the elders, as received (or, if you like, supposedly received) from the apostles. In order to ensure uniformity, orthodox Christianity developed a hierarchy, so that bishops could oversee presbyters, who oversaw deacons, all passing on the same gospel message.

Gnostic Christianity had no need for bishops, because gnostic Christians were permitted to seek knowledge by revelation. If a member received, in a dream or otherwise, new knowledge (gnosis) then he or she could tell others in his community. If it was widely accepted, the community might adopt it, resulting in an evolution in belief. If only some members in the community accepted the new knowledge, it might result in a breakaway movement, something which occurred from time to time and generally without acrimony. At its peak, it is suggested that around half of all Christians were gnostics.

As you could guess from the above, there was no one Gnostic belief, and it would be too broad to summarise them all. What gnostic groups tended to believe in common was that the Old Testament Creator God, whom they called the Demiurge, was a different God to the more loving New Testament God. Sophia, the Lady Wisdom of Proverbs and other Jewish wisdom literature generally played a key part in gnostic theology. Gnostics were discouraged from bringing children into this evil world, to suffer here. 'Light', which we see mentioned frequently in John's Gospel in reference to Jesus, was an important motif. Most gnostics were vegetarians, because they knew that vegetables contain light, and melons were favoured because they contain more light.

The earliest known gnostic gospel was the sayings Gospel of Thomas, now generally believed to have been written in the middle of the first century.


What is the relationship between international branches of the LDS Church? According to this story on NPR, Mitt Romney's campaign and his anti-Russian remarks have apparently been the impetus for Putin's "Young Guard" to dog Mormon churches in Russia, accusing them of being "a totalitarian cult" and that the LDS church in Russia is a CIA front organization.

Obviously, I'm rather skeptical of the CIA front claim. I've worked intelligence long enough to be proud when someone accuses the CIA of being able to run anything.  Still, the claim is sufficiently reminiscent of the old claims that Catholics were supposedly beholden to the Pope in political affairs - enough to kill Alf Landon's chances, and sufficient to make JFK's election very, very tight.

The lie to the "Catholics are just political tools of the Pope" line, is of course, that there is an American Conference of Bishops that, while it reports to, is distinct from the Vatican.  Additionally, the American Catholic Church has very public disagreements with the Vatican on several issues.

My question is what analougues exist to the Russian (or any other countries') Mormon churches.  Politically, is there a national alignment of non-US Mormon churches, and what is their relationship to Salt Lake City?  Additionally, are there any large issues of disagreement that are more pronounced in countries outside of the US that distinguish it from the American leadership?

In other words, how do non-US Mormon churches relate to the US, generally?

They don't "relate to the US", except insofar as the headquarters of the church happen to be located in the US.

There aren't "international branches" of the LDS church; there is one worldwide church. The church is organized into individual congregations, known as wards or branches (a branch being a smaller congregation in an area where the church is not yet well established), and several local congregations located close to each other (generally around 10) make up a stake.  The presidency of each stake is chosen and ordained by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Each stake is fairly autonomous within its boundaries, possessing the authority to direct the business of the church in its area, up to and including granting temple recommends (which are considered valid at any temple in the world) and holding disciplinary councils which can result in a member's excommunication, which again is binding throughout the entire church.

Several stakes make up an Area, which has an Area Presidency, though this is mostly an administrative grouping; church members have little if any interaction with the church at the Area level.  Areas are determined more by geography than national boundaries.  There are several in the US, for example, whereas when I was serving as a missionary in South America, the Area included all of Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.

At the highest level are the General Authorities of the church, who are headquartered in Salt Lake City.  Basic doctrines, directives and practices for the whole church come from there, and are accepted and followed in stakes, wards and branches throughout the world.

While stakes, areas and the Church Headquarters in SLC could be seen as roughly equivalent to the Catholic diocese, archdiocese and Vatican organizational model, there is no independent LDS organization equivalent to the American Conference of Bishops.  By the principle of Common Consent, the members of the church throughout the world--including local leaders--sustain and affirm their faith in the leadership of the General Authorities as God's chosen representatives on the earth in our time, twice each year at General Conference.  Under such a principle, there's really not much call for such an organization.

And one interesting thing in the linked article that deserves a bit of clarification is the following:

  The Young Guard contends that Mormon missionaries in Russia cooperate
  with the FBI and CIA. They repeat another theme that's common on the
  Internet as well: that American Mormon missionaries go to work for the
  U.S. security agencies in disproportionate numbers when they return
  home.

There's a lot of truth to that, but the reason behind it is much simpler than coming up with shadowy conspiracy theories about the church working for the US government (or vice versa, of course!)  The CIA and FBI (particularly the former) need people with a solid knowledge of foreign languages and cultures.  LDS missionaries in the US frequently get sent abroad and spend two years totally immersed in a foreign language and culture, a practice that was established long before the FBI or CIA even came into existence.  It just happens to be an excellent method of acquiring a core skillset for that particular type of job, (as well as several other jobs that deal in international business,) and agencies that look for people with that skillset when recruiting are aware of that.


Were the "prophecies" in Montanism related to the pagan oracles? I was reading Wikipedia's article on Montanism and saw this passage:

  The Montanist prophets did not speak as messengers of God but were described as possessed by God while being unable to resist.

This (and other text in the article) seems to reverberate of the oracles given at Delphi and at other pagan sites that were occurring during the same time frame.

Was Montanistic prophecy a reflection of this culture of oracles or was it something born out of its own right?

In the few reference texts (Moody Handbook of Theology, Hodges Systematic Theology & Eckman's Exploring Church History) that I looked at all references to Montanist prophecies stated that they claimed to be speaking for the Holy Spirit. The line you reference seems to be based on third party observation, and the first party claim contradicts that. I could not find an answer to whether or not they were influenced by that tradition, the only documentation I could find refers to their beliefs in the Holy Spirit.


Christianity and extreme, seizure-like bodily shaking I've noticed here and there the odd practice of inducing an extreme, seizure-like bodily shaking in oneself, which seems quite strange to me; it's not at all clear what the purpose is. Some people claim that it may have come from the Quakers, although Pentecostal's do it, and it occurs when the Holy Spirit fills the body. It also seems to be encouraged in some Evangelical circles, as it was explicitly said to be the force of the holy spirit in the movie Jesus Camp (2006).
What exactly is this practice called, and where did it come from?
I don't recall reading anything about it in the Bible.
If you require an example, since I don't know what it's called I'm unable to find videos of it successfully on Google ("christian shaking" doesn't quite work), but what reminded me of it was the few seconds of this clip of one of the "Sweet Brown" remixes.

The practice is called being slain in the spirit

It is likely that this practice has existed for millennia; and that it is more a self-induced ecstasy than any kind of actual action of God upon the person. It is thought that 'prophets' in the Old Testament time may have done such things to try to induce visions. The prophets of Baal do something similar here:

  Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

Here's something from an Orthodox source on the issue: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7112

  It appears St. Paul was questioned about the working of the Holy
  Spirit through the Gifts. Corinth was greatly influenced by Greek
  paganism which included demonstrations, frenzies and orgies, all
  intricately interwoven into their religious practices. In post Homeric
  times, the cult of the Dionysiac orgies made their entrance into the
  Greek world. According to this, music, the whirling dance,
  intoxication and utterances had the power to make men divine; to
  produce a condition in which the normal state was left behind and the
  inspired person perceived what was external to himself and the senses.

  In other words, the soul was supposed to leave the body, hence the
  word ecstasy (ek stasis). They believed that while the being was
  absent from the body, the soul was united with the deity. At such
  times, the ecstatic person had no consciousness of his own.

  The Corinthians of Paul's time were living under the influence of
  Dionysiac religious customs. It was natural that they would find
  certain similarities more familiar and appealing. Thus the Corinthians
  began to put more stress on certain gifts like glossolalia. No doubt
  the Apostle was concerned that their ties and memories of the old life
  should be reason enough to regulate the employment of Glossolalia.

While not utterly identical, these ecstasies - which is the only really good term we have for it in English - have an origin in common human natural religious yearnings. They are not specifically Christian but reflect the person's desire to be a instrument of God, even to the point of frenzied ecstasy.


Caesar Augustus' census in Luke 2 - is it a-historical? Fabricated story? Luke 2 speaks of a census by Caesar Augustus that everyone should go to their town of birth to be counted/enrolled.

I recall, from a number curses on "historical Jesus", that there is a claim that no census of this type was ever recorded before, or since, that it was never roman way of performing a census, and that we ought to have records of such a massive movement of people as it would entail.

Argument of course is, that Luke 2 a fabricated story in order to prove Jesus royal lineage.

Does anyone know how much truth there is to this argument?

This question is addressed here: http://www.comereason.org/roman-census.asp

The article cites references that corroborate that Rome periodically conducted censuses, and that Caesar Augustus made frequent use of the practice. Some were widespread, while other were restricted to a single region. A brief quote:

  Indeed, it seems that Caesar Augustus was the type of leader who
  ordered many censuses in his day. Records exist to show that
  Roman-controlled Egypt had begun a census as early as 10 B.C. and it
  was repeated every 14 years. And Augustus himself notes in his Res
  Gestae (The Deeds of Augustus) that he ordered three wide-spread
  censuses of Roman citizens, one in 28B.C., one in 8 B.C. and one in 14
  A.D.2 In between there are several other censuses that happened
  locally across Rome. Luke's account corroborates the idea of multiple
  censuses for Judea when he writes "This was the first census taken
  while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Certainly, the word "first"
  implies that more than one census happened.

The article also suggests that Quirinius may have served in Judea on two occasions, once as procurator in charge of the census, and later as governor, in light of the different terms used to describe the two roles.


In Catholic doctrine, is limbo eternal? The Catholic Church professes a belief in the existence of limbo. Although the doctrine on this subject has not yet been defined, does the Catholic Church believe that it is eternal?

We must distinguish between the two limbos:

Limbo of hell or of the Patriarchs (limbus inferni seu patrum)This is also known as Abraham's bosom. This limbo no longer exists (cf. "Reply to Objection 3" of this) because Christ has already descended into hell and brought those souls detained there to heaven during His Ascension.
Limbo for children (limbus puerorum)This is different than the limbo of the Fathers, which "is placed higher than the limbo of children." (cf. "I answer that…" of this). It is where the souls of unbaptized children are. It is a place of perpetual, natural happiness where souls are not actively punished by fire because they have not committed any personal sins; however, it is still hell, which, by definition, is the place where one is deprived of the Beatific Vision.

As St. Thomas Aquinas writes ("I answer that…" of this):

  The limbo of the Fathers and the limbo of children, without any doubt, differ as to the quality of punishment or reward. For children have no hope of the blessed life, as the Fathers in limbo had, in whom, moreover, shone forth the light of faith and grace. But as regards their situation, there is reason to believe that the place of both is the same; except that the limbo of the Fathers is placed higher than the limbo of children, just as we have stated in reference to limbo and hell (Article [5]).

Now, hell is eternal. The limbus puerorum is in hell. Therefore, the limbus puerorum is eternal.

Pope Pius VI condemned "as a Pelagian fable" the fact that the false Synod of Pistoia "introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation.

The full quote of Pope Pius VI's “Auctorem fidei,” Aug. 28, 1794, is reproduced in Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. Ed. 34. 1965, §2626

  The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as it, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,—false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.

Where do these souls end up, then? They can't be in heaven or purgatory because they are not baptized, and they can't be punished with the fires of hell because they committed no personal sin; nor can they be somewhere between heaven and hell. Thus, they must be in hell (because they are deprived of the Beatific Vision, and hell is the place of being deprived of seeing God), but they are not punished by the fires of hell. This is the limbus puerorum.


Do Latter Day Saints / Mormons consider themselves to be henotheists? Up until now, I saw Christianity as a whole to be monotheistic (there is only one god that created the world, is all-powerful and intervenes in the world).

Whilst looking at monotheism and henotheism (belief in a single god while not denying the existence or possible existence of other deities and any other deities are viewed to be of a unitary, equivalent divine essence), Wikipedia's article on henotheism states that

  Some scholars have written that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) can be characterized as henotheistic, but others have rejected this stance.

  Eugene England, a professor at Brigham Young University, asserted that LDS Presidents Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith along with LDS scholar B. H. Roberts used the LDS interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8:5–6 as "a brief explanation of how it is possible to be both a Christian polytheist (technically a henotheist) and a monotheist".

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 reads (NIV)

  5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

What does the LDS church say about it?  Are Latter Day Saints monotheistic or henotheistic?

An article provided by FairMormon (a Latter-day Saint volunteer apologetics group not connected with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) provides what I think is a good answer.  The full article, which addresses a broader array of questions than just the one here posed, can be found at this link.

The substance of the answer provided by FairMormon is:

  There really is not a single word that adequately captures LDS thought on the nature of God. ... Instead of using a single-word label, one must actually articulate the belief (using fully-developed sentences or paragraphs). The single-word label that will adequately describe the full breadth of LDS thought on the nature of God has yet to be coined.

As a life-long Latter-day Saint, I concur with the quoted statement.  No single-word "-ism" has a definition that quite matches my church's teachings, and the differences between the definitions and the teachings are sufficiently important to merit not using any of those words as a full description of our beliefs.

The article, however, is not an official statement from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its leaders, which is what you are asking for.  So far I haven't been able to find any official statement, and it seems likely there is none.  A search at ChurchofJesusChrist.org (which is replacing lds.org) for "henotheist" returns no results, and a search for "henotheism" returns one result to an Old Testament lesson manual, though I cannot find where in the manual the word appears.  If someone can find an official statement, please share.