Is the orientation of a grave facing East required in the Catholic Church? I noticed in a local rural cemetary that all the graves run east-west.  It also appears that the Head stones are on the West end of the vault/coffin.  Thus, I intuit that the Head is near the West placed stone, so as implied in Matthew 24:27 the body will rise facing east.  I also understand this is generally normal for Catholic cemeteries.

Note: This was not a Catholic cemetery.

1.) Generally, do Catholic cemeteries follow the same tradition or would the head of the coffin for some reason face West?

2.) Considering the image below, I would think you would need to stand facing West to read the print normally.  The vault/coffin would be there in front of you -- east side of the headstone.  Is this a correct understanding?

3) Another Catholic cemetery is similar to this image but the printing is on the other side(west) of the headstone.  This seems to be at odds with tradition?

At one time, it was true that Catholics must be buried facing the east. Is that no longer true, and was it a part of the same law which said that the altar in a Catholic Church must face the east.

As anywhere, you may find older Catholic cemeteries that still accommodate this tradition.

  There is no requirement in church law regarding the position of burial. The only thing that comes close is a reference in the Roman Ritual of 1950 (no longer in effect) that stated that at the funeral Mass the coffin was to be placed so that the feet of the deceased should point toward the main altar.

  Presuming the church had been constructed so that a priest celebrating Mass would face the east, the deceased at the funeral would face in that same direction.

  Although there was no canonical requirement, it was in fact customary for people to be buried facing the east, reflecting the traditional Christian belief that, at the end time, Jesus would return from the east. (An even earlier pagan tradition had the deceased buried facing the east because it was where the sun rose.)

  Correctly, you suggest that the same values guided the traditional placing of a church’s main altar, so that the priest celebrating Mass could face the east. This evoked the Christian expectation as to Christ’s return. (See Mt 24:27: “For just as lightning comes from the east and is seen as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.”) - Must one be buried facing east?

There is no fixed rule nowadays and I know of some very traditional Catholic Benedictine cemeteries where the brethren are buried facing the south due to limited burial space.

  Historical precedents provide that, if the corpse is a layman, the feet are to be turned towards the altar. If the corpse is a priest, then the position is reversed, the head being towards the altar. The earliest reference to this is in Johann Burchard's "Diary". Burchard was the master of ceremonies to Pope Innocent VIII and Pope Alexander VI. The idea seems to be that the bishop (or priest) in death should occupy the same position in the church as during life, facing his people who he taught and blessed in Christ's name.

  According to another tradition not now considered obligatory in the Roman Rite, the feet of all Christians both before the altar and in the grave should be pointed to the East. This custom is alluded to by Bishop Hildebert at the beginning of the 12th century,[14] and its symbolism is discussed by Guillaume Durand. "A man ought so to be buried", he says, "that while his head lies to the West his feet are turned to the East..." - Catholic funeral

If the corpse is a priest, then the position is reversed, the head being towards the altar. There are still dioceses and Religious Orders that still follow this tradition and I have personally been present at a priest's Funeral Mass where this is the custom.

Sub question #1: Generally, do Catholic cemeteries follow the same tradition or would the head of the coffin for some reason face West?

Some do and some do not. Let me explain.

Ideally the custom of burying the faithful facing east is still popular in Catholic cemeteries, especially the old ones. Even in past centuries, exceptions can easily be found. Early martyrs were often buried under the altars of local churches.

  The fact that the tombs of the martyrs were probably the earliest altars (cf. Apoc., vi, 9), together with the eager desire to be buried near God's holy ones, gradually led up to the custom of permitting certain favored individuals to be interred not only near but within the church. It may be said that the Roman emperors led the way. Constantine and Theodosius were buried under the portico of the church of the Apostles in Constantinople. At Rome, when the restrictions against burial within the city began to be set aside, the entrance of St. Peter's became the usual place of interment for the popes and other distinguished persons. - Burials in Churches

Other exceptions to the Church's desire to bury her faithful facing east in modern days is due in part to local civil law.

  It would be impossible here to deal in detail with the various legislative enactments which now almost everywhere prevent the Church's requirements from being carried into effect. (See Christian Burial.) - Cemeteries and Civil Law

Like I said before that the Church would be still desirous that this tradition still be intact, but because it is not always possible in our days, the Catholic Church no longer requires that the faithful keep to the tradition of the faithful facing east when buried.

Some of the newer Catholic cemeteries have the faithful facing east, while others do not. Sadly civil laws have jurisdiction over cemeteries and civil law must be respected.

Sub question #2: Considering this tradition, I would think you would need to stand facing east to read the print normally. The vault/coffin would be there in front of you -- west of the headstone. Is this a correct understanding?

Yes, that is correct.

Sub question #3: Another Catholic cemetery is similar to this image but the printing is on the other side(west) of the headstone. This seems odd.

Although not the traditional way of burying the faithful facing east, it may be due to either civil law, which takes precedence or due to the terrain of the locality.

  As you might gather from all the other answers, “Headstones” are far more common than are “footstones” At least they use to be. In some cemeteries they still are. And in many rural and small-town cemeteries, the graves are laid out with the feet all to the East, with the symbolism that all will be facing the rising sun on resurrection day. More modern cemeteries are not so picky, and lay out the graves so as to most efficiently use the available space.

  Footstones are VERY common, particularly in large commercial cemeteries, or any cemetery established in recent years. And there are a couple of reasons.

  The first is that the cemeteries involved in the “Memorial Park” movement earlier in the last century went for large expanses of open lawn, with a small flat marker for each grave (often at the foot). This meant it was easy for a visitor to NOT focus on the vast number of “other” graves and monuments, but on the ones that were important to them, in the midst of a lush park-like setting.

  Also, some cemeteries are laid out something like this:

  There might be clusters of 6 or 8 graves around a central family monument (or upright marker). Each of the individual graves will have the head towards the large family marker, and at the foot of each grave (where I placed a dot) will be an individual flat foot-marker, or foot-stone.

  Sometimes the entire plot will be for one family, other times there might be two, as “Thomas” and “Richards” in my example. Each cemetery will have their own rules about how the overlap is to be handled. - Why do they bury people with the gravestone at their feet instead of at their head?

Please keep in mind civil authorities may have guidelines that must be followed at the same time.


What did the early church fathers (pre-5th c.) teach with regards to baptismal regeneration? The title says it all, really.

What did the ECF believe and teach with regards to baptismal regeneration?

Did they generally subscribe to it or deny it?

Related: What did the early church fathers (pre-5th c.) teach with regards to the doctrine of baptism as a necessity for salvation?

Justin Martyr wrote a chapter (LXI) on Christian baptism in his First Apology, written sometime in the 2nd century:

  I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God
  when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we
  seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are
  persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and
  undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and
  to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are
  past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us
  where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which
  we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and
  Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy
  Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also
  said, Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of
  heaven [John 3:5].  Now, that it is impossible for those who have
  once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all.
  And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is
  declared by Isaiah the prophet, as I wrote above, he thus speaks:
  Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the
  widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though
  your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though
  they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse
  and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath
  spoken it [Isaiah 1:16-20].  And for this [rite] we have
  learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born
  without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together,
  and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that
  we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may
  become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the
  water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced
  over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins,
  the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to
  the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name
  alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any
  one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless
  madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who
  learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the
  name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in
  the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all
  things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.

Cyprian of Carthage, another Ante-Nicene Father, wrote in the 3rd century of his own baptism:

  For as I myself was held in bonds by the innumerable errors of my
  previous life, from which I did not believe that I could by
  possibility be delivered, so I was disposed to acquiesce in my
  clinging vices; and because I despaired of better things, I used to
  indulge my sins as if they were actually parts of me, and indigenous
  to me. But after that, by the help of the water of new birth [i.e.,
  baptism], the stain of former years had been washed away, and a light
  from above, serene and pure, had been infused into my reconciled
  heart,—after that, by the agency of the Spirit breathed from heaven, a
  second birth had restored me to a new man;—then, in a wondrous manner,
  doubtful things at once began to assure themselves to me, hidden
  things to be revealed, dark things to be enlightened, what before had
  seemed difficult began to suggest a means of accomplishment, what had
  been thought impossible, to be capable of being achieved; so that I
  was enabled to acknowledge that what previously, being born of the
  flesh, had been living in the practice of sins, was of the earth
  earthly, but had now begun to be of God, and was animated by the
  Spirit of holiness (Epistle I, To Donatus).

These are the earliest sources I could find who comment on the nature of baptism.  I am sure there are many, many such commentaries among the Post-Nicene Fathers, but rather than search through them I thought I would simply quote what John of Damascus wrote later in his An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.  Written in the early 8th century, Exposition was probably the first summary of Church dogmatic theology and reflects the collected teaching of recognized Church Fathers up to that point.  In "Concerning Faith and Baptism", he writes:

  We confess one baptism for the remission of sins and for life eternal.
  For baptism declares the Lord’s death. We are indeed buried with the
  Lord through baptism [Col 2:12], as saith the divine Apostle. So
  then, as our Lord died once for all, we also must be baptized once for
  all, and baptized according to the Word of the Lord, In the Name of
  the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt 28:19],
  being taught the confession in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
  The baptism then into Christ means that believers are baptized into
  Him. We could not believe in Christ if we were not taught confession
  in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit4. For Christ is the Son of the Living
  God5, Whom the Father anointed with the Holy Spirit: in the words of
  the divine David, Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the
  oil of gladness above thy fellows [Ps 44:7 LXX]. And Isaiah also
  speaking in the person of the Lord says, The Spirit of the Lord is
  upon me because He hath anointed me [61:1]. Christ, however, taught
  His own disciples the invocation and said, Baptizing them in the Name
  of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. For since
  Christ made us for incorruption, and we transgressed His saving
  command. He condemned us to the corruption of death in order that that
  which is evil should not be immortal, and when in His compassion He
  stooped to His servants and became like us, He redeemed us from
  corruption through His own passion. He caused the fountain of
  remission to well forth for us out of His holy and immaculate side [Jn
  19:34], water for our regeneration, and the washing away of sin and
  corruption; and blood to drink as the hostage of life eternal. And He
  laid on us the command to be born again of water and of the Spirit [Jn
  3:5], through prayer and invocation, the Holy Spirit drawing nigh unto
  the water. For since man’s nature is twofold, consisting of soul and
  body, He bestowed on us a twofold purification, of water and of the
  Spirit: the Spirit renewing that part in us which is after His image
  and likeness, and the water by the grace of the Spirit cleansing the
  body from sin and delivering it from corruption, the water indeed
  expressing the image of death, but the Spirit affording the earnest of
  life.  For from the beginning the Spirit of God moved upon
  the face of the waters [Gn 1:2], and anew the Scripture witnesseth
  that water has the power of purification [Lev 15:10]. In the time of
  Noah God washed away the sin of the world by water [Gn 16:17]. By
  water every impure person is purified, according to the law, even the
  very garments being washed with water. Elijah shewed forth the grace
  of the Spirit mingled with the water when he burned the holocaust by
  pouring on water [3 Kingdoms 18:32 LXX]. And almost everything is
  purified by water according to the law: for the things of sight are
  symbols of the things of thought. The regeneration, however, takes
  place in the spirit: for faith has the power of making us sons (of
  God), creatures as we are, by the Spirit, and of leading us into our
  original blessedness.  The remission of sins, therefore, is
  granted alike to all through baptism: but the grace of the Spirit is
  proportional to the faith and previous purification. Now, indeed, we
  receive the firstfruits of the Holy Spirit through baptism, and the
  second birth is for us the beginning and seal and security and
  illumination of another life


According to the Catholic Church, was Mary's Magnificat a spontaneous utterance? At Luke 1: 46-55 we see Blessed Virgin Mary singing  a song of praise, now known as the Magnificat, while greeting her cousin Elizabeth. I wish to know if the song of Mary was a spontaneous utterance, or was it an  integration of  prayers from the old Jewish scripts and the Psalms ? What do the teachings of Catholic Church say on the source(s) of the Magnificat ?

Mary knew Holy Scriptures very well, and her Magnificat canticle was inspired by the Holy Ghost.
During her Visitation with St. Elizabeth,

Mary, too, was inspired by the Holy Spirit. She improvised the poem known to us as the Magnificat,27 from the opening word of its Latin version. It is charged with reminiscences of the psalms and other writings of the Old Testament, showing that Mary's mind was steeped in Holy Writ. In the first strophe (Lk. 1:46-50), she meditates with restrained enthusiasm upon the mercy, power, and holiness of God, who had chosen her for so great a dignity. She explains in the second strophe (vv. 51-53) that God is wont to exalt the weak and depose the proud. In the third strophe (vv. 54-55), she praises God's fidelity in fulfilling through His Son the promises made to Abraham and his posterity.

source: Fr. Michael J. Gruenthaner, S.J., "Mary in the New Testament", pp. 89-90 of Juniper B. Carol, O.F.M, Mariology (vol. 1), 1955.
Magnificat (Lk. 1) / Hannah (1 Sam.)  parallels
Lk. 1:46: My soul doth magnify the Lord.
1 Sam. 2:1: My heart hath rejoiced in the Lord, and my horn is exalted in my God: my mouth is enlarged over my enemies: because I have joyed in thy salvation.
Lk. 1:48: he hath regarded the humility (ταπείνωσιν, humilitatem) of his handmaid
1 Sam. 1:11: thou wilt behold the affliction (ταπείνωσιν, afflictionem) of thy servant
(DRC doesn't have "affliction".)
Lk. 1:52: He hath put down the mighty from their seat and hath exalted the humble.(cf. Ps. 109:1: "…make thy enemies thy footstool.")
1 Sam. 2:6: The Lord killeth and maketh alive, he bringeth down to hell, and bringeth back again.
Lk. 1:53: He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.
1 Sam. 2:7: The Lord maketh poor and maketh rich, he humbleth and he exalteth:
courtesy: The Biblical Doctrine of Virginity by Lucien Legrand, M.E.P., p. 124
From the article on 1 & 2 Kings (1 & 2 Samuel) by H. McKay, O.F.M., in A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (ref:68.5):

§ f 2:1–10 Anna’s Hymn of Thankgiving—This is sometimes called ‘the Magnificat of the OT’. Both Mary’s song and Anna’s canticle are poetry and prophecy. St Luke’s narrative (Lk 1:46–55) shows how deeply Anna’s words had affected our Lady’s mind. But when they pass through her soul, they catch something of the fragrance of her personality and are clothed with her own quiet restraint and selfless humility. In the present context, the leading idea seems to be the praise of Yahweh who has given deliverance to Anna. The proud and boastful must be silent before him, for he weighs all their thoughts and actions. In his sovereign government of the world he can reverse the positions of weak and strong, mighty and lowly. This great moral principle of his rule will receive its complete fulfilment in the judgement of the world and the exaltation of Yahweh’s anointed King.

Our Lady, being very knowledgeable of Holy Scripture, certainly was thinking of Hannah's barrenness / misery and how happy she was conceiving a child, Samuel.


What evidence do we have today about Christian groups not represented at the first four ecumenical councils? Were there any Christian groups that existed during the time of the first four ecumenical councils and that were not represented at them either because they chose not to attend or they were not invited or, perhaps, were not even known?

The Nestorians are a good example for the latter two councils. There were a few attendees from the non-Greek east, groups that would later be called Nestorians. There was at least two, Jacob of Nisibis and another bishop named John. The eastern church "officially" accepted Nicea in 410 at the council of Isaac though the Nestorian schism happened soon after. But I guess nobody doubts the existence of the now-called Nestorian church during the time. Some of their writings survive and I'd recommend a reading of Moffett's "Christianity in Asia".

If I recall correctly, it is still too early for the Indian Christians to be associated very closely with the churches later called "Nestorian". Perhaps they are as old as Thomas. One tradition says it was Bartholomew rather than Thomas. It is reported that when Pantaenus went to India in the second century from Egypt he found Christians there. So there is probably an old tradition there, but as far as I know none of theme made it to the ecumenical councils.

The Chinese churches probably did not yet exist at the time of the first councils.

Keep in mind that groups east of the Roman Empire might have had troubles at times traveling to councils in the west. The Romans and Persians were on and off again at war, which would have hurt the communication lines a bit I'm sure, even if travel wasn't completely stopped.

If you go further west, there are traditions of Christianity reaching England in the second century, though as far as I know it didn't really thrive till much later (but I could be wrong on that). But if there are groups that far west, it is less likely that they would have made it to an ecumenical council.

We know the Marcionites existed, even after the death of Marcion. As far as I know, they had no presence at the councils and none of their writings survive.

Some lump them the Marcionites in with the Christian gnostics (and not all gnostics would have attached themselves to Christianity), but it might just be best to say there were a number of different types of gnostic groups. We have evidence of various gnostic groups because of polemics against them by the early fathers. If you haven't read Irenaeus, you can see a variety of gnostic groups attacked there. Since the discoveries of the Nag Hammadi documents we also have evidence of gnostics in their own words. You can also see some material on the gnostics in the early Christian historians.

There are also the Ebionites, who were a group of law-following Christians that some would say are akin to what people think of when they think "Judaizer". They were still around to a certain degree during the councils but as far as I know did not attend and no writings survive.

The Arians were around during the councils but they attended...and were ultimately condemned. So they don't really fit your question, but I figured I would mention them anyway.

So if you want to read for yourself from the groups that were eventually considered heretics by the orthodox, you are going to have trouble finding primary source texts to read. Most of what we have are from their opponents, which we can't assume always portray their opponents fairly, even if some (like myself) think they were right in deeming the ideas unorthodox (well...at least I think they were mostly right)


With whom did Cain and Abel marry? I saw a similar question But the answers wasn't clear to me. Simply how did Cain and Abel have children?

Genesis 5:4 "And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters"

https://www.bible.com/bible/1/gen.5.4.kjv

They had children by their sisters.

(Incest was not prohibited at the time since genetic decay had not set in yet)


Why is sex between two consenting adults sin? My understanding is that murder is a sin because I don't have rights on another person's life in the same way that another person doesn't  have rights over my life. Likewise stealing would be a sin because I don't have rights over another person's property nor would I like anybody else to take what is mine. On the other hand smiling would not be a sin because I don't encroach on another person's right when smiling and they may actually like being smiled upon.

In the Old Testament David (considered a prophet) did not sin when he engaged with concubines and slave girls who were not legally wives. If adultery is defined as having sex with another man's wife, David has not broken the law. Or did he? However today if two (unmarried) consenting adults have sex, that's adultery by Biblical standards. From my understanding its encroaching on another person's right that seems to define sin. Here I don't see an encroachment of the rights of any person.

If a married person is involved in extra marital sex he sins, because he has broken his marital vows. Why is the sexual act a sin when two people have fun by mutual consent and not encroaching on each others freedom?

Sin is not merely defined by one person encroaching on another person's rights.  Pride, greed, envy, bitterness, and many other such things are sins, but they do not encroach on anyone else's rights.  So, then, why are these considered sins by God?  It seems the key point is that each of them is a departure from the righteousness of God.

In the case of two consenting adults, you assume that each of these people have title to their own lives.  According to the Bible, "a man's life is not his own" (Jeremiah 10:23), but belongs to God Himself.  So, we should certainly consider the consent of the other person, but we cannot forego the consent of God Himself.

When David prays his prayer of repentance over his sin with Bathsheba in Psalm 51, he says, "Against you, you only have I sinned..."  (Psalm 51:4)  David understood that the primary infraction was not again Bathsheba or even Uriah, but against God.  It is His standard and His holiness that matters--not the consent of any mere mortal.

Another note is that the eating of the fruit of the tree in the Garden of Eden did not infringe on any other person's rights--but it still went against the command of God.

  I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, that it is not
  in man who walks to direct his steps.  Jeremiah 10:23 ESV

  "Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your
  sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in
  your judgment."  Psalm 51:4 ESV

  "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat,
  for in the day that you eat[d] of it you shall surely die.”  Genesis
  2:17 ESV


What is an overview of Lutheran faith-alone systematically taught before Martin Luther? Are there records of Lutheran doctrine of faith-alone taught by theologians prior to  him whether explicitly?

I read in the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Justification that Luther was influenced by certain theologians in deriving faith-alone doctrine. Who were they, and can you cite such resources with online reference that any theologian taught faith-alone doctrine? Of course, those who believe the Sola-fide of Luther might say that it was taught by apostle Paul, but I am looking for explicit systematic theology like Luther did. I am not looking for only these particular people mentioned here but anyone.

  Whether Victorinus, a neo-Platonist, already defended the doctrine of
  justification by faith alone, is immaterial to our discussion. On the
  other hand, it cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages there were a
  few Catholic theologians among the Nominalists (Occam, Durandus,
  Gabriel Biel), who went so far in exaggerating the value of good works
  in the matter of justification that the efficiency and dignity of
  Divine grace was unduly relegated to the background. Of late, Fathers
  Denifle and Weiss have shown that Martin Luther was acquainted almost
  exclusively with the theology of these Nominalists, which he naturally
  and justly found repugnant, and that the "Summa" of St. Thomas and the
  works of other great theologians were practically unknown to him.

I have not found any reference which lists precisely the church fathers that Luther read (and was influenced by) other than Augustine. Certainly of the church fathers, Augustine was a strong influence on Luther's development of his theology.

Martin Luther himself said in 1516 (or 1518? He published two editions of the book) in the preface of the Theologia Germanica:

  Next to the Bible and St. Augustine, no book has ever come into my hands from which I have learnt more of God and Christ,
  and man and all things that are.

This would place the author of Theologia Germanica as one of his primary influences.

However, there were several contemporaries of Luther which influenced his theology (and indeed the Reformation didn't occur out of a vacuum; Luther was not the only person thinking along sola fide lines, just perhaps the fastest to come to his conclusion.) This included Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples and Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus, although it is not immediately apparent to me whether their theology specifically affected his development of sola fide or whether it was simply their approaches to hermeneutics and theology generally.

Johann von Staupitz, Luther's supervisor, and Andreas Rudolph Bodenstein von Karlstadt were both also close aquaintances of Luther who had positions on faith and salvation that were moving in similar circles as sola fide, although it appears that they did not fully accept his position. Certainly they affected his development, though.

Much of this is sourced from Luther's Development of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith Only: Preserved Smith. There were presumably other influences, and you have mentioned Victorinus and the neo-Platonists so I shall not repeat them.


Do Christadelphians believe Jesus is God? Do Christadelphians believe that Jesus is completely God and has been God since before the creation of the world?

If not, when does Jesus become God (or take on God like attributes)? What is their justification for this?

I hope I can help here as I am a Christadelphian. It is correct we don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity and our view is consistent with Biblical Unitarianism. This is an important point of distinction as other non Trinitarian denominations may hold a view of 'oneness' or binitarianism as their theology.

In direct answer to your question, no, we do not believe Jesus is completely God or in fact God at all. What we do hold is that Jesus is the Messiah, he is the son of God born of a virgin birth and was sinless and therefore had very much a God-like nature. We also believe that Jesus' teachings were the word of God. We stop short at saying he was divine. Jesus was a sinless man. I think that makes him more special. We know God can't sin. If Jesus was God, the fact he didn't sin would render insignificant.

In answer to the next part of the question. As a consequence of the aforementioned material, we do not believe Jesus was God or at least present in any way before creation. Jesus came into being when he was born to Mary. Jehovah's Witnesses believe Jesus was the angel Michael in heaven born on earth through the virgin birth. We do not hold this view at all. We are very much in line with orthodox understanding here.

Next part. Jesus never becomes God. He is God's son and has a God-like nature but will never become God. So when did he adopt a God-like nature? Great question. Many others have greater explanations than I. The simple answer is that we can't be sure exactly. The Bible says little of his childhood. We do know that when he went to Jerusalem for the Passover with his family, he stayed back at the temple. He was very learned in scripture for his age. Some say at his Baptism where God professed "this is my son, in him I am well pleased." There is however no doubt that in his ministry, God was pleased in all Jesus did (God resurrected him so he must have been happy).

My sincerest hope I have helped you. There are some brilliant Christadelphian pamphlets on the Trinity. You can order one from the website of 'The Christadelphian' (magazine) or view free copies online or pop into your local Christadelphian Church. Most have these pamphlets and would gladly hand you one for nothing more than a smile.

Here are the pamphlets I'm speaking of

Read the Jesus, God the Son or Son of God pamphlet. This is the common position in Christadelphia and backs up what I've said above.

No matter if one believes in the Trinity or not, we all believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is our doctrinal view which differs.


Why did Paul go to Arabia? In the first chapter of Galatians, paul said,

  17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

After he his encounter, he should have gone to Rome or Jerusalem but he went to Arabia. Does mount Sinai has any importance since law was given on it so may be he went there?

Galatians 1:15-18 (ESV)

  But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me
  by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I
  might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult
  with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles
  before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to
  Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit
  Cephas and remained with him fifteen days.

It is not clear why Paul went to Arabia. Even Luke did not mention this in Acts. We can find this account only in his letter to Galatians. We may conclude that Paul stayed sometime in Damascus after the conversion, preaching to the Jews and then went to Arabia, and after three years only Paul went to Jerusalem to speak with the Apostles face to face.

Some scholars believe that Paul went to Arabia to receive revelations from Jesus Christ.

  From the reading of the text in Acts 9:26-28 one would get the
  impression that Saul went directly from his escape at Damascus to
  Jerusalem. By his own admission he clarified the fact in his letter to
  the Galatians (1:16-17) that he “conferred not with flesh and blood”
  nor consulted with the Apostles in Jerusalem; but the Lord’s choice
  for him was to go to Arabia to be trained in the school of the Spirit
  in order that he might receive greater revelations concerning the
  mysteries of the Gospel of the glorified Christ. (source)

Some scholars believe that Paul went to Arabia to preach the Gospel and this action proves that Paul received his revelations concerning the Gospel from Christ himself.

  Paul thus wrote to tell them that after his conversion, he preached
  among the Gentiles for an extended amount of time before ever meeting
  with another apostle. Paul did not hurry off to Jerusalem to get
  instruction and approval from the Twelve. In defense of his apostolic
  credentials to the churches of Galatia, Paul mentioned his delayed
  journey to Jerusalem in order to emphasize (among other things) his
  genuine apostleship, whose message and authority came from Almighty
  God, and not from the twelve apostles, or any other person.
  (source)

Some again believe that Paul needed solitude because his life suddenly turned upside down.

  Another point to consider is Paul’s world was turned upside-down in a
  moment’s time. Wasn’t he human, just like the rest of us? Wouldn’t he
  need to withdraw for awhile in solitude to more or less come to grips
  with the powerful upheaval that had disturbed the certainty of his
  righteous stand in the Law? Wouldn’t he have needed some inner
  clarity? Up to this point in his life, he had served the Law, and
  through the Law, he was convinced that the new Messianic Jews taught
  blasphemy when preaching that the Temple sacrifices had become
  obsolete in Christ. (source)


What does the Bible say about the soul? I'm curious what the Bible states about the soul.

In many different places, especially Deuteronomy, we're told to love or believe "with all our soul." Many people have opinions over what a soul is, what it means to have one, and other properties of the soul, but I'm looking for supporting details.

Where and how does the Bible describe the soul?

The problem is what we see as soul has different meanings based on when in history you are looking at it.

For example, the Hebrews didn't see the soul as immortal, as shown here:

  "The soul [nephesh] who sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:4, 20)

So, the soul (word was nephesh) was not immortal.

Then in the first century AD, Philo introduced the immortal soul to the Jews as they interacted more with the Greeks:

  The death of a man is the separation of his soul from his body ..."
  (The Works of Philo, translated by C.D. Yonge, 1993, p. 37).

So, in Greek the work psuche is translated as soul or life.

Jesus stated that God can destroy the soul (Matt 10:28):

  Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
  Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in
  hell.

Paul described death as sleep, as shown in this sample:
1 Corinthians 15:51-58

  51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed —

  52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the
  last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised
  imperishable, and we will be changed.

  53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.

  54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the
  mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come
  true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”[a]

  55 “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”[b]

  56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

  57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus
  Christ.

  58 Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the
  Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

  13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who
  are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no
  hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God
  will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep [a]in Jesus. 15 For
  this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive
  [b]and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who
  have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven
  with a [c]shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet
  of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are
  alive [d]and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds
  to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
  18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

An immortal soul isn't mentioned in the Bible, but immortality is mentioned, such as:

  "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the
  Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise
  him up at the last day" (John 6:40).

So, Origen wrote about the immortal soul:

  In Origen De Principiis he wrote: "... The soul, having a substance
  and life of its own, shall after its departure from the world, be
  rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an
  inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have
  procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and
  punishments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to
  this ..." (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, 1995, p. 240).

and the Augustine wrote more on the subject:

  In The City of God he wrote that the soul "is therefore called
  immortal, because in a sense, it does not cease to live and to feel;
  while the body is called mortal because it can be forsaken of all
  life, and cannot by itself live at all. The death, then, of the soul,
  takes place when God forsakes it, as the death of the body when the
  soul forsakes it" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, 1995, p. 245.)

Thomas Aquinas probably wrote the most on the subject of the soul, and you can read various issues about the soul here:  http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm, and starting at Question 75.

In various places the Book of Mormon talks about the immortal soul, and this page is a good reference, as it also shows where the Bible doesn't agree on the immortality of the soul:

http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/a02mormon/basicapproacha02.html

For example:
Mosiah 2:38

  38 Therefore if that man arepenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an
  enemy to God, the demands of divine bjustice do awaken his immortal
  soul to a lively sense of his own cguilt, which doth cause him to
  shrink from the dpresence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with
  guilt, and epain, and fanguish, which is like an unquenchable gfire,
  whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.

Due to the complexity, you may want to narrow down the focus of your question, perhaps.


According to Reformed - 1 Corinthians 11:29-30, the words [weak, sick, died] literal or not? 1 Corinthians 11:29-30

  (29) For if you eat the bread or drink the cup without honoring the
  body of Christ, you are eating and drinking God's judgment upon
  yourself.  (30) That is why many of you are weak and sick and some have
  even died.

To me, it seems verse 29 to 30 is causal. And it's very difficult for me to assume that the bold sentence is metaphor. But to assume the bold sentence is literal, raise a question :

Is it really that someone has died killed by God because he/she ate the bread or drink the cup without honoring the body of Christ in that time ?
What about in this present time ? Will God kill someone if he/she ate the bread or drink the cup without honoring the body of Christ ?

I hope the bold sentence is metaphor, so I don't need to ask the two questions above anymore :). But, if it's metaphor - what does it mean that a few Christians have "died" after they ate the bread or drink the cup without honoring the body of Christ ?

Thank you.

There does not seem to be a clear statement from the Reformed tradition whether the words as written by Paul to the Corinthians are to be taken literally. Most of the Reformed statements concerning this verse are addressed to current believers. In this case, the concesus seems to be that the words are to be understood as spiritual but literal -- that profaning the Lord's Supper will result in condemnation and spiritual death.

John Calvin

We begin with Calvin. His views are not necessarily binding on the Reformed, but it is difficult to ignore his thoughts when discussing Reformed theology. Calvin's commentary on Corinthians shows that he believed the Corinthians were quite literally and physically suffering sickness and death for their actions:

  [Paul] now instructs the Corinthians as to the chastisement which they were at that time enduring. It is not known whether a pestilence was raging there at that time, or whether they were laboring under other kinds of disease. However it may have been as to this, we infer from Paul's words, that the Lord had sent some scourge upon them for their correction. Nor does Paul merely conjecture, that it is on that account that they are punished, but he affirms it as a thing that was perfectly well known by him. He says, then, that many lay sick --- that many were kept long in a languishing condition, and that many had died, in consequence of that abuse of the Supper, because they had offended God.

After denouncing the Catholic Church for her practices concerning the Lord's Supper, Calvin goes on to suggest that the Reformed are not honoring Christ in the Supper as fully as they should. He states that current wars, plagues, and famines are due to hypocracy and irreverence concerning the Supper:

  Nay even among ourselves, who have the pure administration of the Supper restored to us, in virtue of a return, as it were, from captivity, how much irreverence! How much hypocrisy on the part of many! What a disgraceful mixture, while, without any discrimination, wicked and openly abandoned persons intrude themselves, such as no man of character and decency would admit to common intercourse! And yet after all, we wonder how it comes that there are so many wars, so many pestilences, so many failures of the crop, so many disasters and calamities --- as if the cause were not manifest!

Note that this guilt seems to collectively affect both the innocent and guilty. This seems to be consistent with Calvin's speculation that the Corinthians may have been enduring a plague. However, in his Institutes of the Christian Religion (and this may be seen as a more 'official' stance), Calvin focuses the spiritual effects of eating and drinking the Supper unworthily. These concequences are limited to the unrighteous only in which the condemn themselves:

  For, inasmuch as they do not believe that body to be their life, they put every possible affront upon it, stripping it of all its dignity, and profane and contaminate it by so receiving; inasmuch as while alienated and estranged from their brethren, they dare to mingle the sacred symbol of Christ's body with their dissensions. No thanks to them if the body of Christ is not rent and torn to pieces. Wherefore they are justly held guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, which, with sacrilegious impiety, they so vilely pollute. By this unworthy eating, they bring judgment on themselves. For while they have no faith in Christ, yet, by receiving the sacrament, they profess to place their salvation only in him, and abjure all other confidence. Wherefore they themselves are their own accusers; they bear witness against themselves; they seal their own condemnation. (Institutes vi.xviii.xl)

Moving on from Calvin, we focus on some of the classical statements of the Reformed tradition: the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. These documents represent the formalization of the Reformed Christianity as practiced on Continental Europe during the Reformation. They are still respected and used by Reformed groups today. Neither of these can be said to diffinitively rule out a literal physical effect, but a real spiritual effect seems more likely -- more consitent with Calvins Institutes rather than his commentary.

The Belgic Confession

The Belgic Confession explains in Article 35 does not expand much on the effects of receiving the Supper unworthily, but it is consistent with real, spiritual effect:

  The wicked person certainly takes the sacrament, to his condemnation, but does not receive the truth of the sacrament, just as Judas and Simon the Sorcerer both indeed received the sacrament, but not Christ, who was signified by it. He is communicated only to believers...Therefore no one should come to this table without examining himself carefully, lest "by eating this bread and drinking this cup he eat and drink to his own judgment."

The Heidelberg Catechism

The Heidelberg Catechism does not say much more than restate Scripture:

  Question 81. For whom is the Lord's supper instituted?

  Answer. For those who are truly sorrowful for their sins, and yet trust that these are forgiven them for the sake of Christ; and that their remaining infirmities are covered by his passion and death; and who also earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy; but hypocrites, and such as turn not to God with sincere hearts, eat and drink judgment to themselves.

If we place this question in the context of the one before it we see that the benefits are spiritual:

  Question 80. What difference is there between the Lord's supper and the popish mass?

  Answer. The Lord's supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; and, that we by the Holy Ghost are ingrafted into Christ, who, according to his human nature is now not on earth, but in heaven, at the right hand of God his Father, and will there be worshipped by us. But the mass teaches....

The benefits, full pardon and ingrafting, are spiritual. It seems reasonable in lack of evidence to the contrary to understand the consequences are spiritual too.

The Westminster Confession of Faith

Finally we turn to the The Westminster Confession of Faith. This document originated in the Church of England, but is now primarily associated with Presbyterian groups within the Reformed Tradition. Its statements are similar to the Belgic and Heidelberg, it is a little more explicit:

  Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with Him, so are they unworthy of the Lord's table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries, or be admitted thereunto.

While the other documents spoke of judgment and condemnation, the WCF states that receiving the Supper in an unworthy manner is a great sin and brings damnation.

Conclusion

The Reformed tradition understands the warnings of sickness and death in 1 Corinthians 11 to indicate serious spiritual death and damnation.


When did the LDS church begin teaching the Word of Wisdom? At what date did the LDS church begin teaching the Word of Wisdom? What circumstances led to the introduction of the Word of Wisdom and what publications cover that period of time in LDS church history?  How did the members of that time period receive the teaching?

In January 1833, a group called the "School of the Prophets" began meeting in a small second-story room in the Newel K. Whitney store in Kirtland, Ohio. Brigham Young reported later that Joseph Smith felt that there was something wrong with  teaching of elevated truths in a thick cloud of tobacco smoke, and his wife Emma couldn't get the floor adequately clean from tobacco spittings.  He apparently felt strongly enough to make it a matter of prayer, and the Word of Wisdom was written on February 27, 1833. It was then presented as divine counsel, not a binding commandment. It was first published as Section 89  of the the "Doctrine and Covenants, of the Church of the Latter Day Saints" in 1835 as  and its observance thereafter was strongly encouraged but not considered obligatory until about 1921. The linked article on the Word of Wisdom on the Church History section of LDS Church web site refers to original documents.


What evidence is there that the Herodians were distinct from mainstream Phariseeism? During the New Testament era were the political and religious interests of the Pharisees closely aligned with the Herodians? Or did the nationalistic elements of Phariseeism make them allies?

Part of the last paragraph in entry the Pharisees on New Advent has:

  [T]he extreme faction of the Sadducees, known as the
  Herodians, was in sympathy with the foreign rulers and pagan culture,
  and even looked forward to a restoration of the national kingdom under
  one of the descendants of King Herod. Yet we find the Pharisees making
  common cause with the Herodians in their opposition to the Saviour
  (Mark 3:6; 12:13, etc.).

Herodians | Jewish Encyclopedia are also identified with the Sadducees.


What is the source of this numbering anomaly in Ambrose's De Officiis? In at least two editions of Ambrose's De Officiis (On the Duties of the Clergy) there is a numbering anomaly in Book 1, Chapter 38, where paragraph numbers 190-199 are skipped, and paragraph number 200 is used twice. This can be seen in CCEL's online edition. It is also present in a paper edition which uses the same translation.

What is the source of this numbering anomaly? Do other translations or editions have it, or is it particular to the Schaff/De Romestin translation? Or is it limited to the CCEL edition? (The Benediction Classics printed edition I saw made no mention of the CCEL, but I guess it's possible they simply copied and published the text of the CCEL edition. Seeing as it's out of copyright I'm not sure if that would be illegal or not...)

CCEL's text comes straight from the 1896 publication of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 10.  In fact, they host an image of the page that was transcribed, and the same page is also on Google Books.
You'll notice that there's no explanation given in the text. Neither is any given in the introduction.  So let's turn now to a modern translation of this work.
An edition edited by Ivor J. Davidson and published in 2001 includes paragraphs numbered 190–199, but a close examination of them indicates that they have the same content as the paragraphs in the Schaff version: the numbers of Schaff are simply offset.  Due to limited availability of the work on Google Books, this may be difficult for some to confirm, but the relevant section begins on page 228.  A few screenshots will suffice for those unable to read these pages.
First, page 228, in Latin:

Note the similarity, for example, in the beginning of §191 above, and the second §200 in Schaff:

In his igitur duobus illa est animi excellentia
In these two points, then, consists the excellency of the soul

From this point forward, the number systems diverge by nine: Schaff's §201 corresponds with Davidson's §192.  We see this in Davidson's §197:

It corresponds very closely to Schaff's §206:

First, I will speak of the people of our fathers. They were ready to fight for the temple of God and for their rights, and when attacked on the Sabbath day by the craft of the enemy, willingly allowed wounds to be inflicted on their unprotected bodies, rather than to join in the fight, so that they might not defile the Sabbath.

Conclusion
Based on this analysis, it seems pretty clear that the issue in Schaff's text, and by extension, CCEL's, is merely a typographical numbering mistake, not a matter of missing content.  Strictly speaking, then, the paragraph numbering of Schaff's edition here is not accurate and should be treated accordingly.  However it's worth noting that its handling of chapters matches that of Davidson's edition.


What is the earliest surviving reference to the Paschal Greeting? It's common in some traditions to greet one another with a "Paschal Greeting" on Easter, such as "Christ is risen," with the response "He is risen indeed."

The custom seems to have originated in the Eastern Orthodox church, and apparently they have the tradition that Mary Magdelene gave the paschal greeting to Emperor Tiberius (d. AD 37).  And the biblical reference often cited is Luke 24:34 ("The Lord has risen indeed").

But here I'm interested in finding the earliest surviving historical record of this custom.  For example, in which church father do we first learn about the Mary Magdelene / Emperor Tiberius tradition?  Or does an earlier church father describe Christians greeting each other on Easter in this way?

A related question focuses on when the custom was adopted in Anglicanism, not its historical origin: What is the origin among the Church of England of the Paschal Greeting?

There is a tradition in the Eastern Orthodox Church that the saying was made popular by Mary Magdalene when she supposedly addressed Emperor Tiberius in Rome with the words “Christ is risen.”  Mary Magdalene witnessed most of the events surrounding the crucifixion. She was present at the mock trial of Jesus; she heard Pontius Pilate pronounce the death sentence; and she saw Jesus beaten and humiliated by the crowd. She was one of the women who stood near Jesus during the crucifixion to try to comfort Him. The earliest witness to the resurrection of Jesus, she was sent by Jesus to tell the others (John 20:11-18).

The greeting is based on Luke 24:34. Translations throughout church history, from the Latin Vulgate (c. AD 400) to the ESV (2001) have translated this verse nearly identically: “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”  See also Matthew 28:1-9 which describes the resurrection events as witnessed by Mary Magdalene and the other women who were present.

The Russian Orthodox Church says this about the Paschal Greeting:

  “Do you know the origin of this custom?  It is quite an ancient one.  According to tradition, it began with the Equal to the Apostles St. Mary Magdalene.   After the Lord’s Ascension, she came to Rome to preach the Gospel.  Standing before Emperor Tiberias and saying, “Christ is Risen!” she presented him with a red egg.  In those days, it was customary for poor people to give their friends, benefactors, the wealthy, and authorities, an egg on the New Year and on birthdays, as a sign of respect.  Following Mary Magdalene’s example, early Christians began giving eggs to one another on the days celebrating Christ’s Glorious Resurrection.  They passed that custom on to us.” [1]

Apparently the words “He is risen” were spoken at Augustine's baptism on Easter Eve AD 387.  The Paschal Homily of St John Chrysostom (ordained AD 386 and made Patriarch or Archbishop of Constantinople in 386) may be the origin of the Paschal Greeting.  It was written circa 400 AD but says nothing about Mary Magdalene or Emperor Tiberius, or the giving of eggs. [2] See also ‘The Origin and Meaning of the Paschal Greeting (April 2007’) – link below.

It may be worth checking on The Gospel of Mary, which was discovered in the Akhmim Codex in Cairo, Egypt, in 1896. It was not made public until 1955, when it was published due to the popularity of the Nag Hammadi library. Written in Greek and Coptic, the Gospel of Mary codex is dated to the 3rd (Greek) and 5th (Coptic) centuries A.D. The gospel of Mary is mentioned in the writings of some of the early church fathers as early as the 3rd century A.D. In the only known copy of the text, ten entire pages are missing, including the first six pages. As a result, it is difficult to arrive at a coherent and consistent overall message.  The gospel of Mary was not written by Mary Magdalene or any other Mary of the Bible. The Gnostic teachings found in the gospel of Mary date it to the late 2nd century A.D. at the earliest.  It may say something about Mary Magdalene going to Rome to preach to Emperor Tiberius.  However, I have no intention of digging into that spiritual can of worms!

[1] https://stjohndc.org/en/content/origin-and-meaning-paschal-greeting

[2] http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/sermon.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20130403014524/http://www.stjohndc.org/Russian/feasts/FeastsE/e_pascha_greeting07.htm

Other possible source of information: “Christ is risen!” Resp. “He is risen indeed! Alleluia!” A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1992).


Who was Cain afraid of? After Cain kills Abel and God gives him protection, who is he being protected from?

Genesis 4:14

  Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your
  presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever
  finds me will kill me.

If we consider Genesis 5, we'll see the omission of Cain and Abel. It's at 130 years that Adam has a son named Seth. (v. 3) Either information about other offspring has been omitted, or prior to the birth of Seth, there were only Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. Omission of other offspring is possible as this does occur in the Bible. If this is the case, then there were probably other offspring from Adam and Eve, whom Cain would have feared for his life.

In Genesis 4:16, it says Cain settled in the land of Nod. This is wordplay, since "Nod" means "wandering" (נוֹד), which Cain was punished to be a wanderer (נוּד). Whether or not the land of Nod was already a settlement, I don't know. Yet, in v. 17, Cain sleeps with an unnamed woman. The pseudepigrapha, the Book of Jubilees (or Lesser Genesis, an ironic name), Adam and Eve also have a daughter named 'Âwân (אָוֶן; "iniquity"), who ends up being Cain's wife.

  And Cain took 'Âwân his sister to be his wife and she bare him Enoch
  at the close of the fourth jubilee. (Jubilees 4:10)


Salvation vs Condemnation: Matthew 12 Matthew 12 ESV

  A Tree Is Known by Its Fruit

  33  “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree
  bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. 34  You
  brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of
  the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35  The good person out
  of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his
  evil treasure brings forth evil. 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment
  people will give account for every careless word they speak, 37 for by
  your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be
  condemned.”

In this context, does being condemned by the words you speak conflict with salvation by grace?  So if you're saved by grace, Jesus would step in and say, "he accepted my sacrifice, his sins are forgiven."  Who would this message be for?  Non-believers would go to hell if their words are good or bad.

I think Jesus is trying to say a few things here.

Given the context, I think he's warning against hypocrisy. He calls his listeners a "brood of vipers" - they are hypocrites for trying to sound good when, at the heart, they are evil. They are painting their bad fruit to look good.
Watch your mouth. Like James, ("the tongue is a fire"), he warns that even a careless word of spite or a biting remark is a sin, a sin against a holy God, and as such it warrants punishment. On an eternal scale, sinful words are no different from sinful deeds.
Heart ⇒ Mouth. What you say comes from what you think, which comes from who you are. Ultimately, evil or unkind words only come from an evil person.

So Jesus isn't contradicting salvation by grace; rather, he's proving its premise: depravity. Everyone says things they shouldn't, and if evil words really come from an evil hard, everyone is sinful at heart and deserves God's wrath and condemnation.

But grace offers a change of heart. Because Jesus had a perfect heart, he never spoke a wrong word. He always spoke good, and his record of righteousness is transferred to us. Not only do we get a clean record (so God looks at our words and sees Christ's), we also get a new heart so that we begin to speak without evil.


Is there anything known about Jesus time as a carpenter - was he a small business owner with employees? Is anything known about the level of expertise he has attained and whether he was running a small business, or working as an employee in a shop or a day laborer?

What little we know for sure is that Joseph was a carpenter:

  Matthew 13:55  KJV  Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

As the eldest son Jesus under Jewish law would have inherited one half of Joseph's wealth. That would mean that he was in line to inherit Joseph's business. As the apparent heir Joseph would have taught Jesus all the skills in carpentry that he had most likely learned from his father as well as through his own experiences.

In that time the business would have been a family business and all four of Jesus' brothers would have been likewise trained by Joseph.

Those things are discernible from Scriptures, and some other writings from the period, such Josephus among others.


Do Catholics believe that they are actually eating the body of Christ? Does this make them cannibals? The Roman Catholic celebrates the Holy Eucharist in commemoration of the Last Supper in which during the celebration, Catholics believed that bread and wine are transformed into blood and body of Christ.

Now. What is the stand of the catholic church for eating the blood and body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist?

Yes, Catholics do believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood. Sort of. The "sort of" is because the technicalities of it go back to Aristotelian philosophy, which greatly influenced Thomas Aquinas, who is still in many ways the preeminent theologian of the Catholic Church.

Before we get to Aquinas, though, let's look at the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is a teaching document, not primarily a theological discussion, so it doesn't go into technical specifics the way we'll see that Aquinas did. But we see (numbers are paragraph numbers):

  1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread...." "He took the cup filled with wine...." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation.

  1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit. ...
  In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.

  1374    The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real'—by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

  1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion.

(emphases added, except epiclesis emphasized in original)

Now, what does Aquinas say about the technicalities of the situation? In other words, if the wine becomes the Blood of Christ, why isn't there hemoglobin in it?

Aristotelian philosophy made a distinction between what (in modern philosophical jargon) is called "substance" (from Latin substantia, the essence or nature of something) and "accident" (from Latin accidens, something that happens to be true of an entity). Aristotle of course used Greek, but Aquinas used the Latin. The substance of something is what makes it what it is: I am a human being because I am human "in substance"; that is, because I have "humanness". I look the way I do as a human because I have particular accidents—my eyes are a given color, my hair and skin, I'm a given height. Any of those things could change, or could have been different; that would change what I looked like, but not what I am (i.e. human).

The Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is that during the Eucharistic celebration, the substance of the bread and wine—what they truly are—is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. But their accidents—what they look and act like physically—remain the same.

In the Summa Theologica, Aquinas devoted several sections to this. The first one (Third Part, Question 75, Article 1) is titled "Whether the body of Christ be in this sacrament in very truth, or merely as in a figure or sign?" After looking at several objections, he concludes:

  I answer that, The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Lk. 22:19: "This is My body which shall be delivered up for you," Cyril [i.e. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem] says: "Doubt not whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour's words with faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not."
  Now this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New Law. For, the sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ's Passion, according to Heb. 10:1: "For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things." And therefore it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ Himself crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth. And therefore this sacrament which contains Christ Himself, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), is perfective of all the other sacraments, in which Christ's virtue is participated.

  Secondly, this belongs to Christ's love, out of which for our salvation He assumed a true body of our nature. And because it is the special feature of friendship to live together with friends, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix), He promises us His bodily presence as a reward, saying (Mat. 24:28): "Where the body is, there shall the eagles be gathered together." Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does not deprive us of His bodily presence; but unites us with Himself in this sacrament through the truth of His body and blood. Hence (Jn. 6:57) he says: "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him." Hence this sacrament is the sign of supreme charity, and the uplifter of our hope, from such familiar union of Christ with us.

  Thirdly, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which concerns His humanity just as it does His Godhead, according to Jn. 14:1: "You believe in God, believe also in Me." And since faith is of things unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly, so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner.

In other words, he says:

Given that we have faith in Christ, it's incumbent on us to have faith that when he says "This is my body", we are to believe that he is giving us the truth, and not just a signification.
It is more characteristic of Christ's love for us that he would find a way to actually be with us, not just to be represented among us.

So, yes; Catholics believe that the bread and wine are substantially (in a couple of different senses) transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This belief is part of a longstanding interpretation of Scripture, and writings of the early Church fathers. Catholics do not, however, consider themselves to be cannibals, because the "accidents" of the bread and wine (the ingredients, the flavor, the shape, and so on) are not those of Christ Himself.

I could go into the details of what potential objections to the belief Aquinas considers, and how he responds to them; but that would be matter for a different question.


Bible comparison KJV vs NRSV-CE I am wondering what are the differences between the King James Version and New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition bible (this is almost the other question about NKJV and KJV Bible)

From the articles I can see that:

NRSV-CE has more books included.
Time written
Language type

More than this I could not get from the articles.

What other prominent differences are there (in the remaining books) concerning the story?
Thus in short, if you have read both, what were the differences (if any) that stood out?

There is a big difference between the KJV and all other English Bibles. The KJV was translated from the Byzantine Manuscript (also called the Majority or Syrian Text). We have about 5,000 manuscripts or fragments of text. It is a very reliable manuscript with very few changes recorded (none of the changes are major). The oldest fragments date back to somewhere around the 380's AD.

The KJV was translated by 47 of the top scholars in England, including Puritans and Anglican clergy.

The modern Bible Versions come from the other major Manuscript. It is called the Alexandrian Manuscript, from Alexandria, Egypt. We have only about 300 fragments of these, but they are even older than the Byzantine Manuscript. There are two versions of the Alexandrian Manuscript: the Vaticanus, found in the Vatican Library in 1481, and the Sinaiticus, found in the trash pile of a monastery near Mt Sinai in 1844. There are many errors, omissions and changes in both of these versions (which is why the Reformers of the 16th Century rejected the Vaticanus. They did not have the Sinaiticus available at that time, of course. However John Burgon, another Anglican clergyman, studied and rejected the Sinaiticus as well, because of the "carelessness" and "gross blunders"). These versions also had many missing texts that are found in the Byzantium version.

However, most - if not all - modern English Bible versions are translated from the Alexandrian, using a combination of the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.

Why?

In the 1880's two Anglican scholars named Westcott & Hort published a new Greek New Testament using the Alexandrian Manuscripts on the grounds that it was older and therefore must be more reliable. They were concerned mostly with textual criticism. They did not believe that the Bible is special. Even today, most publishers tend to use the Alexandrian on the same grounds that it is older so it must be more reliable. They ignore the fact that the text is full of errors, changes and missing text and that some of those most brilliant scholars in earlier times rejected it.

Also any Catholic Bible will include the Apocrypha (Greek for Secret or Hidden) which was not accepted as authentic by the early church or by Protestants today. The Catholic Bibles keep the Apocrypha in the Bible in order to support their specific beliefs (such as Purgatory), rather than basing their beliefs on the traditional, ancient manuscripts. In other words, they have their beliefs and publish their version of the Bible to back up their beliefs, while Protestants have their Bible and base their beliefs on the Bible, or at least try to.

For more information please see my own webpage http://www.sarahhodgins.com/why-king-james-version-only.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type


Why does Paul pay special attention to the sexually immoral in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11? 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 states that

  I have written you in my letter no to associate with sexually immoral people -- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

Why are the sexually immoral singled out as those with whom the Corinthians should not associate? I don't see any reason why such sin should be considered better or worse than any other. Thank you.

Because, as 1 Corinthians 6:18 says,

  Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body

As a port-town frequented by sailors (and Cretens!) Corinth had a lot of sexual sin going on. The town had all sorts of temple prostitutes.  In sinning with said prostitutes, a person is using his own body in such a way as to bring disgrace to Christ:

  Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

And finally, at least one member of the Corinthian church was engaging in gross immorality, even by the standards of such an immoral town.  As 1 Corinthians 5:1 states:

  It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.


Is "Mary Queen of the Universe" a recognized title for the Virgin Mary in Catholicism? There is a Catholic Church near where I lived called "Mary Queen of the Universe" (Link).

It seems from their website it's a shrine for Mary. The name of this does not make much sense to me if it is a Christian church.

How is she the Queen of the Universe? I have never seen this in the Bible (any translation). All I can think of is the marriage supper of the Lamb for all the believers in the end, not just Mary.

Where did they come up with this title?  Is the title "Queen of the Universe" something found in established Catholic teaching?  Also, if it is an established title, what does it mean?

Mary is the Queen of Universe because Christ is the King of Universe.

To understand her Queenship, one must understand how who the Queen of the Davidic Kingdom in the Old Testament Jewish monarchy was. It was the Queen Mother. The Kings had many wives, none of whom could be called Queen. That honor was reserved for the mother of the King. We see this in the role Bathsheba played with respect to King Solomon and the occasions when the Queen Mother acted as regent on behalf of juvenile successors to the throne.

  When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king's mother, and she sat down at his right hand. - 1 Kings 2:19

Hence by Jewish tradition, the Jews expected the Mother of their King to be the titular Queen. The same holds true for the New Kingdom of God. If Jesus is King of this new Kingdom, then Mary should by tradition be his queen.

In Revelation 12, the Women who brought forth a child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne was seen crowned with of twelve stars. This women is traditionally identified as Mary. And this image of Crown is held to be one of the evidence for her queenship.


What is the Biblical basis that God does not punish disobedient Christians beyond the immediate natural consequences? Suppose that a person is faithful and counted among those in Christ, and the person is disobedient in some manner.

What is the biblical basis that God does not intervene to punish this Christian beyond the immediate natural consequences of their actions, because Christ has already borne the punishment of their transgressions?

One example is Ramah, a town which Jeremiah prophetically lamented. The area was a source of great dispute between Judah and Israel. The punishment for the unwritten actions which occurred here were fulfilled in Matthew 2:17-18

17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.


What is the Biblical basis for favoring the Majority Text? I would like to understand the Biblical evidence that is brought to bear to support a doctrine that either favors a priori or exclusively endorses the Majority Text (commonly referred to in text critical discussion as 𝔐).  The basic idea (summarized by Daniel Wallace, a critic - see below):

  Any reading overwhelmingly attested by the manuscript tradition is more likely to be original than its rival(s).

This is distinct from the Textus Receptus / KJV argument because the TR is in some cases supported by little or no manuscript evidence. On the other hand, 𝔐 itself is a category including (appropriately) the majority of available manuscripts, generally of the Byzantine Text type. Although the discrepancies between 𝔐 and modern “eclectic” critical texts (e.g. NA28) comprise only a tiny percentage of the text, they have occasioned vehement arguments.

Daniel Wallace, a prominent NT text critic, has argued against the notion that there are Biblical reasons to favor 𝔐 or that the doctrine of preservation of scripture is necessarily linked to those manuscripts. My impression from that article is that there are doctrinal reasons (in addition to the technical ones) that some prefer the Majority Text, but I may be wrong.

Do those who favor the Majority Text have a doctrinal argument rooted in the Bible, or are these purely technical arguments?

Scriptures below are quoted from the King James Bible, which is based on the Textus Receptus.
The main arguments I am aware of can be grouped into the following categories.
Many witnesses
It is a principle first found in the law that you need at least two witnesses to establish the truth. (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15)

2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
Proverbs 11:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

The majority text follows the multitude of witnesses. With the Alexandrian type texts, there are many differences even in the two main witnesses the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
Preservation of Scripture
There are many scriptures talking about the preservation of God's word. Under the Textus Receptus tradition the text is assumed to be preserved. The critical manuscripts based on the Alexandrian texts assumes the originals are lost, in contradiction with scripture.

Psalms 100:5 For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
Psalms 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

A point is made here that Timothy had the scriptures:

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

So Timothy is either using the original autographs as a child or, more likely, the copies he had were scripture and therefore preserved.
There are many more texts around preservation.
Spiritual condition of Egypt and Alexandria compared to Antioch
Egypt was a land of idolatry and false worship. God plagued Egypt and saved Israel out of Egypt (Exodus 9-12). Egypt is used in Revelation to characterize spiritual wickedness.

Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

The Alexandrian type texts originate from Alexandria which is in Egypt and would be an odd place for God then to use as the best source for his word.
Alexandria comes up in the new testament as a place where people came and set up false witnesses against Stephen (Acts 6:9-14).
In contrast Antioch was a stronghold of Christianity:

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Acts 15:35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.

The Byzantine type texts are sometimes called Antiochian.
Recorded attacks on the word of God
It is argued against the Textus Receptus, that the Alexandrian type texts are only fourth century and therefore earlier. However scripture records there were attacks on the word of God before this time, so the Alexandrian manuscripts could be examples of this.

2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
Acts 20:29-30 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Greater consistency of the text
Following on from the idea of preservation is the observation that the Textus Receptus is more consistent, which we hope it is because the Word of God is true.

Psalms 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

For example, in the critical texts Mark 1:2 attributes two scriptures to Isaiah which are actually quoted from Malachi and Isaiah. In contrast the TR is consistent by just saying "prophets":

Mark 1:2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

When the TR is attacked the attacks fail. For example, there appears to be a similar problem in all texts:

Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

The apparent problem is the text attributed to Jeremiah belongs to the book Zecharaiah. However, a proper study of Ezra, Nehemiah and Zecharaiah reveals that there is a Jeremiah around about the time of Zechariah, and the quote is from portions of Zechariah not attributed to prophet Zecharaiah explicitly.
There are of course many thousands of textual differences to consider.
Better doctrine
Finally it can be argued that the Textus Receptus has better doctrine. What is better doctrine comes down to hearing.
Jesus said:

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

It is then up to individuals to looks at texts with questionable doctrine and decide which one is more accurate. Taking care not to be deceived
For example the Textus Receptus is very careful to not call Joseph Jesus' father, which the critical texts freely do. (e.g. Luke 2:33)
Also:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Some translations leave out the word begotten allowing for the doctrine that Jesus was born of Joseph but became a son of God.
There are dozens of important examples to consider.


Did the notion of "Youth Group" exist in the early church? Some modern churches have the notion of a "Youth Group", it is characterized as the following:

a dedicated "Youth Pastor"
consists mostly of younger (middle school + high school + college students)
a bit more modern in worship (drums + guitars)
some belief that adults / youth should receive different messages

I am not aware of any such distinction mentioned in the new testament.

Is there any historical evidence that "Youth Groups" existed in early church history?

In Catholicism "youth ministry" is so recent that it was not available when I was growing up. We had CCD, which Protestants call Sunday School, but we were still expected to attend Mass with the adults. CCD was scheduled at a different time, and not always on Sundays. Students who attended Catholic schools did not have to go to CCD because they received religious instruction in school. These days many parishes (including my own) treat children like catechumens in the ancient church. That is, they attend the first part of the Mass (the liturgy of the word) with the adults, then they go off with their instructor to a classroom for a youth ministry of some kind while the adults have the liturgy of the eucharist. This never happened before Vatican II reformed the liturgy. The ancient church had no idea of a youth minister. Usually a parish only had one priest, so the catechumens would have been taught by a deacon. But the catechumens were usually adult converts. Children were baptized as infants, were taught the faith in the home, and attended the Mass with their parents even as infants.


Is illness sometimes a result of a sin? There are children born ill, blind or have heart or mental issues etc.

But can an illness be a result of a sin:

If a child is born ill, is it possible because of the parents' sins ?
If someone becomes ill, is it because of his sins ?

John 9

  9 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

  3 “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this
  happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.

Why the disciples asked him this question ?

What is the christian view in this matter ?

Update:

These passages might show a relation between sin and diseases/illness:

When Abraham hid the fact that Sarai is his wife:

Genesis 12:17

  17 But the Lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai.

What God said to Israel:

Exodus 15:26

  26 He said, “If you listen carefully to the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you.”

Deuteronomy 7:12-16

  12 If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your ancestors. 13 He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land—your grain, new wine and olive oil—the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land he swore to your ancestors to give you. 14 You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor will any of your livestock be without young. 15 The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. 16 You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you.

Deuteronomy 28:15 and Deuteronomy 28:20-24

  15 However, if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you: ...

  20 The Lord will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him.[a] 21 The Lord will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. 22 The Lord will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish. 23 The sky over your head will be bronze, the ground beneath you iron. 24 The Lord will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed.

Deuteronomy 28:58-60

  58 If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the Lord your God— 59 the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. 60 He will bring on you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you.

Ailments like sickness and bodily weakness are a consequence of the Fall, natural companions to the physical state in which we live. Not all are a punishment or result of sin, but some certainly may be.

James Talmage, a Biblical scholar in the early 1900s, has this to say on the matter (in Jesus the Christ), considering the healing of a man sick of the palsy:

  The incident demands our further study. According to one of the
  accounts, the Lord's first words to the afflicted one were, "Son, be of
  good cheer," followed directly by the comforting and authoritative
  assurance, "Thy sins be forgiven thee." The man was probably in a state of
  fear; he may have known that his ailment was the result of wicked
  indulgences; nevertheless, though he may have considered the possibility
  of hearing only condemnation for his transgression, he had faith to be
  brought. In this man's condition there was plainly a close connection
  between his past sins and his present affliction, and in this
  particular his case is not unique, for we read that Christ admonished
  another whom He healed to sin no more lest a worse thing befall him.

  We are not warranted, however, in assuming that all bodily ills are the
  result of culpable sin, and against such a conception stands the Lord's
  combined instruction and rebuke to those who, in the case of a man born
  blind, asked who had sinned: the man or his parents, to bring so grievous
  an affliction upon him, to which inquiry our Lord replied that the
  man's blindness was due neither to his own sin nor to that of his
  parents.

  In many instances however, disease is the direct result of individual
  sin. Whatever may have been the measure of past offense on the part of
  the man suffering from palsy, Christ recognized his repentance together
  with the faith that accompanied it, and it was the Lord's rightful
  prerogative to decide upon the man's fitness to receive remission of
  his sins and relief from his bodily affliction. The interrogative
  response of Jesus to the unuttered criticism of the scribes, Pharisees,
  and doctors has been interpreted in many ways. He inquired which was
  easier to say, "Thy sins be forgiven thee," or to say, "Arise, and take up
  thy bed, and walk."

  Is it not a rational explanation that, when spoken
  authoritatively by Him, the two expressions were of allied meaning? The
  circumstance should have been a sufficient demonstration to all who
  heard, that He, the Son of Man, claimed and possessed the right and the
  power to remit both physical and spiritual penalties, to heal the body
  of visible disease, and to purge the spirit of the no less real malady
  of sin. In the presence of people of all classes Jesus thus openly
  asserted His divinity, and affirmed the same by a miraculous
  manifestation of power.

(I had to manually add punctuation, and this may not be a perfect transcription; I also inserted some paragraph breaks!)