What is the Biblical basis for saying that God can annihilate human souls? We know that God is love and He is merciful. However, the idea of eternal torment seems too horrifying and doesn't seem to be in parallel with the nature of God.

My argument is that, if God were capable of annihilating the soul, He would have done it long ago. Annihilating Adam and Eve would stop all these countless people going to Hell. It is not just at all if God allowed only a few to enter Heaven and the majority suffer eternal torment. Why can't God simply make us all vanish? Maybe because God is not able to! Perhaps this is the reason why God had to sacrifice His one and only Son for us, who was flogged, tortured, mocked, crucified and died, only with the hope of saving some souls.

Moreover, the idea of annihilation seems appealing as it gives hope to the unsaved souls. However, I still have trouble with this theology because I can't find any reference from the Bible that God can annihilate the soul.

According to Annihilationism, what is the Biblical basis that God can annihilate the soul? Which verses do they use and what is their interpretation?

First, the idea of the immortality of the soul comes from the Greek dualistic view of body and soul as separate, with a mortal body and an immortal soul.
Immortality belongs to God alone (I Tim. 6:16) in the sense of before creation and on to eternity.
God offers eternal life (John 3:15–16; 10:28; 17:2; Rom. 2:7; 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:42f; 50, 54; Gal. 6:8; 1 John 5:11).
Many will not be saved - look at Mt 7:13-14
“Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
The "great white throne judgment" in Rev 20:11-15 tells about the second death.

11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it,
from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found
for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before
the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is
the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were
written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up
the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which
were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to
their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.
This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And
if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life,
he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Calling this the second death is a strong indication that the unsaved do not have an eternal existence of eternal torture.
The Old Testament speaks of destruction as the "reward for wickedness"
(look here for a more complete treatment).
The New Testament gives many pictures of destruction.
Look at James 4:12

12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy;
but who are you who judge your neighbor?

Here it seems like salvation or destruction are the only options.
Here are a few scriptures that speak of destruction

Psalm 1:6 ... but the way of the ungodly shall perish
Psalm 37:20   But the wicked shall perish... they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.
Psalm 92:7    ... shall be destroyed forever
Matthew 10:28b    Rather, fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
John 3:16 ... whosoever believeth in him should not perish (Greek: destroyed)
Romans 6:23   For the wages of sin is death …
Philippians 3:19  whose end is "destruction"
2 Thessalonians 1:9   who shall be punished with everlasting destruction ...
Hebrews 10:39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition (Greek: destruction); but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
James 4:12a   There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy.
Revelation 20:14  This is the second death...

Greg Boyd has put together a list of scriptures here.
A good book on the subject is
E.W. Fudge & R.A. Peterson, "Two views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialog," Inter Varsity Press, (2000)
In this book we read . . .

"The fact is that the Bible does not teach the traditional view of final punishment. Scripture nowhere suggests that God is an eternal torturer. It never says the damned will writhe in ceaseless torment or that the glories of heaven will forever be blighted by the screams from hell. The idea of conscious everlasting torment was a grievous mistake, a horrible error, a gross slander against the heavenly Father, whose character we truly see in the life of Jesus of Nazareth." (p. 21)


God's presence in the temple during Jesus' earthly ministry I am new to this site, having just found it today.

I have a question about whether God's presence was still in the temple during Jesus' earthly ministry.

In Ezekiel's vision in Ezekiel 10, God appears to leave the temple, which seems to be a fulfillment of His warning to Solomon in 1 Kings 9:7.

From 2 Kings 25:9 and Ezra 5:12, we know that Solomon's temple was destroyed by Nebudchanezzar, so it seems like what Ezekiel saw in his vision must have taken place before the destruction.

With that understanding, I am always confused when I get to Matthew 23:21 where Jesus uses the present tense to say "He who dwells in it."

Edit:  To clarify my question from Bradimus' question, perhaps I should ask how Matthew 23:21 could be viewed in light of the verses I have referenced above.

Thank you!

This is a facinating question, but let's start with some context about Matthew 23.  Jesus has pretty much had it with the Pharisees, their hypocrisy, and their willfully ignoring all the signs of His coming.  So Jesus is chastising them.  This one particular accusation is Matthew 23:16-22.  Here it is (KJV):

  Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the
  temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the
  temple, he is a debtor! Ye fools and blind: for whether is
  greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

  And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever
  sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. Ye fools and
  blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth
  the gift?

  Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all
  things thereon. And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by
  it, and by him that dwelleth therein. And he that shall swear by
  heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth
  thereon.

Jesus is not declaring that God's Presence literally dwells within "that temple over there."  He's making a really important point.  Let me shink that down a bit to make the point more visible.

  ...Ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it
  is nothing.... [When, in reality,] whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it,
  and by him that dwelleth therein....

What is His point?  That the Jewish leadership had lost their way, declaring implicitly that Jehovah no longer mattered when swearing oaths in the temple, but He should!  (When you simplify the Lord's elegant chastizement, it's fairly easy to see why He was so frustrated, possibly even angry.  The Pharasees had really missed the point of the faith!)

Christianity fundamentally believes that the ancient Hebrews had fallen into apostasy.  This is supported by statements such as 1 Sam 8:6-7...

  ...For they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I
  should not reign over them.

And there is perhaps no stronger statement against the general righteousness of the Jews than Jehovah's commandment to Jeremiah (which He says several times throughout the book of Jeremiah).  From Jeremiah 7:8-16 we read:

  Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor
  prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear
  thee.

Can you imagine a chosen people so out of touch with God that He would command His own prophet not to pray for them?  It is clear that the Chosen People drove the spirit of God from their temple long before Jesus walked the earth.  The people should have been able to find the spirit of God in their temple --- but they couldn't, due in no small part to Jewish leadership.  This is one reason why the ancient Apostles taught so often that through sanctification the spirit of God will dwell within us ... because the temples of the day were no longer sanctified.

So, short answer to your question: Jesus was chastizing the Pharisees for pushing the people away from their God, the spirit of Whom should have been found in the temple, but because of wickedness, could no longer be found.

(BTW, you should go read the accepted answer to the question @bradimus pointed to.  It's good, and covers a perspective I do not cover here.)


What is the Scriptural basis for Modalism? We hear a lot at times about the godhead, so that got me wondering: what is the Scriptural basis for the Christian doctrine of Modalism?

The United Pentecostal Church International, who are a denomination of Oneness Pentecostalism, and adopt the doctrine of Oneness, which is essentially the same as Modalistic Monarchianism, offer the following in support of their Doctrinal Foundation:

  The Oneness of God

  God is absolutely and indivisibly one (Deuteronomy 6:4;
  Galatians 3:20). In Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead
  bodily (Colossians 2:9). He is the self-revelation of the one
  God, the incarnation of the full, undivided Godhead (John 20:28;
  I Timothy 3:16).

  God has revealed Himself as Father (in parental relationship to
  humanity), in the Son (in human flesh), and as the Holy Spirit (in
  spiritual action).  (See Deuteronomy 32:6 and Isaiah 63:16;
  Luke 1:35 and Galatians 4:4; Genesis 1:2 and Acts
  1:8.) The one God existed as Father, Word, and Spirit before His
  incarnation as Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and while Jesus walked on
  earth as God Himself incarnate, the Spirit of God continued to be
  omnipresent. However, the Bible does not teach that there are three
  distinct centers of consciousness in the Godhead or that Jesus is one
  of three divine persons.

  Jesus is true God and true man as one divine-human person. We can
  distinguish these two aspects of Christ’s identity, but we cannot
  separate them. The Incarnation joined the fullness of deity to
  complete humanity.

  Jesus possessed all elements of authentic humanity as originally
  created by God, without sin. Thus we can speak of Jesus as human in
  body, soul, spirit, mind, and will. (See Matthew 26:38; Luke
  2:40; 22:42; 23:46; Philippians 2:5.) According
  to the flesh, Jesus was the biological descendant of Adam and Eve,
  Abraham, David, and Mary. (See Genesis 3:15; Romans 1:3;
  Galatians 3:16; Hebrews 2:14-17; 5:7-8.) We should
  not speak of two spirits in Jesus, however, but of one Spirit in which
  deity and humanity are joined.

  Christ’s humanity means that everything we humans can say of
  ourselves, we can say of Jesus in His earthly life, except for sin. In
  every way that we relate to God, Jesus related to God, except that He
  did not need to repent or be born again. Thus, when Jesus prayed,
  submitted His will to the Father, and spoke about God, He simply acted
  in accordance with His genuine humanity.

  As Jehovah manifested in the flesh, Jesus is the only Savior (Isaiah
  45:21-23; Matthew 1:21-23). Thus, Jesus is the only name
  given for our salvation (Acts 4:12). The Father was revealed to
  the world in the name of Jesus, the Son was given the name of Jesus at
  birth, and the Holy Spirit comes to believers in the name of Jesus.
  (See Matthew 1:21; John 5:43; 14:26; 17:6.)
  Thus, the apostles correctly fulfilled Christ’s command in Matthew
  28:19 to baptize “in the name [singular] of the Father, and of the
  Son, and of the Holy Ghost” by baptizing all converts with the
  invocation of the name of Jesus.

Source: Our Doctrinal Foundation; United Pentecostal Church International


Who coined the phrase "Bema Seat"? I get that "Bema" is the Greek word translated "judgment seat" in the NT. But how did the term "Bema Seat" come to be used? It's a little redundant, like saying "PIN number", but catchy. I'd just like to know how it caught on. Who first said, "We're going to call this not-White-throne judgment the bema-seat judgment"?

Bimah or bema is not only a word in the Greek language.  This is a phrase that was likely borrowed from Hebrew.  בּימה Bema is a platform in Hebrew and is where the Word of G-d, the Torah, is read from.  So it only stands that the NT Scriptures which many argue were composed first in Hebrew or Aramaic, but if that line of thinking is rejected we do know that the writers of the New Testament were Jewish.  Some say the sole exception is Luke, but there are arguments for his being Jewish as well.

So if Bema is Hebrew and means "raised platform" or high place, a term very familiar in the Tenakh, then a seat on that platform where the Word is read or pronounced from would become, of course, the bema seat.

  From Keil and Delitzsch's commentary on Isaiah 53:9, "(Note: The usage
  of the language shows clearly that bâmâh had originally the meaning
  of "height"(e.g., 2Sa 1:19). The primary meaning suggested by
  Böttcher, of locus clausus, septus (from בו ם = מהב , Arab. bhm ),
  cannot be sustained. We still hold that בם is the expanded בא , and
  במה an ascent, steep place, or stair. In the Talmud, bâmâh is
  equivalent to βωμός ,an altar, and בּימה (Syr. bim ) equivalent to the
  βῆμα of the orator and judge; βωμός ,root βα , like the Hebrew
  bâmâh , signifies literally an elevation, and actually occurs in the
  sense of a sepulchral hill, which this never has, not even in Eze
  43:7.)"

So in answer, it is not a term of redundancy but rather a misunderstanding of what the word means vs. what it has come to be understood to represent.

The understanding of the Jewish mindset is not that of a king sitting on a throne like the kings of the Medes and Persians but rather as in

  John 12:48 KJV, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath
  one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall
  judge him in the last day."

The Word was read from the Bema, a seat can also mean a place of position or power.  The seat of power/government  This idea and understanding of judgement fits in line with the understanding of Judaism that the books of life will be read and judgement pronounced by the ultimate Judge of the Quick and Dead.
Where would be the place the Judge would read from the Book?  The Bema, of course.
Getting back to the mindset in which these Scriptures were written helps one to more easily understand how phrases came about because they were intimately tied to the culture and contained within the Word.


What is the argument against the imposition of clerical celibacy as practiced in the Roman Catholic Church? The Roman Catholic Church requires its priests to practice celibacy.  This has not always been the case, though.  In fact, it was not instituted until the 11th century.

Protestant churches have no requirement of celibacy.  So, what is the reason for this? Specifically why do Protestant churches, which began well after the practice had been instituted in the Catholic Church, do not require this of their pastors?

I would like to add a few other Biblical reasons Protestants in general will allow for married Pastors.

  Simon's mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they immediately told Jesus about her. -Mark 1:30.

Simon Peter having a mother-in-law necessarily meant that he had a wife. If one of Jesus's own apostles had a wife, then right there is pretty good evidence that pastors today can likewise have wives.

Here's an argument Paul makes about the matter in 1 Corinthians 9,

  3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas[a]? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?

As we already know that one of the other apostles had a wife, we can safely say that Paul isn't being sarcastic here, but rather stating a very straightforward argument. The apostles were allowed, among other things, money and the right to marry; however, the apostles would at times choose to give up their rights for various reasons, as Paul and Barnabas did with wives, and others did at various points with money among other things (see 1 Cor. 9:12).

Just because some honorably chose to give up those rights, doesn't in any way mean they didn't have those rights in the first place, as Paul states here.

As Protestants don't follow the headship of the Catholic church, they likewise don't observe the things that the Catholic church claims to have "loosed" or "bound," and the scriptural evidence taken without that external input supports a pastor who has the full right to marry if he so chooses.


According to Mormonism, what are angels? According to mainstream christianity, an angel is a spirit creation that exists to serve God which is often portrayed in pop-culture looking something like this:

Could someone please give the Mormon definition of exactly what an angel is?

The Bible Dictionary distributed with LDS editions of the Bible contains a fairly complete doctrinal explanation of the LDS view of angels.  A few key points:

Angels are of the same race of creation as humanity, distinct from mortal humans by being in a different phase of the eternal lifecycle:

  These are messengers of the Lord and are spoken of in the epistle to
  the Hebrews as “ministering spirits” (Heb. 1:14). We learn from
  latter-day revelation that there are two classes of heavenly beings
  who minister for the Lord: those who are spirits and those who have
  bodies of flesh and bone. Spirits are those beings who either have not
  yet obtained a body of flesh and bone (unembodied) or who have once
  had a mortal body and have died and are awaiting the Resurrection
  (disembodied). Ordinarily the word angel means those ministering
  persons who have a body of flesh and bone, being either resurrected
  from the dead (reembodied), or else translated, as were Enoch, Elijah,
  etc. (D&C 129).

Not all angels are on God's side:

  There are references to fallen angels in 2 Pet. 2:4 and Jude 1:6.

  The scriptures speak of the devil’s angels. These are those spirits
  who followed Lucifer and were thrust out in the war in heaven and cast
  down to the earth. See Rev. 12:1–9; D&C 29:36–38; Moses 4:1–4; Abr.
  3:27–28; and as alluded to by Peter and Jude cited above.

And contrary to the image posted above:

  Angels do not have wings (HC 3:392).


Is there biblical basis for the "blood moons"? Most of the members of Christianity.SE have probably heard about the latest craze on the subject of End Times prophecy - the Blood Moons.

We are currently in the midst of what is referred to as a lunar tetrad, a period of time in which we experience a series of four consecutive total lunar eclipses, with six full moons in between, and no intervening partial lunar eclipses over a course of two years (two one year, two another), and fuelling this further is the fact that these moons usually occur on Jewish feast days. Those who teach that this sign is miraculous will note that these lunar tetrads have occurred in the past either on other Jewish feast days, or other major events in Jewish history.

While that certainly makes for a good story, research will show that these events occur on feast days because the Hebrew calendar (and thus, Jewish holidays/feast days) are based on a lunar cycle, so they aren't necessarily uncommon. And while positing that these are rare, we see they have occurred some 60+ times in the past.

Now, I know that Revelation and other Old Testament prophecy tells us the moon becomes red and the sun black, but being a prophecy intended (because of it's OT roots) for Israel, which to me would indicate both the sun and the moon taking on these colors in the sky at once, hardly an eclipse of this kind.

Are there any other biblical sources for the blood moons? Or is this more or less a cry for attention?

Joel 2:31 is an end time prophecy that features a blood moon and a solar eclipse.

Douay-Rheims Joel 2:31

  The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood: before
  the great and dreadful day of the Lord doth come.

John Hagee and many protestants think that end times prophecy is all about the nation of Israel and the Third Temple of Jerusalem, but I would remind them that God did not allow Julian the Apostate to rebuild the temple and invalidate Christ's words in Matthew 24:1-2, so I don't see why he's going to allow it this time.

  And Jesus being come out of the temple, went away. And his disciples
  came to shew him the buildings of the temple. [2] And he answering,
  said to them: Do you see all these things? Amen I say to you there
  shall not be left here a stone upon a stone that shall not be
  destroyed.

The Historian Ammianus Marcellinus (A.D. c.330 - 395)
"Res Gestae," Book XXIII

  He [Julian the Apostate] planned at vast cost to restore the once
  splendid Temple at Jerusalem, which after many mortal combats during
  the siege by Vespasian and later by Titus had barely been stormed. He
  had entrusted the speedy performance of this work to Alypius of
  Antioch... But though this Alypius pushed the work on with vigor,
  aided by the governor of the province, terrible balls of fire kept
  bursting forth near the foundations of the Temple and made the place
  inaccessible to the workmen, some of whom were burned to death; and
  since in this way the element persistently repelled them, the
  enterprise halted. ("cum itaque rei idem fortiter instaret Alypius
  iuvaretque provinciae rector, metuendi globi flammarum prope
  fundamenta crebris adsultibus erumpentes fecere locum exustis
  aliquotiens operantibus inaccessum, hocque modo elemento destinatius
  repellente cessavit inceptum.")


What is the role of the Three Persons of the Godhead in creation? Genesis 1:26, New International Version (NIV) reads:

  Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

This is the first instance in Genesis in which  God addresses Himself as "us". Was God the Father addressing both the Holy Spirit and the Son, or was He addressing only the Holy Spirit of whom  mention is made at Genesis  1:2?

The first thing to keep in mind is that in the Old Testament, doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not at all explicit. The passage in Genesis 1:26 is frequently interpreted as a prefiguration of the Holy Trinity, but it would be a mistake to say that the human author of Genesis is affirming anything about the Divine Persons.

Similarly, it would be a mistake to think that the author had the Holy Spirit in mind when he wrote of the “Spirit of God” (note that the word for “spirit” could also mean “wind”) who “was hovering over the face of the waters” (Gen. 1:2).

In fact, God did not reveal the Holy Trinity to us until He sent Jesus Christ, the Son. It is the “sending”—the “mission”—of the Persons that reveals them to us. (See John 17:18, John 20:21, and 14:16, regarding the Missions of the Persons.)

Naturally, creation is, in fact, the work of all three Persons of the Trinity, and so even though the sacred author knew nothing about the Trinity, the Trinity was at work in the world, from the moment of Creation. God chose to reveal His Triune nature, however, only with Jesus Christ.

Hence, it is possible that the sacred author, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gave the Old Testament a foretaste of the revelation to come by portraying God as refering to Himself as “we.” The “Spirit of God” may indeed be a hint regarding the Holy Spirit. However, from the Old Testament alone, we cannot draw any definitive conclusions about the Holy Trinity—for that we need the revelation given to us by Jesus in the New Testament.

More à propos to the O.P., there is no way to tell for sure if the one “speaking” when God speaks is the Father, or who exactly He is referring to when He says “we.” Certainly, the sacred author did not have the Trinity in mind, but the passage can legitimtely be interpreted in that vein, in the light of the New Testament.


What do Protestants say was the source for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary? Not counting Martin Luther, who appears to have believed in the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, what do other Protestants think is the source and reason for Catholic adherence to the notion that the Blessed Virgin Mary was a virgin before giving birth, after giving birth and until the end of her earthly life?

My assumption, as a Catholic, is that once the reformation took off, and people were interpreting the Bible for themselves, that they looked at the brothers and sisters of Christ mentioned in Mark and threw out the doctrine.

They probably thought that it leads to

worshiping Mary.
is an extra burden put on them by the Church.
is borne out of ignorance of scripture.
is a made up tradition.

But all these are my assumptions, what are the protestant assumptions about the source and reason for the existence of the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary (the one that they absolutely do not adhere to).

By perpetual virginity, I mean mainly that she remained a virgin during and after giving birth to Jesus.

If the answer is purely biblically based is should at least acknowledge the fact that pre-reformation Christians were capable of reading and interpreting scripture.  I'd like to know what the reformers used as their arguments that most Protestants just take for granted nowadays. Unless, of course, they seriously weren't all that interested in convincing anyone who was not ignorant of scripture.

One of the defining tenets of Protestant Christianity is sola scriptura--that the Scriptures are the fundamental basis for all doctrine.  This is in contrast to extra-biblical teachings.  The idea is that if it were important enough for us to know, God would have told us in the Scriptures themselves and not have us rely on extra-biblical teachings.  Protestants see the potential for great danger when there is reliance on the teaching of men rather than on the unchanging Word of God.

To answer your question specifically, Protestants generally believe that this was a teaching that was introduced by the Catholic church centuries after the life of Jesus.  There is no apostolic authority behind it, as it appears nowhere in Scripture.  All we are told is that Mary was a virgin at Jesus' conception and remained so until His birth, as @ryanOptini also noted.

  Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angle of the Lord
  had bidden him, and took unto him his wife, and knew her not till she had brought forth
  her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.  Matthew 1:24-25

Nowhere in Scripture does it indicate that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ.  This would certainly have been noteworthy, since it would not have been a normal thing for a married woman (and man, for that matter) to not have a consummated marriage and experience the normal and sacred aspects of marriage.  Yet, the best biblical support is quite vague at best.

It is also problematic to Protestants as to why it would have been necessary for Mary to remain a virgin--and for Joseph to remain celibate towards her as her husband.  Why is this level of intimacy denied both Mary and Joseph and what could possibly be wrong with it?

Now, it may have been the Mary began to be held up as a female example for women to follow.  Men could look to Jesus Himself or any of the apostles to see a male example to follow.  So, perhaps it was well-intentioned.  God found favor with Mary, much like He had done with Noah in the Old Testament.  Her virginity as an unmarried woman is commendable as well.  And perhaps over time, Mary's virginity was turned into eternal virginity to really set her apart and give her even more honor.

Summary

So, again, it may have been well-intentioned, but Protestants generally believe it was a teaching introduced by the Catholic church long after the apostles were gone.  So, the teaching lacks apostolic authority as well as biblical support, which is extremely important if something so unexpected is to be believed and held as such an important doctrine.


According to Catholicism, how does God expect us to realize the truth of Christianity? I am sincerely sorry if this is under-researched/sourced, but according to Catholicism, how does He want people to discern [Catholic] Christianity's veracity? I have posted this on other SE religion sites.

God "expect[s] us to realize the truth of Christianity" through the Church that He founded, which is guided by the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Ghost.(cf. Cdl. Manning's Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost)

The reason Christ founded the Catholic Church is summarized in the Great Commission he gave to the Apostles (Mt. 28:19):

  Going therefore teach ye all nations: Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

The Catholic Church, "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), exists to baptize and teach the truths necessary for salvation.

Pope Pius XII wrote in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi §22, showing what makes one members of Christ's Mystical Body, His Holy Church:

  only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

To be a member of the Church, one must be baptized and profess the true (Catholic) faith.

How does one "profess the true faith"? He must submit to the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Church and allow Her to teach him the truths necessary for salvation.


Do the theological virtues apply to mundane situations? From my limited understanding of Catholic theology, the theological virtues (pistis, elpis, agape) apply to God and God's promises. That is, pistis is belief in the correctness of divine revelation, elpis is the hope of eternal life, and agape is love for God. The standard English translation (faith, hope, and love/charity) gives a somewhat broader impression, however. Are these virtues interpreted as applying to somewhat wordly things, as well?  Are they virtues in their common meanings?

For example:

Does pistis include faith in other human beings in the colloquial sense  (not exclusive of faith in God) ?
Does elpis include hope that God will save one from worldly temptation? From depression or disease? Hope that one will be physically saved from danger? Hope that one will be saved by "accident" or by other people (possibly interpreted as ultimately attributable to God)?
Does agape include a general love of humans for humanity? Charitable giving?

Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., explains the difference between the moral virtues and the theological virtues in part 1, ch. 3, art. 2 of his Three Ages of the Interior Life:

  The theological virtues are infused virtues which have for their object God Himself, our supernatural last end. This is why they are called theological. By contrast, the moral virtues have for their object the supernatural means proportioned to our last end. Thus prudence directs our acts to this end; religion makes us render to God the worship that is due Him; justice makes us give to everyone what we owe him; fortitude and temperance regulate the sensible part of our soul to prevent it from going astray and to make it cooperate, according to its manner, in our progress toward God.

Thus, although the natural and supernatural orders are absolutely distinct and independent of each other (i.e., grace, which raises us to the supernatural level, is entirely freely given by God; it doesn't spring out of human nature), moral virtues do help us achieve our supernatural end.

Human faith would more likely fall under the moral virtue of prudence; it is reasonable to trust trustworthy people.

Regarding agape: Love of humans must be for God's sake, not solely "for humanity"'s sake (else it would be idolatry, i.e., loving a creature for its own sake); this proper order of charity is seen in Matthew 22:37-39:

  Thou shalt love [αγαπήσεις] the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love [αγαπήσεις] thy neighbour as thyself.


According to Catholicism how does a person discriminate between hearing the true word of God versus a hallucination or a demon? How does the Catholic Church answer this question:

Suppose you hear God make you a commandment, how do you differentiate that from either your own internal monologue or from an imposter angel or demon, a hallucination or of the word of God himself?

I don’t mean to ask advice for myself, but in a general sense, how does a person differentiate between the word of God as many describe hearing in the bible from an illusion or an imposter.

Private Revelations and the Discernment of Spirits?

I am aware that this is a long post, but Fr.William Most does a very thorough job on this subject and it would be best to let him explain things here.

  Principles for the discernment of spirits

  What kind of Spirit is at work when someone receives a vision, a revelation, or a more routine favor? To determine this is called the discernment of spirits. It is of great importance to find the right answer. It is evident that there can be three sources: good spirit, evil spirit, auto-suggestion.

  Five causes of error in revelations

  1. Faulty interpretation of visions by the recipient.

  St. John of the Cross warns about this in Ascent of Mount Carmel II. 19. Thus St. Joan of Arc in prison had a revelation that she would be delivered by a great victory--it was her martyrdom, which she did not suspect.

  Prophecies of punishment, and promises of special favors should be considered as conditional. E.g., the Scapular promise should not be taken to refer to mere physical wearing of the Scapular: it must be, as Pius XII said, the outward sign of consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, that is really lived. If it is used this way then even if the vision of St. Simon Stock might not be true, the promise will be fulfilled, as we explained earlier.

  2. Visions of the life and death of Christ, or other historic scenes, must be understood to be approximate only.

  Thus some saw Jesus with three nails, some with four. Blessed Veronica of Binasco saw the whole life of Christ, and so did St. Frances of Rome and Catherine Emmerich. The Bollandists, Jesuit experts in studying the lives of the Saints, tell us there are many historical errors in these.

  NOTE: Pope John XXIII, ordered The Poem of the Man God put on the index, on Dec. 16, 1960. The Index is now abolished, but Cardinal Ratzinger in a letter of Jan 31, 1985 wrote:..."The Index of forbidden books keeps all of its moral authority and therefore the distribution and recommendation of the work is considered improper when its condemnation was not made lightly but with the most serious motivation of neutralizing the harm which such publication could inflict on the more unwary faithful." So the Pontifical Imprimatur claimed for it is bogus.

  3. Human action may mingle with the divine action.

  St. Catherine Labouré foretold many events correctly, but failed on others. It is especially easy for this to happen with ideas that appeal to our own desires or fit with preconceived ideas. Benedict XIV (Heroic Virtue III. 14. p. 404) said: "The revelations of some holy women canonized by the Apostolic See whose saying and writings in rapture and derived from rapture are filled with errors."

  4. A true revelation may later be altered involuntarily by the recipient.

  This happens especially with intellectual locutions which need to be translated into words. Again, God may seem to promise a cure without saying if it is total or partial, sudden or slow, or even physical or moral. Again if a revelation is received in an instant, but it takes long to write it all down. St. Bridget admits such a thing in her own case.

  5. Secretaries may alter without intending to do so.

  The accuracy of the text is disputed in the works of Mary of Agreda, Catherine Emmerich, and Mary Lataste. It has been shown that 32 passages from the latter have been taken word for word from St. Thomas' Summa Theologiae.

  Similarly, compilers sometimes modify them. The first edition of Catherine Emmerich had St. James the Elder present at the death of the Blessed Virgin. When it was seen that this was incompatible with Acts of Apostles, it was dropped from later editions.

  Five Causes of False Revelations

  1. Pure bad faith, fakery.

  Magdalen of the Cross was a Franciscan of Cordova, born in 1487, who entered a convent at age of 17. From the age of 5 the devil appeared to her as various Saints, led her to desire to be considered a saint. At 13 he said who he was, offered an agreement: he would spread her reputation for holiness, and give her at least 30 years of pleasures. She agreed, and it all came true--ecstasies, levitation, prophecies, simulated stigmata. At door of death she confessed. Exorcism was needed.

  2. Overactive imagination.

  We said above that human faculties may mingle with the divine action. Someone may imagine a saint is near him. He may imagine intellectual locutions. Cf. St. John of Cross, Ascent II. 29. St. Teresa said (Interior Castle 6.6) that if one has once had a real vision, he will recognize the deception.

  Hallucinations can come from excess in abstinence, fasting, and vigils.

  3. Illusion in thinking one remembers things that never happened.

  Some may imagine they have had visions. Some invent stories and convince themselves--in good faith. Some relate trips to far lands where they have never been. The line between imagination and reality is dim in young children--something similar can happen later too. This is not rare. If a spiritual director finds his advice has little effect, there is reason for seeing illusion. Some make false charges in courts in this way.

  4. The Devil may give false visions or revelations.

  We saw this in the case of Magdalen of the Cross.

  5. Predictions by falsifiers.

  Some make these at first for their own amusement, then find they have a tiger by the tail. St. Bonaventure (De profectu religiosorum III. 76) said he was fed up with such things, on the troubles of the Church and the end of the world. During the great Western Schism at end of 14th century, there were many holy mortified men who had false revelations, and even thought they would be the pope. At fifth Lateran Council in 1516 Leo X had to publish an order prohibiting preachers from giving public prophecies. There were many during the French Revolution, clear and in detail on the past, vague on the future.

  In 19th century there was an epidemic of prophecy especially on "the great Pope and the great King" inspired by the 17th century commentary on the Apocalypse by Ven. Holzhauser. Pius IX in an Allocution of April 9, 1872 said: "I do not give much belief to prophecies, because those especially that have come recently do not deserve to be read."

  What degree of certainty or probability is possible?

  1. When God so wills, He can give full certainty to the recipient. We who are not the recipients can also be sure of revelations given to another, e.g. , the OT prophets, for they furnished certain signs of their mission. This can be done by miracles worked in a framework in which a tie is made between the miracle and the claim.

  2. Beyond this area, probability is the most that is attainable. We need then to work with various signs. We should: (a) Get detailed information on the person to whom the revelation seems to have been made; and on what facts seem to have been revealed.

  Often we must work by exclusion, i.e. , show that it comes not from the devil, nor from the human mind. But psychology still cannot give full replies on some things that seem supernormal operations of the human mind: hypnotism, somnambulism, telepathy, thought-reading, etc. For data on the uncertainties of psychology see Richard M. Restak, [Neurologist in Washington D. C. ] "See no Evil. The Neurological defense would blame violence on the damaged brain" in The Sciences, July/August 1992, pp. 16- 21.

  3. Inquiries to be made about the alleged recipient:

  (1) If the person is canonized, the Church has already checked--but canonization does not guarantee the truth of any supposed revelation given to the Saint.

  (2) If not canonized:

  (a) What are the natural qualities or defects, physical, intellectual, and moral. Is he sincere, cool-headed, of sound judgment, of perfect mental equilibrium. Or is his mind weakened by poor health, vigils, fasts etc.

  (b) Degree of education of the recipient--what books he has read, what information he may have picked up from other more learned persons.

  Much care is needed. Some say that Mary of Agreda was an ignorant girl. But she could read, knew the Bible well, and Cardinal Gotti showed several of her revelations were borrowed from a 15th century book, The Raptures of Blessed Amadeus. And she admits the help of theologians. Yet she said, in exaggeration: "No human mind could have imagined this work" (III, # 789).

  (c) What virtues does the person have? What was his general level before and after the alleged revelation? If a great advance in holiness is seen, and it seems to have come from the revelation, there is good probability for the revelations. We think of the Fatima children. But if the seer has stayed at the ordinary level of virtue, the visions come under some suspicion, for would God use extraordinary means to lead to a merely ordinary state of holiness? Exception: God might use an ordinary person to help others. The message of Fatima for example would have ample justification even if the children had not become holy: this message God wanted given to the world. And the three things asked for are theologically sound and called for independently of any revelation.

  (d)We need to watch out for the work of satan--he may really promote good things for a while, provided that in the long run he gains. The revelations of Necedah, Wi. seemed to have good fruits, yet were false. Rosaries were said to change to gold. Similarly for Bayside. But disobedience showed them false. St. Margaret Mary was told by Our Lord: (Autobiography, #57):"Listen, My Daughter, and do not lightly believe and trust every spirit, for satan is angry and will try to deceive you. So do nothing without the approval of those who guide you. Being thus under the authority of obedience, his efforts against you will be in vain, for he has no power over the obedient."

  Sometimes satan urges people to immoderate penances, so that they will in time give up. He may make contemplatives desire the active life, or vice versa. Blessed Jordan of Saxony, second General of the Dominicans, contracted a high fever. He had a prior skilled in medicine who told him to sleep on a soft bed. But satan appeared to Jordan in the night and rebuked his self-indulgence. Jordan gave into this two nights. But the third night Jordan saw that he should obey his doctor, and so did. Jordan had previously put himself under obedience to the doctor.

  (e) Humility is a major key. Satan has the greatest horror of it. (Cf. the above words of Our Lord to St. Margaret Mary.) Yet satan can lead a person to false humility. Pride shows in contempt for others, in an independent spirit as to the Superior and the spiritual director, in obstinacy in opinions, in refusal to submit to examinations (cf. Teresa Neumann), in anger. It shows too in desiring to publish the graces the person thinks he has received--when it is not necessary. Humility leads to wanting to hide them, except in cases of real usefulness.

  (f) Has the person claimed revelations before? Made predictions that were not fulfilled? If there was no reason to suppose the failed predictions were conditional, then they will seem not of divine origin.

  (g) Has the recipient suffered great trials before or after the revelation, such as sicknesses, contradictions, lack of success. Extraordinary graces are very likely to bring great trials, as St. Teresa of Avila remarked, (cited above), in Interior Castle 6. 9. It is specially likely that the recipient will encounter skepticism or hostility. Bl. Juliana of Liege was chosen by God to establish the Feast of the Blessed Sacrament. Visions on it began two years after her entering the novitiate at age 16 in 1208. Only 22 years later did she dare to submit her project to some learned theologians, who approved it, but her enemies got revenge by pillaging her convent. In 1256 the Bishop of Liege established the Feast in one parish in his diocese, but died the same year. The convent was again pillaged. She was calumniated, forced to leave the convent, wandered during the last 20 years of her life, and died at age 66 after fruitless work for 50 years. Finally Pope Urban IV established the feast a century after the start of the revelations.

  Yet not always do such things happen. St. Catherine Labouré had early success with the Miraculous Medal.

  (h) Has the recipient been fearful of deception, open to Superiors or Director, and never desired revelations? St. Teresa of Avila was told in a vision to found a reformed Carmelite house, but yet did nothing until she had consulted four advisors (Autobiography 32). Mary of Agreda is quite the opposite. St. Ignatius in his rules for first Week, 13, says satan tries to keep the person from being open. St. Monica as St. Augustine reports desired revelations about his coming marriage; they were false (Confessions 6. 13). So if a revelation has been desired that alone makes it doubtful. This is especially so if answers of pure curiosity are desired or answers to scholastic questions. Mary of Agreda was imprudent here, and was encouraged in imprudence by her confessors.

  (i) It is probably good to employ the testimony of expert psychologists as to ecstatic states etc. However, psychology is not so solid and exact a science that absolute trust should be placed in their results. - Private Revelations


Why do most Catholic Churches not say the Nicene Creed anymore and instead say the Apostle's Creed? Through our Creed, we profess our faith.

My question:
Why do Catholics say Apostle's Creed more than Nicene Creed?

For example, we don't say Nicene Creed in Catholic Liturgical Mass or rarely do we say it. So why did this transformation take place?

I have been a practicing Catholic for 65 years and in all those years in multiple parishes and different dioceses I have NEVER heard the Apostles Creed used in place of the Nicene Creed except since the 2011 change made it optional for Lent and Easter seasons.  I have lived in Europe for a few years and
never heard the Apostles Creed used in place of the NiceneCreed there either.  I am puzzled by so many responses that attest to
the contrary.


Why do most translations say "Servant of Christ" rather than "Slave of Christ"? Context

I'm currently watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d94tbcidq74&feature=g-high-rec

The argument here is that, with regard to the word "doulas"

in the original Greek, our relationship to Christ is described as "slave to Christ" rather than "servant to Christ."
reading the Bible with "servant" replaced by "slave" provides a different feel
most English Bible translations use "servant" rather than "slave"

Question:

How did this happen?

In America at least, the word "slave" has a connotative meaning that conjures up images of slavery prior to the Civil War, where people were beaten, mistreated, sold indiscriminately, and many other horrors.

In the Bible, slavery was much different.  For one thing, a slave would only be a slave for six years and then had to be set free.  When he was set free, the master had to provide him with a means to live on his own.  There was also a provision that at the end of the sixth year, the slave could say, "I love my master and do not wish to go free."  If he did so, he could remain with his master.  This type of slavery must have been extremely different than slavery in America to end up with slaves volunteering to remain slaves.

So, the word slave may be appropriate if we didn't have the images of people being beaten, mistreated, killed, and all sorts of things like that.  The word servant seems to lend itself more accurately to the actual situation of slavery in the Old Testament, and therefore the likely intent of Paul and others who wrote the New Testament and referred to be a slave/servant of Christ.

With Jesus as our Masters, who, out of His love, laid down His own life for us, our response to Him would most certainly be that of the Jewish slave who says, "I love my master and do not want to leave" rather than a slave from an American plantation who would have run away at any opportunity that arose.

So, servant seems to convey the Jewish idea much better than the word slave because of our cultural context.


In the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, is the body and blood of Christ his living body or his deceased body? The Eucharistic miracles -which tend to be gory- suggest that the Eucharist is a corpse. Also the two-fold form: body and blood, suggest this. However, Eucharistic adoration and many other forms of devotions to the Eucharist suggest the real presence is that of Jesus in his resurrected body. How do you conform these two.

The answer to the O.P.'s question is rather straightforward: the body that is adored in the Eucharist is Jesus’ resurrected body.

As the Church solemnly defined in the Council of Trent (which simply formalized what the Church has believed from the beginning),

  Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation (Council of Trent, Council of Trent, Session 13, Ch. 4, Denzinger-Schönmetzer [DS] 1642, quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] no. 1376.).

However, we are not to understand that the Eucharist under the species of bread is exclusively Christ’s body, nor that the species of wine is exclusively Christ’s blood. Rather,

  Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ (CCC 1377; see also the Council of Trent, DS 1641).

In other words, the whole substance of Jesus is present—his human nature (including his body) as well as his Divine Nature. Christ, of course, only has one body, which is now a resurrected body. Therefore, it is Christ’s resurrected body—not a corpse—that Catholics (as well as Orthodox and other Christians from an apostolic Church) adore in the Eucharist.

Regarding Eucharistic miracles, I will also observe that, much as such miracles are helpful for the Faith, the ones that are actually converted into human flesh actually no longer have the Real Presence. As the Catechism says,

  The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist (no. 1377).

Since the appearance (species) of bread or wine is now gone, so too is the Eucharistic presence.

(This idea is masterfully expressed in the Eucharistic hymn Lauda Sion Salvatorem, attributed to St. Thomas Aquinas:

  Sub diversis speciebus,
  Signis tantum, et non rebus,
  Latent res eximiæ.

  Caro cibus, sanguis potus:
  Manet tamen Christus totus,
  Sub utraque specie.

  A sumente non concisus,
  Non confractus, non divisus:
  Integer accipitur.

  Sumit unus, sumunt mille:
  Quantum isti, tantum ille:
  Nec sumptus consumitur.

  Under diverse appearances,
  which are merely signs, not the reality,
  lies that most remarkable reality.

  The Flesh is food, the Blood is drink.
  Nevertheless, Christ in his entirety is present,
  under both appearances.

  By the receiver, he is not torn asunder,
  nor is he broken, nor is he divided.
  He is received whole.

  Let one person receive him; let a thousand receive him:
  the one receives him just as much as the thousand do.
  He is not depleted by being received.

I opted for a literation translation, which falls a bit flat poetically, but captures the meaning of the original.)


Alexander Helios disappearance-Scriptural Nephites? According to Wikipedia, Alexander Helios is the son of Cleopatra VII. He disappeared fleeing Egypt with his people (roughly 50,000) after being defeated by Octavian in 31 BC.

His parents committed suicide after finding out about his disappearance. Alexander Helios was never found again. There are some theories that Egyptians came to America and left loads of treasure in the Grand Canyon.

They carved out a cave that looking as if it could hold 50,000 men. There is also a theory that they had built a pyramid inside the grand canyon somewhere on the North Rim. Here is a LINK to a News Paper Article of past findings.

The Nephites in the Book of Mormon are considered very Egyptian and CAME to America. Is there a possibility that Alexander's group of people were the Book of Mormon Nephites?

No, the Nephites arrived in America around 600 B.C., long before Alexander Helios' days, with a much smaller group, on a single ship, and without their worldly treasures.

The Nephites are considered Jewish, not Egyptian, except for a remnant of their written language which was reformed from the Egyptian.


Who is the Spirit hearing from in John 16:13? I'm wondering who the Spirit is hearing from in this verse:

  John 16:13 (ESV) When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

Particularly the line "...for he will not speak on his own authority, whatever he hears he will speak". My assumption is that the Spirit of truth is the Holy Spirit, and the coming referred to here is both Pentecost and the indwelling that happens upon salvation after Pentecost.

My understanding is that the Holy Spirit is God and that the Spirit is the one that speaks truth. It seems weird to me that the Spirit would be listening to someone. The Father? The son? Could this allude to something else? Not sure.

Verses 12-15 make it pretty clear that the Spirit is functioning under the authority and direction of the Father and the Son. What the Spirit is speaking is coming from the Son and the Father. We can see this as Jesus is promising the Spirit will be his replacement, if you will, as God's primary representative on Earth. The Spirit is fully God. The Spirit is also subordinate to the Father and Son, not because of any distinction in power or value, but a clear distinction in roles.


Can angels speak to us? This is perhaps slightly related to this question, and specifically this answer which points out that "the worship of angels [is] false doctrine ... praying to angels arguably may not be worship, [but] in my mind the line is far too fine."

So we have, perhaps, a caution to pray/speak to angels.  But can angels, under normal circumstances, speak to us?  I am excluding, for the sake of this question, situations in which angels are physically manifest, and speak to us verbally.

What evidence exists in the Bible that angels either can or cannot speak to us this way?

And if the abilities/rules governing God-fearing angels is distinct from fallen angels/demons, what are the differences?

Technically, "angel" (from the Greek Angelos) is a job function, not genus and species.  Angelos means messenger - they deliver messages.  If the messenger is unable to communicate, it doesn't really seem up to the job of delivering a message.

The angels recorded in Scripture all clearly had the ability to converse with the people to whom they were sent - whether to Abraham, Manoah (Samson's father), Mary, Joseph, Zechariah, etc...  In the cases where the angel's identity was hidden, there was nothing to suggest they appeared anything other than human, along with the concomitant powers of humans.

As to whether or not Cherubim and Seraphim (the heavenly creatures typically given these jobs) have the ability to communicate when not in the presence of humans, most Protestants would say, there would be only speculation. Historically, the doctrine of God's omnipresence and omniscience is what gives us the ability to communicate with God in any place - there is nothing to suggest that heavenly creatures - angelic or demonic - possess this attribute.

As svidgen points out, however, there are interpretations of Revelation 8 that Catholics would interpret as giving Angels the ability to hear prayers.


Why do most Christians eat pork when Deuteronomy says not to? I am a Muslim. Pork is prohibited in my religion. I also think that it is prohibited in Christianity because of Deuteronomy chapter 14 verse 8. But why do most Christians eat pork? Is it a contradiction?

The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses. - Deuteronomy 14:8

Why do most Christians eat pork?
Initially, the prohibition against pork was part of the Law giving to Moses as Deuteronomy 14:7, 8 states.

However, you must not eat the following animals that chew the cud or that have split hooves: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not have split hooves. They are unclean for you. 8 Also the pig because it has a split hoof but does not chew the cud. It is unclean for you. You must not eat their flesh or touch their carcasses. (NWT)

Interestingly though when here on earth, Jesus was confronted with a situation that dealt with uncleanness in Mark 7:1-8. Jesus later was explaining to his disciples the hypocrisy of the religious leaders of the time. In his explanation, Jesus made a very interesting statement:

So he said to them: “Are you also without understanding like them? Are you not aware that nothing from outside that enters into a man can defile him, 19 since it enters, not into his heart, but into his stomach, and it passes out into the sewer?” Thus he declared all foods clean.-Mark 7:18, 19 (NWT)[italics mine]

In a vision, the apostle Peter saw a large linen sheet with unclean animals. (Acts 10:9-16) In this vision, a voice spoke to him saying:

“Stop calling defiled the things God has cleansed.”-Acts 10:15 (NWT)

While this vision was to indicate the acceptance of Gentiles (non-Jews) into the congregation of God, this also corroborates Jesus's statement at Mark 7:19.
Later, the apostle Paul addressed the issue of some of those within the Christian congregation having a problem with Gentiles eating foods that were purchased in the local markets. Some of these foods were sometimes 'leftovers' of sacrifices made to false gods or idols. In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul talks about the need to not judge our fellow man about what they eat. Paul also counsels Christians to not stumble or cause problems for fellow Christians by doing things that would make them question their faith.
Ultimately, Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law. The apostle put it plainly:

“The Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might be declared righteous due to faith. But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor.”-Galatians 3:24, 25 (NWT)


How is Christ's death so significant? (the question title isn't quite right; I welcome any better phrasing - it is not intended to sound inflammatory)

This is a genuine question, that regularly occurred to me during my youth, and was recently reminded to me by an answer fragment:

  ... However, the death of Christ on the Cross is such an infinite payment...

I always had trouble with this. It is honestly not intended to dismiss the suffering of someone being tortured to death, but in the context of Christ as an infinite being in the trinity, capable of miracles, healing, resurrection and immortal heavenly life, this seems... quite a minor event. And indeed, many many people have suffered similar treatment on all sides of religious quarrel (or non-religious, for that matter).

Likewise, the sacrifice of God in "giving up" the Son - again, in the context of a being that is either many thousands of years, or ageless (in that time cannot be applied),  a 30-something year stint on the earth (where God is omnipresent anyway) before re-ascending seems... an inconvenient errand rather than truly giving something up.

It is probably way too late to save my wondering, but what is (/was) the reasoning that I missed on this?

You are exactly right. The conclusion you have drawn is based on a commonly made premise. Far too many Christians do not even realize the non sequitur on which they based their understanding of Jesus's time on earth. It is however, a false premise. I hope I can explain why.

For someone with the power and strength that we claim Jesus commanded, the actual process of death on the cross was a small thing. Even ordinary men could and did endure that. It was a particularly arduous and painful death, but some of Christ's later followers were fed to lions or burned alive and did it with a song on their lips. Yet Jesus sweat blood just THINKING about the ordeal he was going to go through on the cross1. Does this mean that Christ's followers had more stamina than he did? That the creator of the universe was scared of a little physical pain? No. There was something else at work.

What made Christ's death different was what happened behind the scenes. While the Romans were busy crucifying his body to a cross, something much more serious was going on. As he hung there, God measured out on him the full force of his collected wrath against sin and sinners. This was the infinite wrath of an infinitely holy God against an infinitely great offence. With this wrath God CRUSHED his own Son2. No mere mortal could ever bear that wrath even pared down to the punishment for his own deeds, much less those of another. And another and another.

That's a lot of infinites I just used. The infinitely holy part is hard to even fathom, but that's what we say God is. Just as he is pure, holy, and 100% loving, he must be 100% hating of anything that is not worthy of love. We have committed an infinite sin because our offense in refusing to obey God is an offence against an infinitely good being, hence deserving the ultimate consequence.

However the value of the sacrifice offered was also infinite. The person that who bore the infinite wrath was himself of infinite value, making his death valuable enough to pay the debt. The very person of God himself give himself up to death. That death was not just a physical terminating of his bodily functions either. That part happened as well at the hands of the Romans, but much more importantly he was separated from the Father. On the cross he cried out that he had been forsaken3. In that moment he experienced the death (separation from God) we deserve.

In doing so he conquered it and in rising he demonstrated his power over it.4,5

As for the second part of your question, it wasn't the measly 30 something years that made it a big deal, it was his position and stature. If I give you an hour of my time that's not much to you. If a friend gives you an hour that's something more. If some celebrity gives you an hour that might mean something more. If the President of the US gives you an hour (however not hard that is for him) that becomes a significant event -- even if you don't like that president.

Now who this God is -- is nothing less than the King of kings and LORD of lords6. His time and attention are of infinite value.

  Luke 22:44 (ESV) And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

  Isaiah 53:10a (ESV) Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt,...

  Matthew 27:46 (ESV) And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

  Romans 6:9 (ESV) We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.

  Acts 2:24 (ESV) God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

  Revelation 19:16 (ESV) On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.


Who first came up with the phrase "an over-realized eschatology" and in what context? The phrase "an over-realized eschatology" seems to get a run from time to time in theological discussions (example) or blog posts (example). Who first coined this phrase* and in what context were they using it?

In my own research, it appears that C.H. Dodd promoted a "realized eschatology". Was "over-realized eschatology" coined in the context of a critique of Dodd's eschatology?

*or semantic equivalent if its first appearance in English was a translation.

The term appears to me to be original to William Lane in his 1965 discussion of the beliefs of the Corinthians to whom Paul wrote (Lane, William L. "I Tim. IV. 1–3. An Early Instance of Over-Realized Eschatology?." New Testament Studies 11.02 (1965): 164-167.) Bernardin Schneider derives his 1967 use of the term and notion solely from Lane.

The term was undoubtedly influenced by C.H. Dodd's popularization of the term and notion of "realized eschatology", but does not appear to originally have been a theological reaction to his work.

The following are early sources discussing the over-realized eschatology of Corinthians, which I do not have in front of me, and may or may not use the term:

E. Käsemann, Essays on New Testament Themes (ET, London: SCM, 1964)
171
C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London, 1968), p. 109
E. Käsemann, New Testament Questions of Today (E.T. London, 1969) pp. 125-6.
F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians (London, 1971), pp. 49-50

I expect these will be similar to Bartsch (1965), who discusses debate between realized eschatology and non-realized eschatologies in early Christian thought without using the terms "realized" or "over-realized".

The term became frequently used in discussions of the eschatology of 1 Corinthians (Barker, 1969; Talbert, 1977; Thiselton, 1978; Bauckham, 1980), and later in discussions of Luke (Talbert, 1977; Mattill, 1979).

References

Barker, Glenn W. The New Testament Speaks. Harper & Row, 1969, p. 176.
Barrett, G. K. 'Christianity  at  Corinth'  in   Bulletin  of   the  John  Rylands Library   XLVI   (1963-4), p. 269-97
Bartsch, Hans-Werner. "Early Christian Eschatology in the Synoptic Gospels." New Testament Studies 11.04 (1965): 387-397.
Bauckham, Richard. "The Delay of the Parousia." Tyndale Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, pp. 3-36.
Mattill, Andrew Jacob. Luke and the Last Things: A Perspective for the Understanding of Lukan Thought. Western North Carolina Press, 1979.
Schneider, Bernardin V. "Corporate Meaning and Background of 1 Cor 15:45B." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 3, July 1967, pp. 450-467
Talbert, Charles H. What is a Gospel?: the genre of the canonical Gospels. Fortress, 1977, p. 120
Thiselton, Anthony C. "Realized eschatology at Corinth." New Testament Studies 24.04 (1978), p. 510-526.


What is the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation? I am a Confirmed Catholic and am currently learning about and doing casual research on Christian doctrinal differences regarding the nature of the Eucharist. I know that Catholic doctrine states that the bread and wine change ("trans") into the different material ("substance") of the Body and Blood of Christ. I've heard this called the "real presence." Wouldn't that term align more with the doctrine held by some other sects of Christianity that the substance is not changed, but Jesus is simply present in the Eucharist, though? And, if it in fact does align well with the Catholic standpoint, then what is the major difference between the doctrines? Is it perhaps believed in Catholicism that the presence is truly physical, in that the bread is truly human flesh and not unleavened food?
I hope someone can enlighten me on this topic so that I can more clearly attest to my faith. Thank you and God bless!

To those who have marked this a duplicate, I've replied to the first comment on the page with a clarification-related question that is sort of geared at the problem I'm having personally with understanding the doctrine that perhaps other conversations would not have been able to duplicate for me. Maybe I should have searched before I posted, but I hadn't thought about it because this is my first time here. Sorry about that.

Basically, the difference between the Thomistic notion of transubstantiation and the interpretation of Lutherans  and Anglicans is that those who hold to the doctrine of transubstantiation believe that after the consecration, the "substance" of what was the bread is replaced by the substance of Jesus, while the "accidents" of the bread remain,so the host looks tastes, feels, smells, and reacts like bread, but is not.

By contrast, those who hold to consubstantiation, say that Jesus is present, just as those who subscribe to transubstantiation believe, but that this occurs by Jesus becoming really present in substance at the same time the substance of the bread is.

Some of those who believe in consubstantiation note that there is a problem reconciling yransubstantiation with John 6:48, wherein it is recorded that Jesus states:

  I am the bread of life

and John 6:51a, wherein it is recorded that Jesus states:

  I am the living bread which came down from heaven ...

Now, if Jesus is living bread, how can it be that after transubstantiation, that there is no substance of bread present, as Jesus is bread.


Why does John the Baptist decide upon water and baptism as the form of repentance (Catholic viewpoint)? I'm a convert from Judaism to Catholicism. Overall, I find the congruence from a theological perspective to be 80-90%. Especially, from my perspective, considering the "Jewish version" of the Trinity: God, the Spirit of God (Ruach Eloheem, appearing as early as Genesis 1:2), and the Messiah, whose prediction appears early in the Prophets. (This is oversimplified, but whatever).

It is my understanding that John the Baptist was related to Mary (from Luke). The exact relationship isn't that important, rather to say one would assume he's Jewish.

Jews have two forms of repentance, both are fairly painful, and the penitent feels cleansed. The 10-day period between the New Year and the Day of Atonement--Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, respectively--is a time of contemplation of one's trespasses against God and man. It culminates in a 24-hour period of a no-food-no-water fast. About half is spent in prayer with the cantor petitioning for forgiveness on behalf of the congregation. Water fountains are covered because otherwise you'd drink from them without thinking, and one might be in a wool suit in late summer. It is a decidedly psychedelic experience; especially once the cantor starts blowing the ram's horn (shofar) at the end.

For serious screw-ups, and this probably differs from rabbi to rabbi, the sinner might be asked to perform the Teshuvah: an oral, public admission of guilt.

Considering this, baptism seems an unnecessary invention unless the motive was to provide a method of atonement for the gentiles. Which is understandable, and Matthew 3:5-6 supports all in the area around Judea headed his direction. However there is no description of why this was necessary to absolve sins or why he chose this method.

Can anyone shed some light on why John the Baptist, a Jew, would create a whole new form of repentance?

One possible answer, which doesn't really fit in my opinion, are all the examples of "unclean" things in Leviticus, and the dirtied should bathe in water even for just touching something unclean.

Many forms of baptism have existed in many Middle Eastern religions and they were not necessarily for sin absolving. They were for nation or religion changing or purification.ref

John did not have any of those purposes in mind. His baptism was a physical cleansing as a sign of repentance from sin.ref, paragraph 8 - Josephus

So John's baptism was not the same that Catholics do today. Christ's work had not yet been done. But he came as a foreshadowing or precursor of Christ's work, and as a worker to help others wash and be ready for what was coming.

There is a lot to this question, so I recommend reading the article here straight from the horse's mouth: Saint John the Baptist (catholic Encyclopedia).


What are the meanings of the mote and beam in the parable? In the new testament, Christ gives the parable of the mote and beam:

  1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge,
  ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be
  measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in
  thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own
  eye?  4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote
  out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou
  hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
  shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

  —Matthew 7:1-5 KJV (Matthew 7:1-5 other versions)

What is the mote's meaning in relation to the beam?  Are we to interpret their meanings by the size alone, or is there a deeper lost in translation meaning?

Jesus' message is a pretty simple one, although we can glean a deeper lesson from it by paying attention to every word in his message. In modern parlance, Jesus' message could be paraphrased, loosely, as follows:

Get your own act together before criticizing someone else.

A mote is a speck of dust. A beam is a log or a piece of lumber used in constructing ceilings and roofs. The former is almost infinitesimally small, whereas the latter is gargantuan. The humor in Jesus' comparison becomes readily apparent in the contrast between the two.
Put differently, Jesus is saying,

"After addressing and dealing with your own hang-ups and besetting sins you'll be in a better, humbler position to confront a brother about his hang-ups and sins."

One of the often overlooked terms in Jesus' teaching in this passage is the word hypocrite (see v.5). A hypocrite is a person who pretends to be something he isn't. Put differently, a hypocrite is someone who does not practice what he preaches. For such a person to confront and criticize someone else before taking stock of his own failures and sins is analogous to "casting the first stone" (see John 8:7).
After making a "searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves," we are less likely to be so judgmental of others. Why? Because after conducting that inventory of ourselves we can see more clearly that

We are just as guilty and condemned before God as they are, whether they or we have committed one sin or a million sins. "All have sinned and fallen short . . ." (Romans 3:23). Sin entangles all of us, without exception (see Hebrews 12:1), and James reminds us that "we all stumble in many ways" (3:1, my emphasis). To forget this is the height of hypocrisy.

Our quickness to point the finger of blame at someone else can belie the presence of the very same (or similar) sin we are accusing our brother of. Again, this is hypocrisy.

Our tendency to detect a fault in a brother violates an important principle in Scripture; namely, "love covers a multitude of sins" (1 Peter 4:8; Proverbs 10:12 and 17:9). To cover a sin is not the same as to cover up a sin and pretend it never happened. No, God is our example in this. He does not cover up our sins, but he does cover our sins through the blood of the sacrifice of his Son, our Lord Jesus, who died for our sins (1 Peter 3:18).

There is a better way to confront someone caught in a sin. Paul summed it up in  Galatians chapter 6:
"Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ" (vv.1,2).

In conclusion, there is a need within every local assembly of Christians to confront known sin. As Paul points out, however, only one who is spiritual is to do the confronting. Even then, spiritual people need to proceed with caution, because they are just as susceptible to stumble as the person they are confronting.
Rather than leading with a holier-than-thou attitude, they are to lead with caution and an I'm-just-a-sinner-too attitude. Sin breaks the heart of God, and sin should break our hearts, too, whether it is in us or in someone else.


According to Catholicism, how many heavens are there? I read in book of Enoch there are 10 heavens God created. Most Christians believe in 1 heaven and Muslims I think believe in 7 heavens.
The purpose of each of 10 heavens was described in Book of Enoch but my Christian friend said in Bible there is one heaven and hell. I think the 3rd heaven in the book of Enoch is said to contain that heaven and hell he is referring to from the Bible.

The book of Enoch is not part of the canon of the Jewish Tanakh nor the Christian/Catholic Bible. Meaning that it is not accepted as authoritative by jewish or christians. This book is used as part of the kabbalistic literature in the zohar, that in itself could tell you that it is not a great source of information to use for knowing about God (it can be used for knowing a god, satan).
There are three heavens named in the Bible (Deut 10:14), the first is the sky where there are clouds and birds (Gen 1:8, 20; Deut 11:17; Judg 5:4), the second is the space where are planets and stars (Gen 15:5; Psa 19:4-6; Deut 17:3), and the third is the methapysical heaven (Matt 6:9; 2 Cor 12:2; Eph 4:10) where Jesus Christ went.


According to Catholicism, why did God create men as men rather than as angels? There is some discussion about why God created man here. The answers go something like "God wanted to love us, share his perfection/happiness/life with us. Therefore, he created us."

Yet, God also created angels. Beside some fallen angels, most of them are in Heaven, already enjoying the beatific vision of God face to face. There was no salvation process involved. No sin. No pain. These are spirits (i.e. bodyless souls) created to be happy.

So, the question is, why did God create souls in the form of men, rather than creating these souls in the form of angels? The answers to the linked question do not address this issue.

The context of this question relates to the problem of evil. God sharing his life with us whilst respecting our freedom is a "classic" answer to the problem. However, this still begs the question of why God created man as man rather than as angel.

PS: there is a related question here but it is not denomination specific, and the answer does not really answer the question, imo.

Although not a magisterial teaching, Padre Pio said:

  The angels envy us for one thing only: they cannot suffer for God.

cited in Padre Pio: A Catholic Priest Who Worked Miracles and Bore the Wounds of Jesus on His Body p. 31, from in Fr. Alessio Parente, Send Me Your Guardian Angel, National Centre for Padre Pio, Barto, PA. p. 65.

Thus, it seems God created man a body+soul composite and not a pure angelic spirit in order that we may love and suffer for Him in a way that angels cannot.


What does Luke 11:5-8 mean? Luke 11:5-8 (NIV)
5 Then Jesus said to them, “Suppose you have a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; 6 a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have no food to offer him.’ 7 And suppose the one inside answers, ‘Don’t bother me. The door is already locked, and my children and I are in bed. I can’t get up and give you anything.’ 8 I tell you, even though he will not get up and give you the bread because of friendship, yet because of your shameless audacity he will surely get up and give you as much as you need.

What does it mean that even though he "will not get up and give you the bread because of friendship", he "will surely get up and give you as much as you need" ?
Why will the friend not give the bread because of friendship (shouldn't it be the other way round) ?

In the King James Version, verse 8 doesn't say "your audacity," but "his importunity" (literally: inconvenience from a persistent request.)  The basic idea is that he'll get up and do it just to get you to go away and quit keeping him awake with your banging on the door.


Where does Jesus Say He is God? Many parts in the bible where he said he can't do anything by himself, but by the will of God.
If you look at the sentences above almost all the prophets before him used the same words.
When he said son of God or my father, almost all prophets before him used the same word, because in some parts of the bible it mentions children of God. That means we are his brother and God is our father, I don't think that means we are really his children; it means we are servants and if we are servants, then Jesus too was a servant of God.

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith
  unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed:
  blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (John 20:28)

Besides no one of the prophets before Jesus ever said something like this:

  Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me,
  Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father

  Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me (John 14:9-11)

, which, if not true, would have been a blasphemy.


Is it ever right to sin in order to potentially prevent others from committing far more damaging sins? I am interested in the Christian and biblical view about when it is right to do something wrong in order to prevent something worse from happening.

This question is mainly inspired by a documentary I saw about scam baiting.

Scam baiters aim to trick the typical internet scammer (think Nigerian prince who wants to transfer large sums of money into your bank account!). They pretend to be naive, foolish and gullible internet users that fall for scams. Their aim is simply to waste the scammer's time and resources, even in some cases tricking the scammer into actually flying to another country in order to transfer money which of course is non-existent.

In the documentary the scam baiters did present some compelling moral arguments for their actions. For example, if they are successful at "scamming the scammer" then the scammer may start losing confidence, and therefore in the future may be less likely to succeed when they encounter a real gullible individual. Or the scammer may just give up altogether and get another job etc.

However, entertainment also seems to be quite a motivating factor for these people as well.

I can certainly understand the anger people have towards scammers -- for example just recently an elderly man was tricked out of $140K:

Victim loses $140,000 in love scam

But the flip side of scam baiting is that you yourself are essentially lying and deceiving, far more so than a simple "white lie".

So, my question is, from a Christian/Biblical point of view, is an activity where a lesser evil has a potential to prevent a greater evil OK or not OK? Or should we take the probably less effective route of simply chastising the scammers and not play their game? Or should we simply do nothing, other than trying to educate the people that fall for these scams?

I am sure there are other examples where this question is applicable but scam baiting is the one that I am thinking of at the moment.

Just to make it clear I am not asking for opinions about the issue but for an interpretation of Christian tenets applied to this problem.

Further links:

Scam baiter website 419.com
Secrets of
the Scammers
documentary

For those that are not pacifists, which would encompass the majority of those churches which claim Christian beliefs, the obvious answer would be a cautious 'yes'.  The reason why this must be so is that if you believe it lawful to be a soldier waging war against an enemy state, deception and trickery are a vital  part of warfare.  Being an undercover spy for example, necessitates constant lying and this can easily be backed up (at least for a just war) in the case of Rahab the spy.

  By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient. (NIV, Hebrews 11:31)

Joseph who at first deceived his brothers when they came to buy grain, might be another arguable example.

Rahab lying to the Canaanite army under cover so to speak as a harlot-hostess of a tavern, being considered as a 'hero' of faith provides a clear example of such a scenario.  However, we should keep this as a 'cautious' yes because one must honestly evaluate a given situation and have the conscience clear that an appearance of external sin, is actually righteousness. In other words does the situation truly call for a sheep in wolves clothing?  In many cases it might just be a vain assumption that any mere appearance of good justifies an actual deceitful desire.  The truth is that the Bible leaves most all detailed decisions to our own conscience based on broad biblical principles and promises the Spirit to guide us if we fully rely on his word as a light to our path.  Furthermore, when we doubt the legitimacy of a particular case, not knowing how to act, we may find more clarity through prayer until our conscience is persuaded one way or the other.  In general, deception can't be used for good as lying is by nature devilish:

  You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (NIV, John 8:44)

However, again back to the case of Rahab lying for God, this was good given the situation.

With respect to the specific scenario that you painted about 'scamming-scammers' one would not be wise to pronounce an absolute judgment either way and we must accommodate the potential motives of each private person as well as specific circumstances of the events. Man looks at the outside but God looks at the heart. For example, what if there was a person who knew a godly old lady that was scammed her life savings and by coincidence fell into the same scam. What if that person was smart enough to scam the scammer and it actually lead to an arrest and return of the funds to the godly old women.  Well who would say it was wrong?  But on the other hand what about a dare-devil teenager that is just looking for a way to get some satisfaction of being 'smarter' then a scammer. Nothing more then an ego and a lust for lying motivating him to the trade of scamming.  Who would admire such behaviour and call it a work that glorifies God?

Even when the principle is established that deception is sometimes justified for a greater real good (like with Rahab) it does not mean that all deception for apparent good, are either always right, or always wrong. Personal motive and circumstances must always be factored into a sober judgment and evaluation in order to maintain a genuine clear conscience in the sight of a pure loving God who treats all souls equally under his infinite eye.


What do you tithe from? Why tithe income? According to Scripture, we should pay tithe from increase from our land and cattle. I don't find anything about tithing monetary income, so why do you pay from income or salary?

Also, if the income you receive has already been tithed, should you tithe again?

For example, someone tithes $100 on $1,000 income and is left with $900. From $900, that person pays $500 to another person for some work. Should the other person pay tithe for receiving $500?

Tithing income is an application of the Old Testament tithe principle - it's giving back 10% of what God has given you. If that is cows, great! If it is money (as it is in modern society), then tithe comes out of that.

The 10% number is not actually mentioned in the New Testament, where the principle is just "give generously!"

Based on the above, I tithe on all my "income". If I receive $500 from someone else for work done, yes I would tithe on it. On the other hand, I don't tithe my tax refund

One other thing - I believe that tithing should be done on gross (before-tax) and not net income. This is an application of the "firstfruits" principle from the OT - our tithe is to be "off the top". Tithing on your net income is letting the government have the first cut and tithing on what is left over.


Did Jesus's rational soul or His spirit descend into hell? Jesus said on the Cross: "Father into your hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46).

The Apostles' Creed says: "Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. And then Jesus descended into hell. On the third day he rose again…"

If Jesus already commended His spirit to the Father and had not yet ascended into Heaven, would it mean that the one who descended to the dead is Jesus's rational soul and not the Spirit that received as His anointing in the Baptism in the river Jordan (Matt. 3:16)?

Article 5 of the Catechism of the Council of Trent says:

  We are not to imagine that His power and virtue only, and not also His soul, descended into hell; but we are firmly to believe that His soul itself, really and substantially, descended thither, according to this conclusive testimony of David: Thou wilt not leave my soul [animam] in hell. (Ps. 15:10).

The "Spirit" of Matthew 3:16 ("…the Spirit of God descending as a dove…") is the Holy Ghost, the 3rd Person of the Holy Trinity. Christ's human soul, which is a creature, is not the Holy Ghost, Who is uncreated.

Also, His divinity remained united to His human body and to His human soul. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas's question "Whether the whole Christ was in hell?" (Summa Theologica III q. 52 a. 3).


Did Augustine believe in Purgatory? Purgatory was one of the doctrines the Reformers reacted most strongly against, though many Reformers claimed Augustine of Hippo as being in agreement with their theology. Did Augustine teach a doctrine of purgatory?

It appears that Augustine believed that purgatory was real, but didn't believe the matter was settled.
His agnosticism seems clearest in this passage:

It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly delivered from it. (Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love, 69 [421-422])

He appears to affirm it while recounting his mother's death:

To us both [my brother and I] she says, "Lay this body anywhere, let not the care for it trouble you at all. This only I ask, that you will remember me at the Lord's altar, wherever you be."
I then, O my Praise and my Life, Thou God of my heart, putting aside for a little her good deeds, for which I joyfully give thanks to You, do now beseech You for the sins of my mother. Hearken unto me, through that Medicine of our wounds who hung upon the tree, and who, sitting at Your right hand, "makes intercession for us." ... Forgive her, O Lord, forgive her, I beseech You; enter not into judgment with her. Let Your mercy be exalted above Your justice. (Confessions, IX.27,35 [397-401])

But he then goes on to say, "And I believe You have already done that which I ask You," (36) which is not entirely clear, but could be interpreted as a statement against purgatory.
At any rate, however, he makes many statements in his writings either in direct support of a "purgatorial fire" or of making "intercession for the dead." In The City of God, he makes statements supporting both within a few paragraphs of each other (see below), indicating that the ideas were connected in his thought.
For more on the development of Augustine's thought with regard to the doctrine of purgatory, see The Birth of Purgatory by Jacques Le Goff, in particular the chapter on the church fathers.
Purgatorial fire

The man who perhaps has not cultivated the land and has allowed it to be overrun with brambles has in this life the curse of his land on all his works, and after this life he will have either purgatorial fire or eternal punishment. (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 2:20 [388/389])
Cleanse me in this life, and make me such, that I may after that stand in no need of the cleansing fire, for those "who are to be saved, yet so as by fire." (1 Corinthians 3:15) ... For all that, though we should be saved by fire, yet will that fire be more grievous than anything that man can suffer in this life whatsoever. (Exposition on Psalm 38, 2 [date unknown; 396~420)
Of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment. (The City of God 21:13 [413-427])

Prayers for the dead

The souls of the pious dead are not separated from the Church, which even now is the kingdom of Christ; otherwise there would be no remembrance made of them at the altar of God in the partaking of the body of Christ. (The City of God 20:9 [413-427])
The prayer either of the Church herself or of pious individuals is heard on behalf of certain of the dead; but it is heard for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not for the rest of their life in the body do such wickedness that they might be judged unworthy of such mercy, nor who yet lived so well that it might be supposed they have no need of such mercy. (The City of God 21:24 [413-427])
In the books of the Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. Howbeit even if it were no where at all read in the Old Scriptures, not small is the authority, which in this usage is clear, of the whole Church, namely, that in the prayers of the priest which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the Commendation of the dead has also its place. (On the Care of the Dead, 3 [420-422])
Church custom has it that at the place where the names of the martyrs are recited at God's altar, we don't pray for them, while we do pray for the other departed brothers and sisters who are remembered there. It is insulting, I mean, to pray for martyrs, to whose prayers we ought rather to commend ourselves. (Sermon 159:1 [417])
There is no doubt that the dead are helped by the prayers of holy Church, by the saving sacrifice, and by alms dispensed for their souls; these things are done that they may be more mercifully dealt with by the Lord than their sins deserve. The whole Church observes the custom handed down by our fathers: that those who died within the fellowship of Christ’s body and blood should be prayed for when they are commemorated in their own place at the holy sacrifice, and that we should be reminded that this sacrifice is offered for them as well. (Sermon 172:2 [date unknown; 393~430])

Dates come from this book list, other than for sermon 159, which comes from the linked book.