Do Mormons secretly pray about you and then consider you included in their church? I met two men on the street who were Mormons. We had a nice discussion and they gave me their book with a bookmark pointing to a verse in it.

Later that day I met with my friend and he said I shouldn't have accepted anything from them because this is the way how they include you in their church. They pray quietly the prayer of acceptance over you without your knowledge.

Do Mormons secretly include you in the Church?

How much of this is true? What is the process of one to be accepted in LDS Church?

If they were wearing name tags, they were probably official LDS missionaries. Even if not, Latter-day Saints are allowed to (and in fact, are encouraged to) proselytize informally and refer potential converts to official LDS missionaries. The LDS have a specific set of procedures and practices for seeking out, encouraging, vetting, and accepting new members, which you can read about in the official LDS Preach My Gospel guide. In general, the procedure involves meeting with official LDS missionaries over a period of several weeks of learning, study, and prayer that leads to the receipt of baptism.

Some LDS missions are known for keeping informal notes of contacts made, but you cannot become a "member" of the church without baptism. Accepting materials from missionaries, including the Book of Mormon, tracts, or anything else, cannot make you a Mormon. Only you can make yourself a Mormon by accepting the LDS gospel and receiving baptism by a holder of the LDS priesthood. As to whether or not you should do so, that is solely dependent on your own conscience.


Matthew 18:10 "Children's angels always behold the face of the Father" - what does this mean? Matthew 18:10 seems to put forth an idea that children have a certain privilege over adults:

  Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I
  say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of
  my Father which is in heaven (Matthew 18:10)

Since any child, if it doesn't die in early age, grows up and sooner or later becomes an adult, one can suggest that children are losing that privilege as they grow up.

How has this verse been traditionally interpreted in Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Early Protestantism? What is an overview of the major views in mainstream Christianity in this regard?

For Catholics, one can read from the Catechism paragraphs 328-336.  In terms of a guardian angel, we read the following, showing the Catholic Church believes children do not lose their angels:

336 From infancy to death human life is surrounded by their watchful care and intercession. [Cf. Mt 18:10; Lk 16:22; Pss 34:7; 91:10-13; Job 33:23-24; Zech 1:12; Tob 12:12.] “Beside each believer stands an angel as protector and shepherd leading him to life.” [St. Basil, Adv. Eunomium III, I: PG 29, 656B.] Already here on earth the Christian life shares by faith in the blessed company of angels and men united in God.

St. Paul makes an interesting reference to his Guardian Angel here:

Acts 27:23 For last night an angel of the God to whom (I) belong and whom I serve stood by me 24 and said…

Further, this makes it sounds as if John's Guardian Angel was involved:

Rev 1:1b He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John

Also the following:

Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent to serve, for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?
Ps 91:11 For he commands his angels with regard to you, (Heb 1:14) to guard you wherever you go. (Ps 121:3; Prv 3:23) – Referenced by Satan in Lk 4:10–11/Mt 4:6 when he tempts Jesus in the desert
Mt 18:10 (Ez 34:1–3 & 16; Lk 15:3–7) “See that you do not despise one of these little ones25, for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father.”


Are (or were) sacraments necessary for salvation in the Catholic religion? According to the Wikipedia page,

  Though not every individual has to receive every sacrament, the Church affirms that, for believers as a whole, the sacraments are necessary for salvation, as the modes of grace divinely instituted by Christ himself.

where the seven sacraments are: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony.

How am I to interpret the Wikipedia claim that "sacraments are necessary for salvation"? Does it mean for example that someone who doesn't get married can't go to heaven?

Catechism of the Catholic Church | THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS OF THE
  CHURCH

  1210 Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. There are seven:
  Baptism, Confirmation (or Chrismation), the Eucharist, Penance, the
  Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Matrimony. The seven sacraments
  touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian
  life:1 they give birth and increase, healing and mission to
  the Christian's life of faith. There is thus a certain resemblance
  between the stages of natural life and the stages of the spiritual
  life.

  1211 Following this analogy, the first chapter will expound the three
  sacraments of Christian initiation; the second, the sacraments of
  healing; and the third, the sacraments at the service of communion and
  the mission of the faithful. This order, while not the only one
  possible, does allow one to see that the sacraments form an organic
  whole in which each particular sacrament has its own vital place. In
  this organic whole, the Eucharist occupies a unique place as the
  "Sacrament of sacraments": "all the other sacraments are ordered to it
  as to their end."2

  1 Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, STh III,65,1.
  2 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh
  III,65,3.

The Church is a body, the Mystical Body of Christ. With this understanding, it is easy to see why not all are required to receive all the sacraments, with the ones received coming at different stages in one's Christian life, even when all the sacraments are vital for all the faithful, for the building up of the Body of Christ. cf. [Ep 4:1-16 (RSVCE)] and above: the sacraments at the service of communion and the mission of the faithful.].

For the individual, the sacraments one must (e.g. the three sacraments of Christian initiation) and can receive (e.g. marriage, holy orders, or anointing of the sick), ought to be received at the proper time for their Christian life.

Please note that in Catholicism, a lay person can be called to single life i.e. not married, not a priest, and not called to religious life.


According to Catholicism, do the saints and martyrs in heaven rise again on judgment day? Do Saints and martyrs who are already in heaven rise again on judgment day and assume a new body?

If so, why when they are already in heaven and with the Lord?

Yes according to the Catholic Church the bodies of the saints and martyrs in heaven rise again on judgment day.

St Thomas Aquinas states in his Summa Theologica:

  The saints in heaven, since they are blessed, have no lack of bliss, save that of the body's glory, and for this they pray. But they pray for us who lack the ultimate perfection of bliss: and their prayers are efficacious in impetrating through their previous merits and through God's acceptance.

The Catholic Church teaches that the only saint to be in heaven in both body and soul is the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  This doctrine was dogmatically defined by Pope Pius XII on 1 November 1950, in the apostolic constitution Munificentissimus Deus by exercising papal infallibility.


What was the difference between Jerusalem's honorary primacy and the primacy of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch? In Church History in Plain Language, 144, Bruce Shelley writes about the "primacy" that certain bishops enjoyed in the early church:

  The Council of Nicaea recognized the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome as preeminent in their own areas.  Jerusalem was granted an honorary primacy.

It seems that Jerusalem's "primacy" was somehow different from that of the other three cities mentioned here.  I'd like to know, practically speaking, what was different.  Was Jerusalem's bishop "preeminent in [his] own area" in a way similar to the others?  Or was it a "primacy in name only," which for practical purposes meant that he was expected to submit to the bishops in nearby Alexandria or Antioch?

An answer that complements its analysis with an example or two of how these bishops and churches interacted in the fourth and fifth centuries would be especially interesting.

Canon VI of the Council of Nicaea says, among other things:

  LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that
  the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is
  customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the
  other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.

Canon VII says:

  SINCE custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of
  AElia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due
  dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour. [my emphasis]

The General Introduction to The Works of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Volume 1 (page 14) puts this in perspective, proposing that the seventh canon of Nicaea merely reasserted that Jerusalem was subject to Caesarea, "while also confirming to Jerusalem certain unspecified ancient privileges."

F.J.A. Hort (Two Dissertations  59) is cited on page 15:

  All Palestine was subject to the supremacy of Antioch; and the metropolitan jurisdiction of Caesarea over the rest of Palestine was balanced by privileges peculiar to Jerusalem.

In strict terms of hierarchy, Jerusalem ranked below Caesarea and then Antioch, but, because of tradition, enjoyed privileges that otherwise were only enjoyed by Alexandria, Antioch and Rome.


What is the scriptural basis for a monarchical episcopate? What scriptural basis has traditionally been put forth by the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches to support the idea of monarchical episcopate (the idea that there must be only one bishop over a city or a region)?

The scriptural basis on which Catholicism support the church polity of monarchial episcopate are the following scriptural passages:
Acts 21:18

On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the
elders were present-(ESV)

In Catholicism, being an elder and being a bishop are two different offices.Futhermore, in Catholicism, St. James was believed to be a bishop. Therefore, Acts 21:18 is an explicit Bible verse that supports monarchial episcopate when understood in terms of overall Catholic teachings.
Titus 1:5

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what
remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I
directed you—(ESV)

Catholics believe that bishoprick and eldership aren't the same.Catholics believe that St. Titus was a bishop.In this verse, St. Titus appoints elders. In Catholicism, appointing elders is the function of a bishop.When read in Catholic lenses, Titus 1:5 is an another Bible verse that clearly supports monarchial episcopacy.
1 Timothy 5:17-22

Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor,
especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. 18 For the
Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the
grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” 19 Do not
admit(you-singular) a charge against an elder except on the evidence
of two or three witnesses. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke
(you-singular) them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand
in fear. 21 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the
elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging,
doing nothing from partiality. 22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of
hands(you-singular), nor take part in the sins of others; keep
yourself pure -(ESV).

St. Timothy is a bishop according to Catholicism.In this text, he possesses exclusive authority over the Ephesian elders.1 Timothy 5:17-22 supports monarchial episcopacy when read in light of Catholic theology.
Conclusion
Ample scriptural passages provided cogent biblical evidence for monarchial episcopate. This is only true when read in light of Catholic interpretation of eldership and bishoprick, though.

References:
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/a80.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm


Topographical Map of Israel / Transjordan? As an aide in Old Testament study, I'm looking for a topographical map of Israel - both East and West of the Jordan. Specifically, I want a map with topographical layer-lines showing specific heights. I'm not looking for one of those "green is lower and brown is higher and mountainous areas look crinkled" maps. I want the most precise and detailed map available. It would also be helpful if this map had major landforms (rivers, mountain peaks, etc.) labeled.

Does anyone know where I can find one?

Quick look on google.  And the good news is that you can get maps from stanfords.co.uk .... the bad news is that there is a 4 to 6 month wait because of hot demand, and the even worse news is that each map costs £17.99 and there are between 22 and 26 of them. So assuming you want all of them that's over $500 plus postage.  However, if you know which specific area of Israel/Gaza/West Bank you want then its an option.

More bad news is that the contour lines are at 20 meters on some and 25 meters on others which is about 70 feet or 80 feet on others... perhaps not good enough for the price.

Search for "100k topographic israel" in google.


Under What Conditions Can a Priest Validly Refuse to Absolve Sins? Absolution can be withheld, I was wondering under what conditions such an action can be considered to be valid(not licit or illicit), if any are needed at all. Furthermore I want to know if a priest can validly absolve the sins of someone who has been refused absolution from another priest validly.

Under What Conditions Can a Priest Validly Refuse to Absolve Sins?

  The denial (or delay) of absolution is rare in a typical confession. When it does occur, it usually is because the confessor is not able to observe sufficient contrition from the penitent. As the Catechism teaches: “Contrition is sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again” (No. 1451). So, mere sorrow is not enough; there must be sufficient resolution to avoid the sin in the future.

  A  confessor must do his best to dispose a penitent for absolution. Usually sorrow for sin and a firm purpose of amendment are evident in someone who has sought confession. However, in some cases, a penitent may give no signs of sorrow or may show no resolution to avoid obvious or near occasions of sin. Perhaps a penitent indicates a refusal to restore what is possible to rightful owners. Or a penitent who does not indicate a willingness to end illicit sexual unions or practices. Though they may experience sorrow or feelings of guilt, they cannot or will not supply a resolve to avoid the sin in the future.

  The priest should do what he can to draw both sorrow and a firm purpose of amendment. But if there is no evidence of these, he should deny or delay absolution in a kind and fatherly manner, explaining the reason and also a way forward so that the penitent can return more properly disposed to receive the sacrament.

  Generally, the simple fact that a penitent has sought confession is a demonstration of contrition and amendment. But there are rare times when during the confession something essential regarding contrition is found to be lacking. To simply overlook this does harm both to the sacrament and to the proper care of souls. - Refusing absolution

Thus a priest must refuse absolution if no contrition is present or no willingness to amend one's life of serious sin is present. One not willing to amend a life of adultery for example can not be absolved in confession. Absolution in this case would be invalid.

Another case may be when the penitent is under excommunication.

  Finally, there many possible reasons why Catholic may be "prohibited by Law for receiving" a sacrament. If, for example, he is under excommunication, he is forbidden to receive the sacraments until the excommunication is lifted (c. 1331.1 n.2). He may simply be too young to receive a particular sacrament. - When can a priest refuse to absolve a penitent in the confessional?

Confession while under the sentence of excommunication would not be valid and a priest must refuse absolution in some cases, unless one is in danger of death.

  In some very grievous cases, only the Holy See can lift the ban of an automatic excommunication:  if a person desecrates the Blessed Sacrament or uses it for a sacrilegious purpose (#1367); if a person uses physical force against the Pope (#1370); if a priest absolves an accomplice in a sin against the Sixth Commandment (#1378); if a bishop consecrates someone as a bishop without permission of the Holy Father (#1982); and if a priest directly violates the seal of confession (#1388). - Automatic Excommunication

As for the sacrament of the Orthodox Church this should help:

  “If attending was done in the spirit of ecumenism, would it be ok as long as I still went to Catholic Mass as well?”

  Yes, and the obligation to assist at a Catholic liturgy is not fulfilled by going with the Orthodox family to their church:

  Can. 1248 §1. A person who assists at a Mass celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the feast day itself or in the evening of the preceding day satisfies the obligation of participating in the Mass.

  Can. 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

  Footnote: In regard to canon 1248, an argument could be made that an Orthodox liturgy is “a catholic rite” since the Church herself acknowledges that Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental, plus ACoE) Sacraments are valid. - Is it valid for a Catholic to attend an Orthodox Church service?

Do not forget that both Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I signed the Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965

  The Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965 was read out on 7 December 1965 simultaneously at a public meeting of the Second Vatican Council in Rome and at a special ceremony in Istanbul. It withdrew the exchange of excommunications between prominent ecclesiastics in the Holy See and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, commonly known as the Great Schism of 1054. It did not end the schism but showed a desire for greater reconciliation between the two churches, represented by Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I. The document and accompanying texts are also referred to as 'Tomos Agapes' ('Document of Love') - Catholic–Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965 (Wikipedia)

In the end a priest can validly absolve any penitent who has been formerly refused absolution (validly) provided that all the requites are in place to have a valid confession.


Does Joseph Smith fail the test of a prophet? The test of a prophet.

Deuteronomy 18 NKJV
21 And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the
LORD has not spoken?’— 22 when a prophet speaks in the name of the
LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing
which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it
presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

Joseph Smith has brought new religious beliefs to the table. God has given us a simple test for all prophets. Has Joseph Smith given any prophecies that he said were from God but failed to come true?

Prophecy about Jesus' return within 56 years

Per the History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 189, he said

  ...and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, or the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene.

That was in 1891.
Prophecy that the temple would be built in Missouri within Smith's Generation

_Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5,31.

  For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.

All Nations would be involved in the American Civil War war

_Doctrine and Covenants 87:1-3

  For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

That short list came from here.

Some more include:

the prophecy that David Patten would go on a mission (he died before he could)
that the US government would be overthrown if it didn't apologize (it didn't apologize and was never overthrown)
that Congress would dissolve if it didn't hear Joseph Smiths petition (it never heard it and it's still around)

etc.  That list is here.

A note to all would-be prophets... don't use exact dates.


Connection between the serpent in the garden of Eden and the brass serpent We are told in the Bible that the serpent deceived Adam and Eve and that same serpent was used by Moses as sign of healing to those were bitten by snakes in the wilderness. What is the significance of the serpent in the bible in connection to the faith of a believer?

Paul teaches that :

  Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: [Romans 5:12 KJV.]

And he also teaches that :

  For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin. [II Corinthians 5:21 KJV.]

Jesus said :

  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up. [John 3:14 KJV.]

Sin entered the world and when sin is judged, the judgment focuses, first, on the origin of sin. A spirit other than God was the Tempter who was, originally, responsible. Then, also, the woman was deceived by the spirit who behaved in a serpentine manner. Then, further, the man transgressed, influenced by the woman.

In the wilderness, the plague (of death) was only stayed when the serpent of brass (a figure of judgment) was raised up by Moses on  a 'pole', Numbers 21:9, or as an ensign (see the Hebrew meaning of 'pole' Strong 5251).

Likewise was the Son of man lifted up, whereupon he was made sin (here, the Greek word for 'made' covers both 'do' and 'make' and can be also translated 'effected' or 'caused', see Strong 4160).

In judgment, Jesus Christ, the Son of God - in manhood - was effectively caused to be sin - sin was contained within him. And with sin contained within him, he died. Thus was sin eradicated : in him, through death.

As Paul teaches :

  Our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed. [Romans 6:6 KJV].

This is received by faith, as the question states - 'the faith of the believer'.

In the same passage in which he mentions the serpent in the wilderness, Jesus makes this clear, that faith is the way of salvation :

  Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [John 3:16 KJV.]

Jesus Christ - he without whom nothing was made that was made (John 1:3) - is he who took responsibility for the entering of sin into the world, receiving effectively in himself - in a clean humanity - the spiritual consequences of sin's entry into the world, in order that the world, through him, might be saved.

  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. [John 3:17 KJV.]


Is the Holy Spirit offered worship at any instance? This question is similar to this one except that its on Holy Spirit:
All the references where Jesus is offered worship

Is there any reference in the Bible where the Holy Spirit is offered worship?

I do not think there is a reference in the Bible to worshipping the Spirit specifically and I can only think of one reference where worshipping the Father  is specifically mentioned (John 4:21). Almost all references simply mean worshipping the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as they are one.

Yet we can know that each person of the Trinity has a distinct operation in the relation to the other persons. When the Bible refers to ‘God’ in general, then no particular person of the trinity is being identified.  Almost all references to worship in the Bible are not specific to any particular person in the trinity, therefore by definition all three persons are being worshipped in almost every case.

However when any special impression is made of the special property of any person in the words of our worship; then the worship is drawing attention to that work as assigned peculiarly to that person.   For example when the Palms or other songs of worship are sung it the words refer to the original will behind the creation, we might be said to be worshipping the Father.  If mention is made of Gods powerful word in the creation, it could be said we are worshipping the Son.  If we mentioned the perfection and finished works of creation itself we could be said to be worshipping the Spirit.


Do people go to heaven immediately when they die? When someone passes away, at their funeral the priest will usually say something that gives the idea that the deceased is in heaven. And a lot of people also like to give the idea that people who die are with Jesus Christ. For instance, say someone close to you passed away, chances are you've said something that gives the idea that the person is in heaven, such as, "I know you are in a better place, near Jesus Christ."

The reason I ask this question is that the when people die, I know that they go to the world of the dead till the day that Jesus Christ will return. But if people are already in heaven this means that there really isn't much reason for Jesus Christ to return, because all those that believe in Him are already in heaven.

If Jesus Christ will return and all those that have faith in Him will be raised and be priests with Him for a thousand years, why make it seem as if the deceased are already in heaven? If someone dies and goes to heaven before the Last Judgement, what need is there for him to be judged at the final judgement? Hasn't he already been judged righteous if he is in heaven?

That death and "sleeping," are often conflated in Scripture is perhaps a useful metaphor here. Notice how, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul likens those who have died to those who have "fallen asleep in Christ."

  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. 20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

This is a useful metaphor, for when a normal person falls asleep, they are unaware of the passage of time.  Whether or not there is a time lag between dying and being raised back up is, in fact, irrelevant.

The person who has died is unaware of the passage of time.  For that person, whether Christ tarries a thousand years or only minutes, is, to the dead, indistinguishable.  There is no sensation between now and then, so it doesn't really matter.
To the person who is still alive, there is no communication in any event, so that the precise location of the soul is not important.  We thus do not "mourn as the Gentiles do," but rather we have a hope and a peace that passes understanding - because we know that at the end of our temporal existence, we will be reunited with our loved ones.  Once we die, sensation ceases for us as well - and at that point, eternity begins.
To God, who is outside of time, time and space are irrelevant.  All things occur at once.

The next communication we have with our loved ones will, in fact, be in heaven - so in a sense to say they "are in heaven" - which may or may not, at that exact moment, be temporally accurate or not - is not really the question being addressed.  That our next moment of contact will be in heaven is the point, and on that point, if it is not true, then everything else is vain any way.

In any event, the focus is that at some point, the promise of the Christian life is the hope that we will be resurrected - that we will be "awoken" is beyond doubt - and when we are, oh what a day of rejoicing that will be!

  50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

Put another, the current chronology is irrelevant.  The end state is the same - we will all, at some point, in an instant, be together in heaven with Christ.


What is the First Death? Revelation 20 (NIRV)

  4 I saw thrones. Those who had been given authority to judge were
  sitting on them. I also saw the souls of those whose heads had been
  cut off because they had given witness for Jesus and because of God’s
  word. They had not worshiped the beast or his statue. They had not
  received his mark on their foreheads or hands. They came to life and
  ruled with Christ for 1,000 years.
  5 This is the first resurrection. The rest of the dead did not come to
  life until the 1,000 years were ended. 6 Blessed and holy are those who take part in the first resurrection.
  The second death has no power over them. They will be priests of God
  and of Christ. They will rule with him for 1,000 years.

  14 Then Death and Hell were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of
  fire is the second death.
  15 Anyone whose name was not written in the Book of Life was thrown
  into the lake of fire.

  John 5:28-29 (NIRV)

  “Do not be amazed at this. A time is coming when all who are in the
  grave will hear his voice. They will all come out of their graves.
  Those who have done good will rise and live again. Those who have done
  evil will rise and be found guilty.

  Daniel 12:2 (NIV)

  Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to
  everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

It is clear enough from the above verses that we will all be resurrected one day. Those who believe in Jesus will be resurrected first, which is called the first resurrection and after 1000 years, the rest will be resurrected again, which obviously is the second resurrection. Hence,

First Resurrection =  Resurrection of the just
Second Resurrection = Resurrection of the damned(1000 years after the First Resurrection)

Again, here we see a "Second Death", which is the Lake of Fire. Those who believe in Jesus will have their names written in the Book of Life and will take part in the First Resurrection and they will not face the Second Death. The unbelievers will be be thrown into the Lake of Fire, which is the Second Death.

If there is a "Second Death", it implies that there is also the "First Death". However, I can't find any information about the First Death in the Bible. Here are some possibilities that I suggests,

Physical death, returning to dust.
Original sin.
Living in sin
Separation from God

What is the First Death?

I'm sure that there are people who think otherwise, but you didn't specify a perspective,so I'm going to go by answering it from what is the most common understanding in my personal experience.  By that I mean not my own personal opinion, but rather the understanding that every sermon I've heard, or every exposition I've read seems to think.

With that qualifier out of the way, I believe that the most common understanding is that it refers to the physical death of the body.

In context it makes sense, since we're looking at a passage talking about the judgment of the resurrected, which implies that they suffered physical death already.

For an external source, I'll use this post form  Moments With The Book

  The First Death

  Let's notice a few facts about the first death. Every person has a
  body, a soul, and a spirit. "And the very God of peace sanctify you
  wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be
  preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1
  Thessalonians 5:23). The human spirit is that God-conscious part of a
  person that distinguishes him from the animals. It includes both
  knowledge and judgment (Mark 8:12; 1 Corinthians 2:11). The soul is
  that part of a person that is the home of the affections—right or
  wrong—of love, hate, lusts and even of the appetites of the body (Job
  23:13; 1 Peter 2:11). The body is the earthly house in which the
  spirit and soul dwell. At death a person's immortal (never-dying)
  spirit and soul leave the mortal (subject to death) body. This is the
  first death, or physical death.

  A believer's spirit and soul go immediately into a place of blessing
  at the time of death. This is evident in the well-known account of the
  thief on the cross. This repentant thief owned that he was getting
  what he deserved, and confessed Jesus as Lord, believing God would
  raise Him from the dead: "Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy
  kingdom." The wonderful answer from the Lord Jesus was, "Verily I say
  unto thee, today shalt thou be with Me in paradise" (Luke 23:39-43).
  This blessed truth of the believer being with the Lord Jesus
  immediately after death is also repeated in 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 and
  Philippians 1:23.

  It is especially comforting to the Christian to see that the Lord
  Jesus did not refer to the death of the believer as death. The Bible
  speaks of it as the body falling asleep (see John 11:11-14 and 1
  Thessalonians 4:13-18). Death is the penalty of sin. The believer in
  the Lord Jesus does not come under the penalty of sin because the Lord
  Jesus took that penalty when He died on Calvary's cross.

  An unbeliever's spirit and soul go immediately into a place of torment
  at the time of death. The Lord Jesus tells us of this awful torment in
  His account of the rich man and Lazarus (read Luke 16:19-31). "And in
  hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar
  off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham,
  have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his
  finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame"
  (verses 23,24). The rich man was in torments, not because he was rich,
  but because he had not believed God's Word. People may disregard this
  account, but it came from the lips of the One who suffered sin's agony
  and torment on Calvary's cross so that no one ever would need to
  experience this awful judgment.

Also, this article from the Forerunner Commentary goes into great detail about the various meanings of death,and agrees with the above.

  We must always remember that our Creator, the Master Craftsman who
  made everything of the highest quality (Genesis 1:4-31), built death
  into man's design. He did this for good reasons. Surprisingly, there
  really are good and positive purposes behind both the "first death"
  and the "second death" (Revelation 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8). The first
  death is the one with which every person is familiar—the one everyone
  must face. This death terminates the physical life of every human
  being who lives during the 6,000 years allotted to man.

I could find immeasurable other supporting references, but I'll stop there.

I'm not saying it couldn't be any of those other things, but I've yet to run across another interpretation so my final answer is that the most common understanding seems to believe it means physical death.


What is the evidence that someone is filled with the Holy Spirit? There seems to be a distinction between being filled with the Holy Spirit and being indwelt with the Holy Spirit.  The book of Acts mentions the filling of the Holy Spirit several times.

What specifically is the evidence that someone is filled with the Holy Spirit?  Is there always evidence that can be observed by others or can the filling be indistinguishable sometimes?

Various traditions have different answers on this.  There's no consensus. (That may be your answer.  The rest may be irrelevant.)

Greg Bala has already addressed the Catholic view.  Here are some Protestant ones, ranging from extreme Pentecostal to conservative Christian.  None of these are universal.  Some groups believe some of them, others think that some of the beliefs are insane, pure guff, or just wrong.  I'm not saying which is which, just listing them out.

Ability to pick up deadly serpents, not get bitten, and be immune to their poison if they do bit you
Being overtaken with Holy Laughter
Prophecy
Growling, dancing, shaking, barking like dogs, and even some even being stuck in positions of paralysis.
Speaking in tongues

On the less Charismatic end of the spectrum...

Possessing the fruits of the Spirit - a combination of Matthew 7:16 and Galatians 5:16-25.  Many non-Charismatic protestants see these fruits as evidences that we are filled with the Spirit.

  Matthew 7:16 (KJV) Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

  Galatians 5:16-25 (KJV) 16This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17For the flesh lusteth
  against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are
  contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye
  would. 18But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
  19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery,
  fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft,
  hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
  21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the
  which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that
  they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But
  the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
  gentleness, goodness, faith, 23Meekness, temperance: against such
  there is no law. 24And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh
  with the affections and lusts.

  25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26Let us
  not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one
  another.


How are Lutheran weekday “prayer services” different from “matins” or “vespers”? From Wikipedia, matins:

  Lutherans preserve recognizably traditional matins distinct from
  morning prayer, but "matins" is sometimes used in other Protestant
  denominations to describe any morning service.

Assuming that the claim is true, what makes "morning prayer service" in the Lutheran church distinctly different from the matins? Perhaps, the matins has a particular structured order and is a specific form of the "morning prayer service"?

Matins and Vespers are prayer services prescribed for the morning and evening respectively, and the terms generally refer to services with particular orders of worship laid down in various hymnals used by the Lutheran denominations.  However, while "matins" is an order of worship established for use in the morning, there are some congregations, and some times, when a morning prayer service might not use the order prescribed for worship, and other times when the service might, indeed, use that formulary, but for some reason might choose the name "morning prayer" rather than "matins".

In a Lutheran Church, I would expect a morning prayer service, though, would normally, though not exclusively use the order for matins.


What is the biblical basis of the "goats are evil" trope? Having spent some time cuddling and playing with goats, which are delightful creatures, I have to ask:

What is the biblical basis of the association, common even among Christians, of goats with Satan and the occult?

Examples:

Baphomet - Wikipedia

The Witch: A New-England Folktale - 2015 horror film

The Overall Significance of Goats in the Bible

Goats in the Bible generally have a good significance. They were among the clean animals that could be eaten (see Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14:3-21), and they were commonly used in sacrifices (see, for example, Leviticus 1:1-2, 10). Goat's hair was spun to make cloth for use in the Tabernacle (see Exodus 35:4-29).

The negative significance of goats comes mostly from their being made into idols and worshiped as gods in pagan religions. This is reflected within the Bible itself in a prohibition against offering sacrifices to such idols. For example:

  The priest shall dash the blood against the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting, and turn the fat into smoke as a pleasing odor to the Lord, so that they may no longer offer their sacrifices for goat-demons, to whom they prostitute themselves. This shall be a statute forever to them throughout their generations. (Leviticus 17:6-7, NRSV)

The Hebrew word here translated "goat-demon" is שָׂעִיר (sa`iyr), "he-goat, wood demon, satyr." Goats worshiped as idols in pagan religion is the most likely source of the Baphomet imagery linked in the question.

However, there are also three Bible stories within the Judaeo-Christian tradition itself that have been drawn on, rightly or wrongly, in lore connecting goats with evil and the Devil.

Leviticus 16: The Scapegoat

Leviticus 16 contains instructions for the rituals that the Israelites were to observe each year on the Day of Atonement. A key part of that observance was the ritual of Azazel, traditionally translated "scapegoat":

  Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house. He shall take the two goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the tent of meeting; and Aaron shall cast lots on the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord, and offer it as a sin offering; but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel. (Leviticus 16:6-10)

In the Hebrew Bible, the word עֲזָאזֵל (`aza'zel) occurs only in these three verses plus verse 26 in the same chapter. As covered in the linked definition, its exact meaning and origin has been a matter of some dispute.

Azazel, or the scapegoat, had a positive function in Israelite worship, in that it symbolically carried away the sins of the people on the Day of Atonement. However, because of its association with sin, in ancient lore it was also sometimes associated with evil and the Devil. For example, in the book of Enoch in the Apocrypha, Azazel is the name of a fallen angel.

This function of the goat as "Azazel," or "the scapegoat" is one source in the Bible for the association of goats with evil.

Daniel 8: The Ram and the Goat

Daniel 8 contains a vision of two great beasts: a ram and a male goat. In the chapter itself, the ram, the goat, and their various horns as described in the vision are identified with the kings of various kingdoms. The male goat, in particular, is associated with Greece and its kings. The final horn that grew on the forehead of the male goat in the vision is described in this way:

  Out of one of them came another horn, a little one, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the beautiful land. It grew as high as the host of heaven. It threw down to the earth some of the host and some of the stars, and trampled on them. Even against the prince of the host it acted arrogantly; it took the regular burnt offering away from him and overthrew the place of his sanctuary. Because of wickedness, the host was given over to it together with the regular burnt offering; it cast truth to the ground, and kept prospering in what it did. Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to the one that spoke, “For how long is this vision concerning the regular burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled?” And he answered him, “For two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.” (Daniel 8:9-14)

This prophetic vision, and its interpretation later in the same chapter, is another source in the Bible for the association of goats with evil and the Devil.

Matthew 25:31-46: The Sheep and the Goats

Moving to the New Testament, in Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus speaks of the judgment of the nations using the imagery of sheep and goats:

  When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. (Matthew 25:31-33)

The king then praises the sheep for doing good deeds for him by doing them for "the least of his brothers and sisters" (verse 40), and condemns the goats for failing to do good deeds for him by failing to do them for "the least of these" (verse 45). And he concludes:

  Then they [the goats] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous [the sheep] to eternal life. (Matthew 25:46)

Because Jesus here uses goats as symbols of evil people who fail to do good deeds for God and the neighbor, in Christianity goats have also commonly been associated with evil and the Devil.

Summary

Although goats generally have a positive meaning in the Bible, there are a few stories in the Bible and in related extra-biblical literature that provide a basis for the common association of goats with evil and the Devil.


Do any Protestants teach that everyone really knows God according to Romans 1:21? For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
  (Romans 1:21, English Standard Version, ESV, Emphasis mine)

Are there Protestant denominations that teach that everyone knows God to some extent or do they teach that Paul is referring to Jews or Christians only?

Yes, many Christian's do teach this verse. Because it is in the Bible. One example of a such a teaching i will include as a link. It is a sermon by Pastor John MacArthur ( A well known protestant teacher).

https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/45-11/reasons-for-the-wrath-of-god-part-2

This verse is often taught in the sense that everyone has an inner knowledge that there is A GOD. Not that everyone personally "knows God", in the sense which we can come to know the Lord Jesus Christ.

An example can be seen when we think of mankind's natural instinct to create and worship Gods. Even though men usually come up with the wrong idea about God (idolatry). This can be seen clearly in Pauls encounter with the Athenians. (Acts 17:22-31 included) (maybe someone can edit this and help me format the bible quote. I have forgotten how to do new lines.)

    22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the [i]Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
    TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
    Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.
     25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one [j]blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

In light of this portion of Romans, Paul is also teaching that the rejection or this inner knowledge of God, is enough that every man will be held accountable when God judges the world, with no one being able to say "But i didn't know there was a God!"

Hope this is a helpful introduction to a very interesting portion of scripture!


To what degree does the Church of England consider the Genesis creation account to be metaphoric? Does the Church of England generally consider the Genesis creation account (first couple of chapters) more metaphor than literal history?

The Church of England has not taken a stand on the simplified 'creation versus evolution' debate. Many people investigating this have reported being unable to find a clear positional statement from the CofE, and there are quotes from church leaders stating that they believe there is no official position. This is an example. The church has made pronouncements stating that a belief in evolution is compatible with Christian faith, but that does not mean that those who believe in a literal creation are excluded from the church.

From personal experience, members of the CofE, both laity and clergy, take a wide variety of positions on the matter. The recent Archbishop of Canterbury has stated his personal acceptance of evolution, but does not see the Genesis creation stories in opposition to that.

So to answer the direct question, the Church of England makes no definitive pronouncement on how much of Genesis is 'metaphorical', but the general position of most of its leaders is that at least the timeline of the first three chapters should not be taken as literal history.


Where, if anywhere, is it explicitly stated that the Church may borrow and adapt heathen feasts? I think I remember having read some official document of the Catholic Church (maybe even of Vatican II) explicitly stating that the Church, while establishing the Faith in a heathen area or culture, does not always need to fight the existing heathen rituals and feasts; rather, in certain cases, it may borrow and adapt these feasts, leaving many rituals but making them compatible with the Christian theology.

Now it is not my intention to discuss this particular holiday, but just to make clear what I mean: I’ve heard people claiming that in this very fashion the Christian feast of Christmas was established, drawing its origins from the heathen feast of the Sun. (I’ve also seen people debunking this theory, though).

Do I remember correctly that such a statement has been made in official documents of the Church? If so, where can it be found?

Yes, a letter from Pope Gregory I to the Abbot Melitus was recorded by the venerable Bede in Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation, Book I, chapter XXX.

In his letter of instruction regarding the conversion of England, Gregory said:

  To his most beloved son, the Abbot Mellitus; Gregory, the servant of the servants of God. We have been much concerned, since the departure of our congregation that is with you, because we have received no account of the success of your journey. When, therefore, Almighty God shall bring you to the most reverend Bishop Augustine, our brother, tell him what I have, upon mature deliberation on the affair of the English, determined upon, viz., that the temples of the idols in that nation ought not to be destroyed; but let the idols that are in them be destroyed; let holy water be made and sprinkled in the said temples, let altars be erected, and relics placed. For if those temples are well built, it is requisite that they be converted from the worship of devils to the service of the true God; that the nation, seeing that their temples are not destroyed, may remove error from their hearts, and knowing and adoring the true God, may the more familiarly resort to the places to which they have been accustomed. And because they have been used to slaughter many oxen in the sacrifices to devils, some solemnity must be exchanged for them on this account, as that on the day of the dedication, or the nativities of the holy martyrs, whose relics are there deposited, they may build themselves huts of the boughs of trees, about those churches which have been turned to that use from temples, and celebrate the solemnity with religious feasting, and no more offer beasts to the Devil, but kill cattle to the praise of God in their eating, and return thanks to the Giver of all things for their sustenance; to the end that, whilst some gratifications are outwardly permitted them, they may the more easily consent to the inward consolations of the grace of God. For there is no doubt that it is impossible to efface everything at once from their obdurate minds; because he who endeavours to ascend to the highest place, rises by degrees or steps, and not by leaps. Thus the Lord made Himself known to the people of Israel in Egypt; and yet He allowed them the use of the sacrifices which they were wont to offer to the Devil, in his own worship; so as to command them in his sacrifice to kill beasts, to the end that, changing their hearts, they might lay aside one part of the sacrifice, whilst they retained another; that whilst they offered the same beasts which they were wont to offer, they should offer them to God, and not to idols; and thus they would no longer be the same sacrifices. This it behooves your affection to communicate to our aforesaid brother, that he, being there present, may consider how he is to order all things. God preserve you in safety, most beloved son.

  Given the 17th of June, in the nineteenth year of the reign of our lord, the most pious emperor, Mauritius Tiberius, the eighteenth year after the consulship of our said lord. The fourth indiction."

Over the centuries, many pagan pagan festivities are said to have been incorporated in Christianity, although generally not in response to explicit, written papal instruction or approval. The redefinition of the birth of the sun god as the birthday of Jesus took place in the late fourth century, at a time when the Roman emperor was regarded as Pontifex Maximus, with final authority on religious matters.


What is a spirit attachment? This is a multi-part question.

what is a Spirit Attachment?

For those that believe in it:

what is it,
how does it work,
how does one protect ones self from it?

Spirit attachments would be spirits that attach themselves to a human life.  This was evidently more common or at least more identifiable during Jesus incarnation as reflected in the following gospel accounts:

  Matthew 8:16 When evening had come, they brought to Him many who were demon-possessed. And He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick

  Matthew 10:1 And when He had called His twelve disciples to Him, He gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease.

  Mark 3:11 And the unclean spirits, whenever they saw Him, fell down before Him and cried out, saying, “You are the Son of God.”

The following scripture provides insight into so called “spirit attachment” and how they work.

  Matthew 12:43-45  “When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. “Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. “Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation.”

  Mark 5:13 And at once Jesus gave them permission. Then the unclean spirits went out and entered the swine (there were about two thousand); and the herd ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and drowned in the sea.

  Luke 8:2 and certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities—Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons

Notice these spirits seek residence or a host; evidently their wills can be exerted upon God’s creation more easily through a host.  Hosts are anything from Mary Magdalene to swine.

Biblical behavioral modification comes through authority; Christ has supreme authority within this realm and His authority can be extended to His disciples.
Predominantly spirit manifestations are identifiable through the host’s behavior, but there are indications within the above verses that physical infirmities can also exist.

Since the abolition of superstition few attempt to reconcile the influence or even the viability of spiritual influences within our daily life.  Certainly Paul was not unaware of spiritual activity as proven in his Ephesians 6:11-13 warning:

  Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

Today, Christians have to negotiate between “realities”.  Christians believe in a “spirit” reality and that the “spirit reality” impacts our daily lives.  To deny this is to deny that the Holy Spirit is real and capable of influencing our daily lives toward God’s will.  Modern Christians also have the benefit of understanding neurological and circumstantial behavioral influences as well.  Faith, hope, peace and joy are real human encounters that generally cannot be dismissed through empirical observation.  Love of course is the most difficult reality to understand merely from this physical perspective.
The whole armor of God consists of: the shield of faith, which is always employed in the love of God.  When we trust God’s love the enemy of God stands condemned, for that is exactly what He failed to do.  We are to put on the helmet of salvation and carry the sword of the Spirit, which is Christ, made manifest.  This is revealed in the early verses of John, “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was God…all things that have been created were created by Him…and the World became flesh and dwelt amongst us…
The waist must be girded by “truth” upon which the breastplate of righteousness rests.  Our feet should be prepared to bring the gospel of peace.

Finally in Ephesians 6:1

  praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints


What is the Order of Special Full-Time Servants? The Order of Special Full-Time Servants appears to be a religious order of Jehovah's Witnesses. What is a religious order in the context of Witness theology? Is it theologically  meaningful at all? To what purpose do people join this order? When do they leave? (Do they leave?) How does the whole thing work?

The different types of full time servants among Jehovah's Witnesses are:

Regular pioneers usually spend 70 hours a month in the field ministry. Some serve in a congregation where the need is greater.

Special pioneers usually spend 130 hours a month in the field ministry. They are often assigned to a congregation where the need is greater.

Circuit overseers visit congregations to help them improve in their ministry and encourage them in other ways.

Bethel family members serve in a branch office or a translation office. They help provide literature and direction for the ministry in the territory that is supervised by the branch.

Missionaries are usually assigned to serve in another country. Many missionaries spend 130 hours a month in the field ministry

International servants and volunteers go to various countries to assist with the construction of branch offices, remote translation offices, Assembly Halls, and Kingdom Halls.

Kingdom Hall construction servants are trained to build Kingdom Halls and assist with other construction projects in their own country.

For additional information  see the following article from the September 2014 Watchtower:
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/ws201409/remember-those-in-full-time-service/#link0

As for the specific title of your question there is indeed a group  called the Worldwide  Order of Special Full Time Servants. According to the April 2017 Watchtower:

  Currently, there are some 67,000 members of the Worldwide Order of Special Full-Time Servants of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some perform Bethel service, others engage in construction or in circuit work, serve as field instructors or special pioneers or missionaries or as Assembly Hall or Bible school facility servants. They are all bound by a “Vow of Obedience and Poverty,” with which they agree to do whatever is assigned to them in the advancement of Kingdom interests, to live a simple lifestyle, and to abstain from secular employment without permission. It is not the people but their assignments that are viewed as special. They realize the seriousness of humbly living up to their solemn vow for as long as they remain in special full-time service.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017365?q=special+order+of+full-time&p=par


When 1 Timothy cautions against "endless geneologies", is it talking about the Bible? It seems that at the time that 1 Timothy was written, "certain people" had become much too interested in genealogies:

  1 Timothy 1:3-4
  3 I repeat the request I made of you when I was on my way to Macedonia, that you stay in Ephesus to instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines
  4 or to concern themselves with myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the plan of God that is to be received by faith.
  5 The aim of this instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith.
  6 Some people have deviated from these and turned to meaningless talk,
  7 wanting to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.

Other passages in the Bible, such as Genesis 10,
Genesis 5, and Matthew 1, list various geneologies. These hardly seem to qualify as "endless", unless one has a very short attention span. So what exactly is 1 Timothy talking about? I would guess, especially based on the context, that "certain people" were more or less fabricating geneologies about biblical figures, but on what basis? And is this a prohibition against being interested in any genealogies, or is it referring to a specific sort of interest? Most importantly, is it a prohibition against reading and being interested in the geneological parts of the Bible itself, provided that one remains interested in only what is said therin?

The focus of this invective isn't so much on the genealogies themselves as it is the way in which people use them to puff them themselves up.  Even barring earthly lineages, the poor of the church of Corinth managed to put themselves into faction. In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul writes:

Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.  3You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? 4For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?
5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.

Notice Paul's focus here - he is concerned that his church isn't "growing up." When the focus is on where one comes from, the focus necessarily is moved off of what one has become.
Note also in the text you quote, that the problem with 'myths and genealogies' is that they lead simply to 'endless speculation.' Put another way, Paul is admonishing believers to stick to the actual teaching, rather than indulging in the desire to read as much into a text as is desired.  The genealogies in Scripture are there for a reason - they place Scripture in a particular time and place, and show that God is no respecter of persons. (Abraham, in Genesis 11, is just another guy in another line).  When people dwell on these things, however, they are looking for themselves - puffing themselves up - and that is not the point.


When was Sunday first called the Sabbath? I am looking for the first extant record of Sunday being referred to specifically as the "Sabbath" or "Christian Sabbath"

I am not asking which day the early church gathered.

I am not asking which day is the Christian Sabbath.

I am not looking for evidence of the transfer of observance or meaning of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday, but for evidence of the transfer of title or label of "Sabbath" to Sunday.

I am asking for the first record of Sunday being labeled the Christian equivalent of the Jewish Sabbath.

Context of my question:

It is quite evident to me that in many early church writings that the idea of the Jewish Sabbath is actually rejected. Sunday was certainly a common day of gathering and to the Jewish believers the seventh day would still have possibly been thought of as the Sabbath day. But from Justin Martyr through the Council of Laodicea a Judaizing celebration of any Sabbath is discouraged and the true Sabbath is not any singular day, but as a status in Christ and an attitude of repentance and rest in Him.

I understand many may even disagree with the above statements, but I tell you this so you can understand what kind of statement I am looking for and the question can be answered regardless. At some point in Christian theology someone labeled Sunday not just a day to gather or even a day to rest and enjoy a Sabbath, but someone labeled it as the Christian Sabbath. A true shift of the same Sabbath from the Jewish seventh day to a Christian first day.

Also many may agree with me, even to the point that the idea of Sunday Sabbath seems foreign or wrong. This question remains agnostic on which is right and on what the source may have truly meant.

Finding the earliest record would certainly impact answers to related questions, but all that is outside the bounds of this question.

When is Sunday first recorded as being labeled the Sabbath? Not just a day of rest or gathering or worship.

Contemporary examples

From About Christianity website:

  Today, many Christian traditions believe Sunday is the Christian Sabbath day.

Westminster Confession Chapter 21 Article 7:

  He has particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him:[34] which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week: and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week,[35] which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day,[36] and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath.[37]

A lengthily titled treatise on the Sabbath by John Owen says:

  And for a holy day of rest, ...he determined the observation of the first day of the week;
  ...
  Now, as God’s rest, and his being refreshed in his work, on the seventh day of old, ... so the rest of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his being refreshed in and from his works, on the first day, is a sufficient indication of the precise day of rest to be observed under the dispensation of the new covenant, now confirmed and established (pp. 409-410).

I'm not entirely sure that is how Owen meant it but that is how that part alone could be understood (the treatise is quite long, the above link is a summary with quotations). So perhaps this is a "missing link" of sorts in the direction of the earlier quotes.

The first writer to clearly make this connection appears to be Petrus Alphonsi in the 12th century.  This is argued by 17th century historian Peter Heylyn, who writes:

  The first who ever used [the word Sabbath], to denote the Lords day, (the first that I have met with in all this search) is one Petrus Alfonsus, he lived about the times that Rupertus did; who calls the Lords day by the name of the Christian Sabbath. (The History of the Sabbath, II, 158)

Heylyn is not controverted by more recent authors, such as James Augustus Hessy  (Sunday, 119), nor Kenneth Parker (The English Sabbath, 19).  Heylyn quotes Alfonsi's Latin text, Dialogi contra Iudaeos, which does not seem to be available online in full.  But the key sentence is:

  Dies Dominica, dies, viz. resurrectionis, quae suae salvationis causa exstitit, Christianorum Sabbatum est.

Translated:

  The Lord's day, that is, the day of resurrection, which happened for the sake of their salvation, is the Christians' Sabbath.

Technically the translation of the last phrase as "the Christian Sabbath" is not possible; Christianorum is genitive (indicating posession) and not an adjective.  But "the Christians' Sabbath" is so similar that Heylyn considered the phrases essentially equivalent, and we might as well.

Granted, Haylyn is quick to argue that Alfonsi's phrase was meant only analogically, in the sense that Easter is the Christian Passover.  But Kenneth Parker relates several other pre-Reformation authors who connected the Sabbath and Sunday (though not with the phrase "Christian Sabbath"), such as a 6th century homilist (18), the author of Dives and Pauper, and Archbishop Arundal (21).

These last comments serve only to provide a bit of context – the first use of a phrase like that requested comes from the 12th century, in the writings of Petrus Alphonsi.


Christ 'made' sin - the Reformed, Protestant view? Following on from both of the two recent questions regarding the inheritance or transmission of 'original' or 'inbred' sin, from generation to generation, I am interested in the Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed view of how this sin is dealt with in the righteousness of God, in Christ.

For he hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. [2 Corinthians 5:21 KJV (italics removed)]

I am aware that, on what, for the moment, I may call 'the fringes' of Reformed Protestantism (this is anecdotal, I cannot link) there is a view that this was a 'creative act of God'. They say he 'created' sin within Christ during crucifixion when Jesus offered himself as the Sin-bearer.
This has significant implications, not the least of which is the fact that such a 'creative act' seems not to actually involve the sin of the world since it is the 'creation' of 'new' sin.

Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. [John 1:29, KJV]

The verb used in the original is ποιέω (poieo) Strong 4160 which has a very broad spectrum of concept covering both of our English words 'make' and 'do'. It can be viewed, in its entire spectrum of meaning and usage, as 'effect' or 'effectively cause'.
Thus God 'effected' sin in Christ at Golgotha. My understanding of this is that he, as God Almighty, saw it to be so. He viewed the sin of the world as being within the Christ. Thus, in the view of the Judge of all the world, it was contained : contained within Christ's humanity as he suffered.
Thus when Jesus Christ died, sin was removed within himself, within his own humanity.
Effectively, sin was destroyed in him, when he died, and was righteously removed  from the world, as to the liability of its having been introduced.

... our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed [Romans 6:6, KJV]

Is this (the effective causing of sin) the understanding of the generality of the Trinitarian, Protestant, Reformed view?
Or is what I have experienced, on the 'fringes' (the 'creation' of sin), the general view?
Or is there another, generally held view altogether (among Trinitarian, Reformed, Protestantism) which I have not, here, covered?

EDIT NOTE : I have deliberately removed the italics from the KJV quote of 2 Corinthians 5:21 - 'to be' [sic] as they are not in the Greek text and they change the meaning. 'Made' sin and 'made' to be sin are two different things conceptually. There is no copular verb in the text in that place, in the TR.

It is true that very often Harmartia is used to mean sin or offence in the new testament.  It could be exactly what Paul means in 2 Corinthians 5:21 as well, even though this has caused no small difficulty in understanding down through the centuries for individuals as much as for entire theologies.  There are so many references to Jesus taking away sin, suffering for our sin, condemning sin in the flesh, etc.  To my knowledge this is the only place that looks like it is being said that God made Jesus to BE sin and just that alone should raise some eyebrows...and it has!
But there is another possibility that so nicely harmonizes with the rest of scriptural revelation that it is hard to ignore.  In the Septuagint in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers the Greek harmartia is used over 90 times where the Hebrew text has 'sin offering'.  Since the Septuagint was written 250 years prior to Christ it is entirely possible that the Corinthians were familiar with it.  After all, Paul would usually go first to the synagogue with the gospel and there were certainly Greek speaking Jews in Corinth.  Often, when the New Testament refers back to the Old, it pulls from the Septuagint and this could easily be one of those times.  If so then Paul is saying that "God made him, who knew no sin, to be a sin offering for us" and this takes away all the theological angst.  Below is a part of Adam Clarke's commentary:

For he hath made him to be sin for us - Τον μη γνοντα ἁμαρτιαν, ὑπερ ἡμων ἁμαρτιαν εποιησεν· He made him who knew no sin, (who was innocent), a sin-offering for us. The word ἁμαρτια occurs here twice: in the first place it means sin, i.e. transgression and guilt; and of Christ it is said, He knew no sin, i.e. was innocent; for not to know sin is the same as to be conscious of innocence; so, nil conscire sibi, to be conscious of nothing against one's self, is the same as nulla pallescere culpa, to be unimpeachable.
In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the חטאה chattaah and חטאת chattath of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint translate the Hebrew word by ἁμαρτια in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant; and where our version translates the word not sin, but an offering for sin. Had our translators attended to their own method of translating the word in other places where it means the same as here, they would not have given this false view of a passage which has been made the foundation of a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own.

Also from the Benson Commentary:

For he made him, who knew no sin — A commendation peculiar to Christ; to be sin — Or a sin-offering rather, (as the expression often signifies both in the Old Testament and the New;) for us — Who knew no righteousness, who were inwardly and outwardly nothing but sin, and who must have been consumed by the divine justice, had not this atonement been made for our sins; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him — Might be accounted and constituted righteous by God, or might be invested with that righteousness; 1st, imputed to us; 2d, implanted in us; and, 3d, practised by us; which is, in every sense, the righteousness of God by faith. See note on Romans 10:4; Php 3:9.

Barnes' Notes On the Bible:

For he hath made him to be sin for us - The Greek here is, 'for him who knew no sin, he hath made sin, or a sin-offering for us.' The design of this very important verse is, to urge the strongest possible reason for being reconciled to God...To be sin - The words 'to be' are not in the original. Literally, it is, 'he has made him sin, or a sin-offering' ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν hamartian epoiēsen

Matthew Poole's Commentary:

Our sins were reckoned to him; so as though personally he was no sinner, yet by imputation he was, and God dealt with him as such; for he was made a sacrifice for our sins, a sin offering; so answering the type in the law,


Is secularizing Christian symbols blasphemy? I'd like an orthodox Catholic answer to this question, but any thoughtful well referenced one will suffice. (I know C.S. Lewis wrote on the subject).

My kids are asking me to see The Rise of the Guardians because their Cheerios were advertising it with free books. I read one of the books, about the Tooth Fairy, but it had Siberian Santa and the Macho Easter Bunny in it.  And I love these guys, as saints and symbols that clearly point to Christ. But does the Catholic Church hold repurposing Christian symbols as secular heroes and guardians part of the heresy of Secularism or just a reversion to the paganism that secular historians hold were their source in the first place?

And, if it is part of a heresy, and the heresy is defined somewhere (like Belloc's the Great Heresies or a papal encyclical) with all if its ramifications, where can I read more about it?

2Pe 2:1  But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

  Strong's Greek heresies

  G139

  αἵρεσις

  hairesis

  hah'ee-res-is

  From G138; properly a choice, that is, (specifically) a party or (abstractly) disunion. (“heresy” is the Greek word itself.): - heresy [which is the Greekord itself], sect.

  Tit 3:10  A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
  Tit 3:11  Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

  Strong's Greek heretic

  G139

  αἵρεσις

  hairesis

  hah'ee-res-is

  From G138; properly a choice, that is, (specifically) a party or (abstractly) disunion.
  (“heresy” is the Greek word itself.): - heresy [which is the Greekord itself], sect.

Magical creatures would not be a heresy with any relation to the Christian faith as described in the Bible by a Bible Literalist. The creatures and beings never held any union with Christianity to disunion. A heretic according to the greek and bible context is someone who split off into a separate group and refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of other groups or receive correction by people they should be associated with. Heresy eventually leads to denying the Lord Jesus Christ Himself but not all things which deny Christ are heresy.

  Mat 13:44  Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

  2Co 6:15  And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
  2Co 6:16  And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
  2Co 6:17  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

  Luk 11:20  But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

Jesus very frequently used parables to tell stories however you notice that in every parable the power of God is absent. He does not make stories up about God using his power in any other way than through His ministry and the ministry of the prophets. Always his stories are relating some common principle and doctrine of the word. Jesus never describes God's power as a magic trick nor does he relate the majesty of His excellency in any other way than reverence. He never compares the devil and the Father in some kind of tug of war. He describes the power from God which is used to cast out devils as finger power, not hand and definitely not arm as if God is barely do anything. All other stories pale in comparison to those thought of by the Master however we can judge them by some of the characteristics which the master left for us.

  1Ti 1:4  Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

  2Ti 4:4  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

  1Ti 4:7  But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.

  Tit 1:14  Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

  2Pe 1:16  For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

  G3454

  μῦθος

  muthos

  moo'-thos

  Perhaps from the same as G3453 (through the idea of tuition); a tale, that is, fiction (“myth”): - fable.

Fable is a bad Bible word but despite the fact that the word fable can cover all fiction doesn't mean that it's Bible usage includes every possible work of fiction because as I just pointed out much of Jesus's ministry was fictions which told moral stories. 1Ti 1:4 the word heed could also be translated pay attention to or be cautious about with the central idea of regard and respect. Again 4:4 of the same book shows that people have gone further into idolatry and have stopped respecting the truth in favor of their work of fiction. Verse 7 points out the error of receiving heathenish or wicked old wives tales.

  Deu 12:2  Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree:
  Deu 12:3  And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.

Children need to be taught to respect the word and to disrespect all other things which are not the word. The primary way you do this is by spending time with them in the word and prayer. Taking them to church where they have a fun time while learning God's word. Children have difficulty telling the difference between reality and fantasy and they need to be taught that certain commonly believed things are in fact imaginary. The Bible might call this destroying the altar or hewing down the graven image.

  1Co 13:11  When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

  Jas 4:17  Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

If you taught your children: This is just imaginary there is real supernatural power but it is not anything like this. There is no santa claus ect ect. We devote our life to believing in Jesus but Jesus does not need us to believe in Him. Abraham probably worshiped the moon before he met God like Abraham we don't worship the moon. Its just a rock. God does not tug of war with the devil its easy for Him. I'm certain you can show your children the movie and it would not be blaspheme. However if you have a doubt "this might be sin", "they might turn from Christ as a result of seeing it" or the like you should refrain. You can find an in detail synopsis of the movie at the movie spoiler here.


Did Jesus or any of the New Testament authors ever quote a textual variant? Among many (good) arguments against KJV-onlyism, I have heard the following argument:

  The idea that “preservation” requires us to have 100% accurate knowledge of the original words of scripture is a standard that was not demanded by Christ or the Apostles.

To bolster this argument, it is suggested that Christ or the NT authors will occasionally base an argument on a textual variant from the OT (probably from the Septuagint) where the original reading actually says something different.

Thus, the argument goes, it is possible to acknowledge that we do not have 100% perfect accuracy in our copies while still holding to a doctrine of preservation... one defined by the belief that the message of the Bible is perfectly clear, even though some meaningful and viable textual variants exist.

I do not remember any specific passages cited where Christ or the NT authors did this sort of thing (made applications based on textual variants).  Does anyone know of any?

First, I’d like to give a bit of background on the different OT manuscripts. The OT in English Bibles is almost always based off the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but some use the Septuagint. The KJV uses the Masoretic. There are some discrepancies between the Septuagint and the Masoretic; nineteen times out of twenty, the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Masoretic, so for the purposes of this answer I’ll consider them one and the same. The NT, written in Koine Greek, quotes the Septuagint, which is the same language. The Masoretic text is in Hebrew. Some claim that the Masoretic has been doctored, such as Orthodox churches. Others say that because the Septuagint is a translation itself, it is less reliable.

From your question and comment, I would assume you’re looking for discrepancies between the NT quotations and the Masoretic. Most English Bibles use the Masoretic, with the Septuagint being the textual variant you refer to.

This website provides an exhaustive list of instances where the NT quotes the OT. It gives the passages side-by-side from the NT, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic. Some are virtually identical between the texts; others vary rather significantly. The matter of which differences are significant enough to be considered “textual variants” is a matter of opinion, and as such is not a topic for this site. That’s for you to decide.

Note: “AV” stands for “Authorized Version,” which is the British name for the King James Version. That’s the translation used for the NT and Masoretic texts in the table linked to above.


Does the right side have a higher status than the left? Similar to the question Does the right side have a higher status than the left?

Not having much knowledge on Christianity in order to jot down the actions as in the above mentioned question.

Does the right side take a higher status, preference or position in terms of positivity than the left?

If so, why?

Examples of different action rendered with/on both sides exemplifying their difference would be appreciated.

I think the "right" side have a higher status simply because the most people are right-handed.

We read some passages where lefties have an advantage in surprising the enemy, as in Ehud's history

  15 But when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, the Lord
  raised them up a deliverer, Ehud the son of Gera, a Benjamite, a man
  lefthanded: and by him the children of Israel sent a present unto
  Eglon the king of Moab.

  16 But Ehud made him a dagger which had two edges, of a cubit length;
  and he did gird it under his raiment upon his right thigh.

  17 And he brought the present unto Eglon king of Moab: and Eglon was a
  very fat man.

  18 And when he had made an end to offer the present, he sent away the
  people that bare the present.

  19 But he himself turned again from the quarries that were by Gilgal,
  and said, I have a secret errand unto thee, O king: who said, Keep
  silence. And all that stood by him went out from him.

  20 And Ehud came unto him; and he was sitting in a summer parlour,
  which he had for himself alone. And Ehud said, I have a message from
  God unto thee. And he arose out of his seat.

  21 And Ehud put forth his left hand, and took the dagger from his
  right thigh, and thrust it into his belly

  Judges 3:15-21

also in the case of Benjamin's Tribe

  "Among all this people there were seven hundred chosen men lefthanded;
  every one could sling stones at an hair breadth, and not miss." Judges
  20:16

Perhaps you are wondering about the tortures of the Middle Ages:

One of the most accepted theories to justify the preference for the right side of things says that came with the primitive inhabitants of the northern hemisphere. For the sun worshipers the northern hemisphere, the sun appears to move clockwise to the right. Following in this vein, Buddhists make their treks to meditate; pilgrims who go to Mecca to pray Allah surround the estluertici right the Kaaba, where the construction is the sacred stone of Mohammed's followers. Muslims, in fact, go so far as to state that God has two right hands.

Also in the Middle Ages left hand happens to be related to the dirt. The explanation for this until we have some logic: a period when washing up was a rare habit, cleanliness was due to the left hand, including personal hygiene . Afraid to get dirty, people just shook hands with the right hand, the same used for eating or combing hair .

At the time of giving his word , the Greek was the one who was in favor of the left: "aristera", the Greek term for the left hand , has the meaning of "best" and the same origin of the word aristocracy. Latin, at first, agreed with this positive image : sinister , whatever "left" say , meant "Lucky" , the word comes from "sinus", the pocket of the Roman toga which was, of course, that side .

But this was the era in which the statues of the Roman gods had to face south and look directed to the left , to the east , where they came from , with the sun , the signs of good fortune . Do not know why, but images of deities, approximately the second century, were directed to the north. Hence the east was right. From "Lucky" the word "sinister" came to be "unlucky" and the Romans began to sew your pockets on the right side.


Why is Mary's mantle blue? In the Catholic Church especially, but also other denominations, Mary (ie, mother of Jesus) is often depicted with a blue mantle.

Does anyone know the origin of this, and what it is meant to mean?

The blue mantle of Mary seems to have originated around the year 500 AD and is of Byzantine origin. Most sources seem to point to this date as the Byzantine origin of the color blue of Mary's mantle.

  Why Does the Blessed Virgin Mary Wear Blue?

  In many artistic portraits of the Blessed Virgin Mary, she is depicted wearing a blue mantle. Why blue?

  In first century Galilee, Mary’s clothing would probably not have much color. It would have been more flaxen-wool colored. Villagers may have used available plants to produce some modest dyes. Purple and blue were reserved for the rich and ruling classes because plants for those dyes were more rare. Red was used for the Roman army because plants producing red dyes were readily available.

  As Mary has appeared throughout the centuries, she has worn different colors and styles of clothing.

  •Our Lady of Fatima (1917) appeared to the children wearing a gown and mantle of white with gold trim and a crown.

  •Our Lady of Lourdes (1858) appeared to Bernadette wearing a simple gown and mantle of white with a blue sash.

  •Our Lady of Guadalupe (1531) appeared to Juan Diego wearing a gown of rose and a mantle of blue with gold stars.

  Fr Johann Roten SM, director of the Marian Library-International Marian Research Institute at the University of Dayton (a Catholic college) wrote: “Mary’s dark blue mantle, from about 500 AD is of Byzantine origin and is the color of an empress.”

  Blue has been a color associated with royalty, peace, and nature (sea and sky). So it makes sense that artistic renditions of Mary portray the Queen of Heaven and Earth in blue.


Do Jehovah's witnesses believe that Jesus appeared in the Old Testament? Many Christian teachers as far back as the early church fathers have taught it was Jesus that appeared to Abraham before destroying Sodom and Gammorah, wrestled with Jacob in the dessert, and appeared at other times in the Old Testament scriptures.

Do Jehovah's whitnesses also teach that Jesus appeared to some people before his incarnation?

Beyond the general belief related to the Archangel Michael, Jehovah's Witnesses do believe that Jesus makes an appearance in the Old Testament.

Under the article "The Word" in the JW reference work Insight on the Scriptures Vol. II page 1203 it says this: "In a similar way God’s firstborn Son doubtless served as the Mouth, or Spokesman, for his Father, the great King of Eternity. He was God’s Word of communication for conveying information and instructions to the Creator’s other spirit and human sons. It is reasonable to think that prior to Jesus’ coming to earth, on many of the occasions when God communicated with humans he used the Word as his angelic mouthpiece."

Citing a number of scriptural citations, the article assumes that Jesus was the angel that: stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaac; spoke to Moses through the burning bush; may have been the angel that was charged with leading the nation of Israel through the wilderness. In all except the latter case, the scriptures referenced specifically mention "Jehovah's angel."

So the Jehovah's Witnesses belief that Jesus appears in the OT is primarily based on Jesus identity as "The Word" as well as the OT wording "Jehovah's angel."


Why do so many Christians call Paul "teacher", when Jesus said it was forbidden? I personally try to base everything I believe on the words of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels.  I also take the Old Testament as truth because Jesus also did.  I see Paul like I do CS Lewis, I happen to agree with most of what he wrote, but not all.

In other words I may or may not agree with what Paul (or CS Lewis) wrote based on my own personal interpretation of what Jesus said in the Gospels.

I believe the key to understanding this is to look at the broader context in which Jesus makes these statements.

Let's take a look at Jesus' entire paragraph here from Matthew 23:

  Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples,  "The scribes and
  the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever
  they tell you-but not what they do. For they preach, but do not
  practice. They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on
  people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them
  with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For
  they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they
  love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues
  and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others.
  But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you
  are all brothers.  And call no man your father on earth, for you have
  one Father, who is in heaven.  Neither be called instructors, for you
  have one instructor, the Christ.  The greatest among you shall be your
  servant.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles
  himself will be exalted.

It's clear that Jesus is speaking of a particular kind of teacher.  He's not speaking of a teacher that instructs the best he can from scripture, all the time giving glory to, and pointing people to God, but he's speaking of a teacher that teaches to impress other people, so that he can be honored, have power over another, and have his ego stroked.  There's a difference.  One teacher teaches out of his desire for power and acceptance, while another simply repeats what he has heard from Jesus.

In other words, Jesus is prohibiting the disciples from being teachers in the sense that they hold power over one another and force people to do what they say, and judging people when they don't.  Instead, the disciples were to teach others humbly, always looking back to Christ as the source of what they teach, being careful not to go beyond what it is that Jesus taught, and they should do so driven by the motivation to see people love Christ, not driven by the motivation to have followers.