What is the Biblical basis for Peter being the leader of the apostles? The Roman Catholic church claims that the apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome, that he was the leader of the other apostles/bishops, and that since the pope is the rightful heir of Peter's title (according to the Church), the pope would also be the leader of the bishops.

What is the biblical basis for this claim? Does the Church take any specific verse as evidence for this claim?

The Roman Catholic Church acknowledges1 the direct Biblical basis for Peter's primacy comes from Matthew 16:17-19:

17Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Additionally, there's this passage from John 21:15-17:

15When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep.

And as DJClayworth noted in the comments, his role as the leader of the Apostles (and subsequently, the early Church) after Jesus's death and resurrection is clearly shown, particularly in the first half Acts of the Apostles which almost exclusively features his mission.

Note 1: The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

552Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it." Christ, the "living Stone", thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakeable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.
553Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep." The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.


Is "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing" preaching heresy? I love the song "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing." It's beautiful, and the backstory is pretty amazing.  My problem is that I always shudder every time I sing this line in the third verse:

  O to grace, how great a debtor, daily I'm constrained to be

I keep noodling over that sentence. From a mainstream Protestant perspective, is it really possible to be in debt to grace?  Isn't the point that grace means I don't have a debt as far as God is concerned?

Or, am I just reading too much into this?

You're reading way too much into this :)

In order to appreciate this song, I think you need to allow for variation of meaning in the English language. Understanding some songs even require that we grant them some poetic license, although I think we should treat those with caution because consciously or otherwise those do tend to cloud our theology. However in this case I don't think poetic license is even necessary to appreciate the meaning.

Debtor could have several meanings. One of them is quite simply the sense of 'thankful', but I think the meaning here could actually be understood in a much stronger sense than thankfulness. The word can carry a sense of being 'dependent' or 'bound to'. And yes, theologically speaking, I think it is fair to say we are dependent on God's grace every day. While we don't owe him anything in return for it the very fact that his grace is freely given does "daily constrain us" to walk in His ways.


Will we theoretically be able to sin in Heaven? The Bible tells us that there will be no sin in Heaven
. Also, most christians agree that there will be free will in Heaven.

So we will be in a sinless state with free will. However, Adam and Eve were both in this state but eventually sinned. Couldn't this happen again in Heaven?

My only idea is that since the Devil will be chained for eternity, there will be nothing to tempt us into sinning, like it happened in the garden of Eden.

I would like to get some perspectives on the matter, the better if based on Biblical verses. Thanks.

No. Here's the dime tour version.

We don't know exactly what it will be like, but we do know, as you pointed out, that there will be no sin in heaven but that we won't be robotic beings. The difference is that we will have a different nature. Something about having fallen and then being restored to glory is going to be different than the state Adam was in having never known evil and yet excersising his free will.

Exactly what defenses will make this possible we know not, but we know that one way or another the work of Christ to sanctify his people will be brought to completion and that they will never more fall away from him.

Your speculation is based on an incorrect understanding of the nature of man and sin in the first place:

  My only idea is that since the Devil will be chained for eternity, there will be nothing to tempt us [...].

Christianity's understanding of sin is not based on outside forces tempting us, but on an imperfect nature that cannot help but sin. Adam could not have helped but eventually sinning, snake or no snake. Free will is not so free as many people believe: we are bound to act according to our nature. We are not "free" to act according to a nature that we don't have. We aren't "free" to teleport just because we would will it. We are not "free" to not sin because it is part of our nature to do so.

The difference in heaven is that our natures will be regenerated into something completely different than they are now and we will be free -- but only to act according to our regenerated natures. Which won't be dragging sin into the presence of God.


Acts 17:30 What does "overlooked" mean? Paul, after reasoning about idolatry in Athens, states:

  Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now
  commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has set a day on
  which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom
  he designated, having provided proof to everyone by raising him from
  the dead.”  (Acts 17:30,31 NET)

I think it is safe to say that God overlooking "such times of ignorance" means God overlooked the ignorance of the people of those times.

How did Paul understand God to have "overlooked" the ignorance of those people?

It does not seem that "overlooked" merely means that God did not call them to account while alive, sparing them certain temporal judgments. Rather, in light of verse 31, it seems to imply that they will somehow be found less culpable in the final judgment.

According to most orthodox Christian theology, these pagans who died without Christ are forever condemned and without hope. If that is the case, it doesn't sound like God "overlooked" their ignorance to me.

Question: What does it mean for those people who lived in times when ignorance was overlooked by God?

When we put several passages together to get a fuller picture, we can see in what sense "overlook" is being used. Consider the following two verses, which are similar in scope (from the NET translation):

Rom. 3:25

  God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible
  through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God
  in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

Acts 14:16

  In past generations he allowed all the nations to go their own ways

I'll also add your passage for completeness:

Acts 17:30

  Therefore, although God has overlooked such times of ignorance, he now
  commands all people everywhere to repent,

From these passages we see that overlook is being used in the sense of patience on God's part. See the words "forebearance" and "allowed." God still executed wrath on the nations; as we see in Rom. 1:18ff, God showed His wrath in times past by letting the nations do what they want ("God gave them over"), and allowing them to suffer the consequences of life without God. The nations are culpable because creation declares a Creator, and they willingly turned away from Him, and their consciences will judge them for they did (Rom. 2:14-15). Thus, the ignorant people won't get a free pass -- they do know what sin is.

So "overlook" is not being used in the sense of turning a blind eye to sin. The three passages taken together seem to indicate that God held back His fullest wrath and showed mercy and grace, anticipating the cross to come. Now with the cross demonstrating God dealing with sin, God commands all to repent. The people have creation to help detect a Creator, but now with the written Word of God and the cross, we can see Him as one who decisively deals with sin.


How do you get to be in Christ? How do one get to be in Christ? Is it same as to be righteous before God? I consider Romans 8:1 as axiom.

  Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,

That little word in is packed with profundity, significance, and comfort for believers in Jesus Christ.

One way of approaching this little word is via one of the many names for the Church Universal:  the Body of Christ.  A body, of course, is composed of many parts (viz., appendages and external and internal organs), and so it is with Christ's body, the church, of which He is the Head.  All of the parts of the physical body are in the body and are thus joined to the whole body.  Each part has its function, but they all function together.  The main point of the analogy of the body can be summed up, I feel, in the expression

  "Unity within Diversity."

To be in Christ, then, is to be a part of His body.

Theologically, the word in signifies where a believer is, positionally in the eyes of God; namely, in Christ.  To be in Christ is to be united with Christ in His righteousness.

  "For God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Corinthians 5:21, my emphasis).

We who are sinners saved by grace are anything but righteous.  Moreover,  Isaiah tells us that

  "For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away" (64:6).

In other words, even the best we have to offer God cannot outweigh in the divine scale of justice our uncleanness, filthiness, and iniquities.  Along comes Jesus, however, and His righteousness tips the scale in the opposite direction, so to speak.

Think of a zillion-pound weight being on one side of the teeter totter.  That's our sin.  Our righteous deeds piled up to the sky on the opposite side utterly fail to budge the zillion-pound weight one scintilla.

Jesus' cross death, however, means that God, when He imputes our sin to Jesus and then in turn imputes Jesus' righteousness to us when we believe, tipped the teeter totter as far as it can go in the opposite direction, as if the zillion-pound weight were but a feather!  Aren't you glad you're in Christ?  There is no safer place to be in all the universe, because when God sees us, He sees us in His Son.  And as Paul reminds us,

  "Whoever is in Christ is a new creation:  the old has passed away, and all things have become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17, my emphasis).


How do traditional Christians defend the teaching that Paul is an authentic apostle? I want to preface this by saying I don't believe Paul was a false Apostle.  I must either view his Apostleship as authentic, or throw away everything I believe.  Removing Paul's writings and influence from the New Testament would change the message completely.

The reason I ask is that every so often, I have doubts about whether Paul was authentic, or an insidious infiltrator.

When I have these doubts, they arise from several points.

Saul (his name before his conversion for those few that don't know) hated Christianity.  He had been doing his best (or worst) to eliminate it.  He wasn't having much success with direct opposition.  Maybe he thought that if he got to be an insider with influence, he could corrupt the teachings from the inside?  (He wouldn't be the first or the last.)
Next, nobody witnessed his conversion.  He was on the road alone, and we have only his word for it.  Nobody can verify his claims.
Third, his teachings on salvation apart from works seems to contradict other clear teachings.

James 1:22-25
John 15:10
James 2:24
Matthew 5:19

Before posting this question, I did a quick Google search, and I did run across some who hold this position and make arguments for it.  Here's one.  The arguments are, at the very least, well-reasoned.

Again, I don't hold the position that he is a false Apostle, but if he is, then it has serious implications for my own beliefs, and for the validity of mainstream Christianity.  I understand just how "heretical" and "blasphemous" it must seem to even ask such a question, and just how deep the implications of what I'm asking go.  I'm hoping to find answers from others who have studied this out, or who have at least heard the arguments for and against such a view.

In Acts 9 there were witnesses when Jesus Christ spoke to Saul.

  3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven
  flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to
  him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”  5 “Who are you, Lord?”
  Saul asked.

  “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up
  and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

  7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the
  sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when
  he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand
  into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink
  anything.

Also, we have from another disciple, Ananias, whom God told Saul was His chosen instrument to proclaim His name to the Gentiles.

  15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument
  to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people
  of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

Paul did not act completely on his own, either.  He had the full support of the apostles.

  Acts 15:22-27 NIV
  22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to
  choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and
  Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were
  leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following
  letter:

  The apostles and elders, your brothers,

  To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

  Greetings.

  24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization
  and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we
  all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear
  friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the
  name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and
  Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing.

Since I trust the original apostles were acting on Christs behalf, I also trust that Paul was.  As you said, if Paul was a false apostle, then it would hold serious implications for our beliefs.  It would seem that if he was false and also supported by the apostles, the truth of the apostles would also be called into question.


What is the purpose of praying over the water at an Church of England baptism? The Church if England baptism liturgy in 'Common Worship' includes a 'prayer over the water'.

There is a choice of two prayers, here: Prayer over the Water .

Catholic Anglicans seem to readily understand this as a priestly 'blessing' of the water, but the wording 'prayer over' avoids that understanding, as does the rule that Deacons can baptise, and even laypersons in pastoral emergency.

Is there an authoritative account of what is happening in the Church of England understanding of prayer over the water at baptism?

The page linked to in the question shows two versions of the Prayer over the Water which were introduced in 2015. These are alternatives, in "accessible language",  to the main Prayer over the Water in the Common Worship baptism liturgy. The Common Worship baptism liturgy is itself an alternative to the Book of Common Prayer baptism liturgy which, alone, is doctrinally definitive for the Church of England.

It may be helpful to  consider the historical development of the liturgy.

Prior to the Reformation baptismal water received a priestly blessing though not  at every baptism.  This practice was continued in Cranmer's  first English Prayer Book, under Edward  VI, in 1549, but removed from the 1552 edition. This is the 1549 prayer which was directed to be used whenever the water was changed before any baptism, and that the water be changed at least monthly:

  O most merciful God our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hast ordained the element of water for the regeneration of thy faithful people, upon whom being baptised in the river of Jordan, the Holy Ghost came down in the likeness of a dove: Send down we beseech thee the same thy Holy  Spirit to assist us, and to be present at this our invocation of thy holy name: Sanctify (+) this fountain of baptism, thou that art the sanctifier of al things, that by the power of thy word, all those that shall he baptized therein, may be spiritually regenerated, and made the children of everlasting adoption. Amen.

The (+) indicates the sign of the Cross to be made. I have modernised the spelling.

This practice was removed by Cranmer  from the 1552 and subsequent versions, probably influenced by Martin Bucer, who died in exile in England in 1551, and who strongly opposed blessing inanimate objects.

Also in 1549 was introduced a version of Luther's Flood Prayer, as the first prayer in the English baptism liturgy. This was modified in 1552, in the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI, and again (as we will come to) in 1662. This is the 1552 version:

  Almighty and everlasting God, which of thy great mercy didst save Noah and his family in the Ark from perishing by water: and also didst safely lead the children of Israel, thy people through the Red Sea: figuring thereby thy holy Baptism; and by the Baptism of thy well-beloved Son  Jesus Christ, didst sanctify the flood Jordan, and all other waters, to the mystical washing away of sin: We beseech thee for thy infinite mercies, that thou wilt mercifully look upon this child, sanctify him and wash him with thy Holy Ghost, that he, being delivered from thy wrath, may be received into the Ark of Christ's Church, and being steadfast in faith, joyful through hope, and rooted in charity, may so pass the waves of this troublesome world, that finally he may come to the land of everlasting life, there to reign with thee, world without end, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The relevant bit here, which I have bolded, is that, Christ's baptism sanctified not only the Jordan but all other waters for baptismal use. This is also in Luther's original Flood Prayer.  It was un-necessary for the priest to bless the water, because all waters were sanctified already.

Edward, known as England's Josiah,  died aged 15 the following year,1553,  and his older sister Mary undid his reforms and  England  reverted to the pre-Reformation use. On Mary's death in 1558 Elizabeth restored most of the 1552 book, including the bits relevant to this question.

In 1645, during the Civil War Era, Parliament approved, without the King's authority, the Directory of Worship, which was to replace the Book of Common Prayer.  This re-instated the blessing of baptismal water. In keeping with the general concept of the Directory there was no prescribed form of words. This is an extract from the section on baptism:

  Prayer is  also to be joined with the Words of Institution for sanctifying the water to this spiritual use.

Following the Restoration it was decided to re-introduce the Book of Common Prayer but with suitable amendments. A Conference, the Savoy Conference, was held to discuss these. It comprised Presbyterian Divines and Church of England Bishops. The format was that the Puritans made a list of the exceptions (objections) they had to the Prayer Book, and the Bishops responded.

One Exception was to the phrase in Cranmer's version of Luther's Flood Prayer:

  By the Baptism of thy well beloved Son, etc. didst sanctify the flood Jordan, and all other waters to the mystical washing away of sin.

The exception was:

  It being doubtful whether either the flood Jordan, or any other waters were sanctified to a Sacramental use by Christs being baptized and not necessary to be altered: we desire this may be otherwise expressed.

The Bishops' reply was:

  If Jordan and all other waters be not so far sanctified by Christ, as to be the matter of Baptism, what authority have we to baptise?

To which the Puritans replied:

  Did Christ sanctify all Corn or Bread, or Grapes or Wine to an holy use, when he administered the Lords Supper? Sanctifying is separating to an holy use; But the flood Jordan and all other water, is not separated to this holy use, in any proper sense.

The consequence of this discussion was firstly a change in the Flood Prayer, and secondly the introduction of a blessing of the water in the last prayer before the baptism itself.

In the Flood Prayer:

  ..by the Baptism of thy well-beloved Son  Jesus Christ, didst sanctify the flood Jordan, and all other waters, to the mystical washing away of sin

became

  by the Baptism of thy well-beloved Son Jesus Christ, in the river Jordan, didst sanctify Water to the mystical washing away of sin.

The last prayer before the baptism itself was amended by adding the phrase in bold:

  Almighty ever living God, whose most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of our sins, did shed out of his most precious side both water and blood; and gave commandment to his disciples, that they should go teach all nations, and baptize them In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Regard, we beseech thee, the supplications of thy congregation; sanctify this Water to the mystical washing away of sin; and grant that this Child, now to be baptized therein, may receive the fullness of thy grace, and ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

So  the doctrinally definitive version of the baptism liturgy was deliberately altered to make ambiguous the phrase in the Flood Prayer as to whether all water, or water in general was sanctified for Baptism, and to very specifically introduce in another prayer a ministerial blessing of the particular water intended for use in a particular baptism.   Perhaps surprisingly, this was done at the request of the Puritans, rather than the High Church side.

The Alternative Service Book, available as an alternative in the 1980s and 1990s, combined the flood and the last prayer into a Prayer over the Water as follows:

  Almighty God, whose Son Jesus Christ was baptized in the river Jordan
  we thank you for the gift of water to cleanse us and revive us;
  we thank you that through the waters of the Red Sea,
  you led your people out of slavery to freedom in the promised land;
  we thank you that through the deep waters of death you brought your Son,
  and raised him to life in triumph.
  Bless this water, that your servants who are washed in it
  may be made one with Christ in his death and in his resurrection,
  to be cleansed and delivered from all sin.
  Send your Holy Spirit upon them to bring them to new birth
  in the family of your Church,
  and raise them with Christ to full and eternal life.
  or all might, majesty, authority, and power are yours, now and for ever.

And the main Prayer Over the Water in the Common Worship  goes:

  We thank you, almighty God, for the gift of water to sustain, refresh and cleanse all life. Over water the Holy Spirit moved in the beginning of creation. Through water you led the children of Israel from slavery in Egypt to freedom in the Promised Land. In water your Son Jesus received the baptism of John and was anointed by the Holy Spirit as the Messiah, the Christ, to lead us from the death of sin to newness of life. We thank you, Father, for the water of baptism. In it we are buried with Christ in his death. By it we share in his resurrection. Through it we are reborn by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, in joyful obedience to your Son, we baptize into his fellowship those who come to him in faith. Now sanctify this water that, by the power of your Holy Spirit, they may be cleansed from sin and born again. Renewed in your image, may they walk by the light of faith
  and continue for ever in the risen life of Jesus Christ our Lord; to whom with you and the Holy Spirit be all honour and glory, now and for ever.

So although it is true that one of the alternative "accessible language" Prayers Over the Water does not specifically mention blessing the water the doctrine of the Church expressed in her definitive liturgy, in the Alternative Service Book, and  explicitly in two of the three Common Worship Prayers Over the Water does involve a priestly blessing of the water.

It is also clear though that, in common with the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England believes nothing essential happens in the blessing of the water. Lay Baptism, under any circumstances, is accepted as valid by the Church of England, although it may be forbidden except in an emergency. This doctrine was somewhat disputed in the early nineteenth century and was the subject of a famous court case, Mastin v Escott in the 1840s, in which the matter was determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. (The matter, of course, was what was the doctrine of the Church, not what was truth - something this site would approve! The case involved a vicar refusing to bury the body of someone whose baptism he did not accept at a time when only baptised persons could be buried in the main churchyard.)

Baptism also differs from the other great sacrament in that priestly or ministerial consecration of the bread and wine is seen as essential.

In conclusion,  there are strong arguments that Church of England baptisms do involve priestly blessings, but that they are no way essential.

Historically the  Church has tried, up to a point anyway, to embrace ambiguity in one liturgy but increasingly offers alternatives which, as @DJClayworth points out, allow individual ministers to tailor services to reflect their personal viewpoints.


How do Unitarians interpret the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) When Jesus told His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, I think that those who believe that God is a Trinity of Divine Persons see this as one God and not three distinct beings.  How do Unitarians interpret this, if the Person referenced as the Son by Jesus is just Himself (i.e. not divine) and not the Second Person of the Trinity, is that Person interchangeable with other prophets? Why baptize in the name of the Father and anyone else?

Note: unitarians can believe that Jesus is divine, as that word is vague and does not need mean someone is God. Angels can be considered divine, the Logos (if understood as not God) can be considered as divine, and even humans can be considered in some sense divine.
Answer: The first step for a unitarian can be to note that Matthew 28:19

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Berean
Study Bible)

simply mentions three things (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and doesn't claim they are all God, much less articulate finer points of trinitarian theology.
As commentary by the unitarian Spirit and Truth Fellowship states:

"The mention of the Father, Son and holy spirit together in one
context only shows that these three exist. [... while the] doctrine of
the Trinity states that the Father, Son and “Holy Spirit” together
make “one God” and that the three “Persons” are co-equal and
co-eternal, and that doctrine is not stated in this verse."

The second step is to explain why baptizing is done for more than just the name of the Father.
To do this, it helps to explain what the term 'name' means. As the commentary continues (ibid.):

"“name.” A study of the biblical culture and language shows that in
this context the word “name” primarily stood for “authority,” and
doing something in the “name” of a person or persons who had great
authority was very common."

Indeed, Matthew 28:18, which immediately precedes the Great Commission, says

"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on
earth has been given to Me."

So Jesus' name is included because he has been given all authority by God. As the commentary states (ibid.)

"Given God’s ultimate authority and power, Christ’s exalted position
as the risen Messiah and Lord, and the power of God to believers via
the holy spirit, which Jesus spoke of at the Last Supper, it makes
sense that Jesus would mention all three of them here in Matthew 28.
[... Jesus is telling the Apostles] to baptize in the “name”
(authority) of the Father, Son, and holy spirit, and they did that."

So the answer is that the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all important, and although Jesus is not God, he has been given authority by God - unlike other prophets.


When did the Early Church begin and end their twice weekly fasts? In the Didache, it tells us
"8:2 but keep your fast on the fourth and on the preparation day (Friday)."

Obviously some actually did keep these weekly fasts, when exactly did they begin and end?

Did they eat Tuesday supper and not eat again until Wednesday supper?

Or did they eat Tuesday supper and end the fast the morning of Thursday so that no food was consumed Wednesday?

Or Wednesday morning to Thursday morning etc?

I reckon the times of these fasts were in line with the twice weekly fasts of the Jews who did theirs on Monday and Thursday.

Can anyone provide more clarity on this?

The Wikipedia article on the Didache states (under the heading 'Fasting'), the following :

  Chapter 8 suggests that fasts are not to be on Monday and Thursday "with the hypocrites" — presumably non-Christian Jews, such as the Pharisees — but on Wednesday and Friday. Fasting Wednesday and Friday plus worshiping on Sunday constituted the Christian week. Nor must Christians pray with their Judaic brethren, instead they shall say the Lord's Prayer three times a day.


How is the ‘Resurrection of the Holy Ones’ in Mt.27:51-53 understood by those who consider it a literal, historical event? This question is very similar to a question I just asked, but it's not a duplicate (just hear me out). Since there are many ways to read the Bible, I wanted to understand multiple points of view, that being: 1) those who understand this as a non-literal, non-historical event (modern, liberal scholars, perhaps) -- the previous question; 2) those who interpret the events as literal, specifically the pericope of the Resurrection of the Holy Ones as cited in Matthew's Passion narrative specifically  -- this question. Of course, the main body of the question will be similar, but I wanted to direct the question towards a different audience and provide a venue for that. There are also a variety of other questions geared for those who interpret it as literal.

The scripture of focus is:

  And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to
  the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the
  graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
  And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the
  holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they
  that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those
  things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the
  Son of God. (Matthew 27:51-54. KJV)

With phenomenal events such as an earthquake so mighty it opens a number of graves and then the righteous dead arise and interact with the community, one would expect Matthew to explicate these miracles beyond the pithy lines in his text; or, at least, expect the other evangelists to also document these incidences in their narratives. The Markan narrative denotes the temple’s rented veil and the centurion’s response, but does not make any mention of an earthquake or the resurrection of saints. Similarly, Luke and John do not make even the slightest reference to these events.

Additionally, during Peter’s pontifical address during Pentecost, not even a nebulous reference to a powerful earthquake or the resurrection of these saints is conveyed. Pentecost occurred fifty days following Christ’s resurrection and the supposed Holy Ones’ appearance to “many.” Therefore, the omission of these events in Peter’s address, especially to an audience that were likely witnesses to these events, is a curious oversight.

Why didn't the other Gospel writers write about these? Why aren't there other extra-biblical sources for these events? It seems like more than Christ's followers would have witnessed these events.... And it certainly seems like something people would continue to talk about for ages thereafter... Are there other sources that may imply the opening of tombs and rising of the deceased?

Or were only the righteous ones able to "see" these?

Or is it that there weren't that many "righteous" individuals in the scheme of things -- that it was hardly noticed?

Or that the resurrected beings, looked just like everyone else?

Or did the High Priest somehow cover-up this story? (For instance, we read that they tried telling people that Christ's body was stolen).

Or did they just destroy all the records they could get their hands on? (and the general witness to these events were illiterate)?

Or we simply have not unearthed these records yet? After all, an absence of evidence is not evidence for something, right?

Just confused why no one else mentions it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!)

Also, do we have any archaeological records of tombs breaking open?

And does the geological record correspond to an earthquake happening in this region?

***If you are interested as to a non-literal, modern interpretation, please see my other question for the answer provided there.

There is geological evidence of two Earthquakes in the middle east between A.D. 26 and 32:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47555983/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/quake-reveals-day-jesus-crucifixion-researchers-believe/#.WA9zTJOAOko

One of these may have occurred at the time of Jesus' crucifixion.

The writer of the Gospel of John declares that he was selective in the material he presents. John 21:25:

  Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written
  down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the
  books that would be written.

What he states openly, we may assume that the others practiced implicitly. That is, any event may be found in one gospel but absent in another, should that event not be relevant to the point the gospel writer was trying to emphasize.

So what was Matthew's emphasis? He wrote to Jews, about their laws, prophecies, and hopes, their kings and their messiah. But at the end of the gospel, the curtain of the temple is torn in two, removing the separation between priest and laity. The tombs are split open, removing the separation between living and dead. And when the centurion feels the earthquake and sees the other events, he declares that Jesus is the Son of God- the separation between Jew and Gentile is gone.

In Revelation, John mentions five earthquakes. Preterists and partial preterists would say that some of the events of Revelation have already occurred. One of those earthquakes may be an allusion to the earthquake at the time of the crucifixion.


Why is Pontius Pilate blamed for killing Jesus in the Apostles' Creed? In Apostles' Creed, the name of Pontius Pilate is forever associated with the infamy of being Jesus Christ's persecutor.

  I believe in God, the Father almighty,
  creator of heaven and earth.

  I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
  who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
  born of the Virgin Mary,
  suffered under Pontius Pilate,
  was crucified, died, and was buried;
  he descended into hell.
  On the third day he rose again;
  he ascended into heaven,
  he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
  and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

  I believe in the Holy Spirit,
  the holy catholic and apostolic Church,
  the communion of saints,
  the forgiveness of sins,
  the resurrection of the body,
  and the life everlasting. Amen.

My question is, why did the authors of the Apostles' Creed include Pontius Pilate as the one who killed Jesus, and not Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees?

From this resource I found (which I am not sure presents a convincing argument), quoting Fr. Hardon, it is because

  it has been “apostate Christians who have used the State to crucify
  the martyrs of Christianity.”

  Pilate symbolizes the sufferings and persecution of the Church, which
  is the Mystical Body of Christ.

That doesn't seem to explain much. Even if this explanation is true, one can still ask why did the Apostle's Creed use Pilate to symbolizes the sufferings and persecution of the Church? Why not use someone or the Roman Empire else?

So, why did the authors of the Apostle's Creed pen Pontius Pilate as the one who killed Jesus, and not Judas Iscariot or the Pharisees?

Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski in his book, The Apostles's Creed: and its Early Christian Context, argues that Pilate was specifically mentioned primarily in order to argue for and defend the humanity and real death of Jesus.
He first emphasizes the historical importance of Pilate to Christianity:

Certainly the Scriptural detail that Jesus of Nazareth was executed under the rule of Pontius Pilate is one of the definite facts of Christianity.  His role in early Christian apologetics and also in the creeds is to bring very important historical credence.

For example, Ignatius includes Pilate's role while defending the truth of Christ's suffering:

Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; He was truly crucified, and [truly] died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. (Epistle to the Trallians, 9)

Similarly, Irenaeus mentions Pilate while defending the historicity of the crucifixion in The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 74, and Ashwin-Siejkowski summarizes Irenaeus's use of him:

In all his accounts Pontius Pilate is a recognisable evident sign of Christ's time on earth.

The wording "suffered under Pontius Pilate" was of significant importance to Irenaeus and others as they disputed Docetism, which held that the human form of Jesus was merely an illusion, and that he did not actually suffer.  Similarly, Justin Martyr's apologetics emphasize Pontius Pilate in order to not only prove the historicity of the crucifixion, but to demonstrate that Christ fulfilled the prophecies of Scripture (e.g., First Apology, 35).
Another early father, Tertullian, took Pilate's importance even further.  He suggests that Pilate was already secretly a Christian, and that, as the secular authority, he "represents God's law and order":

To Tertullian, the emperor is the instrument of God who enforces the law as well as guaranteeing the stability of the state.  The emperor punishes crime and protects the rights of his subject. [...] Pontius Pilate was much more for Tertullian than a private person accidentally attached to the credal formula.

It's worth noting that the current wording of the Apostles' Creed developed over centuries, and that the earliest versions of it, by Irenaeus and Tertullian, mentioned Pilate. (For more on this, see Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, p53)
Summary
Ashwin-Siejkowski summarizes:

Early Christian literature [...] was very attached to, later even attracted to, the character known as Pontius Pilate.  This attachment was neither nostalgic nor marginal, as the Roman governor provided proto-orthodox Christianity with great arguments against the Docetic, then Gnostic, Jewish and pagan opponents.   Certainly Pontius Pilate in the Creeds, including the Apostles' Creed, remains as a sign of the ancient theological debate, which aimed to prove the real human nature of the Saviour, not laughing, but rather suffering Redeemer.

Compared to Judas Iscariot and the Pharisees, we can see that mentioning Pilate makes for a much stronger historical case for the crucifixion, and, at least for Tertullian, emphasizes the secular authority's role (and therefore God's role) in Christ's crucifixion.

Piotr Ashwin-Siejkowski, The Apostles's Creed: and its Early Christian Context, pages 47–55.  Italics in quotes are in the original.


What has the Holy Spirit taught people after Jesus left? I know that the below verse is explained to foretell the coming of the Holy Spirit according to Catholics.  Even though the Holy Spirit was already mentioned previously, it is explained that Jesus is saying when he comes he will guide you into all the truth.

  12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear.  13
  But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all
  the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he
  hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

I want someone to explain to me the following:

What exactly has the Holy Spirit guided people to in terms of 'All Truth'.
Why was this truth something the people at Jesus's time could not bear?
If it is the Holy Spirit, and if the HS is the 3rd person of the Trinity, why can He not speak on His own?

Note:  I'm looking for an answer that fulfills the criteria of the verse 1) cannot bear it now 2) guiding to all truth  3) tell you what is yet to come  etc.

In addition, if the Holy Spirit is considered God, why would not speak of his own, but only what he hears?  If he is God, he will have authority on his own.

I am asking because I believe it was Tertullian, the famous Church Father, who ended up being declared a heretic because he believed this was referring to a person (it sure sounds like it to me also - the holy ghost was already mentioned to be present anyhow).

Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, an Anglican who converted to Catholicism, was the author of the First Vatican Council's definition on papal infallibility in Pastor Æternus. He wrote an excellent book on the question of the role of the Holy Ghost in the Roman Catholic Church:

The temporal mission of the Holy Ghost : or, Reason and revelation (1865)

Briefly, the Holy Ghost has taught us many things; He has

guarded the deposit of faith or Revelation in all its truth,
prevented the Church from teaching error,
guided the development of doctrine,
given council to the church (and all His other gifts, too),
enabled the Church to interpret the true sense of Scripture,
ensured the infallibility of the Pope when he defines dogma pertaining to faith or morals (e.g., the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption),

etc.


Are there any surviving writings by Marcion or is everything we know of him what his enemies wrote of him? I'm growing increasingly suspicious that Marcion was more of a dispensationalist or "hyper-dispensationalist" who fell victim to misrepresentation by those who either did not understand him or agree with him. Do we have any surviving texts that were written by himself or his proponents? Or by any of his detractors that might put him in a light other than the official view?

Please see this related question and the way the enemies of dispensationalist views characterize it as "gnosticism" etc. to see what my concern is: What is the argument AGAINST the position that only Paul's writings are applicable to the church today?

As is the case for most non-orthodox authors in the early church, none of Marcion's major writings survive, as the Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity writes:

Since his writings have been lost over time, the information that we have on the life and works of Marcion has reached us through indirect sources, from the
numerous writings of his opponents.

Thus our primary sources are Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, particularly Tertullian's Against Marcion, which frequently cites Marcion's Antithesis.
However, we do have several brief texts of "Marcionite" origin, which were likely written by either Marcion or one of his followers.  They are the "Marcionite Prologues," short prologues to the Pauline epistles, found in some Latin manuscripts (including a sixth-century codex).  They were first argued to be Marcionite by De Bruyne in 1907, and Harnack adopts his position, based on how they describe Paul's efforts in each letter.  For example, the prologue to Romans reads:

Romani sunt in partibus Italiæ. hi præventi sunt a falsis apostolis et sub nomine domini nostri Jesu Christi in legem et prophetas erant inducti. hos revocat apostolus ad veram evangelicam fidem scribens a Corintho.
The Romans are in the regions of Italy. They had been reached by false apostles and under the name of our Lord Jesus Christ they were led away into the law and the prophets. The apostle calls them back to the true evangelical faith, writing to them from Corinth. (translation source; emphasis added)

It's by no means certain that Marcion actually wrote these prologues, but Harnack and others believe them to be very old and likely written by followers of Marcion – not his opponents.


Did Jacob Arminius and/or the remonstrants believe they were in agreement with John Calvin? In a comment on another question on this site, a user says that the Remonstrants thought they more faithfully represented Calvin and Augustine's teaching than did those who eventually convened the Synod of Dort. So, according to their own words, did Arminius or Episcopius or other Remonstrants believe they agreed with Calvin's teachings on soteriology, or did they concede that they disagreed with him?

Arminius on the Church Fathers, and Orthodox Doctrine

Jacob Arminius did in fact believe that his doctrines were in line with the ancient church fathers.  In Arminius' Dissertation Of The Seventh Chapter of Romans, we find the following quotation:

  If, lastly, I shall prove that the other opinion [regeneration] as it is in these days explained by most divines, cannot, without the greatest difficulty, be reconciled to many of the plainest passages of Scripture, that it is in no small degree injurious to the grace of the indwelling Spirit, that it has a hurtful effect on good morals, and that it [regeneration] was never approved by any of the ancient fathers of the church, but, on the contrary, disapproved by some of them, and even to St. Augustine himself; then may I be permitted by a most deserved right to admonish the defenders of that other sentiment [regeneration], that they reflect frequently and seriously, whether they be wishful to excite the wrath of God against themselves by an unjust condemnation of this better opinion [prevenient grace] and of those who are its defenders.

Arminius here is mainly concerned with the end of chapter 7, starting around verse 14 or 15.  In particular, he is arguing against a doctrine which today would be called "regeneration by irresistible grace."

While he is not arguing against the school of Calvin in general, his opinions about irresistible grace give us some insight:

He believed that regeneration (by irresistible grace) is not compatible with orthodox teaching
He believed that the church fathers even disapproved of this doctrine
He lists Augustine as one who disapproved
He believes that he is a defender of a "better opinion"

He doesn't just appeal to Augustine.  Here is a list of just some of the theologians that Arminius appeals to, in order to establish his doctrine as orthodox:

Clement of Alexandria
Irenaeus
Tertullian
Origen
Cyprian
Chrysostom
Basil the Great
Theodouret
Cyril
Macarius the Egyptian
Damascenus
Theophylact
Ambrose
Jerome

Arminius on Calvin, and His Institutes

Let's all start on the same page - John Calvin and Jacob Arminius were not contemporaries. Arminius came on the scene when Calvin's movement had become the dominant stance in reformed theology.  The name "Calvin" was now representative of a movement, and not just a person.

It should be pretty obvious that Arminius did not think his opinions were in agreement with the Calvinist movement.  Under I. "ON PREDESTINATION" from The Works of James Arminius, Vol. 1, we find the following statement:

  Commencing with this article, I will first explain what is taught concerning it, both in discourses and writings, by certain persons in our Churches, and in the University of Leyden. I will afterwards declare my own views and thoughts on the same subject, while I shew my opinion on what they advance.  On this article there is no uniform and simple opinion among the teachers of our Churches; but there is some variation in certain parts of it in which they differ from each other.

Arminius acknowledges that opinions on predestination are very diverse and at odds with each other - particularly, among those in the school of Cavlin, and those sympathetic to Arminius and Kolmann.

Arminius goes into more detail in his correspondence with Junius (DISCUSSION BETWEEN ARMINIUS AND JUNIUS, TOPIC: PREDESTINATION), where he outlines the differing beliefs of his contemporaries:

  I see, then, most renowned sir, that there are three views in reference to that subject, [predestination] which have their defenders among the doctors of our church. The first is that of Calvin to Beza; the second that of Thomas Aquinas and his followers; the third that of Augustine and those who agree with him.

He writes of the first doctrine the following:

  I am not pleased with the first theory [Calvin's view of predestination] because God could not, in his purpose of illustrating his glory by mercy and punitive justice, have reference to man as not yet made, nor indeed to man as made, and considered in his natural condition. In which sentiment I think that I have yourself as my precedent, for, in discussing predestination, you no where make mention of mercy, but every where of grace, which transcends mercy, as exercised towards creatures, continuing in their original, natural state, while it coincides with mercy in being occupied with the sinner, but when you treat of the passed by and the reprobate, you mention justice, and only in the case of such. Besides, according to that opinion, God is, by necessary consequence, made the author of the fall of Adam and of sin, from which imputation he is not freed by the distinctions of the act and the evil in the act, of necessity and coaction, of the decree and its execution, of efficacious and permissive decree, as the latter is explained by the authors of this view, in harmony with it, nor a different relation of the divine decree and of human nature, nor by the addition of the proposed end, namely that the whole might redound to the divine glory, etc.

If you continue reading, Arminius chooses to sympathize with the third view, namely, that of Augustine.  He considers this the "better option" because it does not require God to have been the author of sin, and it does not require God's unconditional damnation or reprobation of individuals to hell.

Conclusion

Here is what we can conclude, based on Arminius' own writings:

Arminius considers himself to be in line with the school of Augustine.
Arminius disagrees with the ideas of double predestination, irresistible grace, etc.
Arminius claims that Calvin supports double predestination, irresistible grace, etc.
Based on 2. and 3., Arminius does not consider himself to be in agreement with Calvin.

References

The Works of James Arminius, Vol. 1
The Works of James Arminius, Vol. 2
The Works of James Arminius, Vol. 3


What are the different Categories of Charismatic Graces? Definition of Charism, the theological term : The word charism or
  charisma (from Gr. χάρισμα) denotes a gift freely and graciously
  given, a favor bestowed, a grace. Charism as understood in the Bible
  is first treated, then its relation to the individual possessing it,
  and finally its meaning for the corporate Church.

I was wondering what the different categories would be, since evidently they are different. And I have even heard some say that things we would, these days, usually ascribe to pure genetic luck like super smart children (Bethoven for example) are forms of charisms given by God. So I'd like a clarification as well for the natural vs preternatural/supernatural charisms.

Ideally answer with Catholicism in mind, but as long as the categorization is the most exhaustive I'll be validating the answer regardless.

St. Paul enumerates 9 types of charismatic grace (gratia gratis data) in I Corinthians 12:8-10:

"word of wisdom"
"word of knowledge"
"faith"
"grace of healing in one Spirit"
"working of miracles"
"prophecy"
"discerning of spirits"
"diverse kinds of tongues"
"interpretation of speeches"

They are categorized in Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s Grace ch. 4, where he commentates on St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica I-II q. 111 a. 4 ("Whether gratuitous grace is rightly divided by the Apostle [in I Corinthians 12:8-10]?"):

However, St. Paul's list is not exhaustive (cf. pp. 796-802, PDF pp. 419-422, of Teología de la Perfección Cristiana by Antonio Royo Marín, O.P.).


Need help identifying a relic I inherited a relic that says S. Margar. vid, has wax seal and thread intact and above seal a number and date 1949 written.  I have been told this is St. Margaret of Scotland, do you agree and what does the vid mean, thank you, Kevin

Vid means widow. Reference. The date 1949 is probably when the relic was last verified and sealed.

St Margaret may well be St Margaret of Scotland. But there are a number of other candidates — Wikipedia lists the following, and there may well be more:

Saint Margaret the Virgin of Antioch (died 304) [unlikely, since widow is stated!]
Saint Margaret of Scotland (c. 1045–1093) [widowed]
Saint Margaret of England (died 1192) [never married; a nun]
Saint Margaret of Hungary (1242–1271) [never married; a nun]
Saint Margaret of Cortona (1247–1297) [never married]
Saint Margaret the Barefooted (1325–1395) [widowed]
Saint Rita of Cascia (1381–1457) [widowed]
Saint Margaret Clitherow (1556–1586) [married but not widowed]
Saint Margaret Ward (died 1588) [no marriage recorded]
Saint Marguerite Marie Alacoque (1647–1690) [never married; a nun]
Saint Teresa Margaret of the Sacred Heart (1747–1770) [never married; a nun]

You don't say what the relic is, but St Margaret of Scotland is certainly the best-known widow of that name. If the seal is identifiable, then there may be records available (for which the date and serial number will be useful).


What is the biblical basis for the immortality of the soul? The Immortality of the Soul is "the doctrine that the human soul will survive death, continuing in the possession of an endless conscious existence." (source).

What is the biblical basis for the immortality of the soul?

First, we must prove that there is a soul within man which can exist outside the body, i.e. disembodied, for there are some who deny that man has a soul, but instead, they assert that he is a soul (which objection is addressed here).
In 2 Cor. 12:2-4, the apostle Paul wrote,

2 I know a man in Christ fourteen years ago (I don't know whether in the body or outside the body; God knows), such a man was caught away unto the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man (I don't know whether in the body or outside the body; God knows) that he was caught away into Paradise, and he heard unspeakable words which are not lawful for a man to utter.
2 οἶδα ἄνθρωπον ἐν Χριστῷ πρὸ ἐτῶν δεκατεσσάρων εἴτε ἐν σώματι οὐκ οἶδα εἴτε ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν ἁρπαγέντα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦ 3 καὶ οἶδα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἄνθρωπον εἴτε ἐν σώματι εἴτε ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος οὐκ οἶδα ὁ θεὸς οἶδεν 4 ὅτι ἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον καὶ ἤκουσεν ἄῤῥητα ῥήματα ἃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι

Henry Alford wrote,

The adoption of the third person is remarkable: it being evident from 2 Corinthians 12:7 that he himself is meant. It is plain that a contrast is intended between the rapt and glorified person of 2 Corinthians 12:2; 2 Corinthians 12:4,—and himself, the weak and afflicted and almost despairing subject of the σκόλοψ τῇ σαρκί of 2 Corinthians 12:7 ff. Such glory belonged not to him, but the weakness did. Nay, so far was the glory from being his, that he knew not whether he was in or out of the body when it was put upon him: so that the ἐγὼ αὐτός, compounded of the νοῦς and σάρξ (Romans 7:25), clearly was not the subject of it, but as it were another form of his personality, analogous to that which we shall assume when unclothed of the body.
It may be remarked in passing, as has been done by Whitby, that the Apostle here by implication acknowledges the possibility of consciousness and receptivity in a disembodied state.

It's evident from that passage that man can have existence outside the body (ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματος), and if not as a sentient soul, then what? Indeed, it was as a soul, or if you wish, a spirit (for the two are sometimes treated as synonymous), that Lazarus, the rich man, and Abraham (who had died long before) were all in Hades, sensible and sentient (Luke 16:19-31).
Having thus proved that the personality can exist as a soul outside the body (disembodied), sensible and sentient, we must now prove that the soul is immortal.
Justin Martyr summarizes this in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (Ch. VI):

For the truth is so; and you would perceive it from this. The soul assuredly is or has life. If, then, it is life, it would cause something else, and not itself, to live, even as motion would move something else than itself. Now, that the soul lives, no one would deny. But if it lives, it lives not as being life, but as the partaker of life; but that which partakes of anything, is different from that of which it does partake. Now the soul partakes of life, since God wills it to live. Thus, then, it will not even partake [of life] when God does not will it to live. For to live is not its attribute, as it is God's; but as a man does not live always, and the soul is not for ever conjoined with the body, since, whenever this harmony must be broken up, the soul leaves the body, and the man exists no longer; even so, whenever the soul must cease to exist, the spirit of life is removed from it, and there is no more soul, but it goes back to the place from whence it was taken.' (Roberts-Donaldson)
τὸ γὰρ ἀληθὲς οὕτως ἔχει· μάθοις δ' ἂν ἐντεῦθεν. ἡ ψυχὴ ἤτοι ζωή ἐστιν ἢ ζωὴν ἔχει. εἰ μὲν οὖν ζωή ἐστιν, ἄλλο τι ἂν ποιήσειε ζῆν, οὐχ ἑαυτήν, ὡς καὶ κίνησις ἄλλο τι κινήσειε μᾶλλον ἢ ἑαυτήν. ὅτι δὲ ζῇ ψυχή, οὐδεὶς ἀντείποι. εἰ δὲ ζῇ, οὐ ζωὴ οὖσα ζῇ, ἀλλὰ μεταλαμβάνουσα τῆς ζωῆς· ἕτερον δέ τι τὸ μετέχον τινὸς ἐκείνου οὗ μετέχει. ζωῆς δὲ ψυχὴ μετέχει, ἐπεὶ ζῆν αὐτὴν ὁ θεὸς βούλεται. οὕτως ἄρα καὶ οὐ μεθέξει ποτέ, ὅταν αὐτὴν μὴ θέλοι ζῆν. οὐ γὰρ ἴδιον αὐτῆς ἐστι τὸ ζῆν ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ· ἀλλὰ ὥσπερ ἄνθρωπος οὐ διὰ παντός ἐστιν οὐδὲ σύνεστιν ἀεὶ τῇ ψυχῇ τὸ σῶμα, ἀλλ', ὅταν δέῃ λυθῆναι τὴν ἁρμονίαν ταύτην, καταλείπει ἡ ψυχὴ τὸ σῶμα καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἔστιν, οὕτως καί, ὅταν δέῃ τὴν ψυχὴν μηκέτι εἶναι, ἀπέστη ἀπ' αὐτῆς τὸ ζωτικὸν πνεῦμα καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ψυχὴ ἔτι, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὴ ὅθεν
ἐλήφθη ἐκεῖσε χωρεῖ πάλιν. (Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca. Vol. 6)

The apostle Paul wrote that only God has immortality (1 Tim. 6:16); therefore, since all else is created by God, all else is not immortal. But, what about those of us who will one day become immortal in incorruptible, spiritual bodies, as the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 15:53,

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
δεῖ γὰρ τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ τὸ θνητὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν

Is not man to be immortal also? Evidently so; thus, we must distinguish between (1) inherent immortality and (2) granted immortality. God alone has inherent immortality, that is, "life in Himself" (John 5:26). But, He grants or gives immortality to those He wills.
For example, in John 10:28, it is written,

And I give them eternal life, and they shall certainly never perish, neither shall anyone pluck them out of my hand.
κἀγὼ ζωὴν αἰώνιον δίδωμι αὐτοῖς καὶ οὐ μὴ ἀπόλωνται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ οὐχ ἁρπάσει τις αὐτὰ ἐκ τῆς χειρός μου

There is a soul.
The soul is disembodied, sentient, and sensible upon the death of the body.
God grants (gives) immortality to the soul as He wills, but the soul is not inherently immortal.
God alone is inherently immortal ("has life in Himself").

It should be noted that immortality is also granted to the unrighteous, but for the purpose of eternal torment rather than eternal life (i.e., reward) (cp. Dan. 12:2)).

John 5:28: "All who are in the graves shall hear his voice...
John 5:29: And they shall come forth, those who have done good unto the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


How is rosary different from chanting Mantra? I'd like to know the Catholic teaching or opinion on rosary similarities with eastern religion prayers like chanting mantra.

I checked something about chanting mantra and it uses the same way of focusing on every word and even the way how it sounds.

According to Merriam-Webster, a mantra is

  a sound, word, or phrase that is repeated by someone who is praying or meditating

So I suppose that one might consider a Hail Mary or the other prayers used in the Rosary as a sort of mantra. Whether one would really want to depends on your view of meditation and meditative prayer.

Merriam-Webster's Concise Encyclopedia entry for mantra states:

  Repetition of a mantra can induce a trancelike state and can lead the participant to a higher level of spiritual awareness.

That's not the Catholic intention when engaged in meditative prayer. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops' document on How to Pray the Rosary states:

  The repetition in the Rosary is meant to lead one into restful and contemplative prayer related to each Mystery. The gentle repetition of the words helps us to enter into the silence of our hearts, where Christ's spirit dwells.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church further adds in paragraph 2723:

  Meditation is a prayerful quest engaging thought, imagination, emotion, and desire. Its goal is to make our own in faith the subject considered, by confronting it with the reality of our own life.

And in paragraph 2705:

  The mind seeks to understand the why and how of the Christian life, in order to adhere and respond to what the Lord is asking.

In other words, this meditative prayer is not intended to lead one into a trance or semi-hypnotic state, though I suppose one could argue that it's intended to produce a "higher level of spiritual awareness". Instead, it's intended to help one focus on a spiritual saying, event, or person, and allow God to show us how we can apply the spiritual meaning contained therein to our own lives.

In a loose sense, then, one could say that the Hail Mary as used in the Rosary is a sort of mantra, but it's not intended to be used for the same purpose that a mantra such as om mani padme om is. There are similarities, and again differences.


Hierarchy of Catholicism, government, and papal teaching The bible teaches that we should submit to our governments in:

Romans 13:1-2 (KJV)

  Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no
  power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  Whosoever
  therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and
  they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

1 Peter 2:13-14 (KJV)

  Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake:
  whether it be to the king, as supreme ; Or unto governors, as unto
  them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the
  praise of them that do well.

Examples of this submission can be found in stories of Peter and Paul (Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; 1 Peter 2:18-20; Titus 2:9-11)

The Catholic church considers the Pope to be the Vicar of Christ

  The traditional assertion of Catholics in this matter is that each
  pope has the totality and supremacy of the power Christ left on earth
  for the building up of the kingdom of God. The pope is said to have
  the plenitudo potestatis, or fullness of power. His authority, direct
  from Christ after the manner of a vicar, extends equally directly to
  each man, woman and child committed to his care, namely all men. This
  fact of papal primacy has been denied on numerous occasions, but
  chiefly in five great eras of the Church's history.

Furthermore, there is the papal infallibility which further illustrates the power of the pope.  Which is biblically backed as he is "the next Peter" in Matthew 16:18, Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-17

  It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a
  personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any
  pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of
  Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the
  exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal
  decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when
  approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be
  considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the
  pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already
  mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.

Do the papal teachings supersede government rules where they conflict?  Is there an historic precedence of either?

On the surface, it would be easy to say, "the Pope is the Vicars, he rules".  But we must consider that historically the pope (the person, not the title) hasn't always been a good representation for the church, either because the wrong person was chosen or another reason.  Which is why I'm looking for an historic precedence.

I believe this ending conclusion and summary - Thus, even if public authority commanded that every religious institution perform same-sex marriages, if the Church believed that such a command contravened the will of God, it would refuse to do so. - in MattGutting's answer to Homosexual marriages in the Catholic church sums it up well.

The Lord Jesus himself said to us to, '[r]ender to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.' He paid his taxes and recognized the authority of Pilate as have been given to  him [Pilate] from above.

We also respect and obey all our lawful superiors as commanded by the fourth commandment.

  cf. Penny Catechism,
  198
  198. Are we commanded to obey our parents only?
  We are commanded to obey, not only our parents, but also our bishops and pastors, the civil authorities, and our lawful superiors.

I believe the difficulty the question seems to present is easily resolved by an understanding of what is the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals that Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with. [cf. CCC 888-892]. Key words: faith and morals i.e. to what the infallibility covers and is limited to.

Below is a good example to illustrate what is and is not covered by the infallibility of the Church's shepherds:

  The Mother of the future Cardinal recounted also that on another
  occasion, whist she was explaining to him the meaning of papal
  infallibility, she decided to test him. Taking a book bound in black
  in her hand, she asked him: “Rafael, if the Pope said that this book
  is bound in white, what would you say about that?” The little boy,
  after a moment’s reflection replied: “Mother, the Pope would not be
  able to say such nonsense,” showing – by his reply – the acuteness of
  his most refined intelligence. - If Pope says black is white, that's
  it, right? - a very special young man knew better than that | Rorate
  Cæli.

Do the papal teachings supersede government rules where they conflict? Is there an historic precedence of either?

This is playing out right before our eyes and not only between Church and State e.g. HHS Mandate, Homosexual unions and 'marriages', abortion, stem-cell research, contraception, euthanasia, etc. but also within the Church herself with e.g. Card. Kasper's  proposal.

The trial for the Christian arises whenever Caesar sets himself up as god, an idol really, demanding things that ought to be rendered to God be rendered to him [Caesar].


Does LDS teaching hold to a multi-universe theory or an infinite universe theory in order to account for the doctrine of eternal progression? I recently read about the doctrine of eternal families in the LDS Church.  As I understand it, the LDS church teaches that men on this planet have the potential to become gods themselves, who then have their own planets upon which people may become gods also.

I am mathematically inclined, so I began thinking of this from that perspective.  Currently, the LDS Church has a membership of around 15 million people worldwide.  If we, however, only assume that one million men attain godhood from God's spiritual progeny on this planet and that this is the only planet on which His progeny attains godhood, then we would have a generational ratio of 1:1,000,000 or 1:10^6.  If that ratio were to hold for each man that becomes a god in each subsequent generation, the numbers become quite large very quickly, even assuming linear growth rather than exponential.

I understand that LDS teaching holds the our God was once a man on another planet, so at the very least, people on this planet are the third "generation".  If our God is one of a million others who also became gods on their planet, then the total number of gods and planets, if this really is the third generation, would now be 10^6 X 10^6, or 10^12 (one trillion).  If this is the 4th generation, then there would be 10^12 or one quintillion gods and planets.

Ten celestial generations would produce 10^60 gods and planets, and 20 would produce 10^120 gods and planets.

Science estimates that there are only between 10^78 - 10^82 atoms in the observable universe.  So, my question is whether or not the LDS Church speaks to this reality and whether it holds to a multi-universe or infinite universe theory in order to account for the mathematical realities or if there is some other explanation.

I have never read anything about this question on any other sites.  The mathematical realities just occurred to me as I was thinking about this.

The problem with this kind of question is that, at least within the context of Mormon Doctrine, there has never exactly been an authoritative treatise on any sort of relation to these concepts in our physical realm. I can, however, present the various theories laid forth by various 'philosophers,' so to speak, within Mormonism.

An interesting book I came across recently is entitled The Kolob Theorem by Lynn  M. Hilton. Hilton gives the hypothesis that Kolob (the star/planet on which God resides according to Mormonism) is at the center of the Milky Way, and that all subsequent other Galaxies are their own realms with their own respective Gods. Of course, the problem with this according to your numbers is obvious: There are only about 10^12 galaxies in the observable universe. I am not sure if Hilton addresses this in his book, perhaps he gives an explanation or perhaps believes in some kind of infinitum.

Another, and anecdotally more common, theory is that everything that is observable in our universe is the creation of only our God. The late Neil A Maxwell, an Apostle in the church, offered this:

  The Restoration’s revelations and translations accommodate a vast universe; thus it is no surprise to us that scientists’ latest estimate of the number of stars in the universe is approximately 70 sextillion—“more stars in the sky,” scientists say, “than there are grains of sand in every beach and desert on Earth”

The context of his sermon indicates belief in all that being of God, and thus lends credence to the former theory. I believe it is the more common one among adherents to Mormonism.

While it is possible to find various speculations and even contradictory statements from both members and church leaders regarding the exact nature of such doctrines, most Mormons simply believe in an absolute infinite, that is; that there is no end to the number of universes out there. Few ever formulate an opinion on how that is accomplished. I believe that it would be accurate to say that as a whole Mormonism accepts the notion of a multiverse, but because, as in many other things in Mormonism, the exact mechanics are not prescribed, it's best to conclude that there is simply no precise conclusion in Mormonism other than the infinite number of Gods, and thus an infinite universe or multiverse.


Why pray to Jesus and not to the Father? (Catholic perspective) Jesus always refers the Father as to be greater than himself.

For example:

  You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
  John 14:28

  Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
  John 5:19

And many more. So why don't Christians directly pray to the Father instead of Jesus if he is more superior than him?

Why pray to Jesus and not to the Father?

According to the Catholic Church there is nothing stopping the faithful from having a devotion to God the Father or simply to the Father. After all the Our Father also known as the Lord's Prayer is prayed at every Catholic Mass and is recited in our rosaries. How many of our prayers within the sacred liturgy are addressed to the Father?

Is it possible that the Church will institute a Feast in honor of the Father some day? Anything is possible.

The Church has many devotions and feasts in honor of different aspects of Christ's sacred humanity and the Holy Trinity.

  Devotions to the Holy Trinity

  Feast of the Holy Trinity is a devotional day celebrated on the first Sunday after Pentecost and honors the three Persons of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.[16] The Novena to the Holy Trinity may include the Glory Be prayer, as well as other prayers, although the other prayers may vary.

  Devotions to Jesus

  Several widespread devotions in the Catholic tradition relate directly to Jesus Christ. Official Catholic teachings consider Eucharistic adoration an important practice which "stimulates the faithful to an awareness of the marvelous presence of Christ and is an invitation to spiritual communion with Him." In many cases Eucharistic adoration is performed by each person for an uninterrupted hour known as the Holy Hour.The inspiration for the Holy Hour is Matthew 26:40 when in the Garden of Gethsemane the night before his crucifixion, Jesus asks Peter: "So, could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?".

  Some devotions have the form of Acts of Reparation to Jesus Christ for the sufferings and insults that Jesus endured during His Passion or for the sin of blasphemy, e.g. the Golden Arrow Prayer. Devotions involving the Sacred Heart of Jesus first appeared in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, but most current devotions are attributed to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647–1690).

  In the Roman Catholic tradition, the Sacred Heart has been closely associated with Acts of Reparation to Jesus Christ.

  The devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus dates back to Sister Marie of St. Peter in 1843 who reported visions of Jesus and Mary in which she was urged to spread the devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus, in reparation for the many insults Jesus suffered in His Passion. This resulted in The Golden Arrow Holy Face Devotion (Prayer). The Devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus was first approved by Pope Leo XIII in 1885.Sister Maria Pierina de Micheli further promoted the devotion based on the image from Secondo Pia's photograph of the Shroud of Turin.In 1958, Pope Pius XII approved of the devotion and the Holy Face medal and confirmed the Feast of the Holy Face of Jesus as Shrove Tuesday (the Tuesday before Ash Wednesday) for all Roman Catholics.

  Other devotions include the Divine Mercy based on the visions of Saint Faustina Kowalska, known as the "Apostle of Mercy", and First Friday devotions which are related to devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Chaplet of the Five Wounds. - Catholic devotions

One of the main reasons why the Church does not have a stronger devotion and prayer to the Father is that a Feast has not yet been instituted in honor of the Father for one reason or another.

  The absence of a feast dedicated to the Father in the liturgical calendar bears witness to the fact that the worship of the Father still hasn’t reached its full development. During the year there are feasts dedicated to Christ in memory of numerous events of the work of salvation, the feast of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the feast of the Holy Trinity, the feasts dedicated to Our Lady and those dedicated to numerous saints. However, there is no particular feast dedicated to the Father.

  In the past there were attempts to introduce a feast of the Father. In the XVII century, for example, in 1684 the king of Spain Charles II started a petition in Rome in order to obtain, at least for Spain or for the whole Church, the institution of a special feast dedicated to the Father. - The new worship of the Father by by P. Jean Galot SJ

It is interesting to note what Fr. Raniero CANTALAMESSA OFM,Cap has to say about the possibility of this devotion considering is the Papal Preacher for the Apostolic Household at the Vatican.

  It’s sad that in the whole liturgical year there isn’t a feast dedicated to the Father, that in the whole Missal there isn’t even a votive Mass in His honour. Come to think of it, it’s very strange; there are many feasts dedicated to Jesus the Son; there is a feast of the Holy Spirit; there are many feasts dedicated to Mary… There isn’t a single feast dedicated to the Father, “source and origin of all divinity”. We could almost say that the Father, and no longer the Holy Spirit, is “the unknown divinity”.

  It’s true, there is the feast of the Holy Trinity, which, however, is the feast of a mystery, or a dogma and not of a person and, nevertheless, not of a single divine person. Besides, the fact that there is a feast of the Holy Family doesn’t mean the Church may not feel the need to celebrate,
  even individually, the three persons of the Holy Family. There are even two feasts dedicated to Jesus’ putative father, but there isn’t a single feast dedicated to His real Father. Couldn’t this be the moment to fill this gap?

  Many feasts originated in order to answer the particular needs of an era: the feast of Corpus Domini, for example, was born as a response of faith to the denial of the real presence, made by Berengario of Tours; to the threat of Jansenism, the Church responded with the feast and devotion to the Sacred Heart and no one will ever know how many spiritual graces this devotion produced. Today, the threat strikes the very heart of the Christian faith which is the revelation of God as Father – the “Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”, as St. Paul calls Him – and, therefore, the Trinity itself. It’s not a coincidence that Providence is bringing back to mind, in our days, the mystery of God’s suffering, but because the Holy Spirit knows that this is the remedy needed to
  heal the contaminated mind of modern man, who has found, in suffering, the stumbling stone which leads him far away from God.

  While we look forward to this day, we can already celebrate the feast of the Father “in spirit and in truth”, in the intimacy of our hearts, by perhaps promoting little spiritual initiatives whose purpose is to make the Father known more, to honour Him and express all our filial love for
  Him, in union with Jesus, who always celebrates His Father… In fact, this is already taking place and many people are experiencing the new and extraordinary fervour it gives to faith and to our whole spiritual life. - A Feast for the Father

Praying to the Father has always been permitted within the Catholic Church, although the devotion to the Father is not yet at an official liturgical celebration. A Liturgical feast in honor of God the Father is a possibility in the future as is seen here.


Can somebody summarize the different "branches" of Christianity to me, and explain why they exist in the first place? All my life, I've been massively confused about how there exists separate, seemingly incompatible and separate, "branches" of Christianity. I know about "protestant", "catholic" and then there's something else in the "main three" which I probably "should know" by heart but I simply don't. And then there's also things like Mormons ("Latter Day Saints") and many other minor "variants".

I find Wikipedia and all other websites to be utterly exhausting to try to browse. They seem to always assume that you know most of what you're reading about, instead of having basically no knowledge and wanting to hear the most important elements of each "flavour" and preferably a short summary of why they are separate in the first place.

It would be much simpler if there were just "Christians", "Muslims", "Jews", etc., but it's apparently not enough to be "Christian", because all the different groups of Christians will not approve of you unless you use their "variant". At least that's how I perceive things and how they must logically be if they are different branches. I mean, why would they exist if they all agreed to the same stuff anyway?

Some (a lot, in fact) even say that Jesus was a Jew and thus Christianity in itself is branched out from Judaism? That seems like an important fact if true. It makes Christianity as a whole just some kind of "expansion pack" to the "main software product", to speak in computer jargon.

I'm really just trying to get an overview by asking this question. If such a thing can be had. I find that the more basic my questions are, the more vague are the answers.

In fact, I have never heard of any Christians who refer to the "protestant Bible" or "catholic Bible" -- it's always just "the Bible" (by which they mean the old and the new testaments combined, I assume) or "the good book" or "the holy word". Does the Bible in itself talk about and name these branches, or were they created much later, long after the Bible had been finished and spread?

I also know that the Mormons have another "testament" added to the first two, but that's just about it. And I know there's a stereotype about Catholics making a lot of children, but that also seems to be a common cliché for Mormons as well. That's just about all I know, amazingly. (It's why I ask.)

The branches come from difference in opinion. Here is a diagram showing where Christianity diverged.

Image source

From the beginning Christianity diverged from Judaism1:

  where Christianity emphasizes correct belief (or orthodoxy), focusing on the New Covenant as mediated through Jesus Christ, as recorded in the New Testament. Judaism places emphasis on correct conduct (or orthopraxy), focusing on the Mosaic covenant, as recorded in the Torah and Talmud.2

As time went on further differences in opinion let to more denominations that fell under the umbrella of Christianity.

Great Schism of 1054 was when Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism split over3:

issues of the procession of the Holy Spirit
whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist
the Bishop of Rome's claim to universal jurisdiction
the place of the See of Constantinople in relation to the Pentarchy

Reformation began around 1517-15214

had varying causes and different backgrounds by various leaders (see Martin Luther, John Calvin) caused new denominations to emerge (Lutherism, Calvinism)

Restorationism attempted to re-establish Christianity in its original form and spans over many years5

The Second Great Awakening of 1790-1840 was protestant revival movement in America that caused new denominations to emerge (Adventism, Dispensationalism, Latter-Day Saint Movement)

This is not meant to be a comprehensive list but a brief summary showing where some denominations OP mentions come from see also

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christian#Split_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism

2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Judaism

3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation

5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism


What is the biblical basis for restricting administration of the sacraments to ordained church leaders? What is the biblical support for the practice that only ordained church leaders should administer the only sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper?

As St. Paul explains in his letter to the Romans, you are certainly not the first to ask this question ;-)

  For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function. Rom 12, 4

“Sacraments” are intimately related to “Church”. In Scripture you will find that Jesus himself gives the Holy Spirit to his disciples so that they can give it on. By doing so, He institutes the sacraments and gives authority to the Church to administer them:

  Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." Jn 20, 21-23

This is an example of how the administration is preceded by an ordination:

He sends
He gives the Holy Spirit
He gives the power to forgive sins or not

Note that you could apply the same to Jesus Himself: “As the Father has sent me”.

Another interesting phrase is “if you retain the sins of any, they are retained”: I like to think that Jesus wants these disciples to make sure that everyone gets a chance to receive the gift of forgiveness.

I hope this helps, feel free to contemplate the whole chapter (book) of both excerpts, it often helps to get perspective.


How do Christians who think animals have only existed for <7,000 years on Earth reconcile their views with Pleistocene saber-toothed tigers? Saber-toothed tiger (smilodon) fossils are regularly dated to the Pleistocene (such as here), which would put them before animals existed according to many Christians (at the earliest, ~12,000 years ago).
How do Christians who reject animals existing >7,000 years ago reconcile their views with the Pleistocene-existing saber-toothed tigers, according to scientific sources?

I think your premise may be flawed.
You ask about "Christians who reject animals existing >7,000 years ago", but that implies Young Earth Creationists, who reject anything (other than God, of course) existing more than 7,000 years ago.
This means that they also reject any dating of any worldly substance (at least on Earth, but that's a whole other can of worms) which claims an age of more than 7,000 years. So there is no "reconciling" to be done; the Christians you are asking about reject your implied premise.
If you are genuinely curious to learn more, here are a couple places you can go that will start to give you some information on the basis of YEC rejection of Uniformitarian dating:
https://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/

If you want something with a little more meat, I cannot recommend strongly enough that you read the R.A.T.E. report. You can read a summary here, or download the full report here (fair warning: this is a book; 686 pages long). The second report may also be available. (Personally, I own both in physical form.)


Why does God punish us when He gives us free-will? God gives us free-will. But why does God punish us for exercising our free-will in certain ways (disobeying Him, sinning)? Why even both to give us free will, if we are to be punished for exercising our free will in a certain way.

I would say that is not really free will. If I give you a glass of water on the table, and say you are free to drink the glass of water, but if you drink it, I will kill you --- Why even bother to give that person the option of drinking the water, when you are essentially hindering his free-will and stopping him from drinking the glass of water?

If I want to carry out an action but in the back of my mind I know it is a sin, I might hesitate to carry out that action if I know God will punish me. Isn't that not obstructing my free-will? Why give me free will, if you punish me for making certain choices I want to make?

I would not call it punishment but rather, the RESULT or OUTCOME of freewill.

Let's give an example.

  You tell your little son not to touch the hot iron on the
  table. But, out of curiosity, the boy touched it anyway and the little
  hands burned. The child exercised his own freewill even if a strict
  warning was given by you. This is a result of freewill.

The same thing apply to Adam and Eve. They were strictly warned not to eat the fruit from the tree at middle of the garden.

  Genesis 2:17 (NIV) "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

God did not say "I will punish you" but rather, the tragic result of it was given as a warning, "Death". Death is the result by eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve knew very well what she was doing. Instead of listening to God, she listened to that serpent who was inferior to her. Adam also followed his wife and they both transgressed. The effect of the fruit immediately fell on them. All was cursed, the ground was cursed, man was cursed, sin and death entered the world!

  Romans 5:12 (NIV) Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one
  man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people,
  because all sinned

But God in His mercy prepared a way out, the one and only way out, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the death penalty of sins, offered his blood for atonement of sins and became the one and only way to God. He is now the remedy from death.

  John 14:6 (NIV) Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the
  life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

Now, this is again another freewill exercise. IF you chose to receive Jesus Christ, you will get eternal life, ELSE, you prefer to reject Him, you remain in your sins and never receive the remedy from death.