Why were the people of Exodus so stubborn? It appears that the people of Israel during the time of Exodus were so stubborn. They rebelled  many times, grumbled against Moses and God over and over again. In spite of seeing all the miracles that God performed right before their very eyes, they were always questioning God. But the next generation were obedient under the leadership of Joshua.

What could be the reason of their stubbornness? Was it because they were illiterate? Was it because they were raised as slaves which made them hard and obstinate?

Ultimately, I believe scripture would say that they were stubborn because they were people.  Their education and position had nothing to do with their rebellion against God.  They were rebellious simply because it was in their character.

This nature isn't limited to the Jews only, but also to everyone in the world.  As Paul says in Romans 3:9-18:

  What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:
    “None is righteous, no, not one;
        no one understands;
        no one seeks for God.
    All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
        no one does good,
        not even one.”
    “Their throat is an open grave;
        they use their tongues to deceive.”
    “The venom of asps is under their lips.”
        “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
    “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
        in their paths are ruin and misery,
    and the way of peace they have not known.”
        “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

This rebelliousness and stubbornness of people is the foundation for why Christ came to die.  We were rebellious and did not love Christ, but He loved us anyways, so he came to die to pay the penalty for our sin.


Are Naaman's actions considered an exception to God's laws? 2 Kings 5:18–19 (NIV)
18 But may the Lord forgive your servant for this one thing: When my master enters the temple of Rimmon to bow down and he is leaning on my arm and I have to bow there also—when I bow down in the temple of Rimmon, may the Lord forgive your servant for this.”
19 “Go in peace,” Elisha said.

Naaman's actions go seriously against the laws given by God. Within the Ten Commandments, for example, idolatry is the most serious sin to commit. And yet, surprisingly, Elisha does not seem concerned, and he tells Naaman to go in peace!
It is the act of idolatry, not the thought of idolatry, that the Bible explicitly condemns. Based on my studies of law, I feel we must not bow down to an idol and then say we did not mean to do so. The mere act of bowing down is sinful. How, then, are Naaman's actions justified in this case?

Let's take a look at exactly what we are taking into consideration here:
all Scriptures are quoted from the King James translation.
Exo 20:3 through 5

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

This commandment says 'gods before me.' There are two important points here:

the word is gods and the little g indicates a false god.

The second important point is the word before.

Considering these words and their importance how does that compare to what Naaman said, and verse 18 cannot be considered without considering verse 17:

2nd Kings 5:17  And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules' burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD.

Naaman, wanted to have a place where he could feel like he was worshiping in Israel therefore he wanted some soil from Israel to build a worship place dedicated to the Jehovah, and stated that from then on he would worship him alone

2nd Kings 5:18  In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, that when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon: when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing.

Here Naaman is saying that he will only be bowing in the house of Rimmon because his master (who might be infirmed) was leaning on his arm and it was his duty to aid his master in his worship.
It is noteworthy that Naaman brought this up to Elisha, and shows that he wanted to know if God would consider it sinful. And would not God have had Elisha warn Naaman not to if he was asking out of such concern.


What is the physical evidence for a local flood? Some Christians believe Noah's flood was a local event rather than a global flood.

What physical or geological evidence has been given by such Christians to support their position?

There are two variants of the "local flood" view. One variant is that Genesis 6-9 refers to an actual flood that was large-scale but not global, and the other is that the Noah story is fiction, but derived from the memory of a large flood in the past.

Both variants point first to evidence found in the geological column. In particular:

1) All of the early contributors to geology were Christians who believed in a global flood before they began studying rock columns. Buffon, Hutton, Lyell, Agassiz, and Kelvin all became convinced after seeing the rock layers that a single global flood could not have produced them.

2) Some formations, such as the Grand Canyon, include layers of desert sandstone in between layers of marine sediments. Yet YECs claim the entire formation was laid down in one global flood. Grey Neyman of Old Earth Ministries explains the problem:

  The young earth scientist would have to explain how the water receded, then the sandstone formed, then the water came back and deposited the other layers.  However, in the Biblical Flood account, the waters rose, then fell.  There were no cyclic water levels, nor was there a massive amount of time during the flood for a desert environment to create a 315-foot thick rock layer.

3) Other areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico, have thick layers of salt. Salt deposits are created when water evaporates. Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth, writing for BioLogos, explain why this is a problem for flood geology:

  One might argue that the waters from the Flood could have evaporated to leave behind the salt deposits we see today, but there is a serious problem. The thousands of feet of sediment on top of the salt is also said to be from the Flood, meaning the flood waters cannot have evaporated to produce the salt and still be present and violent enough to transport thousands of feet of sediment to the same location. In other words, a single flood cannot be called upon to explain both the salt and the overlying sediment.

4) Among the deposits are layers of igneous rock, formed by volcanic eruptions. When volcanoes erupt, they release greenhouse gases. The number of eruptions necessary to produce all the igneous layers found in the geological column, if they all happened within the same year, would produce enough CO2 to kill Noah and his family. Glenn Morton, writing for Old Earth Ministries, has the details:

  How does this relate to the present atmosphere? Currently we are approaching 400 parts per million (ppm) CO2 in the atmosphere, yet the YEC scenario would produce an atmosphere that had AS A MINIMUM a CO2 level of 58,615 parts per million. Scientists are worried about a 600 ppm CO2 world next century, the YEC post flood world would create such a hot climate that all life would be destroyed. Yet amazingly, Creationists like Austin, Baumgardner, Wise, Snelling, Vardiman, Humphreys and Oard think that the post flood world would be glacially cold.

5) Industrial geologists looking for oil deposits use temperature differences in boreholes to determine the age of the sediment they're drilling through. It's kind of complicated, but Willy Fjeldskaar, writing for Age of Rocks, explains:

  The temperature of the sediments is caused by the heat flow from the inner regions of the Earth. If you put a kettle with water on a hot plate, it will take some time for the water to be heated. A certain amount of time is also needed to heat sediments from the time they were deposited until today. The amount of time needed depends on the flow of heat from the inner regions of the Earth and on the thermal properties of the sediments. Both the heat flow and the thermal properties are relatively well known.

As the heat radiates up from the earth's core, the rocks in lower layers retain a certain percentage. The longer the rocks have been buried, the more heat they will have accumulated. In the short time span proposed by YECs, there's simply not enough time for the sediments to have reached the temperatures geologists find in the boreholes:

  We have seen that it is not possible to explain the measured temperature in these sediments on the assumption that the sediments are only some thousands of years old. Using measured properties of the sediments and conventional values for the Earth’s heat flow, we realize that the sediments must be considerably older than 1 million years.

6) The total amount of water on and in the earth is not nearly enough to produce a global flood. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe explains the problem:

  The four different Hebrew verbs used in Genesis 8:1-8 to describe the receding of the flood waters indicate that these waters returned to their original sources. In other words, the waters of the flood are still to be found within the aquifers and troposphere and oceans of planet Earth. Since the total water content of the earth is only 22 percent of what would be needed for a global flood, it appears that the Genesis flood could not have been global.

That's a sample of the evidence against a global flood. Some Christians take the idea of a local flood further, attempting to find evidence of a large local flood in the geological record.

Greg Neyman of Old Earth Ministries lays out the parameters:

  The site of the flood would have to meet three requirements.  First, it would have to be capable of containing the waters of the flood.  In order to do this, we need a basin, with no outlet to the sea.  If there were an outlet, the water would simply run out of the area.

  Second, the flood would have to fit the parameters mentioned in the Bible.  The source of the waters is not in question.  The only point that matters here is that Noah believed that the world was flooded, and that all the mountains were covered with water.

Neyman calculates that Noah, standing on the deck of the ark, would have been able to see a mountain 95 miles away. That gives us a ballpark estimate of how much area the flood would have to include to cover the highest mountains.

  The final requirement is this:  Does the proposed location agree with the geography mentioned in the Genesis account?  It would have to flood the areas populated by mankind.  We don't have many clues as to the extent of the geographic area.  However, it would appear to include the area around the Garden of Eden, and east of the Garden.

There is some evidence of massive flooding in the Middle East in the distant past. One conjecture which has received a lot of attention recently is the Black Sea deluge hypothesis. Geologists have found some evidence of a massive flood following an inrush of water from the Mediterranean about 7600 years ago, causing the Black Sea to overflow.

There's some evidence that glacial melting caused the Caspian Sea to flood the surrounding area somewhere between 9000 and 17,000 years ago.

Hugh Ross favors the Black Sea hypothesis, while Neyman favors the Caspian. Critics (including YECs) point out that there is no clear evidence that either flood could have produced enough water to cover the mountains and wipe out all of human civilization.


How does the New Apostolic Church compare to evangelical christians? What are the main doctrines of the New Apostolic Church, and what are the big differences in their teachings from the perspective of Evangelical Protestants?

The difficulty in arriving at a meaningful comparison between the NAC and Protestant Christianity (whether they are evangelical or not) is that the NAC declare they are neither Protestant nor Catholic, even though they came out of the Catholic Apostolic Church.

The Catholic Apostolic Church was a religious movement which originated in England around 1831 and later spread to Germany and the United States. While often referred to as Irvingism or the Irvingian movement, it was neither founded nor anticipated by Edward Irving. The church was organised in 1835 under the lead of self-proclaimed apostles.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Apostolic_Church
Readiness for an expected immediate Second Coming of Christ was the central aim of the congregations; the restoration of perfect institutions by the Apostles was deemed necessary to prepare the whole church for this event. The doctrines of achievable personal holiness, attainable universal salvation, the true spiritual unity of all baptized persons, living and dead, in the 'Body of Christ', the possibility of rapture without dying, and the necessity of the fourfold ministry directed by Apostles for perfecting the Church as a whole, formed the cornerstones of the theology.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Apostolic_Church#Theology_of_the_Second_Advent

Like the Catholic Apostolic Church, the New Apostolic Church believes in apostolic succession, that their leaders are the successors of the twelve apostles.  Most evangelical Protestant churches refute this teaching although I have been informed that "Anglicans, Presbyterians andsome Lutherans and Pentecostals trace theirordinations back to the early church and apostles." I don't know if that means they believe in apostolic succession, however, in the same way the Catholic Church does.

It is the view of most evangelical Protestants that apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.  See Acts 17:10-12; 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).  This is the ‘Scripture alone’ sola of the Protestant Reformation.  See: https://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html

The New Apostolic Church believes they have restored the continuity of the early church.  Protestant churches refute this claim.  Here is an extract from an evangelical Protestant source:

[Restorationists] have in common that true Christianity had died out many years ago and it needed to be restored to its original New Testament form. Some of these groups believe they alone are the embodiment of true Christianity, some going so far as to teach that all other groups, including mainline Protestant denominations, are not really Christians at all, having lost their way over the centuries to complete apostasy. They are convinced that the drift from Christian principles is so extreme as to render the church irredeemable, and, therefore, it must be completely rebuilt. https://www.gotquestions.org/restorationism.html
A distinctive and controversial feature of the New Apostolic Church is its doctrine about the dead. A special divine service of remembrance and intercession in prayer takes place three times annually. In such divine services the apostles also administer the sacraments to a living subsidiary minister. Regarding this, New Apostolic Christians refer to several biblical texts such as 1 Corinthians 15:29. There are no limitations to whom in the beyond may be baptised by apostles.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Church#Beliefs_about_death_and_beyond

Protestant churches do not consider prayers or baptisms for the dead to be biblical.  Here is an extract from an evangelical Protestant source on praying for or baptising the dead:

Praying for the dead is not a biblical concept. Our prayers have no bearing on someone once he or she has died. The reality is that, at the point of death, one’s eternal destiny is confirmed. Either he is saved through faith in Christ and is in heaven where he is experiencing rest and joy in God’s presence, or he is in torment in hell. The story of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar provides us with a vivid illustration of this truth. Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied (Luke 16:19-31)...  The writer to the Hebrews tells us, “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). Here we understand that no change in one’s spiritual condition can be made following his death—either by himself or through the efforts of others.  https://www.gotquestions.org/praying-for-the-dead.html

If the NAC practice baptism for the dead (like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) then this would be denounced by Protestant churches.  I do not know if this is what happens in the NAC, so I will simply leave a link to an article that briefly discusses this: https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-dead.html
Regarding conversion, however, the NAC belief that water of baptism is an essential part of rebirth and entitles the believer to the sealing of the Holy Spirit is not the view of most evangelical Protestant churches. The NAC view that the Holy Spirit is given by the act and authority of an apostle, which makes the believer a child of God and incorporates him into the body of Christ is not the view of most evangelical Protestant churches.
Conclusion: The doctrines of the New Apostolic Church bear similarities to many evangelical Protestant churches. The virgin birth, sinless life, and atoning death of Jesus Christ, the need of personal repentance and confession for forgiveness of sins, and the literal return of Jesus Christ to earth are all held by this church.


Early Church Persecution Was it Jewish or Gentile Christians fed to lions and tigers, and did that influence the contention that developed between Jewish and Gentile Christians?

During the first and second centuries the Romans threw Christians and non-Christians alike to wild animals, including wild dogs.  They did not distinguish between Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity although it is true that for a short time Christians and Jews alike were granted the same dispensation from Emperor-worship.  I found this information in ‘The History of Christianity’, Lion, 1977 pages 70 to 72:

"As long as the church was regarded simply as a Jewish sect, it was tolerated by the Roman authorities. For its first thirty years Christianity, like Judaism, enjoyed protection by Roman law. Partly for this reason Paul emhasized the benefits of good government. But once Judaism and Christianity began to diverge, Christians lost the special privileges given to Jews.
Jews were specially exempted from taking part in the cult of emperor-worship. Christians also sought this exemption, since they recognized only one God and served one Lord, Jesus Christ. But when the church became largely composed of Gentiles, it was no longer possible to shelter under the wing of Judaism. Christians refused to offer a pinch of incense on an altar to the divine Emperor - an act which most intelligent people considered to be merely symbolic - and this was interpreted as unpatriotic. In this way the official Roman attitude towards Christianity became less and less favourable.
Adherents of the new religion were subjected to a series of persecutions. These began with brief and apparently localized persecution in Rome under Nero in July 64. According to Tactitus, a Roman historian writing fifty years later, Nero tried to shift the blame on to the Christians after a rumour arose that he had started a fire which destroyed much of the city of Rome. The scale and length of these persecutions seem to have become exaggerated. But Revelation, the final book of the Bible, gives evidence of the persecution of Christians in the province of Asia under the Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81-96). Domitian took the title 'Master and god', and insisted that people took the official oath, "By the genius of the Emperor". Such claims could not be accepted by Jews or Christians.
Letters have survived between the Emperor Trajan and Pliny the Younger (governor of Bithynia AD 111-113) which makes it clear that by their time profession of Christianity could be a capital offence."

And this partial quote, from "The Early Church" by Henry Chadwick, pages 26-27:

"Under Domitian (81-96) the situation seems again to have become grave. Except for Caligula and Nero the emperors had traditionally discouraged over-enthusiastic subjects from offering them divine honours. Domitian took the opposite view, styling himself 'Master and God', and inclined to suspect of treachery those who looked askance at his cult. The customary oath 'by the genius of the emperor' became officially obligatory. There is good evidence that this created a crisis for the Jews. It is probable (though not quite certain) that the Church was no less embarrassed. According to the third-century historian Dio, several eminent Romans with Jewish sympathies were accused of 'atheism', and on this charge action was taken against Titus Flavius Clemens, consul in 95, and his wife Domitilla. Fourth century Christian tradition counted Domitilla a Christian, and perhaps the phrase 'atheism and Jewish sympathies' is Dio's polite circumlocution for Christianity. The Revelation of St John, with its denunciations of idolatrous, persecuting Rome as the scarlet woman drunk with the blood of saints, may reflect the tension in the churches of Asia Minor at this time."

Revelation, the final book of the Bible, gives evidence of the persecution of Christians in the province of Asia under the Emperor Domitian (81-96 A.D.). Domitian took the title 'Master and god', and insisted that people took the official oath, "By the genius of the Emperor". Such claims could not be accepted by either Jews or Christians.
Letters have survived between the Emperor Trajan and Pliny the Younger (governor of Bithynia 111-113 A.D.) which makes it clear that by their time profession of Christianity could be a capital offence.   Emperor Trajan had Ignatius of Antioch thrown to the wild beasts in the Circus Maximus in Rome:

“We command that Ignatius, who affirms that he carries about within him Him that was crucified, be bound by soldiers, and carried to the great [city] Rome, there to be devoured by the beasts, for the gratification of the people.” He was then taken to Rome to the Circus Maximus to be thrown to the beasts.  Ignatius wrote a letter before the Romans killed him: “I am the wheat of God and am ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.”  Source: https://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=677

McClintock & Strong Biblical Cyclopedia (online) gives detailed information on the various Roman Emperors who persecuted Christians.  In the year 95, under the rule of Domitian, 40,000 Christians were supposed to have suffered Martyrdom.  http://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/P/persecutions-of-christians.html
If there is any evidence of contention between Jewish and Gentile Christians based on the persecution they suffered at the hands of Roman Emperors, I would like to see it.  This is not something I’ve heard before.


Why doesn't the Bible tell us that Jesus was a virgin? Christian religions constantly remind us that Mary was "forever virgin".

So why doesn't the Bible tell us that Jesus was also a virgin?

The Bible does emphatically state that Jesus was without sin.

  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
  weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are,
  yet without sin.  Hebrews 4:15 ESV

Since Jesus was never reported to have been married in the Bible, a sexual relationship would have been a sin.  Since Jesus is and was and forever will be sinless, we can know for certain that Jesus was also a virgin.

This is implicit rather than explicit, but no less certain.


2 Chronicles 28:3 vs Genesis 22:2 How is the contradiction explained between 2 Chronicles 28:3 and Genesis 22:2 in the protestant tradition?

Genesis 22:2 NIV

  Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you
  love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a
  burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.”

2 Chronicles 28:3 NIV

  He burned sacrifices in the Valley of Ben Hinnom and sacrificed his
  children in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the
  nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.

There's no contradiction.

Keep in mind that, while God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, he had absolutely no intention of letting him go through with it.  He did it in order to show that he would provide a (quite literal) scapegoat.  He would provide a replacement for Isaac on the altar.  This was meant as something to predict what Christ would do on the cross for us.  And, he did it in a world that existed before the Mosaic law.  Again, he gave Abraham a command that didn't contradict any of his previous commands, and expected him to follow through with it, though God had other plans.

In 2 Chronicles 28:3, the practices were detestable, because by that time, God had given the Israelites the Mosaic law, and his prescription regarding how they were to worship Him.  By sacrificing children, they were going outside the Mosaic law, which was given after Abraham.

It's pretty much the same answer as this question.


Is it possible to be a Christian by birth? My parents are both Christians. When we were kids they always took us to church. Does that make me a Christian?

No.

God knows each one of us as a person, not just part of a family. This is clear even in the Old Testament:

  Ezekiel 33:20 (ESV)
  Yet you say, 'The way of the Lord is not just.' O house of Israel, I will judge each of you according to his ways."

Looking at the Gospel in the New Testament, we see that again each of us is an individual to God:

  John 3:16 (ESV)
  "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

God saves whoever believes in Jesus from perishing. Only by believing, yourself, can you be saved.


Why does Jesus refer to Himself as something distinct from God? This question is addressed to people of trinitarian sects. If Jesus is part of a trinity, why are there so many examples of Him referring to Himself as something distinct from God? Some examples are Him on the cross saying "My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?" and when He refers to God as greater than Himself when speaking to the twelve prior to being taken into custody. There are more that I've noticed but these two come to mind first. Furthermore, Jesus is repeatedly said to sit at the right hand of the Father. Doesn't the phrase "sit at the right hand" imply that the Son is not equal to the Father?

I'm aware of there being counter-examples such as Him saying that He and the Father are one and of course, chapter one of John ("the Word was God").

Admitting these counter-examples support trinitarianism, how do Trinitarians explain the way Jesus speaks of God as if He is something distinct from God? Am I the only one who gets the impression that He speaks in this way?

The way I see it right now is that Jesus is the Father's proxy. All authority was given to Him to execute the Father's will. He was created by the Father (I've heard some say that He was "begotten, not made", but He is referred to as Firstborn of Creation) as God's self-expression or image (Col. 1:15). In this sense, He is a functional equivalent to the Father, but in another sense, He is not essentially equivalent because He came from the Father. Is this the same way Trinitarians see it?

Jesus is not the same person as The Father.

It is a key part of Trinitarian doctrine that the Father and the Son (and the Spirit) are distinct persons. Therefore is is completely correct and proper that Jesus talks about The Father as someone other than himself.

Likewise it is completely correct to call The Father "God" (just like it is completely correct to call Jesus "God") and so he can do that, although it is rarer than you might think - he usually refers to "The Father" when he is giving his own words and teaching, although he often refers to "God" when he is quoting scripture or the teaching of others.

Incidentally in the passage you quote Jesus is quoting scripture, so he would refer to "God".


Does the Catholic Church perform non-civil marriages in the Dominican Republic? In 2013, as many as 200,000 people born in the Dominican Republic were stripped of their citizenship, due to their Haitian ancestry.  Most of these people were thus rendered "stateless," making government courts unavailable to them.  Furthermore, many are destitute and find it virtually impossible to get proper legal identification, which often requires a trip to Haiti and high legal expenses.  (For more on the situation, see this 30-minute documentary or its 2-minute trailer)

From a religious perspective, one of the biggest challenges these people face is that they cannot be legally married – civil marriage is not available to them unless they have proper identification.  In at least some Protestant denominations, such people who faithfully live together and have children are thus considered to be committing adultery, and are not given the opportunity to have a "church wedding" to change this status.

I'd like to know how the Catholic Church handles this situation.  Put simply: does the Catholic Church offer "religious-only" (non-civil) weddings in the DR to those who cannot obtain a civil marriage?  If so, are these weddings considered sufficient by the Catholic Church to comply with biblical prohibitions of adultery and fornication?

The relevant passages of the Code of Canon Law are (emphasis mine):

Can.  1067 The conference of bishops is to establish norms about the examination of spouses and about the marriage banns or other opportune means to accomplish the investigations necessary before marriage. After these norms have been diligently observed, the pastor can proceed to assist at the marriage.
Can.  1071 §1. Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at:
1/ a marriage of transients;
2/ a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law;
3/ a marriage of a person who is bound by natural obligations toward another party or children arising from a previous union;
4/ a marriage of a person who has notoriously rejected the Catholic faith;
5/ a marriage of a person who is under a censure;
6/ a marriage of a minor child when the parents are unaware or reasonably opposed;
7/ a marriage to be entered into through a proxy as mentioned in can. 1105.
§2. The local ordinary is not to grant permission to assist at the marriage of a person who has notoriously rejected the Catholic faith unless the norms mentioned in can. 1125 have been observed with necessary adaptation.

In principle, the people you mention fall into the second case of subsection 1 of canon 1071; which means that the pastor of the people wishing to marry would have to contact his local Ordinary (that is, his Bishop) to obtain permission to assist at the marriage. I don't expect such a permission is difficult to obtain, given the concrete situation, but it does show that "a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law" can still be celebrated by the Church, given the pastor takes a bit of care to prepare beforehand.
So I recommend that those people who do not have any documents to talk to their pastors, and they will advise them on how to proceed in order to contract a valid marriage.


As Christians are we called to convert people who have no Faith in anything or Faith in different religion. Baptist/Methodist As Christians, both individually and collectively as the church, we are called to make and grow followers of Christ but when Jesus says this is he telling us to mainly target Non-religious people or people of other (non-Christian) religions. The focus is not whether we such make disciples, but whether we should focus more on the non-religious or on people of other faiths or if they should be treated the same.

I want the answer strictly from Baptist or Methodist denomination.

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,(Matthew 28:19)

"All nations" would naturally extend to refer to all people, be they atheists, Buddhists, or of any other religious (or lack of religious) beliefs. Hence, Jesus says "all."

Given that Baptists and Methodists believe that the Bible is God's word, I am confident that this applies to both denominations. However, since you specifically asked for the teaching from the Baptist or Methodist Church, here is a quote from an article from the United Methodist Church: (I chose Methodist because it's easier for me to find stuff on them for some reason.)

  "The concept of missionaries is something that many people struggle with, particularly when we are engaged in more pluralistic circles of friendship or other relationships. We don’t want to offend Muslim or Jewish friends by trying to convert them to Christianity. And we don’t want to be thought naïve or self-righteous by atheist or agnostic friends.  At the same time, we are called as United Methodists to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world. We are called as Christians to share the Good News of Christ. So how do we live out our faith authentically in ways that offer an invitation to grace that meets people where they are but doesn’t leave them there?"

We’re on a Co-Mission From God


How is the Catholic belief in Purgatory supported? There is already this question on this site: What is the Biblical support for Purgatory?

But I believe there might be more to the Catholic argument. We know that Catholics regard the Holy Tradition of the Apostles as highly as the Holy Scriptures. So there are at least two sources for reasons that Catholics believe in Purgatory.

What is the full Catholic argument for the belief in Purgatory? In other words, without restriction to the sources used, why do Catholics believe in Purgatory?

Some background: what Purgatory is, and what it is not
Before answering the question, it is necessary to understand exactly what the Church means by “Purgatory.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) says the following:

1030. All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031. The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come [a quotation from St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4,39:PL 77,396, with a reference to Mt. 12:31].

Hence, Purgatory is a temporary state that allows souls that die in friendship with God, and yet are still have some of the effects of sin in their soul, to be cleansed before their definitive encounter with God. This cleansing (which may take place on earth, in the form of reparation, or after death in Purgatory) constitutes the “temporal punishment” that is is the consequence of committing offences against God.
It is absolutely not, therefore, a “miniature Hell,” nor is it an intermediate state “between” Heaven and Hell. All souls in Purgatory are assured of their salvation; they are guaranteed to be in Heaven one day.
The Church teaches that it is the duty and a work of mercy for Christians to pray for the souls being cleansed after death—and this is the justification for indulgences (remittance of the temporal punishment due to sin) that are applied to the deceased (see CCC 1032).
Many sources speak of a “purifying fire,” including the text from St. Gregory above, but we must stress that the “fire” in question is strictly metaphorical, since the persons in Purgatory are still waiting for the Resurrection of the Body. (Hence the fanciful depictions of Purgatory in works such as the Purgatorio in Dante’s Divine Comedy must be regarded as metaphorical, and often, as simply inaccurate.)
(Another common misconception is that persons spend a certain amount of “time” in Purgatory, and that the prayers and indulgences reduce or eliminate that “time.” This misconception has doubtless been fostered in part by the fact that before the current Enchiridion on Indulgences, indulgences were often given with a number of “days” or “years;” however, the time period was intended to indicate, not the amount of time remitted in Purgatory, but the duration of certain penances that were traditionally given back in the Middle Ages—indulgences were originally intended to be remissions of all or part of those penances. In fact, since the persons in Purgatory do not yet have bodies—having lost theirs at death and since they are awaiting General Resurrection—they do not experience time in the same way we do on earth. A more severe purification need not, therefore, take place over a longer period of “time.”)
Biblical basis for Purgatory
Although this question has been dealt with in What is the Biblical support for Purgatory?, for the reader’s convenience, here are the passages that the Church refers to:
First, there is 2 Macc. 12:39-45:

39 On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers. 40 Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jam′nia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41 So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; 42 and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin (RSV-CE).

It should be pointed out that Catholics (and Orthodox) regard 1 and 2 Maccabees to be part of the Canon of Scripture, whereas most Protestant denominations do not. Catholics and Orthodox, therefore, consider these books to be the inspired Word of God, and hence must accept clear teaching of doctrine, as in Verse 45, as binding.  However, regardless of whether one considers the Books of the Maccabees canonical, they give clear evidence that mainstream Jews in the second century B.C.—at least those who accepted the Resurrection of the Body—routinely made prayers for the dead, a practice that doubtless passed into the early Church. Since prayers cannot help either those in Heaven (because they are already enjoying their definitive encounter with God) or in Hell (because they are eternally deprived of that encounter), it is reasonable to posit a state of purification that occurs after death, for those who need it before they enter Heaven.
Perhaps even clearer than 2 Maccabees is 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 (a text whose canonicity no mainstream Christian denomination disputes):

12 Now if any one builds on the foundation [i.e., Jesus Christ] with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble— 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire (RSV-CE).

St. Paul in this passage is speaking of the Day of the Lord: a reference to an image dear to many of the Old Testament prophets; in the Prophets, the Day of the Lord refers to moments when God enacts judgment: either on Israel itself, or on her enemies, or else (especially in the later prophets) the judgment that people will receive when they die, or else at the General Resurrection. Here, clearly Paul means the judgment that people will receive after death.
Paul teaches that after death each person’s works (meaning the actions and habits that each person has done during his life) are tested by fire. Those that are enduring (those done in cooperation with the grace of God) survive the test; those that are not (the lingering effects of sinful acts, or acts done without the help of God’s grace) will perish.
It should be noted that this test by fire is not the same as the judgment that determines whether a person will go to Heaven or to Hell: Paul is clearly speaking of those who “will be saved,” although for those with works of straw, “as through fire.” These are all persons who have died in friendship with God, some of whom, however, need a cleansing of their works of straw before they are saved (that is, before they make their definitive encounter with God).
The passage from 1 Corinthians is by far the most explicit; there is also Mt. 5:25-26:

25 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; 26 truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny (RSV-CE).

This passage is not, of course, a definitive proof of the existence of Purgatory, but that is certainly a possible interpretation. Coming, as it does, in the Sermon on the Mount, it lends itself to a reflection on the judgment after death. The allegory would be as follows: the time we have on earth is our journey to the courthouse; the “accuser” would be God; and the trial, the judgment we receive at death. We can “make friends” with God now, or else pay the “penalty” in “prison” (i.e., after death). Jesus seems to suggest that the “prison term” is finite—it only lasts as long as there is a “debt” to pay.
A historical argument
The early Christians were fiercely defensive of the true doctrine, and whenever a serious deviation was introduced, there was a swift reaction by those who maintained the orthodox view: this attitude is evident in the various controversies that arose in the first centuries: Marcion (who led a Gnostic sect), Sabelius (who advocated Modalism, a Trinitarian heresy), Arius (who denied the divinity of the Word), the “Pneumatomachoi” (who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit), Nestorius (who denied the personal unity of Jesus), and so on—there are countless examples.  We would expect that if the doctrine of Purgatory were seen as innovative and dangerous, that there would have been a vocal reaction on the part of the Church; however, there was not. The practice of praying for the dead was uncontroversial (and indeed predates Christianity, as we saw with the passage from 2 Maccabees), as was the idea that a purification is sometimes necessary before persons enter Heaven (already taught by St. Paul, as we saw).
On the contrary, no one, not even the leaders of “heretical” sects (Sabellians, Arians, Montanists, Novatians, and so on) seems to have doubted that idea, which explains why it is not dealt with systematically by the Fathers. Nevertheless, there is a continuous history of belief in such a purification and the need to pray for those persons undergoing it.
The Tradition regarding Purgatory
I reproduce some passages, which I have taken from the article “The Roots of Purgatory” by Catholic Answers.
Texts that bear witness to belief in Purgatory
The following texts are not by Church Fathers, but they bear witness to the fact that mainstream, orthodox Christians believed in a purification after death (i.e., Purgatory), as early as the second century A.D.:

And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’ (Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160], emphasis added).
The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste Shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius, ordered this to be inscribed: ‘Truly, I was in my seventy-second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius’ (Epitaph of Abercius [A.D. 190], emphasis added).

Here is a text from the Acts of the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity, martyrs from the city of Rome itself.

[T]hat very night, this was shown to me in a vision: I [Perpetua] saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid color, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with disease. […] For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other. […] and [I] knew that my brother was in suffering. But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then […] I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me. Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me: I saw that the place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment, […] he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment (The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity 2:3–4 [A.D. 202], emphasis added).

Witnesses from Church Fathers and ecclesiastical writers
The first couple of texts are from Tertullian. He is not exactly a Church Father (he joined a rigoristic sect called the Montanists in the latter part of his life), but he is an important witness to the beliefs of the Church in the early third century A.D.
The first is from De corona (On the crown), which discusses martyrdom. In Chapter 3—which, interestingly, is a justification of the practices of Christians that are handed down as tradition—he notes that

As often as the anniversary [of a person’s death] comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours (De corona 3:3 [A.D. 211]).

He cites this as an example of something unobjectionable that has been a constant custom among Christians.
In a similar vein, in his De monogamia (On Monogamy), he says

Indeed, she [a Christian widow] prays for his [her husband’s] soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship with him in the first resurrection; and she offers her offering on the anniversaries of his falling asleep (De monogamia 10:5 [A.D. 216]).

Note that in this work Tertullian is excessively rigorous regarding matrimony, but the important thing for our purposes is that he is a witness to the fact that praying for the dead is unobjectionable, and the Christians believed that such prayers brought “refreshment” (refrigerium) to them.
Moving on to writers who are unquestionably Church Fathers, we have the following passage from Letter 51 of St. Cyprian of Carthage (who was, apparently, a pupil of Tertullian, although he rejected Tertullian’s rigorism and, evidently, never left communion with the Church). In his letter, St. Cyprian explains how it is possible for the Church to pardon apostates, adulterers, and others who have committed serious offences. It does not diminish the Church’s holiness, he argues, because she has re-admitted her lapsed sons; just as the Church is no less pure because some of her members have committed adultery and have been reconciled, neither is she less holy because she re-admits apostates and lapsi. In this context, he says,

It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory: it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord (Epistle 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253], emphasis added).

Here, St. Cyprian describes the doctrine that we are familiar with: it is possible for a person to expiate all of his sins in this life, and hence attain the crown of glory immediately upon his death; others, however, are purified after death.
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, the bishop of Jerusalem from about 350–386, in one of his catecheses to catechumens, explains the suffrages to the dead in the liturgy:

Then we make mention [i.e., in the Canon or Eucharistic Prayer] also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep, for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn sacrifice [i.e., the Divine Liturgy] is laid out (Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 [A.D. 350], emphasis added).

In a sermon, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, one of the Cappadocian Fathers renowned for defending the divinity of the Holy Spirit and helping to formulate the Trinitarian dogmas in their present form, explains that those who have not led a life of virtue (especially, letting their passions dominate rather than reason), and yet is in friendship with God, will experience a purification after death:

If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire (Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382], emphasis added).

St. John Chrysostom, the renowned bishop and orator of Constantinople, in a homily on 1 Corinthians, teaches that offerings for the dead bring them consolation:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).

Moreover, he explains in a homily of Philippians that there is the possibility of removing the residual effects of sin in this life. Nevertheless, for those who did not take advantage of that possibility, those still on earth can bring consolation to the deceased by offering prayers and giving alms:

Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries [i.e., the Divine Liturgy, or celebration of the Eucharist] remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf (Homilies on Philippians 3:9–10 [A.D. 402], emphasis added).

It is interesting to note that St. John Chrysostom attributes the celebration of the mysteries (that is, of the Eucharist) for the sake of the departed to the authority of the apostles: this is evidence of an unwritten tradition that is recorded for the first time in Chrysostom’s day. (This one passage is not, of course, enough to prove the direct link to the Apostles, but the continuous existence of the belief and practice cannot be doubted.)
Finally, there are the works of St. Augustine, the bishop of the northern African town of Hippo from 395-430, the first Father to formulate the doctrine of Original Sin.
He explains in a sermon that prayers are not offered on behalf of the martyrs (because they presumably never needed to be purified after death); however prayers are offered for the sake of the other dead:

There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).

In a different sermon, explains that prayer and almsgiving on behalf of the dead bring them aid. He affirms that prayers and liturgical actions for the sake of the dead are a universal practice in the Church, and that the practice is already an old tradition (“from the Fathers”):

But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice [i.e., the celebration of the Eucharist], and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death (Sermons 172:2, emphasis added).

He explains in his City of God that only those who have not been purified in this life must be purified in the next. He also affirms that not all punishment after death is eternal; there is a temporal punishment, or purification:

Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment (De civitate Dei 21:13 [A.D. 419]).

In what is probably the first use of the term purgatorium (“cleansing”)—and probably the source of the term Purgatory in the Middle Ages—Augustine affirms that some of the faithful are saved through a “cleansing fire.” (Augustine doubtless had in mind the passage from 1 Corinthians quoted above.)

That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire (per ignem quemdam purgatorium) (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).

Note how St. Augustine uses fire in a strictly metaphorical sense, as do all the Fathers. A little later on, Augustine explains further, and as can be seen all the elements of the modern doctrine of Purgatory are in place: the fact the some persons die in friendship with God, but not perfectly purified (and that it is, is however, possible to be purified completely in this life); the possibility of purification after death; and the necessity to pray and make offerings for the dead, both personally and in the Liturgy (especially the celebration of the Eucharist, what Western Catholics call the Mass):

The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [i.e., the celebration of the Eucharist] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity, 29:109).

If we add to this the witness of one of the last Western Fathers, St. Gregory the Great, quoted above in the text from the Catechism, it seems impossible to deny that belief in the doctrine of Purgatory has been present in the Church from the beginning, and in every part of the Church, both Eastern and Western. (It acquired the name “Purgatory” only in the Middle Ages, but the belief was there all the same.)
Conclusion
The Church would argue that there is a very strong argument for Purgatory from Tradition. The Scripture is not very explicit, but neither does it contradict the doctrine, and there are several important passages that support it: most notably 1 Corinthians 3:12-15. Although the Bible is not perfectly clear on this point, there is evidence of belief in a purification of the deceased after death among the Israelites at the time of the Maccabees, and of universal belief in Purgatory (though not, of course, by that name) among Christians from at least the second century A.D. The historical record shows that such a belief has been continuous to the present day, and that it was fundamentally uncontroversial until the late Middle Ages (when there began to be disputes with the Eastern Orthodox over the precise meaning of the term “Purgatory” and what sort of punishment it entailed).


What does it mean to magnify or glorify the Lord? 'Magnify' can mean to make something look bigger than it is, but this is not possible to do with God.  Certainly God can't obtain more glory than the infinite worth he had from all eternity. So if we can't make God seem bigger or more glorious than he already is, what does it mean for God to be magnified or glorified?

Note: I am not asking 'what' magnifies or glorifies the Lord, but what does it mean in our understanding of God that he is 'magnified'?

I'd give the same answer I gave on this similar (but not quite duplucate) question.

Clearly, those phrases can't mean that we have the ability to alter God in any way.  I don't think that the definition of "magnify God" in these phrases means to actually make God "bigger" or "greater". I understand them to mean "Make God more prominent in my life, our culture, etc."

Magnification doesn't make objects bigger, it alters our perception of an object, making it appear bigger to us.

Similarly, magnifying God doesn't make Him bigger, it means He becomes more prominent to us.

The phrase "God, I magnify you" simply means "I am making you greater (more important) in my life, and putting you first, because you are my focus and priority."


What is the current stance of the Catholic Church regarding the legality of non-Catholic religions? The famous Syllabus of Errors by Bl. Pope Pius IX condemns, among others, that:

  In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the
  exclusion of all other forms of worship.—Allocution "Nemo vestrum,"
  July 26, 1855.
  Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the
  public exercise of their own peculiar worship.—Allocution
  "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. - The Syllabus of Pius IX

Therefore, it would seem that Pius IX orders that all religions bar Catholicism are to be declared illegal by the State.

I am confused. While I don’t know about any official modern document of the Church regarding this issue, the Church really, really doesn’t seem to hold such a position nowadays. Instead, St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis have both participated in interfaith prayers for peace alongside not only non-Catholic Christians, but also leaders of heathen religions. This seems to me to hardly reconcile with the above condemnations of Pius IX.

My explanation, up to now, was that the Syllabus has never been officially declared infallible and the current activities of modern Popes like the aforementioned prayer for peace and others prove that the Church has shifted its position on this subject and therefore, these points of the Syllabus are no longer in force.

Am I right? At least, they were in force in the beginning of the XX century, because the Catholic Encyclopedia wrote that:

  Even should the condemnation of many propositions not possess that
  unchangeableness peculiar to infallible decisions, nevertheless the
  binding force of the condemnation in regard to all the propositions is
  beyond doubt. For the Syllabus, as appears from the official
  communication of Cardinal Antonelli, is a decision given by the pope
  speaking as universal teacher and judge to Catholics the world over.
  All Catholics, therefore, are bound to accept the Syllabus. Exteriorly
  they may neither in word nor in writing oppose its contents; they must
  also assent to it interiorly. -
  The syllabus of Pius IX

Some questions force themselves into my mind:

Are condemnations 77-78 from the Syllabus of Error still in force, binding all Catholics to adhere to them and agree with them?
Does this mean that the Church wants worship of non-Christian and non-Catholic Christian religions banned by the State?
How to reconcile numerous ecumenical and interfaith activities held by modern popes, like the interfaith prayers for peace with these condemnations?

it would seem that Pius IX orders that all religions bar Catholicism are to be declared illegal by the State.

States are to prevent false religions from publicly spreading their errors, but the false sects can be tolerated. Unlike Islam, Catholicism does not permit States to force-convert its citizens to Catholicism.

In fact, in medieval Christendom when the State recognized the Church as the true religion, Jews were permitted to raise their children in Judaism as long as they did not spread their errors and heresies publicly in society. It is also forbidden to baptize children of unbelievers against their will.

The main point of Pope Pius IX's statements is that States are able to recognize Catholicism as the true religion and are obliged, for the sake of the common good, to suppress false sects and prevent them from spreading their dangerous errors and heresies.

The contradiction you mention between pre- and post-Vatican II teachings on Church-State relations is one reason the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and other groups think that Vatican II taught error and was therefore an invalid council. For example, read ch. 11 "Religious Liberty" of the SSPX's founder Abp. Marcel Lefebvre's Open Letter to Confused Catholics.

Compare what I number below in the Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanæ (7 Dec. 1965):

  This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom [1]. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly [2], whether alone or in association with others, within due limits [3].
  …
  This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right [2].

to my corresponding numbers in Pope Pius IX's encyclical Quanta Cura:

  For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require [3]." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity" [cf. his Mirari Vos],2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society [1]; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly [2] to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."4

and to his Syllabus of Errors, which condemned the following:

  Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. [1]—Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

  …

  X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM

  In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.—Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.
  Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise [2] of their own peculiar worship.—Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
  Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty [1] of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.—Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
  The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.—Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.

(Taken from here, which is nicely color-coded; unfortunately, StackExchange markdown doesn't support colors.)

Despite the SSPX asking for doctrinal clarity, the post-Vatican II magisterium has yet to clarify exactly how Dignitatis Humanæ is in continuity with 19th century popes' magisterial statements. In fact, Cdl. Ratzinger said the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes is a "counter-Syllabus" of Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors. Since the Church's ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible (i.e., cannot error), it follows that the Vatican II document on this issue is not magisterial.

A dangerous consequence of Dignitatis Humanæ was that States with constitutions that recognized the Catholic Church as the true religion (e.g., Spain) felt compelled to change their constitutions to view all religions equally.

cf. also these encyclicals condemning modern errors


Which Catholic writer(s) has compared St Paul's "third heaven" to the third stage of interior prayer? There is a Catholic author who compared St Paul's vision of the third heaven to the third or final stage or way of perfection. I can remember reading it some years ago, but cannot recall it now.

This concept is not easy for me to understand. Many authors have written about the Ways of Perfection, But I am looking for the one who used St Paul's vision of 2 Corinthians 12:1-7 as a comparison to the unitive state of prayer.

  Paul’s Vision and His Thorn

  12 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say, 7 or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

In Catholic thought the three stages (ways,state) of interior life or prayer are the purgative stage, the illuminative stage and the unitive stage.

This link I hope, can get the idea of where I am coming from: On the Purgative, Illuminative and Unitive Stages of Spiritual Life, as seen in a Cartoon.

Perhaps you are thinking of "The Interior Castle" by St. Teresa of Avila, Doctor of the Catholic Church?  On page 77 of the document at this link, the introduction to the 3rd Chapter, she specifically cites 2 Cor. xii. 2-4.

This sounds to me close to your question, though this is not the final stage of perfection in that book.


How do Southern Baptists who believe in the immortality of the soul explain what death means in scripture The Bible often speaks of death as "sleep" and Ecclesiastes 9:5 says dead aren't aware of anything. Yet many Christians claim reward or punishment begins immediately when one dies.

If there is really no death, but just immediate transformation from physical to spiritual beings what is death?  Why do these same Christians speak about the resurrection which means standing back up to life?  I would like a Southern Baptist perspective.

The Southern Baptist position is that we will be resurrected with physical bodies, as they state in The Baptist Faith and Message:

X. Last Things
God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. According to His promise, Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly in glory to the earth; the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell, the place of everlasting punishment. The righteous in their resurrected and glorified bodies will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven with the Lord.

I would not phrase the destination of our resurrection "Heaven", because it does suggest a mode of living far different from what we know now, but they do at least give Revelation 20-21 in the references supporting this position, which teaches the "new heaven and a new earth". Perhaps the lack of clarity here represents a lack of consensus as to whether the new earth should be understood as a renewal, a transformation, a purging, a destruction and recreation, or somewhere else on that spectrum. (To be fair, I doubt that there are many other denominations of comparable size that also wouldn't have a lot of disagreement over the origin of the new earth.) But in any case, it is clear that, whatever a "glorified" body is, our destiny is not to change from a physical to a spiritual being, as the question suggests.


Why did God use humans to write the Bible? God is recorded in the Bible as doing many things directly: causing floods, making humans, etc. etc. - but chose to have his word written through people instead of imparting his wisdom directly.

It seems like this opens the door for questioning authenticity, fidelity and so on, but I'm not seeing a benefit to counter that - what's the upside in going about it the way he did?

If you created a universe, and you wanted to communicate some important message to the people who lived there, how would you choose to do it?  I can see two possible scenarios:

Give your entire message to one "prophet" to relay the message to the rest of the people.
The obvious problem with this option is that the one "prophet" looks like a lunatic to everyone else, and is impossible to authenticate.  We have such claimed prophets all the time, leading cults, or other sects.  And they are usually considered lunatics, and impossible to authenticate.

Give the message to numerous people, over centuries, and have them each write part of it, in agreement with each other.
This scenario adds a lot of credibility.  If hundreds of authors, spread over geography and time, all share parts of the same message, and all agree with each other, then this is far more credible than a single prophet.

Of course there are a few other options, too, that I can think of:

Go in person, and deliver the message.
Make the message appear miraculously, so that it was unmistakably from you.

But then, the Christian Bible contains both of these, as well.
Your question suggests that this method lacks authenticity, but I can't think of any other way to deliver a divine message that could carry any greater weight of authenticity. How else would you have done it?


Can a Christian marry his deceased brother's wife? Matthew 22:24 (KJV) Saying, "Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother."

In general do Christians believe it is OK to marry the wife of a deceased brother? How about if she has already children from the first marriage?

The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England has a Table of Kindred and Affinity which lays down prohibited degress of relationship where a marriage may not be contracted. A similar table is included in the doctrinal books of other Anglican Churches.

Marrying a husband's brother is not prohibited, possibly because it was advocated in the bible. Marrying a husband's son is prohibited, even though there would be no blood relationship between the son and his step-mother.

Catholic Canon Law (Canons 1091–1094) uses descriptions of what prohibits marriage, rather than individual workings-out of those impeding relationships as the Reformation Church of England did. It appears to me that the effect of the Canons produces a table very similar to the Church of England's.

In the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church, the question of whether a woman already has children from a previous marriage is immaterial in deciding whether it is permissible for her to marry another man. Once a marriage is ended by death, it is indisputably over.


If a woman does not reach the climax at the time when the husband does, is it morally permissible for her to be stimulated until she achieves it? If a woman does not reach the climax in the marital act at the time when the husband achieves it (he achieves it before she does), is it morally permissible for her to be stimulated (by herself or her husband) until she achieves it? I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.

Yes.

St. Alphonsus addresses this question in Theologia Moralis vol. 1, l. 6, n. 919 (pp. 675-6):

  An autem, si vir se retrahat post seminationem, sed ante seminationem mulieris, possit ipsa statim tactibus se excitare, ut seminet?Whether, if the man pulls out after insemination, but before the insemination of the woman, she can still excite herself with touches, that she inseminate?

(In this context, "inseminate" means "ejaculate" for a male or "be wet" for a female; it could, perhaps, also be translated as "orgasm.")

The moralists who thought she couldn't didn't realize the "semen mulieris" ["female seed" or mucus] "est necessarium ad generationem" ["is necessary for conception"]. But most moral theologians agree it is permissible.

St. Alphonsus concludes that, because the female is generally not as warm (aroused) as the male, the female can arouse herself by touching herself even after the male's insemination:

  Ratio, tum quia seminatio mulieris pertinet ad complendum actum coniugalem, qui consistit in seminatione utriusque coniugis, unde sicut potest uxor tactibus se præparare ad copulam, ita etiam potest actum copulae perficere; […] Omnes autem concedunt uxoribus quae frigidioris sunt naturae, posse tactibus se excitare ante copulam, ut seminent in congressu maritali statim habendo.The reason is that the woman's insemination pertains to the completion of the conjugal act, which consists in the insemination of both spouses; thus, as the woman can touch herself in preparation for copulation, so also can she to perfect/complete the act of copulation: […] All [moral theologians] concede that women, who are naturally more frigid, can excite themselves with touches before copulation so that they inseminate while having marital intercourse.

(adapted from this comment)

The act is complete/perfected not when the male inseminates, but when both spouses inseminate.

Also, even if a new act immediately follows a completed act, the spouses can, without mortally sinning, mutually decide to cease, provided there is no danger of ejaculation.

ibid. n. 918 (p. 674):

  Quaer. 3. An peccent mortaliter coniuges, si incœpta copula cohibeant seminationem. Respondetur: si coniuges ambo in hoc consentiunt, nec adsit periculum seminandi extra vas, id per se loquendo non est mortale, illa enim penetratio vasis fœminei tunc reputatur instar tactus verendorum, qui inter coniuges permittitur, vel saltem non est mortalis, secluso periculo pollutionis, ita communiterQuestion. 3. Whether spouses sin mortally if, copulation having begun, they hold back from insemination. Answer: If they both consent to this, there being no danger of insemination outside the vas (vagina), this is not per se mortal, for such penetration of the female vas is likened to venereal touches that are permitted between spouses, or it is at least not mortal, provided there is no danger of pollution (ejaculation outside of intercourse); this is the common opinion


Why couldn't we reconcile ourselves to God? I always hear people say things like, 'the debt was too large' ... well, why? Why couldn't I pay for my own sin?

I don't like that Jesus took punishment for me, I would hate for my earthly father to get fined or beaten or imprisoned for me, it would enrage me, it's completely unfair. I want to pay the price myself. Why can't I?

The only thing that seems to make sense is that for some reason there had to be a blood sacrfice and that sacrfice had to be a perfect being (similar to how animals could not be sacrficed if they had any defects.) ... but why? Why does the person/animal dying need to be perfect?
It doesn't make sense to me yet, I know it's the truth because I believe in God but I feel like there's a block in my understanding, like I'm waiting for a lightbulb moment where I go 'ahhhh ok now I get it.' PLEASE DON'T SAY 'there are some things we will never understand because God is God and mysterious and we just have to deal with that.' I don't believe that is the case with such a critically important issue. The early Christians seemed to have such a good grasp on the whole concept but it's evading me. Please offer your understanding if you get it. Please don't say anything if you're not 100% sure.

Thank you so much, I really want to get this so I can move forward in my faith.

The question, as stated, presents an misunderstood view of the economy of salvation. And although it is ultimately a mystery, we can say a fair amount about sin and salvation that makes Christ's sacrifice more reasonable sounding, and the possibility of "self-salvation" far less reasonable sounding. In essence, God created humans to be like God, humans thought they were getting short-changed and disobeyed God (His Word, the law of life), so God had to become fully human to make humans like God again.

First, God makes man in His image. We can see this directly in scripture. As creation culminates, God creates man and woman.

  God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them;
  male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:3)

Second, God places man and woman in the Garden of Eden, the Garden of delight. He gives them dominion over everything except the prerogative of good and evil. Based on context, this could mean divinity itself. The Catholic read on this, as I understand it, is that humanity is initially created in a state wherein they will live joyfully and forever, provided that trust in God's exclusive right to determine good versus evil and who is entitled to what.

  15 The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of
  Eden, to cultivate and care for it. 16 The LORD God gave the man this
  order: You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden 17
  except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that tree you
  shall not eat; when you eat from it you shall die. (Genesis 2:15-17)

Third, mankind starts to believe that God is holding out. They believe that, although they were told they were made in God's image, that they actually far from God-like. They believe that they must take matters into their own hands, and they taste the forbidden fruit.

  1 Now the snake was the most cunning of all the wild animals that the
  LORD God had made. He asked the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You shall
  not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?” 2 The woman answered
  the snake: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; 3 it
  is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that
  God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, or else you will
  die.’” 4 But the snake said to the woman: “You certainly will not die!
  5 God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and
  you will be like gods, who know good and evil.” 6 The woman saw that
  the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was
  desirable for gaining wisdom. So she took some of its fruit and ate
  it; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he
  ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew
  that they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made
  loincloths for themselves. (Genesis 3:1-7)

At this point, all humans are destined to die. People are finite and stupid, for one. And our pride destines us to die. We simply don't know what it means to be Godlike, nor do we have the power to acquire Godliness. We don't even fully understand what good and evil are, let alone the power to enact good. Least of all do we understand the full consequences of our actions, nor have the power to understand. Hence, having taken good and evil into our own hands, we cannot fulfill God's purpose for us to be like Him. We simply don't have the ability to raise ourselves to Godliness.

Fourth, God rescues mankind. And since the original plan was for humans to be like God, God can accomplish this by entering the full human experience. From birth:

  10 The angel said to them, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I proclaim
  to you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 For
  today in the city of David a savior has been born for you who is
  Messiah and Lord. 12 And this will be a sign for you: you will find an
  infant wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.” (Luke 2:10-12)

Through daily life, learning, teaching, eating, partying, friendship, betrayal, judgement, and denial to suffering, agony, mockery, and death.

  Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commend my
  spirit”; and when he had said this he breathed his last. (Luke
  23:46)

And the Catholic understanding of this is twofold.

Firstly, we understand that Christ makes humans like God again by bringing the fullness of God into the full human experience. This is often called divinization or deification. Because Jesus was fully God, everything that He was as a human, all that happened to Him, and all that He did is God-like, including death, which we are bound to!

  The Son of God became man so that we might become God.
  - St. Athanasius

Not coincidentally, Jesus is risen from the dead, suggesting in a very "loud" manner that we too can be risen. But not of our own doing! Only by accepting God's offer for salvation by "commending our spirit" to God! That is, we can only allow ourselves to be risen by God by allowing God's offer, the power of the cross, to make us like Him again. We cannot do it on our own, for we are not God. It is precisely in an attempt to "do it on our own" that we are apart from God.

But secondly, and contrary to your request for this question, we understand that the mechanics of salvation are a mystery! It's well and good to talk about deification. It's well and good to say that Christ became sin, as we often do. It's well and good to talk about paschal sacrifices, the law, the Word Made Flesh, etc. But, that doesn't mean we understand it. And if we start to presume salvation and God are not mysterious, we find ourselves back in front of the forbidden fruit, ready to take that ill-advised bite.


What is the biblical basis for Docetism? Docetism is the belief that Jesus never took a physical, corporeal form, but He was instead solely spiritual in nature. Passages such as 1 John 2:15,  Galatians 5:17, and Romans 7:18 could be construed to support their argument, but is there anything in the Bible that Docetists claim(ed) directly implies that Christ was not of flesh?

On another note, I'd also like to find documentation of a Docetist actually defending their belief with Scripture. Does anyone know of such a case or where I could find one?

INTRODUCTION

Docetism is the belief that Christ’s body was not human flesh.  This entails two teachings.  The first is that He only seemed to be human without real human substance (flesh).  Christ passed through Mary as water through a pipe without taking any substance from her.  They deny the nativity.  He just appears, perhaps out of her side, like a phantom might.  The second is that He may have been born and appeared with flesh of sorts, but His flesh was not real human flesh.  Instead it was made of star dust or of angel “flesh”.

Oddly to our ears perhaps it was that docetic belief against which those who believed Christ was born normally and as a human (God-man) had to overcome.  Christ was born normally in the normal fashion complete with blood, umbilical cord, and afterbirth.  In the end, the eternal virginity idea won out, but the question of how Christ was thus born in the flesh otherwise never quite got answered.

These heresies helped fashion orthodox Christologies, which also sprang out of the original question was Jesus born human in the flesh?  Was he adopted at his baptism?  Did he take flesh from Mary?  How does Son of Man and Son of God compute together?

REFERENCES

Tertullian tells us that those who believed such false things (denying Christ came in the flesh or born normally) did take their reasonings from scripture, but via alternations of words or excising of passages, if not books, of scripture.  Many are familiar with Marcion’s truncated roll of scripture (of the four gospels only Luke worked for him for example).  It was against that false compilation that the Muratorium canon appears.

  One man perverts the Scriptures with his hand, another their meaning by his exposition. For although Valentinus seems to use the entire volume, he has none the less laid violent hands on the truth only with a more cunning mind and skill than Marcion. Marcion expressly and openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject-matter. Valentinus, however, abstained from such excision, because he did not invent Scriptures to square with his own subject-matter, but adapted his matter to the Scriptures; and yet he took away more, and added more, by removing the proper meaning of every particular word, and adding fantastic arrangements of things which have no real existence.
  Anti-Marcion, Against Heretics, Chapter 38

Irenaeus about the same time gives us a hint about redefining words and comingling ideas.

  For [they maintain] [Valentinus, Marcion, etc] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery;
  AH, Book III, Chapter II

And Irenaeus gives us another example of their reinterpreting or excising of John.

  John, however, does himself put this matter beyond all controversy on our part, when he says, “He was in this world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came unto His own [things], and His own [people] received Him not.”  But according to Marcion, and those like him, neither was the world made by Him; nor did He come to His own things, but to those of another. And, according to certain of the Gnostics, this world was made by angels, and not by the Word of God. But according to the followers of Valentinus, the world was not made by Him, but by the Demiurge.
  AH, Book III, Chapter XI

Eusebius weighs in on the heresies, saying the same as Tertullian and Irenaeus had some 100 years earlier.

  They [Marcion, Valentinus, etc], indeed, use the Law and Prophets and Gospels, but interpret in their own way the utterances of the Sacred Scriptures. And they abuse Paul the apostle and reject his epistles, and do not accept even the Acts of the Apostles.
  Eusebius

Later circa CE 425 Theodoret picks out a few specific scriptures that the docetists change or ignore.

  For divine Scripture says that He was made man, not by mutation of the Godhead, but by assumption of human nature, of the seed of Abraham. This the divine Apostle openly says in the words “For verily He took not on Him the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham, wherefore in all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren.” And again “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made: he saith not and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.”
  These and similar passages have been cut out of divine Scripture by Simon, Basilides, Valentinus, Bardesanes, Marcion, and the man who is named after his maniacal heresy [Manes]. So they style the Master Christ God only, and describe Him as having nothing human about Him, but appearing in imagination and appearance as man to men.
  Letters

As to specific scriptures used by Docetists, most examples, as mentioned, revolve around His birth and of Mary and Joseph.

In this docetic interpretation of Christ being born not with human flesh from Mary, but with angel flesh, they point to various angelic appearances in support of their idea.

  Inasmuch as that which is born must undergo this nativity in order to become flesh [say the orthodox].  He [Christ] borrowed, they say [Marcion to Apelles], His flesh from the stars, and from the substances of the higher world. And they assert it for a certain principle, that a body without nativity is nothing to be astonished at, because it has been submitted to angels to appear even amongst ourselves in the flesh without the intervention of the womb.
  Tertullian, Against Marcion

Likewise, the Docetic will also reinterpret this passage of scripture about Jesus’ brothers and sisters.

  But whenever a dispute arises about the nativity, all who reject it as creating a presumption in favour of the reality of Christ’s flesh, wilfully deny that God Himself was born, on the ground that He asked, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” Let, therefore, Apelles hear what was our answer to Marcion in that little work, in which we challenged his own (favourite) gospel to the proof, even that the material circumstances of that remark (of the Lord’s) should be considered.  First of all, nobody would have told Him that His mother and brethren were standing outside, if he were not certain both that He had a mother and brethren, and that they were the very persons whom he was then announcing,—who had either been known to him before, or were then and there discovered by him; although heretics have removed this passage from the gospel, because those who were admiring His doctrine said that His supposed father, Joseph the carpenter, and His mother Mary, and His brethren, and His sisters, were very well known to them.
  -ibid-

For Tertullian, the fact that Mary and Joseph had children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters was proof of the nativity and flesh of Christ; to assert no siblings was to deny that God Himself was born and born of human flesh.

CONCLUSION

So, Docetism falls into two categories.  One denies the birth of Christ with Christ merely appearing in phantom-like actions or as a phantom and the other allows for the birth from Mary, but as using angel flesh (star dust of a sort), rather than human flesh.  Both ideas appear at the time as a backlash against the thought of God appearing in bloody afterbirth after a very normal birth travail and Mary swaddling the new-born baby.

  For One who was to be truly a man, even unto death, it was necessary that He should be clothed with that flesh to which death belongs. Now that flesh to which death belongs is preceded by birth.
  –ibid-

Tertullian, Irenaeus, and others charge the docetists (Marcion, Valentinus, Apelles, etc) of either using a knife to cut-out scripture or a pen to reinterpret scripture.  There are discernible inferences to the reinterpreted scriptures and to the excised scriptures upon which Docetism was founded.  The concluding point is Docetism is not found in scripture, but to assert otherwise is simply to deny that Christ came in the flesh (2 John 1:7).