Did Jesus celebrate Hanukkah? John 10:22–24 (NIV) says:

  22 Then came the Festival of Dedication at Jerusalem. It was winter,
  23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon’s Colonnade.
  24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will
  you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

Does the "Festival of Dedication" refer to Hanukkah?  If so, does this mean that Jesus was present at the temple to celebrate Hanukkah?

The "festival of dedication" (or "feast") in this verse was indeed the forerunner of what is today Hanukkah.  It was established by Judas Maccabeus in the intertestamental period, as Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown write:

  [This festival of the Dedication] was instituted by Jude Maccabeus, to commemorate the purification of the temple from the profanations to which it had been subjected by Antiochus Epiphanes 165 B.C., and kept for eight days, from the twenty-fifth Chisleu (December), the day on which Judas began the first joyous celebration of it (1 Maccabees 4:52,56,59; and Josephus, Antiquities, 7.7.7).

Now, the festival goes by the name Hanukkah, as Wikipedia indicates, but it is observed on the same day and celebrates the same event.

As to whether Jesus actually celebrated Hanukkah, that's a bit more controversial.  John Wesley, following Grotius, thinks so:

  So our Lord observed festivals even of human appointment. Is it not, at least, innocent for us to do the same? (source)

But Calvin suggests that his purpose was to further his ministry:

  Christ appeared in the temple at that time, according to custom, that his preaching might yield more abundant fruit amidst a large assembly of men. (source)

So yes, this is a reference to Hanukkah, but it's harder to say if Jesus actually "celebrated" the holiday.

All the feasts point to Christ, and we know 100% that Christ celebrated the feasts.
Likewise, Paul celebrated the feasts, even after the resurrection - and he said that the Feasts are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
Here follows three reasons we know that Christ celebrated the feasts:

Because He created them, and God instructed his children to keep them forever, and Jesus always did what the Father said.  In fact, the Jews were sent into exile for 70 years, because they did not keep the Jubilee years.

We have record of Christ celebrating the Passover with his disciples.

In the passage of Jesus at the transfiguration, Peter said let us build 3 tabernacles, and the word in the original Greek, is the same word for Feast of Booths- Sukkot. These booths are temporary shelters, which was a reminder of when they wandered in the wilderness.

We would expect to find this in the Old Testament in Leviticus, where God established the 7 feasts. The reason it's not here, is that this is the dedication of the 2nd temple, which happened in the 400 year period between the Testaments, so we see it in the New Testament.
To answer your question directly - Yes, this passage you mention from John 10:22 doesn't just refer to Hanukkah - in the original language, the Hebrew word for   Feast of Dedication actually is "Hanukkah", and several translations actually say Hanukkah.
John 10:22-24  Jesus Claims to Be the Son of God

22 It was now winter, and Jesus was in Jerusalem at the time of Hanukkah, the Festival of Dedication.
23 He was in the Temple, walking through the section known as Solomon’s Colonnade.
24 The people surrounded him and asked, “How long are you going to keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus replied, “I have already told you, and you don’t believe me. The proof is the work I do in my Father’s name.
26 But you don’t believe me because you are not my sheep.
27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them away from me, 29 for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. No one can snatch them from the Father’s hand.
30 The Father and I are one.”

Jesus Celebrated Hanukkah!

The other reason we know that Christ celebrated the feasts is that His second advent is inseparably linked with the 3 Fall feasts. When his disciples asked about the end of the world and when he would return, he used a Jewish idiom, that was instantly understood and recognizable to them. He said he would return when "no one knows the day or hour" which was unmistakable reference to Feast of Trumpets. It is the only feast that happens at the New Moon, and sometimes it's rainy or cloudy and the sliver of the new moon cannot be seen. This feast begins the Jewish Civil calendar and all 7 feasts and all the weekly Sabbaths are determined by the 2 witnesses who see the New Moon, and then the New Year begins.  When the new moon is sighted by the two witnesses in Jerusalem, there are 99 alternating long and short blasts on the shofar, and then the 100th blast is the longest of all, and it is known as "the Last Trumpet".


How do proponents of sola fide explain Titus 1:16? Evangelicals believe that faith alone establishes your salvation.  How do they resolve Titus 1:16?

  They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

While I understand that evangelicals don't directly recommend doing abominable, disobedient and reprobating good work - they also generally don't believe that you can lose your salvation, which this passage seems to imply.

Laying the Groundwork

The Transformation of Salvation

It is important to note that, according to the Bible, the following things occur at the moment of salvation by faith alone:

We, who were once dead, are made alive in Christ:

  When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions.  (Colossians 2:13)

We, who were once in the dominion of darkness, are brought into the kingdom of Jesus

  For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.  (Colossians 1:13-14)

We, who were once alienated from God, hostile to God (or enemies of God) have now become the children of God by virtue of a new birth:

  And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds" (Colossians 1:21)

  But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.  (John 1:12-13)

We, who were one sinful, are now a holy nation, made righteous and renewed in our spirits:

  But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.  (1 Peter 2:9)

  For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified [declared righteous] as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.  (Romans 3:23-24)

  Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him.  (Colossians 3:9-10)

The Impact of the Transformation

So, at the moment of salvation, a very significant transformation has occurred.  We are changed at the very core of our beings so that our desires have changed and our spirits are now alive.  Indeed, we have the Holy Spirit Himself indwelling us:

  Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? (1 Corinthians 6:19)

What this results in is a drastic change in desires.  Someone who has truly put their faith in Christ should have new desires, and their salvation should naturally result in a change in their actions.

So, you should see the impact of their faith in the works that they do, but it is not a salvation by works.  Put another way, we believe that salvation is by faith alone, but a genuine faith will inevitably result in a change in actions and behavior.  If you observe no change in desires or actions, then it is cause to doubt the genuineness of the faith.

Titus 1:16

From an evangelical perspective, the verse you cited is not speaking about those who truly believe in Christ, but whose actions have failed to change.  Rather, it is speaking of those whose faith is not genuine and whose actions reveal this to be true.  Jesus Himself indicated that "by their fruits you will know them" in Matthew 7:16.

Conclusion

So, if you observe someone professing faith in Christ who is doing abominable things without shame or repentance, we should not conclude that this is someone who has truly put his or her faith in Christ, been brought out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, made a new creation, forgiven, cleansed, made righteous, made alive and indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, but who is failing to reflect in any way the life of a Christian.  Rather we should conclude that no change has really taken place and, as a result, no true faith has been exercised.

James  1;22

But  be  ye  doers  of  the  word,  and  not  hearers  only,  deceiving  your  own  selves.

James  2;19,20,21,22,23,26

a. 19  Thou  believest  that  there  is  one  God,  thou  doest  well:  the  devils  also  believe  and  tremble.

b. 20  But  wilt  thou  know,  O  vain  man,  that  faith  without  works  is  dead?

c. 21  Was  not  Abraham  our  father  justified  by  works,  when  he  had  offered  Isaac  his  son  upon  the  alter?

d. 22  Seest  thou  how  faith  wrought  with  his  works,  and  by  works  was  faith  made  perfect?

e.  23 And  the  scripture  was  ful-filled  which  saith,  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness:  and  he  was  called  the  Friend  of  God.

f.  26 For  as  the  body  without  the  spirit  is  dead,  so  faith  without  works  is  dead  also.

Salvation  is  conditional!


What is the significance of Donum Veritatis if applied to Dubia Cardinals and Dissenting Clergy? The Filial Correction petition on Amoris Laetetia filed by numerous priest, theologians and other lay person failed because they do not follow the evangelical guidelines of Donum Veritatis.

In below article Cardinal Muller made a remarks;

  "The defender of the right Catholic doctrine and of the people of God".  With these words one of the main critics of the pontificate of Francis, the journalist Antonio Socci, rightly celebrated, some time ago, the current prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Ratzingerian Gerhard Ludwig Müller.

Just last night, the cardinal Müller did his job and intervened (the video below) during the "Vatican Rooms" program of Tgcom24:

  "a possible fraternal correction of the Pope seems to me very far, it
  is not possible at this time because it is not a danger for the faith,
  as St. Thomas said. Amoris Laetitia is very clear in his doctrine
  and we can interpret the whole doctrine of Jesus on marriage, the
  whole doctrine of the Church in 2000 years of history".

The German cardinal Brandmüller has, however, stated that Burke did not speak as a "spokesman" of the set of four cardinals, but expressed "full autonomy in its opinion, which certainly could be shared as well by other cardinals'. In any case, he reminded his colleague that any "correction" will have to "take place in the caritatis room". So not publicly. A suitable warning, Müller himself explained:

  "The cardinals have the right to write a letter to the Pope. I was
  amazed because it became public, forcing the Pope to say yes or no. I
  do not like this . It is damaging for the Church to discuss these
  things publicly." - Il card. Müller: «Amoris Laetitia è chiara nella dottrina, i dubia non servono»

What is the significance of Donum Veritatis if applied to Dubia Cardinals and Dissenting Clergy?

Background

The Donum Veritatis is a church document meant to guide the Ecclesial Vocation of Theologians and it also contains the evangelical guidelines in case a Theologian encounters difficulty in assenting to Church Teaching.  The Donum Veritatis does not address the lay faithful who also were expressing dissent.

The Donum Veritatis was approved by the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith  and signed by the Cardinal Ratzinger on May 24, 1990 (he was then the Prefect).

To answer the question

The significance of the Donum Veritatis is best seen in the outline of the document in addressing a Theological Dissent below;

  Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.

  The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.(24)

  When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.
  Even when collaboration takes place under the best conditions, the possibility cannot be excluded that tensions may arise between the theologian and the Magisterium. The meaning attributed to such tensions and the spirit with which they are faced are not matters of indifference. If tensions do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings, they can become a dynamic factor, a stimulus to both the Magisterium and theologians to fulfill their respective roles while practicing dialogue.
  In the dialogue, a two-fold rule should prevail. When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the "unity of charity" (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.
  Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.
  The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.

  Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.
  In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.
  If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.

  In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

The full text of Donum Veritatis is available on the Vatican website.

Taking the words "the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", this had been the error if we cite the petitioner "Correctio Filialis" and also the "Dubia Cardinals" who use the media to express a contradictory view. Beyond that, some of the Dissenters even accused Pope Francis of teaching heresy which clearly violated the evangelical guidelines of Donum Veritatis.

It is worth mentioning Cardinal Caffara's words whom before his death met Pope Francis and reconciled. Cardinal Caffara's words is an important reminders to all Bishops who are openly opposing the Pope approved Magisterial Teaching.

  «I was born Papist, I lived as a Papist, and I mean to die a Papist! If a Bishop has a thought contrary to that of the Pope» – he concluded: «he must go away, but really he must go away from the diocese. Because he would lead the faithful into a path that is not the one of Jesus Christ anymore. Therefore, he would lose himself eternally and would risk the eternal loss of the faithful».

  Card. Caffarra: «Let who is against the Pope go away; he will lose himself»

In this article written by Dawn Eden Goldstein and Robert L. Fastiggi describes the failure of petitioner of Correctio Filialis and the Dubia Cardinals to adhere to evangelical guidelines written in Donum Veritatis.

  The supporters of the Correctio and other critics of Amoris laetitia often try to contrast what Pope Francis says in this exhortation to teachings of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. It is interesting, therefore, to note that many of these same critics fail to follow the guidelines for theologians published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1990 when John Paul II was pope and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the future Benedict XVI, was prefect of the CDF. These guidelines are contained in the instruction, Donum veritatis (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian) (3) — a document that traditionalist opponents of Amoris laetitia, such as Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (4), ironically claim to hold in high esteem.

  Donum veritatis was issued to explain the need for Catholic theologians to maintain communion with the Magisterium of the Church. Building upon Vatican II’s Lumen gentium §37 and Canon 212§3 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Donum veritatis does recognize that theologians might have problems with certain magisterial teachings (5). If these problems persist, “the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented (6).” The theologian, however, “should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties (7).”

  Critics of Amoris laetitia might argue that, in making their petitions to the Pope and signing the Correctio filialis, they are doing exactly what Donum veritatis charges them to do. In what follows, we hope to show that the critics of Amoris laetitia have not properly followed the guidelines set forth in that document.

  Donum veritatis §24 instructs theologians “to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the [magisterial] interventions (8). The Correctio filialis fails to do this. Instead, it catalogues comments made by Pope Francis in press conferences, private letters, etc., without taking into account the authoritativeness of these statements and their context (9). It also cites statements by papal associates and appointees.

  In loading down their petition with cherry-picked statements bearing little or no magisterial authority, the Correctio authors seem intent upon discrediting the Holy Father and his intentions. Can such an approach truly reflect “an evangelical spirit” and “a profound desire to resolve the difficulties” with Amoris laetitia (10)?

  Pope’s critics ignore Ratzinger’s rules for theological discourse

In closing, the theological dissenters of Amoris Laetetia is also applicable to those theologians who also expressed opposition to changes in the CCC 2267 Death Penalty Doctrinal changes approved by Pope Francis which the Congregation of Doctrine of Faith upheld does not contradicts any previous teachings.

It is also worth mentioning Pope Francis calling all the Dissenters to conversion as the key to enlighten their confusions.  Why conversion? It is biblical citing the Great Dubia of all the Apostles in the Bread of Life discourse on which all of them are tempted to leave Jesus Christ too.

Did Jesus clarified the Great Dubia that the apostles experienced? NO!

Jesus knew that the Holy Spirit role is to pour out Her Sevenfold Gifts and this is the key to clear out the confusions. But, the Apostles can only receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon conversion. And so, we can see in the Book of Acts that the Theotokos led all the Apostles in the spirit of prayer and conversion to prepare their hearts for the gifts. The Pentecost experience is the key and all the Apostles were enlighten as they become docile to the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, Pope Francis imploring conversion to all Dissenters pointed clearly to biblical experienced of the Apostles and must be heed. As the Church Tradition in Luke 10:16 teaches:

  "The voice of Peter is the Voice of Christ and whoever reject the voice of Pope Francis rejected the Voice of Christ Himself." (Luke 10:16)


Is there any difference in meaning between "Holy Spirit" and "Holy Ghost"? Is there any difference in meaning between Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost?

When should we use Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost?

By the way, Wikipedia says:

  Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, is a term found in English translations of the Bible, but understood differently among the Abrahamic religions

I already asked about the English meaning. But what are the differences in religious meanings?

Holy Ghost is from the KJV, Holy Spirit is more modern.

It's actually a little more complicated than that. In the New Testament, the KJV uses the term Holy Ghost 89 times, and the term Holy Spirit 4 times. So it actually uses both. But modern translations use Holy Spirit exclusively.

The wikipedia article is not saying that Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit are understood differently.  Its trying to say that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam view the Holy Spirit differently.

Nonetheless, some people might argue that Holy Ghost gives a more personal character to the Holy Spirit than Holy Spirit, assuming that Ghost sounds more like a person than Spirit.  But that's probably a pretty iffy argument.

In general, they mean the same thing and are interchangeable.
This site gives an in depth exploration of the two phrases. The page summarizes its own points as follows:

Summary:

In modern times, the titles “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” are considered synonymous.

The differences in the usage of “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” are mostly due to the nuances of the English language affected by the incorporation of words from other languages.

In the Middle Ages, the title “Holy Spirit” was used to describe or pertain to God’s Spirit or the Spirit of the Lord, whereas “Holy Ghost” was used to describe the third person in the Holy Trinity.

Although based on the Greek words “pneuma hagion,” the translations for “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” greatly depended on the translator’s understanding and interpretation of the context.

In modern times, almost all of the translations of the Bible, except the King James Version, use “Holy Spirit” for all instances.


If the Holy Trinity is defined as three distinct faces, people or persons of God, does this not directly contradict the first commandment? THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS ON MY FACE.

One of the most common explanations I've seen floating around in the Internet is a picture:

It denotes the 'Godhead'. In my understanding, heads, and persons, are distinctly unique because of their face. If this Godhead has 3 distinct faces, does the idea of the trinity not completely contradict the very notion of the first commandment?  The Father IS NOT The Son, The Son IS NOT The Holy Ghost, And the Holy Ghost IS NOT The Father. Each entity here represents a distinct face of God. How does this not explicitly contradict the very first commandment?

Further, the second commandment also states that THOU SHALT NOT CREATE ANY GRAVEN IMAGES IN THE LIKENESS OF ANYTHING IN THE HEAVENS ABOVE or ON THE EARTH BELOW or beneath it.

Taken from https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/idolatry:
Idolatry, [N] [T] [E]
strictly speaking denotes the worship of deity in a visible form...

Do these two items, side by side, not explicitly condemn our notion of trinitarianism AND God-Incarnation? Does this also explain why we cannot find any of our church fathers or primary sources in the first 300 years of our tradition expounding upon this clearly? My wife quoted 2 lines for citing the trinity: baptise in the name of the father ..., and there are 3 that bear witness in heaven. The former doesn't explicitly denote the doctrine to me and the latter was actually thrown out from many versions that are currently being published in the bible as a known fabrication.  I guess the question is, besides Athansian Creed, from where did this idea come from? How can people tamper with the word of God so easily without conscience? This is my first question (or first few questions) here and I'd just like people to be somewhat sensitive to the matter if my knowledge-base just isn't there. I think this is why forums like this exist. Thank you!

PS I think I have considered myself a Unitarian for the greater part of 10 years now but my wife continues to urge me to ask questions so, here I am. She is Protestant.

PSS I've read quite a few answers here so I'd like to exclude anyone from citing Jesus as saying "I am the first and the last, the alpha and the omega" since, by ALL accounts, Jesus did not speak Greek so I don't know why the Bible authors quote him as claiming to be the first and the last character in the Greek Alphabet.

If God is un-created and infinitely and eternally perfect then it is reasonable that He possesses uncreated, infinite, eternal integrity.  If this is so then there can be no ontological difference between who He is, what He says, and what He does.  He has revealed Himself to us in this fashion in Scripture.

God the Father is who He is

  Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—
  yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. - 1 Corinthians 8:4-6

God the Son is what He says

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
  - John 1:1

  And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. - John 1:14

God the Spirit is what He does

  Then he said to me, “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, says the LORD of hosts. - Zechariah 4:6

Being, saying, and doing are distinct and separate for us created, finite, temporal creatures.  These three are distinct in God but not separate because he is infinite and eternal.  One God...3 distinct yet inseparable expressions.

I hope this helps.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/idolatry/
Idolatry, [N] [T] [E]
strictly speaking denotes the worship of deity in a visible form, whether the images to which homage is paid are symbolical representations of the true God or of the false divinities which have been made the objects of worship in his stead.
So, God-Incarnation is idolatry and not a single line of Jesus in the book justifies this. Instead, we quote Paul (which if any of you have studied the Latin is derived from the word 'least') instead of actually following Jesus.
Jesus foretold us of this: and he who ignores the law and teaches men to do so shall be called Least in the kingdom of heaven. This prophecy is calling out Paul (and by extension, his followers) BY NAME.
Nobody can change the definition of these words. I will continue to follow Jesus and worship God alone with no partners and no images and I refuse to accept the evil buffoonery that is God-Incarnation. Thanks to everyone for weighing in.


Do Catholics consider saying "Jeez(e)!" to be a violation of the Second Commandment? Is saying "Jeez(e)!" (also: Geez(e), Jese, Jez, and with lower-case initial) using God's name in vain?

According to the OED, the U.S. slang interjections Jeez(e and gee (from which comes gee whiz(z, a corruption geewhillikins, itself a corruption of "Jerusalem!") are corruptions of "Jesus!"

The term "using God's name in vain" comes from the Ten Commandments, which were given to Moses in the Old Testament:

  "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" (Exodus 20:7, KJV).

The New International Version renders it as follows:

  "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God" (Exodus 20:7, NIV).

For there to be an incorrect way to use God's name, there must also be a correct way. God's power is manifested where his name is used appropriately. Some of the contexts where the use of God's name is appropriate are:

Praying (Matthew 6:9, John 14:13–14).
Doing God's work (Matthew 28:19, Acts 4:30, James 5:14).
Preaching the gospel (Acts 9:27, Acts 17:3).

Taking the name of the Lord in vain is a form of blasphemy. To use God's name in vain means to use it in a way that doesn't show proper respect – to use it out of context, or in a demeaning way. Some of the definitions of "vain" are "not yielding the desired outcome" or "lacking substance or worth." Using God's name without the desire to invoke Him; not really meaning it.

Therefore, to bring it back to your question, yes, using the slang term "Jeez" is taking God's name in vain because, as you stated, it is a corrupted form of the name Jesus, which is one of the names of God.

Imagine how annoyed you'd be if people kept using your name without looking to you – yelling out your name as if to call your attention but then turning their back on you; referring to you by a nickname you didn't like; using your name as a filler word or as an insult. I'm sure God doesn't get annoyed in exactly the same way we do, but it's something to think about.

Well, most of catholics thinks that such similar expressions are not a violation of the 2nd Commandment - they consider only explicit blasphemies or offense to Him.
For example, in Italian it's common to associate God's to a dog or a pig as imprecation, which is obviously a blasphemy - but no one consider saying "oh Jesus" as a sin.
BUT... the Bible is clear: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" (in italian - "non nominerai il nome di Dio invano", in latin - "non adsumes nomen Domini Dei tui in vanum"). "In vain" means "without a reason". So, it's not important if you corrupt Jesus' name or not, or if you use offensive concepts to define God or not - he only thing that is important is: there is a reason to use God's name in this occasion?
Obviously, there's never a good reason to offend God. Is there a reason to say "Jeez?"

It's up to you. For Example, your question is a good reason, because it's for knowlege. My answer (which contains at least one blasphemy) is a good reason too, because it was to explain the 2nd Commandment.

But the Commandment is more then simply "not take the name of the Lord". Think people who use God's name to justify their actions.  Even Crusades, Inquisition and Holy Wars are probably examples of "using God's name in vain" (In fact, pope John Paul II asked forgivness for that in 2000)

Fun fact:
The 2nc Commandment is (one of) the reason why God, actually, doesn't have a name. God's name, from Ebraic, it's written JHWH (or YHWH), but we don't know how to pronounce it in the right way because Jews, to be sure not violating the commandment, preferred to not pronounce it at all.
That's also why, in the Bible, God is often reffered as "God" or other periphrasis ("the creator", "the Alpha and Omega", "I am who I am", "the Father"...)


Do Christian concepts of fellowship allow for a congregation to welcome atheists to participate in their community? Due to family issues, I have come to distance people from me, mainly because the family issues made me a rough person and I am not "easy" to hang around. For the same reasons, I was never close to the Church or God. Now, being an adult and understanding the world, I find it hard to believe in any kind of religious creed. I am, in fact, an atheist.

My question here is: is it considered wrong (by the same religious communities) to seek the company of religious communities (for example, going to the meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses) if it's for the sole purpose of feeling less lonely?

*I am not excluding that I may, with time, find that particular religion suitable for me.

Do Christian concepts of fellowship allow for a congregation to welcome atheists to participate in their community?

In the most general terms, yes - most congregations are open to non-member participation.  Saying that, it is possible different congregations have a nuanced stance in this regard - some of their meetings may be closed and it is best to ask the leaders of an individual community what their stance is.  Another consideration is that while a particular meeting may be open to non-members, some of the practices engaged in may be restricted to member (or visiting Christian) participation - e.g. taking Holy Communion - so your participation may be partial in that respect (as would be appropriate considering you would not believe all that the congregation members believe with respect to those practices).

Of course it isn't wrong to fellowship with other human beings. Just remember that it may take some time to find a group who feels the same way, but it will be worth it. Look for the enlightened ones who welcome you with open arms.


Is there any biblical justification for referring to God as Mother? On one occasion, I heard someone prayer, "To God, our Father and Mother." In The Shack, the Trinity is represented as three persons, where God the Father is a woman.

Is there any biblical justification for referring to God as Mother?

Are there any denominations or movements which do call the first person of the trinity 'Mother'?

There is a significant distinction between calling God "mother" and the Bible identifying aspects of motherhood (and fatherhood) as reflecting the glory and character of God.

Both men and women reflect the glory and character of God in different ways, as men and women, fathers and mothers, teachers, judges, etc.

However, God is spirit (John 4:23) and not physical.  In the beginning, God created the physical universe, including genders.  Yet, He Himself was not biological, but is and was outside of creation.

When He entered into creation, He did enter into it as a Man.  In the Lord's prayer, God the Son instructs us to refer to God the Father as "Our Father" (Matthew 6:9-13).  Nowhere in Scripture are we instructed to refer to God as mother.

The example of Paul is of note as well.  He himself indicated that he cared for the Thessalonians like a mother cares for her children:

  But we were gentle[c] among you, like a nursing mother taking care of
  her own children.  1 Thessalonians 2:7 ESV

But no one used that as a basis for calling Paul "Mom".

This in no way disparages women, and both men and women reflect the glory of God.  Yet, God has chosen to reveal Himself in the masculine sense.  If we are devoted believers, we recognize that He is the One who has the right to define how we should refer to Him--not us.

There  is  no  biblical  justification  in  the  King James  bible.

Matthew  6;9   After  this  mamner  therefore  pray  ye:  Our  Father  which  art  in  heaven,  Hallowed  be  thy  name.


How do Christians reconcile Deuteronomy 13:1-4 with their belief in the abrogation of the Mosaic law? Deuteronomy 13:1-4 states:

All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder,

and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them';

thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

My understanding is that Christians believe that Jesus abrogated the Mosaic law (e.g. keeping the Sabbath, dietary restrictions, etc.) and they no longer feel bound by them. How, then, do they understand the above passage, which states that one may not subtract commandments from the Law, and which seems to imply that a true prophet will not do so?

The historical answer for this, as it applies to Gentiles, was recorded on the book of Acts.

Mosaic Law was given to the nation of Israel (the Jews), not the Church.

Early on in Church history, the question of whether adherence to Mosaic Law was to be applied to Gentile believers.

  Acts 15

  New International Version (NIV) The Council at Jerusalem

  15 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching
  the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom
  taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and
  Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas
  were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem
  to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent
  them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria,
  they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the
  believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed
  by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported
  everything God had done through them.

  5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the
  Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and
  required to keep the law of Moses.”

  6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much
  discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that
  some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear
  from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows
  the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to
  them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and
  them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you
  try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that
  neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe
  it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as
  they are.”

  12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and
  Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the
  Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up.
  “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us
  how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the
  Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as
  it is written:

  16 “‘After this I will return
      and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild,
      and I will restore it, 17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
      even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’[b]— 18     things known from long ago.[c]

  19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult
  for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to
  them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual
  immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For
  the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest
  times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

More is available at Grace Communion International.

  Why, then, these four rules? Some scholars say the Jews believed that
  these laws dated back to the time of Noah, and therefore applied to
  all nations. Others say that all four rules were associated with
  idolatry. Some say that these four rules were laws of Moses, and were
  given so Gentiles and Jews could eat together. None of these
  suggestions is fully convincing. (See later for more details.)

  However, the decree makes it clear that Gentiles do not have to be
  circumcised, nor do they have to obey the laws of Moses. They are
  circumcised spiritually, not physically. God never gave those commands
  to the Gentiles.

...

  To summarize: Some men said that Gentiles should be circumcised and
  obey the laws of Moses or else they could not be saved. Not so, said
  the apostles. Gentiles are saved by grace and faith. God is pleased to
  dwell in people who aren’t circumcised and who don’t keep the rituals.
  But since Moses is widely preached, we need to give a decree that
  clearly distinguishes the Christian faith from the Law of Moses. This
  pleased the entire church, so they wrote it in a letter and sent it to
  Antioch, where they “were glad for its encouraging message”

There is no reconciliation needed.

In Matthew chapter 5 Jesus tells us that not even an accent mark will disappear from the law till Heaven and Earth pass away.

Mat 5:18   KJV

  For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

So the law is still just as in force today as it was in the days of Moses. What has changed is that Jesus fulfilled the Law.

Mat 5:17  KJV

  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

So exactly how did he fulfill the part of the Law about not being deceived by false teachers? you ask.

Well that's a good question, and I'm glad you asked.

This how he fulfilled all of the law and not just the little part about being deceived by false teachers.

He gave the indisputable answer to all questions about not only who was the true God, but who and where and how, and any other question you might have.

He died on the cross and arose from the dead on the third day following, just as he had told people he would do before it took place.

With this indisputable truth, anyone who desires to Spend eternity with God can do so.

There is no other plan, program or theory that can come near competing with that answer.


Why did Jesus use a Greek proverb when He spoke Aramaic to Saul in Acts 26:14? Saul spoke Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Latin (there are many references). Jesus spoke Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew (again there are many references). In Acts 26:14, Paul (who at this time was using his second name Paul, being a Roman, rather than his first name Saul), testified to Agrippa, possibly in Greek, that when Jesus confronted him on the road to Damascus, Jesus spoke to him in Aramaic and said, "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" (KJV), or "it is hard for thee to kick against the goad" (in other versions), which is a Greek proverb.

Is there any significance or relevance here of Jesus speaking in Aramaic and using a Greek proverb to Saul (who became Paul later on), who spoke four languages?

Acts 25:14, "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks," is a direct quotation from a play by Euripides (d. 406 BCE), the Bacchae, with Jesus speaking instead of the Greek god Dionysus. Euripides had used the plural ('pricks') for reason of meter, and Acts uses the same plural, although it would normally be a singular. In his own epistles, Paul never mentions a conversion on the road to Damascus; in fact he said that after "it pleased God to reveal his son in me," he conferred with no one but went immediately to Arabia (Galatians 1:16-17). So, this was a literary elaboration by the author of Acts, ostentatiously saying that Jesus spoke in Aramaic probably to draw some attention away from the popular Greek saying.

Uta Ranke-Heinemann says, in Putting Away Childish Things, page 163, the really strange thing is that with both Jesus and Euripides we have the same “familiar quotation” and the same situation. In both cases there is a conversation between a persecuted god and his persecutor.  In the Bacchae the persecuted god is Dionysus and his persecutor is Pentheus, king of Thebes.  Just like Jesus, Dionysus calls his persecutor to account, “You  disregard my words of warning . . . and kick against the pricks a man defying god.” She says Jesus even uses the same plural form of the noun kentra ('pricks') that Euripides needs for the meter of his line.

To eliminate any doubt that this is just a coincidence, we can also look at Acts' story of Paul's release from prison (Acts 16:26).  This also has reasonably close parallels to words in the same ancient play, the Bacchae, and there is no written or archaeological record of an earthquake powerful enough to have somehow released Paul and Silas from their chains.

Peter Kirby notes the parallels between the Bacchae and Acts, but says that the author of Acts need not necessarily have had the Bacchae in mind, since other ancient Greek works use similar phraseology and would also serve as sources for these two scenes in Acts. The Bacchae stands out as a single source that provides the potential source material for both the conversion (with the plural form of kentra) and the prison escape in Acts.

It is extremely unlikley that Jesus, talking to Saul from heaven in the Hebrew language [Act 26:14], would have actually said the Greek words that translate to "It is hard for you to kick against the goads".

Luke does not record these words in the Acts 9 (although they are added here in the Textus Receptus [KJV]) or in the Acts 22 account.  In these two accounts it is more likely that Luke is recording the testimony of someone else, other than Paul, telling him about these events.  Although we know that is is very likely that Luke was there to hear the testimony of Paul in Acts 26.  Perhaps he even had access to the written court records.

I believe the best explanation is that what Jesus did say to Saul on that day was a Hebrew idiomatic expression, not the Greek one that Luke records in the Acts 26 account of Paul's testimony.

So what did Jesus actually say? That is, if He said any idiomatic expression at all; perhaps this is an embellishment that Paul made in his testimony or that Luke added for clarification or perhaps the "court reporter" added it as a translation of the actual Hebrew words that Paul actually did say in his testimony.

Of course we can never know, but what most likely happened is that Jesus did say Hebrew words that make up a Hebrew idiomatic expression that means the same thing as the Greek words that make up the equivalent Greek idiomatic expression.

The literal translation of an idiomatic expressions is sometimes very unclear to the true meaning.  The meaning of what Jesus actually said (if He did actually use a Hebrew idiom) is, "your attempt to resist is futile".

Perhaps the Hebrew idiom (lost to history because it is nowhere recorded) was something like, "Saul, why are you spitting into the wind?"  Perhaps in Luke's notes for what became Acts 9 & 22 he had written this Hebrew idiom, but not wanting to confuse people with a literal translation of an idiom, he decided to just leave it out.

However, when Paul, or the court stenographer, or Luke himself recognized that the meaning of what Jesus actually did say was appropriately conveyed by the well know Greek idiomatic expression "It is hard for you to kick against the goads", that is how we ended up with those Greek words in our Bibles.

I can picture Luke saying to Paul after the proceedings, "So that is what "enchsh amnshk aui lik" means!"  Perhaps he even crossed out the Hebrew idiom in his notes for what became chapter 9 and added the Greek idiom with an arrow in the border, and that is why it got added to the Textus Receptus!

Blessings, I hope this is helpful. SalasinSalvation


Historically, how did Protestantism first arrive at a consensus? Paul urges the Corinthian church :

  Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. I Corinthians 1:10 KJV.

In order for Protestantism to exist at all, initially, there had to be a consensus among some regarding the Reformation, and, particularly, regarding doctrine.

How was that consensus arrived at, historically, and what lessons does this have for the present situation of Protestantism being divided into contradictory denominations?

How did the original Reformers arrive at agreements of doctrine and how could this be reiterated now, or in the near future?

The Reformation beginning in the 16th century was actually three different movements consisting of: (a) Calvinism (b) Lutheranism (c) Anabaptists.  There were conferences between these groups but the only things they were united upon were:

Opposition to the authority of the Catholic church largely due to its excesses and abuses
Salvation by faith alone (the five "solas" actually came later)
Doctrine based on Scripture

However, there were numerous fights between these groups.  For example, Calvin persecuted Lutherans and Anabaptists by having some executed, etc.  Conferences between Luther and Zwingli ended in stalemates.  There were on-going debates particularly about how communion should be practiced and what it meant, which persist today.

As time progressed, further subdivisions emerged such as "enthusiasm" (the basis of the charismatic movement) and many more.  Thus, the reformation was never truly united.

Good overall summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptism

You could say that at any one moment in time the Roman Catholic Church (usually) has just one Pope, and Protestantism has none.  But it may be better to say that Catholics only have one Pope between them, but Protestants have one Pope each.

For some "Protestant" simply means you are not Roman Catholic. Other Protestants value the freedom to follow their own path, others value the freedom to interpret Scripture without fear of rejection from some religious authority.  The truth is the term is so woolly as to be almost meaningless, unless you take it in its traditional sense - the name for those who are protesting against the errors they perceive exist in Roman Catholicism.

It seems to me you have much too great a concern for "consensus".  During the (largely Methodist) Evangelical Awakening of George Whitfield, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, etc, there wasn't doctrinal consensus between the Whitfield and Wesley - one was Calvinist the other Arminian - but the Lord blessed both and there was a great turning to God nevertheless.

It isn't agreement amongst ourselves that is needed - it is the godly living of believing prayer, lots of faith in our God and Saviour Jesus Christ and love for him, reading and submitting to Holy Scripture, zeal, and lots of love for the lost.  It is personal agreement with God that is needed.


How many are there of God's angels? According to Revelation 5:11, there are many:

  11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering
  thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They
  encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders.
  12 In a
  loud voice they were saying:

  “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain,
      to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength
      and honor and glory and praise!”

Are there any doctrines that document/describ how many angels God would have?
Are they more than us?
If they are these many, why are there that many? Does it have to be in proportion to God's creations? Is it because of division of labour?

None of the major branches do. All they say is that it is a large number, and most say that there are more than all humans who have ever existed:

A Protestant view: (Drawing from Scripture only)

  While the Scriptures give no definite figures, we are told that the
  number of angels is very great (Daniel 7:10; Matthew 26:53; Hebrews
  12:22).

  It appears that all angels were created at one time. No new angels are
  being added to the number. Angels are not subject to death or any form
  of extinction; therefore they do not decrease in number.

  It seems reasonable to conclude that there are at least as many spirit
  beings in existence as there will have been human beings in all their
  history on earth.

  Author: Dr. Paul Eymann.

A Catholic view:

  The number of the angels is frequently stated as prodigious (Daniel
  7:10; Apocalypse 5:11; Psalm 67:18; Matthew 26:53). From the use of
  the word host (sabaoth) as a synonym for the heavenly army it is hard
  to resist the impression that the term "Lord of Hosts" refers to God's
  Supreme command of the angelic multitude (cf. Deuteronomy 33:2; 32:43;
  Septuagint). The Fathers see a reference to the relative numbers of
  men and angels in the parable of the hundred sheep (Luke 15:1-3),
  though this may seem fanciful. The Scholastics, again, following the
  treatise "De Coelesti Hierarchia" of St. Denis, regard the
  preponderance of numbers as a necessary perfection of the angelic host
  (cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica I:1:3).

An Orthodox view:

  St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes: "Imagine how great in number is the
  Roman people, imagine how great in number are the other barbarian
  peoples that now exist, and how many must have died even! In a
  century, imagine how many have been buried in a thousand years,
  imagine all mankind, from Adam to the present day. Great is their
  multitude, but it is small in comparison with the angels, whose
  numbers are greater. They are the ninety-nine sheep, whereas the human
  race is the one lost sheep. By the greatness of a place one can judge
  the numbers of those who dwell in it. The earth we inhabit is a mere
  dot in the heavens, thus the heaven that surrounds it must have a much
  greater number of inhabitants. As is has greater space, the heavens of
  heavens hold their innumerable number. If it is written that 'a
  thousand thousands ministered unto Him, and ten thousands of myriads
  attended upon Him' this is only because the prophet could express no
  greater number." When the numbers of the angels are so great, it is
  natural to assume that in their world, as in the material: world,
  there are various degrees of perfections and therefore various ranks
  or a hierarchy of the heavenly powers. Thus Holy Scripture calls some
  angels and others archangels (I Thess. 4:16, Jude v. 9).

There are a great many teachings of the number of types  or ranks of angels, but no serious writings about the population count.

Of course, there may be smaller groups within Christianity that try to pin a number on it, but most of Christianity would discount any such attempt the same way we'd discount all of the various attempts to set a date of the second coming.  It wouldn't be accepted by Christianity as a whole.

The only exception I can think of - the only group within Christianity that puts an actual number to it is the group of "Christian Atheists" that discount all supernatural altogether.  Those in that group probably put the number at zero.  But that is a small group that does not represent any of the major denominations or teachings (nor do they believe in them except, perhaps, the moral ones they agree with).

TWELVE TRILLION! let me explain why.

God knew that for a long time mankind would not have a sophisticated enough number system to grasp the vastness of the Heavenly host so throughout the Bible His Holy Spirit inspires the metaphor "[like] stars in the sky" instead of a number. Today we know the number of stars in space is in the Trillions, - Trillions is the benchmark. Now cross reference with this:

  Matthew 26:53 NCV "Surely you know I could ask my Father, and he would give me more than twelve armies of angels."

Some other translations say "legion of angels", but that's human commentary. Like 'many', "Legio" (from the word Lego) just means collection; NOT 1,000 as some wrongly assume. So Jesus never meant 12,000 but a mighty TWELVE TRILLION angels in His personal bodyguard.


In the LDS church what is the process of calling a new prophet? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was originally founded by Joseph Smith believed to be a prophet of God. After his death he was followed by Brigham Young and after Brighams death it was followed by John Taylor.

This pattern of a prophet dying and then a new one being called appears to be repeated again and again in the LDS church.

What is the usual process that is followed for calling a new prophet?

How is the decision made and by whom?

Were there any prophets called by a different process or unusual circumstances?

The Church had been initially organized in 1830 with Joseph Smith as the first Elder and Oliver Cowdery as the second. In 1832, Joseph Smith organized a First Presidency and appointed two counselors. One of these was Sidney Rigdon, The other was excommunicated in 1833 and his replacement disappeared about 1837. Oliver Cowdery had been appointed Assistant President; when he was excommunicated in 1838, Joseph Smith's brother Hyrum Smith was appointed to the position. Other counselors had been appointed, but most of these had either died or left the church.

Following the death of Joseph Smith, it was not entirely clear who should lead  the church. One of the two principal claimants at a Church conference called within a few months was Sidney Rigdon, who made a claim based on his long service as counselor to and spokesman for Joseph Smith, although he had become somewhat disassociated from the main body of the Church. The other was Brigham Young, who claimed that the office of leadership should have gone to Hyrum Smith who had been killed along with Joseph, but that the next highest authority was the Twelve apostles, of which he was the senior and president. The conference accepted the leadership of the apostles, and rejected that of Sidney Rigdon.  Three years later, in 1847 after returning from the pioneering expedition to the Salt Lake Valley to Iowa where most of the members of the Church were in temporary quarters, Brigham Young proposed reorganization of the First Presidency, with himself as the President of the Church.

Since that time, established practice and doctrine has it that the President of the Church is the supreme authority in the Church, below Christ himself. He is assisted by two (or occasionally more) counselors whom he selects. These form a First Presidency and are the highest governing body.

The next highest body is the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. These are sustained and accepted by members of the Church as "Prophets, Seers, and Revelators" when they are called and ordained as apostles.

When a President of the church dies, the First Presidency is dissolved and the counselors resume whatever position they had prior to their call to the First Presidency. They have almost always been apostles and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, but there have been a few exceptions. This quorum is then the interim highest governing body, until such time as they, after prayer and by revelation, decide to reorganize the First Presidency. The man chosen as President of the Church has always been the senior living apostle (as determined by continuous length of service). It would be a major departure from the established order for anyone else to be named.

An important thing to recognize in attempting to properly and fully address this question is there is a distinction between the offices of responsibility of the Lord's Anointed Prophet and the President of the Church. They are entirely separate hats, so to speak.

Joseph Smith Jr. was one person who wore both hats. Prior to the organization of the church body, there was a priesthood body organized as well. Even though people could be members of both bodies, they are indeed distinct bodies. Entrance into these bodies is a process of entering into the associated covenants. There are distinctly different covenants involved when a person becomes a member of the church and when a person joins the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood bodies.

Joseph Smith Jr. was the president of both the masculine priesthood body as well as of the feminine church body. The masculine priesthood body was called for in Section 88 of the Doctrine and Covenants and it was called the School of the Prophets and its president was the Lord's Anointed Prophet. This is more precisely understood as the individual to whom God would give the gift to receive the oracles.

This office of Lord's Anointed Oracle is the same as was anciently held by Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and so on. This is the body of authority that has responsibility over the kings and the priests. This is why Jesus came to John the Baptist in order to have his right to be revered as a King and a Priest recognized and to receive his anointing as such. A similar relationship existed between Jethro and Moses as well.

This office of Lord's Anointed is not something that man has any say in whatsoever. God only ever has one man serving in this capacity at a time. And, it is whoever God calls and speaks to. It is upon the people to hear the words spoken through the oracle and to get their own witness or confirmation that God is speaking through them. This is why under the ancient law if a man presumed to do this and was found to be deceived and/or dishonest in the matter the punishment was very severe. Also, once a man served in this capacity he would remain such for all the remainder of his life and often times there would be specific instructions from God on who the successor would be. In other cases there wouldn't be any successor because of the unrighteousness of the people and/or the oracle.

Where things became to appear that the office of the president of the churh and the office of the Lord's Anointed Prophet were one and the same is from DC 90:3-5 where Joseph Smith Jr. is told who the successor to hold the oracle shall be. He was told the oracle would go to another, even the church. So, rather than being given to an actual individual, the oracle would go to the body of the church collectively. Therefore, so long as it remained worthy of the gift, the president of the church would also be the successor to the office of the Lord's Anointed Prophet and be the oracle. Therefore, upon the passing of Joseph Smith Jr., the process the church uses to call a new church president is also the defacto process by which the oracle would be passed on.

The basis upon which a new presiding high priest is selected to become the president of the church is that he is "chosen by the body" and "upheld by the faith, confidence and prayers" of the saints. In other words, it was the body of high priests who gathered together and held some kind of a convention to determine how this was done. Apostolic seniority was the process decided upon by the body of priesthood brethren and so this is what has been used ever since to determine who the new president of the church would be, which also had ramifications upon who the oracle would be as well. Therefore, not only was Brigham Young the rightful president of the church, he was also the rightful successor of the office of Lord's Anointed Oracle.


In Eastern Orthodoxy, when doing a service, do little mistakes really matter, and should they be cause for concern? I have a question about the Ecclesiastical Typikon regarding the singer of the church. Does it really matter (i.e., it is a big problem) if he fails sometimes or instead of a song he sings another one? I am referring to a small mistake, like: at the Theotokion the singer must sing, for example, the Theotokion for Transfiguration of Jesus (on the last day of the afterfeast), but instead he mistakenly sings It is Truly Meet. Is there any problem?

Is there any Saint who has spoken about this kind of involuntary mistake? And also about if the Typikon (and all the Holy Services books) should be complied very very precisely (or maybe is more useful to pray much better)?

You clarified your question in a comment:

  If there are a dogma regarding that, if it is considered a sin, if God
  and/or The Church focuses on very precisely compliance of Typikon or
  Orthodox Tradition, if it does not matter a such kind of mistake in
  generally

Sin, as John wrote, is lawlessness (1 John 3:4).  This is also the definition cited in The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Church, by Metropolitan Philaret.  The 20th century Orthodox theologian and monk, Justin Popovic explained this verse:

  The law of God is the Gospel:  lawlessness is sin.  Its [sin's] only
  law is to be without the law of God and against the law of God.  In
  essence, the law and that which is lawful is only that which is divine
  and of the Gospel; lawlessness is everything that is in opposition to
  that which is divine and of the Gospel.

  Commentary on the Epistles of St. John the Theologian, (tr. Sebastian Press, 2009), p. 40

In the Gospel, we are commanded to be perfect (Matthew 5:48).  In this sense anything we do or fail to do in dishonoring or honoring God and our brothers and sisters through inattention is sinful.  The prayers and rubrics in the Typicon were prescribed by our hierarchs for the spiritual benefit of all who read and attend the service, so we fall short of helping our brothers and sisters when we make mistakes in the service through our inattention.  But we also fall short when we have an unkind word for them or an unkind thought about them.  There is not a special checklist that God maintains that relates specifically to errors of one sort or another.

Is there any Saint who has spoken about this kind of involuntary mistake? And also about if the Typikon (and all the Holy Services books) should be complied very very precisely (or maybe is more useful to pray much better)?

Why do you call such a mistake "involuntary"? The motive and the path that led to the mistake are important here. If it is negligence and sloth, then by a negligent performance of a church service, we show our disrespect to God, this sin is called blasphemy.

  For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another (Gal. 5, 13).

Negligence and sloth is, of course, a pandering to the flesh.


How do Young Earth Creationists account for radiometrical dates of more than 7000 years? How do Young Earth Creationists account for all the things which have been radiometrically dated to more than 7000 years ago?
For example, the oldest carbon-14-dated seed that has grown into a viable plant was Silene stenophylla (narrow-leafed campion), an Arctic flower native to Siberia, which was dated to be from about ~32,000 years ago. (See reference.) That would put them before plants existed for Young Earth Creationists (at the earliest, ~12,000 years ago).

The literal answer is that YECs "account" for no such thing. They reject the accuracy of such dates, based on an alternate interpretation of the available evidence. However, that isn't very satisfying, so let's address the question you really want to ask, which is "how do YECs account for such supposed ages?".
The short version is that there is no such thing as "radiometric dating".
Rather, there is the ability to measure relative concentrations of various radioactive isotopes. I'm not going to attempt a detailed explanation (you could try here to start), but the short version is that, based on several (sometimes unprovable, sometimes falsified) assumptions, Uniformitarian Evolutionists (UEs) claim to be able to establish the age of certain artifacts (rocks, fossils, seeds, etc.) based on ratios of certain radioactive isotopes and their byproducts.
It should also be noted that these methods often employ various self-reinforcing feedback loops based on UE assumptions (chief of which is that God does not exist). To wit, various techniques such as position of an artifact within geological strata and alternate dating methods of colocated artifacts are used to help "dial in" the dating methodology.
The critical point here, however, is that these techniques have expected results. The methods may be adjusted in order to arrive at the "correct" results, and data that does not fit UE expectations may be discarded entirely (often written off as "contamination"). Simply the way in which these dating methods have been developed ought to be sufficient to place them into question.
Another problem is consistency. Different methods used on the same artifact can give wildly different results. In fact, there is evidence of systemic discrepancies; I'll come back to this point shortly. Other issues are known and sometimes even acknowledged by UEs.
However, to really understand why YECs reject UE "dating", we need to look at the main three assumptions on which those methods rest:

The relative proportions of radioisotopes are fixed at the time the artifact "comes into existence" (when a rock is formed in its current state, when an animal dies and begins the process of fossilization).

UEs themselves acknowledge that this assumption is problematic. YECs further point out that e.g. ¹⁴C concentrations may have been dramatically different prior to the Flood.

The relative proportions of radioisotopes are known at the time the artifact "comes into existence".

Not only does this rely on various assumptions, it has been, in at least some instances, demonstrably falsified. Lava rocks whose formation has been observed by living humans have, for example, been "dated" as "millions of years old". Also, again, effects of the Flood offer an alternate explanation for many observations.

The rate of radioactive decay has remained constant.

While this assumption does seem reasonable, and is even an explanation that a YEC would prefer (the YEC philosophy is to prefer non-miraculous explanations unless no other explanation seems reasonable), it is unprovable until and unless someone creates a working time machine. In fact, even non-YEC sources have shown evidence that the rate of decay is not constant and are experimenting with altering it, while some (YEC) experiments have already demonstrated that greatly accelerated decay is within the reach of not only God, but of Man. Moreover, there is evidence that the rate of decay was dramatically altered by God on at least one occasion in the past. Such evidence includes the previously mentioned systemic inconsistencies in radiometric "dating".
Really, the upshot of all this is that you should read the R.A.T.E. report, volumes I and II. These express a number of very specific problems with radiometric dating as accepted by UEs, at least some of which, TTBOMK have not been refuted plausibly. The upshot is that YECs possess a cohesive interpretation (admittedly based on Christian dogma) of the available evidence which ought to be weighed against — not simply ignored or rejected out of hand — the interpretation favored by UEs (based on athiestic dogma which UEs will often vociferously deny).
Finally, one would be remiss to not also consider that other evidence, not related to radiometric dating, can also be interpreted as indicative of an Earth that is thousands, not millions or billions, of years old. I wouldn't know where to start here, but see the links from my original version of the answer.
Now, obviously, not everyone accepts the YEC interpretation. However, the main point here isn't to argue which is right or wrong, but to answer the question of how YECs can "account for" certain evidences which are interpreted by UEs as indicating certain ages of various artifacts. Hopefully this answer can help you on a path to understanding that.

Old answer, for posterity:
As noted in a comment, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, as your assumption seems to be faulty. However, the critical point seems to be "Christians who reject plants existing >7,000 years ago".
Well... the only such Christians I know are Young Earth Creationists, who reject anything (other than God, of course) existing more than 7,000 years ago.
Naturally, this also means they reject the claimed age of, well, anything as being more than 7,000 years. So I think the answer to your question is that they don't reconcile anything, but rather reject the validity of any dating that gives an answer of more than 7,000 years.
Here are a couple places you can start if you want to learn more about why YECs reject Uniformitarian dating:

https://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/

For Young Earth Creationists the general answer to anything that is claimed to be more than their believed age of the earth is that the thing really isn't that old.
With cases like this their usual claim is that the dating system is wrong. Carbon dating gets a lot of criticism in their literature. Geological dating is often attacked too.  You can read up on the details because they are not very enlightening.


How do Protestants understand major differences in doctrine between denominations? As a Catholic I believe that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus and given the authority to teach infallibly on the topics of faith and morals.

My understanding is that many Protestants believe that individual Christians have the grace to interpret the Bible for themselves.

For those who believe this, how do you understand major differences in the beliefs between various Protestant denominations?  If any sincere believer who has "been saved" is able to read and properly interpret the Bible through the work of the Holy Spirit, why so many fundamental differences in belief?

For instance, there seems to be wide disagreement on the necessity of baptism for salvation.  Some believe it to be the method of conferring sanctifying grace on the recipient, some believe it is merely symbolic, etc.

At the First Vatican Council (1869), the Catholic Church defined the doctrine of papal infallibility.  The Church certainly believed in papal infallibility long before that, but there was some disagreement over the specifics.  At that council, the long-held belief was codified as, itself, an infallible teaching.

First Vatican Council - Section 4, Chapter 4, Part 9

  ...we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

The doctrine of papal infallibility was one of the primary things against which Martin Luther fought.  At the Diet of Worms, when he was questioned on the infallibility of the Pope, he stated, "I deny that he is above scripture."  He argued that since Jesus rebuked Peter, Peter must have been fallible, and since Peter was fallible, it logically follows that all of his successors would be fallible too.

Martin Luther, and other reformers, did not believe that the Pope was the wrong person to be considered infallible.  Rather, they believed that no person, not even Peter, was infallible (save Jesus, of course).  Protestant churches do not believe that their church, leaders, or anyone else is infallible.  They typically believe that only the scriptures (sola scriptura), in the form of its original writing, is actually inspired and infallible.

It is not only admissible, but even expected, among Protestants, that different people will come to different conclusions about the meaning of the scriptures, because, as they believe, we are all fallible people.  It is expected that good-people will disagree for many reasons.  Depending on which ancient manuscripts you are using, which translation of those original languages you are reading, which hermeneutical approach you are using to interpret its meaning, and the theological framework to which you are pinning your understanding, there are many possible ways to "properly" interpret the same passage.

Having so many theological differences does not contradict Protestant teaching.  On the contrary, it confirms their teaching of the fallibility of all people.  In Protestant circles, truthfulness of doctrine is not judged by who stated it, but rather by what methods they used in arriving at it.

The number of Protestant denominations represent  Americas religious freedoms.This country is a creation of the Protestant Reformation thinkers who rejected the superstitions and idolatry of Southern Europe.The founding fathers rejected the hierarchies who fed false doctrines to the uneducated masses.We do interpret doctrine differently in some cases but we have the historical record of Jesus Christ in the Gospels as our guide.Jesus said "thy Word is thy truth" "do not change a jot" but nothing about having it interpreted my priests or popes.


Why are sandals considered to be unholy? As I was reading Exodus 3 chapter 5, this passage got my attention.

  Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.”

Why it is considered as unholy?  Even in churches they are said to remove your sandals and shoes.  When considered this as unholy, what about other things as our clothes, etc.

It's not so much that sandals or slippers are considered to be unholy, it's that they're dirty, and removing them is a sign of respect similar to removing one's hat when entering a building, or perhaps removing a nose ring when entering a strict parent's house.

From the United church of God's article on the subject:

  Taking off your sandals was like the old custom of a man taking off
  his hat when entering a building or greeting a lady—it was a token of
  respect.

  The ground was holy because of God's presence. People were to approach
  God with solemnity and humility. Taking off their sandals expressed an
  inward reverence through an outward behavior in their worship. Showing
  such respect avoids anything casual, sloppy or rude.

  Some Eastern religions today still require bare feet when entering
  their temples. Anciently the Greeks, in the worship of Diana and
  Jupiter, required worshippers to take off their shoes (Adam Clarke's
  Commentary, Exodus 3:5 ). A common custom in the Orient and for many
  in North America is to take off your shoes when entering a person's
  home. God Has a High Standard for Approaching Him

As to why...

From Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

  put off thy shoes—The direction was in conformity with a usage which
  was well known to Moses, for the Egyptian priests observed it in their
  temples, and it is observed in all Eastern countries where the people
  take off their shoes or sandals, as we do our hats. But the Eastern
  idea is not precisely the same as the Western. With us, the removal of
  the hat is an expression of reverence for the place we enter, or
  rather of Him who is worshipped there. With them the removal of the
  shoes is a confession of personal defilement and conscious
  unworthiness to stand in the presence of unspotted holiness.

Also, from the Pulpit Commentary (available at the link in the preceding section)

  Rather, "thy sandals." Shoes were not worn commonly, even by the
  Egyptians, until a late period, and would certainly not be known in
  the land of Midian at this time. The practice of putting them off
  before entering a temple, a palace, or even the private apartments of
  a house, was, and is, universal in the East - the rationale of it
  being that the shoes or sandals have dust or dirt attaching to them.

God has a thing about death even animal death; while he has killed animals for our benefit and clothing it was not his perfect will to do as such. We live in a New Covenant where such trivialities as leather shoes matter not because the Blood of Jesus has cleansed all things for us to kill and eat. However in the Old Covenant God prefered people to remove their leather sandals because they were a basic form of death. The Jews still keep this rite on High Holy Days like Yom Kippur.


What is the meaning of "sola scriptura"? I often see "sola scriptura" used with two very different meanings.

Serendipitously, when I typed the title question, the first two "Similar questions" presented by SE were:

What is the basis for not believing sola scriptura?
Sola scriptura is Latin for "by scripture alone". ... the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation.
Sola Scriptura and the Biblical Canon
The basic argument of Sola Scriptura is that all Christian teachings and traditions are to be founded in and subservient to the Bible, and in nothing else.

The first says that the Bible is sufficient, but allows for additional sources of truth.  "Scripture alone" provides everything we need to know, but not necessarily everything we can know.

The second says that the Bible is necessary, and denies the possibility of additional sources of truth.  "Scripture alone" is the only acceptable source of truth.

Depending upon one's denomination, either meaning is acceptable, but it seems strange that the one phrase should have two such different definitions.

Which one of these is a corruption of the original meaning?

Clarification:

Everyone (even atheists) will agree that of the two definitions, either, neither, but not both can be true.

Given a "new" doctrine that doesn't conflict with the Bible, the first view would say "it might be true, and it's okay to accept it, but believing or not believing it won't affect our salvation", while the second view would say "even if it is true, we should reject it for being non-Biblical".

I'm interested in knowing the original meaning, and in the history of how the meaning of "sola scriptura" changed to take on two contradictory meanings.

Summary:

The response that best answers this question is the comment containing a link to GratefulDisciple's answer to a similar question, which refers to four different definitions of Sola Scriptura as described in Keith Mathison's "The Shape of Sola Scriptura".  In particular, the differences between "Tradition 1" and "Tradition 0" are what I was asking about.  Tradition 0 corresponds to the "in nothing else" view, which Mathison calls "Solo Scriptura", with an "o" rather than an "a".

I’m not at all convinced that the two interpretations of Sola Scriptura presented in your question are definitive, let alone which one is a corruption of the original meaning.  But before we go any further, it is important to establish what “Tradition” means.  One source of information says this under the heading ‘Irenaeus and Tertullian held to sola Scriptura’:

It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century that we first encounter the concept of Apostolic Tradition (tradition handed down in the Church from the apostles in oral form). The word tradition simply means teaching.  Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures. Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. From this, it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture.  In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture...  The Early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola Scriptura. It was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church.  Source: https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

Here are a few excerpts from an article adapted from a chapter entitled "Sola Scriptura" by Mark D. Thomson in Reformation Theology: A Systematic Summary, edited by Matthew Barrett.  What Did Luther Really Believe about Scriptural Authority?

Luther was summoned to an interview with Tommaso de Vio, or Cardinal Cajetan (1469–1534), following the Diet of Augsburg in October 1518. When Cajetan challenged him on the basis of the church’s teaching, Luther insisted, “The truth of Scripture comes first. After that is accepted one may determine whether the words of men can be accepted as true.” [1 Martin Luther, Acta Augustana (1518), WA 2:21.5–6; LW 31:282.]
It is clear that Luther was not dismissing the authority of “the words of men” but rather submitting them to what he regarded as a higher authority, “the truth of Scripture.” Throughout his ministry Luther would cite the fathers and the creeds and even some decisions of the early church councils in support of his teaching, but he did not consider them decisive. Yet they were also more than merely illustrative. Insofar as they faithfully expressed the teaching of Scripture, they were to be regarded as authoritative. Scripture was not the only authority but rather the final authority.
He recognized other subsidiary and contingent authorities, not alongside but under the rule of Scripture, which remained his final authority. These other authorities included not only the church fathers but also a number of significant medieval theologians.
His willingness to reason from the Scriptures (following the example of Paul in Acts 17:2) is evident as early as the famous statement made at the Diet of Worms in May 1521:6
”Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by evident reason—for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves—I consider myself conquered by the Scriptures adduced by me and my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” [7 Martin Luther, Verhandlungen mit D. Martin Luther auf dem Reichstage zu Worms (1521), WA 7:838.4–7; LW 32:112.]
So for Luther, Scripture itself remained the final authority, but this did not eliminate all appeal to the fathers, the creeds, and the decisions of the church. Reading Scripture is a fellowship activity in which the voices of those who have read before us need to be heard attentively.  Source: https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-sola-scriptura-really-means/

Finally, here is an extract from an article on the Lutheran view of Sola Scriptura and Tradition:

Sola Scriptura in Lutheran form is not against tradition per se.  While some brands of Christianity might insist that if it’s not in the Bible then it’s not Christian, Lutheran theology understands that a tradition is allowable when (a) it is not contradicted by scripture, (b) it serves a purpose that is scriptural, and (c) it is not enforced as a pre-condition for Christian unity.  It is nonetheless possible to assert the principle of Sola Scriptura in a manner similar to the bumper sticker that says: “The Bible Says It, I Believe It, That Settles It.”  However, a Lutheran theological approach resists simplification.  For Lutheran Christians, reading the Bible does not mean setting aside critical thinking skills. Source: https://lutherantheology.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/a-brief-introduction-to-sola-scriptura/

To answer your question, I agree with Martin Luther who said the truth of Scripture comes first and that Scripture is the final authority.  Yes, the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation as it says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.  (KJV but took the liberty of replacing ‘throughly’ with thoroughly)

However, that does not mean we have to disengage our intellects or refuse to acknowledge biblical teachings (traditions) that have been handed down from the early church fathers who were taught by Jesus’ disciples.
I’m now going to track down that bumper sticker.

To put it simply, the words mean :
Sola- Alone, solo
Scriptura- Scripture
It is a Latin phrase for “Scripture Alone”.

What it means-
It is the view that Scripture Alone is the Word of God. And that the basis for living and what is righteous living comes from Scripture alone. It is the sole source of authority.
Sola Scriptura is one of the pillars of the Protestant Reformation, which all Orthodox Churches hold to today.

Contrast the Roman Catholic teaching that The Church’s words (visa vie the Pope) has greater authority than Scripture.
Contrast some charismatic churches that believe that “words of prophecy” or “Special Revelation” are as authoritative for the church as Scripture.

This view began as a defense of the authority of Scripture from other teacher’s opinions.