According to Catholicism which parts of the Bible actually happened historically? One of the things that have tested my faith is the question: Did the bible really happen? Was there really a "garden of Eden"? Was there a universal flood"

And perhaps more importantly, how important is it for the bible books to be accurate? If Genesis didn't really happen, what impact does it have on our faith?

Modern scientific research clearly shows that the creation story from the bible did not really happen.

According to Catholicism which parts of the Bible really happened historically?

What parts should we ready historically and what parts figuratively?

The Catholic Church Magisterium has not committed to reading the first few chapters of Genesis (from Adam to Noah, at least) as historical / scientific account.  Instead, both the Catholic Church and a growing segment of Protestants and Evangelicals, emphasize that scientific truth and the theological truth are compatible with each other.  What has to be taken by faith is what those first chapters teach us about God's nature and our nature, and the Church Magisterium has the authority to interpret them accordingly.
The solution: identifying the genre of the Creation story, Adam and Eve, and the Flood story as theological truth cast in ancient Hebrew cosmology which in turn adopts elements of other mythologies of the Ancient Near East.  Thus, we notice similarities of the Creation Story to Enûma Eliš and the Noah Story to the Epic of Gilgamesh.  For example, this article shows some parallels.
The Hebrew author of Genesis thus was countering the theology embedded in the Mesopotamian myths by recasting the story in terms of Hebrew theology.  In Hebrew theology, the True and Real God of the Universe (who also is the Personal God who chose Israel as His special people) created human being as His Imager In the World.  Notice the big contrast to the Babylonian myth where their gods created human beings to be slaves for the gods.  In the Hebrew author's hand, the story thus highly "upgraded" the status of human beings, and that's one of the key point of the Hebrew theology.  (Note: see LBD entry on 'image of God' why the functional 'God's imager' is a better translation.)
Some quotes from a Catholic apologetics website article How to Read the First Chapter of Genesis quoting Pope John Paul II, Pope, Leo XIII, Pope Pius XII, and St. Augustine (emphasis mine):

The confusion over this issue, which Pope John Paul II addressed in 1996 in his highly publicized letter about evolution, boils down to the question of how to read the biblical creation account.  In his letter, John Paul simply reiterated what the Magisterium has argued tirelessly since Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus (1893): The author of Genesis did not intend to provide a scientific explanation of how God created the world.  Unfortunately there are still biblical fundamentalists, Catholic and Protestant, who do not embrace this point.
When Christ said that the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds — and it is about the size of a speck of dust — He was not laying down a principle of botany.  In fact, botanists tell us there are smaller seeds.  Our Lord was simply talking to the men of His time in their own language, and with reference to their own experience.  Similarly, the Hebrew word for "day" used in Genesis ("yom") can mean a 24-hour day, or a longer period.  Hence the warning of Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943), that the true sense of a biblical passage is not always obvious.  The sacred authors wrote in the idioms of their time and place.
As Catholics, we must believe that every word of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, a claim the Church will not make even for her infallible pronouncements.  However, we must not imagine the biblical authors as going into a trance and taking automatic dictation in a "pure" language untouched by historical contingency.  Rather, God made full use of the writers habits of mind and expression.  It's the old mystery of grace and free will.
A modern reader of Genesis must bear in mind the principles of biblical exegesis laid down by St. Augustine in his great work De Genesi Ad Litteram (On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis).  Augustine taught that whenever reason established with certainty a fact about the physical world, seemingly contrary statements in the Bible must be interpreted accordingly.  He opposed the idea of a "Christian account" of natural phenomena in opposition to what could be known by science.  He viewed such accounts as "most deplorable and harmful, and to be avoided at any cost," because on hearing them the non-believer "could hardly hold his laughter on seeing, as the saying goes, the error rise sky-high."

But the Magisterium did clarify the boundaries of acceptable position in this Catholic Answers article Adam, Eve, and Evolution, specifically ruling that "the human race have to descend from an original pair of two human beings" to preserve the doctrine of original sin:

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: “When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

The entire New Testament (sans Revelation because it is obviously metaphorical in many ways) is considered to be fully historical. The Old Testament is read historically from Exodus and onwards, besides maybe Job or Tobit. The Church has no official teachings on the historicity of Genesis, but the past three popes and many of the saints (such as Aquinas and Augustine) have believed in a metaphorical approach to the creation story, the flood, and Babel.


How do deniers of the personhood of the Holy Spirit interpret Romans 8:26-27? Romans 8:26-27 (ESV):

26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

This is one of the most commonly cited passages as evidence for the personhood of the Holy Spirit (e.g. as in this answer), probably because of the following reasons:

The Holy Spirit is said to be able to intercede (i.e. pray) for the saints.
And not just intercede, but intercede with groanings too deep for words (indicative of emotions?)
Moreover, the Holy Spirit is explicitly said to have a mind (the mind of the Spirit, v27).

In short, the passage appears to be saying that the Holy Spirit has (1) a mind, (2) emotions and (3) the ability to pray/intercede.
Question: How do deniers of the personhood of the Holy Spirit interpret Romans 8:26-27 and make sense of all this?

The latest comments exchanged between myself, Miguel de Servet, and Nigel J, should  already provide something more that a hint to an answer.
Anyway, the Spirit (pneuma/ruach), of which we read, in particular, at Romans 8:26-27, is neither a "person", nor a "personification": like the Word (logos/dabar) it (it ..) is an eternal, essential attribute of the One and only God, the Father Almighty.


According to Protestants, must clergy be ordained by other ordained clergy? Some of the initial leaders of the Reformation, who presumably ordained  later Protestant clergy, were ordained priests in the Catholic Church. But, in (denominational, rather than congregationalist) Protestant ecclesiology, is this necessary? If no ordained priests had joined the Reformation, would it still have been possible to ordain clergy?

Also, what exactly happened in the Reformation? Were all mainstream (ie non-Anabaptist) Protestant clergy ordained by clergy who had clerical ordinations? In other words, do present-day denominational Protestant clergy have a lineage of ordinations that extend back to the Catholic Church, and thus back to the Apostolic Church?

I recognize that the Catholic Church regards such ordinations by
excommunicated persons as null and void, and that many Protestants
regard Catholic ordinations, in turn, as either null and void, or
entirely irrelevant.
I'm more interested in what what the mainstream Reformers, especially
of the 16th century, believed on the topic.

John Calvin, whose theology heavily influenced every Reformer (here I exclude the Anabaptists and other such groups), has a chapter in his Institutes of the Christian Religion which discusses the clergy generally, and has some paragraphs on the ordination of clergy. I suggest you read the entire chapter for better context (and the entire book for good theology!), but I will quote the relevant section.

  It remains to consider the form of ordination, to which we have assigned the last place in the call (see chap. 4, sec. 14, 15). It is certain, that when the apostles appointed any one to the ministry, they used no other ceremony than the laying on of hands. This form was derived, I think, from the custom of the Jews, who, by the laying on of hands, in a manner presented to God whatever they wished to be blessed and consecrated. Thus Jacob, when about to bless Ephraim and Manasseh, placed his hands upon their heads (Gen. 48:14). The same thing was done by our Lord, when he prayed over the little children (Mt. 19:15). With the same intent (as I imagine), the Jews, according to the injunction of the law, laid hands upon their sacrifices. Wherefore, the apostles, by the laying on of hands, intimated that they made an offering to God of him whom they admitted to the ministry; though they also did the same thing over those on whom they conferred the visible gifts of the Spirit (Acts 8:17; 19:6). However this be, it was the regular form, whenever they called any one to the sacred ministry. In this way they consecrated pastors and teachers; in this way they consecrated deacons. But though there is no fixed precept concerning the laying on of hands, yet as we see that it was uniformly observed by the apostles, this careful observance ought to be regarded by us in the light of a precept (see chap. 14, sec. 20; chap. 19, sec. 31). And it is certainly useful, that by such a symbol the dignity of the ministry should be commended to the people, and he who is ordained, reminded that he is no longer his own, but is bound in service to God and the Church. Besides, it will not prove an empty sign, if it be restored to its genuine origin. For if the Spirit of God has not instituted anything in the Church in vain, this ceremony of his appointment we shall feel not to be useless, provided it be not superstitiously abused. Lastly, it is to observed, that it was not the whole people, but only pastors, who laid hands on ministers, though it is uncertain whether or not several always laid their hands: it is certain, that in the case of the deacons, it was done by Paul and Barnabas, and some few others (Acts 6:6; 13:3). But in another place, Paul mentions that he himself, without any others, laid hands on Timothy. “Wherefore, I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands” (2 Tim. 1:6). For what is said in the First Epistle, of the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, I do not understand as if Paul were speaking of the college of Elders. By the expression, I understand the ordination itself; as if he had said, Act so, that the gift which you received by the laying on of hands, when I made you a presbyter, may not be in vain.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 4, Chapter 3, Section 16

In short, only already-ordained ministers could ordain clergy (whether ministers, elders, or deacons).

The Reformers did not consider themselves to be schismatics creating a new church, but rather considered themselves as the continuation of the true church, with the Roman Catholic Church being the schismatic drifting away from true theology. As such, those ordained as priests under the Roman Catholic Church would not be expected to cease their duties in the event that they converted to Protestantism. This is evidence at the very least in both Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli, who were both ordained as priests in the Roman Catholic Church, and who both continued their duties as clergy after taking their stance in opposition to the Roman Catholic Church.

It is most likely that most, if not all Reformed clergy could then theoretically trace their ordination back through to a Roman Catholic ordination at some stage.

It is another matter entirely as to whether they considered it necessary or important to have an unbroken line back to the Apostles (and presumably not just the Apostles, but the Jewish clergy who "became" Christian, as they would also not be re-ordained at that time).

Different Protestants have different views. I would not wonder if I meet a Protestant which would claim that always a "clergy" should be ordained by another "clergy".

Now I will present my own opinion on this issue, which accordingly my experience (sorry, I cannot point particular references) is the same as the opinion of most Protestants:

Bible teaches to respect elders. We should thus seek blessing of these who are in Christian ministry before us. If we can receive such a blessing, then we should.

But accordingly Protestant theology, all believers are priests. So there is no need to be ordained to become a priest (maybe except of to be baptized).

Get the blessing from other if you can, but this is not a 100% must.

Accordingly Pentecostal and Charismatic theology, there are not only 12 apostles, but some people living today bear the service of apostles. Bible says that "Holy Spirit is delivered by laying hands of apostles". Therefore Pentecostals believe that to enter into a service one needs to get blessings from apostles. (But Bible seems not to say that Holy Spirit is delivered only through laying hands of apostles.)

The only issue is to get the anointment of Holy Spirit. Whoever has the anointment can serve spiritually.

Personally I preach and publish Christian books in Internet without any ordainment.

The most essential thing for a Christian ministry is to be called by God.

I don't know what the mainstream Reformers, especially of the 16th century, believed on the topic.


Was Luke, the author of the Gospel and Acts, a slave? "It is possible that Paul’s “relative” Lucius is Luke, the author of
  the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. On his second missionary
  journey, Paul may have gone to Troas (where Luke lived—or at least
  where he joined Paul) because he knew a relative he could stay with
  there (Acts 16:8, 11)." -
  http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1995/issue47/4702.html

I know a related question is this: Who was Luke in the Bible? But I find the answer lacking. I recently heard teaching on slavery in the New Testament by Michael Card, and he presented Luke as a slave, and physicians in general as slaves in the time of the New Testament.

  The 'doctors' in ancient Rome were not nearly as highly regarded as
  the doctors in Greece. The profession itself, outside of the legions,
  was considered a low social position, fit for slaves, freedmen and
  non-latin citizens, mainly Greeks. unrv.com

He also taught that slaves in that time were named one of two way, 1) by the master's desired characteristic for the slave (the most common slave name, philokurios - loving of the master, and Philemon - dear one), or 2) by a nickname of the master (i.e. Michael would name his slave Mike).

Paul mentions a relative, Lucius. Lucius would name his slave Luke. As a physician, he would have been given to Paul to care for his ailment, (or thorn?). That would explain why Luke traveled so extensively with Paul.

Michael Card does have a book on both slavery and Luke, and I will be getting to those, but how come I've never heard this before? Is there substantial evidence pointing to a definitive yes or no?

Michael Card's hypothesis is interesting, and certainly not outside the realm of possibility.  It is quite true that skilled Greeks were enslaved and brought to Italy during times of conquest and revolt, and perhaps even during times of peace between Greece and Rome, such as was the case when Luke was living.  But it seems to me that Card's main argument needs evidence to support it.  He claims that (1) Luke is a hypocorism based on the name Lucius; and (2) slaves were commonly named according to hypocirisms.  Both of these claims are plausible---but plausible isn't good enough.  He needs to give some evidence that this was actually the case.

Unfortunately, even then, the case wouldn't be made.  Card himself understands this, when he writes:  "I admit that this idea is quite a stretch, and my scholarly friends have told me this theory would never wash in the halls of academia."  Then he continues, "let us put forth, not as a fact but as a distinct possibility: Luke might have been a slave" (emphasis original).  And that's fine---I agree, it is a reasonable hypothesis.  But it just doesn't have any good evidence behind it, at present.

Let me also say something about Dick Harfield's answer.  He is correct that Luke-Acts is anonymous, and unlikely to have been written by Luke the companion of Paul---although I disagree that this is relevant to your question.  But he makes a good point that the tradition about Luke being a physician is not well-established, since it comes from an epistle (Colossians) which is likely to be pseudepigraphical.  On the other hand, whether Colossians was written by Paul or not, it is certainly very ancient, and so we have reason to trust it when it affirms Luke as a physician.  And I think Harfield has a decent point about Luke being referred to as among his "fellowlabourers."  It is, as DJClayworth has pointed out, quite plausible that a slave might be referred to as such.  But it seems more likely to me that Paul considered Luke to be closer to his own social standing.

The question implicitly asks two questions. The first is whether Luke wrote the gospel that now bears his name; the second is whether Luke was a slave.

Luke's Gospel, like all the New Testament gospels was originally anonymous, as was Acts of the Apostles. They were attributed to Luke later in the second century, largely because it was felt that the author must have been a gentile who knew Paul, and only Luke seemed to fit that description. After studying the two works traditionally attributed to Luke, nearly all critical scholars have concluded that he is unlikely to have been the author.

Luke is mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:11 and Colossians 4:14, but both epistles are widely considered pseudepigraphical. In any case, neither reference gives any information that would suggest he was a slave.  Colossians 4:14 describes him as a physician, but that does not mean he was a slave. True, the Romans took many Greek physicians as slaves, but they would take any captives as slaves if they had useful skills. Paul was not a Roman and there is no suggestion that Luke was under any kind of restraint from another person. And of course, doubts about the Pauline authorship of Colossians mean that we can not even know whether Luke really was a physician at all.

Philemon is an undisputed epistle of Paul and mentions a Lucas (Luke) at verse 1:24:

  Marcus, Aristarchus, Demas, Lucas, my fellowlabourers.

It seems most unlikely that Paul would socially equate a slave with himself by referring to the slave as "my fellowlabourer." On the evidence as I see it, Luke was not a slave.


Purgatory - is it a place or state? According to Catholicism, does purgatory refer to a place or state? Has it ever been described as a place and then later a state, or vice-versa?

To the best of my knowledge, the details of purgatory have never been set out in an official Vatican document (like a papal bull, council decree, etc.). The magisterium of the church is somewhat vague on this point. (For some well-cited reading on various aspects of purgatory, see New Advent's Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Somewhat recently, however, Pope Benedict tried to shine some light on the matter. In a January 2011 talk about St. Catherine of Genoa, author of a treatise on purgatory, the pope agreed with the saint's conviction that "purgatory was not a place, but a process."

  "'The soul that is aware of the immense love and perfect justice of God consequently suffers for not having responded correctly and perfectly to that love,' the pope said, adding that the suffering is purgatory."

There is a famous story in the Bible from which it could be inferred that purgatory is not necessary for salvation. The complicated theological issue of purgatory's existence - which is the central theme of your question ("is it a place or state") - could therefore be avoided.

On Mount Calvary, one of the two thieves - sinners till the end of their lives -  cried out to Jesus:

  And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luke 23: 42 – 43)

The Greek for “today” is σήμερον, sémeron, which according to Strong’s Concordance, also means “now”. Jesus answering in the affirmative implies He had had His Father’s confirmation of salvation for both of them at that instant, whilst they were still alive.

It is our complete faith in Christ that saves us, as per the exhortations of Paul the Apostle (Romans 10:8–10, New KJV):

  But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. (Romans 10:8–10)


Were the Jews right in accusing Jesus of claiming to be God? I was once asked this question by a Jehovah Witness to prove if the Jews understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. I affirm that they did while the Jehovah Witnesses deny it.

Related question here

I'm going to approach this by saying the following. Whether or not the Jews are correctly or incorrectly understanding Jesus is not the issue. The issue is what was it that Jesus "SAID" that caused the Jews to say He was claiming to be God?

John 5:16, "And for this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because He was doing thins on the Sabbath." What Jesus did was heal on man on the Sabbath. Jesus says at John 5:17, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working."

John 5:18, "For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to KILL Him, because (or why?) He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God."

Jesus claimed to be the Son of God in the sense that no other believer is of God's essence. Look what Jesus says at Luke 2:49 when He was a boy. "Why is it that you were looking for Me? Did you not know that I had to be in MY FATHER'S HOUSE?"

What did Jesus say at John 8:58 that upset the Jews? "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Jesus was saying to the Jews that before Abraham's existence He himself was existing. This is also confirmed at John 1:15 by John the Baptist. "John bore witness of Him, and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, FOR HE EXISTED BEFORE ME."

So how did the Jews reply to what Jesus stated, "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus his Himself, and went out of the temple." Did you notice Jesus made His statement right there in the Temple.

How about what Jesus says at John 10:30, He literally says in the Greek, "I and the Father WE are one." Jesus distinguishes the "I" from the "Father" and uses the plural verb "are" denoting "we are." Asserting their unity of essence or nature as identical. Hence John 10:31, "The Jews took up stone AGAIN to stone Him."

The Jews understood Jesus correctly. There could be no mistake about His meaning. "Again" refers to John 8:59 at which time the Jews also attempted to stone Him for blasphemy.

At John 19::7, "The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out the Son of God." Matthew's trial record gets into more detail than the trial record here at John 19.

The high priest Caiaphas at Matthew 26:63 ask Jesus a question? "I adjure You (swear to us) by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God?" Caiaphas was clearly asking if Jesus was ONE person; "The Christ, the Son of (God)." Obviously Caiaphas did not believe that Jesus was "The Christ the Son of (God)"; it was a rhetorical question intended to trap Jesus into committing blasphemy.

Jesus, calling Himself the Son of God is not blasphemy because He really WAS the Son of God. This is confirmed or proved by multiple Scriptures. Notice also how the the claim "Son of God," "equal to God," "making Yourself out God" are used interchangeably by the Jews. The high priest Caiaphas finally says at Matthew 26:65, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy."

In conclusion, I find that there is an abundance of evidence that the Jews knew exactly that Jesus was clearly claiming to be God. Moreover, there is clear evidence throughout the New Testament that others stated He was God who were Jews as well.

As a side note! I could have proved the Jews knew Jesus was claiming to be God by writing the following 16 words or so and calling it a day. "If the Jews misunderstood Jesus, why did they bring up the Law at John 19:7?" The law that Jesus "supposedly" broke can be found at Leviticus 24:16. Bottom line, the Jews did not believe Jesus Christ.

The following is from "Jews For Jesus." https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v14-n02/the-claims-of-jesus/

This is another site that backs up what Jesus was claiming. https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/bible-answer-man/read/articles/did-jesus-claim-to-be-god-by-hank-hanegraaff-8825.html

Jesus claiming to be God would have been blasphemy.

Jesus did not make such a claim.

Jesus said he was the Son of God and it was the Jewish religious leaders who in their desperate search for a reason to kill him made the leap that claiming sonship was the same as the much more serious blasphemous claiming to be God.

Jesus attempted to point out that he was not guilty of blasphemy in John 10:32-38

  Jesus said to them, ‘I have done many good works for you to see, works from my Father; for which of these are you stoning me?’ The Jews answered him, ‘We are not stoning you for doing a good work but for blasphemy: you are only a man and you claim to be God’. Jesus answered: ‘Is it not written in your Law: I said, you are gods? So the Law uses the word gods of those to whom the word of God was addressed, and scripture cannot be rejected. Yet you say to someone the Father has consecrated and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming”, because he says, “I am the Son of God”. If I am not doing my Father’s work, there is no need to believe me; but if I am doing it, then even if you refuse to believe in me, at least believe in the work I do; then you will know for sure that the Father is in me and I am in the Father’”

Basically Jesus said the scriptures called certain men gods so what’s the problem with me saying I am God’s son?

No the Jews were not right in accusing Jesus of blasphemy. He had to remain sinless according to the law given to the Jews by Jehovah through Moses.
Claiming to be God would have broken the very law Jesus came to perfectly fulfill.

  Jesus was born under the Law of Moses.

  But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons (Galatians 4:4,5).

  Jesus was also sinless under the law

  Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me (John 8:46)

  Jesus, as the promised Messiah, came and fulfilled the Law of Moses. He testified.

  Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill (Matthew 5:17).

  Jesus is the only person who has ever kept the law perfectly. He did everything the law required, never once breaking any of its commandments. Because He was sinless, Jesus was able to meet the requirements of the law to be the perfect sacrifice. His death redeemed humanity from the curse of the law.
  (Source)

Whether one believes Jesus is the created Son of Jehovah as Jehovah’s  Witnesses do or believe that he is part of a triune Godhead,while he was on earth as a Jew he did not commit a sin according to the law covenant.

The charge of blasphemy was a false charge brought by the religious leadership in an effort to make his execution seem justified to the common Jew.

And of course remember that the Romans cared not about the charge of blasphemy anyway. That is why a second lie had to be trumped up against him that would trigger the Romans to execute him. That charge was sedition. The Jews succeeded in getting Jesus executed by saying He had claimed to be a king. This too was false accusation because Jesus had spoken of his heavenly kingdom and not of overthrowing the Roman government.


Why do Saints Perform Less Miracles Over Time? Anything is welcome,
but I would prefer something in accordance with Catholic theology.

I think I already know the answer but perhaps I am wrong, and I'm sure many Christians are wondering.
I've been noticing that saints do miracles especially when canonization is on stand-by but then afterwards they tone it down.
I'm guessing it has something to do with the importance of canonization but also their merits as saints.

Rome sometimes publishes the miracle accepted for a canonization, but not always. Who knows how many Rome looked at? Besides that there is no data bank for gathering claims of miracles. Lourdes is an exception and all claims are investigated by a board of doctors.

Here is a list of approved miracles of Lourdes. Almost 7,000 cures have been documented at the waters of Lourdes. The Church has vigorously investigated and validated a mere 67 of them.

Miracles are usually performed to further the glorification of God and aid in the conversion of protestants and atheists to Catholicism. Canonization, is merely a process of RECOGNITION that a person is in Heaven. Many are saints but are not recognized. Saints who are recognized are remarkable outstanding people that affected many people or that many people witnessed. Therefore, if that person who worshiped God was proven to be in heaven, that would mean that their lives should be used as an example for others. That is why the canonization is so important for the greater glorification of God.


Who was the intended audience for the Book of Matthew? See my other question first.

I have heard it taught in several places that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and its intended audience was the Jew (which does help explain why it seems a bit more vague on key Christian concepts). But recently I have been told that there are no Hebrew manuscripts of this text. I assume at least that he meant there are no Hebrew manuscripts that out date the Greek ones.

So this makes me wonder that if there are no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew why would one argue this point? Essentially the question is then, who is the intended audience?

Ultimately it's everybody, right, but I mean were a specific people in mind when it was written?

Matthew was likely written for Greek-speaking Christians of Jewish descent.
In my answer to your first question, I discussed reasons for believing Matthew was written in Greek rather than Hebrew. And it should be self-evident that the gospels were written to Christians. So here I'm going to list the reasons for believing the intended audience was specifically Christians of Jewish descent.
Scriptural fulfillment
The Gospel of Matthew, more than the other gospels, often concludes a passage by introducing a Jewish Scripture and claiming Jesus has now fulfilled it.
In many cases, Matthew is simply drawing a parallel between events from the life of Jesus and events from Israel's history. Examples are Matthew 1:22-23 quoting a passage about a sign given to King Ahaz, Matthew 2:15 quoting a passage about the exodus from Egypt, and Matthew 12:17-21 quoting a passage about God's servant Israel (see Isaiah 41:8-9 for identification of the servant with Israel).
Structure of the Gospel
Just as Matthew draws parallels between Jesus' experiences and those of Israel, the gospel itself parallels the Torah, the five books of Moses. In Matthew, Jesus' teachings are combined into five long discourses.

Sermon on the Mount - Matthew 5-7
Missionary Discourse - Matthew 10
Parabolic Discourse - Matthew 13
Discourse on the Church - Matthew 18
Olivet Discourse - Matthew 24

Each of these discourses contains more uninterrupted teaching than the parallel sections of Mark or Luke.
Respect for Jewish law and customs
The phrase "kingdom of God" appears 62 times in the New Testament, but Matthew uses the substitute phrase "kingdom of heaven" 31 times, even where the parallel accounts in other gospels say "kingdom of God". This is likely due to a Jewish custom of never writing the word "God" as a precaution against using God's name in vain.
In Jesus' teaching about handwashing, Mark 7:19 indicates that Jesus thereby "declared all foods clean".

He said to them, "Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

But in the parallel in Matthew 15, this parenthetical comment is omitted. We know from Paul's letters that some Jewish Christians kept part of their unique dietary restrictions as a matter of conscience. Matthew perhaps did not want to offend their sensibilities.
In Mark 10 Jesus prohibits all divorce. However, in the parallel in Matthew 19, Jesus makes an exception for marital unfaithfulness. The version found in Matthew acknowledges that divorce is allowed in Deuteronomy under certain circumstances.
Furthermore, Jesus says in Matthew 5:17, in a statement not found in the other gospels, that he has come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it. (Fulfill is probably used here in the same sense as above.)
Conclusion
Matthew's attention to the Jewish scriptures and respect for Jewish customs, as well as the structure of this gospel, indicate that it was written primarily for Jewish Christians rather than pagan converts.

One option is that it was written for the Jews of the Diaspora. These are still Jewish people, but few of them spoke or used Hebrew.


What is Christ's role in salvation according to Arian theology? This is related, but intended to be a more specific version of this question.

The answer provides a pretty concise, Sunday-school refutation to Arianism, but it assumes a Trinitarian view.

From within an Arian theological framework, how does Christ fit into the work of human salvation?

Please provide Biblical and historical references as appropriate.

From Arius' own hand:

  We believe in one God the Father Almighty, and in the Lord Jesus Christ his son, who was begotten of him before all ages, God the Word through whom all things were made, both things in heaven and on earth; who descended, and became human, and suffered, and rose again, ascended into heaven, and will again come to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in the holy spirit, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life of the coming age, and in the kingdom of the heavens, and in one catholic church of God, extending from one end of the earth to the other. . . . If we do not so believe and do not truly receive the Father, the son, and the holy spirit, as the whole catholic church and the holy scriptures teach (in which we believe in every respect), may God judge us both now, and in the coming judgment.1

According to Arius, he and his fellow Arians believed everything in common with the rest of the church, excepting only that they disagreed on the 'origin' of Jesus:

  But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? . . . Before [Jesus] was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest.2

But in response to the Arians, Athanasius argued that their perception of Jesus was that any human was ontologically equal to Jesus.

  For granting what they say, that, whereas His qualifications were fore-known , He therefore received grace from the first, the name, and the glory of the name, from His very first beginning, still there will be no difference between Him and those who receive the name after their actions, so long as this is the ground on which He as others has the character of son.3

According to Athanasius, the Arian position meant that humans were qualitatively identical to Jesus, with the only substantial difference between that Jesus was created before humans were. Ergo, because Jesus is created, he cannot save what is also created:

  Again, if the Son were a creature, man had remained mortal as before, not being joined to God; for a creature had not joined creatures to God, as seeking itself one to join it ; nor would a portion of the creation have been the creation's salvation, as needing salvation itself.4

This should be taken with a grain of salt, however; in the process of arguing against the Arians, it appears Athanasius exaggerated their view of Jesus, so he may well be making a straw man argument.5

1 Letter of Arius and Euzoïus to Emperor Constantine, c.327 AD. Emphases mine.

2 Letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia, c.318 AD. Emphasis mine.

3 Athanasius, De Decretis, paragraph 6. Emphasis mine.

4 Athanasius, Discourse II Against the Arians, paragraph 69. The objection is, fundamentally: Only uncreated God can save, so if Jesus is not uncreated God, he cannot save. I believe this is a rather weak argument, philosophically and scripturally, but I digress.

5 e.g. Athanasius claims Arius' belief is that 'the Son is [not] by nature the Father's true Word . . . He is improperly called [the] Word [of God]', contrary to Arius' self-expressed belief (as in the first quote above) that 'the Lord Jesus Christ . . . [is] God the Word'.

An answer more directly correlate to the OP, Jesus is the WAY unto Almighty God, not being God Almighty Himself.

"No man comes unto the Father except by me."

Arius conceived of Jesus as "originate theos" or in terms of JEWISH View (my primal hermeneutic) second-place elohim at the Right Hand of God.

This is proven by the fact that God MADE Jesus just under the angels and exalted him over them at his glorification. MADE is the key word in Acts, poieo.

Acts 2

36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Heb 2

7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Directly OPPOSING the Athanasian Creed, "begotten not made." Monogenes huios WAS the made and created Son.

And it is EASILY seen what happened from the Nicene Creed onward. The Equal-to-God the Father proponents had to DO AWAY with this concept that the Father MADE Jesus anything, much less the anointed and sent Son at his birth. From Origen's "eternally begotten" terminology, to his acolyte EUSEBIUS' rejection of it, but his own consideration that God MADE Jesus the Superior Creature, to not being a creature or creation at all. Jewish View holds to ALL THINGS as being made and created by YHWH. And Athansians (we call now) had to SUBVERT this concept in order to make Jesus equal God to God. And THEN declare two who are God are not in turn two Gods.


In the parable of the sower, what exegetical reasons are there to interpret the third type of soil to be genuine Christians? In the parable of the sower, four types of soil are mentioned.  It seems to be pretty commonly accepted that the first two types of soils represent unbelievers or "make believers".  The fourth type of soil is held to be true believers that are living fruitful lives.

The debate appears to come in when considering what the third type of soil is--the seed that fell among the thorns.  What exegetical reasons are there to accept that this type of soil does refer to genuine believers who are living apart from the abiding life to which we are called rather than a third type of unbeliever?

  Mark 4: 1-8 ESV

  1 Again he began to teach beside the sea. And a very large crowd gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat in it on the sea, and the whole crowd was beside the sea on the land.

  2 And he was teaching them many things in parables, and in his teaching he said to them:

  3 "Listen! A sower went out to sow.

  4 And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it.

  5 Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil.

  6 And when the sun rose, it was scorched, and since it had no root, it withered away. **

  7 Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain**.

  8 And other seeds fell into good soil and produced grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold."

Mark 4:10-20 explains in a little more detail what 4:1-8 recorded. Jesus is explaining to the disciples the purpose of parables as a whole, and we see that he uses the Parable of the Sower again to describe the people that the disciples will encounter.

  18And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, 19but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.

Initially, the person is hearing the Word (v 18), but desires of the flesh and worldly things make their way in, causing that person to not produce fruit (v 19).

To me, it seems the parable of the sower relates to all born again believers.  Since the natural man does not comprehend, nor does he seek the things of God (Ps 10:4), because they are foolishness to him (1 Cor 2:14), it is not in the soil's power to live or die spiritually in response to the seed.  Only God can enable a man to hear.  Faith is a spiritual gift.  Only one who is already spiritually alive can receive it. (Eph 2:7-9)

It seems the parable relates more toward discipleship.  Consider this man living in a carnal way in 1 Cor 5.  He was saved, but Paul told the church to let Satan deal with his temporal life in the way he was living.

Was the "seed" active in his life?  No, no soil anywhere to be seen.


Is it valid to use grape juice at Communion? Given that wine was used by Christ at the last supper, is it valid to use grape juice in the remembrance of the Lord's Table?

Yes, wine was most likely used by Jesus during the Last Supper, just as the cups in the Passover Feast are typically wine in today's observances.  Yet, there is not prescriptive command to use wine nor is there any prohibitive command against using grape juice.

If this were a significant issue, then it is reasonable to assume that the Bible would contain either a prohibitive or prescriptive reference somewhere.  After all, there are quite a few books, and Passover (which is what Jesus celebrated as the Last Supper) had been observed since Moses.

So, the conclusion is that it is not a significant issue and neither moral nor immoral to use wine or grape juice.  We do use the fruit of the vine, following the pattern in Passover celebrations, but the presence of fermentation is immaterial.

The remembrance of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is supreme.

I might add that if you happen to live in a desert where no grapes can be grown, it would seem improper to assert that you could not celebrate communion since you would have neither grape juice nor wine.

In the Bible there is a routine reference to the fruit of the vine. Which is a direct reference to Jesus. Grape juice is used today because it and only it can be representative of the Blood of Jesus. In Biblical times the grapes were fermented, which made for strong drink ( wine) as we would know it today. But the difference in the time of Jesus is that the fermented grapes were mixed with three parts water to one part fermented grapes, which would weaken the drink. The juice from the grape is the representation of the Blood of Jesus. So in that case it is not only proper, but also a Biblical must that the church use grape juice.


Is "formal schismatic" a useful category in practice? Wikipedia says that formal schismatics are those who:

  knowing the true nature of the Church, have personally and deliberately committed the sin of schism.

But if formal schismatics have to truly know the true nature of the Church, is it ever actually a category that can apply to people?

For example, Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope, and so would not be said, I would think, to know the true nature of the Church.

Likewise, are the SSPX truly formal schismatics if, in their rejection of Vatican II, they believe the true nature of the church is other than that of the Catholic Church after Vatican II?

If you have to know and truly believe in the true nature of the Church in order for your rejection of it to be "formal", then it seems to be that this is a largely academic category, and that there would be exceedingly few actual cases of formal schismatics.

Your Wikipedia article explains this:

Roman Catholic theology considers formal schismatics to be outside the Church, understanding by "formal schismatics" "persons who, knowing the true nature of the Church, have personally and deliberately committed the sin of schism".[8] The situation, for instance, of those who have been brought up from childhood within a group not in full communion with Rome, but who have orthodox faith, is different: these are considered to be imperfectly, though not fully, members of the Church.

It's not that someone knows the Catholic Church is the true Church, but rather that someone knows the true nature of the Church.  For example, if a Catholic refuses to submit to the Pontiff without understanding the Pontiff's role in the Church, he is not a formal schismatic.  If he does understand the Pontiff's role and still refuses to submit, then he is a formal schismatic.  Only in the latter case does he understand the true nature of the Church.
The OP asks, "What's an example of someone who is a formal schismatic?"
See Canon 751 for the definition of schism.  Schism occurs in relation to a specific Church.  If a Catholic leaves the Catholic Church and joins the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, he would be in schism from the first but not the second.  Two simple examples of formal schismatics would be Luther and Calvin:

Thus the schism was well consummated by [Luther and Calvin] before it was solemnly established by the authority which they rejected and transformed by that authority into a just penal sanction.
-Schism, Catholic Encyclopedia


How do Seventh Day Adventists interpret Romans 14:5? In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day,
  while others think every day is alike. You should each be fully
  convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable.
  Romans 14:5 NLT

How do Seventh Day Adventists interpret this verse?

Seventh Day Adventists do not view Romans 14:5 to be about the 4th commandment. We do not believe that the ten commandments (God's moral laws) were abolished at the cross. The law of love would cause Christians to want to keep God's moral laws through grace (i.e. not murder, not commit adultery), it does not free them to then freely murder. The same logic is applied to the 4th commandment, which is specified as the 7th day of the week in the commandment (Exodus 20:10).

Therefore, when Romans 14:5 is read in this context, we believe it is referring to religious holidays. The central issue during the apostolic times were circumcision, eating foods sacrificed to idols, keeping ceremonial feasts and holy days (including the rest days of those festivals). We are free to not keep ceremonial feasts and holy days because they were a "shadow of things to come" (Colossians 2:16-17) (i.e. they were ceremonies that pointed forward to the actual works of Jesus). However, the Sabbath is not a shadow, it represents a memorial of creation, sanctified at creation by God Himself.

Based on the comments on this page, here are a few other points of clarification:

The vegetarians in Roman 14:1 is about those early Christians who became vegetarians to avoid food sacrificed to idols, in accordance to Act 15:29. However, the vegan diet advocated by 7th Day Adventists relates to modern foods. Modern animals are raised entirely different from how they used to before. This is the same reason why the organic food movement is popular today, except 7th Day Adventists realized this in the 1850s. Vegetarianism is not a requirement but is greatly advised for heath reasons.
While Sabbath keeping Adventists do believe that breaking the Sabbath is a sin, they do believe all those who kept Sunday prior to God revealing this light to them are accepted. Those who are introduced to this topic, however, must search diligently and sincerely for the truth in the Bible until they are fully convicted (one way or the other). Sunday worship is not the mark of the beast today, but will be when it eventually becomes mandatory by law in the future, restricting religious liberty. Then it will become a great test on which men decide to serve God or the traditions of men.

For additional study of Roman 14:5, here is a short 2 min video from amazingfacts.org, scroll down to bottom for the transcript.

http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/media/e/1294/t/does-romans-145-refer-to-the-weekly-sabbath.aspx

Here's a short answer on how do we read that verse:

  In the same way, some think one day is more holy than another day [to fast], while others think every day is alike.

(The Jewish usually fasted on Monday and Thursday, and Christians on
Wednesday and Friday, as explained in Didache Chapter VIII - 1st verse)

You should each be fully convinced that whichever day you choose is acceptable (for fast).


Why do God and Jesus seem so different? God destroyed the world with a flood, destroyed all the people in Sodom and Gomorrah, gruesome sacrifices, laws for stoning people, Jericho, requesting the sacrifice of Abraham's son, the sacrifice of God's own son Jesus'. Jesus seems so different to me because instead of making life or taking life he gave his own, he preached forgiveness and grace and seemed to defy the laws made in Leviticus. I'm a christian but I am having a hard time understanding this, especially if one believes the Trinity doctrine.

If you look at the role of Jesus especially at the very end of time and the beginning of eternity (eternity for us, that is to say) he does not seem that different after all. When Jesus returns, he will not return as the contemporary hippie Jesus. That image is a product of modern humanistic culture and not the Jesus of scriptures. He will return as the King of kings, terrifying in his righteous wrath. That will be a day of devastation for anybody who does not want anything to do with him.

One striking difference between Noah and the flood vs Abraham and Sodom/Gomorrah is that Abraham was the one who thought that perhaps there was still hope for the two cities. Noah did not. Abraham pleaded with God and God agreed upon a minimum number of righteous people who, if present, would be grounds for not carrying out the punishment. A similar incident happened during the early exodus, when God, appalled at the golden calf the Israelites had made, offered Moses to destroy them all and make him the new god's people. Moses turned the offer down.

It is almost as if God tries to provoke a reaction. If Moses' reaction had been "yes, let's do away with them wrongdoers" God most certainly would have carried out his threat, as his righteousness demands. God never bluffs. At the same time He would have been disappointed in the hard-heartedness of Moses.

I believe this type of thinking can be applied to the mosaic law. It gives a human being an apparent right to stone another, but it does not take away the possibility to show compassion. The problem is that the israelites rarely did that. It tells more about man than it tells about God. The tendency to point fingers at each other and not see our own error is a product of the god-syndrome mankind fell victim of in the garden of Eden. That is something Jesus pointed out, and that is just what he did; he did not introduce a new hippie religion or change, defy, or undo the law, but pointed out how the law should have been applied in the first place. He explained what the law really is and is supposed to be; a dilemma.

I hope this answer helps and manages to touch all the different issues in your question.

That there is a difference between the portrayal of God in the Old Testament and the portrayal in the New Testament is clear, hence the question. This led Marcion, in the early second century, to decide that the Supreme God who sent Jesus could not have been the Creator God of the Old Testament. In the Antithesis, he said
Chapter I:

The Creator God is judicial, harsh, and mighty in war.
The Supreme God is gentle and simply good and excellent.

Chapter II:

The Creator God is inconsistent, in respect of persons, sometimes disapproving where approbation is deserved; or else lacking in foresight, bestowing approbation on men who ought rather be reprobated, as if he either censured his own past judgements, or could not forecast his future ones.
Jesus Christ and none else revealed a new God, who, in the Old world and in the Old time and under the Old God was unknown and unheard of...

Marcion might have been wrong in his concept of a Creator God (Old Testament) and a Supreme God (New Testament), but he did clearly see the difference in the two accounts.
If, as modern Christianity certainly teaches, there are not two different Gods, then the difference may be explained as a cultural one. The authors of the Hebrew Bible believed in a harsh and judgemental God, so this is how they most often wrote of him. Jesus, and the gospel authors who gave us his words, believed in a loving, forgiving God, and so this is how the Father is portrayed throughout the New Testament.
Marcion's understanding of two Gods is incompatible with the Nicene doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and the modern contrast is between the Old Testament concept of God and Jesus.


Do Seventh Day Adventists believe people who attend church on Sunday will go to hell? My children attend a Seventh Day Adventist school. One teacher often mentions that 'people who go to church on Sunday will go to hell'. Is this consistent with Seventh Day Adventist belief?

Do Seventh Day adventists believe that people who go to church on Sunday will go to hell?

No we do not, we believe only those who are unfaithful to God will be not be in heaven.

The Bible is clear that God has His people in many denominations. In Revelation 18:4, a voice is heard in heaven saying:

  "Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues." (Revelation 18:4)

There is also a common misconception that we believe Sunday keeping is the mark of the beast. But it is not. Only when Sunday keeping is a forced day of worship, restricting freedom of conscience, do we consider it the mark of the beast. The writings of Ellen White in SDA Bible commentary explains:

  "Sundaykeeping is not yet the mark of the beast, and will not be until the decree goes forth causing men to worship this idol sabbath. The time will come when this day will be the test, but that time has not come yet." The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 7:977 (1899).

However, this is not to say that the Sabbath is not a test today, because it is. True observance of the fourth commandment is an outward sign of loyalty to God, just like the rest of the ten. Only that we are not able to say who has received this light and who has not.

  "We shall not be held accountable for the light that has not reached our perception, but for that which we have resisted and refused. A man could not apprehend the truth which had never been presented to him, and therefore could not be condemned for light he had never had."—The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 5:1145 (1893).

The truth is Adventists within the same denomination will differ in their conviction of how much/ to how many God has revealed this light to today. Many have grandparents or relatives in Sunday churches, so it is a sensitive issue. More liberal Adventists believe that unless you are 100% convinced, you are perfectly fine to attend Sunday keeping churches. However, more conservative Adventists believe that many Sunday goers have heard of the Sabbath, but have neglected to study further and have quietened their conscience to a degree in breaking this commandment in favour of tradition, and thus will be held accountable.

Either way, what we do agree on is that no one is really saved by keeping Sunday or Sabbath, but by our faithfulness to Jesus and willingness to follow the lamb wherever He goes (Revelation 14:4). We will see many Sunday goers in heaven, especially those who lived in the middle ages when the Sabbath truth was lost to many.

it is not true to say all who worship on Sunday will be thrown into hell and SDAs dont teach that. l think the teacher erred on that one. God will judge us according to the truth we have heard not only from our pulpits but from the Bible.There are those among the SDAs who are not obey this Truth will also be lost. the issue lies not in knowing the Truth about Sabbath keeping but in what to do with the Truth. Jesus said that there are the sheep that belong to His flock but not yet in, and will come after hearing His voice.


Why did this Early Version of the Watchtower Magazine include Crosses, and what do these other Symbols on the Magazine Represent? The following is "Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence, October 1, 1907."

I was under the impression that symbols (especially crosses) were not allowed in the church. "Jehovah's Witnesses teach that Jesus was crucified on a stake, and that they reject the cross as a pagan symbol. No crosses are to be displayed in the worship hall, on a person, or in Jehovah's Witnesses' houses" (page 535 of AMG's Encyclopedia of World Religions, Cults, and the Occult).
Question: What do the symbols in the top corners represent, and how are these symbols associated with Watchtower?

The Jehovahs Witness teaching of the symbol of the cross was changed about the 1930's by Joseph Rutherford.
Prior to this they accepted the cross that is widely accepted in Christendom today.
So the magazine would still have a cross on it as it's publication was prior to this time

Facts about Jehovahs Witnesses

As far as the symbolism on the magazine is concerned.  I would at a guess say that the top left hand corner is meant to represent Christ being King.  And the top right as being the guardian or defender of the Watchtower

The early members of the Bible Students as they were then called did many things in contrast of the Bible. The more they studied the Bible by examining the scriptures they realized they needed to change and stop what they were doing. They even celebrated Christmas, smoked, and the use of the Cross and the Crown as a symbol of faith on the early magazines. As they progressed in the truth of God's word, they openly and publicly explained why they stopped and the scriptures to support their actions. Today JW's have so much more of an understanding of the truth (the true Christians) because over 8 million witnesses are proclaiming that truth in all the inhabited earth. They are only organized religion truly obey the commandments of Jehovah and Jesus. I hope that answers your question.


What does Paul mean when he says Jesus "emptied himself"? In Philipians 2:7 Paul writes:

  but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,[a] being born in
  the likeness of men (ESV)

I always understood this to mean that he was humble enough to come into our world as a man to die on a cross. Something that I read recently though suggested that Jesus gave up some of his Godly characteristics to become a man (I'm not sure what charcteristics). This seems wrong to me as I always understood Jesus adds humanity to his Godliness, not removing Godliness to become human.

Is there a common protestant understanding of what "emptied himself" means in this verse?

The King James translates the same verse as this:

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Of course, there are likely to be several different meanings attributed to this, but the most common is the one that you posted - that He took on the humble nature of a servant.

Barnes' notes on the Bible says this:  (Emphasis mine where added)

  But made himself of no reputation - This translation by no means
  conveys the sense of the original According to this it would seem that
  he consented to be without distinction or honor among people; or that
  he was willing to be despised or disregarded. The Greek is ἑαυτον
  ἐκένωσεν heauton ekenōsen. The word κενόω kenoō means literally,
  to empty, "to make empty, to make vain or void." It is rendered: "made
  void" in Romans 4:14; "made of none effect," 1 Corinthians 1:17; "make
  void," 1 Corinthians 9:15; "should be vain," 2 Corinthians 9:3. The
  word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, except in the
  passage before us. The essential idea is that of bringing to
  emptiness, vanity, or nothingness; and, hence, it is applied to a case
  where one lays aside his rank and dignity, and becomes in respect to
  that as nothing; that is, he assumes a more humble rank and station.
  In regard to its meaning here, we may remark:

  (1) that it cannot mean that he literally divested himself of his
  divine nature and perfections, for that was impossible. He could not
  cease to be omnipotent, and omnipresent, and most holy, and true, and
  good.

  (2) it is conceivable that he might have laid aside, for a time, the
  symbols or the manifestation of his glory, or that the outward
  expressions of his majesty in heaven might have been withdrawn. It is
  conceivable for a divine being to intermit the exercise of his
  almighty power, since it cannot be supposed that God is always
  exerting his power to the utmost. And in like manner there might be
  for a time a laying aside or intermitting of these manifestations or
  symbols, which were expressive of the divine glory and perfections.
  Yet,

  (3) this supposes no change in the divine nature, or in the essential
  glory of the divine perfections. When the sun is obscured by a cloud,
  or in an eclipse, there is no real change of its glory, nor are his
  beams extinguished, nor is the sun himself in any measure changed. His
  luster is only for a time obscured. So it might have been in regard to
  the manifestation of the glory of the Son of God. Of course there is
  much in regard to this which is obscure, but the language of the
  apostle undoubtedly implies more than that he took an humble place, or
  that he demeaned himself in an humble manner. In regard to the actual
  change respecting his manifestations in heaven, or the withdrawing of
  the symbols of his glory there, the Scriptures are nearly silent, and
  conjecture is useless - perhaps improper. The language before us
  fairly implies that he laid aside that which was expressive of his
  being divine - that glory which is involved in the phrase "being in
  the form of God" - and took upon himself another form and
  manifestation in the condition of a servant.

In short, per the Barnes' notes, He did not lay aside any of His power or Godly characteristics, He merely did not exercise them.

Gills' commentary says this:

  ...He lost nothing of what he had; the glory of his divine nature was
  covered, and out of sight;...

Vincent's Word Studies also agrees:

  The general sense is that He divested Himself of that peculiar mode of
  existence which was proper and peculiar to Him as one with God. He
  laid aside the form of God. In so doing, He did not divest Himself of
  His divine nature. The change was a change of state: the form of a
  servant for the form of God. His personality continued the same. His
  self-emptying was not self-extinction, nor was the divine Being
  changed into a mere man. In His humanity He retained the consciousness
  of deity, and in His incarnate state carried out the mind which
  animated Him before His incarnation. He was not unable to assert
  equality with God. He was able not to assert it.

as do Wesley's notes

  Though he remained full, John 1:14, yet he appeared as if he had been
  empty; for he veiled his fulness from the sight of men and angels.

Most of the commentaries that I can find agree with your original understanding of the phrase.  He retained all His power and glory, he merely chose not to exercise it.

These, and a whole slew of other commentaries are available at http://bible.cc/philippians/2-7.htm

I believe that He stripped Himself of His divinity, to be born the most humble and helpless thing in the universe...a baby.  I believe that He had to have laid it aside to become as human as you and I.  The only difference in His birth...He was born with a living spirit...the same as Adam had before he fell, whereas, all humanity are born with a dead spirit...inherited from Adam...until they experience new birth.

JESUS lived and walked in total dependence on God the Father for every move He made and every word He spoke.  He was 'made like His brethren.'


Are there any Catholic sects which disagree with the sinlessness of Mary? As a protestant, the concept of the sinless state of Mary is one of the hardest aspects of Catholicism to swallow. The historical account of the adoption of this doctrine doesn't lend any credibility to the view, either.  It thus seems incredibly likely that there are a large number of Catholics who also take issue with this belief (not to mention other beliefs on which Catholics and protestants traditionally disagree--transubstantiation, etc).

So my question is:  Are there any sects, movements or other formally recognized groups (as opposed to dissenting individuals) within the Catholic church who do not believe in the sinlessness of Mary, and if so, how are they recognized and treated by the rest of the Catholic church?

No.

Mary's freedom from sin since the point of conception, which Catholics celebrate as The Immaculate Conception, was affirmed in a Papal Constitution by Pope Pius IX.

  In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX
  pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first
  instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted
  by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the
  human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

And Papal Constitutions are binding to all Catholics to whom they are directed:

  Papal Constitutions are ordinations issued by the Roman pontiffs and
  binding those for whom they are issued, whether they be for all the
  faithful or for special classes or individuals.

That said, you can expect that many self-identified Catholics and "Catholic" groups don't believe the doctrine. But, by virtue of the Papal Constitution, they're not "formally recognized by" or "in full communion with" the Catholic Church.

And the importance of the doctrine may be illustrated by the fact that the feast thereof is one of the Holy Days of Obligation in the US.

the concept of the sinless state of Mary is one of the hardest aspects of Catholicism to swallow.

It's not just Catholicism that believes this, Lutheranism, the very base of Protestantism does as well.According to Sunni Islamic sources, this belief not only exists but the only 2 people who have not sinned in this world is Mary and her Son, who they deny is God. Lutherans, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox, Anabaptists and many other sects in between have never denied Mary's perpetual virginity.

  The historical account of the adoption of this doctrine doesn't lend any credibility to the view, either.

I suppose that would depend on your churches following of Sacred Tradition.
Without sacred tradition, it could have very well been a torture stake that Jesus was put on, instead of a [cross.][3]For Catholics and Orthodox alike, it's important to follow Sacred Tradition, as passed down from Church founders. For Catholics, Paul requires the aid of Tradition in 2 Thess. 2:15.

  So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Concerning it being a doctrinal belief, this only means that it was affirmed by a Pope, not that Catholics now started believing in it.

  It thus seems incredibly likely that there are a large number of Catholics who also take issue with this belief

I haven't met any, but where could they base this belief off of? Do you mean they doubt Sacred Tradition regarding Mary or that they doubt the doctrine that fell from the Sacred Tradition that was affirmed by the Pope?

  Are there any sects, movements or other formally recognized groups (as opposed to dissenting individuals) within the Catholic church who do not believe in the sinlessness of Mary, and if so, how are they recognized and treated by the rest of the Catholic church?

No, one cannot be Catholic and think Mary is a sinner. All 23 churches in communion with Rome have a belief that Mary was born without sin, and stayed sinless. To not have this belief and identify as "Catholic" puts them at the same level as Protestants, that is to say, they have a some type of Communion, but not full. The same way how Converts from Protestantism do not have to get re-baptized if joining a Catholic Church, since their baptism carries over.


What is the scope of God's will? Assuming that Protestant Christians believe that some outcomes and events in life are not necessarily God's will (correct me if this is an invalid assumption), what are some alternate explanations for an outcome if not God's will? Does the scripture give us instructions on how to determine (after the fact) if a particular outcome was God's will or not?

For example, in the discussion on this site regarding global warming, someone suggests that either God's will is that global warming should happen and therefore it must, or it is God's will that it must not happen, and therefore it won't - in either case, it is God's will and thus unavoidable regardless of what we do.

The above example seems to be a false dichotomy - what are the other alternatives that a Protestant Christian would allow in this situation?

These sorts of questions are always difficult to answer as they often require an understanding of God's sovereignty which in many ways is incomprehensible. What a wise being with infinite wisdom, knowledge of all and unlimited power can orchestrate, manipulate, foresee and advert etc. is impossible for us to ponder. In this sense virtually any external event may be used for some higher good as part of the divine 'emergency recovery operations' of a fallen world, even a global catastrophe like a global flood can have its purpose. Yet none of this is 'God's will' in the sense that we benefit from knowing if it is, or not.

However I think your specific question can side step the regular difficulties as you seem to be asking about God's direct will which can be determined to some degree. This is 'God's will' in the sense that he wants us to know it and that knowledge would be beneficial to us. Well from this standpoint his will is that we do not sin.  This really is God's will in the main sense.  We often get lost thinking philosophically about his hidden will, but we only need to concern ourselves with his clear will.  His will is that we love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves, and these we can only do by faith in Christ as the atoning sacrifice for our sin.

So the question to ask is did an event come about by sin, or by love.  In whatever sense global warming has or will come about by greed it would not be God's will.  If it partially comes about because of attempts to secure shelter, safety and general prosperity for the poor, by faith in Christ it is God's will.

Unfortunately when we limit God's will to this clear scope most everything that happens in the world every day is not God's direct will.  It therefore makes the question less relevant as the answer is almost always no.

God's will will be followed in heaven.  Until then to whatever degree we rely on the death of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and so in gratitude to his grace love and delight in God and become generous and kind to our neighbor, being also gracious to them by enjoying them in any way we can while publishing Christ's dying love, we are growing more and more in line with God's will.  But even then everything we do, wether eating or drinking has mixed motives in it, so part of our loyalty to our boss may be God's will and part fleshly and not his will.

You see it is all about the heart so we will only know in heaven what was God's will and what was not because our hearts are deceitful.  Most likely whatever seemed most like God's will on earth, as viewed by the world, we may find was not. It is by faith we see his will and by faith that we do it.

Saint John Damascene, father of the Church, wrote:

It is to be observed that it is the custom in the Holy Scripture to speak of God’s permission as His energy, as when the apostle says in the
Epistle to the Romans,

  Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one
  vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour? (Romans 9:21)

And for this reason, that He Himself makes this or that. For He is Himself alone the Maker of all things; yet it is not He Himself that fashions noble or ignoble things, but the personal choice of each one. And this is manifest from what the same Apostle says in the Second Epistle to Timothy,

  In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but
  also of wood and of earth: and some to honour and some to dishonour.
  If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto
  honour sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto
  every good work. (2 Timothy 2:20,21)

And it is evident that the purification must be voluntary: for if a man, he saith, purge himself And the consequent antistrophe responds, “If a man purge not himself he will be a vessel to dishonour, unmeet for the master’s use and fit only to be broken in pieces.”

Wherefore this passage that we have quoted and this,

  God hath concluded them all in unbelief (Romans 9:32)

, and this,

  God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not
  see, and ears that they should not hear, (Romans 9:8)

all these must be understood not as though God Himself were energising, but as though God were permitting, both because of free-will and because goodness knows no compulsion. His permission, therefore, is usually spoken of in the Holy Scripture as His energy and work. Nay, even when He says that

  God creates evil things, and that there is no evil in a city that the Lord hath not done he does not mean by these words (Amos 3:6)

that the Lord is the cause of evil, but the word ‘evil’ is used in two ways, with two
meanings. For sometimes it means what is evil by nature, and this is the opposite of virtue and the will of God: and sometimes it means that which is evil and oppressive to our sensation, that is to say, afflictions and calamities. Now these are seemingly evil because they are painful, but in reality are good. For to those who understand they become ambassadors of conversion and salvation. The Scripture says that of these God is the Author. It is, moreover, to be observed that of these, too, we are the cause: for involuntary evils are the offspring of voluntary ones. This also should be recognised, that it is usual in the Scriptures for some things that ought to be considered as effects to be stated in a causal sense, as,

  Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned and done this evil in Thy sight, that Thou mightest be justifed when Thou speakest, and prevail when Thou judgest (Psalms 51:4)

For the sinner did not sin in order that God might prevail, nor again did God require our sin in order that He might by it be revealed as victor. For above comparison He wins the victor’s prize against all, even against those who are sinless, being Maker, incomprehensible, uncreated, and possessing natural and not adventitious glory. But it is
because when we sin God is not unjust in His anger against us; and when He pardons the
penitent He is shewn victor over our wickedness. But it is not for this that we sin, but because the thing so turns out. It is just as if one were sitting at work and a friend stood near by, and one said, My friend came in order that I might do no work that day. The friend, however, was not present in order that the man should do no work, but such was the result. For being occupied with receiving his friend he did not work. These things, too, are spoken of as effects because affairs so turned out. Moreover, God does not wish that He alone should be just, but that all should, so far as possible, be made like unto Him.

All these words can be read in "An exact exposition of the Orthodox faith", book IV, chapter XIX, written in century 7 by saint John Damascene. He wrote against those Decrying the Holy Images, against iconoclasts, against those dishonoring relicves of the saints... The enemies of the Truth, could not fight against his words and they cut his right hand used for writtings. But Mother of God, restored his hand miraculously, after fervent prayer before Her icon, to continue to write words like these and to defend Orthodoxy.


What did the early church fathers (pre-5th c.) teach with regards to the doctrine of baptism as a necessity for salvation? The title says it all, really.

What did the ECF believe and teach with regards to baptism being or not being necessary for salvation?

Related: What did the early church fathers (pre-5th c.) teach with regards to baptismal regeneration?

“First of all it bids us bear in mind that we have received baptism
  for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the
  name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and
  rose again, and in the Holy Spirit of God. And that this baptism is
  the seal of eternal life, and is the new birth unto God, that we
  should no longer be the sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and
  perpetual God.”

-Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching Ch. 3

  “Those, then, who, after having been baptized into Father, Son, and
  Holy Spirit, and having been taught that there is one divine nature in
  three subsistences, are rebaptized, these, as the divine Apostle says,
  crucify the Christ afresh (chapter 3)… But those who were not baptized
  into the Holy Trinity, these must be baptized again.” (chapter 9)

-John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV

  “It is possible that a man is wishing to pay court to a woman, and
  came hither on that account. The remark applies in like manner to
  women also in their turn. A slave also perhaps wishes to please his
  master, and a friend his friend. I accept this bait for the hook, and
  welcome thee, though thou camest with an evil purpose, yet as one to
  be saved by a good hope. Perhaps thou knewest not whither thou wert
  coming, nor in what kind of net thou art taken. Thou art come within
  the Church's nets: be taken alive, flee not: for Jesus is angling for
  thee, not in order to kill, but by killing to make alive: for thou
  must die and rise again.” (5)

-Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, Lect. 1

  “Great is the Baptism that lies before you: a ransom to captives; a
  remission of offences; a death of sin; a new-birth of the soul; a
  garment of light; a holy indissoluble seal; a chariot to heaven; the
  delight of Paradise; a welcome into the kingdom; the gift of
  adoption!” (16)

-Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, Lect. 1

  “We may not receive Baptism twice or thrice; else it might be said,
  Though I have failed once, I shall set it right a second time: whereas
  if thou fail once, the thing cannot be set right…” (7)

-Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, Lect. 1

  “Jesus sanctified Baptism by being Himself baptized. If the Son of God
  was baptized, what godly man is he that despised Baptism? But He was
  baptized not that He might receive remission of sins, for He was
  sinless; but being sinless, He was baptized, that He might give to
  them that are baptized a divine and excellent grace. For since the
  children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise
  partook of the same, that having been made partakers of His presence
  in the flesh we might be made partakers also of His Divine grace: thus
  Jesus was baptized, that thereby we again by our participation might
  receive both salvation and honor (11)… For thou goest down into the
  water, bearing thy sins, but the invocation of grace, having sealed
  thy soul, suffereth thee not afterwards to be swallowed up by the
  terrible dragon. Having gone down dead in sins, thou comest up
  quickened in righteousness. For if thou hast been united with the
  likeness of the Saviour's death, thou shall also be deemed worthy of
  His Resurrection. For as Jesus took upon Him the sins of the world,
  and died, that by putting sin to death He might rise again in
  righteousness; so thou by going down into the water, and being in a
  manner buried in the waters, as He was in the rock art raised again
  walking in newness of life (12)… Moreover, when thou hast been deemed
  worthy of the grace, He then giveth thee strength to wrestle against
  the adverse powers. For as after His Baptism He was tempted forty
  days…” (13)

-Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lectures, Lect. 3

I don't suppose you can get any earlier than Paul for an "early church father". Here is what he says in Acts 19:2-6 (KJV):

  He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

There's no mention of water baptism here. He's basically saying the action doesn't matter as much as the belief in Jesus Christ.


When and why did the ancient church no longer care about offending a brother? Anyone reading the New Testament becomes aware that the early church would avoid practices that offended their brother, out of a spirit of love.  For example, even if it was not technically wrong to eat meat purchased in a market, that might have been originally been a sacrifice to an idol, where it offended a brother's conscience, a believer should avoid exercising his freedom in love.  This subject is described more fully here.

I am naturally interested in symbols and have posted a few questions about them. For example, here you can find discussion about how Jews hated every kind of human image, even on coins as 'graven images' were idolatry, if indicating any kind of power.

Also, I discovered that the modern halo can be traced back as far as ancient Canaanite and Babylonian Son worship. The brightness behind the head being the Sun. This was a common pagan symbol that seems to have been adopted by the ancient church around  the fourth century AD. At first it was only depicted in art for the divine nature of Jesus and then various versions spread to many other objects such as esteemed saints and Mary, etc. For details one can refer here.

The question is, as these pagan traditions were so fully detestable by Jewish ethics, even possibly more than eating unclean meat,  why such a aggressive introduction of so many things that would offend?  I can only imagine that some Jewish Christians still existed in the 4th century. Besides, even today many, if not most, Protestant Christians are deeply troubled in their consciences over the practice of praying to Saints, using religious icons, etc. So why would Paul say avoid even meats that 'seemed unclean' due to idolatry, according to a weaker brothers faith, but in the fourth century anything and everything that might appear as joining a golden calf to the worship of God was not only no longer shunned but lovingly embraced? Without even questioning the actual ethics of the individual practices, and even generously and falsely pretending it is the weak conscience that is offended, still it begs the question: 'Why no longer care about a brother's conscience?'

Note: Please avoid condemning specifc practices, or justifying specific practices that are offensive to many Christians.  My question is being raised at a higher level, which respects how a brother treats the offended. The actual offences are not central to this current question.

The fact that Paul found it necessary to discuss this issue not once, but twice, would seem to indicate that it WAS a problem in the first century church, and not something that the church handled just fine in the first century but then went astray later.

More important, there are two sides to Paul's discussion of such offense. He doesn't say, If something offends a brother, don't do it, period end of story. Rather, he has admonitions for both parties.

  Romans 14 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. ... 19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense. 21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.

So yes, vv 19-21 say that the brother who sees nothing wrong with X should nevertheless be careful that he does not create a stumbling block for the brother to whom it is a problem. This may mean giving up something that he is convinced is perfectly good and acceptable to avoid offending another Christian.

But before he says that, look at verse 3: The brother who thinks that X is bad but has no clear scriptural justification for saying that, should not condemn the brother who does it.

We could debate exactly what Paul meant you should do. I suspect he's a little vague because the answer is not so simple as "never do it". If that was the rule, then one foolish Christian who condemns things for no good reason would force all the other Christians in the world to give up all sorts of good things. It is no answer to say that you will only give it up if the other person can offer good reasons. Paul's whole point is that he is talking about "disputable matters". By definition, this is about cases where neither person can give solid, undisputable reasons for his position.

Suppose another Christian said that he believed that a Christian should not own a house. Would you burn your house down and live under a bridge to avoid offending him? (You can't sell it -- that would just be encouraging others to sin!) Sorry, I doubt I would go that far.

In practice, well, let me take a real case. Many Christians I know believe you should not drink any alcohol at all. I disagree. I won't get into the scriptural arguments here as they're beside the point. I don't belittle Christians who don't drink. I don't try to badger them into drinking, like saying, "Here, have some  wine. How can it hurt? What's the big deal?" etc. I don't drink in front of them, offer them alcohol, or discuss how much I like this brand or whatever in front of them. But I don't totally abstain to avoid offending hem, either. I just don't do it in front of them.

Likewise, Paul is saying that they should not condemn me for drinking.

We should respect each other's difference of opinion or understanding.

Your question makes a lot of assumptions, none of which are necessarily true.

Your first assumption is a fairly common one, that the early church was perfect in every way and did everything that was preached, living up to its ideals all the time. This was probably not the case - Paul wouldn't have had to write about this twice if the church had always been doing it. In other words: this may not have been something that Christians always did in New testament times, and then somehow stopped doing; it may have been something that Christians always knew they were supposed to do, but have found really difficult in practice - both now and in New Testament times.

Secondly you write that "there must have been some Jewish Christians in the fourth Century". Actually there probably weren't. The split between Christianity and Judaism was pretty definite long before that. There probably were Christian of Jewish descent, but they would have been thrown out of their synagogues and ostracized. Remember that Christianity teaches that it is no longer necessary to adhere to Jewish rituals and customs, even for Jews, once you become a Christian. I very much doubt that there were many Christians who sincerely thought that it was necessary to adhere to Jewish ethics (as opposed to Christian ones) by 400AD.

Your point about 'halos' has already been answered in this question. They are just an artistic convention, and there is no evidence that using them ever 'gave offence' to anyone.

Christian representational art has been found dating from the second century AD, so we can presume it was common at that point. I know of nothing to indicate that this art was an "aggressive introduction" as you put it, or that there was objection to it from Christians of Jewish descent.


Catholic position about non-truthfully conversion to islam Two people, call them Jones (Catholic) and Fatima (Muslim), want to marry: first civilly and if the bishop gives a dispensation, religiously.

Fatima is from a Muslim country that prohibits Muslim women marrying non-Muslim men, threatening that "crime" with severe punishment. In order for the civil marriage to be approved in Fatima's country, Jones (from a western country) decides to convert to Islam formally, as it is the only way he and his wife can stay in contact with Fatima's (non-devotional) Muslim family in the theocratic country.

What is the Catholic position about the acceptability of Jones' mimicked conversion to Islam while he still considers himself to be Catholic?

According to canon law on mixed marriages (i.e., marriages between a Catholic and non-Catholic),

  1917 Can. 1060 … if there is a danger of perversion to the Catholic spouse and children, that marriage is forbidden even by divine law.

Also—regarding the children, the procreation and education of whom is the primary purpose of marriage—it is required that

  1983 Can.  868 §1. … 2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion…

Can that be said for a crypto-Catholic, pseudo-Muslim father living in an Islamic theocratic country? Wouldn't this be to tempt God?

The Church's laws on mixed marriages must be respected before attempting a clandestine marriage or a marriage under false pretenses.

THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (pdf) is the doctrine summarizing the beliefs of the Catholic church. Its articles are listed below under their respective headings.
"The Freedom of Faith" (page 44)

To be human, man's response to God by faith must be free, and... therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will... Christ invited people to faith and conversion, but never coerced them. For he bore witness to the truth but refused to use force to impose it on those who spoke against it...

The Church's Relationship with the Muslims (page 223)

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst who are the Muslims.

"The Family and Society" (page 551)

The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and ensure especially
-the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family's own morals and religious convictions,
-the protection of the stability of the marriage bond and the institution of the family,
the freedom to profess one's faith, to hand it on and raise one's children in it, with the necessary means and institutions

"The Christian Family" (Page 561)

Citizens are obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities** when they are contrary to the commands of the moral order. "We must obey God rather than men"** (Acts 5:29).

A priest receives holy orders, he is ordained, and he undergoes a rigorous educational process from the church in order to both teach and counsel those of the Catholic faith. Jones and Fatima could set an appointment with a priest and ask this same question, gaining a much more encompassing response because it would be personal and specific to their situation.