According to Catholicism, is it possible for the Devil to kill someone? We read in the Book of Job that the Devil received permission from God to torment Job, and that God obliged the Devil to spare his life.

  The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life." (Job 2:6)

According to Catholicism is it at all possible for the Devil to kill someone? If yes are there any historical examples of this being done, either directly or indirectly as through an exorcism or diabolic possession?

Matthew 10:28, New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE), says:

  "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Incidentally, Mark 5:11–13 narrates an incident where the devil kills animals after possessing them:

  "Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; and the unclean spirits begged him, “Send us into the swine; let us enter them.” So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea."

It is only natural that the devil is able to do similar thing to human beings. Whether he needs to obtain permission  from the Lord of Life for doing such an action, as is mentioned in the case of Job, and even in the case of swines, is a matter of further discussion.

According to Catholicism, is it possible for the Devil to kill someone?
Yes! But Satan and his demons after receiving the severe punishment in the Garden of Eden would never dare do it again.
We see from the accounts of the Fall of Man, Satan had caused the death of Adam and Eve spiritually on that instant or on that day as the Lord said it to Adam.
Not only that, immortality was lost and physical death enters humanity.
Did Satan celebrated his victory in the Garden?
No! Because as we all knew Adam represents the whole of humanity and his punishment was inherited by all men. How about the demons? Satan represents all the demons too in the Garden of Eden. After the Fall of Angels from rebellion. We can see their arrogance is at it's peak and their PRIDE is all over their head, meaning their intellect was darkened and their actions was fired furiously with rage.This was the first condition when Satan enters the Garden full of pride & rebellion. Satan envied Adam and Eve and with full of hatred declares blatant opposition to God's plan.
We can conclude that Satan is out in the Garden of Eden doesn't want to be  restricted although His actions is permitted we knew that God permissive WILL is in control.
But, the question is, is Satan willing to submit to God Permissive Will?
Let's take a look.
We see from Exekiel 28:13 that Lucifer although cast out from Heavenly realms retain it's God given perfection & gifts. The splendor of beauty intact.

"You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, Was in you. On the day that you were created They were prepared. "

According to Church Father belief that angels who rebels is not punish by God to set an example to the rest of the Angels to serve God not out of fear but LOVE and not to compel them to serve God out of fear.
What is the punishment of Satan in the Garden of Eden? Genesis 3:14

"The Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat all the days of your life;"

We can see from passages Satan received not only severe punishment but cursed,
while Adam although disobey God's command was not cursed but merited only punishment and the Mercy of God was shown by giving their coverings.
What does this imply?
Satan committed an "excessive act" contrary to what God had prescribed him to do in testing the obedience of Adam and Eve. As God implied clearly by His Words "because you have done this"
I already tried to expound this on other thread to show that the Serpent had beguiled Eve in "touching the fruit first".And so Eve tried to defend herself from the allurement by saying the excess words out of defense "even touching is forbidden". Just to emphasize the scene in imagery of Blessed Duns Scotus mystical approach to reflections.
The CURSED of the SERPENT clearly indicates an IMPAIRMENT on the perfection of beauty and lessening of the POWERS by Satan or freedom to act powerfully. And Satan as the representative of demons imparted the punishment to all the rebel angels and their angelic beauty turns into horror.
This can be further attested in the Book of Job as the verse you qouted above implied a cautious and Tamed Serpent in the person of Satan, not anymore willing to go beyond the limits again.And so he clearly follows what God had set.

The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, he is in your hands; but you must spare his life." (Job 2:6)
As St. Augustine states " If God has not restricted the actions of the devils, no man will be alive"...

As CCC states Satan is the "ape of God", He must do and follows God bidding only, and so we rest in peace knowing that everything that it's thrown against us is under God's Permissive Will and had a corresponding Fruits or Good Promise in Romans 8:28 King James Version (KJV)

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."


What does "bowels of mercies" mean? Col 3:12 says "Put on ... bowels of mercies..." (KJV) listing traits Christians should foster.

How do mercies relate to one's intestines (bowels)?  Bowels appear in other Scriptures as well, not talking about digestion and elimination.  Bowels are very important for living beings, but it isn't polite to discuss your bowels/bowel movements in public.  It's an unappetizing subject.

What part of your body is affected in times of great emotion? (whether in sadness and stress or in joy and thanks)?  In our culture we usually speak of our 'hearts' being the seat of emotion. But it was common in greek culture to attribute the seat of emotions to the intestines (σπλάγχνα), since that's where we feel emotions.  Ulcers in times of stress, butterflies in times of joy—they affect our gut far more than our hearts.  One could argue that the ancient understanding was better.
As evidence, here are some citations from common standard greek lexicons on the word:
BDAG:

as often in the ancient world, inner body parts served as referents for psychological aspects (s. καρδία): of the seat of the emotions, in our usage a transference is made to the rendering heart,

“σπλάγχνον,” BDAG, 938.

NIDNTTE:

Because strong emotions produce sensations in the abdomen, the bowels and other organs were regarded as the site of the natural passions (cf. the use of gut in [Vol. 4, p. 352] Eng.). Thus σπλάγχνα came to have the same fig. meaning as heart (see καρδία G2840), referring to the seat of the affections, both negative, such as anger and fear, and positive, such as love and compassion (cf. the use of σπλάγχνα alongside κέαρ [= κῆρ, “heart”] and φρένες [pl. of φρήν G5856, with a sim. meaning] when speaking of fearful premonitions, Aesch. Ag. 995–98).
“σπλάγχνον” NIDNTTE, 4:351-352.

As to the pairing of σπλάγχνον with οἰκτιρμός (compassion), the thought is the full extent and depth of compassion, not a half-hearted effort, but compassion shown from the depth of your heart (or in the original, gut). And that is a truly theological thought, that out of the great compassion that God has shown us in Christ, we extend that same compassion to others.

Bowels of mercie that's simple Daniel chapter 1 pulse and water shows Mercie to the bowels aka clean robe or baptism ,  ten days pulse and water will clean any garment and for these  children will be granted knowledge and wisdom the kingdom of heaven is within you not lo there lo here it's in you the multitude to be shown mercy


First Occurrence of "Sea of Forgetfulness" in Christian Literature Apparently "Sea of Forgetfulness" is a well known example of Christian jargon.  This is news to me, as I have never heard this phrase before today (perhaps because I am relatively young, and this phrase was more prevalent among the older generations).  The phrase appears to be an embellished derivative of Micah 7:19, "You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea."

I am curious to know when the first instance of this phrase occurred, specifically in the Christian sense.

Here is a graph of instances of the phrase, using Google's Ngram viewer.  The first spike appears around 1817.  This might be an artifact resulting from the algorithm, however. (Google's literary database only extends from 1800 to today, with a highly irregular sample rate)

The first published use of this phrase can be attributed to Cardinal Pole, in a speech given to the English Parliament in 1554, regarding England's return to Roman Catholicism under Queen Mary:

  This I protest before you, my commission is not of prejudice to any person. I come not to destroy, but to build: I come to reconcile, not to condemn: I am not come to compel,
  but to call again: I am not come to call any thing in question already done, but my commission is of grace and clemency, to such as will receive it. For touching all matters that be past, they shall be as things cast into the sea of forgetfulness.

The speech was recorded and published in 1555, but the rise to fame of "sea of forgetfulness" can be attributed to the speech being reprinted in the first edition of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, published in 1563.

The influence of Foxe's work was huge: it was placed alongside the Bible in many English churches in the 16th century, and was republished in many forms over the following centuries.  As one of the most popular works in the early English-speaking Protestant world, it's not surprising that this phrase would be picked up and used widely.

The original text in Foxe's work can be found in this critical edition.  The critical apparatus notes Foxe's source for the text.

There's also an early 18th century edition, and many cleaned up text versions.  The speech is also recorded in histories of the English parliament.

I think some information about how the Hebrews thought of water could be of insight here...

Water is used as an image and as a metaphor for many things in the Hebrew Bible, and even the words used for it in Hebrew Scripture and Torah are quite enlightening.  The word that is used for what we call "water" is first found in the first reading of the first parsha of the Torah, or what Christians would call Genesis 1:2. The actual word used here is: מָיִם
This word is actually plural... this is why some translations of the Scriptures have the word as "waters"... the problem though is that the singular of this word would be: מַי
but you won't find that word in the Hebrew. It seems that in ancient Hebrew and Rabbinic thought, water was, in its very essence of being inherently plural. IT COULD NOT BE AND IS NOT REFERED TO AS SINGULAR. This is pretty unique, linguistically speaking.

Now, Hebrew is also an interesting language, because like ancient Greek, not only do letters have letter values, they also have numberic values assigned to them (this is the realm of Gematria, which is a whole other taco... I could go on about this, but will later or if someone is interested), and they also can have mystical or what I would call metaphorical meanings ascribed to them, so that simply giving a letter can actually bring to mind a whole bundle of associated concepts. This can be seen with the letter mem, as at this site: http://www.inner.org/hebleter/mem.htm

As you can see there, mem is often shorthand for waters, forgiveness, oneness, mercy, and the unconditional love of God. Most interestingly, the "final mem" or the form of mem that is used at ends of words and either looks like a square or a sort of squashed circle (depending on your handwriting or the font you use) is also a reference to the Messiah himself. As Christians, it should be immediately obvious that these concepts of mem are found within our concepts of Jesus, and point to his identity.

So now we know the basics of "water", lets talk about "ocean" and "sea"... which is: יָם
Notice something there? Yup! You got it - that is "yam" which is "may" or "waters" inreverse/backwards! Hmmm... based on what we've seen with metaphors, symbolism, and imagery, what do you think that means?

Well, first off, "Yam" is a word that is used in other ancient Semitic languages and cultures of the levant and Middle East as the name for a god of waters: rivers, lakes, seas, and oceans. While this is part of the polytheism of the region, and not directly part of the Hebrew religion as found in the Torah and Hebrew Bible... it is important because this god was seen as a god of chaos, disorder, and
entorpy -- and these concepts about "seas" and "oceans" still are found within the meaning and concepts of "sea"/"yam" in Hebrew.

Seas were seen as being large, deep (as an abyss) things that instilled terror in the hearts and minds of Hebrews -- this is why there wasn't really an Israeli navy. The Mediterranean Sea was ABSOLUTELY TERRIFYING to Jews. (Many of the memorable Biblical stories involving the Mediterranean Sea find Jews getting passage on the ships of goyiim/gentiles, not sailing on ships built and manned by Jews!) Smaller, inland seas, such as the Sea of Galilee (the largest, lowest freshwater lake in the region) and the Dead Sea (the largest saltwater lake) were okay... they weren't seen as being horrible, chaotic, watery filled abysses calling for the bodies of dead Jews (which is how the ocean/Mediterranean was conceived of).

So, oceans were quite literally the EXACT, HORRIFYING opposite of waters!

Waters bring life. They symbolize life. In the waters of baptism, we see that all the concepts of mem are tied together and come to symbolise entering into eternal life with God. In human terms: "may" is good, "yam" is bad. Is this how God sees it? Well, we have to remember that God made all of creation, and as we read in Bereshit/Genesis 1:10, the FIRST things that God calls "good" in this new creation of his ARE the Earth and the Seas! So God sees the seas as good -- so like everything in creation, it is good, and he has power over them, and they therefore have some ultimate meaning for humanity other than being a horrible chaotic place of fear. What for an ancient Hebrew would have been the ultimate transformation in the concept of "yam"? Well, for them to become something good.

One way that these vast repositories of horror could be transformed/redeemed by and through the love of God is to be used as a symbol of redemption that unites the concepts of "may" and "yam" into one. This is what I think is behind the concept of ""Sea of Forgetfulness" and "[God] casting all our sins into the depths of the sea". While no one is beyond the love of God, one thing that is outside of it is our sins. As @Bernard R says above, Psalm 103 (Greek Orthodox Psalm 102) contains the idea of the  infinite, which is linked to this concept of ultimate forgiveness and the infinity of God and his love. It shows that God chooses to remove our sins and place them as far away as is possible, which is probably more than we can concieve of... one way to understand this would be to imagine them being thrown into that horrible abyss, the ocean/"yam", where they would sink down, down, down, away, never to be seen or heard from again. This would be a way that something horrible would now be seen to have a purpose and to provide a sense of relief - those sins wouldn't come back anymore than you could get to the bottom of the ocean.

Because of this, I would say that this concept, while expressed in English and used as an idiom, is expressing an idea that goes back to the very beginnings of Hebrew thought and the Jewish religion.

I would also say that it is an expression that I would like to see more of in modern English useage and discussion, as I feel that it can be used as a discussion opening to illustrate many truths about God, love, forgiveness, and Jesus.


What is the Order of the Resurrection of the Dead? It seems we have the resurrection in order.
However, my question is how and when are these categories of persons resurrected?

Those who died under the Old Covenant
Those who die in the New Covenant
Those who are alive at the coming of Jesus.  1Thess 4:17
The bible speaks of the Ressurection of the Souls beheaded for the gospel. Rev 20:4 -5

I desire answers that give an overview of major Christian positions regarding this question.

What is the Order of the Resurrection of the Dead?
The majority of Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and many more) will conform that the Order of the Resurrection of the Dead is as follows:

Resurrection of the widow’s son in Zarephath (1 Kgs 17:17–22)
Resurrection of the Shunammite’s son (2 Kgs 4:18–37)
Resurrection of the man thrown into Elisha’s grave (2 Kgs 13:20)
Resurrection of Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:41)
Resurrection of the young man at Nain (Luke 7:14)
Resurrection of Lazarus (John 11:38–44)
Resurrection of unknown saints during the crucifixion (Matt 27:52–53)
Resurrection of Christ (Matt 28:1-6)
Resurrection of Tabitha/Dorcas (Acts 9:36–42)
Resurrection of Eutychus (Acts 20:7–12)
Resurrection of the Two Witnesses (Rev 11:7–11)
Resurrection of Old Testament Saints and Martyrs (Revelation 20:4)
Final Resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4:16–18) (John 5:28-29)
Resurrection of the Wicked (Revelation 20:5)

Different Christian denominations may interpret these passages differently, but as far as the Scriptures speak this is the order of resurrections according to Sacred Scriptures.

Not all Christian denominations will agree with the following, but this is generally what is believed by those that accept the Bible as literal truth (except where it is obviously meant to be allegorical, hyperbolic, etc.).
The first general resurrection occurs at Christ's return.
It is for those (a relatively small number) that have been saved, "the elect", whether dead or still alive:
It is a spiritual resurrection to immortality, not a physical resurrection.
John 3:5–8:

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

1 Corinthians 15:51–52:

Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed —
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1 Thessalonians 4:16–18:

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Revelation 20:4–6:

And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.
But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

The second resurrection occurs at the end of the Millennium.
This is when all those that have died without an opportunity to be saved will be resurrected, still as physical mortals.
They will have their first opportunity at salvation, living in the wonderful world that the Earth has become during the Millennium, being taught by the resurrected saints.
Then comes the final judgement.
The small number of people that knowingly rejected God's salvation will be burned to ashes, permanently destroyed.
(Some think that this requires a third resurrection for these people.)
Revelation 20:12–15:

And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Malachi 4:3

You shall trample the wicked, For they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet …

Matthew 12:31–32:

“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men.
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.


What are the "signs of grief" for which a pastor should be on the look out? So, in my seminary pastoral care class, I remember being taken to a funeral home, and walked through the mechanics of a funeral. During that visit, I was told that "everyone's grief process is different," and I have seen wide variation in this.  I have seen people who have lost sisters and mothers grieve for several weeks and be fine.  I have seen at the upper end four to six months of being seemingly stuck on the loss.

Later (in the same class I should add!), I was admonished that as a pastor, I should be on the lookout for those who are "stuck in grief."  When I pressed on this – namely 'what are the signs that someone is stuck in grief,' I was never given a satisfactory answer.

While the Psalms describe the emotions that many feel when grieving (as well as comfort), are there any lists by classic pastoral care givers (e.g. Thomas Owens, patristic sources, the Reformers, etc... – not just Ms. Kubler-Ross please) of the signs that a pastor should be on the lookout that someone really is "stuck in grief?"

Being stuck in grief is referred to by professionals as "incomplete grief" or "complicated grief."    It is often defined as grief that is not resolving or normalizing within 6 to 12 months after the loss.

Identifying red flags may include:
* A sense of unrelenting disbelief or numbness
* Intensifying anger, rage, irritability, or agitation
* A preoccupation with distressing thoughts about the death event
* Recurrent or growing pangs of painful emotions with intense yearning and longing for the dead loved one
* Difficulty in relationships, including withdrawal or problems with intimacy
* Avoidance of situations and activities that are reminders of the loved one
* Apathy, giving up, feeling that life has no meaning or purpose
* Severe depression with hopelessness

This is an amalgamation of various lists which come up on an internet search for "stuck in grief".

References:
WebMD
Glynis Sherwood Counseling

In 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul outlines a series of instructions for believers to help keep the worldly events of their lives in the proper perspective (lower in priority to their faith in Christ), and among these is grief.

"and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods,
and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away."
1 Corinthians 7:30-31

Charles Ryrie wrote of this passage in his book Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth that,
"This summary statement is in a context where Paul mentioned marriage and singleness, weeping and rejoicing, having and not having things. It is proper to use all of these but not to abuse or overuse them. Do not let marriage have top priority; do not weep too long; do not be so happy you cannot be serious; do not put your trust in things you may properly buy. To do so is to abuse the cosmos. To have a “take-it-or-leave it” attitude while using these things is proper use."

From these readings, I might read being stuck in grief as being stuck in the world.  A world of which John writes the following:

"Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. - 1 John 2:15


Did the importance of the resurrection increase as the New Testament was written? I've often heard that if you lay out the books of the New Testament by the chronological order of their composition, the story of Jesus' resurrection becomes more important in the later books. Some also say it becomes more supernatural.

Is there any truth to this? I do not know the order of the books by when they were written.

Allow me the liberty to rephrase your question:

Did the concept of Resurrection develop over time?

Yes.

The ancient Hebrews did not seem to have any conception of life after death.  In Job and the Psalms, we start seeing hints that Israelites envisioned some existence after death, but not as anything very exciting.  If you've read any Homer or the Gilgamesh epic, you'll remember that the dead go to a shadowy, dry place.  But it's important to understand that, unlike the Greek concept of Hades, Sheol wasn't a place where souls existed, but where whatever was left of the dead's body and spirit was housed.  It's not clear that the writers of the earlier books in the Old Testament envisioned anything more than a grave when they used the word.

By the Second Temple period, Jews began to develop more sophisticated cosmologies.  We start getting hints of bodily Resurrection:

  Daniel 12:2 (ESV)
  2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

But even then, it's not clear if the Biblical prophets (outside of Daniel) were envisioning people actually rising from the dead.  Ezekiel 37 (the dry bones passage), for instance, was probably a statement of hope for the restoration of the nation of Israel.

Jewish writings in the time between the Old and New Testaments show even more development of the idea of Resurrection, which always had strong nationalistic and (during times of occupation) revolutionary overtones.  But the idea was that at some point in the future, God would gather up all of His people and restore them to life all at once.  Nobody would have pictured one man rising from his grave as the (or even a) Resurrection.  Certainly the Messiah would not participate in the Resurrection, except to make way for it to happen, since he wouldn't die.

When we get to the time of Jesus, we suddenly see the Christian conception of Resurrection appear on the scene.  It draws strongly from the inter-testament ideas, but in a fairly radically altered format because the Messiah Himself dies, is buried, and resurrected.  Sometime later, the general Resurrection as envisioned by late, Second Temple Jews was predicted—along with the return of the Messiah to complete His work on earth.

How did the concept of Resurrection develop in the New Testament?

Surprisingly little.

Our earliest church documents are Paul's letters to various primitive churches.  While it does seem that Paul warms to the subject over the course of his ministry, he does not alter his theology.  In Galatians 2, Paul lets us know that his theology was shared with the leaders of the Jerusalem church (James the bother of Jesus, Peter, and John).  His dispute with them was not whether the Resurrection of Jesus occurred or what it meant, but whether or not it replaced the Mosaic Covenant.

In First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD), Paul gives us one of the earliest formulations of the Christian view of Resurrection:

  1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (ESV)
  3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Many scholars think this represents an even earlier tradition that might have been a creedal statement.  Paul goes on to affirm that there will be a general Resurrection in the future:

  1 Corinthians 15:21-22 (ESV)
  21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

This is also the text (remember it's one of the earliest, written 20 or so years from Jesus' crucifixion) that asserts the Resurrection to be critical to the Christian faith:

  1 Corinthians 15:17-19 (ESV)
  17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

If anything, the Gospels, which were written later, downplay the Resurrection by giving us more details about Jesus' earthly ministry.  Mark even ends immediately after the women's discovery of the empty tomb and doesn't provide a post-Resurrection account.  (Whether this was by design or was a historical accident is not known.)

Reference: I draw most of my information from N. T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God, which stands alone as the best survey of the history of the idea of the Resurrection ever written.  If I don't stop now, I'm in danger of summarizing his entire book.

No, given that works don't show a clear trend and were written by different people for different purposes.

This also 'begs the question' given that it seems to assume that the Resurrection could somehow be 'unsupernatural'?


Why did Jesus say he came to create division? In Luke 12:51-53 Jesus said:

  Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but
  division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against
  each other, three against two and two against three.

There must have been a larger point to this. What was the division that he spoke of? I can't imagine it's as simple as separating the "good" from the "bad" since he often made it clear that God holds no distinction between those two types of people, and loves everyone equally and unconditionally.

Man was created for a loving relationship with God, therefore the first and greatest commandment:

  Mark 12:30 …thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

Why do we love God?

  1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

We know this:

  Revelation 1:5 …from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood

The division Christ speaks of is between those that love God and those that will not.  Those that want what God wants for their lives and those that want what they want for their lives.

The simple answer is that Jesus is unlike any other religious philosopher, he isn't about attonement as they say, he is about social justice and non-compliance with psychopaths, that's why he said I believe (don't actually know if he said it): thou drink their blood or their tears? Because as a fact in every society there's an abusive government in power that drinks your blood, an opposition that drinks your tears, and you are caught in the middle. Jesus shows a third way, the way of salvation from this system, the way of freedom, equality, and he shows us a method, to reject the system and its inherent corruption. My new favourite Jesus quote is " Luke 12:49-59 Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to divide people against each other!"


Is virginity more meritorious than marriage, according to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7? Is, according to St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7, the state of virginity more meritorious than that of marriage? Catholics think it is, and some (all?) Protestants think it is not. Why?

For example, the Council of Trent says:

  Canon X.—If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony: let him be anathema.

Short answer - No.
If you are just looking at what Paul is saying, then more 'meritorious' is an incorrect choice of words to describe his encouragement towards choosing celibacy ahead of marriage.  His language that either state comes as a "gift from the Lord" (verse 7) is very much against the sense of either condition attracting any merit.
Bearing in mind that Paul prefaces his instructions in this area with the acknowledgement that he has "no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy" (verse 25 NIV), a more appropriate word to characterize his reasons for his instruction derivable from verses 26 and 29 ("Because of the present crisis..."/"...the time is short") is expediency.
ie. Paul argues that in view of the present circumstances (the prevalance of persecution now and increasing with the expected approach of the Lord's return), celibacy is more expedient for the avoidance of unnecessary suffering than the state of marriage.
Additional weight (via application of the 'scripture interprets scripture' hermeneutic) to a rejection of using 'merit' in the sense proferred, is found by examining another passage of scripture that is commonly interpreted as dealing with this issue:

10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” - Matthew 19:10-12 NIV (emphasis added)

Although, some 'choose' the celibate life for the sake of the kingdom, verse 11 states explicitly that they can only do this because it has 'been given' to them to do so - ie. it is a grace gift and therefore the choice or state should not be considered through the lens of merit.

"Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman
  without the man, in the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11:11)

There are numerous scriptures in the bible that state man and woman are twain without each other, but united are "one flesh"

  Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his
  father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall
  be one flesh."

  Matthew 19:5-6 "And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and
  mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one
  flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
  What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

  Ephesians 5:31  "For this cause shall a man leave his father and
  mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one
  flesh."

Modern revelation tells us that the covenant of eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation (D&C 131:1-4), so no, it would not be more meritorious for a man to choose a celibate life over marriage. That being said, there may be some that the Lord does not expect to be married, the Lord knows. We are all given our free agency, there may be some that choose not to participate in the everlasting covenant of marriage, let all men worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience (see 11th Article of Faith).

While sexual immorality was common in ancient Corinth, some people
there held the opposite belief—that it was “good for a man not to
touch a woman,” and therefore one should refrain from all sexual
relations, even in marriage (1 Corinthians 7:1).

Paul’s advice that “I would that all men were even as I myself” and
“it is good for them if they abide even as I” (1 Corinthians
7:7–8) have led some to mistakenly believe that Paul was unmarried
and promoted the celibate lifestyle as being superior to marriage.
However, Paul probably was married or had been at some point. Most
scholars acknowledge that Paul was either a member of the Jewish
ruling body—the Sanhedrin—or a close associate of the group (see Acts
8:3; 9:1–2; 22:5; 26:10). To comply with the
Sanhedrin’s membership requirements, Paul would have to be married.
Even if Paul was simply a representative of the Sanhedrin, he would
have been expected to be in harmony with all accepted Jewish customs
and therefore be married. In addition, Paul clearly taught the
importance of marriage and family life (see 1 Corinthians 7:2;
11:11; Ephesians 5:21–6:4; 1 Timothy 3:2).


What is the basis for believing that the wrath of God is not an accommodation? It is widely accepted that the Bible contains many accommodated descriptions of God; the finite human mind cannot comprehend the infinite God, so he has revealed himself to us in ways which we can understand, even though the true reality of God transcends what the scriptures say. For example, most Christians believe that the scriptures teach the immutability of God, so the times when the scriptures say God changed his mind (such as Exodus 32:14) are understood to be accommodations.

The wrath of God is believed by many Protestants to be a real attribute of God, but an accommodation by many other Christians. The wrath of God is important because it forms part of the foundation of penal substitutionary atonement.

What is the basis for believing that God's wrath is not an accommodation? Good answers will give exegetical and logical arguments why certain verses should not be interpreted as conveying only accommodated depictions of God's wrath.

Definition
Accommodation means that we use finite terms to describe an infinite God, and thus naturally come up short.  This is certainly true, so in some sense every description of God is an accommodation.  However, that does not mean a given description does not correspond to a truth.  Thus, for the purposes of this answer, I am restating the question to be "What is the basis for believing descriptions of God's wrath correspond to a true aspect of His nature?" which I think is the real question here.
Basic principle
Perhaps the strongest argument against viewing God's wrath as an accommodation is the lack of evidence for this understanding.  The view is primarily driven by human desire to avoid putting "impure" emotions such as anger on to God.  However, the idea that anger is "wrong" is driven my philosophical ideas about how the ideal person should act, not the Bible.  Indeed, Paul writes:

Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil. (Ephesians 4:26-7, ESV)

Notice what Paul does not say here - "do not be angry." Instead, he says something like "It's OK to be angry, but resolve your angry quickly, so that it doesn't develop into something actually sinful."  This line is actually an illusion to Psalms 4:4:

Be angry, and do not sin; ponder in your own hearts on your beds, and be silent.

So, if anger is not automatically sinful for man, then there is no need to "explain" God's anger.  And there is a real danger is seeking a way to explain away things that make us uncomfortable.  If "negative" emotions attributed to God are merely accommodations, who is to say that "positive" ones aren't?  Perhaps God is actually ambivalent to humanity and we just think He loves us because that  of our finite understanding of God...  It is one thing to say the "eyes of the Lord" (e.g. 2 Chronicles 16:9), which can easily be read as a metaphor in context, are an accommodation.  It is quite another to say something (e.g. wrath) that is explicitly described as an attribute of God is one.
Finally, it should be noted that while "wrath" a synonym for anger, it is not equivalent.  Biblically, God's wrath is the opposite of his satisfaction or pleasure in men's actions.  That is, it is a term used to describe His displeasure with man.  It is described in terms of anger, sadness, even hatred, but it is not merely an emotion, but rather part of God's righteous judgement. (e.g. Romans 2, see below)
I will now analyze some specific verse that illustrate that the "wrath of God," while perhaps not a 100% perfect description, is a fundamentally accurate way to describe an aspect of God.  The list is by no means exhaustive.
Romans 1

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:18-20)

Paul's argument here is that everyone is without excuse for knowing God because his actions are plainly seen, and from these actions his divine attributes are evident.  To back up his argument, he says the "wrath of God is revealed from heaven."   That is, evil and unrighteous behavior have clearly been punished.  If God was not truly wrathful, and was only described that way for our benefit, then Paul's argument would have no force.  The unbelievers certainly could not be expected to naturally perceive wrath that did not actually exist.
Indeed, the wrath of God is contrasted with "the righteousness of God [which] is revealed from faith for faith." (v17) While righteousness can only be seen through the eye of faith, wrath is apparent to all.  One would have to jump through hoops to explain how the "unreal" wrath of God is apparent while the "real" righteousness of God is invisible to unbelievers.
Deuteronomy
A similar theme is found in Deuteronomy.

Take care lest your heart be deceived, and you turn aside and serve other gods and worship them; then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you, and he will shut up the heavens, so that there will be no rain, and the land will yield no fruit, and you will perish quickly off the good land that the LORD is giving you. (Deuteronomy 11:16-17)
Beware lest there be among you a man or woman or clan or tribe whose heart is turning away today from the LORD our God to go and serve the gods of those nations. Beware lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit, one who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, 'I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.' This will lead to the sweeping away of moist and dry alike.The LORD will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven. And the LORD will single him out from all the tribes of Israel for calamity, in accordance with all the curses of the covenant written in this Book of the Law. And the next generation, your children who rise up after you, and the foreigner who comes from a far land, will say, when they see the afflictions of that land and the sicknesses with which the LORD has made it sick-- the whole land burned out with brimstone and salt, nothing sown and nothing growing, where no plant can sprout, an overthrow like that of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger and wrath (Deuteronomy 29:18-23)

Here, we have two instances of a specific sin (turning away form God) leading to a specific punishment (barren land).  The specific language makes it difficult (exegetically) to see this as anything but a literal description. Furthermore, this punishment is something that "all the nations" will recognize as God's wrath (v24).  If wrath was a mere accommodation and not actual action by God, it is hard to explain how Gentiles will understand that God is in action here.
Romans 2

We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
... but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek (Romans 2:2-5; 8-9)

In this passage, Paul clearly ties the wrath of God to His righteous judgment of mankind.  By doing evil, the sinner is "storing up wrath" that will be result in judgment on the "day of wrath."  If the wrath being stored/delivered is not literal or not roughly equivalent to human wrath, then it is difficult to see what "tribulation and distress" the sinner will be suffering.  Note also that the suffering is tied not an abstract person, but rather "the Jew" and "the Greek" - precisely Paul's original audience.  If we were to understand this passage as a metaphor for God's character, we would expect at least some sort of textual clue, but instead the message is delivered in very concrete terms, and explicitly directed at the (original) reader.
Leviticus 26
Leviticus 26:14-43 describes the punishment Israel will face for failing to keep the commandments. Here again, specific sins are met with specific punishments, making it difficult to view God's wrath as merely accommodating language.  The whole section illustrates the point, but I would like to focus one thought:

But if in spite of this you will not listen to me, but walk contrary to me, then I will walk contrary to you in fury, and I myself will discipline you sevenfold for your sins. (26:27-8)

These verses uses the doubled pronoun I myself to emphasize the personal nature of God's punishment.  If, for example, man's punishment was just the natural consequence of sin and not a direct action of God (i.e. if God's wrath was accommodating language), this emphasis would be out of place.  Furthermore, the sevenfold nature of the discipline would seem to indicate that the punishment is more than the inevitable consequence of the sin.  The author of Leviticus is making it quite clear that the punishment given is from the direct action of God, which means it emanates from an actual aspect of God's nature.
Matthew 11

Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you. (Matthew 11:20-24)

In Matthew 11, Jesus harshly rebukes a series of cities for failing to repent.  In Matthew 23, He casts similar judgment on to the scribes and Pharisees.  Although neither passage uses the term "wrath," it is apparent that Jesus is passing judgment on these groups.  The passages certainly read much more naturally if one sees an element of anger in  Jesus' speech.  In Mark 3:5, He is explicitly described as angry:

And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart

Jesus on Earth can legitimately be described as angry, and He describes judgment of certain groups in harsh "wrath-like" terms.  As such, it is only natural that passages that describe God's judgment in heaven in similar terms be read as accurately describing a true aspect of God's nature.
Variety of contexts
Another reason to believe that the wrath of God is not merely an accommodation is that the descriptions of wrath occur in a wide variety of contexts. It occurs in history writings (Exodus 32), the Law (Leviticus 26), Poetry (Psalm 59), prophetic writing (Isaiah 13), the Gospels (Matthew 11), letters (Romans), and of course the Apocalypse (throughout Revelation).
Wrath is attributed to God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 3).  It is brought against Israel, Gentile nations, mankind as a whole, specific individuals, and the Serpent/Satan (Genesis 3).  It is hard to find a context where God's wrath is not described in some fashion.
Conclusion
The idea that God's wrath is an accommodation stems from a desire to avoid the difficulty in seeing God as angry.  It is often phrased in a condescending fashion such as "ancient people needed to see God that way, but we moderns know better" - either by believers to make God more palpable, or by nonbelievers in an effort to discredit the Bible.
The idea that anger is wrong does not stem from the Bible, however, but rather a man-made sense of the "enlightened man" ideal where man acts rationally and without emotion, or at least without negative emotion.  This "ideal" is directly contradicted by the Bible and also carries unwarranted pride in one's own intellect.  In reality, emotion is an essential part of human nature and logically an essential part of God's nature if we are indeed created in His image.  Just as one cannot fully understand God's infinite, perfect love, one cannot fully comprehend His wrath either.  That, however, does not mean that our terms to describe His wrath do not correspond to a true aspect of God.  Furthermore, that His wrath is real is backed by straightforward exegesis.  Those who wish to say otherwise must twist scripture to an extent that if applied elsewhere could make God's love just as "unreal."

Merriam-Webster defines wrath as:

1: strong vengeful anger or indignation
2: retributory punishment for an offense or a crime : divine chastisement

To us, anger means a racing pulse, manipulations of our facial muscles, a loud tone of voice and many other physical manifestations. God is only capable of these aspects of anger in the person of Christ in his incarnation, and he demonstrated them when he drove out money-changers, rebuked scribes and Pharisees and even his disciples. Apart from the Incarnate Christ, I would say such things are accommodations.

But the second part - a forceful response to an offense or crime, does not require a human body, just a means of interacting with the creation. The curse upon Adam and Eve, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues on Egypt, the exile of the Israelites - these are all actions taken by God to punish sinful behavior. It is telling that the dictionary entry defines wrath based on God's behavior. Our wrath is the allegory, not God's.

Scriptural support

If the Wrath of God were an accommodation, how would it be so?

1) Is it an expression of something that the people who wrote the Bible could not understand because of their level of technology and scientific understanding of reality?

2) Is it an expression of something that no human regardless of knowledge and experience could understand properly?

3) Is it couched in figurative terms to be consistent with common idioms known to the original hearers but confusing to us?

4) Is it a temporary thing? (God is eternal and unchanging, so anything temporary cannot be one of his attributes.)

(NOTE: John Calvin did not originate the idea that God must accommodate to man's finiteness and imperfections, but he is one of the first theologians to talk about this at length. See this paper for information on Calvin's views on accommodation.  http://archive.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/cman_118_4_tinker.pdf
)

There are many ways that an idea that God wishes to communicate to us may be garbled, many impedances to understanding: human finiteness, immaturity, sinful hearts, mutations that have weakened our minds...

The first time God reveals his capacity for wrath is in Genesis when he warns Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil or suffer death. At this time Adam and Eve were not sinners and no physical or mental infirmity had yet entered the creation. Thus this word did not need to address hearers who were blinded by sin or weakened by the curse and subsequent genetic defects. Also, language was new, so had not yet had a chance to become cluttered with confusing idioms. Adam and Eve were, however, finite and immature.

A crucial instance when God revealed his wrath was when Christ suffered on the Cross. He bore the punishment for all mankind's sins. If we consider this merely a message to us, then we might have any number of reasons to declare it an accommodation. However, the wrath that God poured out upon his Son is most certainly a message from the Father to the Son. Jesus is not a sinner, is not (in his divinity) finite, is capable of understanding the message in all its fullness and (the thorny issue of kenosis aside) has access to all the scientific knowledge he needs in order to understand what he is being told. He experienced true wrath to punish real sin. It is at the very heart of the Gospel message. If it is merely an accommodation, so is everything else!

Taking up the issue of time. In Revelation 13:8 we have this:

  All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been
  written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of
  the world.

If Christ was slain from the foundation of the world, his sacrifice is eternal, and the cause that required it is revealed to be eternal, namely God's wrath against sin (accompanied by his love, which caused his wrath to be directed against his Son and not us).

Revelation 14:6-8 reinforces this:

  Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal
  gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation,
  tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice, “Fear God and
  give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him
  who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water.”

The gospel message is eternal, not a temporary measure. As Daniel 12:2 says:

  Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to
  everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.

The fact of eternal punishment is an indicator that the wrath of God is an eternal attribute, not a temporary one.

John calls Jesus the "Word of God". The event that will cement the idea that this Word has as one of its attributes God's wrath is his second coming. His speech and his very presence will be the force that separates the good from the evil and keeps them separate, as in Mathhew 25:31-33:

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

Jesus described this separation many times using parables, but the idea is clear. Wrath against sin is an eternal attribute of God.

Or as Scripture says in Psalm 19:9:

  The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever.

(The topic of the fear of the Lord is immense. It has many dimensions, but cannot be separated from the wrath of God. The wrath of God produces righteousness and purity in the faithful who fear him, and eternal torment in the disbelieving. If the Fear of the Lord is eternal, so is its counterpart, the wrath of God.)


What are the minimum requirements for becoming pope? If the conclave decided for whatever reason to choose a person who was not overwhelmingly qualified such as a cardinal or other prominent bishop, what requirements need that person have fulfilled to be eligible for election?

I assume they have to be Catholic obviously, but any other requirements?

The Answer

You asked what were the minimum requirements for becoming a pope. So I will not entertain all the minutia associate with papal elections.

First of all, a pope is simply a bishop who has universal authority over the Church1. Other bishops only have authority over their particular Churches, though they may exercise authority over the universal Church if they are joined by other means (i.e., an oecumenical council or in union with another bishop).

Further, bishops are bishops by virtue of the fact that they are recipients of the sacrament of priesthood. To eligible to receive this sacrament, one must be a baptized man2.

Therefore, because the papacy is simply an office of a bishop (or episcopate) with universal authority, the only requirements for holding the office of the pope, the papacy, are the requirements for holding an office of a bishop. The only requirements for holding the office of a bishop are those required to receive the sacrament of the priesthood. Therefore there are only two requirements:

One must be male
One must be baptized

All other "requirements" are merely practical requirements--that is to say, it is very doubtful the Church will elect a non-practicing Christian despite the fact he was baptized as a baby and a male. Despite the fact he is eligible, he is practically disqualified on account of his apostasy.

Side Note

There is room for speculation in the Church on whether popes can lose their office save the occasions of death and resignation. St. Robert Bellarmine is infamous for speculating such. While this is in the realm of speculation, the Church in general has moved strongly away from such thoughts. It is popularly held that popes are popes until they aren't popes--that is to say, a pope doesn't stop being pope because you don't like him.

Sources

1http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/882.htm

2http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1577.htm

Conditions for a valid pope

male Catholic (even a layman)
not excommunicated (thus not a heretic*)
valid election

*See Pope Paul IV's bull (encyclical) Cum ex apostolatus officio on how a heretical papal candidate would be invalidly elected.

source: this answer to the question In Catholic understanding when there is more than one Pope, who decides which Pope is real and by what criteria?

Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415 (quoted here):

  All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.


Can a Catholic eat the food prepared for the Muslim Eid al-Adha? I am a Catholic living in a Muslim country>  All meat and stuff is halal according to their practice. When they offer Sacrifice on Eid can I consume the meat they send me?
 Since I believe it’s not a sacrifice to idols but in remembrance of Abraham.

What is the position of the Catholic Church on this subject?

The May Catholics eat Muslim foods prepared for the Eid al-Adha?

  Eid al-Adha is also called the “Sacrifice Feast” and it honors the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son, as an act of submission to God’s command. It marks the end of the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, the fifth Pillar of Islam. - What is Eid al-Adha?

The short answer is yes.

But that said one might avoid scandal, if in fact that possibility actually were to exist somewhere.

The Eid al-Adha is a dietary slaughter of certain animals and is not meat offered to idols, but is done in remembrance of Abraham’s willingness to sac rice his only son, Isaac.

Let us now look into the matter more deeply.

Eid al-Adha food is not offered to idols at all as the above quote demonstrates. The word sacrifice should really be slaughtered. On Eid al-Adha, which comes at the end of the hajj, or monthlong pilgrimage to Mecca, Muslims ritually slaughter a goat or other halal animal in memory of the ram Ibrahim sacrificed in place of his son. Part of the meat is eaten at the feast that is a highlight of the holy day. See here: A good weekend to be a Catholic goat

In fact, the world’s Catholic bishops at the Second Vatican Council approved Nostra Aetate declares that Catholics and Muslims have much in common.

  In 1965, Pope Paul VI and the world’s Catholic bishops at the Second Vatican Council approved Nostra Aetate, the declaration on relations with non-Christian religions. The decree’s denunciation of calumny against Jews gets most of the attention, but it also proclaimed this:

  “The church also regards with esteem the Muslims. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in himself, merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,” although “they do not acknowledge Jesus as God” and regard him as only a prophet. The subsequent Catechism of the Catholic Church likewise defines the belief that “together with us [Muslims] adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

  Such interfaith concord is disputed by some conservative Protestants in the U.S. For example, the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry believes the Catholic Church has “a faulty understanding of the God of Islam,” and Muslims “are not capable of adoring the true God.” Hank Hanegraaff of the “Bible Answer Man” broadcast — now a convert to Eastern Orthodoxy — has asserted that “the Allah of Islam” is “definitely not the God of the Bible.” [Note that “Allah” is simply the Arabic word meaning “God.”] - This is not a trick question: Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

How could it be not permitted when Catholics in Muslim countries deal with this subject in a different way:

  The Indonesian government set June 25 for Eid al-Fitr this year. Indonesia traditionally celebrates Eid al-Fitr over two days.

  Many churches located next to mosques — including Jakarta’s St. Mary of the Assumption Cathedral — postponed Mass June 25 so as not to interfere with Eid prayers. Catholics — including bishops, priests, nuns and laypeople — also visited and greeted Muslims at mosques and in their homes.

  Archbishop Antonio Filipazzi, papal nuncio to Indonesia, paid a courtesy call on Indonesian President Joko Widodo after attending Eid prayers at Istiqlal Mosque in Jakarta.

  Archbishop Robertus Rubiyatmoko of Semarang visited Muslims attending Eid prayers at Central Java Grand Mosque to foster “fraternity among the people of Indonesia.” Other bishops also visited local Muslims leaders.

  “I hope that interfaith life in the archipelago, especially in Central Java, will be much better in future, so that peace and joy can be established,” Archbishop Rubiyatmoko said.

  At churches across Indonesia, Christians offered lunch or gift parcels for poor Muslim families.

  In Jakarta, the archdiocese and Community of Sant’Egidio organized an Eid al-Fitr lunch at the Friendship House in West Jakarta for 160 poor Muslim children and their families.

  “The poor hardly ever have the chance to sit together for meals. So we invited them so they could sit and eat together,” said Piere Doe, coordinator of the event. - To ease tensions, Indonesian Catholics help Muslims celebrate Eid al-Fitr

According to the Church, Muslim halal meat is not sacrificed to idols at all.

  The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that food certified by either the appropriate Jewish authorities as meeting requirements for Kosher certification, or by Islamic authorities as meeting requyirements for Halal certification are foods offered to idols. The Catholic position is that the God of the Jews and the God of Muslims is the same God as the Christian God,, and therefore not an idol.

  In explaining different understandings between most Jews and most Muslims, from the understanding that most Christians have of God, Catholics teach that Jews and Muslims, and frankly many non-Catholic Christians, too, have (at best) an incomplete knowledge of the nature of God. - According to the Roman Catholic Church, is halal meat being offered up to idols?

AthanasiusOfAlex comment to this same answer follows as such:

  Muslims do not assert that thereby they are offering a sacrifice to God. They are simply fulfilling their dietary requirements. That is very different from the situation described in Acts and 1 Corinthians.

Pakistan Church offers Eid guidelines on sacrificial meat:

  Father Inayat Bernard, rector of Lahore's Sacred Heart Cathedral, condemned those who term the Muslim feast as "the devil's sacrifice."
  "Such misconceptions are spread by semi-literate church leaders during this time of the year. They use selected Biblical verses to prove that this feast honors the devil," he told his congregation on Aug. 19.

  "This is Sunnat-e-Ibrahimi (Abrahamic tradition) and relates to a prophet who was revered by three major religions. It is a pure diet and there is no harm in eating it. But do not force others to do so.

  "We should abide by cultural norms and share the happiness of our Muslim siblings. It is a part of living the interreligious dialogue as per Vatican Council II teachings. Nothing is haraam (prohibited and sinful) for us except those things that come out of the human body as stated in the Bible.”

  His sermon was part of a church awareness drive as Muslims in Pakistan finalize preparations for the Islamic festival from Aug. 22-24. - Pakistan Church offers Eid guidelines on sacrificial meat

The Church presently lacks an absolute
definitive answer on the subject: In unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas. End result would be that it is permitted to eat such foodstuffs, but at the same time scandals should also be avoided if occasioned in some particular circumstance.

Addendum*

What exactly do Muslims say when they slaughter halal animals?

It is more exactly the recitation of one of their verses: "In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful".

  The Basmala (Arabic: بسملة basmalah), also known by its incipit Bismillāh (Arabic: بِاسم الله, "In the name of God")[1], is the Islamic phrase bi-smi llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ "In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful".

  This is the phrase recited before each surah (chapter) of the Qur'an – except for the ninth. It is used by Muslims in various contexts (for instance, during daily prayer) and is used in over half of the constitutions of countries where Islam is the official religion or more than half of the population follows Islam, usually the first phrase in the preamble, including those of Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Pakistan, Tunisia, and the United Arab Emirates. - Basmala (Wikipedia)

The method of slaughter is as follows:

  The food must come from a supplier that uses halal practices. Dhabīḥah (ذَبِيْحَة) is the prescribed method of slaughter for all meat sources, excluding fish and other sea-life, per Islamic law. This method of slaughtering animals consists of using a well-sharpened knife to make a swift, deep incision that cuts the front of the throat, the carotid artery, trachea, and jugular veins. The head of an animal that is slaughtered using halal methods is aligned with the qiblah. In addition to the direction, permitted animals should be slaughtered upon utterance of the Islamic prayer Bismillah "in the name of God". Halal (Wikipedia)

Arabic-speaking Christians sometimes use the name Basmala to refer to the Christian Trinitarian formula "In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", as in the tradition of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Muslims do not worship the Holy Trinity. Their false god is an idol/demon (Ps. 95:5: "all the gods of the Gentiles are devils"). Thus, when they prepare food invoking this false god, it is indeed "a sacrifice to idols", even if it is done "in remembrance of Abraham."

As DJClayworth mentioned in his comment, 1 Corinthians 8:1-8 is the relevant scriptural reference. It is on how "things offered up to idols are not to be eaten, for fear of scandal." As St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on these verses mentions, the meat itself is not bad (Titus 1:15: "all things are clean to the clean"), but the scandal that it may give to others for a Catholic to appear to be religiously adhering to a non-Catholic practice.


Heart, Mind, Soul and Spirit Is there a diagrammatic representation of soul, spirit, heart and their components based on the tripartite view of man? I understand there can be overlapping but I'd like to know if there is a visual representation (may be like set diagram) that relates 'heart' to the other components. Similarly, what other pieces can fit the description of heart and how do they exist in the context of spirit and soul?

According to the tripartite perspective, when the scripture says 'heart' does it include the whole spirit and soul? Or does it include some parts of spirit and soul? For example, in verses such as Matt 15: 19, Mark 7:21, and Heb 4:12, thoughts (generally related to 'soul') are also part of 'heart'.

A sample of the sort of think I'm looking for:

Your question contains a small irony. Each component in your quartet (viz., soul, spirit, and heart) is invisible, and you are asking for a diagrammatic representation! (My observation is just an aside.)

If, however, I were to diagram your three highly abstract words, I'd probably draw a heart; you know, the typical Valentine's Day heart, which is probably recognized universally (at least in literate cultures) as a symbol for heart. I'd then draw a straight line down the middle of the heart, from the indented part at the top, to the rounded part, below. I'll explain the diagram later in my answer.

HEART

Let's start with the word heart. The word heart, of course, can be defined both literally and figuratively, with a good deal of overlap between the two, since with virtually all metaphors, separating the figurative from the literal is very tricky indeed! Allow me to ensconce the word heart in a sentence, which I'll use as a springboard for this section of my answer. If I am correct, the word, as ensconced, will have, potentially, great heuristic value.

  "I can just tell that Jim's heart isn't in the project."

So let's say Jim works in the R & D Department of the ACME Mousetrap Company. His department has been charged with "building a better mousetrap," and Jim is heading up the project. Jim has an assistant working with him as liaison between him and all the department heads within the company. The above quotation came from Jim's assistant.

How and why, do you think, Jim's assistant arrived at the conclusion which I've summarized in the words, "I can just tell that Jim's heart isn't in the project"?

If you suggest that the assistant says that Jim

  complains to his assistant how stupid he thinks the project is,
  fails to meet the various deadlines associated with each stage in the project,
  starts delegating too much responsibility to his assistant,
  comes in late to work, takes extra-long lunch breaks, and
  is in the process of revising his resume,

then you'd be spot on regarding the why of my question. The assistant is saying:

  "Jim shows a lack of enthusiasm for the project. Period."

In other words, when someone does not put his or heart into a project, he or she will evince a lack of enthusiasm in attitude. Nonverbal clues alone will clue everyone in that Jim is not a happy camper!

In summary up to this point, then, HEART is revealed in at least some of the following:

  single-minded commitment
  keen interest and focus
  evident enthusiasm and passion

Put differently, your heart involves your entire person--intellect, emotion, and will (or spirit, soul, and body).

A song I heard when I was a kid had a simple title: "Heart," by Van Buren. It's from the Broadway musical, "Damn Yankees!" Its lyrics are as follows:

  HEART (by Van Buren)

  You've gotta have heart

  All you really need is heart

  When the odds are sayin' you'll never win

  That's when the grin should start

  You've gotta have hope

  Mustn't sit around and mope

  Nothin's half as bad as it may appear

  Wait'll next year and hope

  When your luck is battin' zero

  Get your chin up off the floor

  Mister you can be a hero

  You can open any door, there's nothin' to it but to do it

  You've gotta have heart

  Miles 'n miles n' miles of heart

  Oh, it's fine to be a genius of course

  But keep that old horse

  Before the cart

  First you've gotta have heart

The apostle Paul referred to the heart in the following way:

  "and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us (Romans 5:5 NAS).

No wonder the world (in the Johannine sense, as in 1 John chapter 2) links the romantic aspect of heart with the word love!  And rightly it should, minus the worldly aspects of course!

The Scripture, on the other hand, while not unaware of the importance and significance of romantic matters of the heart, emphasizes the function of the heart as the seat of emotions, generally. Paul admonishes us in his letter to the Colossian Christians,

  "Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth" (Colossians 3:2 KJV).

Again, to set one's affection on "things above" requires a commitment of the entire person: intellect, emotion, and will.

SPIRIT

Spirit can frequently substitute for heart, as in

  "I can just tell that Jim is dis-spirited about having to head up the project."

In biblical terms, however, when we think of spirit, we need to think of the God-awareness in each of us, particularly Christians.

Upon being born again, the Christian's spirit became united and indissolubly linked to God's Spirit in an eternal bond. This linkage or union does not automatically result in God-focused, God-honoring, God-pleasing behavior on our part, however. Otherwise, Paul would not have had to say to the Romans,

  "For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot  please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit . . ." (8:6-9a NASB).

I suggest that in these verses Paul equates spirit with mind, even though he does not use the word spirit with a lowercase S. Christians relate to the Spirit--with an uppercase S--with our spirit--with a lowercase S. Furthermore, mind and spirit are two words which frequently denote the same thing; namely, the symbol-mediated (i.e., language-mediated) thought process which fills virtually every waking (and perhaps sleeping) moment of our lives.

That process can be both inner-directed and outer-directed, as we relate to ourselves intra-personally, and to others interpersonally, whether in the silence of our word-mediated thoughts or in verbal and/or nonverbal (including sign language) exchanges with others. When that thought process is directed heavenward, as it were, and toward God, we engage our spirits in communication with the Almighty, through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Helping that process "stay on track," so to speak, is God's word, which is living and active in our lives,

  ". . . sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12 NASB, my emphasis).

SOUL

Interestingly, the writer to the Hebrews tells us God's word targets the division between soul and spirit. Why?

I suggest that soul is that part of the inward process I described above which starts as primarily self-directed and self-motivated thought or ideation, and then is externalized and primarily conscious behavior: I think, therefore I am, therefore I act.

God needs to separate soul from spirit in us because our soul is by nature--the "old nature," that is--self-centered and selfish. True, there is no way for us not to be self-centered in the sense that it is not possible to cease beings ourselves and start living as someone else. Even if we could, we would still be living a self-centered life, but as that other person. As the preacher once said, God doesn't create duplicates, only originals. Even as we begin to grasp the meaning of Paul's words in Galatians 2:20,

  "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me,"

we realize Christ does not desire to take over our identity, personality, and temperament; rather, he wants these things to take on the character of Jesus, and to do so in His strength, not ours.

So the Bible condemns a selfish life and selfish behavior. It labels them as "the flesh" (not "the flesh" as Paul used it in Galatians 2:20, above, where he means "my body").  The Bible enumerates the  "works of the flesh" in Galatians chapter 5:

  "Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,  fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders,  drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (vv.19-21).

Jesus gave us a similar list in Matthew chapter 15 and Mark 7, which I've conflated as follows:

  "'But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, murders, adultery, greed, theft, malice, false testimony, slander, lewdness, envy, deceit, arrogance, and folly'" (v.19 and vv.21-22, respectively, NIV).

Neither Jesus nor anyone else in the Scripture condemned the human body as being somehow evil. Obviously, the body can be a vehicle for "flesh," but it need not be. Just as a married couple can use their bodies within the marriage covenant to give one another sexual pleasure, so also can that same couple experience sexual pleasure in adulterous affairs. The former use is sanctioned and encouraged by God; the latter is proscribed and condemned. Hebrews tells us,

  "Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge" (13:4 NAS).

Come up with the "opposites" of each item in the lists I've quoted above, and you'll get an idea of how God wants us to think and behave in God-honoring ways. Using only Jesus' list in this way, we can turn

  evil thoughts into thoughts about what is true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of a good report, virtuous, and praiseworthy (Philippians 4:8 KJV)
  sexual immorality, adultery, and lewdness are into sexual morality, fidelity, purity, and modesty
  murderous thoughts and actions into life-giving, life-honoring, life nurturing, and life-empowering thoughts and actions
  envy into generosity
  deceit and false testimony into honesty
  slander into only "good reports" and edifying comments to and about other people
  arrogance into humility, and
  folly into wisdom

By doing all the above (and the list is only partial), as the Spirit takes God's word and applies it to the soul-ish, self-conscious part of us, we are sanctified progressively as our minds and behavior patterns are transformed (see Romans 12:2). The result is an increased conformity to the image of Christ (see Romans 8:29).

CONCLUSION

Back to my diagram. If I were more computer savvy, I'd cut and paste something as a visual aid for you. Unfortunately, however, I'm not that computer savvy.

In lieu of a visual aid, then, picture a typical, stylized heart, which represents the invisible aspect of personhood, which for our purposes consists of an admixture of spirit and soul. The physical body is, as it were, the agent of, or vehicle for, the spirit and/or soul. In a biblical hierarchy of values, however, the spirit as a sanctified mind must always trump the soul, particularly when the soul wants to use the body, via the mind/body nexus, as a vehicle for gratifying the desires of the flesh.

I suggest that the heart will always be divided. However, as we mature as Christians, becoming increasingly sanctified (or set apart) by God as vessels of honor, our spirits and our souls will increasingly cooperate with each other, so that our self-conscious self becomes increasingly our God-conscious self. As we increasingly submit, yield, and cooperate with God in His plan for our lives, we experience progression and spiritual maturity. Accordingly, the Spirit of God empowers us in the spiritual discipline of

  "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ . . ." (2 Corinthians 10:5 KJV, my emphasis).

The soul is your entire essence. In programming it would be your object. Your body is the physical representation of your object. Your mind would be similar to dynamically linking libraries of functions and user input. Your heart is like the user, making the decisions based on desires leveled by importance. The spirit is your attitude layer (detailed explaination) and is controlled by Faith and Denial. Faith describes "Faith in God repairing the threatening behavior". Denial describes "Faith in the flesh repairing the threatening behavior or completing the Mosaic Laws of Opposite Equal Reactions".

The Spirit Layer is similar to a Select Case If/Then Run-time.

Case 1: Peace, Love, & Joy
Case 2: Anger
Case 3: Bargaining
Case 4: Depression
Case 5: Anxiety

...Apparent as the psychological Stages of Grief.

{Soul Layer : Start}
{Loop : Start}
    {Active Layer :: $HeartFocus = $ControlledDetermination}
    if ($CurrentLevelOfFaith = "Trust in God to complete Opposite Equal Reaction")
    ....{$SpiritLayer = "Peace, Love, & Joy"}
    if ($CurrentLevelOfFaith = "Trust in Flesh to complete Opposite Equal Reaction")
    ....if ($HeartFocus = "Blame Another"){$SpiritLayer = "Anger"}
    ....if ($HeartFocus = "Desire"){$SpiritLayer = "Bargaining"}
    ....if ($HeartFocus = "Blame Self"){$SpiritLayer = "Depression"}
    ....if ($HeartFocus = "Control"){$SpiritLayer = "Anxiety"}
    ....if ($HeartFocus = "Forgiveness"){$SpiritLayer = "Peace, Love, & Joy"}
    {Mind Calculates Action}
    {Draw Body : Start}
    {Draw Body : End}
{Loop : Go To Loop Start}
{Soul Layer : End}


Trinity (Christians) = Trimurti (Hindus)? I have heard about the concept ot Trimurti in Hinduism Wiki. One for construction (Brahma), one for protection (Vishnu) and one for destruction (Shiva). And somehow I feel it is related to Trinity in Christianity. Are there any relations?

One could do a great deal worse than quote another answer:

  There are several heresies that one needs to be careful of when discussing a topic such as this. For example, Modalism which declares that God is not three distinct persons, but that He merely reveals himself in three different forms. Or, Arianism which declares that Christ and the Holy Spirit are creations of the Father and not one in nature with Him. Or Partialism which declares that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not distinct persons of the Godhead, but are different parts of God each composing a third of the divine.

Each of the different views of the Trimuti within Hinduism falls into one or more of those camps. My analysis (based on Wikipedia) may not be complete, but I posit this:—

Sauram: modalism
Vishaivism: Arianism
Shavism and Smartism: partialism

So: no, apart from both the Trinity and Trimurti being "three", there are no similarities. Specifically, the Trimurti denies that the three gods are wholly three and wholly one.

They are analogous though spoken in different languages and different theologies/philosophies. But there are also many differences, so it is best not to confuse them.
Trimurti, in classical Indian civilisation, is a tripartite way, of looking at the dynamism of the divine reality. In fact, this is close to Hegels conception of the original dynamic divine reality. And I wouldn't be surprised if this is where he got it from. He never acknowledged any of his sources, leaving us to suppose it was all his original work ...
Whereas the trinity, is a hypostasis of God, the Holy Spirit and Christ; but a single divine ousia, that is essence. It is three in one which is how it is understood to be a monotheism, despite its trinitarianism. Personally, I think this is from Christianity's Greek heritage, which notably is also a classical civilisation.
(I should say that personally, I'm a muslim).


How can one "buy" oil and "buy" gold, garments, and eye salve if these things can only attained by grace? From the account of the 10 virgins in Matthew 25, and from the exhortation to the Laodicean Church in Revelation 3:14-22,  What is meant by the instruction to "buy" oil, gold, garments and eye salve? It is my understanding that these all represent items that cannot be purchased by man, but instead were already purchased by Christ's death on the cross and given to man upon acceptance of His sacrifice?

Matthew 25:1-9 (NASB):

  “Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish, and five were prudent. 3 For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, 4 but the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps. Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep. 6 But at midnight there was a shout, ‘Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish said to the prudent, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ But the prudent answered, ‘No, there will not be enough for us and you too; go instead to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.’”

Revelation 3:14-22:

  “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this:‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. ‘So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. ‘Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from Me gold refined by fire so that you may become rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness will not be revealed; and eye salve to anoint your eyes so that you may see. ‘Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. ‘He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. ‘He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’”

They are only available by grace, which is why Jesus asked us to purchase it from Him. The fact that it is free grace does not mean it does not require cooperation from us. If we take the parable of the man who sold all to purchase a field where he believed the treasure was, likewise we should do similarly spiritually - to forsaken our attachment to the things of this world to purchase the things we most need from God.

There is an exchange, it is our heart, our body, our soul. We are to surrender this to Christ. By purchasing the oil, the gold, the robe, the eye salve, we are building on our Christian experience with essentials not from us, going from faith to faith.

The word 'Gold' represents the most valuable thing for God that we have/are, which is our individual, unique, character. no two trees in the forest are the same; no two humans are the same. All things were made for the pleasure of God. But doesn't God know everything already; what new thing could God get pleasure from? God does not know every thing. My true trying began when I left the weekly church fellowship. I was distracted by other voices. Scripture does not teach weekly gathering together. Daniel chapter twelve speaks of a power that shatters/scatters/debilitates the power of Gods Special people. This debilitating power is the weekly gathering together, which substitutes for keeping the Sabbath and the gathering together, thus weakening the blessings of both. When the Spirit draws a fellowship together, this is good; without me Jesus said you can do nothing. Church distracts from hearing the voice of the Spirit. The bon homme of the gathering is mistaken for the spirit of God; the church building can be idolised, even the object which is a Bible can be idolised; the pastor also can be set up as an idol; read the second commandment; and the third; taking the name of God in vane has to do with the verbal; but mostly it has to do with those who have a form of Godliness but deny the power there of; those who draw near to God with their mouths while their heart is far from him...from such God commands, we must turn away.  Where else could you find phoney Godliness except in a church...non church people don't draw near to God with their mouths. Every week I used to shake hands with many of these pretenders we are told to turn away from. The church will not convert these imposters; the imposters convert the church. And so you have Laodicea..neither here nor there; siting on the fence; church keeps you in circles; inhibiting the refining of the character...there is only one mediator between God and man... George Harrison in a song sung: "I don't know why no one told you how to unfold your love" I think un-cakeing your love is more accurate. you can not obey God's commandments without obeying his commands.


Why was the Angel Michael fighting the Devil for Moses' body? I get this from the book of Jude. I know the meaning of the chapter as a whole it's just that this verse stuck out. Does anyone have a clue on this event? Here is the verse for reference.

  Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. [Jde 1:9 KJV]

It appears that the author of Jude was quoting from an apocryphal Jewish scroll known as the Assumption of Moses.

Origen stated in De principiis, III,2,1:

  "We have now to notice, agreeably to the statements of Scripture, how
  the opposing powers, or the devil himself, contends with the human
  race, inciting and instigating men to sin.  And in the first place, in
  the book of Genesis, the serpent is described as having seduced
  Eve; regarding whom, in the work entitled The Ascension of Moses
  (a little treatise, of which the Apostle Jude makes mention in his
  Epistle), the archangel Michael, when disputing with the devil
  regarding the body of Moses, says ..."

A fragment of the Assumption of Moses has been discovered, but it does not include the account of Michael and the devil disputing over the body of Moses, which means that we can not say how this account played out, or why the author of Jude chose to mention it, apart from its apparent support for Jude's theology.

This is generally thought to refer to:

  Zechariah 3:1and 2  Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him. 2  And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?"

Where the body of Moses enters the picture is:

  Deuteronomy 34:5 through 39  So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. 6  And He buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Peor; but no one knows his grave to this day. 7  Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died. His eyes were not dim nor his natural vigor diminished. 8  And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days. So the days of weeping and mourning for Moses ended. 9  Now Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had laid his hands on him; so the children of Israel heeded him, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Moses is the acknowledged author of the Pentateuch, but he obviously was not the one who described his death. Deuteronomy 34:5 through 39 is attributed to Joshua by most Bible students. And if we go back to chapter 3 of Zechariah we find that it is about Joshua and God anointing him to carry on for Moses. I will not quote it here for the sake of brevity, but you can read it for yourself.

Hope this helps.


David and Milkom wore a 75 lb crown, wouldn't that have snapped their necks? 1 Chronicles 20:2 says:

David took the crown from the head of their king --its weight was found to be a talent of gold, and it was set with precious stones--and it was placed on David's head. He took a great quantity of plunder from the city.

A talent of gold is equal to 75 lb, the question is, has archeology ever found crowns this heavy? Most crowns are not recorded in the Bible, so it seems like the author himself found it out of ordinary that a crown would weigh so much (that's why it was recorded). But is there any type of evidence that these type of crowns ever existed? Regardless, wouldn't such weight snap the kings neck?

To me it's just crazy that such a crown could have existed.

Addendum: While digging through the internet I found this: Can One Carry Heavy Things on Their Head Pain-Free? A Review of Geere 2010.

Apparently in rural places of Earth people carry well beyond 75 lb on their heads all the time... Ok, so one question out of the way, now, is there any evidence for such crowns ever made?

First, lets tone down the rhetoric. 75 pounds won't snap anybody's neck — unless of course it is in motion, in which case 75 grams would work too. I've personally had occasion to lift a lot more than that with my head and the neck (even un-excersised) is a pretty strong bit of muscle. In fact in much of the world carrying heavy loads is something you do with your head.

In other words no, managing a crown that heavy would not even have been particularly difficult, much less dangerous. I probably wouldn't have wanted to wear one all day, but for special occasions it is quite a reasonable possibility. Body mechanics allow for it being quite possible.

Second, the weight of a talant was different at different times in history and in different countries. This suggests in this time and place it was probably a bit lighter than your estimate:

  More recent research suggests the “light” standard talent was 67.3 lbs. (30.6 kg). (NET Bible notes)

Admittedly this is more substantial than the 4.9lbs of St Edward’s Crown used in modern English crownings, but kings of old were more known for their strength in battle than modern queens are for their choice in fashion.

Searching for weights of historic crows is proving a bit harder. Their value is always calculated but not always their weight. Jewels are often more the point than the raw metal involved. 60 some pounds of metal does seem a bit unwieldy, but if you're using it only for very special occasions and sitting straight as a ramrod in your throne for show anyway, then I could see it giving the right ambiance.

Or could it have been that men were simply larger 5000 years ago and 75lbs would be nothing to someone say... 8-12 feet tall?
Sounds preposterous to us now, but so did pre-flood men living almost 1000 years.
Ive heard some say thats not possible because David was shorter than Goliath, who stood at 6 cubits. But just what length of arm would that cubit have been measured by?  If the norm 5000 years ago was 8-12 feet tall then a forearm would be substantially longer.