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

For example:

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

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

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

Why pray to Jesus and not to the Father?

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

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

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

  Devotions to the Holy Trinity

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

  Devotions to Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It works out like this.  Study the words of Jesus closely and you will see I am correct on this.  I suggest finding the gospel canon online and pasting it into a word document.  From that point shrink the margins to fit as much on a page as you can and print it on front and back of pages if you can as well.  Then get some multi-colored highlighters.  The Bible is a horrible format for study.  The book is cumbersome, the pages are too fine, and the worded text is far too tiny.
 Do this and you will see there are no contradictions made by Jesus on these points I am about to explain, save for one passage, or two if wish to count the duplicate passage in one other gospel.  This is the much debated "I did not come to destroy the law" passage, the sole passage understandably cited to deny Jesus Christ as the only true path to God the Father.  That said, Jesus refers to the Father as greater than himself only before his crucifixion.   Afterwards he says:

  "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth" (Mat 28:18).

He tells us the Father and he are one, and are to become one:

  "I and the Father are one." John (10:30)

This is the Father, Son, Holy Spirit of Truth.

  “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

The Way is Jesus Christ; the Path to the Father and the Holy Spirit of Truth.

  “It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing.  The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life” (John 6:63).

  “For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” (John 18:37).

  "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24).

Jesus refers to himself as the new and only path to the God the Father.  So you should not really think of Father, Son and Holy Spirit of Truth as different things.  Think of it like a bee hive.  A bee depends on the hive.  Without the hive the bee would die.  So the insect itself is part of a larger entity more powerful than itself, without which none of the rest can exist.  This is what would be referred to as panentheism, and it happens to be exactly what Jesus is speaking of in the gospels. Everything is a part of God.  You can think of this as how we have arms and legs, which, on their own, do not make up a parson.  God moves these parts and they are a part of God.  All one need to do find the Spirit is to seek Truth.

  "Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth."  Mark (12:14)

Jesus is the only path to the Father and to find him you must seek the Truth in the words of the Savior Jesus Christ.  The rest of the Bible is irrelevant according to the words of Jesus Christ, the deliverer of the New Covenant.

  "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."  Luke (22:20)

I know this is not a popular thing to say but it happens to be the consequence of having faith in the statements made by Jesus in the gospels.  Prepare to be shunned if you start trying to explain this to others.  However,

  “Blessed are you when men hate you, and when they exclude you and insult you, and throw out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake” (Luke 6:22).

  “[…] “A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own relatives, and in his own house” (Mark 6:4).

  “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you.  If you were of the world, the world would love its own.  But because you are not of the world, since I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.  Remember the word that I said to you: “A servant is not greater than his master.”  If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.  If they kept my word, they will keep yours also” (John 15:18-20).

  “And you will be hated by all men for my name’s sake, but he who endures to the end will be saved” (Mat 10:22).

Now I will cite all the passages where Jesus names himself as the only path to the Father, and you can decide if you wish to cite one passage about not destroying the law to invalidate the mountain of passages that say the contrary.

  “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth” (Mat 28:18)

  “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

  “It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing.  The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life” (John 6:63).

  “Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him” (John 5:23).

  “Remember the word that I said to you: A servant is not greater than his master” […] (John 15:20).

  “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his lord” (Mat 10:24).

  “Whoever receives me receives him who sent me” […] (Luke 9:48).  “[…] Whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).

  “Truly, truly, I tell you, one who does not enter by the door into the sheep fold, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.  But one who enters in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep” (John 10:1-2).

  “Remain in me, and I in you.  As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you, unless you remain in me.  I am the vine. You are the branches.  He who remains in me, and I in him, the same bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:4-5).

  “…neither does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and he to whom the Son desires to reveal him” (Mat 11:27).

  “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word; and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling place with him.  He who does not love me does not keep my words” (John 14:23-24).

  “But whoever denies me before people, him I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven” (Mat 10:33).

  “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.  By their fruits you will know them.  Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?” (Mat 7:15-16).

  “…everyone who hears these words of mine, and does not do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand.  And the rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell, and great was its fall” (Mat 7:26-27).

  “And no one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; for the patch would tear away from the garment, and a worse hole is made.  Neither do people put new wine into old wineskins, or else the skins would burst, and the wine be spilled, and the skins ruined.  No, they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved” (Mat 9:16-17).

  “No one having torn a piece from a new garment puts it on an old garment, or else he will tear the new, and also the piece from the new will not match the old.  And no one puts new wine into old wineskins, or else the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed.  But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.  No man having drunk old wine desires new, for he says, “The old is good” (Luke 5:36-39).

  "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters." (Mat 12:30).

  "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. (Luke 11:23).

And as denominational theological debates have scattered and divided then so too is the house divided.

  “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand.  And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself.  How then will his kingdom stand?” (Mat 12:25-26).

And no one can serve two masters, as this results in the appearance in contradictory practice, thus why Christ named himself the only teacher and "The Way."

  “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other.  You cannot serve both God (good) and Mammon (evil)” (Mat 6:24).

To sum up what I have just said, all are one and the same but separate parts of the same organism if you will; God.  We become one fully with God upon death by finding the Truth delivered by Jesus Christ.  If you pray to Jesus or to God it makes no difference, Jesus is God and God is Jesus Christ.  The only way to God is through the Truth delivered in the word of Jesus Christ.  The reason mainly this is such a controversial position is because of denominational fracturing, a house divided, among the message delivered by Jesus Christ.

  “Why do you […] disobey the commandment of God because of your tradition?” (Mat 15:3).

  “[…] You have made the word of God void because of your tradition” (Mat 15:6).

  “For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men.  Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition” (Mark 7:8-9).

  “These people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.  And in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine rules made by men” (Mat 15:8-9).


Are Paul's letters to be taken as God's word? Sometimes, as I read the bible or listen to a speaker in church, I can't help but feel that while Paul's letters are full of well-grounded Christian wisdom and advice, they can also contain what seems to me like Paul's human opinions, as opposed to God's own word. I do believe Paul is a true apostle, spoken to by Jesus on the road to Damascus, and an important figure, but he's also just a human man, right?

For me, as a Christian, I would never question or disagree with the words spoken by Jesus in the Bible, no matter how challenging they are, or unpopular they can be in mainstream society. Really, I 100% accept them as the direct word of God, as part of His New Covenant.

But Jesus did not talk about every topic. While answers to the questions that really matter can be found in Jesus' words, the answers to every possible question cannot. And so, I often see an individual, or a church, or a whole denomination establish doctrines and views on certain topics solely by studying the words written by Paul (or other New Testament authors). But how can they be certain in these views, if it's Paul's word they are reading and not God's? How is it any different to reading the words of any other human being, past or present, and using them to form their doctrines?

I've come across the view that Paul's letters are God's word because in 2 Peter 3:14-16, they are referred to as Scripture. But that just begs the same question - who gave Peter the authority to define such a thing? He's human too.

I've also come across the view that Paul's experience on the road to Damascus was an act of validation by God of Paul's authority, and so Paul's letters can be seen a validated by God, and so practically God's own words. But surely that's an opinion - a supposition, not an unequivocal fact.

Some also say that Paul's letters were validated as God's word by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. But again, those guys were humans.

Some just have the faith that God must have intervened in the process of compiling The Bible over the centuries, and so we should assume everything in it is validated as God's own word. But again, Jesus never stated this, it's not a Commandment - it's a human supposition.

When I read Jesus' words in the Gospels, I believe I am reading the unquestionable Word of God.
When I read a Christian book by a modern author, I do so appreciating and learning from the wisdom and advice contained within, but I feel entitled to disagree (or at least not entirely agree) with any of the content.

So my question (and struggle) really is: when I read Paul's letters, should I treat them as (1) or (2) above?

The Apostle Peter certainly treated Paul's letters as God's word, elevating them to the status of written scripture:

  He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

2 Peter 3:16, with my emphasis.

In 1 Corinthians 13 Paul says "For we know in part and we prophecy in part...For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then...Now I know in part..." He said these to people to help them understand his letter. Since Paul, the author said that his understanding is not without limitation; we should not take it beyond what he acknowledged.  In contrast, when Jesus spoke to people, He spoke with full authority all the time since “the Word was with God, and the Word was God…The Word became flesh…” as indicated by John 1.

In Galatians 1 Paul made it clear and specific that “the gospel he preached” is not something that man made up; rather, he received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.  He didn’t claim that everything he preached was based on revelation.  1 Corinthians 7 also indicates that he had expressed his judgment in his letter without command from the Lord.  So, the letters of Paul are the Apostle’s words.  Within the Apostle’s words, however, there are precious revelations of the Word.

So, should we treat Paul’s letters as Jesus’ words in the Gospels (as unquestionable Word of God) or as a Christian book by a modern author (thus entitled to disagree)?  Clearly the second option is unacceptable.  Books of modern authors do not have equivalent credibility as Paul‘s letters and other Apostles’ documents in proclaiming Christ and preaching the Gospel.  No modern books can match the writings in New Testament for preserving Jesus’ words and teaching.  But, should we then treat Paul’s writing equivalent to Jesus’ words? Paul has the answer for us in his own writing. The Gospel preached by him was directly from God, thus the message should be treated as Jesus’ words.  However, for those teachings with some uncertainty and/or personal influence as noted by Paul within the letters, we should not treat them as Jesus’ words in the Gospels.  Instead, we should let the Holy Spirit to guide us to understand them.


According to Protestants following the Reformation, what did Jesus mean when he said "do this and you will live"? According to the Reformers, man is saved by faith alone in Christ alone, through grace alone, and not by any works- anything they can do. Consider the following passage from Luke.

  Luke 10:25–28 (NASB) And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And He said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.”

It seems here that according to Jesus, one lives by doing the Law, since he says the "correct" answer to the Lawyer's question is this commandment of the Law, found in Deuteronomy 6:5. How do the Reformers and Protestants after them who hold to the doctrine of Sola Fide reconcile this verse with that doctrine?

Protestants typically argue that Jesus is explaining how one might be "saved by works," and not suggesting that it is actually possible for the man to accomplish it on his own – on the contrary, he implies that it is impossible.  John Gill's analysis is helpful:

  Our Lord intimates by this, that, according to the tenor of the law, eternal life was not to be had without a complete and perfect performance of the duties of love to God, and to the neighbour, contained in these words; and this he suggests, in order to convict him of the impossibility of obtaining life by the works of the law, since such a performance cannot be made by man.

John Calvin argues that the Law teaches men how they could "obtain righteousness by works" – if someone obeys it perfectly, that person does not need justification.  But no one can obey it.  The lawyer realizes this in verse 29:

  But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (NASB; emphasis added)

Calvin describes his attitude:

  So then, aware that the test of charity would prove unfavorable to him, he seeks concealment under the word neighbor, that he may not be discovered to be a transgressor of the Law.

And in addition to using this statement to make the point that the man was a sinner, Calvin suggests that Jesus intended to rebut the implication that he did not value the Law:

  It was the intention of Christ, in the meantime, to vindicate himself from the calumny which, he knew, was brought against him by the unlearned and ignorant, that he set aside the Law, so far as it is a perpetual rule of righteousness.

Calvin, Commentary
Gill, Exposition

Thomas Constable's treatment is helpful as well.

"It does not apply to us" would be the response of many reformers. There are a number of ways the reformers or the Lutheran faith-alone believers may respond to the work-based teachings of Christ. Martin Luther argued to answer his critics that faith-alone [justification] includes works as inevitable consequent however he could not reconcile with epistle of James, thus rejected it altogether.

Followers after Luther began to somehow find more common grounds or harmony between faith and works teachings. Majority of reformers believe works are optional, not essential for salvation. A major factor in explaining such work based teachings is the underlying assumption of total depravity, that the law is impossible to be fully kept by man.

Then there are [many] Baptists who believe Christ's teachings in Gospels, James and Hebrews do not apply to Christians of new covenant, since the Church is created by Paul, and only his teachings apply to us today. Christ's teachings were of the old covenant and applied only to the Jews. People began to introduce vicarious-obedience theory; implying that Christ fulfilled the law or commandments on our behalf, we need not do anything. To explain away the teachings of Paul regarding everyone is to be judged according to his deeds (Gal 6:2-9 ; 2Cor 13:5-6; 5:10; 1Cor 7:19. Rom 2:6-14; 14:12; Phil 2:12) to be implying a different insignificant judgment of believers on their works which does not affect justification or salvation, it only affects believers' crown or heavenly rewards. It is called Bema Judgment. The teachings of Christ that those who do bear fruits will be cut off and thrown into fire does not represent hell.

A new movement in Megachurches is Hyper-Grace which may be called as re-reformed theology since they have more refined version of Luther's faith-alone and make less attempts to rationalize pro-works teachings. They teach not only works are optional but Preachers must avoid work-teachings. The work based teachings applied to pre-new covenant Jews; they are harmful for Christians and might cut us off from the grace.

Hyper Grace and many Baptist and Calvinist theologians present a solution that the commandments given in the Bible are sarcastic or satirical in nature. God never meant believers to actually do those things he commanded as he knew it to be an impossible task; rather he expected us to grasp the hidden sarcasm behind the whole law or commandments. That mysterious and hidden nature of sarcasm is revealed more clearly by Paul. If one takes those commandments to be literal and in plain sense, it only reflects one's blindness and legalism.

Paul Ellis of New Zealand. is one good example of the reformed theology or hyper-grace movement whose words pretty much sums up the approach of answering the work based teachings in the New Testament.

  What are the commands of Jesus?

  The next time someone tells you that you must keep the commands of
  Jesus to prove your love, ask them, “what are the commands of Jesus?”
  They will probably respond with the greatest commandment which is,
  “love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul” (Mt
  22:38). This is fine, I guess. But if you insert that command into the
  phrase above it becomes, “If you love me, you will love me with all
  your heart, mind and soul,” which is kind of redundant.

  If you read John 14:15 in context, you will see that on this occasion
  Jesus is referring to two specific commands. Here’s the first:

  “A new command I give you: Love one another….” (Jn 13:34)

  And here’s the second:

  “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me…
  Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me;
  or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves” (Jn
  14:1,11)

  How can we be certain that these are His commandments? Because John –
  who was there when Jesus spoke these words – says so in one of his
  letters:

  “And this is His command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus
  Christ, and to love one another as He commanded us.” (1 Jn 3:23)

  What does it mean to keep His commands?

  Lest we dilute His commandments to accommodate our experience, Jesus
  outlines His expectations of obedience for both. Here’s what He
  expects from the first:

  “As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” (Jn 13:34)

  How did Jesus love us? By laying down His life for us (Jn 15:3).
  That’s a high standard of love! Indeed, there is no greater love. And
  what are His expectations regarding the second commandment:

  “I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have
  been doing. He will do even greater things than these…” (Jn 14:12)

  Believe in Jesus and you will do the works of Jesus. Put it altogether
  and Jesus is saying this:

  “If you love me, you will love one another as I have loved you and
  your faith in me will lead to miracles like I have been doing and
  greater miracles still.”

  If you’ve been in any church for at least five years, you will know
  that Jesus’ first commandment is pretty much humanly impossible to
  keep, while the second commandment is definitely impossible. So the
  next time someone tries to lay a heavy burden on you by telling you
  that you must keep Jesus’ commandments to earn God’s love, just ask
  them how many people they’ve raised from the dead! When they look
  puzzled, tell them that Jesus commanded us to believe in Him and He
  said that those who did would do the same works He did and greater
  works besides!


Should Jewish Christians not work on Saturday or Sunday? I am Jewish, and this presents additional issues for me if I am considering Christianity, that non Jewish Christians don't have. For example, as far as I understand the Catholic Church has held that the covenant with the Jews has never been revoked

http://www.jcrelations.net/The_covenant_has_never_been_revoked.2250.0.html
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.560784

I mean if you read your own Bible, you can see a very strong case for believing that the Covenant Israel had with God was binding for ever and on all of their descendants - which includes Jews today:

http://biblelaw101.com/Home/Questions%20on%20the%20Law%20of%20God.htm

So Jews are instructed to rest on the "Sabbath day". And it is indisputable that throughout the entire time of Jewish History, that was the 7th day. Genesis talks about God resting on the 7th day. Yet, the Ecumenical councilat Nicaea ultimately proclaimed that Christians' sabbath should be on the 1st day of the week - which we call Sunday in English.

So what's a Jew supposed to do? When they are a Christian, that is! In your answer, please tell us what your denomination is and what position it holds on the matter.

PS: If your answer includes saying that the Covenant with Israel has been superceded, then please explain how exactly we are supposed to read the verses in biblelaw101.com above

In the book of Romans Paul clearly shows that this is a matter for each individual to make up their own mind about. All Christians have freedom from the Mosaic Law, so decide for yourself what you think will help you to practice godliness and be in the best position to serve others. And keep reconsidering it, because it may be wise to change your decision later.

  One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. (Romans 14:5-9, NIV)

This should be considered a Catholic Response.

Should Jewish Christians not work on Saturday or Sunday? I feel that if you can manage your life to allow time for the day of rest then you have been given an advantage. For projects and work take away from family time and rest. That being said there are exceptions, and there are also ones feeling of guilt.

So let us look to why there was a commandment for the Sabbath. The Jews were being treated as slaves, and (I take a logical guess here) where probably forced to work every day.

Exodus 20:2

  I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

So let us look at this reasonably. If God decided to do the "work" involved in freeing the slaves, what benefit do they receive if they are continued to work as they where forced to do previously?

So that was purpose, let us see from the viewpoint of function. In function the rest is to give peace, rest, and the rebuilding of the bodies. So a problem started to rise within the observance of the day. Not about the observance of the day, but how the day was observed.

Psalm 95:7-11 NKJV

  For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture, And the sheep of His hand. Today, if you will hear His voice: 8 “Do not harden your hearts, as in the rebellion, As in the day of trial in the wilderness, 9 When your fathers tested Me; They tried Me, though they saw My work. 10 For forty years I was grieved with that generation, And said, ‘It is a people who go astray in their hearts, And they do not know My ways.’ 11 So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest.’”

So we can clearly see that how the heart would receive his word, is an important part of observing this commandment. Now logically what is more important? To observe the day with the right heart? Or, to observe the day with the wrong heart? Now if to observe the day with the hardened heart God swore the he would not let the entrance into rest. I choose that observing the day with the good heart is the right choice.

Defining work is important: for what is done out of love, may not be considered work. Things done for money usually are considered work. Yet if that money is for the family, and not for selfish gain, that may also not be considered work. Yet this is from a perspective of conscience. For a radiant attitude can be drawn to scorn when guilt weighs on the mind.

Notice that the rest was taken away with the word "Today".

Psalm 95:7b NKJV

  ...Today, if you will hear His voice

Therefore, we can reason that if the Good Heart is today, then rest can occur today as well!

Hebrews 4:8-11

  For if Joshua had given them rest, then He would not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. 10 For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. 11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.

Now if one enters into the rest "Today" and "Today" occurs "Everyday". Then "Today" also occurs on the "Sabbath". Yet I do also try to treat the Shabbat special, as a time for family and rest.

During the Ecumenical councilat Nicaea Constantine was in a position to create peace and he took it. The original reason for the 1st day of the week - which we call Sunday in English was this:

Some observed shabbat, and did not want to do work on the Saturday. So they where asked to gather on the first day of the week for money collections.

1 Corinthians 16:2 NKJV

  On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come.

When they where gathered, some would eat and get drunk, while others where put to shame.

1 Corinthians 11:22 NKJV

  What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

Therefore there was a call to order.

1 Corinthians 14:33 NKJV

  For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

And a request that all join in the Lord's Supper.

1 Corinthians 11:20 NKJV

  Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.

Since the church members were to be poor. They could fulfill the sacraments.

Leviticus 5:13 NKJV

  ...The rest shall be the priest’s as a grain offering.

For burnt offerings part of were no longer needed for Leviticus 5:11-13.

Isaiah 1:11 NKJV

  To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?” Says the Lord. “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, Or of lambs or goats.

Personally I suggest you take the day. Yet if "Father God" is in need of your body. How can he hold it against you if you do his will? For God is not hypocritical. Yet all things are simplified to love the one next to you as yourself. Also I find that family house work on Sunday provides its own rest in the afternoon. As I have the time to write this for you because of this.

I choose to rest on Saturday, then take service on Sunday at 8 AM at the Catholic Church for the sacrifice, then 10:30 AM at the Assemblies of God for fellowship and praise. Yet each has their own way, and I don't always get to play out my routine. Family trips sometimes gets me driving on Saturday, and I do admit I sometimes load the car, when I could prepare that on Fridays, or unload when we arrive. I feel however that deeds done for family environmental settings for the comfort of my family, or to reduce family anxiety possibilities, all fall within Loving the ones next to me. God has not killed me yet, and if I do these things in error, then I will learn them from him. As of yet however, my heart does not condemn me, and though ignorance is not an excuse. In this I do not believe that I error, that does not mean that I do not. Yet the Lord is merciful, and I am grateful.


How does the Snake in the Desert foreshadow the coming of Jesus? In His conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus referenced the story of the snake in the desert and indicated that it foreshadowed Himself.  How exactly does this story foreshadow Jesus?

  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.    John 3:14 ESV

Numbers 21:6-9 (NIV)

  6 Then the LORD sent venomous snakes among them; they bit the people and many Israelites died. 7 The people came to Moses and said, “We sinned when we spoke against the LORD and against you. Pray that the LORD will take the snakes away from us.” So Moses prayed for the people.

  8 The LORD said to Moses, “Make a snake and put it up on a pole; anyone who is bitten can look at it and live.” 9 So Moses made a bronze snake and put it up on a pole. Then when anyone was bitten by a snake and looked at the bronze snake, they lived.

I believe the key here is the type of action that was taken "raising up" and the result of that action "healing". If you recall the people of Israel were struck with a plague of snakes. To alleviate the plague Moses was instructed to raise up a bronze snake and all who looked at the snake were healed.

Jon 3:14-15(NIV)

  14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

We are bitten with a plague of sin, Christ was raised up on the Cross. Those who look to Christ are healed. I also don't think its a coincidence that the plague was snakes. This goes back to more snake imagery involving Jesus from Genesis:

Genesis 3:15(NIV)

  15 And I will put enmity
     between you and the woman,
     and between your offspring and hers;
  he will crush your head,
     and you will strike his heel.”

Jesus' coming was foreshadowed with snakes as far back as Genesis, this is a continuation of that theme.

In the Old Testament the people were healed of sickness and death. In Jesus we are healed of sickness and death. As long as people keep believing that we are healed from sin alone Gods people are going to continue to die of sicknesses. My people perish from a lack of Knowledge, God says. When we look at a cross section of the Church we see that there is just as much sickness as the world, just as much cancer, obesity, diabetes, you mane it. It is time we allow ourselves to profit from Jesus in this life not just the next.


Why Jews are the chosen people? Are the Jewish people the chosen and if so why?...My uneducated Grandmother always said the the Jewish people were the chosen because they were the only people who kept God's laws at that time..such as, feast of the tabernacle, fest of unlevened bread..etc..I am confused. If not born Jewish, are the rest Gentiles? And if the Jewish are the chosen people why are they blinded to the first coming of Christ?

You really have to define "chosen" here. The Jewish people were "chosen" by God to reveal His Law to, an to have the Tanakh-primised Christ come out of. But as of the time Christ came, the "chosen" are those who have believed that Jesus is the promised Messiah and who have kept His commandments (it's a different topic as to what these are and what defines the keeping):

  "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he
  gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12), "'Abraham is
  our father,' they answered. 'If you were Abraham's children,' said
  Jesus, 'then you would do what Abraham did" (John 8:39).

Jesus Christ said that those who keep the Law, besides His commandments, and teaches others so (at least the parts of the Law that were not directly abolished by the New Testament like having to sacrifice animals for atonement from sins - Christ became the ultimate sacrifice once and for all time, see Hebrews 10:12), would be called the greatest in heaven, while those who don't and teach others so, would be called the least in Heaven:

  "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the
  smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means
  disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore
  anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches
  others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but
  whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in
  the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:18-19).

The reason many Jewish people are blinded as to the coming of Christ is because it is written in the prophets that it would eventually be so, see Isaiah 53:3:

  "He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and
  familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was
  despised, and we held him in low esteem".

Gid set aside Noah in order to save himanity. Then, once humanity continued to sin, he set aside Abraham, out of all peoples and nations to build a representative people. Of Abrahams descendants, he chose Issac, then Selected Jacob,. Then he chose Judah's bloodline out of the twelve tribes to carry the genetic material he would use for psrents. Originally, it would have been the tribe of Benjamin, if Saul had not been so rebellious. Through King David, the bloodline if Judah therefore, becsme the bloodlind if the kingship.

The Jews were chosen to be a royal priesthood to all nations and peoples., They had the job to keep and uphold tve history of the world, to remain clean and set-apart (which God now commands Christisns to do), to be disciplined in all things and to maintain and transmit to all people the will of God. They, being himan, blew most of that.

They kept the history from the beginning of time, then specifically kept the history of the twelve tribes so as to show (so the truth would not be corrupted or forgotten). The seriousness of that role is found in the requirement for each male to make an accurate copy if Torah.

Finally, first via Abraham and his half sister Sarah, the genetic line of Adam and Eve were maintained uncorrupted, and the right to kingship until Jesus was born. After that, the tribes were scattered so that the seed of Abraham could be sprtead out among the other nations and ssnctify them despite the corrupt genes.

The key here is that st some point, the Roman Catholic Church sought to eradicate tbe Jews and then became the stewards of scripture, which slthough they denied access to most people for centuries, they did finally relinquish.

Because God set the Jews aside as his chosen eimmersaries"  we have the evidence of God today. Praise God for choosing them.


Was Elohim the Saviour and Redeemer of his world? According to Mormon doctrine, God the Father (Elohim), once lived a mortal life.

  “As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.”  ( The
  Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1984], 1.)

Years ago I remember being told that God the Father did not live simply as another man, but that he was in fact the Saviour and Redeemer of his world, much as Christ is the Saviour and Redeemer of ours. He lived a sinless life, like Christ, and suffered for the sins of all his brothers and sisters.

I confess that I've never bothered to look into the sources behind this claim, but now I'm wondering, who said this? Which church leader is credited with revealing this?

I'm not necessarily asking for a canonical LDS source, I just want to know where this claim comes from, be it Journal of Discourses, a letter, hear-say, or wherever.

This idea actually dates all the way back to Joseph Smith.  I've been able to find a couple different quotes from him that touch on the subject, from a couple different sermons he gave:

As the Father hath power in Himself, so hath the Son power in Himself, to lay down His life and take it again, so He has a body of His own. The Son doeth what He hath seen the Father do: then the Father hath some day laid down His life and taken it again
-- History of the Church 5:426
I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning.
-- History of the Church 6:373

Isaiah 42:8

8“I am יהוה, that is My Name, and My esteem I do not give to another, nor My praise to idols.

In Hebrew He is referred to as YHVH

The word Elohim is the plural of El ( meaning strong one) and is the first name for G-d given in the Tanakh: “In the beginning, G-d (Elohim) created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1):

The name Elohim is unique to Hebraic thinking: it occurs only in Hebrew and in no other ancient Semitic language. The masculine plural ending does not mean “gods” when referring to the true G-d of Israel, since the name is mainly used with singular verb forms and with adjectives and pronouns in the singular (e.g., see Gen. 1:26). However, considering the Hashalush HaKadosh (Trinity), the form indeed allows for the plurality within the G-dhead.

In the traditional Jewish view, Elohim is the Name of G-d as the Creator and Judge of the universe (Gen 1:1-2:4a).

“The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to those, You want to know my name? I am called according to my actions. When I judge the creatures I am Elohim, and when I have mercy with My world, I am named YHVH” (Ex R. 3:6).

In the second creation story (Genesis 2:4b-ff) the Name of G-d is revealed as the Sacred Name YHVH (from the semitic root that means “to be”) and expresses the idea of    G-d’s closeness to humans. YHVH “breathed into his (Adam’s) nostrils the breath of life” (Genesis 2:7).

Elohim and Elohei ConstrElohim is combined with other words to provide additional description about G-d. These other names or titles for Gd are sometimes called “construct forms,” indicating that they are “constructed” from the base name (e.g., Elohei) with other designators.

For each name in the list below, I provide the following information:

The Hebrew text for the name
The most common English transliteration (in italics). A definition for the name, references to the Tanakh.


Did the myth of the holy grail originate from Catholicism? Or its practices? Catholic church sanctioned holy wars suggest they didn't think the Holy Grail a myth back then.

The question is about its' origins, source.

Although the Grail folklore seems to stem from the same centuries as the crusades due to Arthurian legends. Here is a little insight to its' origins. The origins are a mix of cultures. The medieval Church took no official stance on Grail folklore.

  The Roots of the Holy Grail

  Academic consensus gives the Grail a Celtic origin. The foremost campaigner for this view is Arthurian scholar Roger Sherman Loomis, whose book, The Grail: From Celtic Symbol to Christian Myth (1963), traces it to Irish tales of cauldrons and drinking horns that never run empty as well as accounts of journeys to the Happy Otherworld. The maiden Grail-bearer is based on the personified Sovereignty of Ireland, a woman who gives her cup only to the worthy. These elements were transmitted to Wales, then to Brittany, with Breton storytellers spreading them around northern France where the medieval romances first appeared. Loomis assumes that the material had been much altered by misunderstandings and oral process: There was no one "original" Grail myth.

  But it was the connection with the Holy Eucharist that fixed the Grail in medieval minds. The old myths might never have gained such popularity without the Christianization that brought them in line with medieval iconography and devotional practice.

  Grail romances appeared just as Eucharistic devotion was gaining favor, expressed in the elevation of the Host during Mass, Corpus Christi processions, preachers' parables, and miracle stories. Hosts that levitate, bleed, discriminate among recipients, serve as the sole food of saints, and reveal visions of Christ appear often in Eucharistic miracles and in Grail adventures. Devout contemplation of the elevated or exposed Host was believed to convey not only grace but well-being and protection, as does an encounter with the Grail.

  The medieval Church took no official position on Grail romances. But the cathedral of Valencia claims to possess the actual vessel, a red stone cup from the time of Christ mounted as a splendid chalice during the Middle Ages. Its legend — which owes nothing whatever to the romances — claims that it was sent to Spain by the Roman martyr St. Lawrence. Donated to the cathedral in 1437, it's kept in a special chapel and was once used for Mass by Pope John Paul II. - The Real History of the Holy Grail

Valencia Chalice

  Pope John Paul II himself celebrated Mass with the Holy Chalice in Valencia in November 1982. In 2006 at Valencia, Pope Benedict XVI also celebrated with the Holy Chalice, on this occasion saying “this most famous chalice”, words in the Roman Canon said to have been used for the first popes until 4th century in Rome, and supporting in this way the tradition of the Holy Chalice of Valencia. - The Holy Chalice of Valencia: Is it the Holy Grail?

The answer is no, the legend of the Grail does not source to Catholicism.
 According to NewAdvent.org who offers the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Catholic Church basically ignored the legend of the grail.

  A word as to the attitude of the [Roman Catholic] Church towards the legend. It would seem that a legend so distinctively Christian would find favour with the Church. Yet this was not the case. Excepting Helinandus, clerical writers do not mention the Grail, and the Church ignored the legend completely. After all, the legend contained the elements of which the Church could not approve. Its sources are in apocryphal, not in canonical, scripture, and the claims of sanctity made for the Grail were refuted by their very extravagance. Moreover, the legend claimed for the Church in Britain an origin well nigh as illustrious as that of the Church of Rome, and independent of Rome. It was thus calculated to encourage and to foster any separatist tendencies that might exist in Britain. As we have seen, the whole tradition concerning the Grail is of late origin and on many points at variance with historical truth.

I highlighted a couple of lines about which comments must be made.  First as to its point about a possible source, since when does the Catholic Church reject beliefs simply because it is not in Scripture?  It doesn't.  The real reason the Catholic Church supposedly ignored the Grail was because if true, its origins would place England as equal to, if not above, Rome, and certainly independent of her.  Don't go searching for something that, if found, harms your credibility.

If one knows the history of the Easter controversy, one could probably understand this more deeply.  So, long before Rome arrived, which NewAdvent is giving a nod to, Christians had arrived who observed Pascha (Easter like) on the 14th of the moon.  When Rome finally arrived later, there was controversy over this because Rome observed the Sunday following the full moon following the Spring Equinox.

PS. The Valencia Chalice is not the Grail.


Catholicism: Memento Mori in Christianity? In this video, the priest says that Memento Mori is an  integral part of Christianity. He says that priests and nuns used to place skulls on their desks to remind them of their impending death. I have few problems with that:

It doesn't seem a christian thing to do
It's creepy
Most importantly, you are stealing someone skull from the grave, according to Christianity, we should be buried, even if you take the skull of a none christian, it's disrespectful.

What does the Catholic Church has to say about that?

Memento Mori, or remembering one's death/mortality in order to live well, is definitely a Christian tradition rooted in Scripture (see Sirach 7:36, Psalm 90:12, Luke 9:23).

As for the skull on the desk, I think Father Schmitz is probably referring to something that I started on Twitter. I keep a skull on my desk (ceramic) to remind me of my death and started tweeting about it last year. The founder of my religious order, Blessed James Alberione, also keep one on his desk (also not real) to remind him of his inevitable death. I have found evidence of a couple other people in the history of the Church who kept skulls on their desks as a memento mori. Pope Alexander VII commissioned a marble skull from Bernini to keep on his desk. Saint John Fisher reportedly kept a skull on his desk and his table when he ate. If real skulls were ever used to meditate on death, I assume they were kept respectfully as relics and not used as mere props. Today, keeping a real human skull on one's desk definitely would not be appropriate according to Catholic teaching as human remains should be buried.

St. Jerome and other saints have done this:


How has apostolic succession been "unbroken" in the wake of depositions, antipopes, immorality, and simony? In studying the history of the papacy one discovers all sorts of events that are interesting when considered in the context of apostolic succession from St. Peter until today, including, but not limited to:

Instances of popes being involuntarily deposed by conquering sovereigns and replaced with one sympathetic to that conqueror.
Instances of contention over the papacy by two or even three popes simultaneously, accompanied by multiple colleges of cardinals and bishoprics.
Instances of nepotism and dynastic possession of the papacy by aristocracy and politicians.
Instances of popes engaging in orgies, conspiracies, accepting bribes, fathering children, and even committing murder.
Instances of the papal office being sold.

Is the nature of apostolic succession meant to be an unbroken succession of valid popes? How does the Catholic Church address these events and the manner of succession when making the claim (from New Advent):

  The fact is indisputable: the Bishops of Rome took over Peter's Chair and Peter's office of continuing the work of Christ. To be in continuity with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary, for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors.

Apostolic succession and Papal succession are not one and the same.

Is the nature of apostolic succession meant to be an unbroken succession of valid popes?

No. Rather the nature of apostolic succession is meant to be an unbroken succession of valid bishops.

Not just the pope, but all Catholic bishops have unbroken apostolic succession. In other words, for a person to become a bishop (even the bishop of Rome - aka pope), he has to be consecrated (Laying on of hands) by another a validly consecrated bishop. Who in turn should have been validly consecrated by another validly consecrated bishop...... If we keep backtracking like this, we will end up with one of the thirteen apostles (The Twelve + Paul). This is considered to be unbroken line of apostolic succession.

Popes might validly succeed each other if and only if they have proper apostolic succession (i.e they are validly consecrated bishops). This is why Stephen II is not considered a pope.

The quote you have mentioned talks about continuity in the see of peter. That is the continuity in papal succession. In other words, there is no time in history of papacy where the see of peter (or the post of the pope) is deserted with no claimants and no conclave was held to elect his successor. Note that the see could be vacant, but during that time the conclave could be taking place. This is what is called unbroken line of successors of Peter.

Instances of popes being involuntarily deposed

New popes are not considered valid unless the previous pope submits to his authority. (As in deposing of Pope John XII and Pope Leo VIII's invalid first election)

Instances of contention over the papacy by two or even three popes simultaneously

Even though at the time when this was happening, it was unclear as to who is the legitimate successor, we can be sure that at least one of them was legitimate. In other words, the see of peter was not vacant. (Retrospectively we can determine the legitimate successor.)

Instances of nepotism and dynastic possession ... popes engaging in orgies, conspiracies, accepting bribes ....

Sinfulness of the person holding the office does not invalidate the office itself.

Instances of the papal office being sold.

If a reigning pope resigns for money, it is a sin (Simony). Like all sins this is also a voluntary act. Hence he will cease to be pope.

Here's what the First Vatican Council says regarding the perpetuity of the Petrine office (ch. 2 "On the Perpetuity of the Primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs"):

  That which the Prince of Shepherds and great Shepherd of the sheep, Jesus Christ our Lord, established in the person of the blessed Apostle Peter to secure the perpetual welfare and lasting good of the Church, must, by the same institution, necessarily remain unceasingly in the Church; which, being founded upon the Rock, will stand firm to the end of the world.

Notice, it did not say: "There will be an occupant of the chair of Peter at all times." Perpetuity refers to the institution of the Papacy, not the holders of the office. Otherwise, even interregnums (i.e., the period of time between the death of a Pope and the election of his successor) would "break" the Apostolic succession.

It's also entirely possible and in-line with Catholic theology that Pope Pius XII was the last valid Pope, as sedevacantists* today believe. Even if the world ended today, this would not mean the Petrine office ceased at the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. And nothing in Catholic theology says interregnums cannot be 57+ years.

*(from the Latin: "sede vacante" meaning "vacant chair")


What practical effect do stock worship phrases, like "God be magnified", have? In our worship to God many times we utter phrases like "God I magnify you" or "God be magnified". I used to wonder, is God really magnified by saying those words? How can we really magnify God or have him magnified?

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

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

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

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

What utter from our lips come from our heart. When we say God be magnify ,your whole being, in whatever you say or do you do it all in the name of Jesus.


Criteria for translation I know there are a TON of translations out there and that some people prefer things like King James Only. But I was wondering: What are some good criteria for choosing a translation and why?

I would propose the following criteria for selecting an English Bible translation:

faithfulness to the original languages
translation philosophy (thought-for-thought, word-for-word, or paraphrase)
usage of the best texts/manuscripts available
readability

These criteria are purely subjective, therefore some theological traditions will prefer various manuscripts or translation philosophies over others.

Faithfulness to the original languages

Is the translation based on the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts? Or is it based on an existing translation? Is the translation consistent? Does it take recent scholarly linguistic and philological data into account? Does it allow the New Testament to inform how the Old Testament is translated? Are masculine pronouns translated as gender-neutral where grammar allows? Is there a clear theological bias (translations produced by sectarian groups or individuals often have a determined bias).

Translation philosophy

A thought-for-thought translation is known as dynamic equivalent, while a word-for-word translation is called formal equivalent. A paraphrase involves restating the meaning of a given passage in other words. Essentially this is a metric of how literal a translation is (does it follow form or meaning?). Remember that both form and meaning can be important; this is a subjective decision (just like all of the other criteria).

Usage of the best texts/manuscripts available

Some theological traditions have defined manuscripts/texts that are to be considered authoritative. Others tend to trust certain "families" of manuscripts more than others (Byzantine/Majority vs. Alexandrian, etc.). Others would prefer critical texts produced with the best quality scholarship that take early translations and manuscript variants into account.

Readability

This criteria is often overlooked. There is some truth to the old saying that "the best Bible translation is the one you read." Who cares how well it meets the other criteria if you can't comprehend what you're reading? Some translations are harder to read than others.

The best translation is a purely subjective choice that factors in these criteria. Some may consider certain criteria to be more important than others, while others may wish to balance all of them equally.

I have 28 bible translations in my bible study program. When I teach I use the Bible that is authorized by the Church I am in. You should use the Bible that your Pastor or Priest uses, otherwise you will be in conflict with the doctrine of your Church.
Each Bible translation has been commissioned by a particular religious entity in such a way as to support the doctrine of that entity. No two Bible translations use exactly the same words. Some Bibles disagree on sentences and even entire verses are missing in some Bibles. There are 80 books in the Anglican Bible but only 67 in Protestant Bibles. It would be confusing to use a catholic bible for protestant study. If you are Anglican you would read the English King James version and not the Baptist version of the KJV, which excludes 13 books of the OT.
Greek Orthodox use a different OT to Roman Catholics. And  so on.
So, stick with the Bible your Pastor or priest uses. If you want to branch out and find out what the Catholics or Anglicans teach, then select their Bibles - be warned, the theology is quite different, and their Bibles support their theology.


What is the basis for Lombard's view that the basis of justification for OT men was different than for OT women? While reading J. V. Fesko's The Theology of the Westminster Standards, I found an interesting tidbit in the context of his discussion of justification in Reformed theology:

  Medieval theologians such as Lombard argued that Old Testament men were justified through circumcision and women were justified by their faith and good works.

Reformed theology, of course, rejects this idea, holding that justification is by faith alone (not circumcision nor good works).  But the idea that men were justified on a different basis than women is still intriguing, so I'd like to better understand the view.

What is the basis for arguing that men and women in the OT were justified through different means?  More specifically, here are a few aspects of the question:

What is the biblical and logical basis for such a view?
Why would there be two means of justification, one for men and one for women?
Why would men not also be justified on the basis of "faith and good works"?
Would faith thus not be required for men to be justified?

I'd like to restrict the question to the views of Lombard and other scholastics – here I'm not looking for post-Reformation versions of this view.

Full study: Medieval Readings of Romans

But of course, Lombard's view is based on the incorrect assumption that circumcision started with Abraham.

The practice of circumcision predates Judaism by more than 10.000 years. Circumcision is the world's oldest planned surgical procedure, suggested by anatomist and historian Grafton Elliot Smith to be over 15,000 years old, pre-dating recorded history.

The Semites most likely copied the practice from the Sumerians. Abraham is believed to have had circumcision performed on himself and on all male relatives and servants in his household whether of Semitic origin or not, as a mark of the covenant between his God and these people, known thereafter as His Chosen People, the Children of Israel.  Historians date this as around 1800 BCE, clearly long after circumcision was introduced by the Sumerians and Semites.

So just as some have assumed that circumcision started with Abraham, so others like Herodotus have incorrectly suggested that the Children of Israel introduced it into Egypt during their captivity around 1200 BCE.

Evidence exists that ritual circumcision was being performed by the Egyptians as early as 2300 BCE, confirmation of this being a wall
painting from Ankhmahor, Saqqarah, Egypt (dated in the eighth Dynasty, 2345–2182 BCE)

Now that we have established circumcision clearly predates Judaism, it is logical to search for the origin of this dualistic gender-based justification in customs that predate Judaism as well. Egyptian circumcision was used to demarcate a special elite class, very much like in the Abrahamic tradition, it is used to set apart the "chosen". Priests were the custodians of both secular and religious knowledge and they played a significant role in offering sacrifices to the Egyptian gods. Priests were expected to be pure morally and in physical appearance. The presence of the foreskin was regarded as a sign of female sexual organ and impurity and hence it was to be removed. As purity was a status of higher rank and a coveted attribute, the practice of circumcision, which originally was prescribed for the priests, ultimately became adapted by all men.

Priestesses in Ancient Egypt, on the other hand, were not circumcised and usually served in the temples of female deities. Those who served Isis were instructed to perform good deeds every day, such as anonymously donating to the poor. Detailed instructions for daily good deeds, rituals and sacrifices date back to the earliest dynasties.


Why did Ezekiel say that God gave laws to the people that were not good? Ezekiel 20:23-25

  23 I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries; 24 Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols. 25 Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live;

Here we have God, speaking through Ezekiel, saying that he had given the people bad statutes (or laws in some translations) whereby they should not live (or by which they die, again depending on translation).

The only thing that I can figure is that Ezekiel, being from the priestly class, would have been more in favor of the stricter laws given Leviticus. He thought the laws given in Deuteronomy (like only having to sacrifice in the temple once a year, akin to Christians going to Church once a year) were leading the people to death. However, even given the interpretation, it is still a bit disturbing that we have God saying that he purposely gave the people bad laws that they could not live by. You get the picture of pious Jews, trying to live righteously, following the law, only they have been tricked by God himself.

What is going on here? I am not able to understand or interpret this scripture.

Ezekiel 20:25 is not referring to any laws which God had decreed, but the laws which the people had made on their own.  Since the people would not follow God's laws, he left them to their own laws.  For instance, the NLT says "I gave them over to worthless decrees and regulations that would not lead to life."

The laws he is referring to here are the ones from verse 18.

  Ezekiel 20:18 NIV
  18 I said to their children in the wilderness, “Do not follow the
  statutes of your parents or keep their laws or defile yourselves with
  their idols."

Ezekiel was writing at a time of transition between polytheism and monotheism. The Bible pictures the Israelite religion as pure, monotheistic and different from the false worship of all other nations and peoples. Lester L. Grabbe says in Ancient Israel, page 150, this is the surface image, at least.  We now know that during the early monarchy (prior to 722 BCE), the nations of Israel and Judah had been polytheistic, although undoubtedly Yahweh (YHWH) was the chief, national God. Mark S. Smith says in The Early History of God, page 11, that monotheism (as we understand Judaism today) was ultimately a product of the Exile; but the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem is only reported a little later, in Ezekiel chapter 21.

Josiah, king of Judah from 641 to 609 BCE, introduced the Deuteronomistic reforms intended to usher in the monotheist worship of Yahweh. The untimely death of Josiah ended this, with the partial restoration of polytheism under Josiah’s successors (see 2 Kings 23:31,37). Now Ezekiel, who became a a priest to Yahweh during the time of Josiah, blames every misfortune that befalls Jerusalem, on the affront caused to Yahweh by the open worship of other gods. So it is in this context that he is writing of the anger of God (Yahweh) towards the idolatrous people "Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols." His reference to "their fathers' idols" shows that Ezekiel knew that the ancestors had used idols for worship, but for the present generation this was wrong.

You get the picture of pious Jews, trying to live righteously, following the law,
only they have been tricked by God himself.

The picture should be clearer now. Ezekiel was committed to Yahweh as the only God of the Jews, and was exerting his influence to guide them back to the vision of King Josiah and his Deuteronomistic reforms. According to the dominant Documentary Hypothesis, it is unlikely that the Book of Leviticus had been written at this stage.


Who is the speaker and who is "him" in Daniel 11:1 according to the Seventh-day Adventist? Daniel 11:1 New American Standard Bible In the first year of
Darius the Mede, I arose to be an encouragement and a protection for
him.

In my own interpretation, the speaker is Jesus and the "him" is an angel named Michael.
From the internet I know that the Seventh-day Adventist holds that Michael = Jesus (or vice versa, Jesus = Michael). Hence, my interpretation is wrong in the point of view of Seventh-day Adventists.
I've already tried to search in the internet to find out how Seventh-day Adventists interpret Daniel 11:1... but I can't find one. I did find some articles about Daniel 11 from (I think) the point of view of Seventh-day Adventists, but it either starts from Daniel 11:2 or Daniel 11 as a whole.
So I put my question here.

I'll try to answer your question. As a Seventh-day Adventist, I have some inside information. :)
But before we get to the answer, it is important to understand some things about Seventh-day Adventists.

We have a set of beliefs that we regard as fundamental (click here for our list of 28 Fundamental Beliefs), but even those are not set in stone. They are subject to change. As the preamble to the 28FB states: Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference Session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word. The Bible is the "definitive revealer of doctrines" (see FB 1). We take Isaiah 8:20 seriously.
We hold the Bereans in high esteem. (See Acts 17:11.) We check everything by the law and the testimony. Hence, beliefs are subject to change over time.
Like most groups, and maybe even more than normal, we are not monolithic. We have no creed but the Bible, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that we don't all agree on everything. There are even those who question some of the FB. But that's OK, for the most part. One of my favorite activities with some very close friends is discussing controversial beliefs. It is not uncommon for 3 of us to get together and have 3 different points of view on any given topic.
Given all this, you should not trust too much what you read on the internet about us, even if the writer is one of us, including me. Strictly speaking, getting an answer from a Seventh-day Adventist gets you the answer for that specific Seventh-day Adventist.
The most "official" publication is the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, and Daniel 11:1 is not on the list. Sorry.

Now, to your question: Who is the speaker and who is “him” in Daniel 11:1 according to the Seventh-day Adventist? The speaker is Gabriel and "him" is Darius.
The second most "official" publication is the S.D.A. Bible Commentary, so I'll start there. (However, many Seventh-day Adventists, including myself, do not regard it as authoritative and normative. Remember, the Bible is our only creed.)

The angel is telling Daniel of an event that took place in the first year of Darius. In that year Darius the Mede had been honored of Heaven by a visit of the angel Gabriel “to confirm and to strengthen him” (PK 556). Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, Volume 4, page 127

You see PK 556 in that quote. That's a reference to a book by Ellen G. White, who most of us consider to have been given the Spiritual gift of prophecy. Here's what she wrote:

Daniel’s prayer had been offered “in the first year of Darius” (verse 1), the Median monarch whose general, Cyrus, had wrested from Babylonia the scepter of universal rule. The reign of Darius was honored of God. To him was sent the angel Gabriel, “to confirm and to strengthen him.” Daniel 11:1. Ellen G. White, Prophets and Kings, page 556

Here's another quote from her.

Daniel’s prayer in behalf of his people, as recorded in the ninth chapter, was “in the first year of Darius” the Mede. Darius was favored of heaven; for in the first year of his reign the angel Gabriel “stood up to confirm and to strengthen him.” Ellen G. White, The Review and Herald, March 21, 1907

Now here are more quotes from other sources that are more or less well-respected by Seventh-day Adventists.

In Daniel 5:30, it is said: "In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And  Darius the Median  took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old." And in Daniel 11:1, the same angel of the tenth chapter says: "Also I  in the first year  of Darius the Mede, even  I stood  to confirm and to strengthen him." Darius reigned two years, when he died, and Cyrus succeeded to the kingdom; and as the angel stood with Darius the Mede; and with Cyrus in his third year, to influence him so that Daniel's prayer could be answered, it is certain that it was by the influence of his holy angel that the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus to let go the captive people of God. Alonzo T. Jones, The Signs of the Times, February 11,  1886, page 91

But in the conquest of Babylon, Cyrus was only the leader of the forces. The kingdom and rule were given to Darius the Mede; for, said Daniel to Belshazzar, on the night when Babylon fell, "Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." Then the record proceeds: "In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain. And Darius the Median took the kingdom." Of him we read in Daniel 11:1,  the words of the angel Gabriel to the prophet: "I, in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him." Alonzo T. Jones, The Two Republics, page 669

The angel of the Lord had stood by Darius the Mede “to confirm and to strengthen him” (Daniel 11:1) in executing the purpose of God upon Babylon. Jeremiah 51:11-14. And through the faithfulness of Daniel, Darius had been brought to the knowledge of the true God. The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald May 17,  1898, page 316 (I believe this is Alonzo T. Jones also, but can't confirm.)

The Medo-Persian empire was born when the time was ripe for Israel's deliverance from the bondage of Babylon. The first king of the united empire was Darius the Mede. He was a man well advanced in life when he came to the throne; threescore and two years old, the record states. But throughout his reign, Gabriel stood by him "to confirm and to strengthen him." Stephen N. Haskell, The Story of Daniel the Prophet, page 161

The angel, after stating that he stood, in the first year of Darius, to confirm and strengthen him, turns his attention to the future. Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 1909 edition, page 247

Daniel 11:1 does not contain a significant point of doctrine to us so you won't find a significant treatment of it. I have to admit that I have spent more time researching the verse for this answer than the rest of my life combined. It's just fairly straightforward to us that Gabriel supported Darius.
Most of the material I found was from A. T. Jones. I haven't read his stuff, but I suspect that it has a lot to do with civil rights. You can follow the links I provided to dig through our online databases.


Was Jesus an adherent to 'Sola Scriptura'? Adherents to Sola Scriptura basically believe that Scripture should be the foundation of all doctrine.  (NOTE: That is not to say that outside sources cannot be used to aide us in understanding the text - see here.)

Based on what we know about Jesus from Scripture, could Jesus be considered an adherent to this philosophy?

The answer is simply: No.
One way to prove it, is to take the verse where Jesus says:

"Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." (Luke 10:16)

That means, that whatever the apostles say, is Jesus' teaching. Then we can take Paul's words to the Thessalonians in chapter 2 verse 15:

"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (NIV)

This is saying to hold to the scriptures and oral teaching. One link that might prove helpful is here, asking: "Sola Scriptura vs. the Magisterium: What did Jesus Teach?". One that deals with just Sola Scriptura can be found here.

One link that might have an answer, says:

Did not Jesus say, "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. . . ." [Matthew 28:19] Of course this admonishes them to teach; it says nothing about writing. And the Bible itself says nothing about it being the sole source of God’s revelation.

Anyways, that is just my opinion and it may be a little biased. One thing to think about, is that for the first couple hundred years, there was no "New Testament". The last of the gospels by John, was written by A.D 85 or later.

I agree with you that:

If a person teaches something contrary to Scripture, they are wrong.

But sometimes things may seem contrary and actually be true to each-other. Here is a link that explains some things that seem to contradict each-other in the bible, but just need a little explanation (I know that that is both sources from the bible, but it is basically the same).

And just to let you know, I'm not Roman Catholic.

Protestants are going to say yes. Catholics are going to say no.

I presume any Christian is going to consider this question equivalent to, "Is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura true?" I mean, who is going to say, "I am a Christian, I believe Jesus to be the all-knowing God made flesh ... but when on this very important point he said X, he was completely wrong."


Was Jesus guilty or not guilty by the law? There are two answers in this question which contradict each other:

How does the trial of Jesus compare to the judicial standards of the epoch and of the modern times?

The first answer says that Jesus was guilty of what he was charged.  The second claims that Jesus was not guilty at all but intentionally choose not to defend himself.  So was he guilty or not?

Consider this.

A man walks into a court room and long story short, the judge convicts the man of murder in the first degree. However, the man did not commit the crime. Therefore, he is falsely accused, and falsely convicted. Nevertheless, he was convicted, and he was sentenced to death.

Was Jesus guilty of blasphemy? According to the Sanhedrin, yes. Was Jesus falsely accused and falsely convicted? Yes. God (that is, Jesus) cannot be rightly convicted of blasphemy.

It's a matter of perspective. The Sanhedrin convicted Jesus of blasphemy because they did not believe he was God, just as the judge did not believe the man was innocent. Essentially, it's unjust judgment on the part of the judges. However, Jesus was God, and therefore, he was falsely accused and falsely convicted.

Jesus was a follower of the Mosaic laws and it is a blasphemy to be judged by pagan courts, hence he cringed to be judged by the authority he did not deem fit and responding or participating in the pagan roman courts would amount to getting judged by laws other then revealed in the Old testament. This is abundantly clear from the account of Jesus when he barged into the temple and showed contempt of  the temple.
Regarding Jews claiming that Jesus claimed divinity then, It is very clear from the bible that Jews wanted to eliminate Jesus as the Rabbis perceived Jesus a threat to their business of religion. It is worthwhile and noteworthy to see that in spite of Jesus being given a platform in court to preach his so called "divinity" he chose to remain silent. Silence by no means means approval. In this case it certainly means opposition as if it were to mean approval then he would not have responded with  "You said so" when the Judge asked him about his claim of being " King of Jews". It was like saying "You said so.. I didn't".
So to conclude Jesus was not guilty for the sheer reason that it was a false charge, Infact the charge itself was not confirmed by Jesus in court as Jesus refused to be judged by any evil court.