What does the Church have to say about the Pope's latest statement? It is alleged that Pope Francis recently said that There Is No Hell Fire and Adam & Eve were Not Real. What does the Catholic Church have to say about it?

The statements ascribed to Pope Francis by that article are not true. It is a hoax.

See:

Don’t fall for this Pope Francis hoax: 5 things to know and share
Pope Francis Declares All Religions are True : Facts (Hoax or Fact)

While that article in particular is a hoax... Each point in particular has been made and is old news.

Benedict XVI said that Genesis is based on a myth
Benedict XVI said that Heaven and Hell are not actual places
Benedict XVI abolished Limbo of the Children.
Francis says that atheists can be saved.

Benedict XVI called Genesis a rehashing of pagan myths
The pagan creation accounts on which the biblical story is in part based end without exception in the establishment of a cult, but the cult in this case is situated in the cycle of the do ut des.”
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, A New Song for the Lord, 1995, p. 86:

Benedict XVI abolished the Limbo of the Children and rejects infant baptism
"This state people called limbo.  In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us.  This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable"
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 401:


Why can't God cope with Iron chariots? One of the core beliefs of Judaism and Christianity is that God is
  omnipotent, able to do anything that is logically possible. But
  surprisingly, the Bible does not consistently support this idea ...
  there’s the following little-known Bible verse: “And the Lord was with
  Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not
  drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of
  iron.” — Judges 1:19 Source

I think the quotation is self-explanatory. How is this verse understood by Christian apologists?

וַיְהִי יְהוָה אֶתּ־יְהוּדָה
  And the LORD was with Judah
  וַיֹרֶשׁ אֶת־הָהָר
  and he took possession of the hill [country]
  ...כִּ֣י לֹא לְהוֹרִישׁ אֶת־יֹשְׁבֵי הָעֵמֶק
  but he could not drive out those living in the valley...

The pronoun "he" in the final line is of interest. In fact, the Hebrew has no pronoun, nor does it have a form of "could". Technically, there is neither subject nor finite verb in the clause at all. The MT would be more formally translated using a dummy subject: "it was not possible to drive out...", as both Gesenius (§ 114l) and Jouon-Muraoka (§ 160, n. 14) have it.1

The question remains: not possible for whom? There are at least two helpful comments that can be made from the Hebrew text that are not evident in English:

Line 3 is a dependent clause, subordinated to line 2 and constituting a concession ("...although it was not possible to drive out"); and
the English "took possession" and "drive out" are actually the same word: hôrish (~"dispossess").

For both reasons, the one who dispossesses in line 2 must be the same one who dispossesses in line 3.

The identity of the subject of line 2 is best derived from the context:

  v. 17: And Judah...defeated the Canaanites
  v. 18: Judah also captured Gaza
  v. 19: And the LORD was with Judah... and ? took possession but ? could not drive out...
  v. 20: And [Caleb] drove out from [Hebron] the three sons of Anak...
  v. 21: But the people of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites...
  v. 22: The house of Joseph also went up against Bethel, and the LORD was with them.

Notice who is doing the capturing, driving, defeating, etc: people. In every verse. Verse 20, in fact, repeats for a third time hôrish, and Caleb is the only possible subject. As the people go about their various aggressions, the LORD was with them. That's his role here (cf. v. 2).

It's clear, then, that it was Judah who was "unable to cope" with the iron chariots in v. 19. There is no suggestion of Yahweh being unable to accomplish his purpose here. Still, sensitive readers of the text, including (I should hope) Christian apologists, are likely to find the "exceptive" clause of v. 19 disquieting.

  We are left to wonder why iron chariots should have proven so decisive if Yahweh was indeed with Judah as verse 19a says he was....There is something profoundly unsatisfying about the simple juxtaposition of the two statements in verse 19.... It is the beginning of a much more mixed picture of Israel’s military fortunes that will be revealed in the rest of the book.2

1. The alternative, which most English translations appear to have adopted, is to add a form of יָכְלוּ = "they could", with the Greek (both versions), Targum, some Hebrew manuscripts, and the BHS apparatus. It's interesting that the grammarians seem to find the MT as written less objectionable than do the translators!

2. Barry G. Webb, The Book of Judges, NICOT; (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 108-109.

Every translation I checked, like the top 30 or so say nothing like what the poster as stated here. Seems like a straw man.

"Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots." - Judges 1:19


Did Jesus tell us that we should give a tenth to The Church and then give of the excess to the poor? Matthew 23:23  KJV  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and
cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye
to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

I was intrigued by Jesus saying that they were fastidious in their tithes, but omitting judgment, mercy, and
faith. So I looked up the meaning of both tithe, and alms in Webster's dictionary.
TITHE  The tenth part of any thing; but appropriately, the tenth part of the
increase annually arising from the profits of land and stock, allotted to the
clergy for their support. Tithes are personal, predial, or mixed; personal, when
accruing from labor, art, trade and navigation; predial, when issuing from the
earth, as hay, wood and fruit; and mixed, when accruing from beasts, which are
fed from the ground.

ALMS  Any thing given gratuitously to relieve the poor, as money, food, or clothing,
otherwise called charity.

I also ran across the following verses:

Luke 6:38  KJV  Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
Luke 12:34  KJV  For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

I have taken those to say that Christians have  a bigger obligation, than just giving a tenth to the Church.
I have checked for similar questions on the site, but found that none specifically answer my question.

TL;DR

We're not commanded to give to The Church. Giving to the poor is giving to God. Giving is about demonstrating our thanks to God for providing for us in the past and our trust in God to provide for us in the future.

In what way are we commanded (or even urged) to give?

I don't see a command in the NT mandating details (quantity, timing, etc.) of giving. Some attributes of the method are given, but certainly not anything regarding quantity. The object of our giving isn't necessarily prescribed either. I certainly don't see a precedent for saying that we ought to give our money to The Church.

The closest example I see of giving as it's typically done in American churches is found in 1 Corinthians 16.

  1 Corinthians 16:2a (NASB) On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper,

This instance is speaking about a specific need that the saints in Jerusalem had. I don't think this is the same as "giving to the Church." The local assembly of believers was giving the money to help starving people in Jerusalem. You could perhaps argue that Jerusalem is where the Church leadership was centered, but I don't read the text as emphasizing any special use the leaders had for the gift. It seems more likely that they would just immediately hand the money to one of the deacons (i.e. "servants"; Acts 6:2b (NASB), "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables.") and not use it for any special "Church work" or administration.

Paul was the recipient of some gifts, and said that supporting apostles (maybe even evangelists?) was acceptable.

  Philippians 4:16 (NASB) ...for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs.

Again, I don't see this (and perhaps I'm predisposed to think so) as supporting the Church as a whole, but a specific individual or a specific need.

Neither is tithing a command under the new covenant. At least, it is not said to be so by Jesus or the NT authors.

How should we give?

Secretly—or Not Ostentatiously

Our motives should not be for selfish glory.

  Matthew 6:1-4 (NASB) Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

Also confer: Acts 5.

Cheerfully

  2 Corinthians 9:7 (NASB) Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Generously

  2 Corinthians 9:6 (NASB) Now this I say, he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.

There's no limit on how much (or little) we're supposed to give.

  Luke 21:1-4 (NASB) And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury. And He saw a poor widow putting in two small copper coins. And He said, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all of them; for they all out of their surplus put into the offering ; but she out of her poverty put in all that she had to live on."

In fact, the greatest value in giving is in the quality of the sacrifice on our parts.

  Philippians 4:17 (NASB) Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account.

This harmonizes with what Jesus said about the widow who gave a small amount of money.

Conclusion

Jesus says:

  Acts 20:35 (NASB) "It is more blessed to give than to receive."

Like nearly every other requirement of Christianity, giving is about our hearts. Do we give freely out of generosity (without selfish motives)? Do we give out of love for God or someone else? These are the essentials of Christian giving.

God doesn't need our money. He doesn't seem to care about balancing his bank account. In terms of what he can do, there's always "more where that came from," no matter how much he has already given.

I don't see the Biblical authors prescribing the object of our charity, nor do I see that we have any sort of minimum standard of giving to maintain.

It's very simple (though difficult): Everything I have is God's to do with as he wishes. When I know of a need, I ought to do something about it.

If something is wrong and God is with you then you will know because he will write his new covenant in our hearts and we will know wrong from right, that is why if God really resides in you then you dont need to live according to the laws because the holy spirit will guide us against evil things. I never thought it was Godly to pay the tenths in this day and age because the minute you feel like you are bound to pay a certain amount every month then its not out of your free will and it wont be worth anything in the sight of God. Whether you give half your money or all of it to the poor is not really necessary, whts necessary is giving to the poor with a willing heart and it should be done in private because there is a reward from Jesus when it is done that way


Did Adam and Eve have children in paradise? I was just reading the account of Adam and Eve in the NIV 84 and it doesn't really say they didn't.

The Bible does mention when Sarah had her first boy. When Mary had her first son. But not really when Eve had her first son. Does it?

I'm just wondering because I have in my mind that they had children after they got kicked out. Partly because of the common belief. What am I missing?

The crux of this question is really How long was it before Adam and Eve sinned?

The biblical record only has the following facts:

Adam and Eve's first child was Cain, and the second Abel, by virtue of Genesis 4.
Genesis 4 also suggests that Seth was not born until after Cain killed Abel, an act that could not have occurred in the Garden.
Genesis 5 says that Adam was 130 when Seth was born, so that establishes an upper limit for the length of the time on the garden.  (I will repeat my assertion that had I been Eve, I only would have lasted about 32 minutes before getting kicked out, nonetheless I digress.)

This means that the only two children who could have been born in the Garden are Cain and Abel.

Circumstantially, I would have to suggest that the evidence would make a much stronger case for the children being born after rather than before:

There is no mention of anyone other than Adam or Eve being cast out.  (And the Lillith thing is just Jewish legend.)
The fact that the narrative records the conception of Cain after Genesis 3 gives no reason to suspect it happened before.

I think they could have had many children in the Garden. However, Cain's arrival seems to fit in with what Eve thought to be a prophetic promise that the seed of the woman will bruise the head of the serpant. In that prophecy Gen. 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Hence Cain's envy of Abel's sacrifice being accepted and his being rejected. Eve might have had an inadvertant hand in the death of Abel. So if there was a family living in paradise and sinless their sinlessness would not have lasted long due to Adam sinning they would have all fallen because sin had entered the world. I think when we read about Cain and Abel this is a whole different chapter of human history apart from the garden.


Do I get a second chance to believe in Jesus after I die? As if some people couldn't get far enough away from them on earth, several verses in the Bible seem to indicate that there will be preachers even in Hell.

  1 Peter 4:6 (ESV)
  For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.

Does this mean that there will be a chance to repent and believe even after if I do not do so in this life?

Note: This is not a duplicate of Will there be a second chance for salvation after the Rapture? which talk about people who are still living on earth after the rapture (if there is such a thing). I am also not asking about the eternal nature of Hell. Whether it is or not is not the same thing as whether there will be a way to repent and be saved from there, although it does make more sense if Hell is indeed enternal.

John's revelation that he received while on the Isle of Patmos tells us that one day all of the dead that did not receive God while on earth must be judged according to their works.

  REVELATION 20:11-15, KJV 11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was  opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their
  works. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

So what about the dead that did receive God while on earth? Jump back up to verse 4 to read that they will not be judged (Christ having already been judged in their stead), but judgment will be given to them.

  REVELATION 20:4, KJV And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and
  judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were
  beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which
  had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received
  his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and
  reigned with Christ a thousand years.

So to answer your question by scripture, no, there are no second chances to believe God. You have one chance to accept grace, and if rejected you must be judged by your works, and not by grace.

No. If you die before the rapture and are in hell, you don't get a second chance. Like once your in heaven you don't get a second chance (like anybody would want a second chance in heaven). After the rapture, all the non-believers will be left on earth. Some will confert, others will still turn from him. They He will come a second time, and cast all the non-believers into the lake of fire, where they will burn forever (or they die a second time) I don't quite have that part grasped yet.
And the converted people who aren't in heaven will live on the earth. But, the world will become like it is today again. Mud humans are sinful, we can't help it. So after the second coming, everyone will be Christian. They will love God. Then they'll have children, and as children are being born, they will fall away again. Out of wedlock children, gays, murders, stealing, hating God. And the devil won't even been leading us. He will be gone with all the non-believers.
It's amazing, yet sad. Sad that we can't just love God. God knew this though. He gave us free will.
I love God. I'm not ashamed.


Does sin hinder one's ability to speak God's word? A friend told me that "bad people" are limited when it comes to spreading the Word of God.

According to scripture, how, and in what way, does sin hinder one's ability to spread the Word of God?

Your question is a little more complicated than one might think at first blush!

"Bad people" are the operative words, in my opinion. Bad people may attempt to preach and teach God's Word, but they do so for base motives, which could include (but are not limited to) the following:

money
fame
power
lust for any of the above, and/or lust for sexual immorality, such as the "man of God" who takes advantage of his female followers

The Bible calls bad men (and bad women) who attempt to preach and teach God's Word with their own particular and sinful slant "false teachers." The task of mature Christian believers, such as elders, deacons, pastors, ministers, priests, and so on, is to be on guard for false teachers and to protect the flock from these predators, whom Jesus called "ravenous wolves" in Matthew 7:15; 10:16; and Luke 10:3.

The important word in the last sentence is, I suggest, mature. Spiritual maturity in a church leader means in part that he or she is able to confront and refute false teachers with sound doctrine and teaching.

  "[Elders] must pay attention to the reliable message as it has been taught to them so that they can encourage people with healthy instruction and refute those who speak against it" (Titus 1:9 CEB).

Is it possible for an ungodly man or woman to benefit spiritually a hearer or two now and then? Yes, I believe so. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that God's word is

  "living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword . . . [and] able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12, excerpts, NASB Updated).

False teachers may even lead with truth (in the sense of starting with the truth), and then follow up with a partial truth or a distortion of the truth. The truth with which  they "lead" might be straight Scripture. The simple quoting of a Scripture could make all the positive difference in the life of a person, particularly if he or she extracts themselves from the false teacher soon enough!

Interestingly, the apostle Paul had an interesting perspective on preachers and teachers who preach and teach with the wrong motives. Paul said,

  "Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: the one [do it] of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel; but the other proclaim Christ of faction, not sincerely, thinking to raise up affliction for me in my bonds. What then? only that in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and therein I rejoice, yea, and will rejoice" (Philippians 1:15-18 ASV).

Is there a difference between "bad people" (i.e., false teachers) and preachers who are perhaps correct doctrinally but are in need of an attitude adjustment? Yes, I think so. Nevertheless, we need to adopt Paul's perspective in this matter and rejoice because Christ is being preached. Competition, even among preachers, can be a good thing!

Addendum:

Quite simply (but not to derogate your question), communicating the Word of God requires a clean vessel. Yes, even a person who is harboring and hiding a besetting sin can still preach and teach, but the hypocrisy of attempting to preach the truth while living a lie will eventually catch up with him or her, and the result could be his or her exposure, and with exposure comes (for example) losing one's ministry. Even with repentance, the person may not be able to return to a fruitful ministry, partly because of personal factors, and/or partly from people's lack of trust in the messenger.

Marshall McLuhan was definitely onto something when he said, "The medium IS the message." You cannot separate one from the other. In Christian terms, a sinful messenger is lacking in spiritual power, spiritual insight, and spiritual sensitivity. Perhaps most serious of all is the sinner's failure to glorify God as much as he could have had he not lingered in unconfessed sin.

While we all sin, and we "all stumble in many ways" (James 3:2), to glorify God we need to keep short accounts with God by confessing our sin, particularly before attempting to spread the word. Jesus condemned hypocrisy. A hypocritical spreader of the Word can do more harm than good, both to himself and to others, especially when his sin is "found out" (see Numbers 32:23).

From the comments of other answers, it appears that you are asking if a Christian has sin in their life, does it inhibit us from communicating the Gospel. If this is the question, then The answer is No. See the book of Jonah. In this book we have a man who unapologetically ran from God and harbored hatred of the Ninevites before during and after his preaching and call to repentance. When they do repent, Jonah is even angry about it and God has an conversation with him about how it is not right that he should be angry about the Ninevites' repentance. Jonah never repented, yet God still used him. In the book of Numbers, God even uses a donkey  to spread his message (Numbers 22). If he can use an ass to reach others, he can certainly use me.


Why does Mark 15:34 say "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani"? In all Christian Bibles the translators wrote this verse in the same language and translated it, (maybe it's Hebrew which I don't know) but why only Mark 15:34 in the whole, is it because when Jesus was crying He cried in another language?

The New Testament was written in Greek, but the Greek text records Jesus' words in Aramaic (in Mark, Hebrew in Matthew). The Gospel writers transliterated the Aramaic (Mk 15) and Hebrew (Mt 27) into the Greek script.

It is important here to distinguish between script and language. For instance, I can write in Spanish, Latin, German, English, etc. all with (basically) the same Latin script, even though the languages are all different. And likewise, I can take the Hebrew word אֶל and transliterate it into Latin characters, ʾel. The language is still Hebrew, but the script is Latin.

Short answer: It's Aramaic (or Hebrew in Matthew) transliterated into the Greek script. Since the text provides a Greek translation immediately thereafter, it makes sense that the translators would retain it.

The expression is Aramaic - a Syrian dialect. The Greek author did not understand the expression. Luckily the English translation retained the underlying Aramaic sentence structure. Sometime during the war with the Turks in the first world war, some isolated villages were discovered where the locals spoke Aramaic, and used an Aramaic bible. Scholars from Oxbridge were sent to teach the English language, and so the first Aramaic/English lexicon was born. By 1938 it was published, and for the first time we were able to understand, not only the meaning of the words but also the meaning of the many colloquialisms.
In the Aramaic bible of the East, in the introductory notes by the translator, who was an Aramaic speaker (Lamsa) he explains how easy it was for the Greeks to misread the small inflections of the Aramaic symbols, and so mistranslate the words.
The phrase mentioned, would be better translated as "My God, My God, for this was I born." It seems that the Greek translator selected from the OT a phrase appropriate to the situation. In those days there was no agreement as to whether or not God was on the cross, influential Bishops thought not, so the expression was translated to confirm the humanity of Jesus over the gnostic teaching of some Bishops that Jesus was divine himself and therefore could not have suffered. This was a heated argument for a century or so, and was not fully decided until the first ecumenical council in the 4th. Cent. The translation of this phrase in our bible is western catholic tradition. So much commentary has been published on this phrase that it seems a bit unkind to make any change to text.


Does transcendental meditation conflict with any Christian beliefs? I've seen many testimonies and case studies lauding the benefits of transcendental meditation. It is said that it isn't a religion and people of all religions participate in this practice. As a dedicated Christian my only concern is that partaking in this practice would violate teachings of my faith. Does transcendental meditation conflict with any Christian beliefs?

While it's not always the most reliable source for knowledge, a quick trip to Wikipedia's article on Transcendental Meditation gets us a bit of well-referenced history on the whole Transcendental Meditation movement.  Included in the article is this:

  In the 1950s, the Transcendental Meditation movement was presented as
  a religious organization. The Transcendental Meditation technique was
  held to be a religion in a New Jersey court case. By the
  1970s, the organization had shifted to a more scientific presentation
  while maintaining many religious elements. The movement now
  describes itself on a spiritual, scientific, and non-religious basis.
  This shift has been described by both those within and outside the
  movement as an attempt to appeal to the more secular West.

I included the above because of your statement: "It is said that it isn't a religion and people of all religions participate in this practice.", and the fact that at least part your question seems to be centering around the question of "Would participating in this be participating in another religion".

The movement absolutely had it's roots in Hinduism, so on the one hand, there is cause for scrutiny.

However, simply meditating... Is that the same as worshiping Hindu gods? I don't know that I'd be dogmatic on that.  This appears to be one of those gray areas, and ultimately, this is something that you will have to decide, and it will be between you and God.

I come from a denomination that has members that believe that everything even remotely related to evil has no place in a Christian's life.  Harry Potter?  Satan's attempt to introduce our kids to witchcraft as harmless...  Rock music? Satan's tool for stirring up anger.  Dance? Satan's tool for stirring up lust.

To them, the idea of participating in Transcendental Meditation is no different than worshiping idols.  Me, I'm not so sure.  I personally don't see that practicing a meditation technique is the same as converting to Hinduism or worshiping their gods.  The technique ma be based on Hindu teachings, but that does not mean that the technique itself is Hinduism.

This may be far-fetched, but as a comparison - suppose someone were to come up with a cure for cancer and the person who came up with the treatment did so based on teachings of a Wiccan herbalist.  Would taking that cure be the same as participating in Wicca?  I don't think so.

Your question also includes the following: "Does transcendental meditation conflict with any Christian beliefs?"

That is going to be next to impossible to answer, because there are a wide variety of Christian beliefs.  Again, there are plenty in my denomination that would say "yes".  And there would be plenty that would say "no."

The real questions here are:

Does anything in TM conflict with your Christian beliefs.

and

Should I participate in it?

We can't answer the first one for you at all.  You should know what you believe.  If you're unsure of what you believe or should believe, then I'd focus on that first.  Once you know what you believe, you could study about TM yourself and keep your eye out for patently non-Christian elements.  Knowing what non-Christian or even anti-Christians teach can be beneficial.  At any rate, you'll need to make your own mind up on that.

As for the second question, there is precedent in Scripture, which may completely nullify my answer to the first question.

  Romans 14:14-23 (KJV) 14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that
  esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

  15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not
  charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

  16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

  17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness,
  and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

  18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God,
  and approved of men.

  19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and
  things wherewith one may edify another.

  20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure;
  but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.

  21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing
  whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

  22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that
  condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.

  23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of
  faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

and

  1 Corinthians 8:4-13 (KJV)
  4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an
  idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but
  one.

  5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in
  earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

  6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,
  and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and
  we by him.

  7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with
  conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto
  an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

  8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we
  the better; neither, if we eat not, are w
  e the worse.

  9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a
  stumblingblock to them that are weak.

  10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the
  idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be
  emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;

  11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom
  Christ died?

  12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak
  conscience, ye sin against Christ.

  13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh
  while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Participating in TM is very comparable to eating food sacrificed to idols in this regard.
Paul is teaching that eating food sacrificed to idols in and of itself has no effect on the saved Christian.  The Christian isn't worshiping the idol, and meat is meat. (1 Cor 8:4-8)  Similarly simply meditating using TM isn't the same as practicing Hinduism.  Meditation and relaxation techniques are just meditation/relaxation techniques.

However, reading on in 1 Cor 4: 9-13, you need to be aware that people are watching you.  There may be non-Christians who are watching your actions.  Maybe people you've witnessed to, and if they see you participating in TM, they may think that there's nothing at all wrong with it, either.  They, unlike you , may not know what is Christian and what is not.

Another good comparison would be martial arts.  I was in martial arts of varying types when I was younger.  Almost all of the martial artists I hung out with fancied themselves to be Zen Buddhists to one degree or another.  If they weren't quoting Bruce Lee, they were quoting Zen Buddhist sayings.  Some of them went further and got sucked in completely, some were just posers.  As a Christian, I feel confident that I could practice martial arts again, without getting sucked into the eastern mysticism that tends to go hand-in-hand with the martial arts culture.

TM is pretty similar.  I feel pretty confident that I could sort out the mysticism, determine what is patently un-Christian (if anything), and participate with a clean conscience.

However, I know plenty of people that wouldn't be able to sort it out.  non-Christians, or those that are Christians in name only (raised in a Christian home, and somehow they think this is enough).  They might say "Hey, if he can do it, so can I.  They could go in and get sucked in, because they don't have the background and knowledge that I have.  (That isn't meant to sound as arrogant as it does.  I just mean I know what I believe, and some haven't given it much thought.)

So, personally, for their sake I wouldn't participate.  This is exactly what Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians.

No, not at all if it is centered in Christ.

Meditation is food for the spirit. Just like we feed our bodies food, we must feed our spirit God. That's all meditation really is.

  (Matthew 6). "When you pray, go into your room, close the door and
  pray to your Father in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done
  in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling
  like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many
  words."

So in prayer/meditation we shut out everything, we cut out the "words", mind chatter, (true meditation needs no mantra) outside influences to reach Him.

Getting involved with some group could lead to conflicts but true meditation in it's purest form will only reveal more of God's nature.

There are many forms of meditation but the fundamental and main purpose is to drop the ego and turn to your higher self, the part that is of God and Jesus ask us to do this many times, in many different ways.

For example, I went to Greece to visit the cave where Paul was imprisoned. There was an Greek Orthodox priest in the cave and he was chanting his prayers. His eyes were closed and it appeared to all of us that he was in a trance! Never seen anything like that at Church here. My point, he was doing the same thing as when you see the yogi's in India chanting.

Nevertheless, meditation can be rooted in Christ.

From World Community for Christian Meditation:

  Welcome to the website of the World Community for Christian Meditation
  in the United States. The World Community for Christian Meditation is
  an international organization of meditators whose practice of this
  universal tradition is rooted in the teachings of the Gospels and the
  early Christian monastic methods of prayer and contemplation.
  Forgotten over the centuries, this aspect of Christian spirituality in
  the life of the Church was rediscovered by Fr. John Main (1926-1982),
  a Benedictine monk who in the 1970s reintroduced it into the lives of
  religious and lay people alike.


In Matthew 23:35, who was “Zacharias son of Barachias”? In Matt. 23:35, it is written,

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. KJV, 1769
ΛΕʹ ὅπως ἔλθῃ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς πᾶν αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυνόμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος Ἅβελ τοῦ δικαίου ἕως τοῦ αἵματος Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου ὃν ἐφονεύσατε μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου TR, 1550

Who was Zacharias son of Barachias?
Is this event mentioned in the Bible or in any secular history?

Greek Text

ὅπως ἔλθῃ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς πᾶν αἷμα δίκαιον ἐκχυνόμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος Ἅβελ τοῦ δικαίου ἕως τοῦ αἵματος Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου ὃν ἐφονεύσατε μεταξὺ τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου TR, 1550

Textual Variants
According to Constantin Tischendorf’s critical apparatus, the Codex Sinaiticus omits υἱοῦ Βαραχίου, but there are earlier witnesses who cite it, such as Irenaeus (~130-202 A.D.) and Origen (~182-254 A.D.).
Analysis of Names
The name Ζαχαρίου υἱοῦ Βαραχίου is entirely declined in the genitive case. The nominative form of Ζαχαρίου is Ζαχαρίας, which is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name זְכַרְיָה (Zekharyah)/ זְכַרְיָהוּ (Zekharyahu).1 As for the name Βαραχίου, its nominative form is Βαραχίας, which is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name בֶּרֶכְיָה (Berekhyah)/בֶּרֶכְיָהוּ (Berekhyahu).2 Therefore, in the Hebrew Tanakh, we would be looking for an individual named זְכַרְיָה בֶּן בֶּרֶכְיָה (Zekharyah ben Berekhyah), or in the Greek Septuagint, Ζαχαρίας υἱοῦ Βαραχίου.
Common Belief
It is commonly believed that the person killed in Matt. 23:35 is misidentified by either the Lord Jesus Christ or the evangelist, or perhaps even a later scribe. Rather than Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, some believe the actual person who was killed was Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada (זְכַרְיָה בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע), as this is the only Zechariah whose death matches the one mentioned in Matt. 23:35. For example, in 2 Chr. 24:20-22, it is written,

20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you. 21 And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD. 22 Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon it, and require it. KJV, 1769

This individual’s name was Zekharyah (זְכַרְיָה), and he was killed (stoned) in the “house of Yahveh” (בֵּית יַהְוֶה) another name for the Temple (cp. 1 Kings 6:1). The difficulty with this belief is that this Zechariah (Zekharyah) was the son of Jehoiada (Yehoyada), not Berechiah (Berekhyah), therefore it doesn’t appear to be the same person.
Option 1: Zechariah, the Father of John the Baptist
An alternative belief is that the Zechariah in Matt. 23:35 is the father of John the Baptist (cp. Luke 1:5).3 While the gospels never mention Zechariah’s father’s name, nor mention Zechariah being murdered in the Temple, some base their belief in this theory on a passage in the Gospel of James.4

But at the hour of the salutation the priests went away, and Zacharias did not come forth to meet them with a blessing, according to his custom. And the priests stood waiting for Zacharias to salute him at the prayer, and to glorify the Most High. And he still delaying, they were all afraid. But one of them ventured to go in, and he saw clotted blood beside the altar; and he heard a voice saying: Zacharias has been murdered, and his blood shall not be wiped up until his avenger come. And hearing this saying, he was afraid, and went out and told it to the priests. And they ventured in, and saw what had happened; and the fretwork of the temple made a wailing noise, and they rent their clothes from the top even to the bottom. And they found not his body, but they found his blood turned into stone. And they were afraid, and went out and reported to the people that Zacharias had been murdered. And all the tribes of the people heard, and mourned, and lamented for him three days and three nights. And after the three days, the priests consulted as to whom they should put in his place; and the lot fell upon Simeon. For it was he who had been warned by the Holy Spirit that he should not see death until he should see the Christ in the flesh. Translation by Roberts-Donaldson

Of course, the difficulty with this belief is the book itself is not canonical and essentially amounts to hearsay, although I believe the Greek Orthodox Church (and perhaps others) accepts the account therein.
Option 2: Zechariah, son of Baruch, in Josephus’ Wars of the Jews
Others believe that the person mentioned in Matt. 23:35 is “Zechariah, son of Baruch.” The Jewish historian Josephus mentions him in his Wars of the Jews.5

334 And now these zealots and Idumeans were quite weary of barely killing men, so they had the impudence of setting up fictitious tribunals and judicatures for that purpose; 335 and as they intended to have Zacharias, the son of Baruch, one of the most eminent of the citizens, slain,—so what provoked them against him was, that hatred of wickedness and love of liberty which were so eminent in him: he was also a rich man, so that by taking him off, they did not only hope to seize his effects, but also to get rid of a man that had great power to destroy them. 336 So they called together, by a public proclamation, seventy of the principal men of the populace, for a show, as if they were real judges, while they had no proper authority. Before these was Zacharias accused of a design to betray their polity to the Romans, and having traitorously sent to Vespasian for that purpose. 337 Now there appeared no proof or sign of what he was accused; but they affirmed themselves that they were well persuaded that so it was, and desired that such their affirmation might be taken for sufficient evidence. 338 Now when Zacharias clearly saw that there was no way remaining for his escape from them, as having been treacherously called before them, and then put in prison, but not with any intention of a legal trial, he took great liberty of speech in that despair of life he was under. Accordingly he stood up, and laughed a their pretended accusation, and in a few words confuted the crimes laid to his charge; 339 after which he turned his speech to his accusers, and went over distinctly all their transgressions of the law, and made heavy lamentations upon the confusion they had brought public affairs to: 340 in the meantime the zealots grew tumultuous, and had much ado to abstain from drawing their swords, although they designed to preserve the appearance and show of judicature to the end. They were also desirous, on other accounts, to try the judges, whether they would be mindful of what was just at their own peril. 341 Now the seventy judges brought in their verdict, that the person accused was not guilty,—as choosing rather to die themselves with him, than to have his death laid at their doors; 342 hereupon there rose a great clamor of the zealots upon his acquittal, and they all had indignation at the judges, for not understanding that the authority that was given them was but in jest. 343 So two of the boldest of them fell upon Zacharias in the middle of the temple, and slew him; and as he fell down dead they bantered him, and said, “Thou hast also our verdict, and this will prove a more sure acquittal to thee than the other.” They also threw him down out of the temple immediately into the valley beneath it. Translation by William Whiston

The difficulty with this belief is that the Lord Jesus Christ likely spoke those words (which the evangelist Matthew later wrote in his gospel) around 30 A.D., give or take a few years. Referring to Zechariah son of Berechiah, the Lord Jesus Christ told the Jews, “...whom you killed...” (ὃν ἐφονεύσατε), past tense, referring to an event which had already happened. On the other hand, the Zechariah the son of Baruch mentioned by Josephus would have been killed approximately 35 years after the Lord Jesus Christ died. One last note is that the Greek name of the person mentioned above is Ζαχαρίας υἱὸς Βάρεις, which doesn’t exactly match the name of the person in Matt. 23:35 (i.e., Βαραχίου).
Option 3: Common Belief is the Authentic Meaning
So we return to Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada (זְכַרְיָה בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע), whose death was described in 2 Chr. 24:20-22. In the LXX, his father’s name is written (in the genitive) as Ιωδαε (2 Chr. 24:20). But, in Matt. 23:35, the father of Zechariah is written as Βαραχίου.
In the Targum of Lam. 2:20, it is written,

See, O’ Yahveh, and observe from heaven against whom you have turned. Thus is it right for the daughters of Israel to eat the fruit of their wombs due to starvation, the lovely boys wrapped in fine linen? The Attribute of Justice replied and thus said, “Is it right to kill priest and prophet in the temple of Yahveh, as when you killed Zechariah son of Iddo, the high priest and faithful prophet in the temple of Yahveh on the Day of Atonement because he admonished you not to do evil before Yahveh?”
חזי יהוה ותהי מסתכל מן שמיא למן אסתקיפתא כדנן אם חזי לבנתא דישראל למיכל פירי בטניהון עולימיא רגיגתא דהוו מלפפין בסדינין דמילתין ענת מידת דינא וכן אמרת אם חזי למקטל בבית מוקדשא דיהוה כהנא ונבייא כמה דקטלתון ית זכריה בר עדו כהנא רבא ונבייא מהימן בבית מוקדשא דיהוה ביומא דכפוריא על דאוכח יתכון דלא תעבדון דביש קדם יהוה

Now, one might think that this “Zechariah son of Iddo” (זכריה בר עדו) is the prophet Zechariah in Zec. 1:1. The Targum states that the people killed this high priest and prophet Zechariah son of Iddo on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). In his commentary on 2 Chr. 24:20 (recall that this is the verse that refers to Zechariah son of Jehoiada) Rashi wrote,

above the people - Higher than the people, in order to make his voice heard. In Lamentations Rabba (Eikha Rabbati), it is interpreted as meaning that he relied on himself; he was a prince higher than all the people, a prophet and a priest, and it was Yom Kippur, and he was the king’s son-in-law, and he was not afraid to say the prophecy. Concerning this incident, it was stated (Lam. 2:20): “shall priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of Yahveh?”
מעל לעם - גבוה מכל העם כדי להשמיע קולו, ובאיכה רבתי דורש סמך על עצמו שהיה שר גבוה מכל העם נביא וכהן וביום הכפורים וחתן המלך ולא נתיירא מלומר נבואה ועל זה נאמר (איכה ב') אם יהרג במקדש ה' כהן ונביא ובמותו אמר ירא ה' וידרוש כי לא הרגוני אלא שאמרתי שליחותו של מקום ומאחר שנהרגתי עליו מן הדין והגון וכדי הוא שידרוש דמי וכן היה כי מיד נדרש דמו כי לתקופת השנה וגו

So, it seems that maybe “Zechariah son of Iddo” could be another name for Zechariah son of Jehoiada. The prophet Zechariah (Zec. 1:1) was not the son-in-law of a king, but Zechariah son of Jehoiada certainly was (2 Chr. 22:11). This does not mean the prophet Zechariah (in the book of Zechariah) is Zechariah son of Jehoiada. They obviously lived in different times; so, this isn’t a possibility. Rather, there was obviously a tradition that Zechariah son of Jehoiada (זְכַרְיָה בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע) was also named Zechariah son of Iddo (זְכַרְיָה בֶּן עִדֹּו).
Now we turn to Isa. 8:2, in which it is written,

And I shall take faithful witnesses to witness for Me, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.

Coincidentally, in the LXX, this “Zechariah son of Jeberechiah” has the same name as the Zechariah in Matt. 23:35.6
John Lightfoot wrote,7

the difficulty under our hand is resolved, as I imagine, very clearly: and I suppose that Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah in Isaiah is the very same with our Zacharias the son of Jehoiada; and that the sense of Isaiah comes to this: in that and the foregoing chapter there is a discourse of the future destruction of Damascus, Samaria, and Judea. For a confirmation of the truth of this prophecy, God makes use of a double testimony: first, he commands the prophet Isaiah to write, over and over again, in a great volume, from the beginning to the end, “To hasten the spoil, he hastened the prey”: and this volume should be an undoubted testimony to them, that God would certainly bring on and hasten the forementioned spoiling and destruction. “And moreover (saith God), I will raise up to myself two faithful martyrs,” (or witnesses,) who shall testify and seal the same thing with their words and with their blood, namely, Uriah the priest, who shall hereafter be crowned with martyrdom for this very thing, Jeremiah 26:20,23, and Zechariah the son of Barachiah, or Jehoiada, who is lately already crowned: he [Zechariah], the first martyr under the first Temple; this [Uriah], the last. Hear, thou Jew, who taxest Matthew in this place: your own authors assert, that Uriah the priest is to be understood by that Uriah who was killed by Jehoiakim; and that truly. We also assert, that Zechariah the son of Jehoiadah is to be understood by Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah; and that Matthew and Christ do not at all innovate in this name of Barachias, but did only pronounce the same things concerning the father of the martyr Zacharias, which God himself had pronounced before them by the prophet Isaiah.

John Lightfoot subsequently includes answers to questions which he pre-empts on account of his interpretation and resolution of the verse. The reader is encouraged to read further on p. 307-308.

References
Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Trans. Whiston, William. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987.
Lightfoot, John. Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae (Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations). Trans. Gandell, Robert. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1859.
Footnotes
1 cp. 2 Kings 15:8 LXX, where the Hebrew name זְכַרְיָהוּ (Zekharyahu) is translated into Greek as Ζαχαριας (Zacharias). To note, this is not the same individual mentioned in Matt. 23:35. It is only meant to demonstrate the Hebrew name of the person in Matt. 23:35, as it will obviously be necessary to investigate the Hebrew Tanakh and find such a person by the same name.
2 cp. 2 Chr. 28:12 LXX, where the Hebrew name בֶּרֶכְיָהוּ (Berekhyahu) is translated into Greek as Βαραχιας (Barachias). Again, this is only meant to demonstrate the Hebrew name of the person in Matt. 23:35, not to imply that they are the same person.
3 While the King James Version spells his name as “Zacharias,” the Greek name is Ζαχαρίας, the same name found in Matt. 23:35. It’s unfortunate, but sometimes the translators who produced the King James Version had a habit of transliterating the same Greek name differently into English for different individuals.
4 §24. Also known as the Protoevaneglium of James or the Infancy Gospel of James. This apocryphal book is dated to about 145 A.D.
5 Book 4, Ch. 5, §4, or Book 4, §334-343.
6 The LXX has Ζαχαριαν υἱὸν Βαραχιου, which of course, Ζαχαριαν is the accusative declension of Ζαχαριας.
7 p. 306-207

Josephus speaks in Wars of the Jews, Book 4, chapter 5, of Zacharias son of Baruch, who was killed in the temple at Jerusalem, around 67 CE. Much discussion surrounds the various similarities between this event and the passage in Matthew 23:35 (and Luke 11:51), where Jesus accuses the Jews of slaying Zacharias between the temple and the altar.  Many commentators dismiss any connection between this Zacharias and Zacharias son of Barachias in the gospels, chiefly on the grounds that Matthew was written before the events of 67 CE.

So, once we move the date of Matthew's Gospel to a point later than 67, Josephus' account comes into play. Raymond E. Brown provides some arguments for a later date, in An Introduction to the New Testament, page 217, and concludes, "All this makes AD 80-90 the most plausible dating; but the arguments are not precise, and so at least a decade in either direction must be allowed.”

Charles Christian Hennell provides a number of reasons for accepting that Matthew's Zacharias and Josephus' Zecharias are one and the same person, in his ebook,  An Inquiry concerning the Origin of Christianity, including that the murder would have been recent and notorious at the time Matthew was written, and that the author of Matthew has Jesus speaking of other events connected with the fall of Jerusalem in the spirit of prophecy.

On all this evidence, I believe it probable that the gospel Zacharias is the same person as Josephus speaks of as being killed in the temple in 67 CE. Conversely, Josephus is the secular history that mentions this event.


Why are some words of Jesus in Aramaic transliterated in the Gospels of Mark? There are a few instances in the Gospels where the words originally spoken by Jesus are transliterated . For instance, we see at Mark 5:41 ;" He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”).    We also see at Mark 15:34: " At three o’clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

One would be  curious to know as to why only a few original  words of Jesus in Aramaic are transliterated in  the Gospel . Did  evangelist Mark intend to give certain emphasis by quoting the original words ? What is the Catholic Church's teaching on this topic ?

In the case of "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" (Mark 15,34) the Aramaic is needed to explain the misunderstanding in verse 35 when some of the crowd think He is calling for Elijah. The mistake is explicable only because of the similarity between the sound Eloi and the sound Elijah.

In the case of "Talitha kuom" (Mark 5, 41) the Aramaic phrase seems to have connotations which are lost in translation to the Greek. Hastings Bible dictionary describes links between talitha and lamb and suggests  the phrase might be translated into English as "Lambkin arise", as we too have a word, Lambkin, which is both a term of endearment addressed to a child, and a small lamb. Matthew Henry says that Dr Lightfoot says kuom (arise) was also used as a way of wishing a speedy recovery when addressed to a sick person. Possibly then the Aramaic phrase in English could be something like "Lambkin, get betterl". The inability to fully convey the gentleness of Christ's words into Greek led Mark to leave it in Aramaic for readers who understood that language, or might learn the phrase, while also providing a better than nothing  translation in Greek for other readers.

Boanerges (Mark 3, 17) was given as a nickname to James and John, it is translated as Sons of Thunder. Here, Boanerges is given as a name, so it is transliterated as a name, and then its meaning given to show its derivation. They were not addressed as Sons of Thunder, but as Boagernes.

In the case of "Abba" Father  (Mark 14,36) the Aramaic word Abba is retained along with the Greek word for Father. In English  we have many words ("Dad", "Papa", "Pop", "Daddy", "Pater", "Farv" etc) all of which mean father but all of which hold different connotations. Mark may have felt that Abba conveyed a peculiar mix of intimacy and respect which he didn't want to lose, but couldn't exactly translate.

In the case of "Corban" (Mark 7, 11), which is translated as dedicated to God, the explanation here is that Corban was used as a technical term, or piece of jargon, referring to a particular practice. This could loosely be simplified as dedicated to God. There is  a little more to it than the plain meaning,  that Mark does not really want to go into there.

Ephphatha (Mark 7 34) was the cry uttered by Jesus when healing the deaf and dumb man. This was used in some liturgies at Baptism and Mark may have been indicating its origins here. Also it was such a startling cry that it must have been remembered by all who heard it.

There may also be the use of one or two literary devices.

Agatha Christies Poirot, a Belgian detective living in London, speaks perfect English most of the time which is good as otherwise readers could not understand him. However he often says "mon ami" (my friend) or Mademoiselle ("Miss") and this serves to remind the audience that he was foreign. Mark may have wanted readers to remember that Jesus didn't really speak Greek and so to firmly root his gospel in Palestine for the benefit of his readers.

On the Royal Mile in Edinburgh is a house called Heave Awa House. The previous house on that site collapsed and a man called Joseph  was  trapped in the rubble. The searchers were about to give up when they heard him say  "Heave awa lads, I'm no deid yet". This has become part of Edinburgh folklore.  In I637 a new and, many felt, less Protestant, Prayer Book was introduced to Edinburgh St Giles Cathedral. During the service a fishwife called Jenny Geddes exclaimed "Daur ye say Mass in my  lug?" (dare you say Mass in my ear) and threw her stool at the minister. This led to riots inside and outside the Cathedral, throughout Edinburgh and across Scotland, and arguably was one cause of the English Civil War. It is the simple colloquial phrases of Joseph and Jenny  which are remembered,  and seem to add so much to their stories.  Similarly, the directness and vernacular simplicity of some of Christ's sayings add a directness to Mark's Gospel.

...transliteration involves representing the characters of
  one alphabet in another alphabet; it has nothing to do with
  translating the meaning of the word, only the sound of it. (source)

Transliteration would then occur in scripture when the sound of the words are as important (or more important) to the story/message than the meaning of the words.

As David points out, it's part of trying to convey what the hearers of these words (sounds) may have been thinking. Sometimes the text just doesn't make much sense with a straight translation of every single word.

In the case of "Talitha Koum," Jesus wanted the people to hear a sound along the lines of "Abracadabra," a magic spell, which goes toward him explaining that he is no mere magician. (hat tip to Brian Wilkins)

Great question.


Can one sin be worse than another sin, or are all sins equal? Since all evil acts come down to disobedience against god, are all evil acts equivalent? Is no sin worse than any other sin? If one sin is worse than another sin does that imply that one act can be more disobedient than another act? Is sin and/or disobedience absolute or does it have degree?

There are two primary views of this.

There are different levels of sin
All sin is equal in God's eyes.

Unfortunately, they're both pretty sound beliefs.
All sins are not equal
There are many verses to back up this belief that all sins are not equal.  Here are some of them:
Matthew 12:31-32 (NIV)

31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come

1 Cor. 6:18 (NIV)

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.

John 19:11 (NIV)

Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

Matthew 7:3 (NIV)

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

All sins are equal
The idea that "all sins are equal in God's eyes" comes from the idea that any one sin will lead to death.  If we commit a single sin, we are as guilty (in God's eyes) as if we had committed the worst sin--regardless of which sin we committed.
It's based on the idea that God's holiness is so extreme, that even one transgression is greater than he can accept.  This idea is supported with two key verses
James 2:10 (NIV)

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

Romans 3:23 (NIV)

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

The argument goes, therefore, that if even the smallest sin prevents us from attaining the perfection that God calls us to seek, then that one single sin is as great as the worst sin.
Summary
We can reconcile these two seemingly opposing viewpoints: we can clearly see that some sins are greater than others, but that any sin will prevent us from going to heaven without the saving grace and sacrifice of Jesus.
Essentially, any one sin is sufficient to keep us from God, but all sins are not the same.

From my understanding, there are no degrees of sin according to God. Romans 3:23 states "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." While there is the "unforgivable sin" which is blaspheming the Holy Spirit, that is out right refusing that God exists and saying He cannot save you. Therefore, yes one would probably suffer in Hell (I say probably because I am not God and cannot pass judgement on anyone). God judges us according to our sin, however as a Christian we are taught that everyone is made new in Christ. Therefore, when we stand before, yes we are guilty of sin, but God makes us new, and therefore sinless in our new lives. From what I have understood, with my flawed broken human knowledge, it is that not all sin leads to death because those who believe in Christ and accept Him as their Savior, will not die, but live again. Yes everyone dies. But it is whether our spirits live with Christ in Heaven or burn in Hell that is the difference between life and death. I noticed though some pointing to the verses about not pointing out a speck in the eye of your brother before removing the plank in your own. That is not referring to the degree of sin you committed, but rather saying who are you to judge the sin your brother has committed when you sin as well. We cannot judge each others sins, we are not righteous to be able to call someone out and say "hey you're sinning." But that is just my understanding. One thing I do caution against is that it is very easy for us as human beings with limited knowledge to shape what the Bible says to go along with what we want to believe. While God may or may not have different degrees of sin, all sin separates us from God. I will use just one hypothetical example. Murder, in society, is considered unforgivable. And it is a sin. We are not to kill another human being. Rape, while still considered a very horrible thing to do, is not given the same weight in punishment in society as murder, particularly if the victim was "asking for it" or considered someone who is  already quite sexually active. But rape kills a person inside. It makes them question their value, not only to themselves but to society as well. And when society puts different degrees of punishment on rape cases, particularly judging on whether or not the person "asked for it," the victim feels like less of a human being. But in God's eyes, a sin is a sin is a sin. Every sin we commit makes God sad, as He longs for us to turn to Him and know Him. We will all have to answer for every sin we have ever committed. Whether it be lying, stealing, cheating, adultery, idolatry, or whatever sin we have committed. The difference is whether or not we have asked for forgiveness for our transgressions and are truly repentant for what we have done.


Why is God asking questions or appearing uncertain in the Bible if He's omniscient? Is God omniscient? lists all the passages were it is written that God is omniscient.

Reading other passages, I found a few things that seemingly contradict this:

In Genesis 3:8-13 God asks Adam and Eve where they are and if they have eaten from the tree
In Genesis 18:20-21 he apparently does not know what they have done

  20Then the LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

In Genesis 32:22-30 God wrestles in his bodily form with Jacob, but asks Him about His name
In Numbers 22:9 He asks “Who are these men with you?”
In Deuteronomy 8:1-2 and other instances, God tests people, but wouldn't He know beforehand what they would do?

Gaining information is not the only reason for asking questions.  Asking questions is a very powerful teaching device--not because the teacher does not know the answer, but because in the answering of the questions the students learn.

Adam was hiding from an omniscient God.  He had never felt the need to hide from God before.  The question helped Adam understand and confess what he had done.  "I'm hiding... I've never hid before... this is the consequences of my sinful choice..."  Adam even had a choice of whether to answer or not.

In response to the question of whether he had eaten of the fruit, Adam blames Eve and even tries to implicate God in it, since He brought her to him.  He had a chance to take responsibility, but he failed in that and reverted to the blame game.

God also asks rhetorical questions, as He did to Job.  "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?"

So, the fact that God asks questions does not mean He lacks knowledge or information and must gain it from the minds of men.  He asks questions for other reasons, just like you and I do in our conversations with other people.

For the question about when God wasn't asking questions (2 and 5)...

God doesn't say He doesn't know what's going in in Sodom.  He just says that He is going to go there to observe it.  He doesn't just observe either--He also takes Lot out of the city.

Testing is another issue.  Like questions, God is not gaining information by it.  It actually does a lot for us, as we build up a history of learning from both the right and wrong decisions we make.  If we are tested and fail, we deal with the guilt and the understanding of what we ought to have done.  If we are tested and succeed, we set a pattern for future testings.

The passages you quote could have been written by up to four different individuals who each were bringing their own understandings of GOD to the written Word.  Some of the interpretational issues we have with the bible is due to the fact that the bible actually presents multiple theologies about the character of GOD, and that they are all intended to be held in tension with each other rather than fit our non-rabbinic post-enlightentment Aristotelian and non-Hebraic western understandings of logic.

Besides, the bible was not written in order to give us a systematic theology of GOD, but rather to be a written testimony to the fact that Jesus is the christ through whom all things will be remade in the power of the holy spirit by the love of the father.


Jesus rejects equality with God - How does this statement reconcile with traditional teachings? What does this mean Jesus rejects equality with God? I was always taught Jesus and the Father where separate but equal?  Did they mean to say separate but both God but not equal?
Well I know of at least two places in the scripture where Jesus rejects equality with God.

John 14:28 "The Father is Greater then I"
Philippians 2:6 (NAS) "although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped"

Granted the second verse is translated with much liberty in many version that if you where to compare them they all seem to be saying different things. So I chose to stick to a good word for word translation.
But those two verses are not the only proof about who is greater.

Hebrews 7:7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.

Did God not bless Jesus, Did he not give him answers to his prayers. Did not God put all things in subjection to Jesus?

Acts 3:13 "The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus"
John 3:34 "For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God" [ referring to Jesus ]

Jesus is clearly God's servant and was sent by God.

John 13:16 "Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave (or servant) is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him.

The Question behind the question is:
How does Trinitarian Christianity reconcile Jesus "lesser" status with the claim that he is God?

Your question seems to be in some degree to be based on the hypostatic union.

  Hypostatic union is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual existence. - Wikipedia.

Since Jesus is by nature both divine and human (both God and man) it should not be surprising that Our Lord spoke in ways that reflected one nature at one time and then in a way that reflected the another nature. When Jesus said that the "Father is greater than I", he was speaking through his human nature.

  Jesus is the most important person who has ever lived since he is the Savior, God in human flesh.  He is not half God and half man.  He is fully divine and fully man.  In other words, Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human.  Jesus is the Word who was God and was with God and was made flesh (John 1:1, 14).  This means that in the single person of Jesus he has both a human and divine nature, God and man.  The divine nature was not changed when the Word became flesh (John 1:1, 14).  Instead, the Word was joined with humanity (Col. 2:9).  Jesus' divine nature was not altered.  Also, Jesus is not merely a man who "had God within Him," nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle."  He is God in flesh, second person of the Trinity.  "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." (Heb. 1:3).  Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together" (Eutychianism), nor are they combined into a new God-man nature (Monophysitism).  They are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus.  This is called the Hypostatic Union.

  The following chart should help you see the two natures of Jesus "in action":

  GOD
  He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2, 11; 14:33)

  He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)

  He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)

  He is prayed to (Acts 7:59)

  He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15)

  He knows all things (John 21:17)

  He gives eternal life (John 10:28)

  All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9)

  MAN
  He worshiped the Father (John 17)

  He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5)

  He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)

  He prayed to the Father (John 17)

  He was tempted (Matt. 4:1)

  He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52)

  He died (Rom. 5:8)

  He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)

  The Communicatio Idiomatum

  A doctrine that is related to the Hypostatic Union is the communicatio idiomatum (Latin for "communication of properties").  This is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human natures are ascribed to the one person of Jesus.  This means that the man Jesus could lay claim to the glory He had with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5), claim that He descended from heaven (John 3:13), and also claim omnipresence (Matt. 28:20).  All of these are divine qualities that are laid claim to by Jesus; therefore, the attributes of the divine properties were claimed by the person of Jesus.

  For a proper understanding of Jesus and, therefore, all other doctrines that relate to Him, His two natures must be properly understood and defined.  Jesus is one person with two natures.  This is why He would grow in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52) and yet know all things (John 21:17).  He is the Divine Word that became flesh (John 1:1, 14). - Jesus' Two Natures: God and Man.

It means that Jesus is God incarnate. God, or the Father, is simply pure consciousness and purely every unmanifested  idea or thing. Therefore Jesus is the second to God, or the physical manifestation of the Father, which is pure potential.  God is made manifest by and through man, or Jesus.
Creation is finished, and God is made manifest through the thoughts of man. This manifestation is named Jesus/Yeheshua etc.


How could Jacob wrestle with God if no one can see God and live? Is this a contradiction? Or am I missing something. It seems strange to think one can "wrestle" with God.

Genesis 32:30 (NIV):

  30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.”

Exodus 33:18-20 (NIV):

  18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”
  19 And the LORD said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

So first off, this story of Jacob "struggling with God" (in Hebrew Isra - el) is one that has puzzled people for years.  There is little agreement amongst scholars about what this means.  Some interpret this is a vision, others as a theophany, and still others suggest that it was simply a metaphor for the striving and struggling that Jacob had been doing all along.

Beyond that, however, the exact question is, 'Why didn't Jacob die after seeing the face of God (the Pen - el)?'  After all, as you pointed out, when Moses asked to see God's face 430 years later, he was told that if he did, he would die.

Two theories:

God was disguised

What is different, however, is that Moses wanted to see God's full Shekinah Glory. He wanted the unmediated experience of seeing God in his fullness.

In contrast, here God is clearly not revealed in his full glory.  Remember that when the three visitors came to see Abraham, they were disguised. When the angel came to visit Samson's father, he was disguised.  When there was the fourth in the furnace, shining brightly as a 'son of God,' he too could have been considered to be disguised.

For a trickster who had disguised himself once to fool his own father, Jacob would have understood a disguise.  There's nothing supernatural here in being able to realize that someone is way more than he looks like on the surface.
It was a miracle.

Jacob himself is shocked that he saw God and lived. He was in fact, left crippled by the experience, it was that powerful.  Remember, he was blessed, though its hard to understand how being crippled is a "blessing," unless if compared to the certainty of death for seeing God face to face.  That his life was preserved and he still got to be with God in the same way Adam once talked to him is an amazing gift.

The answer to many a Bible difficulty is: Jesus. God turns our attention to his ultimate solution, by posing a problem that only Christ can solve.

How could God take on the form of a man? You might have forgotten that he did so two thousand years ago. Scholars trace the scarlet thread of redemption (prophecies and types of Christ on the Old Testament) to this passage, also. It was Christ, in some form, wrestling with Jacob.

I often wondered how people knew it to be Jesus wrestling with the Jacob...isn't this just speculation? Your question has presented me with an answer. The question leaves a Christ shaped hole, which Christ is best suited to filling. God the Father has not been seen fully. However, God the Son, took on the form of a man (He did so on the earth and in heaven also. (Revelation 1:13-18)) and was seen fully.

No one has seen God the Father in his unrestrained glory; put people have seen God the Son, when he left his glory in heaven and walked on the earth as a man.


What do Orthodox Christians mean when they talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist? The Orthodox Church is one of several denominations that teach the Real Presence, but they don't all have the same understanding of this doctrine. What is the Orthodox understanding?

We Eastern Orthodox take Christ at His word that "if you do not eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you have no life in you." Indeed this is a hard saying---who can accept it? In my limited understanding as a babe in Orthodoxy (I entered the Orthodox Church but a year ago), we just accept it as a holy Mystery and try not to qualify it in philosophical terms. From my limited understanding and knowledge of Roman Catholic doctrine, this distinguishes our dogmatic approach towards the Holy Mysteries from theirs. However, I think the Eucharist is a mystical experience for both of us.

First and foremost, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus are not objects to be understood cataphatically or apophatically, but instead they are our food, and God Himself in us. They are primarily to be experienced (insofar as one experiences food), and only secondarily to be understood.

In the Anglican Catholic Church, the change to the elements of the wafer and wine is mysterious, and no-one tries to explain what has happened. But there is no doubt that the wafer and wine in some way become the body and blood of Christ, and that Christ is indeed present during the Eucharist. Christ is also present if any surplus wafers are reserved on the altar - a light is suspended to the left of the altar to signify the presence of Christ.

This is an addendum:
Anglican Catholic doctrine is also Orthodox doctrine. Our Bibles contain the same books (80). The Greek Church Fathers are accepted as authorities in the Anglican Catholic Church. The Church Fathers include: St. Clement, Origen, St. Iranaeus, St Augustine, St. Athenasius, St. Gregory, St. Cyril, Tertullian, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyprian, Theodoret.
We call ourselves Catholic and Orthodox Anglicans. Our Metropolitan has said "Our doctrine is both Catholic and Orthodox." Our doctrine is so much that of the Greek Orthodox Church that I was asked to teach there.

Even earlier the Bishops of the C of E made a statement about doctrine.

II. From the books entitled "The Institution," and "A Necessary Doctrine, &c.," agreed on by the Bishops in England, A.D. 1537 and 1643:
"All those things which were taught by the Apostles, and have been by a whole universal consent of the Church of Christ ever since that time taught continually, and taken always for true, ought to be received, accepted, and kept as a perfect doctrine Apostolic."
III. From a Canon made by a Synod in England, A.D. 1571 Let Preachers above all things be careful that they never teach aught in a sermon to be religiously held and believed by the people, except that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments, and which has been collected from the same doctrine by the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops. [ed: which includes the Greek Fathers]

And here you see that the Anglican Church accepts the oral traditions of the Church as do the Orthodox.

IV. From a work of Archbishop Bramhall, entitled Schism Guarded: “We do not only admit oral traditions in general, as an excellent introduction to the doctrine of saving truth, and a singular help to expound the holy Scriptures, but also particular unwritten traditions, derived from the Apostles, and delivered unto us by the manifest testimony of the primitive Church, being agreeable to the holy Scriptures. The Apostles did speak by inspiration, as well as write; and their tradition, whether by word or writing, indifferently, was the Word of God, into which Faith was resolved. .... St. Augustine setteth us down a certain rule, how to know a true genuine Apostolical tradition: 'Whatsoever,' saith he, 'the universal Church doth hold, which has not been instituted by Councils, but always received, is most rightly believed to have been delivered by Apostolical
authority.” Oxford ed. p. 382.

And from our Church web site: The word "Catholic" is often understood in opposition to the word "Protestant." However, this is both a recent and uniquely western perspective. In the ancient church, catholicism was understood to be the opposite of heresy, or false belief, and even today there are millions of Christians in Greece, Russia, and other parts of the world who consider themselves neither "Catholic" nor "Protestant," but "Orthodox."

From the Constitution of the ACC "The received Tradition of the Church and its teaching as set forth by “the ancient catholic bishops and doctors”, and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided
Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern.


What does Paul mean by "Love believes all things?" In 1 Corinthians Paul says

  Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:7, ESV)

This has long puzzled me from a couple of angles.

First, is this instructive, or descriptive?  What I mean is, is Paul saying that to be loving, this is how we must behave?  Or is he saying, someone who loves just naturally displays these characteristics?

Second, if this is instructive, what does it mean that love believes all things?  Hopes, and bears/endures, I get, but believes?  Let me use a personal example: an adulterous spouse.  I love her and she claims with great energy that it will never happen again.  I believe her, but it does.  And she claims again that it will stop.  I believe her??  Every time?  For how long?

If it is descriptive, then believes makes sense, because as the cliche says, "Love is blind" so of course love believes all things.

Any insights into this?

Since Paul didn't expand on this, the best we can do is to review what noted theologians have said about this.  To get some good answers, you really need to look no further than Bible commentaries.

Bear in mind that the type of love here is agape love, which is also translated as charity, or selfless love.  It's not speaking of romantic love as on "love is blind", it's speaking of the selfless love that puts others first.

The general consensus is that it means that if you are truly charitable, you will have the type of love trusts by default.  That you're not cynical by nature.

To back this up:

From the Pulpit Commentary

  Believeth all things. Takes the best and kindest views of all men and
  all circumstances, as long as it is possible to do so. It is the
  opposite to the common spirit, which drags everything in deteriorem
  partem, paints it in the darkest colours, and makes the worst of it.
  Love is entirely alien from the spirit of the cynic, the pessimist,
  the ecclesiastical rival, the anonymous slanderer, the secret
  detractor.

From Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

  believeth all things; that are to be believed, all that God says in
  his word, all his truths, and all his promises; and even sometimes in
  hope against hope, as Abraham did, relying upon the power,
  faithfulness, and other perfections of God; though such a man will not
  believe every spirit, every preacher and teacher, nor any but such as
  agree with the Scriptures of truth, the standard of faith and
  practice; nor will he believe every word of man, which is the
  character of a weak and foolish man; indeed, a man of charity or love
  is willing to believe all the good things reported of men; he is very
  credulous of such things, and is unwilling to believe ill reports of
  persons, or any ill of men; unless it is open and glaring, and is well
  supported, and there is full evidence of it; he is very incredulous in
  this respect:

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

  believeth all things—unsuspiciously believes all that is not palpably
  false, all that it can with a good conscience believe to the credit of
  another. Compare Jas 3:17, "easy to be entreated"; Greek, "easily
  persuaded."

I see this as God's love not ours if you notice that what he is doing is describing what God's love is. The mistake I think that people make is trying to love like this by there own understanding. For us to manifest this kind of love we must be born of God because this love only comes from God. This love comes out of the nature of God, and for us to do it we must have the nature of God born into us when that happens you will love like this. So for your first question I do not beleve Paul is asking us do this in the old nature, but for us to ask God for the Nature of Himself that produces this love . When you receive this nature which is a actual thing that happens, and you will know when it happens, you will be able to love like this. With out God's nature in you it is impossible to do. When you receive the nature of God your love for your spouse will change and what use to bother you won't. Don't let the devil convenience you that you must stay for this love not true. She has broken the vow not you,so do not let guilt hold you in bondage.


According to Roman Catholic doctrine, does the incorruptible body possess blood? In my translation of a work by John of Damascus entitled Περὶ τοῦ ἀχράντου σώματος, οὗ μεταλαμβάνομεν, it is my understanding that John wrote,

  Even as his body prior to the resurrection of the dead was corruptible, broken, eaten, and drunk, nevertheless, [it was] not corrupted. Then why has he not done this after the resurrection, but before the resurrection? Because the body that is incorruptible by the resurrection is neither broken, nor eaten, nor drunk. Neither does the incorruptible body possess blood, nor would it be rightly called "flesh" (σὰρξ), just as Gregory the Theologian stated in the Oration for Baptism: "Believe Christ, the Son of God, shall come again with his glorious presence to judge the living and the death. No longer flesh, yet not bodiless, of a more God-like body (for which things [God] Himself knows the reasons), so that he may also be seen by those who pierced him and remain God without passibility."

Greek text:

  Ὥσπερ ἦν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ πρὸ τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως φθαρτὸν, κλώμενον, ἐσθιόμενον καὶ πινόμενον, ἀδιάφθορον μέντοι· ἐπεὶ τίνος ἕνεκεν οὐ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦτο πεποίηκεν, ἀλλὰ πρὸ τῆς ἀναστάσεως; Ὅτι τὸ διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἄφθαρτον σῶμα οὐ κλᾶται, οὔτε ἐσθίεται, οὔτε πίνεται· οὔτε αἷμα τὸ ἄφθαρτον κέκτηται σῶμα, ἀλλ' οὔτε σὰρξ ἂν δικαίως ὀνομάζοιτο, καθώς φησιν ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος Γρηγόριος ἐν τῷ εἰς βάπτισμα λόγῳ· «Πίστευε Χριστὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἥξειν πάλιν μετὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου αὐτοῦ παρουσίας κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς· οὐκέτι μὲν σάρκα, οὐκ ἀσώματον δὲ, οἷς οἶδεν αὐτὸς λόγους, θεοειδεστέρου σώματος, ἵνα καὶ ὀφθῇ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκκεντησάντων, καὶ μείνῃ Θεὸς ἔξω παχύτητος.»

John explicitly states that the incorruptible body does not possess blood (οὔτε αἷμα τὸ ἄφθαρτον κέκτηται σῶμα). If this is true, how can Roman Catholics drink Jesus' blood during the Eucharist if indeed Jesus, presently with an incorruptible body, does not possess blood?

The issue is the use of the words substance and substantial, and applying a modern meaning to them.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following the doctrine expounded at the Council of Trent, says

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206

But just because the "substance" of the bread is changed into the "substance" of the Body, and the "substance" of the wine is changed into the "substance" of the Blood, it doesn't mean that the species of the bread has changed.
St Cyril of Jerusalem (313–386) wrote in his Catecheses, quoted by Pope Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei:

Instructed as you are in these matters, and filled with an unshakeable faith that what seems to be bread is not bread — though it tastes like it — but rather the Body of Christ; and that what seems to be wine is not wine — even though it too tastes like it — but rather the Blood of Christ … draw strength from receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.
Catecheses, 22.9 [myst. 4] PG 33.1103

All the documents of the Church are written in Latin and then translated into other languages. In recent years, there has been a tendency to use Latinate words in English which are cognate with the original Latin text, even though their meaning has shifted since they were originally adopted in English. This particularly afflicts substance which came to English from Norman French, where it had already acquired a different nuance of meaning from Classical Latin. OED has, in its etymology:

physical existence, matter, (in theology) essence (all late 12th cent.)
classical Latin substantia ... underlying or essential nature ...

By the late twelfth century, substance had a meaning very close to its modern English meaning. But the Latin substantia, which is translated as substance, means something different. Thus it's wrong to impute a physicality of flesh to the bread, or of blood to the wine. But even though the bread remains in its species of bread, it nevertheless becomes, in its underlying or essential nature, the Body of Christ (perhaps it might even be said to have two natures in much the same way as Jesus himself had two natures in hypostatic union). The Church teaches transubstantiation; it does not teach transpeciation, where bread is changed into meat.
It is in this way that

The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.207
CCC 1377

The Eucharistic presence of Christ is not derived from his glorious body (which may or may not have blood): it's derived from his earthly body, which definitely was flesh and blood.

CCC 1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different."190

It is Christ's offering of his earthly self on the Cross which is united with the offering on the altar.
Now, this may not actually answer the question "Does the incorruptible body possess blood?" but that's because it answers the secondary question "How can Roman Catholics drink Jesus' blood in the Eucharist?" The Eucharist does not depend on the nature of the incorruptible body.

190 Council of Trent (1562) Doctrina de ss. Missae sacrificio, c. 2: DS 1743; cf. Heb 9:14,27.
206 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1642; cf. Mt 26:26 ff.; Mk 14:22 ff.; Lk 22:19 ff.; 1 Cor 11:24 ff.
207 Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641.

Eucharistic wine is true blood of Christ, in a mystical sense. It is not actual, physical blood.

It is actual blood in essence, ie, in what it means - life, total self giving.
Eucharist is a memory of the actual historical sacrifice, and a continuing, complete self giving of Jesus to us.

A sign is something that is not what it is showing/pointing to. A sign is worthless in it self. In this meaning, Eucharist is not a sign. In contrast to this meaning, Eucharist IS blood and body of Christ.

In this mystical meaning, your question does not apply. Ie, Catholics do not believe that Christ is continually cutting Himself daily to give us a little of his blood, so the question of weather His current body has or has no blood, in relation to Eucharist  is meaningless.

Ie, the belief that Eucharist is both blood and body of Christ and bread and wine, is a mystery similar to the Trinity.

Hope this makes a bit of sense :)


Is the commandment to multiply, and replenish the earth in effect today? Adam and Eve were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth.

Genesis 1:28-30
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

The same commandment was also given later to Noah and his sons.

Genesis 9:1-3
1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

In both cases the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is followed by a commandment to have dominion over the earth (perhaps the two are related, but that's for another discussion). I point that out because surely the commandment to have dominion over the earth is still applicable to us. Does that mean the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth is still applicable? Its pretty significant if having a family is a commandment as opposed to being a suggestion or just optional.

A commandment is in effect until it is fulfilled. God has not told us it is fulfilled, so it is in effect unless we believe it to be fulfilled to His satisfaction.

Personally I don't believe it to be fulfilled. All the "over population" we see is simply a mismanagement of resources. There is plenty of livable earth and resources available. Not that replenishment requires exhaustion of resources, but our level of waste is appalling, and better urban planning could improve the living conditions where population is high.

I believe the commandment to have domion over the earth includes a stewardship to care for it, which clearly we can do better. Perhaps that is why the two commandments were given together. As we do better with our stewardship to care for the earth we can do better to replenish the earth.

Searching around for any Christian statements on the commandment to multiple and replenish in modern times I found the following:

  We declare that God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.

-The Family: A Proclamation to the World
  The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints September 23, 1995

As well as the Catholic church stance on birth control:

  . . . it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.

Wikipedia summarizes other Christian views on birth control, which go both directions. Of course Birth control isn't exactly what you asked, but they are related.

No doubt someone could find links to contradict me. I guess it comes down to your personal beliefs.

My personal belieft is we are each to have as many children as we can reasonably support and care for. I have four children. My wife an I believe any more and we would not be able raise and care for them effectively (but that may be a failing on our part). I have friends with 6 or even 8 children who do quite well as taking care of them.

As an aside: It continues to be important that we specifically as Christians multiply and replenish the earth, and raise our children as good Christians to be a force of good in the Lord's work. To stop having children because one believes the world to be flawed is to give up hope of improving the world. Children raised up with good Christian values are the greatest hope for a better tomorrow.

1 Cor 7 says, pretty clearly, that getting married (let alone having a family) is no longer in effect.

1 Cor 7:8-9 (NIV)

  8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Obviously, if we want to (need to) get married, we should.  However, it's good (or even better) to stay unmarried!

There are many commands given to people back then that are commands for that time.  Read Leviticus for examples of that.  That was the old covenant.  We, as recipients of the salvation of Jesus, are no longer under these old commandments.  These old commands no longer are required of us.

This is one such command.

"Further evidence!" I hear you cry.  Fine, fine.  Here:

Acts 15:28-29 (NLT)

  28 “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements: 29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.”

Those are the commands we have on us today.

"Not enough"  "We want more!"  OK, fine.  Here.

It's been said that every command that we should follow is found in the New Testament.  If it's not in the New Testament, then it's a command that we no longer need to follow.

"That makes no sense!" I hear you say.

The problem with the Old Testament is that these commands were given directly from God to his people so that they will know how to live until the coming of the Messiah.

Well, he's come.  In the present time (since the Pentacost after his resurrection), we have his Holy Spirit.  This resource is available to all of us.  It's because of this that we have so few commands placed on us.

Having said that, if the Holy Spirit is moving you to have a family and multiply--then you better comply!

But don't take Old Testament commands as commands that are currently in effect unless they've been repeated by Jesus or the apostles in the New Testament.