Which God do Muslims pray to according to Catholic, Orthodox and main-stream Protestant tradition? Which God do Muslims pray to according to Catholic, Orthodox and main-stream Protestant tradition?

They believe that God cannot be One and Three at the same time. They believe that God can only be One. They believe that God cannot have a Son equal to Him. Consequently, they believe that God could not have sent His Son (which they believe God doesn't have) to the world to give salvation to those believing into Him (they take Jesus only as a prophet from God). That makes their "God" quite different from Christian God. In fact, if you tell this description of God to any Catholic, Orthodox and main-stream Protestant believer, he would tell you that that kind of God does not exist. I know of at least one council that took place in Christian circles (the Orthodox council in 1180) that has declared that "God of Muslims is not the God of Christians, but rather a distorted concept of God created in Muhammad's mind". Perhaps, same declaration might have been made in the Catholic and Protestant camps of main-stream Christianity.

Now, here is my question: if that kind of God does not exist - especially given the fact that there is only One God in this universe - then which God do all Muslims pray to? Of course, we can say that they are praying to a non-existent God, which is not the God, but rather merely their idea of God, their concept of God. Simply put, they are praying into the air, emptiness. At first, this kind of answer looks fine to me, but if you give it a second thought, then you could tell that their description or their concept of God is in fact the same as the concept that some humans (including Jews) had about God before the coming of Christ. Of course, we can discard all the cases of those humans who believed in the existence of many gods, but Muslims believe in the existence of only One God. Does that mean that all people who lived prior to Christ's coming and believed in the existence of only One God also prayed into the air? A case of the Gentile Cornelius comes to my mind who was praying to God and whose "prayers came up for a memorial before God" (Acts 10:4) and the following words of Peter in his regard: "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him" (Acts 10:34-35). From this I gather that the Gentile Cornelius did not pray into the air.

Realistically, there are just 4 possibilities:

Christians and Moslems are praying to the same God. We all basically believe the same things and believe in the same God.
Christians and Moslems are praying to the same God. One or the other (or both) have wrong and confused ideas about God, but God is understanding of our ignorance.
There is more than one God, and Christians and Moslems are each praying to their own.
Christians are praying to the true God, and Moslems to a false and non-existant God, or vice versa.

Number 1 is very popular today, but is objectively and provably false. One need only read the Bible and the Koran, or listen to Christians describe their faith and Moslems describe their faith, to see that the two contradict each other on many important points.

Number 3 is logically impossible. Both Christians and Moslems believe there is only one God. If there is more than one God, then both Christianity and Islam are false and both are praying to a false God. We can't both be right. Either one is right and the other wrong, or we are both wrong.

That leaves 2 and 4. As this is christianity.stackexchange.com and not islam.stackexchange.com, let me proceed based on the assumption that Christianity is true. Then either Moslems are praying to a false, non-existant God, or they are praying to the true God even though they have many inaccurate beliefs about him.

Clearly God hears the prayers of Moslems in the literal sense, that is, he is aware that they are praying and knows what they are saying. But does he accept them as addressing himself?

I think that's very hard to say. Suppose you sent a letter to the president of the United States in which you made some request or suggestion. Would he reply positively? If you mis-spelled his name or showed ignorance about some unimportant fact about him, I doubt it would make a difference. If you indicated that you thought he was a Republican rather than a Democrat and asked him to do things to further Republican policies and hurt the Democrats, I don't think he'd agree to it just because you wrote him a letter. He'd recognize that the letter was intended for him, but so misunderstanding of his actual self, his plans and goals, as to be largely irrelevant.

In any case, Christians believe that salvation is through Christ and Christ alone. So whether God hears the prayers of Moslems as being to him and not to a false god, if Christianity is true Moslems are not saved, because they very clearly and explicitly reject Christ. That's surely the important point. If a Moslem prayed for God to lead him to truth, I think God would honor that, just as he would if a pagan or an atheist made such a prayer.

Addendum to my answer

After writing this, I happened to read the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman. At one point: 'The woman said to Him, "Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship." Jesus said to her, "... You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.' [John 4:19-22, NKJV]

Note that Jesus didn't say that the Samaritans worshipped a false God or that their worship was in vain because they had important facts about God wrong, he said, "You worship what you do not know". This seems to imply that God accepted their worship as sincere and legitimate despite their ignorance. I think that indicates that at least some cases of my option 2 above are possible.

Does that mean that all people who lived prior to Christ's coming and believed in the

existence of only One God also prayed into the air?

People who knew about the true God before Christ did not pray to the air. (If they knew about the true God through missionaries)

then which God do all Muslims pray to?

I, however, believe that the Muhammad did not stumble upon a new God, but actually borrowed Christian beliefs. (and then changed them)
So, technically, the Islamic God, Allah, should be a changed form of the Christian God.

From this I gather that the Gentile Cornelius did not pray into the air.

Gentile Cornelius did not pray into the air since Paul told him about the one and only true God.

Does that mean that all people who lived prior to Christ's coming and believed in the
existence of only One God also prayed into the air?

If you are talking about Allah, the Islamic God, then yes. If you are talking about Jesus, then no.

I hope this helps. (These are my beliefs)


Who told Cain and Abel of Sacrificial rituals or offerings? In Genesis 4 Cain and Abel gave offerings (or sacrifice). Who instructed them to give this offering or sacrifice? Was it a burnt offering?

The Church Fathers tell us that the idea of offering sacrifice to God was placed in the conscience of man from the beginning:

  In the course of time Cain brought an offering of the fruits of the earth to the Lord

  Consider how the Lord of nature added knowledge to conscience.  After
  all, who brought this to our understanding?  It was none other than
  knowledge associated with our conscience.  The text says, He brought
  an offering of the fruits of the earth to the Lord [Genesis 4:3].  He knew and
  understood that he should offer from his own possessions some produce
  to God as to his master, not because God needs them, but for the
  purpose of demonstrating his gratitude as being himself a beneficiary
  of such kindness.  God, you see, is proof against need, and depends on
  nothing we have to offer; but in his ineffable love he shows
  considerateness for us, and for the sake of our salvation he allows
  these things to happen so that the knowledge of the Lord may be for
  the human race a school of virtue.

  John Chrysostom (4th c.), Homilies on Genesis, Homily XVIII

It is reasonable to conclude that God did tell them what to offer Him at some point, whether directly or indirectly. This is based on the scriptural points that:

Faith only comes by hearing and by hearing the word of God.(Rom10:17).
Hebrews 11:4 goes on to say

  ,"By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which it was testified of him that he was righteous (upright, in right standing with God), and God testified by accepting his gifts."

Putting this into context of Hebrews 11, most if not all heroes of faith mentioned in that chapter had their faith attributed to believing and obeying what God had told. Thus, Abel believed and obeyed the word of God in some way.

Remember without faith (believing and obeying God's word) it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6).  See also (1 Samuel 15:22).

  Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices As in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And to heed than the fat of rams."

From this one may derive that God was pleased with the obedience of Abel in offering what he had instituted.


Demon Possession of Jesus' Time - Today's Diagnosable Mental Disorders? Quite a few of the things Jesus and his disciples had to address they had diagnosed as "demons". Today we call things of similar symptoms "disorders".

Epilepsy: Matthew 17:14-16

Multiple Personality Disorder: Mark 5:1-20

For lack of time I cannot give an exhaustive list, yet its easy to find quite a few. Yet I see that "pharmaceuticals" and other drugs tend to be the fallback and treatment.

What connection, if any, exists between the ancient diagnosis and modern ones? Is there any distinctive difference between them?

I'm going to self identify for the purposes of this answer. I have a multitude of mental illnesses. Schizoaffective disorder (hallucinations of all types, delusions of several types, mania and major depression) and OCD as well the lesser subsyndromal OCD (obsessive behaviour and intrusive thoughts). On bad days the Dyslexia (trouble with language) and Autism (experiencing reality differently) are also a problem. All my symptoms are under control though sometimes I still experience hypomania and depression but not mania and major depression.
I understand your concern that I might be demon possessed however such concerns are not realistic. My brain is broken the methods by which it is corrected is a medication by no biblical definition would it fit demonic possession.

Luk 13:16  And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

Mental diseases are no different than physical diseases. They are satanic bondage and oppression/bondage/affliction is not possession. The woman in Luke 13 was bound by the devil and a child of God. This is why:

pos·ses·sion pəˈzeSHən/Submit noun
1.the state of having, owning, or controlling something.
2.an item of property; something belonging to one.

-Google dictionary

Mar 3:25  And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

Demon possession is the opposite of salvation. It is to be owned and controlled by the devil. To be filled with the devil in the same manner in which those who are saved are filled with the Holy Spirit. Spiritual houses are not divided against themselves either you belong to God or you do not.

2Co 10:5  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Those who have religious intrusive thoughts (unwanted random thoughts generated by broken neural pathways about religious figures) and personality disorders have to put up with things which would scare normal Christians. Just because our burden is greater does not mean we belong to the devil. It means we must have medication to help us cast down that which does not conform to the word of God.

Job 2:9  Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.

Your tempted to commit adultery; we're tempted to commit adultery. We're tempted to curse God and die; you're not. Our temptations and faults don't make us evil in the manner of demonic possession.

Jas 5:11  Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.

We just are more patient than you.

Its quite probable that many Christians today don't even take the demons in the gospel accounts literally, but view them as mere plot devices.  "Jesus needs to be confessed as Christ, but the masses must be portrayed as ignorant: insert demon here, have it confess him."  The casting out of demons does seem to serve the purpose of a cryptic confession of his identity quite often.  It also serves a anti-Judaic purpose.  Note how many demon possessed people Jesus encounters in Judea. Its as if the authors are insinuating that Jews are demon-riddled people. (By contrast, see how few demoniacs the apostles encounter in Gentile territory in Acts!)  In other words, the true literary purpose of the demon possession accounts may have nothing to do with ancient diagnosis of mental disorders at all.  It may only seem that way due to ultra-literal interpretations. But if these accounts are literal, it would seem there was a much higher incidence of mental disorders among the Jews than the Gentiles.


Does the Bible condemn white lies? Orthodox views on it state that any sort of lie is a sin by itself. More liberal Christians will say that it doesn't really mean that much provided it doesn't hurt anybody. But more importantly than personal opinions; what does the Bible have to say about white lies?

In the sermon of the mount, Jesus teaches about the sixth through tenth commandments, deepening their meaning.  For example, "Don't kill" he expands to "Don't have unresolved anger or conflict".  "Don't commit adultery" becomes "Don't lust".

For "Don't bear false witness", Jesus says (not quoting one of the ten commandments directly, but a related passage about making vows):

  Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, "You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord."  But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.  Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.  But let your statement be, "Yes, yes" or "No, no"; anything beyond these is of evil.

  Matthew 5:33-37 (NASB)

The idea is that you should always follow through with what you say.  In other words, be trustworthy.  The same applies to the commandment: people should be able to trust you, whether that is in a courtroom, or in daily life.

White lies are not compatible with being trustworthy, because it tells others that you will lie for the sake of convenience.

Whether white lies are ok in the context of helping another, I don't know.  That leads to: "can the ends justify the means?"

As a person working in a social services field I must say that most people lie to themselves. They live in denial or a false perception of themselves or others. So what is a lie? I think we need to be real careful. It is often said lying to protect Jews from Nazi's was acceptable yet we frown upon a parent lying on a resume to keep her kids fed and the rent paid. We all know good lies from bad lies. Bad lies are a betrayal they are personal. Good lies protect others. I believe the Hebrew meaning of lie is betrayal, to fail, to deceive. Our hearts will tell us if we are doing right or wrong. God's love for us is bigger than any lie you could ever tell,even the lies you tell yourself.


How do Roman Catholics interpret Luke 4:13, regarding the devil leaving Jesus "until an opportune time"? Luke 4:13 (NIV) reads:

  When the devil had finished all this tempting, he left him [Jesus] until an opportune time.

What is the Catholic interpretation of the phrase "until an opportune time"?  We do not find explicit reference to Jesus getting tempted by the devil after the temptations in the wilderness.  Is it that the devil was looking for opportunities, but did not find any? Or, is it that Jesus was frequently tempted to desert His mission all throughout His public life and on the cross? What are the Catholic teachings on such possibilities?

The last paragraph of the note to Lk 4:1-13 in the Navarre Bible New Testament Compact Edition has:

  [...]
  Jesus defeats the devil here, as he will also do at "an opprtune
  time" (v.13), that is, in his passion and death (cf. the note on
  22:1-6): his filial acceptance of the father's plans will liberate men
  from the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil (cf. Heb
  2:14). Jesus' victory over the tempter serves to encourage his
  disciples: if they trust in God, they will be able to defeat all
  temptation.

The Devil uses the same temptations in the desert as he did in the Garden and they are three:

The Temptation of the flesh
The Temptation of the Eyes
The Pride of Life

The very Nature of Christ being 100% man, means that he had the same temptations throughout his life that each and everyone one of us do.  What is different between Our Lord and Us is his ability to face those temptations without fault, where we fail, he succeeds.

In the Garden of Gethsemane The lord shows his weakness in the flesh asking God to take this burden from him.  With perfect obedience the Word of God says only "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be Done"

Christ temptation came from without, not from within as his will was united with the devine will.  Christ was free from all concupiscence.


Are Catholics permitted to honour Mary as a priest? Mary, the Mother of Jesus was present at the foot of the Cross as her Son was dying in order to ransom mankind from sin.

This got me thinking that Mary must hold a special place in Catholic devotion. As Catholic priests offer the sacrifice of Our Lord on the altar, could not Mary have offered her Son on the altar of the Cross for our salvation?

I have been able to find a few pieces of religious art that shows the Virgin Mary dressed in priestly attire and I have included one here:

My question is quite simple: Does the Catholic Church allow us to honor Mary under the title of the Virgin Priest and if so what are the directives on it from Rome?

St. Alphonsus di Liguori used to pray: "Nos cum prole pia benedicat Virgo Maria." (May the Virgin Mary bless us with her pious offspring [Jesus].) Thus it seems she has the ability to bless, yet this isn't necessarily reserved to ordained priests in all circumstances.

She is a "priest" (or sacerdote, "a giver of the sacred"), but she was not ordained a priest, as she was not present at the Last Supper when Jesus instituted the sacrament of Orders by washing the feet of His disciples. Nor could she be an ordained priest; only men can be ordained priests.

Although all Christians are a "kingly priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9), not all Christians are Ordained priests.

One of the greatest mariologists and Doctor of the Church, St. Albert the Great, wrote (Mariale 42 & 165):

  The Blessed Virgin was not called by God to be a minister, but a consort and a helper, in accordance with the words "Let us make him a help like unto himself."

Quoted in Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s Mother of The Savior and Our Interior Life (p. 42).

Are Catholics permitted to honour Mary as a priest?
The answer is Yes, all Catholics are permitted. St. Pius X even granted 300 days indulgences on the faithfuls who will invoke Mary's intercession under this title.

"Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us". (St. Pius X; 1906)

Controversy arises during reign of Pope Benedict XVI, that led to the Holy See to forbid the propagation of images of the Mary wearing the vestment of the priest, but it's clear that the Holy See does not forbid the saying of the prayer devotion.

Pope Benedict personally addressed in numerous letters the pilgrims at Marian sanctuaries. He named Mary the Patron of Bavaria, and permitted, in Mexico, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of Guadaloupe. He authorised the Feast of Mary Mediator of all Graces. He condemned the misuse of Marian statues and pictures, dressed in priestly robes, which he outlawed 4 April 1916. (AAS 1916 146 Baumann in Marienkunde; 673) - Pope Benedict XV (Wikipedia)

What Pope Benedict XV condemned was not the prayer devotion instituted by St. Pius X but the misuse of the images.
So, the prayer devotion honoring and imploring the intercession of Mary Virgin Priest continues until today, unless a Pope officially prohibits the acts of St. Pius X pertains to the devotion and to granting indulgences.
Is Mary Virgin Priest a real priesthood? The answer is Yes. A Pope cannot grant indulgences to a metaphorical priest. See this link on the basis of St. Pius X on approving the prayer devotion to Mary Virgin Priest.
What is the basis of St. Pius X in 1906 that led to the approval of the prayer devotion; "Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us"?
Granting that Mary is a Virgin Priest, the question is when and who ordained Mary into priesthood? Is her priesthood an ordinary priesthood like the presbyters or a full priesthood like the Bishop?
Certainly Mary, was not yet a priest during her childhood days even if it's spent serving in the Temple for ten years. And after that, we can see from the gospel that Mary was betrothed to a man name Joseph. This is a mystery, so where can we find the first mystery?
The Holy Rosary starts with the Joyful Mystery and it is the "Mystery of the Annunciation".

There exists the belief that the Annunciation acted as Mary’s ordination. There is also a belief that through her ‘yes’, Mary made Christ present in the world, in her womb – as the priest makes Christ present in the words of consecration.  In an address by Bishop Nazlian, at Lourdes in 1914 said “ A priest has the power to mystically produce the body of the Lord giving that body its sacramental form . . . . I allow myself to say that Mary is the first to say Mass, by agreeing to the Incarnation and so preparing the victim.” - The Priesthood of Mary

Does the Annunciation ordained Mary into priesthood? Let's ponder the gospel passage from the heart like Mary ponder and treasure everything from her heart.

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. (Luke1:28 ; Douay-Rheims)

The angel pronounce the word "Hail", it is a salutation appropriate only for a King & Queen. Therefore, the angel acknowledge Mary as Queen.

What does a "greeting" gives? When Mary visited her cousin Elizabeth her "greetings" made Elizabeth and her baby leaped for joy and be "filled with the Holy Spirit".
The angel greetings also, brings the outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Spirit it made Mary's state of soul not just filled by grace but rather it was "full of grace".
Is this what happen to all the Apostles in the Upper Room they were all "filled with the Holy Spirit"? Yes.

"All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them."(Acts2:4)

God said in Amos3:7;

" For the Lord God doth nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets."

King David was anointed by prophet Samuel for him to become Prince of Israel. Eventually became King of Israel.

Samuel Anoints David

Jesus Baptism in the Jordan river, the coming down of the Holy Spirit was in the presence & witnessed by the Last Great Prophet St.John the Baptist.

The Baptism of Jesus

St.Paul was "filled by the Holy Spirit" before he was sent in the mission in the presence of the prophets.

Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off. (Acts13:1-3)

The Apostles received the anointing of the Holy Spirit in the presence of Mary the Prophet. Is Mary a prophet, Yes.

She is the Queen of Prophets. See the the Litanies Lauretane
Is Archangel Gabriel a servant of God? Gabriel reveals himself to Zechariah,

“I am Gabriel,” replied the angel. “I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. "(Luke1:19)

Is Gabriel a prophet, since he comes from the Heavenly Realm, he is not only a prophet but a celestial prophet in the Kingdom of God.
Did Archangel Gabriel prophesy to Mary? Yes!

"You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.” (Luke1:31-32)

So, God is the one who sent his servant Archangel Gabriel who prophesy to Mary His Divine Plan for the Logos.
What is the rank of angel Gabriel in the Kingdom of God?

Gabriel (/ˈɡeɪbriəl/; Hebrew: גַּבְרִיאֵל, lit. 'Gavri'el "God is my strength"', Ancient Greek: Γαβριήλ, lit. 'Gabriel', Coptic: Ⲅⲁⲃⲣⲓⲏⲗ, Aramaic: ܓܒܪܝܝܠ, Arabic: جبريل, Jibrīl or جبرائيل Jibrāʾīl), in the Abrahamic religions, is an archangel. He was first described in the Hebrew Bible and was subsequently adopted by other traditions.
In the Hebrew Bible, Gabriel appears to the prophet Daniel to explain his visions (Daniel 8:15–26, 9:21–27). The archangel appears in such other ancient Jewish writings as the Book of Enoch. Alongside archangel Michael, Gabriel is described as the guardian angel of Israel, defending this people against the angels of the other nations.
The Gospel of Luke relates the stories of the Annunciation, in which the angel Gabriel appears to Zechariah and the Virgin Mary, foretelling the births of John the Baptist and Jesus, respectively (Luke 1:11–38). Many Christian traditions—including Anglicanism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism—revere Gabriel as a saint.
Islam regards Gabriel as an archangel sent by God to various prophets, among them Muhammad.[8] The first five verses of the 96th chapter of the Quran, the Clot, is believed by Muslims to have been the first verses revealed by Gabriel to Muhammad.Archangel Gabriel (Wikipedia)

The Archangel also said "the Lord is with you" signifying the presence of the "spiritual mark" of the priesthood like the "holy chrism" which put a "spiritual mark" on the priesthood of a priest or bishops.
And lastly, the Angel Gabriel finished ordination by pronouncing the blessings saying "blessed are you among women".

Did Mary share in the Priesthood of her Son?  De Salazar, a great Marian theologian of the 17th century says of Mary, “not only did Christ pour the fullness of his priestly annointing on Mary but He emptied it on her” and therefore of her role at Calvary; “ the Blessed Virgin fulfilled the office of the Priest in that showing her will in all things to conform to the will of her son, she offered and sacrificed him on the altar of the Cross as Christ did himself.”

What is the proof of Mary has the faculties of a priest to ordained and confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit?

Vincent de Paul in the 17th Century, says of the Visitation to Elizabeth, “The Blessed Virgin, as Bishop in the Church, sanctified the son of the high priest Zachariah. She sanctified St. John and through the imposition of her power, using her right as Mother of God and spouse of the Father, she imprinted the Holy Spirit on St. John”. - The Priesthood of Mary

In closing, Mary Virgin Priest is an honor given to Mary permitted by the Church and granted an indulgences to all the faithful who seek Mary's intercession under this title.
Mary's priesthood is a real priesthood as St.Vincent De Paul affirmed that Mary's Visitation to St.Elizabeth sanctified St.John the Baptist and She imprinted the Holy Spirit on his soul as "spiritual mark".
The only question is, if Mary was not ordained to a Sacramental Order of priesthood, what is the order of Her ordination?


Do all Christian views need to have a Biblical basis? Do all Christian views need to have a Biblical basis? Stated another way: Is there room for understanding God and/or His will that does not come from the Bible? Perhaps through revelations from God Himself, or secondary sources (Angels, Saints, etc). I would wager the answer to this question depends on the denomination being discussed. But, for example, do the words of the Pope always hold true in Catholicism even if there is no strict biblical basis for them?

A good reference on the reformed, evangelical position on this is from chapter 1 of the Westminster Confession

We speak of the Bible as God's Word because in it he speaks to us (2 Tim 3:16). He speaks to us personally in the Bible through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:12). Because the Bible is considered as God's Word it is his definitive words to us, the only infallible source of knowing him. It is also sufficient for everything we need to know about him. This means that in theory we don't need to look anywhere else to know God's will.

Some points to note:

The Bible won't tell us about absolutely everything that there is to know. It isn't particularly concerned about things like mathematics. The Bible is the final authority on matters of faith. Often it may not even answer your personal questions about God and his will. In this situation, either it means that we need further reflection, or that we're asking the wrong questions which means we may need to realign our concerns with the Bible's.
The Bible won't state everything down explicitly. Often our understanding of God is derived as a consequence of what we read in the Bible. E.g. the Bible doesn't mention the Trinity, but we can certainly see the ideas (e.g. John 17). This has implications on contemporary issues or things which we think the Bible doesn't deal with. We can draw principles and doctrines and apply them to different contexts. But you likely won't find specific answers to decisions in your own context such as whether you should do X or Y.
Not everything in the Bible is easy to understand. Often the difficulty in understanding lies in our own hardness against God, which is why God has given us the Holy Spirit to help us. Often it is because of the difficulty in understanding the actual meaning. The reformers also derived the principle that Scripture should interpret Scripture, which upholds the authority of the Bible while recognising its difficulties. Often the difficulty in understanding is not in individual statements but in the message as a whole and in the emphases. E.g. many parts of the Bible teaches us to love, but it is not the biggest teaching. The biggest teaching is that we need God's salvation because without it we cannot love anyway.

It's commonly recognised that there are at least 3 other sources: reason, tradition, experience. These are part of God's common grace to everyone. They can be helpful, but these should only be considered as secondary sources. They are ultimately flawed because people are flawed.

Reason. We use reason in deducing a lot of things, even reading the Bible. But we know that our capabilities to reason are limited, and people contradict themselves anyway. From a philosophical perspective, we can't know God by sheer reason. Our senses have limited scope, and by nature we deny God anyway (Rom 1:19f). God needs to reveal himself to us and tell us about himself and what he desires. E.g. he needs to tell us that there is only 1 of him. Anything else is just a guessing game. E.g. "I think God is like ..."
Experience. Can we know God from experiencing a vision? We don't particularly need it if the Bible is his revelation to us. A vision doesn't make us more anointed. Neither do we need such a vision or revelation to supplement the Bible since the Bible is sufficient. But if we do get such a vision, it should still be weighed up against Scripture (e.g. 1 Jn 4:1-3). Besides, the Holy Spirit is the important subjective, experience of God. I don't mean speaking in tongues, and it doesn't need to 'feel' particularly spiritual. The fact that we can repent and believe in Jesus is evidence of it already.
Tradition. Can an individual (such as the Pope) have more authority to give a special revelation from God? People may have particular gifts from God, e.g. Eph 4:11. The Apostles carried a unique authority because they were eyewitnesses to Jesus (Acts 1:21). But no one has a special phone line to God. All Christians have the same direct line to God, i.e. the Holy Spirit. Even the Apostles needed that before they could start preaching (Acts 2). Having said that, the teaching of church leaders, books or each other can be helpful. Even non-Christian teachings/writings can be helpful. But that's not to say that they're always right. Neither can they carry the same authority as the Bible, because they are ultimately man's words.

So we can have secondary sources to help us know God, but the ultimate authority is the Bible because of the special authority that the Bible carries as the Word of God. The implication is that everything else is either wrong or inadequate, which means that we do need to come back to the Bible in the end. And because of the difficulty of understanding the Bible sometimes, we need to continually be going back to Scripture. You may even be surprised by what you find.

Short answer: YES! Why? It's my biblical basis:

  2Co 10:5 KJV
  Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that
  exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into
  captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

The bible is like a programming language that can compile itself! :)


Why did Jesus say the Son of Man was Lord over the Sabbath because the Sabbath was made for man? Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (NIV Mark 2:27-28)

There seems to be a connection with the Sabbath being made for 'any man' and from this proposition, 'the Son of Man' , that is the second Adam, has all the more right to change the Sabbath, or at least at a minimum use it as it was intended to the first Adam, if he so chooses.

I sense an argument here but can't immediately find the words for it.  Has anyone heard of a good explanation? I looked up a couple commentaries but nothing seemed to be that good at all.

I think you are getting hung up on Son of Man being a divine title. We take it as that, but it doesn't mean that fundamentally. It means something along the lines of the Ideal Man, the Best Man, the Representitive Man. It doesn't imply divinity.

Jesus' point then is that the Sabbath was created for the good of people. That's how the CEV translates it. JB Phillips translates it "for the sake of man". In other words the purpose of Man is not to keep the Sabbath - the purpose of the Sabbath is to keep Man operating as (s)he should.

Because of this, Jesus is saying, if the rules of the Sabbath are actually getting in the way of people doing the right thing, then they should be changed and Man has the power to do that. It should of course be noted that the precise details of what was permitted on the Sabbath were not direct commands of God; the violation was only of the current interpretation of what constituted Sabbath-breaking.

Bart Ehrman gave the following explanation: "[If] you translate from Aramaic however, Aramaic used the same word for man and son of man, 'barnash' so it really means, Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around". This agrees in principle with the currently accepted answer by @DJClayworth. (Source: Rational Responders)


Was the Athanasian Creed ever translated into Koine Greek? If so, where can I find the text? I am aware that it was most likely originally composed in Latin (this is why it is highly unlikely that St. Athanasius himself wrote it) but has anyone ever tried translating it into Koine Greek?

If so, where would I be able to find the text?

After a lot of searching, I found out that the Athanasian Creed does, in fact, exist in several Koine Greek versions. Here is one version of it:

Όποιος θέλει να σωθεί, είναι αναγκαίο πρώτα απ' όλα, να τηρεί την καθολική(ανοικτή σ' όλους, παγκόσμια, δεν εννοεί την Ρωμαιοκαθολική) πίστη.
Όποιος δεν την διαφυλάξει πλήρη και απαραβίαστη, χωρίς αμφιβολία θα χαθεί αιώνια.
Η καθολική πίστη λοιπόν είναι αυτή: Τιμούμε ένα Θεό εν Τριάδι, και την Τριάδα εν Μονάδι.
Χωρίς να συγχέουμε τα πρόσωπα, χωρίς να διαιρούμε τη Θεία Ουσία.
Γιατί άλλο Πρόσωπο είναι ο Πατέρας, άλλο ο Υιός κι άλλο το Πνεύμα το Άγιο.
Αλλά είναι μία η Θειότητα του Πατρός, και του Υιού, και του Αγίου Πνεύματος, ίση σε δόξα, συναιώνια σε μεγαλοπρέπεια.
Ότι είναι ο Πατέρας, είναι και ο Υιός, και το Άγιο Πνεύμα.
Άκτιστος (αδημιούργητος) ο Πατέρας, άκτιστος ο Υιός, άκτιστο και το Άγιο Πνεύμα.
Άπειρος ο Πατήρ, άπειρος ο Υιός, άπειρο το Άγιο Πνεύμα.
Αιώνιος ο Πατέρας, αιώνιος ο Υιός, αιώνιο το Άγιο Πνεύμα.
Και όμως δεν είναι τρεις αιώνιοι, αλλά ένας αιώνιος.
Όπως δεν είναι τρεις άκτιστοι, ούτε τρεις άπειροι, αλλά ένας άκτιστος και ένας άπειρος.
Παρομοίως, παντοδύναμος είναι ο Πατήρ, παντοδύναμος ο Υιός, παντοδύναμο το Άγιο Πνεύμα.
Και όμως δεν είναι τρεις παντοδύναμοι, αλλά ένας παντοδύναμος.
Έτσι Θεός είναι ο Πατέρας, Θεός ο Υιός, Θεός το Άγιο Πνεύμα.
Και όμως δεν είναι τρεις θεοί, αλλά ένας Θεός.
Έτσι Κύριος είναι ο Πατήρ, Κύριος ο Υιός, Κύριος το Άγιο Πνεύμα.
Και όμως δεν είναι τρεις Κύριοι, αλλά ένας Κύριος.
Γιατί, όπως μας υποχρεώνει η χριστιανική αλήθεια να αναγνωρίζουμε το κάθε Πρόσωπο να είναι Θεός και Κύριος αφ' εαυτού Του.
Έτσι και η καθολική θρησκεία μας απαγορεύει να λέμε ότι υπάρχουν τρεις Θεοί και Κύριοι.
Ο Πατήρ δεν έχει φτιαχτεί από κανέναν: ούτε έχει δημιουργηθεί, ούτε έχει γεννηθεί.
Ο Υιός, είναι μόνο του Πατρός. Δεν είναι κτιστός ούτε δημιουργημένος, αλλά γεννημένος.
Το Άγιο Πνεύμα είναι του Πατρός. Δεν είναι κτιστό ούτε δημιουργημένο, ούτε γεννημένο, αλλά εκπορευόμενο.
Έτσι υπάρχει ένας Πατήρ, όχι τρεις Πατέρες. Ένας Υιός, όχι τρεις Υιοί. Ένα Άγιο Πνεύμα, όχι τρία Άγια Πνεύματα.
Και σ' αυτή την Τριάδα κανείς δεν προηγείται και κανείς δεν έπεται, κανείς δεν είναι μεγαλύτερος ή μικρότερος (από τον άλλο).
Αλλά καθ' ολοκληρία τα τρία πρόσωπα είναι συναιώνια και ίσα μεταξύ τους.
Έτσι ώστε σε όλα τα πράγματα, όπως έχει ειπωθεί παραπάνω, η Μονάδα εν Τριάδι, και η Τριάδα εν Μονάδι πρέπει να λατρεύεται.
Όποιος θέλει να σωθεί, έτσι πρέπει να σκέπτεται για την Τριάδα.
Επιπλέον είναι απαραίτητο για την αιώνια σωτηρία, να πιστεύει σωστά στην ενσάρκωση του Κυρίου μας Ιησού Χριστού.
Γιατί η ορθή πίστη είναι αυτή που πιστεύουμε και ομολογούμε, ότι ο Κύριός μας Ιησούς Χριστός, Υιός του Θεού, είναι Θεός και άνθρωπος.
Είναι Θεός από την ουσία του Πατέρα Του, γεννημένος πριν από τους κόσμους. Και άνθρωπος από την ουσία της μητέρας Του, γεννημένος μέσα στον κόσμο.
Τέλειος Θεός, τέλειος άνθρωπος. Αποτελούμενος από ψυχή λογική και ανθρώπινη σάρκα.
Ίσος με τον Πατέρα όσον αφορά τη Θεότητα. Κατώτερος απ' τον Πατέρα όσον αφορά την ανθρώπινη φύση Του.
Όμως παρότι είναι Θεός και άνθρωπος, δεν είναι δύο, αλλά ένας Χριστός.
Ένας, όχι με μετατροπή της θεότητας σε σάρκα, αλλά με πρόσληψη της ανθρωπότητας από τον Θεό.
Ένας, ολόκληρος, όχι δια της σύγχυσης των ουσιών (της θείας & ανθρώπινης ουσίας), αλλά στην ενότητα του Προσώπου.
Γιατί όπως η λογική ψυχή και η σάρκα κάνουν έναν άνθρωπο, έτσι ο Θεός και ο Άνθρωπος είναι Ένας Χριστός.
που υπέφερε για τη σωτηρία μας. Κατέβηκε στην κόλαση. Την τρίτη μέρα αναστήθηκε από τους νεκρούς.
Ανελήφθη στους ουρανούς, κάθισε εκ δεξιών του Θεού Πατρός του Παντοδύναμου.
Από όπου και θα έρθει να κρίνει ζώντες και νεκρούς.
Στην έλευση του οποίου όλοι οι άνθρωποι θα αναστηθούν με τα σώματά τους
και θα δώσουν λόγο για τα έργα τους.
Κι αυτοί που έχουν έργα καλά, θα μεταβούν σε αιώνια ζωή, κι αυτοί που έχουν έργα κακά, σε αιώνια κόλαση.
Αυτή είναι η καθολική πίστη, την οποία αν δεν πιστεύει κανείς ειλικρινά και σταθερά, δεν μπορεί να σωθεί. Αμήν.

Η Αγία Τριάδα


Is Belief in the Historical Accuracy of Gospels a prerequisite to Christianity? Is it a requirement of the faith that all adherents must believe in the literal flow of events as conveyed by the Bible surrounding the life of Jesus Christ?  Is it possible for someone to accept his teachings as presented, while still doubting or even disbelieving entirely some or all of the events presented therein?  Is it necessary to be fully convinced in the events of the Passion, the betrayal of Judas, and all of the events contained therein to be a Christian?  If not, were is the line drawn?  Is it necessary to believe that Jesus actually walked on water, or can that tale be accepted as a morality tale without accepting that it literally happened?

Personally, I do believe all events portrayed actually happened.

However I do not think there is any requirement in Christianity that you understand or even believe everything just perfectly so -- cross your t's and dot your i's -- in order to be saved. You can not be convinced of the exact details in the gospel accounts and still believe in Jesus as savior. Do you or do you not believe that He is Lord, the only way to the Father, the one who secured God's forgiveness for your sins? If so then there is lots of grace for our doubts and confusions.

My question in return would be: Why? What is the point? Also, how did you get there? Let's take the walk-on-water example. If you believe Jesus is who he said he is, something had to convince you of that. If the accounts we have of His miracles are to be distrusted and discarded, how are we to trust the accounts of His teachings about being the only savior of men? If his disciples fabricated the story of His walking on water, what business have we to trust the teachings they spread throughout the area in the years following?

There is room in Christianity for all manner of mis-directed beliefs. Our salvation depends on the person and works of someone else, not our own. We would all be damned if we had to get every detail right. However, if we HAVE been saved, I think it is part of our calling to learn as much about Him as we can as rightly as we can. There is no excuse for deliberate disbelief or being picky-choosy just because you don't LIKE something that He taught.

I once had a deacon say to me "Everything in the Bible is true. And some of it actually happened."

Basically I believe most of what is in the New Testament happened, or something close to it.

In the Old Testament, I believe some of the historical stuff like where they are talking about which kings did this and that (it seems as believable as any other history), but in the earlier books like Genesis where they talk about Noah and the Ark and Jonah and the whale and those stories, not so much.


Which Apocrypha are part of the Catholic and the Orthodox traditions and which are not? Why? How do the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches differentiate between which Apocrypha are part of their holy tradition and which are not?

For example, the story of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary is not contained in any books of the Bible and is rather coming from the early Apocrypha: "The Protevangelium of James".

However, as far as I know, at least in the Orthodox Church this story is absolutely believed upon and its validity is never questioned. The Orthodox definitely consider this story to be a part of their tradition. On the other hand, there are many Apocrypha that describe exactly the same stories that are described in the New Testaments, however, those Apocrypha are just considered Apocrypha, their authorship and spiritual validity are held under question, and they are not considered by the Orthodox to be the part of their tradition.

Eastern Orthodox Old Testament "Apocrypha"

In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Old Testament Apocrypha comprises books such as the Assumption of Moses, Ascension of Isaiah, Apocalypse of Elijah, Book of Enoch, and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.  Other traditions sometimes refer to these books as apocrypha and/or pseudoepigrapha.

None of the these books were included in the Old Testament canon confirmed by the 7th Ecumenical Council in 787, nor in any of the preceding related councils (i.e. Council of Carthage in 397, Council of Trullo in 692).  In some other Orthodox traditions that broke away after the 3rd and 4th Ecumenical Councils (e.g. Ethiopean/Eritrean), the Book of Enoch is also included in the Old Testament and not considered as being part of the Old Testament Apocrypha.

Eastern Orthodox New Testament "Apocrypha"

In the Eastern Orthodox tradition again, the New Testament Apocrypha includes the Didache, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the First Epistle of Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel of Judas, and the Protoevangelium of James.

Some of the above books (e.g. Gospel of Thomas) were considered truly spurious and heretical (usually gnostic) and were never considered as part of the canon by the Church of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Some of the books were included in some manuscripts we have of the New Testament used in the early Church (e.g. Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus - the two principal witnesses behind the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament text).  These include Clement, Barnabas, and Hermas.  Although eventually excluded form the canon, they were not considered heretical and to this day are part of the written tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Other Orthodox traditions (e.g. Ethiopean/Eritrean) continue to include some of these books (e.g. Clement) in their New Testament canon to this day.

Still others were never included in any New Testament compilation, but neither are they considered heretical.  These include the Didache and the Protoevangelium of James.

The Deuterocanon

Again in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, there are a number of Old Testament books which, though not part of the Hebrew canon, are included in the overall Old Testament canon.  Within the Eastern Orthodox Church, this set comprises:

I Esdras
The portion of II Esdras called the "Prayer of Manasseh"
Tobit
Judith
Portions of Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
Baruch
Epistle of Jeremiah
The portions of Daniel:

Song of the Three Children
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon

Psalm 151
I Maccabees
II Maccabees
III Maccabees

Although "apocrypha" is a Greek word, the Greek Church never referred to any of the above books as apocrypha, which has a derogatory connotation.  They are instead referred to as the deuterocanon (the second canon).  You will sometimes find the books referred to as "Apocrypha" in Orthodox sources nonetheless, but this is largely in deference to non-Orthodox terminology.

Jerome seems to have been the first to have labeled the deuterocanon as "apocrypha" in one of his introductions to his Latin translation of the Old Testament.  He seem to have objected to the inclusion of books outside the Hebrew canon in the Old Testament, but elsewhere he wrote that he felt he must defer to the Church. (He translated all of the deuterocanon and included it in his work.)

Timeline of the Deuterocanon/"Apocrypha"

An overview of how the Old Testament canon developed within the Church is discussed here and here.  A brief timeline would be:

Through 2nd century

There is not consensus on the content of the Old Testament.

Marcion (85-160) holds that that the entire Old Testament - Hebrew or otherwise - should be excluded from the Bible.
Melito of Sardis (d. 180) seems to exclude the deuterocanon from what he considers to be the Old Testament.
Deuterocanonical books found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Some early Church Fathers quote from the deuterocanon (e.g. Irenaeus, 130-202), others do not (e.g. Justin Martyr, 100-165).

3rd century

Origen includes Maccabees in the Old Testament canon he enumerates, although it is not clear which specific books.
Canon LXXXV of the Apostolic Canons include a number of deuterocanonical books in the Old Testament, including Sirach and Maccabees.  (These canons are of indeterminate origin.  Some scholars say they may date to the 2nd century, others to as late as the 5th or 6th, though.)

4th century

Hilary of Poitiers (310-368) includes Tobit and Judith in his enumeration of the Old Testament
Jerome (347-420) includes the entire deuterocanon in his Latin translation of the Old Testament (see above)
Virtually every Church Father quotes from the deuterocanon in their works, including John Chrysostom (349-407) (called by John MacArthur "the greatest preacher of the early Church").
The deuterocanon is bound up with the Bible codices of this period (see above)
Canon XXXIII of the 3rd Council of Carthage (397) includes the deuterocanon in the Old Testament

7th century

The Council of Trullo (692) ratifies and adopts many ancient local canons, including the Apostolic Canons.  Canon LXXXV of the Apostolic Canon includes the deuterocanon in the Old Testament (see above).

8th century

The 7th Ecumenical Council in Nicaea (787) ratifies and adopts the canons of both the 3rd Council of Carthage and the Council of Trullo.  This effectively establishes the following Old Testament canon for the entire Chalcedonian Church (i.e. the Church recognizing all 7 Ecumenical Councils to that date):

  Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
  Joshua, Judges, Ruth
  1-4 Kings (referred to as 1/2 Samuel and 1/2 Kings in most Bibles today)
  1/2 Chronicles
  Job
  Psalms
  Proverbs
  Ecclesiastes
  Song of Songs
  Wisdom of Solomon
  Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus)
  The books of the 12 Prophets: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
  Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel
  Tobit
  Judith
  Esther
  Ezra and Nehemiah
  1-3 Maccabees

"Great Schism" to the Reformation and beyond

The See of Rome and the other four Sees (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem) mutually separated in 1054 as the Pope of Rome and Patriarch of Constantinople mutually anathematize each other.

The Roman Catholic Council of Trent (c 1546) issues a decree (De Canonicis Scripturis) re-affirming the canon of the 3rd Council of Carthage, resulting in minimal changes to the canon established by the 7th Ecumenical Council.
The Geneva Bible is published in 1560 with the deuterocanon specified the 7th Ecumenical Council.
The King James Bible is published in 1611 with the deuterocanon specified by the 7th Ecumenical Council.
The Synod of Jerusalem (1692) amends the Old Testament canon to include the Prayer of Manasseh and a 4th Book of Maccabees.  Technically, the canons of this synod only apply to the Jerusalem Patriarchate.  To date, most Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions recognize the Prayer of Manasseh, but not 4 Maccabees.
The deuterocanon begins disappearing from editions of the King James Bible beginning in the early 19th century.

I'm not aware of any. I would say that it's not possible. First off, there is no single Bible. The word "bible" means "books" plural in Greek.  Various groups picked certain ancient books to be part of their Bible, and ignored many others. Different groups ignored different books.  The Protestant believe there are 66 books. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church says 81. Some churches regard "Book of Jubilees" to be holy, and other don't. Each church decided which books were going into their bible, and if they didn't, the book is not holy to them by definition.


According to Catholicism, what Old Testament text is referred to in John 19: 36? We see at John 19: 31-36, how the early death of Jesus on the Cross staved off the prospects of his legs being broken to fasten death :
".... Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. .... But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs... These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”
The cross reference of OT that one gets to the said Verse 36 are the following:
Psalms 34:19-20:
The righteous person may have many troubles,
but the Lord delivers him from them all;
he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.
Exodus 12:43-46
"The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “These are the regulations for the Passover meal:... It must be eaten inside the house; take none of the meat outside the house. Do not break any of the bones. "
Numbers 9: 10-12:
"" Tell the Israelites: .... to celebrate the Lord’s Passover,  ..... on the fourteenth day of the second month at twilight. They are to eat the lamb, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.  They must not leave any of it till morning or break any of its bones. "
While the references of Exodus and Numbers refer to the bones of the sacrificial lamb, that of Psalms refer to the righteous person. I wish to know as to which of the above is the OT reference that  the Evangelist had in mind at John 19:36 . Does the Catholic Church offer any definitive clue in this regard ?

According to Catholicism, what Old Testament text is referred to in John 19: 36?
The Original and True Rheims New Testament of Anno Domini 1582 (page 227) states very clearly in the margin for reference on the bold text of John 19:36 that it refers to Ex 12:46.

For these things were done that the scripture might be fulfilled, You shall not break a bone of him.

Exodus 12:46 reads as follows:

46 In one house shall it be eaten, neither shall you carry forth of the flesh thereof out of the house, neither shall you break a bone thereof.

Jesus is the true Lamb of God

The Original Rheims translation cites Ex. 12:46 in the margin of Jn. 19:36.


Did Jesus appear post-resurrection to twelve apostles? We see at 1 Cor 15:3-5:

  For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,  and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

But, we see Matthias being elected as replacement for Judas Iscariot only after the ascension of Jesus (See Acts 1:9 [Jesus' ascension] & Acts 1:26 [Matthias chosen]).

My question is: whom does Paul refer to as "the twelve" when there were only eleven apostles left in the group before the ascension of the Lord? What is the explanation offered by Catholic Church for the said statement of Paul?

While Matthias was not an apostle at the time that Jesus appeared to the other eleven apostles, the Scriptures do indicate that Matthias was a disciple during Jesus' ministry.

According to Peter’s words (Ac 1:21, 22), Matthias had been a follower of Christ throughout Jesus’ three-and-a-half-year ministry, had been closely associated with the apostles, and was quite likely one of the 70 disciples or evangelists whom Jesus sent out to preach. (Lu 10:1) After his selection, he was “reckoned along with the eleven apostles” by the congregation (Ac 1:26), and when the book of Acts immediately thereafter speaks of “the apostles” or “the twelve,” Matthias was included.—Ac 2:37, 43; 4:33, 36; 5:12, 29; 6:2, 6; 8:1, 14; see PAUL. [article "Matthias" printed in "Insight on the Scriptures" by Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania]

So, Paul was recognizing Matthias as an apostle even though his appointment to that position had not be made yet.
(While not an answer from the Catholic perspective, this does give an answer from the Bible itself.)

In Acts 1 Peter's conditions for a new apostle are that "one of the men who have accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John’s baptism until the day Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection." Acts 1:21-22

So the new apostle was a person who had seen Christ in His resurrection, and could be considered one of the twelve, even though his official designation came after Jesus ascended.


Does the Bible say anything about our human relations being kept after death? Does death separate us from the people we love forever? Do we keep our human relations or do we start over?

I'm looking for any scripture passages that backup this claim or the contrary.

TL;DR The answer seems to be a clear "Yes" on this matter.
David Legg has an excellent sermon on the subject here, from which I obtained much of this research.
Many people have heard the passage about there being no marriage in Heaven:

Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." (Matthew 22:29-30)

There is some evidence that persons will be recognizable even after they are in heaven. At the Mount of Transfiguration, the disciples with Jesus were able to recognize Moses and Elijah. Legg treats with the question of how the disciples were able to recognize figures who died hundreds of years before their time, but it appears that there is at least the ability to recognize others.
But what about interpersonal relationships? Will we be able to spend time with those we knew on Earth, all while worshiping God forever? 1 Thessalonians 2:19 says:

For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?

Legg also goes into a deep analysis of the consistent use of the phrase "gathered together", which we see in 1 Thess 4:17 and 2 Thess 2:1. The point he makes is that in saying "gathered together", the Bible says that we will be participating with our friends and family in worship.
Then the question becomes on what level will our relationships be? We already know from above that we will neither marry nor be given in marriage, but how will relate with those we recognize?
Hebrews 8:5 says:

They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.”

Because the earth is but a shadow of heaven, that is the reason people are not given in marriage in heaven. Legg says explicitly:

...marriage was a shadow, or if you like a signpost, relating to a greater relationship which is the relationship of the Christian, the church, with their Bridegroom, Christ Jesus.
Now a signpost becomes unnecessary when we reach our destination. You see, marriage, as we have known it down here on earth is a copy, it is an echo of the true, ultimate marriage that will take place at the marriage supper of the Lamb when Christ, the Bridegroom, is wed to His bride, the church. The purpose of earthly human marriage for us down here is in order to point us to that day, and even prepare us for that day in heaven.

The relationships we develop on this earth will not go away when we get to heaven, but they will be deepened with each other, and new friendships can be formed with those that died hundreds or thousands of years before us.
Further evidence is given in the wording used when the patriarchs of ancient Israel died:

Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years; and he was gathered to his people. (Genesis 25:8)
And Isaac breathed his last, and he died and was gathered to his people, old and full of days. And his sons Esau and Jacob buried him. (Genesis 35:29)

That article closes with an excellent point:

We will be reunited not only with our own families and loved ones, but also with the people of God from all ages. In heaven we will all be one loving family. The immense size of the family will not matter in the infinite perfection of heaven. There will be ample opportunity for close relationships with everyone, and our eternity will be spent in just that kind of rich, unending fellowship.

It is amazing the type of answers that flow regarding this question of after life.it is more amazing when we use scriptures to determine our way of thinking. We know there is no marriage in heaven....we have reason to reject the though of marriage...what was the reason for Jesus to say there is no marriage in heaven.the question asked was about men having many wives. Will all the wives be with that husband .
Sure we will all be together as children of God..it is true we will know each other and the role we played here on earth...but as for relationship....there will not be a relationship that is experienced on earth....but a relationship that the angels have....we all will belong to one big family...
We will also not have the mind that we have on earth....our minds will be spiritual with no carnality.
It is good to know that we all will be spiritual beings.

As for Jesus's resurrection and the reaction of the disciples..this does not mean we too will have that type of relationship.....we need to understand that Jesus body was resurrected.....the disciples had a natural body...
Jesus after the resurrection did all he did to prove who he is......this does not mean ..that we will experience likewise..


How do "Sola Fide" adherents reconcile with the three aspects of faith? Historical Protestantism (particularly in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions) have since the Magisterial Reformation held to two doctrines relating what is required of an individual for salvation.

The first is the doctrine of Sola Fide, meaning "by faith alone". This principle states that salvation is not by works of man, but by faith in Christ. In fact, not only are works insufficient to merit salvation on their own, they account for not even a portion of our salvation--it is, rather, wholly through faith in Christ.

The second doctrine was worked out by Luther and put into its present form by his collaborator and successor, Melancthon. This doctrine is simply a definition of faith, or sometimes known as the three aspects of faith--as such, it is intended to explain what is required of the "faith" for salvation "by faith alone". The doctrine has three steps:

notitia One must know the basic information (or "content") such as Christ's death and resurrection.
assensus One must agree that the basic information is correct. In other words, he/she must not only have heard that Christ died and rose again, but they must believe that he did do that.
fiducia One must trust in Christ, and rest on the knowledge that the content to which he/she assented is sufficient to save.

It is this last piece--fiducia--that I struggle with reconciling with the concept of Sola Fide. Scripture makes clear that these first two points are insufficient (James 2:19), and on the face of it, it makes sense that we must trust in Christ for our salvation.

Where I struggle is that fiducia puts faith in functional terms. This means that, although in theory, I trust in Christ for my salvation, I don't always do so in practice.

Here's an example: I'm can be a bit of a control freak, and sometimes yell at my wife in trying to assert my control. I am not loving her as I'm commanded to do so, and it stems from my pride. Although I think I trust in Christ for my salvation, my actions show that I am considering another functional 'gospel' (control) of 'salvation' and another function 'god' (myself) that will effect that 'salvation'.

When I stop and think about it, I know that I am no god, and that my gospel is no gospel, but I do stumble and my actions reveal my heart. In fact, I would argue (and Luther has) that every sin follows such a pattern.

To come at the problem more directly, this notion of fiducia makes my faith dependent upon my works, whereas "Sola Fide" asserts that salvation is through faith and not works. How does this puzzle fit together?

The apparent contradiction stems from a misunderstanding of "works," and specifically of what Paul wrote about them.  Two passages in particular tend to cause a lot of confusion:

  Romans 10:9

  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
  believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
  shalt be saved.

  Ephesians 2: 8-9

  8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

  9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Some people have taken this to mean that salvation comes by some simple act of claiming faith and that after this, the person is saved and salvation is not affected by a person's works.  This is a very bad notion, because of what you get when you take it to its logical conclusion: "I have free license to sin because I'm saved and what I do doesn't matter!"

This isn't a hypothetical problem, either.  Here's what Richard Hill, an 18th century Wesleyan theologian, had to say on the subject:

  "God sees no sin in believers whatever sin they commit... adultery, incest and murder shall, upon the whole, make me holier on earth and merrier in heaven."

This notion is in direct contradiction to the words of the Savior, especially in the Sermon on the Mount, where he taught that not only do sinful actions put us in spiritual danger, but also sinful thoughts.  Of particular interest are his words at the conclusion of the sermon:

  Matthew 7: 21-23

  21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

  22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

  23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

In verses 22 and 23, the Savior reaffirms that works of righteousness do not bring salvation if the person's heart is not in the right place and they do not truly know Jesus, but in verse 21, we see what appears to be a direct contradiction of Romans 10: 9.

James 2, which has already been quoted, states that faith without works is dead and cannot bring salvation.  Peter warned his readers about misinterpreting Paul and wresting the scriptures to their own destruction.  And John, in Revelation, makes it clear that in the resurrection we will all be judged according to our works.

So here we have Jesus himself, and also Peter, James and John, the three most trusted of his apostles, all contradicting the simplistic notion of salvation by faith alone and without works.  Faced with this, we must either condemn Paul as a heretic, or seek an alternate interpretation, and I don't particularly think Paul was a heretic.

Let's look at Romans 10: 9 first.  Remember that he was writing to Roman Christians, subject to Roman law, which wasn't all that favorable to Christianity at that point, to put it mildly.  Being willing to confess belief in Christ with your lips was no simple thing the way it is today; it was exposing yourself to persecution and possibly even death simply for the sake of your religion. That's quite a difficult thing to do, even for someone with a lot of faith!

Then we have the passage from Ephesians, where Paul states that salvation comes from faith and the grace of God, and "not of works, lest any man should boast."  Reading the context makes it clear that the works he is talking about are the works of the Law of Moses, through which Jews could find a focus for their faith and obtain salvation before it was fulfilled in Christ.  The explanation in verse 9 can be understood in that context by reading Luke 18:

  Luke 18: 9-14

  9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

  10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

  11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee,
  that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or
  even as this publican.

  12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

  13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as
  his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be
  merciful to me a sinner.

  14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than
  the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he
  that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

There were those in Jewish society then, as there have always been and still are in every civilization, who boasted of their piety and outward good works and thought that what they did made them better than others.  Paul is making it clear that that attitude will score you zero points with the Lord, that even with good works and acts of righteousness, you are still a sinner and nothing you do can undo your past.  Only through God's grace can you find forgiveness for your sins.

So we see that good works do not bring salvation in and of themselves, but also that professions of faith that are not backed up with actual righteous living "is dead, being alone," as James put it.  Fiducia is a principle that bridges the gap, basically equivalent to the Savior's exhortation, "if you love me, keep my commandments," or James's explanation that we show our faith by our works.  A person with true faith will not simply sit around believing that they believe, but will go out and live the Gospel, doing good works out of love for God and love for their fellow men and striving to come always a little bit closer to fulfilling the ultimate commandment, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)

To me, the answer is apparent from Ephesians 2:8-9. Given that one’s deed is not required to receive God’s gift of grace, the fundamental question is therefore "what is this faith, how* do we say or proclaim this faith and to whom should we proclaim this faith?"  It can be argued that the Lord's Prayer itself is the proclamation of our faith in the fulfillment of the will of the Father in His Son, Jesus Christ. It is our Christian Creed, taught by no sinful mortal, but by Jesus Christ himself.

An excellent source is the book "The Creed of Christ: An Interpretation of The Lord's Prayer" by Gerald Heard (1889 - 1971).  A well-known author, philosopher and lecturer, Heard studied history and theology at the University of Cambridge, graduating with honours in history. He lectured from 1926 to 1929 for Oxford University's extramural studies programme.  More information about him can be sourced from Wikipedia.

In the book, Heard describes The Lord's Prayer as the "real creed of Christianity."  On page 6 of his book, he writes:

QUOTE (any mistake is mine):
At the heart of the Gospels there is, however, one other thing. Beside the new Commandments, beside the new Law, more lovely but far more exacting than the old, there is, put more briefly and tersely, a master-instruction, a set of key-rules as to how that Law may be kept. There is only one passage in the biographies more central than the Sermon on the Mount. It is more central because it is the root from which the action ordered by the Sermon must spring, because it shows the source of power without which the Sermon, the Beatitudes, remain a magnificent but impossible demand, a splendid promise which cannot be fulfilled. That passage is therefore rightly called by a supreme title, the Lord's Prayer.
UNQUOTE

Heard goes on to link faith and the Lord's Prayer (for example, as implied by the following passage, page 94):

QUOTE:
It is so against the grain of our present nature to realize that any right prayer must first and foremost be something which alters the self, a process whereby desire is transcended and the will transmuted."Bread of the Coming Day...My bread is to do the Will of Him Who sent me." How are we to do that will which is so different from ours? Are we not here involved in a vicious cycle? To live as God would have us live His eternal Life we have to do His will, but to do His will we have to become part of his Life. As long as we are self-willed, motivated by our wills, we do our wills, not His.
UNQUOTE

I strongly recommend the book that masterfully examines the Lord's Prayer and raises it to the level where it should be - our Creed.


What does "give that which is holy to dogs" mean? What does this mean?

  You must not give that which is holy to dogs. Do not cast your pearls before swine, or the swine may trample them under foot, and
  then turn on you and tear you to pieces.

  (Matthew 7:6)

In context, Jesus just taught his disciples not to judge in Matthew 7:1-5. The kind of judgment Jesus meant is the judgment of a critical and censorious spirit. That kind of judgment seeks to impute motivations to behaviors one person observes in another person. Since quite frequently, people have a tendency to project their own failings onto other people, Jesus had to teach his disciples that that kind of judgment is wrong.
On the other hand, there are times when Christians are to USE good judgment, particularly since they have a mandate to preach the gospel and make disciples. Times come, however, when the audience to our witnessing to the truth in Christ Jesus will confront us with hostility, hatred, and even occasionally violence. In situations such as those, Jesus does not expect us to continue being his witnesses to such hostile audiences.
The analogy Jesus uses is phrased in chiastic form (i.e., A-B-B-A, or A-B-B'-A', a form of inverted parallelism). In other words, in the form of a Miller's analogy, holy is to dogs which turn and tear you to pieces, as pearls are to swine who trample (i.e., holy:dogs that tear::pearls:swine that trample).

the dogs are analogous to people who are antagonistic to a disciple's witness for Jesus. Since dogs in Jesus' day were primarily of the wild, feral type, if you were to throw them a scrap of meat, they would eat the scrap, and when they had finished it they just might turn and attack the source of the meat! So it is with a person (or group of people) whose reaction to the gospel is not only antagonistic but even borders on being violent. From such a one, Jesus warned, steer clear.

the pigs are also analogous to people who are antagonistic to a disciple's witness for Jesus. Instead of expressing violence toward the Christian, they treat with contempt the pearls of wisdom they hear coming from the lips of Christians. A modern pig of this sort would be Bill Maher, who instead of "playing fair" when debating Christians will "fight dirty," calling the Christians names (the old ad hominem fallacy), making Christians' pearls of wisdom sound narrow-minded, old-fashioned, outmoded, outdated, stupid, idiotic, irrational, and on and on and on. Instead of debating issues intelligently, rationally, and fairly, he simply casts aspersions on people of faith.

Jesus used this kind of good judgment, for example, when his reading of Isaiah and his brief commentary on that reading in the synagogue in his home town caused his audience to be "filled with rage." Rather than letting the mob have their way with him--they wanted to throw Jesus to his death from the brow of the hill on which Nazareth was built, Jesus simply vanished!

"But passing through their midst, He went His way. And He came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and He was teaching them on the Sabbath; and they were amazed at His teaching, for His message was with authority" (Luke 4:301-32).

What a difference between Jesus' audience in Nazareth and his audience in Capernaum! Matthew gives us some additional information about Jesus' experience in Nazareth:

"And they took offense at Him . . .. And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief" (13:57-58, excerpts).

Regarding these two kinds of audiences, the receptive audience and the hostile audience, Jesus told his disciples to use good judgment when they see they are getting nowhere with a hostile audience. That is, they are not to stick around and get into a harangue with an obviously hostile audience. Rather, they are to go to another audience who might be more receptive to the gospel of Christ.
Elsewhere in the Gospels, prior to sending his disciples out two by two, Jesus encouraged them to "shake the dust off their feet" as they left a town if the townspeople would neither receive them nor listen to what they had to say (see Matthew 10:14; Mark 6:11; and Luke 9:5).
In conclusion, judging people for their motives and for their faults as we see them, is the kind of judgment Christians are to avoid. On the other hand, using good judgment is the kind of judgment Christians (and churches, for that matter) are to use, whether in their interactions with unbelievers outside the church, or in their interactions with fellow believers within the church. The "sinners" outside the church, God will judge one day. The sinners inside the church, the leaders of the church are to judge, particularly is there are two or three witnesses to the sinful behavior of a brother or sister in Christ (see 1 Corinthians 5, especially verses 12 and 13).

the dogs and swine simply mean, the people that hear the good news do not believe and the anointed ones words find no place in their hearts. and the result of them hearing the message, they are angry hostile and indifferent. and may even become violent.


Was Mary given a glorified or "spiritual body" like the resurrected body of Jesus while on earth? In the 4th Dogma of Assumption Mary was assumed "body & soul" into heaven.
Scriptures tells us nothing defiled shall enter the Kingdom of God...(Rev21:27)
And also Gospel of Luke 24:36-ff narrates and describes the "resurrected body" of Jesus.
Jesus Appears to the Disciples

36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

My question is, Did Mary experienced or was given by God a "glorified body" while on earth?
I am looking for Catholic Church teaching or Church Father beliefs on Mary's glorified body that hinted similarity on Jesus resurrected body.

The dogma of the Assumption means that the Virgin Mary now experiences
  in heaven that union of glorified body and soul which her son enjoys.
  She is no disembodied spirit, but a complete human person, body and
  soul, matter and spirit, reigning with Christ.

  Mary experienced bodily redemption before the rest of the Church.
  Source

From another source:

  Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted
  from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege,
  completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result,
  she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the
  grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the
  redemption of her body.
  As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb. Source

So it seems that her body was a normal mortal body but kept incorrupt in the tomb and got glorified during that process at the end of her life.

I will answer the question by qouting the CCC999 & CCC1000 on the word "spiritual body".

999 How? Christ is raised with his own body: "See my hands and my feet, that it >is I myself";553 but he did not return to an earthly life. So, in him, "all of >them will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear," but Christ >"will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body," into a "spiritual >body":554
But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they >come?" You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And >what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel. . . . What is >sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. . . . The dead will be >raised imperishable. . . . For this perishable nature must put on the >imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality.555
So from CCC999 clearly stated "," but Christ "will change our lowly body to be >like his glorious body," or into a "spiritual body"

Now did Mary as the Catholic Orthodox belief in Mary's Dormition, Mary did not suffers physical death as St.Augustine and Catholic Church upheld that Mary did not commit any actual sins.
Genesis3:15 point to this as God the Father declares "perrenial enmity" between the Woman & Satan.
In CCC999 the Church is talking about Christ giving us a glorified body but CCC1000 teaches even further by saying a "Transfiguaration of our Bodies by receiving the Holy Eucharist"

1000 This "how" exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible >only to faith. Yet our participation in the Eucharist already gives us a >foretaste of Christ's transfiguration of our bodies:
Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God's blessing has been invoked >upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, the >one earthly and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the >Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection.556

Basing our understanding on the Church Teaching on CCC999 "glorified body" and CCC1000 saying by faith "thru reception of the Holy Eucharist" the faithful Catholics can experience incorruptibility as our faith in Holy Eucharist teaches.
This clearly manifested in all the incorruptible bodies of the Saints.
So, to answer if Mary experienced or was given a "glorified or spiritual body" like the resurrected body of Jesus while on earth.
The answer is YES! as it affirmed by Mary messages of internal locution to Fr.Stefano Gobbi's Blue Book Marian Movement of Priest.And by Catholic Church teaching in CCC1000 that by FAITH, the reception of the Holy Eucharist our bodies are sanctified to experience "transfiguration" by Jesus abiding presence in us.This biblical promised of Jesus is written in John6:53-55.
Also it's worth pondering the following statements:

The saints provided numerous evidence of experiencing incorruptibility of >the flesh.

Enoch and Elijah was lifted up to heaven body and soul.Take note this two >Patriarchs never receive the Holy Eucharist but was still able to enter God's >Kingdom.
As we all know scriptures said "nothing defiled shall enter God's Kingdom.."

After the Christ Ascension the Apostles together with Mary was praying the >Novena for the Holy Spirit to come.
The Holy Eucharist is like Jesus giving His flesh & blood that comes from >Blessed Virgin Mary in the Sanctified & Glorified formed, as Catholic Church >teaches the Real Presence Jesus in the Holy Eucharist is present >body,blood,soul & divinity.
Now imagine when Mary receives from Her Immaculate Body the Holy Eucharist in >the hands of the Apostles probably St.Peter Celebrated the Holy Mass in the >Upper Room.

Would Mary capable of receiving in Her Immaculate Body what the Catholic Church teaches in CCC1000 regarding "transfiguration"?

" This "how" exceeds our imagination and understanding; it is accessible only >to faith. Yet our participation in the Eucharist already gives us a foretaste >of Christ's transfiguration of our bodies:"

Mary is sinless and Mary lived a Trinitarian life of faith there's no obstacle for Mary to receive what Jesus Christ has promised in the Gospel of John.

As Pope Benedict XVI said: “The transformation of the bread and the wine into >Christ’s Body and Blood, is in fact the principle of the divinization of >creation itself…When, in adoration, we look at the consecrated Host, the sign >of creation speaks to us. And so, we encounter the greatness of His gift…>Through >this gaze of adoration, he draws us toward Himself, within His >mystery, through which He wants to transform us as He transformed the Host” (Corpus Domini ’06).

And from biblical references:

“Who can ascend the mountain of the Lord? Or who may stand in His holy place? >He whose hands are sinless, whose heart is clean. Who desires not what is >vain.” (Ps.24:3).
“All of us, gazing on the Lord’s glory with unveiled faces, are being >transformed from glory to glory into His very image by their Lord who is the >Spirit.” ( 2 Cor.3:18).
This Blood of Christ is real drink (2), and, together with His Flesh, is food >for our eternal life. () Jesus promised the Eucharist in these words: "Amen, >amen, I say to you, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His >Blood, you shall not have life in you. He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood >has life everlasting and I will raise him up on the last day. For My Flesh is >food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed. He who eats My Flesh, and drinks My >Blood, abides in Me and I in him." (John 6:54-57).

If St.Paul a great sinner exclaimed while on earth "it is no longer I who lived but Jesus", a proof of Jesus abiding presence for those who received the Holy Eucharist, what more can the Theotokos the Immaculate Mother who is sinless from the beginning and during Her earthly life?

To affirmed that Mary received a "glorified body while on earth" the Blue >Book Marian Movement of Priests by Fr.Stefano Gobbi had a couple of passages >where Mary said God had given Her a "glorified body while on earth".
(Marian Movement of Priests artcle#330 title"Mother of the Eucharist" p. >508-512 and article#107 p.143)

Fr.Stefano Gobbi cause for sainthood was on process and the Blue Book "Marian Movement of Priests" contains Imprimatur and approval of St.John Paul II during his Pontificate.
For more info on Fr.Stefano Gobbi's Movement and messages and it's Church status please see the link;
http://www.mmp-usa.net/papal-blessing/
http://www.mmp-usa.net/history/ and homepage http://www.mmp-usa.net/
Godbless!


Do Jehovah's Witnesses maintain 'secret' teachings? I have heard that within the JW faith, there are additional teachings that converts do not learn until after some time has passed since their inclusion into that group or the convert achieves some level of merit within their organization.

Do the Jehovah's Witnesses keep some of their teachings secret from the general public and from new converts to their faith?

All the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses are publicly available on their Jehovah’s Witnesses' Official Website and made known in their public ministry and literature.  There are no secrets that take time or merit to unlock.

I have been a Witness my entire life (42+ years), and the things I study and learn now are the same things I studied in my teenage years before I was baptized.

The only thing that might be considered "secret" is the guidebook that elders receive upon their appointment, which is kept confidential and not distributed to other congregation members or the public.  There is nothing in there related to teachings, however, it is merely procedural guidelines for handling congregation matters. Much of what is written there is sourced from other publicly available Witness literature.

Though the vast majority of WT literature is available openly, there are indeed some things reserved for the privileged. You need to know where to look to find these, and the common JW has never seen them.

An example: The Elders handbook:
"SHEPHERD THE FLOCK OF GOD"

As to secret teachings, let me give you this perspective. Take a look at their initial study book, What does the Bible Really Teach?. Read what they teach to the initiate. The chapter on Jesus, for example (ch 4). If you read it, you might conclude their view of Jesus is not so different from a main stream Christian. However, the chapter doesn't go into explaining that the "pre-existant" Jesus, is Michael an archangel. Nor does it explain that after Jesus' human death, Jesus was "re-created" back into the spirit-creature Michael.

I could go on, but your concern is most definitely warranted. In my conversations and studies with them thus far, I would say ALL their doctrines are so complex and labyrinthine that they cannot possibly explain one single doctrine in one document alone. In other words, all their doctrines are kept to some degree from the initiate, the general public, and from new converts.