Late for Mass, can I still receive the Eucharist? I got to Mass late yesterday (like at the start of the Homily during a weekday mass, so really only about 7 minutes - because of an unexpected detour) and I told my wife that we shouldn't go up for communion and she said that it wasn't our fault and I said nothing because you shouldn't talk at Mass, right?

But my kids heard us and were a bit perplexed. So, rather than not know something and live in ignorance, I'd like to know if there is a hard-and-fast rule for what the latest time one can arrive at Mass and still receive the Eucharist and if any circumstances might change that.  For instance, I'd imagine that people waiting for confession might not be fully engaged in the Liturgy and still be likely to receive Our Lord.  And if we have to take the kids out entirely, etc...

Late for Mass, can I still receive the Eucharist?

At a week day Mass, I see no problem. Being late however should be avoided if at all possible.

First of all, we must distinguish between receiving Communion on a week day Mass and a day of obligation. Reception of the Blessed Sacrament on week day Mass is permitted, even if we are late for the obligation to attend Mass in non-existent. Canon Law permits us to actually receive Communion outside of Mass during non-obligatory days. Thus it is in essence a non-issue. Communion may be received a second time in a day, providing that the second reception of Holy Communion is within the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

  The Code of Canon Law (No. 917) stipulates, "A person who has received the Most Holy Eucharist may receive it again on the same day only during the celebration of the Eucharist in which the person participates, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 921, 2." Following this lead, Canon 921, 2 stipulates, "Even if they have received Communion in the same day, those who are in danger of death are strongly urged to receive again." Succinctly, a person may receive Holy Communion twice a day. - How Many Times a Day May One Receive Communion?

If we were to receive Communion at a second Mass on a week day or at a first one on a day of obligation, when is considered that we have arrived too late to  receive Our Lord in Holy Eucharist?

In other words when it that we have not attended Mass because we have arrived too Late?

When
I was in the seminary, we were taught that if we missed the offertory, it was considered that we did not fulfill our Sunday obligation to attend Mass (or Mass on another day of obligation).

Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical Athenaeum puts it this way:

  Like most priests, I am loath to give a straight answer to this question because, in a way, it is a catch-22 question for which there is no right answer.

  It is true that before the Second Vatican Council some moral theology manuals placed arrival before the offertory as the dividing line in deciding whether one fulfilled the Sunday obligation of assistance at Mass. But after the liturgical reform, with its emphasis on the overall unity of the Mass, modern theologians shy away from such exactitude.

  Mass begins with the entrance procession and ends after the final dismissal and we should be there from beginning to end. Each part of the Mass relates and complements the others in a single act of worship even though some parts, such as the consecration, are essential while others are merely important.

  To say that there is a particular moment before or after which we are either “out” or “safe,” so to speak, is to give the wrong message and hint that, in the long run, some parts of the Mass are really not all that important. It may also give some less fervent souls a yardstick for arriving in a tardy manner.

  Although I prefer not to hazard giving a precise cutoff moment, certainly someone who arrives after the consecration has not attended Mass, should not receive Communion, and if it is a Sunday, go to another Mass.

  Arriving on time is not just a question of obligation but of love and respect for Our Lord who has gathered us together to share his gifts, and who has some grace to communicate to us in each part of the Mass.

  It is also a sign of respect for the community with whom we worship and who deserves our presence and the contribution of our prayers in each moment. The liturgy is essentially the worship of Christ’s body, the Church. Each assembly is called upon to represent and manifest the whole body but this can hardly happen if it forms itself in drips and drabs after the celebration has begun.

  Thus people who arrive late to Mass have to honestly ask themselves, Why? If they arrive late because of some justified reason or unforeseen event, such as blocked traffic due to an accident, they have acted in good conscience and are not strictly obliged to assist at a later Mass (although they would do well to do so if they arrive very late and it is possible for them).

  If people arrive late due to culpable negligence, and especially if they do so habitually, then they need to seriously reflect on their attitudes, amend their ways, and if necessary seek the sacrament of reconciliation.

  Depending on how late they arrive they should prefer to honor the Lord’s day by attending some other Mass, or, if this is not possible, at least remain in the Church after Mass is over and dedicate some time to prayer and reflection on the readings of the day. - Communion for Late Arrivals at Mass?

Even on Sundays we may receive Communion twice provided that the second time round is during the celebration of the Mass.

This is an opinion, but you shouldn't receive communion on any day unless you have been present for the Gospel reading.

Factually, if you miss the Gospel reading on a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation, it doesn't fulfill your obligation and you should not receive communion. However it doesn't seem to be per se illicit if you receive communion without attending the Liturgy of the Word at a daily mass.

Msgr. Stuart Swetland answers this question here.


Why did Jesus tell his disciples to buy swords? Why did Jesus tell his disciples to buy swords? Was he suggesting they be warriors like the ancient Israelites?

  “But now,” he said, “take your money and a traveler’s bag. And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one! (Luke 22:36, NLT)

In the following verse Jesus mentions another prophecy to be fulfilled:

  Luke 22:37: For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

A transgressor is, by definition:

  One who transgresses; one who breaks a law, or violates a command; one who violates any known rule or principle of rectitude; a sinner

Now here is where it becomes more a matter of opinion:

It is clear that, at least in our current day case, that interfering with the law is in fact a crime. Here we have two illustrations of that - first, the Apostles with Jesus are not yet saved since Jesus had not yet been crucified, so they were still sinners - and transgressors of the Law passed down by Moses from God. Second, they were interfering in Jesus' arrest and Peter attacked a guard. So that makes then transgressors of the law as by man.

So we see here a fulfillment of the prophecy Jesus mentioned in verse 37, as both spiritually and man-made sense the Apostles would be transgressors.


Was there a special Sabbath in addition to Passover when Jesus was crucified? My question is based on John 19:31 which says that on the day Jesus died it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath.  Was this special Sabbath (on which no work could be done) the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread?

If so then Nisan 14 would have been Preparation Day for the Feast of Unleavened Bread and Jesus’ body would have had to be laid in the tomb before sundown on that day – but that would not have been the weekly Sabbath that commenced at sundown on Friday.  It would have been the special Sabbath for the start of the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Here is what I found, but I can’t source the information or get verification for the claims:

  “Some years before the birth of Jesus the Passover celebration had been changed and in the Lord’s time called for a brief ritual meal of lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs to begin the 14th Nisan followed by a great and leisurely festival meal on the 15th, when the Feast of Unleavened Bread begins. This tradition is still followed today.  The 14th became known as Preparation Day (Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, John 19:31), because on it they made ready for the great feast day beginning at sundown, after which no work was permitted. Matthew identifies the day after the Crucifixion as the day after Preparation Day (27:62) so all four Gospels agree. Jesus died on Preparation day, the 14th of their month Nisan, which is Passover. He ate the ritual meal with His disciples in the Upper Room, and then was arrested, tried, convicted, and put to death; all on Passover.”

Was the special Sabbath mentioned in John 19:31 and Matthew 27:62 the start of the Feast of Unleavened Bread?  And is there any evidence to support that view?

We in the western world have been raised in a culture dominated by a post-Constantinian Christian worldview of time, rather than one that is biblically Hebrew.

Our days begin and end at midnight, rather than the biblical
breaking point of sunset.
Our days are named after celestial bodies and Norse gods revered in
pagan worship and our work week begins on Monday and ends with a day
of rest on Sunday (the first day of the week), rather than
continuing the biblical pattern that Jesus and His disciples adhered
to of keeping Sabbath on the seventh day.
Our Gregorian calendar years are numbered from the birth of Christ,
rather than from the traditional Hebrew reckoning of the beginning
of creation.
We have replaced the biblically instituted feasts of Pesach
(Passover), Shavuot, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Sukkot
celebrated by the people of Israel with a variety of newly-minted
Christian seasons like Advent and Lent and holy days like Christmas
and Easter, as well as secular and neo-pagan holidays (holy days?)
like New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day,
Halloween, and Thanksgiving.

Rediscovering the worldview and timeframe of Christianity's Hebrew heritage allows us to more fully appreciate the activities of Jesus of Nazareth at the time of His earthly ministry, crucifixion, death, and resurrection.

The first month of the Hebrew calendar is the month of Nisan, which starts at the dawn of spring. On Nisan 10 every year, our spiritual forefathers were mandated in Scripture to select a Passover lamb without blemish, observe the lamb for three days for signs of unworthiness, and sacrifice it on the fourth day as a ceremonial beginning to the celebration of the Lord’s Passover and the Exodus of God’s people from slavery in Egypt. Passover has been celebrated for millennia by the house of Israel in a traditional order or Seder on the evening of Nisan 15. In the year He was crucified, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey on Nisan 10, taught publicly in the Temple for three days before being sacrificed on the cross on Nisan 14, and was placed in the tomb just as the Passover feast was about to begin.

How long did Jesus stay in the “heart of the earth” before He was raised from the dead? Jesus answered our question Himself in Matthew 12.38-40.

How does His prophetic answer match up with the rest of Scripture and our gentile Good Friday, Easter Sunday tradition?
 How did Jesus’ calendar match up with ours?
One attempt to solve this Passover puzzle can be found in the chart linked here “Jesus Fulfills the Promise of Passover,” which places the Last Supper Seder on the Tuesday evening of Preparation Day followed by His crucifixion and burial on Wednesday afternoon just prior to the start of the annual Passover Sabbath celebration that evening.

He then spent three days and nights in the tomb as He promised and rose from the grave after sundown on Saturday evening in time for the tomb to be found empty Sunday morning. What is your solution? Read the Gospel accounts of Jesus final days (Matthew chapters 21-28; Mark 11-16; Luke 19-24; John 12-20) and map out your own timeline.

Jesus said 3 days in the tomb.  Friday to Sunday is not 3 days.  The Hebrew day starts at sundown. Wednesday at 6 starts first night (Thursday), etc.


Why didn't Protestants argue for traditional marriage by natural reason? The US Supreme Court recently ruled that Homosexual couples can get married in all US States and that these marriages are legally equal to the Traditional model of marriage, one man and one woman. Prior to all this I saw many Christians arguing against the redefinition of marriage, but almost solely used their faith and the Bible as their basis.

There are arguments against the idea of homosexual marriages being not equal to heterosexual ones. They more or less revolve around the idea that the reproductive system is the only part of the human body that needs a complementary body to unite with to complete and achieve its end (or purpose). Any other union that cannot complete the system and therefore possibly achieve the purpose of sex is inherently incomplete.

My question is this: Why didn't Christians argue this way? I am Catholic and I have seen my own church reason this way. Why did Protestants not use this, as this could carry weight in a secular court?

"Protestant" means a believer in sola fide and sola Scriptura. As such, not only is it possible for a Protestant to use natural law arguments, many have. Although most of the reformers were Divine Command theorists (Luther and Calvin, although Calvin is weird), not all were (natural law was influential among both the Catholic and Protestant American Founders, although with a clear Lockean (Divine Command) influence as well). Many Protestants today are natural law theorists, although not all are.

For information on the Founding Fathers: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=5&article=1001&context=naturallaw_proceedings&type=additional

For an article on Protestants and Catholics regarding Natural Law: http://www.firstthings.com/article/1992/01/002-protestants-and-natural-law

Christi pax.

Because Protestants are fideists.

Fr. Hardon, SJ, defines "fideism" in his Catholic dictionary as:

  A term applied to various theories that claim that faith is the only or ultimate source of all knowledge of God and spiritual things. The name was originally coined by followers of Kant (1724-1804) and Schleiermacher (1768 -1834), both of whom denied the capacity of reason to know God or the moral law with certainty. (Etym. Latin fides, belief; habit of faith; object of faith.)

Protestants believe in sola scriptura; according to them, their private interpretation of Holy Scriptures trumps philosophical arguments based solely on reason.


Why has God never spoken to me? I was born and raised in the Catholic religion. In the beginning I was, as far as I can judge, a good Christian.

But I never felt any connection to God while praying. It was like talking to myself. Nothing special happened. I’m not talking about God granting me anything earthly, but a little sign, maybe the feeling that he was watching would have been enough.

As time passed, I started to doubt more and more and eventually lost all interest in religion.

Now, several years later, I have a good (material) life. But it seems empty—no sense to it. People who believe appear happier.

I can understand why God would not want to manifest himself to me now. I've sinned a lot.
But why didn’t he talk to me when I was younger and sinless? I didn’t need anything fancy like a bush on fire, but just a few words to keep me on the right path.

What do you think?

Reasons (my rantings) we can't talk to God -

Result of our sin.

  Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

We all inherit the sin of Adam. Adam could talk directly to God but as we fell from grace we lost access to divine grace. But one day we would talk to Him directly.

As a test.

If one could see God face to face, Adolf Hitler would be singing glory hallelujah with tambourines and drums. No one would commit a crime in front of the police. Absence of God from the scene serves to separate the wheat from the chaff.

For our own good.

Those who could be in the presence of God and behaved as we did would drop dead in a second. As Christians we are supposed to go through this life building character and learning to resist sin so that we could be in the presence of Holiness.

God doesn't like hollywood style dramatic dialogues.

And neither does Satan. In real life you will never see Satan appear as Pazuzu. He comes in much more subtle forms. Its the whole concept of free will. Both Holy Spirit and Satan will only suggest things to you. You have to act upon them of your own free will. If Satan or God appeared before you and commanded you to do something there's very less of free will left. This is why God appeared to Ezekiel in all His glory but not to Israel.

  Ezekiel 1:4 "I looked, and I saw a windstorm coming out of the north
  —an immense cloud with flashing lightning and surrounded by brilliant
  light. The center of the fire looked like glowing metal."

If he had appeared to Israel in that form they would've repented in ashes. But then as He says elsewhere

  2 Opinions 3:1 "Thou shalt repent if thou art sorrowful in thine
  heart, not because I am the master of special effects."

Speaking to God won't produce faith.

Adam spoke to God, that didn't keep him from sinning. So did Cain, Solomon and most importantly - Satan.
The disciples had the same doubt as you do -

  Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to
  show yourself to us and not to the world?" Jesus replied, "If anyone
  loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we
  will come to him and make our home with him.

If we do not love or obey Him nothing will produce faith -

  Luke 16:31 " ... they will not be convinced even if someone rises from
  the dead."

Perhaps the same reason why the president won't talk to me.

Let's not be proud and forget our own positions in relation to God. It amazes me how I usually assign more respect to my earthly masters than to God himself.

  Ecclesiastes 5:2 "God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your
  words be few."

Perhaps He's afraid that once he engages me I just won't stop chattering. (True story)

You cannot force God to do your will. It is his will that should be done always. Remember Jesus told his disciples "...this generation want a sign but a sign will not be given..." It is the choice of God to give it not yours.

I share your experience  too. Here it is:

When I was young, every first Sunday of the month we gather in church for Holy Spirit filling. We'll clap, sing and shout. Pastors would lay hands on us. I saw many received the Holy Spirit, Spoke in new tongues, received the gift of prophecy but nothing happened to me, for 7 years.

When I got to University, I actually knew what being a christian was from being a religious person. So I started praying for the Holy Spirit again. I fasted. I read books. I attended seminars. I did night vigils. Nothing happened. So I told God one night that If I didn't receive the Holy Spirit today you won't be my God anymore. But I didn't receive the Holy Spirit.

We cannot threaten God. That night I realised my foolishness that God will always be my God. I can't disown him. I continued praying for the Holy Spirit but in another dimension, no more threats. I was no more desperate. I relaxed knowing that God is more willing to give me. I begged God. I pleaded for mercy. I told him why I needed the Holy Spirit. I reminded him of his promises in the bible to fill me and to empower me.

Along the line a pastor told me his experience that he prayed for the Holy Spirit but he didn't know he had received this because he was looking for a specific sign

Don't put God in a corner. It is not possible. He is more dynamic.

I continued my life trying as much as possible to devote my life to God in praises, reading the word of God, my frequency of prayers. Then one night I had a dream I was walking on an empty street at night and I was speaking in tongue. That's it.

To address your question, what do you want God to speak to you. If it is already in the bible I don't think God would want to repeat himself because he must have spoken through your pastors, your neighbours and more.

  Numbers 12:6 he said, "Listen to my words: "When a prophet of the LORD
  is among you, I reveal myself to him in visions, I speak to him in
  dreams.

If God needs to speak to you he would do. But the good news is that he has spoken to you and he is speaking to you even right now that you are reading this post.

God speaks in divers way, obvious in the past but this day he speaks through his Son. This is not a the physical Jesus, but through his manifestation, the Holy Spirit in us.

  Hebrew 1:1-2 1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the
  prophets at many times and in various ways,  2 but in these last days
  he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things,
  and through whom also he made the universe

  John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you
  into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what
  he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Maybe he does speak to you and you have not noticed. God speaks best in your quiet moment. So if you are a busy person, you might get less of God, but he still speaks in such situation

God speaks through his creations [stars, birds, sky, etc]

God speaks to sinners too. The message of salvation is from God. If you are not sensitive to God's bidding, he sends people to you. The kings in the bible, most of them receive God's message through the prophets, not directly. But Solomon was not like that. God also spoke to Nebucadnezzar through dreams. He spoke to Pharaoh through dreams.

Where you are (your position in God and from God) determines how he speak to you.

God is willing to talk to you. If you fits in his plan, he wants to discuss it with you. Tell you what you have to do exactly. God doesn't just talk. He talks to achieve a purpose.

This is getting too much already, hope someone would be able to read this. More


If believing that Jesus is God is that important, why doesn't Jesus say it more often? Why did many of his disciples not even know it?

Jesus asked "Who am I?" to a bunch of his disciples. Out of so many, only Peter got it close. That he is the Messiah, son of the living God.

Even that is still vague. Cyrus is also a messiah. Judaism tends to think that God considers humans his children. http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/PW/k/187/Cyrus-Gods-Anointed.htm

I mean if believing that Jesus is God is that important, wouldn't Jesus like say that a million time? Wouldn't that be the first thing his disciples know?

Update: I need to add that I wrote a million time figuratively. I mean if it's that important, he would have stressed that more so that his disciples would at least got it right when he ask, "Who am I?". In fact, even after his death and resurrection, his disciples are still divided. We have gnostic, judaizer, arians, and trinitarian. Yea I know that "the rest" are heretic. I also know that most christians think that the trinitarian are the "true" follower of Jesus. But put your self in historian shoes here. Early jesus followers differ from jews only in whether they believe Jesus is a messiah or not.

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

He doesn't condemn those who think he's a prophet or Elia? He doesn't say, "Good job Peter. For the rest of you, you'd better answer that thing right because my dad would fry you in hell if you messed up." http://www.ancestralfindings.com/who/ . Even Peter doesn't say, "You're God, Homo Ousion, without the i". I mean if something is kind of important, shouldn't that be more explicit?

Actually he said it a lot. Enough to get himself killed for saying it. The Jews considered Jesus' statement that he was "the Christ, the Son of the living God" blasphemy, and Jesus' agreement with Peter's declaration is the reason they tried and executed him.

The disciples took a while to catch on, but not for lack of being told. Their dull, slow hearts took a lot of time to convince, and Jesus had a great deal to teach them before he stirred up the pot enough to end his ministry.

It is important to note, however, the disciples to a man eventually became so convinced their teacher Jesus was THE Christ that they devoted their lives to proclaiming that message. Most of them were also willing to die--and did--for the truth of it.

If anyone was in a position to know that Jesus was something less than what he claimed to be, his disciples would know, yet to a man (except for Judas) they went their separate ways proclaiming all over the world that Jesus was God and Lord.

Moreover, I suggest Jesus made his message so plain that after his resurrection the disciples were left with no doubts about who he was. Who dies for something they know is a lie?

jesus never claimed to be god and neither did his disciples believe he was god. on the contrary, they believed he was the messiah the son of the god of their fathers.This was clearly illustrated in acts 5:30 where peter says that the god of their fathers, (ie the beign who spoke to abraham,isaac,jacob and moses through angels) raised jesus from the dead. This clearly shows that they knew that jesus was not the god of their fathers and that it was the god of their fathers who raised and glorified his servant jesus.


What's God's justification of not allowing the choice of personal annihilation? Question: God is just, so what would be God's justification according to the Bible of Not allowing the choice of annihilation of yourself if you found out Jesus actually never knew you after death?

This question is in my Baptist church view

This is so you would not be in complete doom and torment for eternity in hell. In Baptist and many other dominations you get once chance on Earth to repent and that's it. Then you either go to heaven for eternity or hell for eternity.

The reason I ask this is I don't see how someone can be 110% sure they are saved on this Earth unless something miraculous happened such as an angel coming down and telling me I'm permanently saved for example. (I need 110% confirmation if I'm ever to have peace and depression removal).
Also, you have no choice in being born. The decision of being born is by your two parents (conception) so it's not your own choice. I also don't believe in Calvinism (So I don't believe God creates most of the worlds people just to allow them to be in torment for eternity).  Matthew 7:13

(Post was Edited to give a more unique Question so it's not similar to: "Why should a sinner suffer forever in hell fire?")

When God created Adam, Genesis 2:7 He breathed in his nostrils His breath. Since God cannot die so does our soul. For that reason God created eternal hell. He has given us ample opportunity to correct our way of life even sacrificed His Son that we can have redemption through.

  I understand everyone deserves hell because of sin, but God allowing eternal suffering of the very humans God loves so much who never truly knew Jesus makes zero sense to me.

Jesus said that

  ‘This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.’ ( Matthews 24:14 )

So everybody will know about Jesus whether they accept this message 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 or not.

Isaiah 29:21 We cannot complain that God why did He made me? We are part of His plan. Just keep in your prayers and God might show you, your purpose of life. And regarding getting confirmation, you just need to have faith in Christ scarifice.

  For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;  ( Ephesians 2:8)

And this verse confirms the redemption and salvation.

  For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life . John 3:16

The idea of eternal conscious torment is one of those traditions carried over from medieval Catholicism that's heavily defended in Protestantism but not really taught in Scripture, or if it is, not plainly. It can be defended with proof-texts to be sure, but is it explicitly and clearly taught? No.
In large part the idea of eternal conscious torment in hell is based on the Platonic concept of the natural immortality of the soul. Plato and the Platonizing "church fathers" believed the soul to be so immortal by its very nature that God could not destroy it even if he wanted to. The result is that all God can do with the souls of the wicked in this philosophy is to dump them somewhere for all eternity.
But does scripture teach the natural immortality of the soul, or does it teach that souls are only immortal so long as God deems them to be so by his will?

1 Timothy 6:15-16 NIV "which God will bring about in his own time—God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen."

According to Scripture, God alone is immortal by nature.  The soul then is only conditionally immortal.  That is, only immortal if God says so.  That means the biggest presupposition that caused the "church fathers" to develop the theory of eternal conscious torment is false, according to scripture.
Once you understand that, you will find a different story in Jesus' sayings on the subject.  You will be free from the tyranny of Platonic philosophy and tradition based thereon, which before prevented you from taking Jesus at his word when he said:

Matthew 10:28 NIV "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

He said "destroy" but tradition has always forced us to interpret "destroy" as "torment"!  If we re-evaluate the tradition, and correct the root problem (Platonic misunderstanding of the nature of the soul) we no longer have to force ourselves to misinterpret the Bible in this way.
There's an entire website dedicated to a growing movement of Protestants who are Rethinking Hell, which is the name of the site: http://rethinkinghell.com/
As to the question of whether this is a Baptist position
One article at Rethinking Hell mentions a few Baptist academics who hold (or held, for the one who has already gone to his reward) to the annihilationist position:

E. Earle Ellis was a professor of theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (Southern Baptist Convention) until he fell asleep. Similarly, Dale Moody taught at Southern Baptist Seminary (also SBC). I bet you never thought conservative Southern Baptists would hold this view! Claude Mariottini, Old Testament professor at Northern Baptist Seminary (American Baptist Convention), is also an annihilationist.

And furthermore, there is one verse in the Bible that positively clinches the case by explicitly stating the wicked will be devoured by fire:

But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away. (Psalm 37:20 KJV)
But the wicked will perish; the enemies of the Lord are like the glory of the pastures; they vanish—like smoke they vanish away. (Psalm 37:20 ESV)


Did Pope Francis overstep any official Catholic boundary when he criticized Trump? Pope Francis implicitly criticized Donald Trump as not a Christian when he said, regarding Trump's proposed policy to build a wall between the USA and Mexico and immediately deport all illegal immigrants,:

  "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the [message of the] gospel."
  Pope Francis - CNN - February 18, 2016

Naturally, Trump disagreed with this entirely, saying that "No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man's religion or faith" (ibid).

All politics aside and whether Pope Francis' actions lie within some American taboo, did Pope Francis overstep some known Catholic boundary when he chose to enter the fray of politics in the United States by expressing an opinion about the religious faith of a candidate?

There is no doctrine, policy or convention in the Catholic church that prevents a priest, or any church leader, from pronouncing on the rightness of some action or belief.

Historically, over the last thousand years or so, the Pope and other church leaders have pronounced on the policies and conduct of many world leaders. In recent times the Pope has condemned Apartheid, Communism, the Rwandan genocide, restrictions on the Cuban church, and much else.

It has to be pointed out that Pope Francis did not pronounce Trump a non-Christian, but pronounced the actions described to him by a questioner as those of a non-Christian, leaving open at least the possibility that the actions described in the question did not accurately reflect Trump's stance. Trump is also far from the only Presidential candidate both advocating wall-building and claiming to be Christian.

A better question would be, should Pope Francis consider Trump a Christian at all, since, in the Catechism, it is taught that "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus", or "outside the Church there is no salvation". Just as those who did not board the Ark were not saved. And Church history has been clear that Protestants are not considered Christian because they do not follow the teachings of Christ (in a Catholic point of view, of course).

For example, if the Pope was to call a protestant, who does not eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus (in the Eucharist), then how can he call them Christian if Christ said "Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you will not have life in you." Someone who does not have life in them is not Christian, and not of Christ and are obviously lost.

Aside from doctrinal problems, should the Pope of the Catholic Church (this is the context) criticize anyone's Christianity?

Well, the Pope, as head of the Church, is believed to have been endowed by Christ with the keys to heaven and to bind and unbind ("bind and loose")... well, binding doctrines and laws. So he can exercise the authority to excommunicate people out of the Catholic Church, bu to someone like Trump, who is not inside the Church, it doesn't make much sense. He also has the authority to say someone is not being Christ-like or is a hypocrite, liar etc, if they are openly (which Trump has not been), but anyone has that power. In Catholic teaching, no one can be saved except through the Church, so to comment on Trump's Christianity is actually ignorant of the Pope.

On a side note, why does Pope Francis have a problem with building a wall, only when Trump says it, and not those who also agree one is needed (there already is a wall)? And more importantly, why didn't the Pope have a problem with Obama mocking the Sermon on the Mount, considered to be one of Christ's greatest speeches. I needn't mention the needles war crimes but I'm digressing.


Why does God command us to have children? Genesis 1:28

  Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

  28 God blessed them and said to them, “Have many children. Fill the
  earth and take control of it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the
  birds in the air. Rule over every living thing that moves on the
  earth.”

There are so many Christian concepts that make me scratch my head as to why God wants us to have children. Things like the ruler of this world is Satan, Christians must suffer in this world, we are anxiously waiting for Jesus' return and the rapture, fighting our carnal nature of a fallen world....etc. Wouldn't it be better to leave unborn children wherever they may originate from?

So what is the reason God wants us to have children?

(Also, if you happen to known - does God NOT want non-Christians to have children?)

The verses you quote give one very obvious reason: to fill the earth, take control of it, and rule it.

This might be slightly more understandable by analogy to adopted children of a good king. The king desires his children to not just like him in title (accomplished simply by the adoption) but like him in character and action (rightly using authority develops right character and right character motivates a caring that demands that authority be exercised and exercised rightly).

(Part of this rule would seem to be to command the obedience of "lower creatures" with respect to their being fruitful. [God's command to the sea and sky creatures in Genesis 1:22 to "increase" is implicit to other creatures.] This would seem to imply that human reproduction which prevents such obedience by destroying habitats would be contrary to the command.)

One aspect of being made in the image of God is that human's are meant to be like images of a King scattered about the kingdom to declare the authority of the King. Images that more faithfully reflect the original more clearly make that declaration. (Declarations of autonomy--e.g., my labeling myself [as a statue] "King Paul"--would be perhaps the most outrageous violation of that purpose.)

Parenting is also one of the ways that God helps humans understand his character (being like a husband and like a father to his creation but also to understand the Father's love to his adopted children that he would give his begotten Son for them), develop a like character, and display his character (in miniature and like a statue or picture). Even the act of procreation itself mimics (as a child imitating the parent) God's act of creation. It also seems that parenting wears very abrasively against self-will and self-sufficiency and more strongly forces prioritization of the use of time and other resources.

Biological reproduction is also a reasonably effective form of evangelism, of growing the kingdom.

With respect to Satan as the prince of this world, the Christian is comforted that Jesus has overcome the world (John 16:33b--"In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.", NIV). To reject children out of fear of Satan would be to reject this comfort.

With respect to the waiting for the return, the Christian is called to be active and fruitful in this time. Burying one's talent to be guaranteed not to suffer loss seems to be viewed rather harshly in the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30).

With respect to fighting our carnal nature, Biblical Christianity is not like that form of Gnosticism that taught that the spirit is good and the matter is evil. In fact, the Bible teaches that the Christ ascended into heaven with a physical body (which ate food presumably with fleshly pleasure). While sexuality is a major area of human corruption, it is part of the created order that God originally declared "good". By properly exercising sexuality, a couple declares God's redeeming power over this prominent area of fallenness. (For Roman Catholics, who reject the separation of the unitive and reproductive aspects of sexuality, the connection of reproduction with proper exercise of sexuality may be more explicit; but I suspect even most Protestants would not entirely separate sexuality from reproduction, at least recognizing that there is a creaturely desire to procreate that is linked with sexuality and that the full function of sexuality involves reproduction.)

The answer to this is just simple common sense. Just compare the two interpretations. But I want to point out a few things.  First, It should be pointed out that even if you had like 10 or say 20 kids would you really have subdued the Earth?  Its a bit silly to think so.
Second, I would like to point out that abortion and the birth control pill ARE evil because the pill can be abortive in nature and abortion is just sick. (don't get it confused)--------------------
Now comparing the two interpretations using common sense: My interpretation is that God isn't stipulating multiplication as a commandment (now the Vatican on the other hand apparently has), but it was meant more as reassurance that procreating with a spouse is fine and viewed as more good than it is evil.  And may even be blessed where as to be completely good.
  I mean if that interpretation doesn't make sense to you let's examine the other side, the other interpretation in which that God does DICTATE for us to procreate AND usually which has gone a step further even to say that EVERY time you be "with" your spouse you MUST engage in "that certain specific act" which could result in creating a new life.  I don't read that level of specificity when God is saying "Have many children." especially when elsewhere the Bible states that it is GOOD if a man never even touches a woman at all. (First Corinthians 7:1 ) What? is God the marital sex police to tell us how sex is to end between two married people? If you're still not following or you are mad at what I'm saying consider the following.  For instance if you go to a friend's house and the friend says: Here, drink this tea. Is the the friend commanding you to drink the tea just because it was stated? or simply suggesting it ( which by the way I am 110% sure God is more than capable of suggesting something )?  How else would God word a suggestion? "I suggest to" or something weird like that?  Is the second interpretation trying to say that God is incapable of a suggestion and is merely only capable of commandments? A suggestion is simply the case we have here, not all this about thou shall not pull-out and similar nonsense.

Source: The Bible ( First Corinthians 7:1 )


What differences will being a Christian make in this life? What are the differences being a Christian will make in this life (on earth not entrance into heaven or hell)?

Or is it just a group identity of a hopeful passage into Heaven upon the next life and really will not make much difference on this earth if it is ruled by the fall of man?

I'm not sure what you mean by "on a personal scale".

Being a Christian can (should!) change oneself to model oneself more closely on Christ and follow his teachings.

It can also affect others on a personal scale: William Booth and Edith Cavell are two modern examples who come immediately to mind, but there are many, many more stretching back into antiquity (for example, monastic orders who provided education and healthcare).

It's not simply a group identity as you propose, although of course there is the sure and certain hope of resurrection to new life. However, even if someone should like the idea of Heaven in the next life, or feel there should be more to this present life than they have, it's my experience that investigating that by joining a congregation will convince them of what it is to know Christ and that is their entry to Heaven. That sounds really evangelical; but I'm Roman Catholic.

This probably won't be sufficient. Could you expand on your question?

The question does not state any perspective from which to believe that being a Christian will make a difference in this world so, like each of the other answers, I will be as broad as possible.

Most Christians believe that Christians set out to uphold high moral values and to help others.  Many Christians do indeed try to do this and, by doing so, leave the world a better place for their having lived. But so also do non-Christians, whether followers of other religions or none at all. No one can deny that Mahatma Gandhi was a model of saintliness, although he was a Jain. Brad Pitt says that he "oscillate[s] between agnosticism and atheism," but is also well known for his humanitarian work and for the Jolie-Pitt Foundation.  It seems that good people are good people, regardless of their religion. What we can all do is try to follow the moral teachings of Jesus Christ, whether as Christians or non-believers and, by doing so, try to make a difference.


Heaven/Paradise/Sheol, Hell/Hades/The Lake of Fire What is the difference between Heaven/Paradise/Sheol

How about Hell/Hades/The Lake of Fire?

Are they synonyms, are they different places?

As Jesus hung on the cross, he famously said to one of the thieves being crucified along with him that "today you will be with me in Paradise."  This establishes where Jesus was going to be after his death.  But after his resurrection, when Mary Magdalene found him in the garden, he told her that he had not yet been to Heaven to present himself to the Father. (John 20:17)  This establishes that Paradise is different from Heaven.

1 Peter 3: 18-19 explains that while Jesus was dead (and therefore in Paradise), he went to preach to "spirits in prison" who had been disobedient in mortality.  So it would seem that after death, people's spirits are sent to an intermediary location to await the resurrection.  Those who have been righteous go to paradise, and those who have been disobedient go to a "prison" whose name is not specified clearly.  But these intermediary locations are not the same as Heaven and Hell, the places to which we are sent after the Judgment, which is explicitly stated to take place after the resurrection in several different scriptures.

Hades in the New testament is the same as Sheol in the Old Testament which is translated as the place of the dead.
paradise is simply the place of the righteous after dead until the appearing of Christ in the air where the elect will meet him or be caught up to him. hell however is de place of the wicked after death. it must be noted however that the word hell as used in de new testament is a translation of the Hebrew word Gehenna which was a place were refuse is burnt and for that matter fire continually burns over there.
lake of fire is the place of the devil and hid cohorts and the wicked after the great judgement.


Is the biblical idea of being "born again" compatible with eastern religious ideas of reincarnation? Just a simple question: is the biblical idea of being born again compatible with eastern religious ideas of reincarnation?

Being "Born again" and being reincarnated are completely different concepts.

The concept of being born again comes from this Bible passage below.  I know it's long but the theological and doctrinal implications found in this passage are profound and critical to understanding what it means to be "born again" and what salvation requires.

  John 3:3-21 (NIV)
  3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

  4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

  5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

  9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

  10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

  16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

TL;DR
If you balked at reading all of that, it basically says this:

You must be born again, which means born of water (from your mother) and born of the Spirit (from God)
In order to be born of the Spirit, you must believe in Jesus
You must live your life according to Jesus and follow him in order to truly believe in him.

That's the essence of being "born again".

In my opinion, there is no contradiction between Christian concept of paradise and hell vs some other religions' reincarnation.

Maybe person has "two spirits" (for lack for a better term than "spirit" here). One person's spirit goes to paradise or hell and the other is reincarnated.

I am not sure that the above is an accurate picture of reality, but I consider this quite possible and not conflicting with biblical teaching.


Does Eastern Orthodoxy approve the use of contraception? This subject is clear when it comes to Catholicism who explicitly forbids contraception and encourage natural family planning.
Then most protestants do not forbid the use of contraception.
However when it comes to Eastern Orthodoxy, it seems that there is a smoke in the air, and nobody has a clear position. Orthodox Christians don't have a central catechism like the Catholic Church does, so that only further complicates things.
Does Eastern Orthodoxy have a position at all when it comes to contraception?
(My guess would highly be that they forbid it.)

According to the Orthodox Church In America contraception is only permitted when danger or hardship would come to the family as a result of birth of a child as seen here on their website

  The voluntary control of birth in marriage is only permissible, according to the essence of a spiritual life, when the birth of a child will bring danger and hardship. Those who are living the spiritual life will come to the decision not to bear children only with sorrow, and will do so before God, with prayers for guidance and mercy. It will not be a decision taken lightly or for self-indulgent reasons.
  According to the common teaching in the Orthodox Church, when such a decision is taken before God, the means of its implementation are arbitrary. There are, in the Orthodox opinion, no means of controlling birth in marriage which are better or more acceptable than others. All means are equally sad and distressing for those who truly love. For the Christian marriage is the one that abounds with as many new children as possible.

Does Eastern Orthodoxy approve the use of contraception?
Generally speaking most Orthodox Churches would have a similar stance as the Catholic Church on this issue, but this subject matter has not been raised to an official level of teaching.
It should be noted that each Eastern Orthodox Church is autonomous and the response may could in fact vary between the different Orthodox Churches.

The norm of church organization
The Orthodox Church is a fellowship of “autocephalous” churches (canonically and administratively independent), with the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople holding titular or honorary primacy. The number of autocephalous churches has varied in history. In the early 21st century there were many: the Church of Constantinople (Istanbul), the Church of Alexandria (Africa), the Church of Antioch (with headquarters in Damascus, Syria), and the churches of Jerusalem, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Albania, Poland, the Czech and Slovak republics, and America.

Here follows the position of the Greek Orthodox Church on it’s position regarding contraception.

[The Greek Orthodox Church and position regarding birth control
The Christian Orthodox Church has 100-150 million baptized members worldwide. Its official position on fertility regulation is little known among nontheologians. The Christian Orthodox Church is resolutely opposed to all attempts to permit induced abortion, and has been since its earliest history. In the 4th century the aborting woman was considered in the same category as a murderer, and the position was reiterated through the centuries in the canons of the Church. However, the common practice of Church members differed greatly from the official position. During the Roman period and the 1st years of the Christian era, abortion and the exposure of newborns were very common. Many of the earlier arguments in favor of abortion that were countered by the Church are still offered. The liberalization of abortion legislation in the US was opposed by American Christian Orthodox Church members. The Church's position on contraception is less well known than its stand on abortion. Several official publications have condemned family planning, regarding it as a form of prostitution within the family and as a sin. The official position of the Greek Orthodox Church was set forth in an encyclical written in 1937, which recommended abstinence as the only legal method of avoiding conception. The position of the Christian Orthodox Church on abortion and contraception is fundamentally identical to that of the Roman Catholic Church. Because the position of the Christian Orthodox Church on birth control, which has been fixed for centuries, has not been officially debated and has not been communicated to the members, it has not fully guided daily life. One might suppose that members of the Christian Orthodox Church are freer of church control of their fertility behavior than are Catholics.


What is the difference between icons and idols in churches that permit icons? There are a number of Protestants that say the use of the images and statues in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church is idolatry. I know that these churches call certain images "icons", but I don't really know what that means, and I personally have trouble seeing the difference.

Some answers on this closed question are helpful but I think the poor delivery of the question is causing confusion. Same here.

Catholic and Orthodox perspectives are welcome. What would be helpful is the definition of both terms and why the use of icons is not idolatry.

Why do churches like the Catholic Church permit icons when idolatry is forbidden?
The simple answer is that they do not consider all images to be idols (just think of photographs), and believe that members of the Church are able to distinguish between a work of art and God without the need for direct enforcement: after all, Catholics believe that the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt among us, and still dwells among us in the form of the Blessed Eucharist, literally God present before us, as He was present before Thomas, who doubted.
Some possible definitions:

An idol is something worshipped as divine under the mistaken belief that it contains something divine or is itself God.
An icon is an image that reminds us of good people and events, sometimes viewed during prayer. Some particular images have sentimental value within a culture, and a rich history.

(Some people worship false gods using icons or images. This is idolatry not because they use icons or images, but because give worship to something in place of God.)
Idolatry is an especially internal sin, so the words of Matthew 7:1 are especially pertinent. If someone starts yelling "this is our god", then perhaps we would have good reason to believe that idolatry is being committed. Compared to the typical Catholic who merely looks at something religious to inspire prayer and worship to God.
The objections to using images seem to be:

that creating an image of God would be sacrilegious or spiritually improper. There are stories of native tribes that thought photographs stole a person's soul. Tales about vampires present them as having no reflection in a mirror, and as being invisible in pictures. Such views are not of God. They suggest that Jesus was not fully human, and that physical objects can even in principle be used to "trap" the divine. It is sinful and idolatrous to believe that a physical object has this sort of spiritual effect on God.

that it is confusing to humans to imagine God so closely tied to the world around us. But Jesus became true man, and was described as being very human in almost everything He did. Furthermore, the Bible depicts God as wrestling with Jacob in Genesis 32.

that images in particular are "disrespectful". There is no biblical basis for this point. Humans tell stories and draw pictures. These activities can be directed towards the praise of God, and it seems incoherent to suggest that communicating something through writing featuring God is fine, while images featuring God have something wrong with them (the only basis I can see for such a view is what I describe very negatively in point #1).

that there is something wrong with giving any attention to the "physical" world during worship. But this is absurd, because God made the world, and said that it was good. We believe in the resurrection of the body, and the body is "physical" in this way: it is a temple of God. We don't worship our own bodies because of that, but we do believe that physical things are in fact good and can be directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God.

that if the images remind us too much of other people, we will then turn attention away from God. But the whole of Hebrews 11 is a remembrance of good people. We must put God first, but we must also keep a second place open for people (both living and dead). The Bible on the subject of giving attention to other people:

Matthew 22:37-40
37
He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

This is a Catholic perspective from a very devout Catholic.

You can see the definition of both here: idol and icon.

Icon

  a devotional painting of Christ or another holy figure, typically
  executed on wood and used ceremonially in the Byzantine and other
  Eastern Churches.

  a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol or as worthy of
  veneration

Idol

  an image or representation of a god used as an object of worship

  a person or thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered: a soccer idol

I guess that in a Protestant point of view, anything or anyone that is taken as someone or something to be worshiped besides God is wrong, idolatry.

I had a talk with a Catholic priest about it and he assured me that they do not worship the saints, they are mediators and I showed him this:

1 Timothy 2:5-6

  5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the
  man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people

So he changed his answer from mediators to examples, so they take the saints as examples to be remembered, respected and also an example of a good life with God.

I don't agree with the "examples" answer from that priest because you can see that the saints, according to the Catholics and Orthodox Church, they can do miracles and that, in my opinion is what makes them adore the Saint and have them as mediators. And also, because of that, you can see that there is a lot of saints and each one have one "responsibility", one saint takes care of drivers, another of doctors and so on (at least here in Brazil I see a lot of that).

So that's my opinion. Just to let you know, I'm not Catholic or Protestant so I'm not trying to take any sides here OK?


What is the significance of the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden? If Adam and Eve were created perfect and without death (immortal), then what is the significance and purpose of the Tree of Life in the middle of the Garden of Eden?

Here's the verse in question:

  Genesis 2:16-17 NIV

  16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any
  tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the
  knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will
  certainly die.”

The opportunity to live forever

What I find most interesting is that God didn't command Adam to keep away from the tree of good and evil life. When Adam did finally eat from the tree he was commanded not to eat from, here's what Jesus had to say to His Father:

  Genesis 3:22 NIV

  And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing
  good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take
  also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

This verse sheds some light on what's happening. Adam certainly had been allowed to eat from the tree of life and live forever prior to this sin event. But because God is a just and Righteous God, He could not allow Adam to go unpunished, therefore taking away the opportunity for Adam to live forever in eternal damnation.

The fruit of righteousness

If we continue reading we find that there is another way to experience the fruit from this tree of life.

  Proverbs 11:30 NIV

  The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and the one who is wise
  saves lives.

  Proverbs 15:4 NIV

  The soothing tongue is a tree of life, but a perverse tongue crushes
  the spirit.

The paradise of God

  Revelation 2:7

  Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
  To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the
  tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

Wow, I absolutely love this last verse and I don't know why. We will actually once again have the opportunity to eat from this tree of life. Lastly this tree of life is displayed along the main street in the kingdom of God that leads from the entrance to the throne room. Signifying that everybody can freely eat of the tree of life and have it abundantly.

  Revelation 22:2

  down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the
  river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding
  its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing
  of the nations.

The significance

I believe that God, being a fair and Righteous God, had not deprived man of the opportunity to be righteous from day one. However, man chose his own path, to sin. I don't have any doubts that God knew man would do this, but I also know that God would have been subjected to accusations from creation if he had locked the mouse in the cage with cheese and told the mouse not to eat of it.

As it is, no man can hold accusations against God, because God had given a fair opportunity to man.

The Tree of Life - Christ - Grace was always available but Saten knowing this, deceived man to seek ' Knowledge'...to be ' as God'.  Jesus through His death brought again by His grace 'eternal life'.
At His Crucifiction ' religion' cried for the release of Barabbas who was guilty of SEDITION and MURDER and this is what 'religion' got, the Spirit of.
Religion (sedition) keeps trying to take and direct the believer to ' the knowledge of good and Evil', always  back to that Tree, back to the fruit of Death. though they deny this, Whereas Jesus by His Death is saying ' eat of me the Tree of Eternal Life'. The Revelation of Ezekial 36 and the New Covenent is that this fruit of Christ, eternal life with God, is Gods work  for it is Gods life through the Holy Spirit indwelling in the believer. Hence the whole Law of the Prophets can be summed up in Love God, Love neighbour and Love each other.
The teaching of 'good and evil' evey Sunday takes the focus away from HIM and HINM Crucified, it is sedition and comes from the murder..this is the false spirit of religion that Kills the Christ.
This is MY Body, this is MY blood, EAT & DRINK, He fed 600, 0000 in the( Church of )  Desert for 40 years, the Disciples could not discern this re feeding of the thousands.
Come to Me ( Tree of Life ) all those that are weary and I will give you rest.


Did Luther add a word to Romans 3? There are many who have pointed out that Luther added the word, "alone" to Romans 3:28 (you can read one such example in this question) so that the Luther Bible reads:

  for we reckon a man to be justified by faith alone without deeds of law

where the Greek reads:

  for we reckon a man to be justified by faith without deeds of law

Is this true?

Yes and no. Yes he added it, no it is not the atrocity that it necessarily implies.

Part of Luther's defense of the translation is that inclusion of the word "alone" is more grammatically correct than its exclusion. While I'm not an expert in German, I do speak enough of it to know that he does have a point.

His problem, though, is in the interpretation of the verse. If we're being true to the original Greek the passage is better understood, "of the set {faith, works of the law} man is only reconciled by faith."

Yes.
When people translate from one language to another words are sometimes added and sometimes removed (for instances, Matthew 6:1). One can compare any two Bibles and find thousands of words to argue about. Citing Morris Protoctor

Sometimes Bible translators, for various reasons, will both insert
extra English words and not translate all Hebrew and Greek words.

I think Catholic opposition to Luther's choice of words, and obsession with this one in particular, indicates what the Protestant reformation was all about.


Was Mary’s appearance to St. James the Greater in year 40 AD an apparition or bilocation? Tradition has it that the Blessed Virgin Mary, sometime before  her bodily Assumption into heaven, appeared to the Apostle St. James the Elder while he was living and preaching in Spain.

After Pentecost, the 12 Apostles dispersed to preach the Gospel all over the world. St. James the Greater, on one of his apostolic journeys, preached in the Iberian Peninsula in modern-day Spain.

St. James was discouraged that the pagans of that land were not responding to the Gospel and converting to Christianity. He had only a handful of converts to show for his labors. In the face of what he thought was failure in his mission, he prayed with his disciples by the Ebro river in modern day Zaragoza.

The First Marian Apparition in Church History: Our Lady of the Pillar

ap·pa·ri·tion
ˌapəˈriSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: apparition; plural noun: apparitions

a ghost or ghostlike image of a person.

bi·lo·ca·tion
ˌbīlōˈkāSHən/
noun
noun: bilocation; noun: bi-location

the supposed phenomenon of being in two places simultaneously.

Understanding the meaning of an apparition, it implies that Mary appears like a"ghost or ghost like image of the person".

The year was 40 AD, how can Mary appear like a ghost if she still alive?

It would seem that a bilocation is the more acceptable word, like what happens to other well known saints like St.Padre Pio.

My question is according to Catholicism, how can Mary appears in a ghostform or like a spiritual being when She is actually still very much alive.

The story of the above article somehow implied Mary has a capability to travel in space not common to mortal bodies.

I'm looking for Catholic perspective and early Church Father explanation on Mary's apparition gifts while still alive.

This traditional event in the life of St. James the Apostle is called an apparition. It is most probable that the Virgin Mary was still alive at the time of this event, thus making it a bilocation.

  Venerable Maria of Agreda who was shown the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary in detail, writes in her Mystical City of God that St. James, brother of St. John, whom Our Lord called “Sons of Thunder”, had a special devotion to the Blessed Mother.

  Becoming the apostle of what today is Spain, Saint James was having a hard time evangelizing the northern region of Zaragoza. One night, as he prayed asking help for his plight, he suddenly beheld a great light in the midst of which he saw Our Lady surrounded by a multitude of angels.

  The interesting thing is that Mary was still living in Jerusalem at the time. But as queen of the Church, she was given to see all that concerned her Son’s work, and being shown the prayer of her devotee, had obtained from Jesus to help him in a special way. - The Marvelous Story of Our Lady of the Pillar

Many stories abound about this particular tradition. No Church Father speaks of it. and it is likewise not mentioned in the Scriptures, thus making it part of private revelation. No Catholic is under obligation to believe this legend, but many do, including myself.

  Several Christian saints, monks and Muslim sufis are said to have exhibited bilocation. Among the earliest is the apparition of Our Lady of the Pillar in the year 40. Other Christian figures said to have experienced bilocation include St. Alphonsus Marie De'Liguori (Founder of Redemptorist Congregation), St. Anthony of Padua, Ursula Micaela Morata, St. Gerard Majella, Charles of Mount Argus, Padre Pio,[13] St. Severus of Ravenna, St. Ambrose of Milan, María de Ágreda,[14] and St. Martin de Porres, María de León Bello y Delgado, as well as Pope Cyril VI of Alexandria. St Isidore the Laborer claimed to be praying or attending to Mass in Church while at the same time plowing in the fields. - Bilocation (Wikipedia)

Was Mary’s appearance to St. James the Greater in year 40 AD an apparition or bilocation?
Answer
There's a wisdom why the Church Historian used the word "apparition" instead of the word "bilocation". Like Ven. Mary of Agreda and St. Padre Pio had a gift of bilocation but to the Theotokos appearances the word "apparition" is always attributed.
Why? Let us not forget that Church Historian must relied on actual accounts and descriptions of the seer or the one who experienced the encounter.It would seems St.James the Greater narrated his encounter with Mary's appearance as apparition because Mary present herself in a "ghostlike" appearance. Remember St. James was an Apostle who saw personally the first appearance of Resurrected Jesus Body.
Thinking He Is a Ghost (24:37-39)

"They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, >'Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 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.' " (24:37-39)

The story of apparition happened in 40 AD the accounts seven(a number of perfection) years away from the Upper Room when the Holy Spirit pours out His gifts to empower the Apostles & Disciples to established Christ Church and spread the gospel of salvation.
And Mary was there as a Mother to all the Apostles and Disciples following the command of Jesus At the Foot of the Cross "Woman, behold your son".
The Catholic Church approved the authenticity of this private revelation and for the Church to believed the exact wording of Mary's appearance as "apparition", we all know that the Church guided by the Holy Spirit cannot err.
I believe Mary newly accepted role as Jesus entrusted Her to be the Mother of the Apostles and Disciples and all the future disciples being the Mystical Body of Christ had received the fullness of gifts of the Holy Spirit way above all Apostles and Disciples because Her Immaculate Heart was well-disposed to received the enormous gifts of the Holy Spirit to empower Her new role as the Mother of the Church.
In Book of Acts prior to the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles and Disciples with Mary are all united and praying in one body. The Holy Eucharist is celebrated as Jesus commanded them to do it "in remembrance of Him"

"And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to >them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance >of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is >poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood."
(Luke 22:19-20)

The gifts of the Holy Eucharist is "transfiguration" and the gifts of the Holy Spirit is for Mary to be the Mother of all the Redeemed (Apostles,Disciples,believers).
Now let's look on what the resurrected body or transfigured body and relates it to the word apparition which means "a ghostlike appearance"
What We Learn about Jesus' Resurrected Body
Luke's account tells us several things about the nature of Jesus' resurrected body.

Jesus' resurrected body has definite physical aspects -- flesh, bones, the >ability to eat food, converse intelligently, and walk for miles on a road.
Jesus' resurrected body has a continuity with the previous body before death. >Jesus' wounds in his hands, feet, and side are still clearly visible, and >probably still open rather than healed over, since Thomas suggests putting his >finger into the wounds (John 19:25). This may seem overly descriptive to the >point of being gross. But the Gospel writers are making utterly clear the >nature of a real body, not just the appearance or vision that is not physical >or corporeal.
Jesus' resurrected body is not bound to the physical sphere -- it can appear >and disappear at will. While Jesus' body can relate to the physical world, it >is not bound by space and time.
We don't know a lot more about Jesus' resurrected body than this. But we have a >promise that when Christ returns our earthly remains will be resurrected in the >same way he was (1 Corinthians 15:51-52; 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17). - Jesus Appears to His Disciples (Luke 24:36-46)

Mary's appearance to St. James the Greater in the year 40 AD, while She is very much alive means Mary's body was "transfigured or had received the gift of full transformation". Her transfigured body by the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the graces derived from the Sacraments of the Holy Mass enable Her to transcend physical limitations of time & space.
For the Saints, the Church rightly affirmed that appearances must be called "bilocation" because the physical qualities remains the same. While for Mary the Mother of the Saviour (Head of the Church) and now Mother of all the Apostles, Disciples and believers the Church (Mystical Body of Jesus) the Church is absolutely correct when it affirmed the accounts of Church Historian that it was an "apparition" meaning Mary appeared to St. James the Greater based on his narrated account is a "ghostlike".
This is the first authentic Marian Apparition and establishes the trademark that Mary is truly the Mother of Church as She help St. James the Greater build Her first Marian Church.
But what is the significant of the "apparition" and the image of the "Our Lady of the Pillar"?
Mary standing atop the pillar or column means the Holy Spirit fully dwells in Her by making a house (Wisdom 9:1). It is also a symbol of Mary elevated position and glorified status. The apparition happened before Mary's Assumption (body & soul).
So let's go back to the main question, is the encounter of St. James the Greater an apparition or bilocation?
My confident answer is, by virtue of the image and symbols of Our Lady standing atop of a six foot jasper  Pillar carried by the angels means a "glorified status". Seven glorious years of receiving the Holy Eucharist and receiving the Fullness of the Sevenfold Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Mary standing above the heights of men and the angels now are Her servants. Glorified above men and angels while on earth. The Our Lady of the Pillar is called "Pre-Assumption Apparition". In Heaven a crown of twelve stars is waiting her glorification (Revelation 12:1)
Mary the Mother of the Church appeared to St. James the Greater in a "glorified body" a "ghostlike" like the "resurrected body" of Jesus it transcends the space and time.


Is mindfulness meditation banned in Eastern Orthodoxy? Is focusing on your breathing to meditate banned in the Orthodox church, in particular the Serbian Orthodox church?
I know that it's not allowed to not focus on anything at all, because the devil will enter the mind in such cases.
However what if I just focused on my breathing instead, and in case that it's not allowed either, is there an Orthodox alternative to it, which gives the same or better benefits?

Being Eastern Catholic, I’d say you need to be aware that because of the similarities between some eastern spiritual practices and the practices of the orthodox there is sensitivity amongst the Eastern churches of west’s accusations that we engage in pagan meditation techniques.
I think we need to get over our hang ups with the west’s accusations.
Our traditions; including the Jesus prayer is built around the breath.
As long as you remain theologically sound, practice mindfulness as you will.

Saint Vyacheslav Krasheninnikov was against deep breathing methods, needle therapy, massages, etc. Yogis levitate because demons lift them. Similarly, the antichrist flies quickly because demons carry him fast; deceived people say: "Christ is here; Christ is there!".


What is the Biblical basis for Limited Atonement? Calvin, among his other points, includes the point that Atonement is Limited; i.e., that Christ's death was sufficient for all but only effective for the elect.

What is the Biblical basis for this doctrine?

Limited Atonement Defined

Limited atonement is defined in the Canons of Dort:

  The Second Main Point of Doctrine: Christ's Death and Human Redemption Through It

  Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ’s Death

  This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice
  and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more
  than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

  Article 7: Faith God’s Gift

  But all who genuinely believe and are delivered and saved by Christ’s
  death from their sins and from destruction receive this favor solely
  from God’s grace—which God owes to no one—given to them in Christ from
  eternity.

  Article 8: The Saving Effectiveness of Christ’s Death

  For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention
  of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his
  Son’s costly death should work itself out in all the elect, in order
  that God might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead
  them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God’s will that
  Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new
  covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation,
  and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to
  salvation and given to him by the Father; that Christ should grant
  them faith (which, like the Holy Spirit’s other saving gifts, he
  acquired for them by his death). It was also God’s will that Christ
  should cleanse them by his blood from all their sins, both original
  and actual, whether committed before or after their coming to faith;
  that he should faithfully preserve them to the very end; and that he
  should finally present them to himself, a glorious people, without
  spot or wrinkle.

  Article 9: The Fulfillment of God’s Plan

  This plan, arising out of God’s eternal love for the elect, from the
  beginning of the world to the present time has been powerfully carried
  out and will also be carried out in the future, the gates of hell
  seeking vainly to prevail against it. As a result, the elect are
  gathered into one, all in their own time, and there is always a church
  of believers founded on Christ’s blood, a church which steadfastly
  loves, persistently worships, and here and in all eternity praises him
  as her Savior who laid down his life for her on the cross, as a
  bridegroom for his bride.

  Rejection of the Errors

  Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors
  of those

  Who teach that God the Father appointed his Son to death on the cross without a fixed and definite plan to save anyone by name, so
  that the necessity, usefulness, and worth of what Christ’s death
  obtained could have stood intact and altogether perfect, complete and
  whole, even if the redemption that was obtained had never in actual
  fact been applied to any individual.
  Who teach that the purpose of Christ’s death was not to establish in actual fact a new covenant of grace by his blood, but only to acquire
  for the Father the mere right to enter once more into a covenant with
  humanity, whether of grace or of works.

I have quoted three articles and a rejection of two errors, but for a fuller definition of limited atonement, click the link and read all nine articles and a rejection of seven errors.

Other Names for Limited Atonement

You can see above, in article 3 juxtaposed with articles 7-8, that the atonement is "sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world" but that the cross "should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father." This has been summarized by many apologists as, "sufficient for all, efficient for only the elect."

Therefore the atonement is not "limited" in its power, but in its purpose. It's common for opponents of reformed theology to advance the argument that a limited atonement means the cross wasn't "powerful" enough to achieve the purpose of the salvation of every person; that's not the case. God's purpose was to save the elect, and that purpose was accomplished on the cross.

To better capture the fact that the atonement's purpose was to redeem a "particular" people and that it is "definite" in its scope, some have begun calling it by other names:

particular redemption
definite redemption
actual atonement
intentional atonement
definite atonement

Direct Biblical Support

Now for the meat.

It's all throughout the Gospel of John that Christ died for his "people" or his "sheep" and not for everyone else:

  John 6

  37 Everyone whom the Father gives me will come to me, and the one who
  comes to me I will never send away. ... 39 Now this is the will of the
  one who sent me—that I should not lose one person of every one he has
  given me, but raise them all up at the last day.

  64 But there are some of you who do not believe. ... 65 Because of
  this I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has
  allowed him to come.

  John 10: The Good Shepherd

  11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for
  the sheep. ... 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own
  know me. ... 26 But you refuse to believe because you are not my
  sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they
  follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; no
  one will snatch them from my hand.

  John 17: Jesus Prays to the Father

  6 I have revealed your name to the men you gave me out of the world.
  They belonged to you, and you gave them to me, and they have obeyed
  your word. ... 9 I am praying on behalf of them. I am not praying on
  behalf of the world, but on behalf of those you have given me, because
  they belong to you.

In Matthew 1:21 we see the same idea, of God saving "his people":

  She will give birth to a son and you will name him Jesus, because he
  will save his people from their sins.

God's chosen people is Israel, or the church. In reformed theology, a continuity between the two is recognized, so that the "true Israel" and the "invisible church" is the same as the "elect." The scriptural support for this idea is beyond the scope of the current question, but it's worth mentioning since Peter said in Acts 5:31 that Christ died for Israel:

  God exalted him to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give
  repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

It is also the teaching of Paul that Christ died for "the church":

  Acts 20:28

  Watch out for yourselves and for all the flock of which the Holy
  Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he
  obtained with the blood of his own Son.

  Ephesians 5:25

  Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave
  himself for her.

This is consistent with the song the saints sing in Revelation 5:9-10:

  At the cost of your own blood you have purchased for God persons from
  every tribe, language, people, and nation. You have appointed them as
  a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the
  earth.

John Owen contends in his classic defense of limited atonement The Death of Death in the Death of Christ that Romans 8 supports the doctrine:

  Romans 8:34

  Who is the one who will condemn? Christ is the one who died (and more
  than that, he was raised), who is at the right hand of God, and who
  also is interceding for us.

  Owen's Commentary in The Death of Death

  That he died for all and intercedeth for some will scarcely be
  squared to this text, especially considering the foundation of all
  this, which is (verse 32) that love of God which moved him to give up
  Christ to death for us all; upon which the apostle infers a kind of
  impossibility in not giving us all good things in him; which how it
  can be reconciled with their opinion who affirm that he gave his Son
  for millions to whom he will give neither grace nor glory, I cannot
  see.

Consistency with Other Doctrines

There is one other point to consider. I could have titled this section "indirect Biblical evidence." The fact is that rejecting limited atonement would make for an inconsistent system of theology. The following two quotes should demonstrate what I mean.

A. A. Hodge says in his book The Atonement:

  Every form which it is possible for the General Atonement Theory to
  assume necessarily involves the hypothesis that in its essential
  nature the Atonement effects only the removal of legal obstacles out
  of the way of the salvation of men, making God reconcilable, not
  actually reconciling him; making the salvation of all men possible,
  not actually saving any. But the Scriptures teach that Christ actually
  came to save those for whom he died ... Again the Scriptures decleare
  that the effect of Christ's death is reconciliation and justification.
  ... The design of Christ, moreover, was to secure for those whom he
  died the direct effect of remission of sins, peace with God, and
  deliverance from the curse of the law, from wrath, from death, from
  sin, &c. ... But to make salvation possible, to make possible
  purification, deliverance, reconciliation, is something very different
  indeed from actually saving, purifying, delivering or reconciling. No
  man has the right to empty the glorious terms in which the gospel is
  revealed of all their saving power.

Hodge cites Matthew 18:11; Luke 19:10; Romans 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 1:4, 3:13, and 4:5; Ephesians 2:14-16; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Timothy 1:15; Hebrews 2:14; and 1 Peter 1:18.

Robert Morley similarly said in his book Studies in the Atonement:

  When Christ lived, died, was buried, arose, ascended, and sat down at
  the right hand of the Majesty on high, we are told that the ones for
  whom He did these things are to be viewed as being in such a life
  union with Him as their covenant head and representative that it is
  said that they lived, died, were buried, arose, ascended and sat down
  at the Father's side 'in Christ' (Rom. 6:1-11; Gal. 2:20; 6:14; Eph.
  2:5-6).

  To say that Christ died for all is to say that all died in Christ. It means that unbelievers are to be told that they have been crucified
  with Christ, been buried with Christ, have been resurrected with
  Christ and have ascended and sat down with Christ. This position is so
  manifestly false that it should grieve the child of God even to
  consider it.

For more on the "consistency" point, visit the link to the Canons of Dort and scroll to "Rejection of the Errors" under the second main point.

All scripture quotes are from the NET. I closely consulted this article by Brian Schwertley to write this answer. The article is excerpted from a broader work.

Actually, there is not a single passage anywhere that explicitly says that Christ *didn't die for everyone, or that His death was Only for some, but not the whole world.
We see people cherry-picking 2 or 3 verses and taking them completely out of context.
Hermeneutics 101. One of the most basic principles of Bible Interpretation is that clear passages always trump or take precedent over unclear.
Calvinists use the verse Matthew 23:28 to try to support the absurd notion that Christ didn't atone for everyone -despite passages that explicitly state He did.   For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matt. 26:28 Many is a subset of "all".
The biggest problem is that Calvinists confuse Universal calling with Universalism- the false doctrine that everyone will be saved.  It's just like the example of someone who sends a coupon to everyone in the county for a free hamburger. Everyone gets the same universal offer. But you have to actually bring the coupon in to the restaurant. [Man's free will] They won't put a gun to your head and make you use it. It doesn't guarantee that every person will be forced to eat it. It provides so that everyone has the offer. "He gave his life as a ransom for all."
Hebrews 2:9 Jesus tasted death for every man.
I John 2:2. He is the propitiation [atoning sacrifice] for our sins [the Christians] and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world."


Why doesn't the Catholic church have prophets and apostles? The New Testament often mentions the title/calling apostle and prophet. Why don't Catholics (the largest Christian denomination) use those titles/callings? Is it because they see some biblical basis for not using them?
In Ephesians 4 (KJV) it says:

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.

And in 1 Corinthians 12:28 it says:

28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Why don't Catholics…use those titles [apostle, prophet]?

Apostle
Fr. John Hardon defines "apostle" in his Catholic Dictionary as

A messenger and authorized representative of the sender. Broadly used in Scripture, it refers to many followers of Jesus who spread his message. More precisely, however, it applies to the original twelve men chosen by Jesus to be his immediate aides. They are referred to as disciples during the period in which he was instructing the, but following his ascension they are always called Apostles. After Pentecost they spoke and acted with confidence and assurance in teaching others what he had taught them and in assuming leadership roles in the early church. They were ordained priests by Christ at the Last Supper and were commissioned by him to preach the Gospel to all mankind (Matthew 28:19-20). (Etym. Latin apostolus, an apostle; Greek apostolos, one who is sent off.)

Prophet
Aren't prophets only known to be such after the fact?
For example, Pope Pius XII—in his encyclical promoting Catholic missions, Evangelii Praecones §27—described his predecessor, Pope Pius XI, as having "prophetic vision":

We are profoundly grieved as We behold these conditions which Our immediate Predecessor [Pope Pius XI] described with almost prophetic vision verified in many parts of the Far East.

Pope Paul VI's prediction in his 1968 encyclical Humanæ Vitæ of the damaging effects of contraception to marriage and society has also been called prophetic. He said that contraception "could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards" (§17), which has indeed occurred—e.g., as illustrated below:

(Cf. also Pope Pius XI's encyclical on marriage, Casti Connubii §§53 ff.)


Are there any surviving Acta Diurna copies mentioning Jesus' trial or other aspects of his life? I recently learned about Acta Diurna, which are official notices created by Roman authorities describing legal proceedings and the outcome of trials. It occurred to me that the trial of Jesus before Pilate, and his later crucifixion, would probably have wound up on Acta Diurna, as well as surrounding events such as Pilate freeing Barabbas (part of a yearly tradition).

The article on Wikipedia (sadly lacking sources) notes that no originals survive, but that scribes sometimes made copies and sent them to provincial governors. Have any copies of these Acta Diurna referring to Jesus' trial or other aspects of his life survived? If not, are there any surviving works that reference such copies?

As there is no positive proof that Acta Diurna relating to the trial of Jesus ever existed, the options are i) we do not know, or ii) they did not exist. The first of these options is generally unhelpful, but I believe I can show that they almost certainly did not exist - bearing in mind that it is considered almost impossible to prove a negative conclusively.

If there were any contemporary Roman record of the trial of Jesus or of any other aspect in his life, we can be sure that this would be carefully preserved, to become one of the best known and most cited record in the Christian faith. Of course, to the Romans, Jesus would have been a minor criminal on the fringe of empire and it would be hardly worth making records of his life and crucifixion. We ought not be surprised that Roman records do not exist, and their absence proves nothing about the historicity of Jesus.

The best proof that Roman records of Jesus did not exist is the pseudepigraphical Acts of Pilate, written in the second century, allegedly providing a report of the Roman procurator concerning Jesus. Had a true record existed at that time, then the Acts of Pilate would probably not have been written. Further evidence is that Justin Martyr cited the Acts of Pilate, the only 'Roman record' known to him. The Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius is another pseudepigraphical document found in the Greek Acts of Peter and Paul and as an appendix to the Gospel of Nicodemus in Latin. The Report of Pilate would appear to be older than the documents into which it had been inserted and is evidence that a true record did not then exist.

As a protege of Emperor Flavius, the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus had access to Roman records and would surely have mentioned the life and crucifixion of Jesus if Jesus had a momentous impact on Jewish society, since he reported on several other revolutionaries and false messiahs who preceded Jesus.  Josephus does mention Jesus in two passages, but only in regard to Christian beliefs about Jesus. Because of these two passages, which provided a tenuous link back to Jesus, the works of Josephus were preserved, although not in autograph.

Bishop John Shelby Spong researched the gospel account of Barabbas and says, in Jesus for the NonReligious, at page 168, that has he been able to find no evidence that there was a custom of releasing a prisoner at the time of the Passover.

No Roman record of Jesus is known to have existed; the evidence of history is that such a record probably did not exist.