What is the biblical basis for “the Sinner’s Prayer” and do Protestants believe that saying the prayer make one a Christian? I came across a similar question asking about the Protestant view that when you first believe on Jesus Christ you become a Born Again Christian.  Here is the link to the question:

How did the Born Again teaching be associated with one first believing in Jesus Christ?

Please note that I am not asking about how a Christian is born-again.  I am asking about the claim that Protestants think if you say "the Sinner’s Prayer” then you become a Christian.  I’ve been a Protestant for a long time but have never subscribed to any notion that simply repeating some words will automatically make a person a Christian.  That is clearly unbiblical because there must be evidence of a life transformed by the Holy Spirit at work in the believer.

  "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation: the old has gone, the new has come!" (2 Corinthians 5:17).

My understanding is that it is the Holy Spirit who convicts sinners of their need to repent and turn, in faith, to what God has done, in Christ Jesus, and seek forgiveness.  A “Prayer of Repentance” might better express what sinners need to do in order to be saved.

It seems to me that there are some commonly held misconceptions about this “Sinner’s Prayer”.  My question is therefore aimed at Protestants in order to give them an opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings and to show, from the Bible, what it is that makes a person a Christian.

There is an example in scripture, spoken by Jesus, of the prayer of a sinner :

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Luke 18:13,14 [KJV]

I think this is the reason for the saying 'The Sinner's Prayer' and I think this is the reason that Protestantism, largely, advocates that those who genuinely feel their distance from God, their proneness to sin and their burden of past sins, should pray to God in penitence.
There is another saying :

What must I do to be saved ?
Acts 16:30 [KJV]

said by the Philippian jailor who was ready to commit suicide.
A prayer, in a way, but not exactly addressed to God, rather addressed (as many do, in their first approaches of repentance) to someone who represents God - an 'ambassador of Jesus Christ'.
The publican was in the temple, praying. The jailor was trembling and had already thrown himself down at the feet of the apostle. These men were at an extremity. They had reached the lowest ebb. They were distraught.
These prayers were wrung from them at the lowest point of their lives. They were far off from God : and they knew it. And these prayers were answered, and that immediately, in  both cases, without delay.
The publican went down to his house, justified, without further ado. Just as Abel received a witness (from God) that he was righteous (in God's sight) after he offered the firstling of his flock, and the fat thereof, Hebrews 11:4.
Protestantism exists because justification by faith was preached by the Reformers. They taught that justification is by faith and that justification is a matter of the righteousness of God, not the righteousness of the law or the righteousness of humanity.
And they taught that genuine, penitent prayer receives an answer from God Almighty to the sinner who approaches in confession and repentance and faith. No works are required. Good works (in abundance) will, undoubtedly, follow. But no works of any kind can ever justify from sin. For that, blood must be shed - and that, from a clean sacrifice.
What is completely removed from this, is the practice of putting words into the mouths of people who are, largely, quite happy in sin, quite happy with life, quite content to be ungodly - and then promising them eternal salvation by the performance of a solitary, brief ritual.
There is no comparison between this objectionable modern practice and these examples of real repentance recorded in scripture.

I agree with you brother that they need to have fruit of Holy Spirit as sign to be Christians.

  So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught
  great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at
  Antioch [Acts 11:26].

Barnabas and Saul teach and work them with Antiochians for the whole year. And then they yield fruit and people saw Christ in them and then called them Little Christs.

Maybe, Sinner Prayer is popular with ministers because they could brag about bunch of unsalty salt, which Jesus like less than manure [Lk 14:34-35], instead of working hard like Saul. Maybe it would be something, if you would pray Sinner Prayer and act as a publican every day.

On other side, in my Catholic church, from the early days (4 century and before), if you want to be just baptized, and not like going to die soon, you need to be disciple for one whole year to learn what you step in, just like above. There had porters, church bouncers, which expel those people on second. And from my personal experience and many testimonies grace by blood of Jesus is much better communicated when you need to confess your sin to other person [James 5:16] and also have prescribed penance [John 21:15-19]. It is so much powerful that even evangelical preachers (Francis Chan, just to mention someone) reinvent the wheel. Don't want to insult or hurt someone, but isn't such bad evangelization as Sinner Prayer natural product after Martin Luther's salvation by faith alone (for which I argue that is too not biblical [James 2:24]) and once saved always saved and Bible interpretation relativism through Sola Scriptura and 30000+ denomination?


Is/will there be time in heaven? An answer suggests that "time is meaningless in heaven."  Do we know this to be true?

It seems like an easy conclusion to draw, based on the following:

God created the entire universe, including all dimensions and time. Therefore, God exists outside of time.
Heaven is the place of "eternal" life.
In Heaven we will be "with" God (so possibly/presumably outside of time as well?)

But does all of this add up to time being meaningless or nonexistent in heaven?  Or does the Bible give us any other clues as to the "timeliness" of Heaven?

If there are significantly diverging views on this based on theological tradition let me know in comments, and I can try to make the question more specific, or ask separate questions for those traditions in which I am most interested.

It seems that the idea that created beings become timeless in heaven is not one that is widely held.  God, as the Creator of time, space, and matter, is the only Being that exists outside of time, space, and matter.

There is a significant distinction between that which is mortal, that which is immortal, and that which is eternal (outside of time).  That which is mortal has both a beginning and an end.  This includes the earth, our physical bodies and taxes (thank goodness).  That which is immortal has a beginning but no end.  This includes our souls and spirits as well as angels.  God alone is eternal.  Only God has no beginning and no ending.

The eternal life that we have does not mean that all of a sudden our lives go from having a beginning to not having a beginning.  We have eternal life in the sense that it will have no end--not in the sense that it has no beginning.  God is eternal in an entirely different sense.  Perhaps our language is not specific enough in this.

The key point is those beings who have a beginning cannot go through any process where their beginning is eliminated and makes them timeless.

We have been created inside of time, space, and matter, and we will always exist within that.  Only God exists outside of it.

There is no time in heaven.  It just does not exist.  Time is a creation here on earth by God like the play button on your DVD.  Time makes sense to us here but it will not make sense to us there.  We are playing out our lives here on earth; exercising our free will; and being judged.  But "God knew us before the foundation of the earth".  My guess is, if we are judged worthy, we are already there - there is no gap between our loveones who have gone before and our arrival. Eternal life is a given where time does not exist.


Immaculate Conception: Why was it necessary for our Salvation? According to many Catholic apologists, like Dr. Robert Sungenis,1 the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary is not simply binding because it is a divinely revealed dogma, but according to them it is binding additionally because logically speaking without Mary being sinless Jesus could not accomplish the redemptive work in the first place.
What exactly do they mean by this?
The story goes like this, to save mankind Jesus had to be sinless. Therefore Mary had to be sinless to not pass on original sin. But then Protestant apologists just say "the grace could have been given directly to Jesus" or "why wasn't the grace given to the mother and father of Mary, or even further back?"

Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of
the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the
Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and
for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of
Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by
our own:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that
the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception,
by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of
the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was
preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed
by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the
faithful. Hence, if anyone shall dare -- which God forbid! -- to think
otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand
that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered
shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the
Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the
penalties established by law if he should are to express in words or
writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his
heart.”
Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, 8 December 1854

Questions in formal form is as follows: Why was it necessary for the salvation plan to have specifically Mary the mother of Jesus be utterly without sin?

1. For example, in this video debate at 1:05:18 ("because if she isn't sinless, she's going to produce a sinful Savior") and 1:13:00.

Was Mary's Immaculate Conception Absolutely Necessary for our Salvation?
Before I go on with my answer, I object to that fact that you claim that according to many Catholic apologists, like Dr. Robert Sungenis, the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary is necessary for our salvation.
"According to many Catholic apologists, like Dr. Robert Sungenis, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not simply binding because it is a divinely revealed dogma, but according to them it is binding additionally because logically speaking without Mary being sinless Jesus could not accomplish the redemptive work in the first place." Can someone please name a few Catholic theologians with this viewpoint. In 2008 his local bishop had instructed him to stop writing about Jews and to remove the name "Catholic" from his blog.
The short answer is no.
Our salvation was guarantied by Our lord Jesus Christ on the Cross.

The Catholic Church believes that it was not absolutely or intrinsically necessary for the Blessed Virgin Mary to be sinless; only fitting or appropriate (God making the choice).
Thus, even a dogmatic belief in the Immaculate Conception does not in any way impinge upon the Two Natures of Christ. We believe the Immaculate Conception happened, and are required to believe this, but we don't believe that it had to happen exactly as it did (in all possible worlds, etc.), in order for God to be God.
All the Immaculate Conception did was make Mary as Eve was before the Fall (precisely why the Church fathers often called her the Second Eve or New Eve): unfallen and sinless; not subject to original sin. As Cardinal Newman remarked: why is it considered such an extraordinary thing that God chose to simply make one person -- the Mother of God the Son, the Theotokos -- the way that all of us would have been, but for the Fall?
Fr. Ryan Erlenbush wrote on The New Theological Movement website (12-8-11):

And this is the great difference between Jesus and Mary: She required a special grace to preserve her from the stain of sin, but our Savior (by virtue of the Incarnation itself, and on account of his divinity) could not possibly have contracted the guilt or debt of original sin in any respect.

While our Blessed Lady, even though Immaculately Conceived, required a Redeemer (namely, her own Son, Christ Jesus), the Lord did not have any need of a Redeemer. No special grace was required (beyond that of the Incarnation itself) to keep the Christ Child from original sin – he could not possibly have contracted it.

In this sense, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is seen to be fitting and true while (in itself) not absolutely necessary, but the sinlessness of the Lord Jesus is absolutely necessary and super-eminently fitting.

Was Mary's Immaculate Conception Absolutely Necessary?

St. Thomas Aquinas maintains that it was indeed possible for Our Lord Jesus Christ to have been born of sinful woman; Christ's glory would not have been diminished thereby. But, he states elsewhere, it would have been inappropriate:

God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: "(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament." Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office. ... But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: "The glory of children are their fathers": and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother's shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): "What concord hath Christ with Belial?" Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the "Divine Wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): "Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins."
We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee," etc. - Was the dogma of the Immaculate Conception formulated in response to someone challenging Mary's ability to bear a perfect Son?

If God preserved Mary from all sin, He could have preserved Christ's body and soul likewise without the grace of Mary's Immaculate Conception.

Was it necessary for God to make Mary immaculate at her conception so that she could be Jesus' mother?
No. The Church only speaks of the Immaculate Conception as something that was "fitting," something that made Mary a "fit habitation" (i.e., suitable dwelling) for the Son of God, not something that was necessary.

And hence they [the Church Fathers] affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace. . . .

For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness [Ineffabilis Deus].

Can anyone show where in Pope Pius IX's Papal Encyclical Ineffabilis Deus that the Mary's Immaculate Conception was absolutely necessary for our salvation. You can not!
Unless one can show evidence to the contrary, in Pope Pius IX's dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception that the Immaculate Conception of the Ever Virgin Mary was necessary for our salvation, the contrary is to be upheld.
St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa clearly states that it was Adam and not Eve that was responsible  for the transition of original sin. Now if Mary, the Mother of Jesus is the New Eve and Jesus Christ is the New Adam, it is obvious that the Immaculate Conception was not necessary for our salvation for the Holy Spirit can operate in that dwelling place He so chooses to. It the Holy Spirit that made it possible for Christ to be free of original sin and not Mary, the New Eve.

The solution of this question is made clear by what has been said. For it has been stated that original sin is transmitted by the first parent in so far as he is the mover in the begetting of his children: wherefore it has been said that if anyone were begotten materially only, of human flesh, they would not contract original sin. Now it is evident that in the opinion of philosophers, the active principle of generation is from the father, while the mother provides the matter. Therefore original sin, is contracted, not from the mother, but from the father: so that, accordingly, if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would not contract original sin: whereas, if Adam, and not Eve, had sinned, they would contract it. - Whether if Eve, and not Adam, had sinned, their children would have contracted original sin?

It was necessary for Mary to be immaculately conceived in the plan of salvation because without that GRACE Jesus would either have been sinful or have been in debt. I will now expound on this answer.
Scenario n*1: Mary is conceived like all of us and Jesus is not given a grace ❌
Formal explanation:
1- Human Parents of Mary (no grace) --> Original Sin
2- Human Mary (no grace) --> Original Sin
3- Human Jesus (no grace) --> Original Sin (❌)
This means that Jesus would contract Original Sin, because although he is God he is also human, and all of his humanity comes from Mary and no where else. God is not a cheater, he cannot somehow overcharge his human nature with a divine nature, they must be distinct, trully human and trully divine. He cannot negate Original Sin without a grace, because he inherited the human nature like all humans after Adam, neither did he create his human nature at the moment of his virginal conception for it is written "the Woman shall conceive"(Isaiah 7:14).

"What has not been assumed has not been healed; it is what is united
to his divinity that is saved." ☩ St. Gregory of Nazianzus
Epistle to the Philippians 2:6-7
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.

Scenario n*2: Mary is conceived like all of us and Jesus is given a grace ❌
Formal explanation:
1- Human Parents of Mary (no grace) --> Original Sin
2- Human Mary (no grace) --> Original Sin
3- Human Jesus (grace) --> Original Perfection (❌)
Many Protestants see a valid point here, but in actuality it is much more complicated than it may seem. If the grace was applied to Jesus, it would mean that the God-man needed grace in other words needed to loan to buy us out of captivity. Just reading that should make lights go off. Jesus could not have saved us if he also needed to save himself, being in debt from birth like all of us.

Gospel of St. John 6:60-62
60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if(hypothetical, he
is not bound) you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

Scenario n*3: Mary immaculately conceived because of parents and Jesus is not given a grace ❌
Formal explanation:
1- Human Parents of Mary (grace) --> Original Perfection (❌)
2- Human Mary (no grace) --> Original Perfection
3- Human Jesus (no grace) --> Original Perfection
In theory this could work, but it would be asymetrical and unecessary. Asymetrical because the image of old Adam/old Eve vs New Adam/New Eve is lost. Unecessary because the grace could just have been given to Mary. Not to mention that the parents, however many in the past, would have to remain sinless from day one til last day to make it worth it in the first place, which is improbable. To the skeptics, if you believe this argument is weak I invite you to consider the relentless symetry applied by God in the crucifixion. Jesus could perhaps have saved us by being stoned to death, but if that was the case we wouldn't be able to compare the Tree of Life with the Wooden Cross and the fruit of life with the precious flesh and blood we all eat every sunday. That is just scrapping the surface of symbology employed by God, it is all over the Bible and exists even on a cosmic level, Jonathan Pageau, an Eastern Orthodox, and his "symbolic world" may be of help. Therefore this explanation is ad hoc and should be discarded, Ockham's Razor and everything.
Scenario n*4: Infallible Catholic Dogma: The Immaculate Conception ✅
Formal explanation:
1- Human Parents of Mary (no grace) --> Original Sin
2- Human Mary (grace) --> Original Perfection [Immaculate Conception] ✅
3- Human Jesus (no grace) --> Original Perfection [Virginal Conception] ✅
This is the most intelligent solution. Minimal risk of the immaculate to waste the loan, Christ is free of charge, and everything is harmonized with a New Eve and a New Adam distinct from the general populace yet remaining fully human to save the humans.

Well [does the Gospel say]: married but a virgin; because she is the
type of the Church, which is also married but remains immaculate..  The
Virgin [Church] conceived us by the Holy Spirit and, as a virgin, gave
birth to us without pain.  And perhaps this is why holy Mary, married
to one man [Joseph], is made fruitful by another [the Holy Spirit], to
show that the individual churches are filled with the Spirit and with
grace, even as they are united to the person of a temporal priest.
☩
St. Ambrose, master of St. Augustine the "Doctor of Grace"
For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of
the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary
received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good
tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and
the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy
Thing begotten of her is the Son of God; and she replied, ‘Be it unto
me according to thy word.’ And by her has He been born, to whom we
have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both
the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works
deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and
believe upon Him. ☩ St. Justin Martyr (160 AD)
Gospel of St. Luke 1:28-30
28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and
considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And
the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found
favor with God.
Epistle of St. Jude 24-25
24 Now to him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you without blemish before the presence of his glory with rejoicing,
25 to the only God, our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and
for ever. Amen. - Early Church Fathers on Mary as the New Eve

DISCLAIMER: This is not a case for the 'absolute' necessity of the Marian dogma, this is a case for the logical necessity of the Marian dogma. There is a difference between God choosing foundational laws(laws of nature, etc) and God building upon those laws. We are existing in the framework God himself established in eternity. In other words, there are fundamentally different possible worlds in which we are saved without Mary's immaculate conception, but there are not possible words in which we are saved without the Marian dogma if the fundamental laws remain the same and that's a killer point. Within the system we live in which God established to demonstrate his justice and mercy most magnificently and most satisfyingly the Marian dogma is necessary not only for its profound goodness and beauty but also for its logical necessity as God is not a liar nor a cheater, he will not negate his own foundational logic.


How did the doctrine of the pope having "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" originate? The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls"

This is the text of paragraph 937 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. How did this text get here? What council or authority decided that this is the doctrine of the Catholic Church?

Paragraph 937 of the Catechism is part of an "In Brief" section that occurs at the end of every topic of the Catechism. The "In Brief" sections are intended to summarize the paragraphs that have gone before. In this case, the paragraph is restating material that occurs in paragraphs 881 and 882. In particular:

"For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church."
paragraph 881

This is a quote from the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium. The Scriptural references supporting the statement are John 21:15-17 (" Feed my sheep") and Matthew 16:18-19.
Similarly, the constitution Pastor aeternus, promulgated by the First Vatican Council, states in Chapter III:

Full power was given to [the Roman Pontiff], in Blessed Peter, by Jesus Christ our Lord, to pasture, to rule, and to govern the Universal Church...

The specific quote that appears in paragraph 937 itself is found in the preface to the decree Christus Dominus, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965.

INTRODUCTION

There are two answers to the OP.  According to the groups (Orthodox and Protestants) that oppose this doctrine, it arose from usurping what was given to Peter and ignoring Scripture and enlisting secular authority to enforce its view.  According to the group (Roman Catholic (RC)) that teaches this doctrine, it originated by “divine institution”.  We will look first at what RC says.

  CCC-875 … The one sent by the Lord does not speak and act on his own authority, but by virtue of Christ's authority; not as a member of the community, but speaking to it in the name of Christ. No one can bestow grace on himself; it must be given and offered. This fact presupposes ministers of grace, authorized and empowered by Christ. From him, bishops and priests receive the mission and faculty ("the sacred power") to act in persona Christi Capitis; …. The ministry in which Christ's emissaries do and give by God's grace what they cannot do and give by their own powers, is called a "sacrament" by the Church's tradition. Indeed, the ministry of the Church is conferred by a special sacrament.

“Divine institution” thus means God appointed; authorized and empowered by Christ.  From the base of CCC-875, which essentially could include any Christian (a minister of grace or of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18)), we move to the RC argument that it alone is supreme authority in a nutshell.  This latter assertion is obviously very serious for all Christians to consider.  If the doctrine is true, then those, be they Protestant or Orthodox, not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church (RC) are against God.  If the doctrine is false, then RC is against God.

  CCC-881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

The elements supreme, full, immediate, and universal will thus flow from this divine appointment so-called; we will look at each.

SUPREME (Mt. 16:18)

Simon is the “rock” of His Church.  The bishops under the primacy of the Pope (Peter’s successor) carry it forward.  The keys of the Church (literally kingdom of heaven) were given to Peter alone.  Circa 750 CE a bishop sided with Rome’s view on a doctrine simply because when he got to heaven, he wanted Peter to open the gates.  Rome had it; the other group did not, went the thinking.

FULL (Mt. 16:19)

While all the apostles were given the power of binding and loosing, it was to Peter first who received said power.

IMMEDIATE (Acts 1:20)

This authority has existed from Christ to Peter onward through a succession of bishops.  See also Irenaeus and Eusebius.

UNIVERSAL (Jn. 21:15-17)

Again, this is the idea of “over all”.  Christ told Peter to “feed My sheep”.  This is not “your sheep in Antioch or Jerusalem” or the sheep at Rome, but essentially all of Christ’s sheep.

POWER

The previous four descriptions pertain to a certain power; that is to help souls “attain to salvation.”  As mentioned, if RC is the rock and has the keys and first power to “bind and loose”, and thus if one is outside RC, then one may not be saved.  The assertion has been once framed outside the Church (RC), there is no salvation.

Incidentally, RC readily admits that no Council granted this doctrine; in other words, RC is above Councils (see CCC 884).

OPPOSITION

The groups that oppose this doctrine point to a number of alternative explanations.  The “rock” is not particularly Peter, but his confession of Christ.  Acts 15 shows a council decision led by James, not a Petrine decision.  The keys to the kingdom given to Peter were exercised when he first preached to Jew, Samaritan, and Gentile (Acts 2:14, 8:14, 10:34).  Since then, the doors are open to whosoever will.  The keys are no longer in use; the gates of hell will never prevail.  Lastly, even if Christ commanded Peter alone to “feed My sheep”, Peter assigns this power in 1 Peter 5:2 to the elders (plural) in Asia Minor (1 Pet. 1:1).  We have no other record of Peter doing so in Rome.

Also suggested above was Rome’s usage of secular authority to bolster their authority.  The first example is with Constantine as guarantee of the church’s acceptance of Rome's Easter viewpoint (this eventually contributed to the Great Schism with its conflict over bread type).  There are numerous other examples over time.

As mentioned, it is important to understand both sides of the doctrine; else potentially one might fall into condemnation.

CONCLUSION

So, while the basic idea of a “divine appointment” to one who preaches in and of Christ is sound, it is the next set of interpretations (rock, keys, bind/loose) where the doctrine is questionable.


What distinctive kinds of Bible translations are there? Obviously there is a lot decisions and elbow-grease that go into producing any Bible translation. I hear a lot of different terms used to describe the different methodologies that guide those decisions such as literal, word-for-word, figurative, dynamic equivalence, formal equivalence, paraphrase, simplified, and at least a dozen others.

Can somebody unscramble these and try to bring some order to the relations between them. If it is possible to group an of them and gives specific examples of how different methodologies are compatible or at odds that would be lovely. If there is some kind of sliding scale between different ends of the spectrum, please describe what that spectrum is.

Let's try to avoid preferences about what we think are the best kind of translation, but expand on the motivations for each. I have strong opinions but will try to make my choice of "right" answer based on how well different methodologies are represented, not based the priorities I use in choosing a translation.

Great question!

Biblical translation is a difficult task because you're trying to get words and meaning out of 1900+ year old text and make it intelligible to people today in their own native language.

Because of this, translation kind of becomes a spectrum.  On one end, you have word-by-word translation while on the other end you have a paraphrase meant for everyone to understand.

Here are the three broad categories:

Word-for-Word translation

This type of bible takes the original language and (word for word) translates it into the target language (for lack of a better term).

This type of translation is willing to move words around slightly to make the meaning clear in the target language.  For example, adjectives in some languages (Spanish, Latin, etc.) come after the noun they modify instead of before (like in English, German, etc.).  So, when translating, they may move adjectives or other words around to make them conform to the target language.

Examples:  English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible
Thought-for-Thought translation

This type of translation tries to maintain the original intent of the text.  It takes a phrase or sentence or paragraph at a time and puts it into more modern terms.  Instead of translating each individual word, they translate larger chunks.

The idea behind this is that it allows the text to be more easily understood by modern languages while still retaining the original meaning.

Examples:  New Living Translation, New International Version
Paraphrase

This type of translation is at the farthest extent of the spectrum.  This translation takes the original text and translates it into words that is super easy to understand.  This type of translation is also called free-text translation because of the freedom that the translators have in converting the original manuscripts into modern language.

Examples:  The Message.

1. This is a link to the primary source article.  2. All links above go to the respective translations of John 3:16

That simply tells you the types of translations there are.  There are many different types of bibles, however, each of which may have multiple translations.

For example, the Life Application Bible (which I heartily recommend, by the way) can be found using the NIV, NKJV, or NLT translations.  While the translation of the sacred text is common among bibles, the extra notes regarding the text vary greatly.

There's one specific translation that I want to use as an example.  It's called the Apostolic Bible.  It's a type of "polyglot" bible (which literally means many tongues, or multiple languages) that contains both the original language and the English translation.  (It also contains the Strong's Concordance reference number for each word.)

It's a fantastic example of a word-for-word translation:

Here I focus on the motivation for different Bibles.

The discussion on literal, word-for-word, figurative, dynamic equivalence, formal equivalence, paraphrase, simplified, bibles obscures the fact that the theology can be quite different between bibles. And the theological differences are much more a problem than the language itself.  The schism in the Episcopal Church in 1970, which caused many Bishops and congregations to leave the ECUSA was due primarily to the change in Bible and Prayer book use, because the newer books had changed the theology in a way totally unacceptable to many of the Priest and Laity.

A similar thing is happening today with the Episcopal Church ( I am sure something similar is happening in other religious groups ) where traditional liturgy is being changed without the approval of the laity. In recent years the Bible has been changed, and the prayer book revised. People are hanging onto their traditional texts, and prayer books, and whole communities are moving to new locations so they can keep using their traditional books.

The Anglican Communion worldwide is very troubled by what is happening to the Episcopal Church in America. And they blame it on the changes made to the doctrine in America. ECUSA has written new bibles and new prayer books to suit the new doctrine.

My Church ACC, which is independent of the Anglican Communion, nevertheless agrees with the 70 million Anglican Communion worldwide and uses the 1769 King James Version (AV) in most of the liturgy.

All modern bibles come from one of four ancient bibles. There were four religious regions, and each region was its own biblical authority. The regions were: Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and Syria.
The Church of England has chosen to base their modern KJV bible on the Greek gospels from the Church of Antioch.
The RC Church has chosen to base their modern bible on the Greek gospels from the Church in Rome.
The Protestant Mainstream churches have chosen to base their modern bibles on the Greek gospels from the Church of Alexandria.
The Syrian Catholic Church have chosen to base their modern bible on on the Syrian gospels from the Church of Syria.

Each biblical tradition has passages and books that don’t appear in the others.
Every group of translators has a specific agenda, given by their Church, to slant the translation towards a doctrine taught by that Church. That’s why the Protestant Bibles are different from the catholic bibles, the Anglican Bibles, and the Orthodox Bibles. There are even bible versions aimed at specific religious groups. In fact, these days, people can find a Bible for their specific Church ideology - the Pastor will recommend it.

The reason publishers offer literal, word-for-word, figurative, dynamic equivalence, formal equivalence, paraphrase, and simplified, bibles is not to make it easier to understand - some in fact really muddy up the theology, but to obscure the fact that the theology has been altered from the tradition in order to suit the aims of the church. [Prosperity theology cannot be supported from the KJV or the DRV.]

My preliminary advice is to use the Bible your Pastor recommends - at least you will be hearing the same theology and can discuss it. In the discussion you will be inspired - as we always are when hearing the word of God - and you will experience God.

If you are a scholar, and want to understand Jesus, then find the traditional bibles that have stood the test of time. If the language seems hard, the meaning, when you get it, will be as close as you can get to what Jesus taught.

There are some very poor translations, done by people who had no classical Greek learning - only NT Greek. You need to look for translators who are experts on ancient Greek and Hebrew. If the frontispiece doesn't list the translators, and the book doesn't have a pedigree, then go look for something that does.

An Anglican


What does it mean that Jesus was tempted in every way like us (yet without sin)? Hebrews 4:15 says that Jesus was tempted in every respect as we are.  What does it mean that He was tempted "in every respect" as we are?

  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
  weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are,
  yet without sin.  Hebrews 4:15 ESV

Being the nerdy type, I sought out a more technical answer. Apparently the word used for "in every respect" (or as the KJV puts it, "in all points") is κατα παντα, (kata panta). That latter word, πᾶς, (pas) means

1) individually
  a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything
2) collectively
  a) some of all types

[source: BLB]

It's the same word used to refer to "all the world" or "the whole world" - passages that we don't necessarily take 100% literally. That is, it could mean he was tempted with 100% all the same temptations we undergo, or, more likely, that he has experienced the same class of temptation and experiences we have, so he is able to sympathize with us.

Additionally, as was implied in RiverC's answer, Christ's "temptations" weren't limited to the showdown with the Devil in the wilderness.

For thirty years, Jesus lived a pretty normal life. He was a carpenter's son. Pure speculation, but I suspect the kinds of people he'd work with wouldn't have the purest of mouths. He was exposed to everything we are exposed to; he both

endured the trials of the human life that we do, and
resisted the temptations that we are exposed to and fail to resist

Ultimately, the point is, he didn't give in. We don't know what other temptations Adam underwent, but the one in the garden was the significant one. Same with Jesus, the second Adam. He was exposed to a nasty temptation like Adam and Eve, and resisted. He was subjected to the same things we were, regardless of what technically "in every respect" means, and he can identify us, but more importantly represent us as a perfect Adam.

I have a wonderful boss who said this in a light that just BLEW my mind yesterday.

Jesus was tempted by all things yet did not sin. Now, to have a High Priest who knows all that we could ever go through means, not only was Jesus tempted by the things we automatically think of....lust, greet, deceit etc. It means He was tempted to do every horrible evil unspeakable act that we have here on this earth.

Insane right? It's easy to understand Jesus was tempted by the "regular" things. But to think that at some point He was tempted to kill a child, have intimacy with a brother, everything vulgar and sinful. Now before anyone can jump on this and say that I'm wrong, search the scriptures out in your prayer time.

Hebrews 4:15 says He was tempted in every way that we are but without sin. Well that doesn't just limit it to a certain "level" of temptation. Just as we can't say, murder of a child is a worse sin than lying in the eyes of the Lord, we cannot say that Jesus was tempted of ALL THINGS but not those really yukky hard to think about temptations.

Can you imagine, how it would feel, to be the Lord of all, and to feel a desire (remember temptation isn't just a thought, it's an urge, a wanting, a deep desire, longing to do something) to commit some of the most unmentionable acts we have on this earth.

Yet..He did not sin.

Mind-blowing


Why did God wrestle with Jacob? Sorry for asking a question kid in my Catechism class asked, but I didn't know the answer and she is an expert level 7th grader.

Why did God wrestle with Jacob if they're both good?
Was God actually trying to kill Jacob?
Was there some reason Jacob needed to be injured and was he seriously injured?

The short answer is "To teach Jacob an important lesson."

This all takes place, of course, in Genesis 32.

First, to your first question: Jacob wasn't "good" by any means.  If you look at Jacob before this, he has stolen the blessing that was Esau's birthright. (Genesis 27).  He had several children with women he didn't love, and was certainly no great father to them.  (Genesis 30-31).

By the time he wrestled with this angel (or with God depending on the translation - I'm going to stick with God) in chapter 32 starting in verse 24, he'd pretty much shown that he was not a "good" man at all.

Yet, God chose him to the the father of the nation of Israel.

To the second question:  was God trying to kill Jacob?  In the wrestling match, Jacob wrestles with God until daybreak (verse 24).  Then God touches the hollow of Jacob's thigh and dislocates it, demonstrating that He could have easily defeated Jacob at any time.  This was a lesson in humility - showing Jacob that compared to God, he was nothing.

That also answers the third question.  Jacob was injured - he was disabled by a mere touch, to show that God is powerful and compared to God, he is nothing.  Whether he was "seriously injured" depends on whether or not you consider a dislocated hip "seriously injured".

Yet, knowing full well that he was nothing, Jacob did something brave and remarkable. He refused to give up until God gave him a blessing.  He continued to fight, but now it was for God, not against God.

I believe that the reason for the encounter was to ensure that Jacob, who became Israel afterward, had the correct motivation, heart, and attitude toward God.  it was a lesson in humility, and Jacob responded by a show of faith and longing for God.

‘FIRST’...Let us take a look at what is found printed in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 32, and verse 24 (of the KJV 1611 Edition Authorized Version of the Holy Bible), which reads:

“And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled 'A MAN' with him until the breaking of the day."

Now, what does this verse mean? Well, first of all, this verse did not read (in-part): "There wrestled An ANGEL with him"...so you can discard that myth out of your heads. Furthermore, you must not READ this verse as if it is a 'NEWS ARTICLE' that was published in your local Tabloid, or READ this in a "literal Perception." For thereby, the English’s transliteration of the noun “MAN” that occurs here came from the Hebraic word: “אִישׁ-'iysh,” which means: “GREAT MAN.” This very same Hebraic meaning “אִישׁ-'iysh,”... pertains to the very same “GREAT” that is read in Deut. 10:17. And, it also applies to the noun “MAN” that is mentioned in Numbers 23:19. That is, the first “MAN”: not “The Son of Man,” in that passage that pertains to “The Christ.”

‘SECOND’: The word ‘wrestled [, in its past tense,]’ occurs only ‘THREE TIMES’ in the entire [KJV] Holy Bible. And all ‘3’ occurrences is found only in the Book of Genesis; and is related to Jacob.  Here, in Genesis Chapter 32 and verse 24, is the second occurrence.

The very FIRST “wrestle match [, per-say,]”…took place in the East, in the Biblical City known as ‘Padanaram between two BLOOD SISTERS whose names were [, in their English’s pronunciations,] ‘Leah’ and ‘Rachel’, the daughters of Laban, Jacob’s Uncle: who were also the ‘cousins’ of Jacob.

However, this ‘FIRST wrestling match’ that took place in Padanaram between Leah and her sister Rachel, has its own meaning; that is, opposed to the other meaning of the other two occurrences.

In fact, this particular ‘wrestle’ was NOT physical—just as the wrestling match that took place between ‘Jacob’ and this certain ‘MAN’ that is found here in Genesis 32:24 was NOT PHYSICAL...no—no—no.

This now brings us back to the subject of the other two occurrences of the word ‘wrestled [in its past tense]’, which is also the SECOND recorded ‘Wrestling Match’ that took place in Genesis 32:24, which is TOTALLY different from the FIRST.

In other words, that particular word ‘wrestled’ came from the original Hebraic word [that Moses used] known as “אָבַק [from right that to left: aleph, beth koph]-'abaq, pronounced ä•vak',” which means: “of the ground [or terrestrial]; and of the clouds [or celestial].”

In other words, this particular ‘wrestled’ that took place between Jacob and this certain ‘MAN’ (, Whom is now identified as ‘YAHWEH’,); took place when Jacob was LEFT alone…remember?

This means that ‘Jacob’ had time to meditate on his PRAYER that he performed to ‘YAHWEH’ earlier in that same Chapter [32] that can be confirmed in verses 9 through 12.

This also means that ‘Jacob’ had time [while being bi-himself; that’s ‘BI [B-I]’as in two of himself; or being split up into two Jacobs, which is a ‘SIMILE’ of how Jacob divided the people that was with him earlier that night, and the flocks, and herds, and the camels, into two bands—that’s TWO sides of Jacob.

One side of his THOUGHTS that represented the earthly thoughts of Jacob; as well as the other side of the same THOUGHTS of his MIND that represented Jacob taking on the heavenly or celestial thoughts that was soon to become known as Israel;] at the completion of this great and historical ‘wrestling match’ that he was now involved in ‘WITH’ …this CERTAIN ‘MAN’.

Keeping in MIND that while Jacob was wrestling ‘WITH’ ‘YAHWEH’, Jacob also experienced going back so deep into the sub-consciousness of his MIND, until he reached the depth of his MIND where is DOUBT is stored.

This means that 'Jacob' was having a 'Mental' conflict in his MIND that almost caused him his LIFE. THIS IS PROVEN IN EPHESIANS, CHAPTER 6, AND VERSE 12, WHICH READS:

“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”


What is the Biblical basis and support for and against the view of predestination? Simple and easy. I am looking for Biblical support (not opinion) for and against the view of predestination. Predestination is the view that all events are willed by God. I'm looking for both sides of the view, not just one side. What Biblical evidence exists for/against predestination?

In Support

Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

Even the dice fall according to God's plan.

Ephesians 1:11 In [Christ] we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things
according to the counsel of his will

God works everything according to his will.

Psalm 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there were none of them.

God has written down (in other words, planned to the letter!) every day of our life before they even come to pass.

Matthew 10:30-31a But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; therefore

God knows how many hairs you have. He's counted them.
And now allow me to quote at length Louis Berkof, Systematic Theology, pg. 168, quoted in the Reformation Study Bible

The Bible clearly teaches God's providential control

over the universe at large, Ps. 103:19; Dan. 4:35; Eph. 1:11;
over the physical world, Job 37; Ps. 104:14; 135:6; Matt. 5:45;
over the brute creation, Ps. 104:21, 28; Mt. 6:26; 10:29;
over the affairs of nations, Job 12:23; Ps. 22:28; 66:7; Acts 17:26
over man's birth and lot in life, 1 Sam. 16:1; Ps. 139:16; Isa. 45:5; Gal. 1:15-16
over the outward successes and failures of men's lives, Ps. 75:6-7, Lk. 1:52
over things seemingly accidental or insignificant, Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:30
in protection of the righteous, Ps. 4:8; 5:12; 63:8; 121:3; Rom. 8:28
in supplying the wants of God's people, Gn. 22:8, 14; Deut. 8:3; Phil. 4:19
in giving answers to prayer, 1 Sam. 1:19; Isa. 20:5-6; 2 Chron. 33:13; Ps. 65:2 Mt. 7:7; Lk. 18:7-8
in the exposure and punishment of the wicket, Ps. 7:12-13; 11:6

Against
I'm not very familiar with verses against Predestination, but as I understand it, a lot of the argument against it is an interpretive argument; and those who are opposed to the doctrine would say the verses above are more general in nature and are simply talking about his omnipotence, not his nitty-gritty control over the details.  I'll leave it to someone more versed in this position to answer for the against side.

Support for

Predestination is not a doctrine that can be proven or denied by quoting a few verses. It is a doctrine that is prevalent throughout the entire bible. Disbelief of predestination results from people who do not understand or acknowledge God's total sovereignty over everything. They believe that man's will is stronger than God's will.

They think that God operates like a man and they reason to themselves:
1. God never enforces His will against man's will,i.e man has to give God permission to act.
2. Predestination is not fair.
3. Every person is worthy of salvation.

Some verses you may not be aware of:
 God is sovereign:
Ps 115:3 But our God is in the heavens:He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased.
Ps 135:6 Whatsoever the LORD pleased, that did He in heaven, and in the earth, in the seas, and all deep places.
Dan 4:35 And all of the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing:and He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth:and none can stay His hand, or say unto Him, What.    doeth thou?
Rom 9:17-21.

They believe that salvation because of man using his will to "accept Christ" (that phrase is not found in Scripture)
Jn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God.
Rm 9:15-16 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
So then it is not of him who willeth, nor him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Jm 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.

Look at Ezra 7:27, Ps 105:25, Pr 21:1, Rev 17:17.

Instead of simply reading what others say, why don't you let the bible speak? If you really desire to learn about what Scripture actually teaches about predestination and are willing to spend some time in the bible, get yourself a Nave's Topical Bible. This book lists all of the topics in the bible and shows the verses related to a topic. You can see for yourself all of the verses that teach about God's sovereignty, predestination, depravity of man, etc.

One last point. When we read the English words in Scripture, we automatically put our connotations into the meaning. The bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, from a Jewish mentality. You need to look at the connotations of the original Hebrew and Greek words to comprehend the actual meanings You should look at how the Greek words translated into "all" and "world" had different connotations and the context in which they are used. You can find out this info thru a web search


Why do Christians need to promote their religion to non-believers? Door to door Jehovah's Witnesses / Mormons, people preaching in town centres, posters outside churches, alpha course.

Why do  Christians have to promote their beliefs to other people? What difference does it make to believers if other people do not believe the same as them? Do they not think they may offend atheists?

I am interested to hear from people who actively promote their religion to non-believers and what drives them.

You basically have three sub-questions here, so let me attempt to answer them in order.

  Why do christians have to promote their beliefs to other people?

For two principal reasons: because we were commanded to at several different places in the Bible, and as an act of love.  The Gospel improves the lives of those who live its principles, and we want to share that with those who don't have those blessings in their lives.

  What difference does it make to believers if other people do not believe the same as them?

Well, aside from what I posted above about loving others and wanting them to experience the same blessings we have, it makes a huge difference when the other people are not content to simply "not believe the same" and leave it at that, but actively attempt to use force--of either the physical, political or legal variety--to interfere with our ability to live our religion.  And one of the simplest ways to counter that is to turn an enemy into a believer.  (Sometimes it can have a very dramatic result; just look at Paul!)

  Do they not think they may offend atheists?

Perhaps, but that only matters if you think that avoiding hurting someone's feelings is more important than sincerely trying to help them improve their lives.  The Gospel encourages an eternal perspective, which tends to give us a different ordering of priorities than the strong short-term focus so prevalent in the world today.

Early Christians had a particular vision, and that vision needed to spread, so the mechanism was:

  Accept Jesus, then get others to accept him.

This is similar to the vision of our form of agriculture:

  Grow, then get more land, increase food production, then grow some
  more.

These two quotes came from Beyond Civilization, by Daniel Quinn.

So, we start with the fact that we want our vision of God to spread.  You can see this in a similar way with other religions.

Now, do you have to buy into any one particular religious belief, so should Catholics try to convert Baptists?  I think that as long as the vision is similar to Jesus' then we should focus on the two greatest commandments which is on how to properly relate to God and each other, with love.  So, some people want to force their views on others that don't have their own narrow view of the world, but that seems geared more toward personal glory (bragging rights) than trying to help share Jesus' vision.

Now, you mention in a comment why try to convert people that are happy.  Some people feel that they are happy as drug users, or skipping school.  If I truly love someone then I would like to see them happy for eternity, and Jesus is doorway to this, then I should share my beliefs, but, as I mentioned in another of your questions, being pushy will just drive people to put up walls and become more resistant.  Being pushy wasn't the way that Jesus nor the early Apostles approached this, and using them as a guideline would show that being pushy is probably for the wrong motives.

So, why not share our view on relationships with God and others, and show how it can help them, but that starts with understanding that person, not just trying to use a one-size fits all approach.

We can share our beliefs without annoying people, if we go slow, let God direct us, and understand the person we are talking with.

One of the best books to help show how this works is Dale Carnegie's How to Make Friends and Influence People, btw, if you don't want to use a religious writing.


Why does Paul call Peter "Cephas" in his writings? In John 1:42 Jesus called Peter as Cephas.

  Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).

But throughout the Gospels, Peter was called as Peter and his books also called in his name I Peter and II Peter.

But why did Paul call Peter, Cephas (Galatians 2:7-14, I Cor. 1:11-13, I Cor. 3:21, I Cor. 9:5 and I Cor. 15:5)? In some occasions he also calls him as Peter. When I asked my mom, she said Paul was rebuking Peter in the name Cephas. Is this true? Or is calling Peter as Cephas normal?

At times, Paul and Peter had disagreements as in Galatians 2:11-16:

  11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
   14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

  15 “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles 16 know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

How was their relationship as fellow apostles?

Peter means "stone" in Greek, while Cephas is "stone" in Aramaic.

That verse is confusing in the NIV; the KJV is clearer:

  John 1:42 (KJV)
  42And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Christ was speaking in Aramaic, and would have called Simon "Cephas." John wrote his gospel in Greek, so he included the note for his readers that "Cephas" meant "a stone."

In 1 Cor 15 v.4-5,why does Paul say that after his resurrection Christ, "was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve.." Firstly it suggests that Cephas might have been one of the 70 disciples, rather than Peter the Apostle; secondly it omits the two Marys mentioned as the first to see the risen Christ in Matthew 28 v 1-10?


Did Prophet Jeremiah's soul pre-exist his conception in human form? At Jeremiah 1: 4-5 we see the prophet speaking of his call:

  Now the word of the Lord came to me saying,
   “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
  and before you were born I consecrated you;
  I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Do the words of the Lord indicate that the soul of Jeremiah had existed even before he was conceived by his mother? Or, are they only meant to be  a figurative expression? How do the teachings of Catholic Church explain the words of God to Jeremiah?

No, Jeremiah (and you and me) didn't have a soul until it was "formed in the womb"

The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God
CCC 366

It's pretty clear and unambiguous, even Jesus' human soul was created at the Incarnation. (please correct me if the tense or the verbs "was created" are wrong).  The function of the soul is to animate the body.

it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul,
CCC 364

If there's no body, there's no need for a soul and what there is no need for, there isn't.  After death, our souls await being reunited with our bodies because the body+soul mix is what being human is all about.

As for Jeremiah, according to the commentary in the NAB, this is because his birth was foretold.  Obviously, if there's a foretelling, there's a foreknowledge and certainly if God is omniscient, He knows us before we're born, it doesn't mean He makes us before we're born.
If I grew a head of lettuce and some tomatoes and was intent on making a salad, I could say.  Before I ate you, I knew you in the garden. If I had wanted to make an omelet, I could say to the omelet, before I ate you, I knew you in the egg, etc...
I had this question myself many times, belief in the soul preexisting conception is a heresy that was denounced like 1700 years ago that I can't remember the name of but someone called me out on it on this very site, so I figured I'd pass this along to you.

Did Prophet Jeremiah's soul pre-exist his conception in human form?

The answer is NO, human soul that existed in the prophetic mind of God during the time of creation cannot pre-exist as it will clearly contradict the definition of soul which is profoundly and intimately united to a body.

  365 The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body:234 i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

But, I will answer Yes also, when the "pre-existence in question is the soul of Jesus & Mary because Adam as progenitor cannot bind the New Adam & Eve as they existed before the creation time begin.

What I'm trying to say is, Jesus & Mary is above Adam and pre-existed even before Adam was formed.

Jesus human but Divine soul pre-exist in the bosom of the Father, while Mary as the chosen Mother of the Logos pre-existed in the Divine Will of the Father as Blessed Archbishop Fulton Sheed said "Mary is God's DREAMED"
and when God dream of Mary it happened in eternity meaning outside of time.

All other creatures after Adam are his descendants and by God's holy decree will inherit the original sin except for a few chosen souls that was predestined by God to be holy & blameless before the foundation of the world. (Ephesians1:3-4)

How can we prove it biblicallly. The Jeremiah1:5 passage is a perfect example.

The word "Before" does not mean a pre-existent created soul but pertains to the pre-ordained mission of Jeremiah.

The question is, is Jeremiah being sanctified in the womb was cleansed of not only of original sin but including all the stain of original sin?. As St.Paul letter to Ephesians implied "holy & blameless" meaning a spotless soul. Because how can God consecrate an offering to Himself when the offering had blemished.

Ephesians 1:4-5 New International Version (NIV)

  For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he[a] predestined us for adoption to sonship[b] through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will..

So, Jeremiah sanctified soul is like the immaculate soul of Mary, the only difference is Mary is "preserve" or untouch by original sin while Jeremiah was touch and cleansed from it meaning from all stain of original sin to become worthy of Consecration.

  St.Catherine of Sienna had said "everything was pre-ordained towards the Salvation of Man".

Jeremiah was knew by God before he was formed in the womb  meaning God knew what kind of "mission" Jeremiah must fulfill and that is to become a Prophet and he was "sanctified" same like St.John the Baptist was "sanctified" to become "holy & blameless" to fulfill his God given mission while still in the womb.


Where does the Catholic church procure most of its Bibles? I was recently doing some research on Bible publishing and distribution in order to compose this answer over on the Skeptics Stack Exchange site. In spite of the result being well received, I have a nagging doubt that I might have missed something. The one I'm wondering if I under-estimated is related to the Catholic church.

I realize the United Bible Societies specifically prints Bibles in many languages that include the Deuterocanon and works with both Catholic and Orthodox groups for distribution. What I was unable to determine is if this was the primary source for Bibles in Catholic circles around the world. If not, the sheer size of the Catholic church must place a pretty high demand on some other publisher.

I found some references to a Catholic Biblical Federation but didn't find any evidence that they were a major player in print or distribution of Bibles. A related article in Newadvent talks a lot about Protestant Bible societies and historical movements but doesn't specifically mention the role Catholic church. Are primarily Protestant societies listed because that was the point of the article or because that's primary what is out there?

Does the Catholic church have any in house publishing operations or an independent publishing/distribution source that handles high volume in any worldwide region or do they typically piggy back on the regional Bible societies that are summed up under the UBS umbrella?

Catholic Bibles do not come from just one publisher. They contract with hundreds of publishers to produce Catholic Bibles and other works. Although the Vatican does have a printing office it seems to only be used for Anthologies and other more recent publications.

Here are a few examples

http://www.catholicbookpublishing.com/about.php

http://www.firesidecatholic.com/Churches/

http://www.baroniuspress.com/

http://www.catholic.org/bible/

To sum up the church uses large and small publishers to fill their needs throughout the world. It appears that the publishers are selected by region so they can meet the needs of the local Churches quickly and reduce cost on shipping and storage. Which of these publishers is the largest would be almost impossible to determine as I doubt the Catholic church publishes that information. But I hope this helps in some way.

Oxford University Press prints large numbers of Catholic Bibles, But each diocese, Catholic Book/Bible supplier purchases such from their preferred supplier, there are 1.2 billion professed Catholics the sheer volume of Catholic Bibles and their various languages translation means there are numerous printers of bibles.  Many Catholics myself included who are fascinated with Biblical translations have many different Bibles "Protestant" and "Catholic".  Some "Protestant" (churches not in communion with Rome) still use the Catholic Canon (have all the "Catholic" books of the Old Testament in their Bible).  A Catholic Bible translation must have a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur indicated to be an authorized Catholic Bible.  We have free will but if we profess we are Catholics that also means we profess a belief in the historical teachings of the Church and as such our studies include what the Church teaches on a particular subject.  Catholics believe the Revelation of Christ was complete at the time of His Death and Resurrection and the end of the Apostolic Age (i.e. scripture) but our understanding of that Revelation shall continue to deepen throughout time (tradition).


What is the purpose of degrees in the Knights of Columbus? The Knights of Columbus seems to have some system like the Freemasons do when it comes to degrees. But since those organizations are diametrically opposed, what is the point of the four degrees in the Knights of Columbus?

What is the purpose of degrees in the Knights of Columbus?

To teach Catholic gentlemen to be true Catholics, loyal to the Holy Father, the Magisterium of the Church and to aid fellow Catholics in diverse situations, such as widows. Things that Knights of old would look upon as an honour to fulfill.

The degrees taken emulate these facts, in their ceremonies (which the formalities are not publicly known so as to make the new recipients learn the Gospel message in a very unique manner).

The Knights in their degrees learn charity, unity, fraternity and patriotism!

  Types of Membership

  Knights

  New candidates begin their journey to Knighthood by completing the First Degree ceremony where they learn the lesson of charity. Following the First Degree ceremony, a candidate is considered a Knight of Columbus and can participate in all council activities. First Degree members are encouraged to attain the Second and Third Degrees, which teach the lessons of unity and fraternity. Upon taking the Third Degree, a member receives full honors of Knighthood and is “Knighted.”

  Privileges of Third Degree membership include the ability to serve as a local council officer, and admission to state and Supreme Council business meetings. First and Second Degree members can attend the state and Supreme Council meetings, but they are not allowed in the business sessions.

  Members who have been in the Knights for one year and have attained Third Degree membership are eligible to join the Fourth Degree Knights.

  Fourth Degree Knights

  On February 22, 1900, the first Fourth Degree exemplification or degree ceremony was held in New York City. The Fourth Degree imparts a lesson on the virtue of patriotism. The primary purpose of this degree is to foster the spirit of patriotism in members and the community at large and encourage active Catholic citizenship. Today there are some 300,000 Fourth Degree Knights out of the total 1.6 million member Knights of Columbus.

  Local units, called assemblies, draw their members from Knights of Columbus councils. The qualifications for membership in the Fourth Degree are: membership in the Knights for at least one year and being a Third Degree Knight.

  A Fourth Degree Knight may become part of the assembly’s color corps. These members are recognized widely by their distinctive attire of tuxedo, feathered hat (chapeau), cape and sword. These members regularly take part in civic events such as parades and wreath-laying ceremonies, and at ecclesial functions at Catholic churches. The various colored capes and chapeau feathers denote different officer positions within the Fourth Degree.

Wikipedia explains it as follows:

  The order is dedicated to the principles (Degrees) of charity, unity, fraternity, and patriotism. The first ritual handbook, printed in 1885, contained only the first two Degrees teaching unity and charity. The third Degree, espousing fraternity, was adopted in 1891.

  The Fourth Degree, which is dedicated to patriotism, was adopted in 1903. Members of the Fourth Degree join assemblies which are separate from ordinary councils. Assemblies may form color guards, which are often the most visible arm of the Knights, to attend important civic and church events.

A longstanding tradition is coming to an end on July 1 as the Knights of Columbus discard the ceremonial capes and plumed chapeaus of its Fourth Degree members.

  Purpose of the Colour Corps

  When knighthood was in flower, knights carried the sword to defend their God, their Church, their country and their fellow man according to the code of chivalry. Today, Sir Knights wear regalia and carry the sword to honor Christ and His apostles, especially on religious and civic occasions specified in this manual. Hence, the primary purpose of the Fourth Degree is to encourage active Catholic citizenship and foster the spirit of patriotism in members and the community at large.

  The Color Corps members exemplify all the principles of our Order:

  Charity - by the gift of their time and energies necessary to practice, perfect and perform the ceremonials and sword drill;
  Unity – by the united efforts of Sir Knights to practice and perfect a coordinated drill for the good of the Church and the Order;
  Fraternity – by expressing an “Esprit de Corps,” sharing a common desire for drill excellence and camaraderie; and
  Patriotism – by performing precision drill as a salute to God and to country and visually exhibiting a love for both.

  The public appearance of Fourth Degree Knights as a Color Corps at religious and civic functions is an important activity of each assembly.  By these public demonstrations, their loyalty and patriotism bring credit to themselves and to the Knights of Columbus. - The Colour Corps of the Patriotic Degree

Fr. Michael J. McGivney founded the Knights of Columbus in part to give Catholic men a Catholic alternative to Freemasonic fraternalism.

cf. passim, esp. p. 40 (which cites Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Humanum Genus "denouncing Freemasonry as an abominable form of naturalistic religion."), of:

Kauffman, Christopher J. 1982. Faith and fraternalism: the history of the Knights of Columbus, 1882-1982. New York: Harper & Row.


Intelligent design - Creationism by a different name? I've heard that many believe that intelligent design is creationism by a different name.

However, if my understanding of intelligent design is correct, it does not deny the the big bang or evolution occurred. It does not even deny that abiogenesis occurred by anything but natural means.

It just means that the universe exists or was created in such a state that allowed for the extra unlikely sequence of events that lead to life existing on earth and eventually humanity.

Is my interpretation of Intelligent Design off base? If not then it hardly seems that it is a form a creationism, although I cannot speak for it being a illegitimate scientific theory or not. Or is this incorrect and why?

There are young earth creationists and old earth creationists. Young earth creationists tend to literally translate the opening chapters of Genesis as a literal 6 day creation cycle and an earth approximately 10,000 years old.

Old earth creationists will generally meld evolutionary theory with with looser interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis.

Both creationist beliefs state the spiritual source is the God of the Bible.

Intelligent design advocates don't specify where everything started or who started it. They just say there's a point at which matter must have begun and before that there's something non-physical that must be the source. Also, they'll argue that the order we observe in nature speaks to something will intelligence directing evolutionary or creationary forces.

In a way you could say Creationism is a sub-set of Intelligent Design, and Young earth/Old earth creationist are the two primary sub-sets of creationism.

Intelligent Design allows for creation, but does not presume it. What it says is that for any set of complex designs (one design is not enough, but many designs as a variation on a theme, such as with evolution, can be), you can learn something about their origin — the designer.  This is true whether that designer might turn out to be an intelligence or a natural process.  ID also hypothesizes that if the the designer is intelligent, rather than the solely the action of natural processes, the designs should bear evidence of that intelligence.

ID has applications outside of the evolution vs creation debate. For example, let's say there's a new bird flu/SARS virus going around. ID research could eventually provide the basis to determine whether the epidemic is natural or engineered by terrorists, and perhaps even where it came from. By examining the virus and comparing traits from known natural and engineered sources, the theory says that you should be able to distinguish it as one or the other with a more exact degree of probability than current methods, and in some cases even which kind of engineered source or technique was used: whether the design of the virus was natural or backed by an intelligence.

There have been extreme reactions to ID on both sides. Evolutionists often see it only as a wedge for allowing creationism in classrooms, and react accordingly. They miss the larger view of the field. In their defense, some (prominent) creationists have tried to use it that way, though I think (my opinion) for the most part creationists are just as wary of it because it also makes allowances for evolution.


The order of Communion in Luke 22:17-20 versus Mark 14:22-25 and Matthew 26:26-29 In Matt. 26:26-29 and Mark 14:22-25, Jesus presents the bread before the wine in the performance of Communion.

Matt. 26:26-29

  26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”

Mark 14:22-25

  22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” 23 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

But, in Luke 22:17-20 the wine is presented prior to the bread.

Luke 22:17-20

  17 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And when He had taken some bread and 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 in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.

Can anyone explain this supposed discrepancy?

The Marcan-Matthean tradition and the (earlier) Pauline-Lucan tradition vary in how they record the institution of the Eucharist. Compare the reading from Mark and Matthew with Luke and Paul, where Paul records the institution of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25:

  23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also the chalice, after supper, saying, "This chalice is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

I bring this up because you will note that both Mark and Matthew record the institution of the Eucharist while they were eating. In contrast, neither Luke nor Paul are entirely clear as to whether Jesus ate at all. Regardless, both Luke and Paul are very careful to point out that the eucharistic cup is instituted after the meal had concluded (μετα το δειπνησαι, 'after they had eaten'). Luke identifies this meal as the Passover (Luke 22:15). Luke's mention of another cup is consonant with Jewish custom during Passover (which included more than just one cup during the ceremony), but the intercalation of two cups surrounding the breaking of the bread highlights that particular action as theologically significant. Indeed, we will see that later on, in the Acts of the Apostles, Luke will use the term 'breaking of the bread' to reference the entire Eucharistic feast (cf. Acts 2:42 & 20:7).

As is usually the case, Matthew closely follows Mark (see note), but in this case Luke varies the account, not only by introducing an additional reference to the cup, but also in other ways that can explain this variance.  The author of Luke was aware of the sequence in Mark but wanted to elaborate on Jesus' premonition that one of those present would betray him.

In Mark, the following account appears before the words of the Eucharist Institution:

  Mark 14:18-20: And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? and another said, Is it I? And he answered and said unto them, It is one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish.

Again in Mark, when Jesus takes the cup, he gives thanks and goes on to mention of his impending death:

  Mark 14:23-25: And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

The author of Luke wanted to keep both of these important sayings but wanted to expand on the discussion of which apostle would betray Jesus, by linking it to an argument among them as to which would be greatest and then, from this, to Jesus' discourse in which he contrasts the disciples to kings and servants:

  Luke 22:23-26: And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

This meant that Jesus must mention the cup two times, once before before the words of the Eucharist Institution and once after.  It was not feasible to insert Luke's additions before the Eucharist Institution without disrupting the flow, thereby dictating that Jesus premonition of his own death needed to be moved to a position before the Eucharist Institution:

  Luke 22:17-18: And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves: For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

Footnote: Adam Winn, The Purpose of Mark's Gospel, page 1, says the theory of Markan priority is one of the few that has reached a high level of consensus among New Testament interpreters.


What is a Catechism and when and how did they originate One Protestant source says it wasn't until the 16th century that the word "catechism" came into use and it refers to the Heidelberg Catechism, first published in 1563 and approved by the Synod of Dort in 1619.

However, the Catholic Encyclopedia suggests that a catechism was established much earlier:

  By the end of the second century we find the catechumenate in force in all its main lines. Source: https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2661

I seek information on when and how catechisms first came into use, and welcome Catholic, Orthodox and Reformed Protestant input.  Ths is NOT a who is right or who is wrong question - it's a genuine enquiry into how and when catechisms originated within the Christian faith.

Question: Is there any biblical basis to support the use of a catechism within the Christian faith and how did they originate?

Have a read of the Wikipedia article on Catechesis: churches have long been using the terms "catechist" to refer to teachers and "catechumens" to refer to students, both based on the Greek word κατήχησις meaning "instruction". Then in the late middle ages "catechism" arose as a term for a specific tool for teaching. Apparently it was Luther who popularised the question and answer format of catechisms.

The Bible doesn't have anything to say about specific teaching methodologies, just that it's important to teach and instruct the next generation of Christians to know and trust God.

I usually tell people a catechism is similar to the modern day FAQ although I don't think a catechism necessarily has to take the question and answer format.


What is the biblical basis for Christ living on earth during the Millennial Reign? I can't find any passages that prove the Premillennialist viewpoint that Christ lives here on earth during the Millennial Reign.  I'm a Protestant, and have been taught that he reigns during the millennia, but couldn't that be done from Heaven?    I also realize in Revelation that he sets foot down on Mt. Olive, but it doesn't say he stays here.  I know he lives on earth when Heaven is established here on earth after the Millennial Reign, so I know he lives here after the Millennia.

What is the biblical basis for the belief that Jesus will physically live on earth during the Millennial Reign?

The Bible contains many prophecies about the future, with the New Testament speaking about the return of Jesus to earth. Matthew 24, much of the book of Revelation, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16–18 are the more salient references to the second coming.

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then tall the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (Matthew 24:29-31).
For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. (1 Thessalonians 4:16).

Historic premillennialism was held by a large majority of Christians during the first three centuries of the Christian era. Many of the church fathers such as Ireneaus, Papias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and others taught that there would be a visible kingdom of God upon the earth after the return of Christ. Historic premillennialism taught that the Antichrist would appear on earth and the seven-year tribulation would begin. Next would be the rapture, and then Jesus and His church would return to earth to rule for a thousand years. The faithful spend eternity in the New Jerusalem.
When Christianity became the official religion of Rome in the fourth century, many things began to change, including acceptance of historic premillennialism. Amillennialism soon became the prevailing doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.
One of the most influential historic premillennialists was George Eldon Ladd, an evangelical New Testament scholar and professor of New Testament exegesis and theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. It was through Ladd’s work that historic premillennialism gained scholarly respect and popularity among evangelical and Reformed theologians of the twentieth century. Other well-known historic premillennialists include Walter Martin; John Warwick Montgomery; J. Barton Payne; Henry Alford, a noted Greek scholar; and Theodor Zahn, a German New Testament scholar.
Historic premillennialism is one system of eschatology that has support in the Protestant community. Generally, all of the premillennialist beliefs teach that the tribulation is followed by 1,000 years of peace when all live under the authority of Christ. Afterwards, in a brief, final battle, Satan is permanently conquered. The placement of the rapture in relation to the other events is one of the main differences between historic premillennialism and premillennial dispensationalism.

According to The Sign, by Robert Van Kampen, the holy city in Revelation will come to earth, stopping at the rebuilt Mt. Zion temple. Thus, Jesus will rule from Mt. Zion as the scriptures teach, as well as above, in the heavens.


Can the faithful receive Holy Communion on repenting after committing a grave sin? At Matthew 26: 26-28, we read:

  While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”   Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you;   for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

That would imply that a member of the Church who is in a state of sin, but repents and receives the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion should receive forgiveness for his/her  sins in the same way he/she gets absolution from sins in Confession. But, the Catholic Church has always been insisting that one should be in a state of Grace in order to receive Holy Communion in a worthy manner.

My question is: What has been the Catholic Church's answer to query on the above lines, raised by the faithful over the past few years?

"my blood of the covenant, which is poured forth for many for the forgiveness of sins" refers to the purpose of the giving of Christ's blood. It does not refer to the effects of recieving it in Communion.

This is the very simple answer.

However, we do believe that the body and blood of Christ give us spiritual life. As Christ lives by the Father, so we will live because of Christ, and will be raised, like Him, on the last day. Theses are the promises of Christ on the Eucharist.

St. Paul teaches that we must have a clean conscience before Holy Communion:

  1 Corinthians 10:16-22. . . 11:25-29

  The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the
  blood of Christ? The bread, which we break, is it not the communion of
  the body of Christ? . . . Are not those who eat the sacrifices
  partakers of the altar?* . . . But you cannot drink the cup of the
  Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord** and the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord? Are we
  stronger than He? . . . [about misconduct at the Lord's Supper] . . .

  For I recieved from the Lord what I also passed on to you: that the
  Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and having given
  thanks [eucharistēsas] He broke it and said, This is My body, which
  is [given] for you; do this in commemoration of Me. In the same way,
  having supped, [took] the cup, saying, This cup is the new covenant in
  My blood; [and] as often you might drink it, do it in commemoration of
  Me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you
  proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes. Therefore WHOEVER EATS
  THE BREAD OR DRINKS OF THE CUP OF THE LORD UNWORTHILY WILL BE GUILTY
  OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD. Therefore let a man examine
  himself, and then let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For
  he who eats and drinks not recognizing [for what it is] the body/flesh
  [of the Lord] eats and drinks DAMNATION unto himself: for which reason
  many of you are weak and sick, and many of you fallen asleep.

* Hebrews 13:10.

** table of the Lord refers to the altar of sacrifice referred to in the Old Testament:

  Malachi 1:7

  You offer polluted bread upon My altar. And you say, Wherein have we
  polluted Thee: in that you say the table of the Lord is contemptable.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the following:§

  To respond to this invitation we must prepare ourselves for so great
  and so holy a moment. St. Paul urges us to examine our conscience:
  "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in
  an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of
  the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink
  of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the
  body eats and drinks judgment upon himself."216 Anyone conscious of a
  grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming
  to Communion.

216 1 Cor 11:27-29.

§ CCC 1385 | See also Council of Trent, Session 13, Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, cap. VII.

The question presupposes a person may be unworthy to take communion. And that taking communion when you are in an unworthy state has severe consequences.

I challenge that assumption. And I justify my answering the better question because Jesus often did not address the actual question, but addressed the issue at the heart of the question.

The word used was worthily, not worthy. Worthily is an adverb, not an adjective. The issue is not that the person is unworthy (that would be the adjective). The act of taking communion is what can be done unworthily. If you think that you have worthied up, confessed you sin so you are now not in danger of being unworthy, you have missed the point. And you are in danger of taking it unworthily. Let me explain:

John 13:12 Jesus began the Last Supper by washing the feet of the disciples. He said "If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you."

Jesus was not talking about washing feet. Washing feet was only an example. The point is that what Jesus has done for us, we should do for one another. What has Jesus done for you? What did he do later that evening?

Jesus broke the bread and said, "This is my body, broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." If Jesus had said after he washed their feet, "This do in remembrance of me" would he be referring to allowing people to wash you feet in remembrance of him? Of course not. He would be talking about washing the feet of others in remembrance of him. When Jesus said do this, the this he was referring to was offering your body, broken for others.

Taking communion unworthily is receiving the broken body of Christ, and not reciprocating by offering your body, broken for others, and willing drinking the cup - even the cup that Jesus was reluctant to partake.

The 1 Corinthians 11:28-31 passage can be confusing, because of all the clutter. It wanders off on a few tangents, then come back on track and you can get lost in the redirections. Let me remove the clutter, then you will see how it makes sense:
1 Cor 11:28 But let a man examine himself, 29 not judging the Lord's body. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

In verse 29, the word discern is used, but it is the same Greek word translated judged in verse 31.

So what is the meaning of the unworthily part? When we gather together, if we judge one another instead of judging ourselves, we are in danger of having our judgments measure out to us again.

Matthew 7:1 Judge not that ye be not judged, For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

When we do to others what Jesus has done for us, we show forth his death until he comes. To do this properly, we need to remember how he did it. He did not consider himself the victim of a robbery, he did not play the role of the martyr. He laid down his life willingly. Be like minded. And that is what he meant by doing "this" in remembrance of him.

And how did he do it? 1 Cor 11:23 That the Lord Jesus the SAME NIGHT in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

How long is the proper period for holding a grudge? Jesus, on the SAME NIGHT. He is not asking to do what he has not done.

When we take communion worthily, we demonstrate the Lord’s death by passing on to others what we ourselves have received, remembering to deliver to others in the same spirit which it was given unto us.