According to Two Kingdom theology, could a man hold both secular and spiritual office? The so called Two Kingdom view of the separate institutes of secular state vs the church identifies a fairly clear boundary between the authority of each: one demanding some compliance with a nominal set of ethical behaviors for the well being of both Christian and all members of society of any religious persuasion and includes powers (e.g. punishing injustice, warfare) while the other holds higher standards in both ethical and spiritual matters but who's authority is limited in scope to the spiritual (e.g. sacraments, doctrine).

According to adherents of this view1, ordained church office bearers carry a special authority over spiritual matters in the context of the church. Likewise those who hold public office under any political structure2 have a special charge to create and enforce laws that fulfill a specific purpose. Given the the separation between both domain and available powers, under any circumstances would it be valid for an individual man to hold both ordained office in the church and a public office3 in the state? Is such a dual role4 possible for an office-bearer in the same way that it would be for a normal Christian to maintain any political role or is there a fundamental conflict of interest in being ordained resulting in some sort of unacceptable schizophrenia?

If there is a difference between the thinking of Reformation era theologians who used "two kingdom" terminology (viz. Martin Luther, John Calvin) and the modern "Radical Two Kingdoms" theological framework (viz. Meredith Kline, Michael Horton) on this issue, I would like to hear the difference between them spelled out.

1 Please note that this is not the quite same as the modern Evangelical parlance of "separation of church and state". Please limit answers to actual implementations of Two Kingdom theology.

2 For the purposes of this question the sort of public office I am referring to might be characterized by those of a mayor or constable—offices that are charged with either legislating or enforcing civil structures as their primary responsibility.

3 I am not thinking of the sort of office that might be conferred by the state automatically to religious office holders such as the right to officiate marriages, I'm thinking more along the lines of mayor or constable or parliamentary representative.

4 I am aware that most 2K views see all Christians as holding dual citizenship. This question is not about citizenship or the roles of all believers but specifically about office bearing.

This is an interesting question.  Bear with me as I attempt to build a bit of Confessional background to my answer.

It's clear from Article 5 of the Augsburg Confession that the office of the ministry was instituted by God to preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments (http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article5).  This is God's "Right Hand Kingdom or Realm."  See also articles 7 and 8 in the Confession.  Then, the Confession notes that no one should do these things "publicly" (i.e. in the name of a congregation) unless he be regularly (or rightly) called (Article 14).

Then, Article 16 talks about Civil Affairs (http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article16).  This is God's "Left Hand Kingdom or Realm" of civil government.  It's interesting that in this Article there is no distinction between the various offices; i.e. "it is right for Christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to make oath when required by the magistrates, to marry a wife, to be given in marriage."  In this Article, bearing a civil office is lumped in with marrying a wife.  Then, you have Article 23 later which states it is right and proper for "priests" (i.e. those holding the office of the ministry) to marry.  So, there's a logical connection then that seems to state that those who hold the office of the ministry could, theoretically, hold a civil office.

However, Article 28 (http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article28) goes into more details about the distinctions between God's Left Hand Kingdom (civil government) and His Right Hand Kingdom (the Church).  Both are instituted by God to care for His world; the Left Hand to enforce order, keep peace, pursue justice; the Right Hand to proclaim the Gospel by which people are saved by grace through faith.

A key quote from this Article is: "If bishops have any power of the sword, that power they have, not as bishops, by the commission of the Gospel, but by human law having received it of kings and emperors for the civil administration of what is theirs. This, however, is another office than the ministry of the Gospel."

The point is that bishops may have their office in the Right Hand realm as well as their office in the Left Hand realm, but that they have to understand that these are separate offices with different roles.  So, the Confessions seem to recognize that the possibility exists for one person to hold both a Left Hand ("secular" or "civil) office and a Right Hand ("spiritual" or the office of the ministry).

That said, is this advisable, even if it is technically allowed?  That's probably a separate question that what was originally asked.  On the one hand, it would be hard for a pastor to separate his office in the ministry with his office as, for example, a mayor.  On the other hand, if a pastor may get married, perform marriages, even serve as a soldier (e.g. a military chaplain), then why can he not serve as a mayor?

The Book of Concord is the seminal reference for Lutheran theology, and is a collection of statements from the period.  Some Lutherans ascribe to all of the BOC, others argue about applicability of various documents beyond the Augsburg Confession.  Here one relevant text from the Augsburg Confession,

Article XVI: Of Civil Affairs.
1] Of Civil Affairs they teach that lawful civil ordinances are good works of God, and that 2] it is right for Christians to bear civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws, to award just punishments, to engage in just wars, to serve as soldiers, to make legal contracts, to hold property, to make oath when required by the magistrates, to marry a wife, to be given in marriage.
3] They condemn the Anabaptists who forbid these civil offices to Christians.
4] They condemn also those who do not place evangelical perfection in the fear of God and in faith, but in forsaking civil offices, for 5] the Gospel teaches an eternal righteousness of the heart. Meanwhile, it does not destroy the State or the family, but very much requires that they be preserved as ordinances of God, and that charity be practiced in such 6] ordinances. Therefore, Christians are necessarily bound to obey their own magistrates 7] and laws save only when commanded to sin; for then they ought to obey God rather than men. Acts 5:29.

Here we have an explicit statement that individual Christians may hold state office, in the Augsburg Confession.  The BOC continues with Defenses and Solid Declarations, which essentially repeat the explanation in the AC.

The Sixteenth Article [of the Augsburg Confession] the adversaries receive without any exception, in which we have confessed that it is lawful for the Christian to bear civil office, sit in judgment, determine matters by the imperial laws, and other laws in present force, appoint just punishments, engage in just wars, act as a soldier, make legal contracts, hold property, take an oath, when magistrates require it, contract marriage; finally, that legitimate civil ordinances are good creatures of God and divine ordinances, which a Christian can use with safety. 54] This entire topic concerning the distinction between the kingdom of Christ and a political kingdom has been explained to advantage [to the remarkably great consolation of many consciences] in the literature of our writers, [namely] that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual [inasmuch as Christ governs by the Word and by preaching], to wit, beginning in the heart the knowledge of God, the fear of God and faith, eternal righteousness, and eternal life; meanwhile it permits us outwardly to use legitimate political ordinances of every nation in which we live, just as it permits us to use medicine or 55] the art of building, or food, drink, air.

This statement here makes reference to Luther's earlier writing on Two Kingdoms with "in the literature of our writers."
Twice the BOC explicitly states that "a Christian" may serve in civil office.  Any  speculation that there could be some distinction in Lutheranism between what a pastor may do and what "a Christian" may do can easily be disproven by reading the appropriate sections.
To explain it further, consider someone with dual vocations of pastor and sheriff. I've seen Two Kingdoms described as "hat you're wearing."  Such a dual-vocation person would proclaim forgiveness of sins in church, and arrest bad guys in the saloon.  It is about separation of jobs.  Our hypothetical person shouldn't arrest people for failing to attend church, nor should he apply forgiveness of sins during the arrest of a bad guy.


Do any of the Church Fathers draw a connection between Eve and the Holy Spirit? In Wild at Heart, author John Eldredge takes some effort to describe the language used in Genesis 2:18 to refer to Eve. While some translations and commentors translate the hebrew "עֵ֖זֶר כְּנֶגְדּֽוֹ׃" (ezer kenegdo) "suitable helper" or "help mate", Eldredge comments on the weight of that description while discussing the sanctity and gravity of the marriage union,

  It means something far more than just "helper"; it means "lifesaver." The phrase is only used elsewhere of God, when you need him to come through for you desperately. "There is no one like the God of Jesherun, who rides on the heavens to help you" (Deut. 33:26). Eve is a life giver; she is Adam's ally.

While meditating on this, I was reminded of what Jesus said to the disciples before his crucifixion:

  I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; (John 14:16, NASB)

Do any of the Church fathers compare Eve and the Paraclete?

Perhaps not surprisingly, in light of Ephesians 5, church fathers widely connect Eve with Christ's Church.  This seems to displace other interpretations, like a connection between Eve and the Holy Spirit.  However, it is at least hinted at in Chrysostom, when he compares the Old Testament man to the New Testament man:

  Then [i.e., OT times] He said, “Let us make for him a help,” but here [i.e., NT times] He said nothing of the kind. What other help shall he need, who has received the gift of the Spirit? What further need of assistance has he, who belongs to the Body of Christ? (Homilies on John, 25.2)

That is, in the OT the "help" God provided to Adam was Eve, but in the NT, he has already provided the "gift of the Spirit," so no additional help is required.

Granted, the connection is weakened because Chrysostom goes on to describe other ways in which the New Testament believer has already been provided with "help."
Nonetheless, it's clear that Chrysostom connects the "help" for Adam of Genesis 2:18 (Eve) with the "gift of the Spirit" for the New Testament believer.

Do any of the Church Fathers draw a connection between Eve and the Holy Spirit?

ANSWER

This is not coming from a Church Father view, but the writer had written on Eve and the Holy Spirit, see the link;

  THE HOLY SPIRIT AND EVE AS HELPERS
  Posted by Marg | Aug 1, 2019 | All Posts on Equality, Gender in Genesis 1-3, The Holy Spirit | 19
  https://margmowczko.com/holy-spirit-eve-helpers/

The Church Fathers draws a connection to Eve and Mary as the New Eve.

  Early Church Fathers on Mary as the New Eve
  by Joe Heschmeyer

  Last week, I talked about how Mary is presented in Scripture as the New Eve, through a number of remarkable parallels.  In that post, I quoted St. Irenaeus, who wrote in 180 A.D. about what he called “the back-reference from Mary to Eve,” namely, that “the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith.”

  But Irenaeus wasn’t the only Father to point this out. Nor was he even the first.  Twenty years earlier, in about 160 A.D., St. Justin Martyr wrote:

  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.

  So add that to the list of parallels between the Fall and the Redemption. Eve was visited by a fallen angel who enticed her to disobedience from God. Mary was visited by an angel, and responded with total obedience. Note also the distinction Justin draws between “virgin” and “undefiled.”  That is, Eve was both a virgin and freed from all sin, original and actual, prior to the Fall.Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220 A.D.)

The Catholic Church and scriptures has teaching on Mary and Her relationship with the Holy Spirit as Her Beloved Spouse.

  Spouse of the Spirithttps://www.catholic.org/mary/sots.php

  Magisterial Documents: Mary and the Holy Spirit
  https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/m/magisterial-documents-mary-and-the-holy-spirit.php

But the Church seems to be silent and even the scriptures in the Book of Genesis does not described the relationship of Eve to the Holy Spirit.

Book of Genesis narration, stated God breathe in to Adam the Holy Spirit;

  And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. (Genesis2:7)

The Book of Genesis did not mention God breathing to Eve the "breathe of life".

  The Holy Spirit is the Breath of Life

  Our soul lives by the Holy Spirit, through Him we pray, through Him we become purified, through Him we save ourselves. "As breath is necessary for the body, and without breathing man cannot live, so without the Breath of the Holy Spirit the soul cannot live the true life. What the air is for the body, the Holy Spirit is for the soul. Air is likened to the Spirit of God. The Spirit breathes wherever It wishes." "He who prays by the Holy Spirit." "Prayer is the breath of the soul, as air is the breath of the natural body. We breathe by the Holy Spirit. You cannot say a single word of prayer from your heart without the Holy Spirit."
  https://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/SJK1/breath.shtml

So, it would appear in the Book of Genesis that Eve had no explicit relationship with the Holy Spirit.

The question is, who gave Eve the "breathe of life" or the "gifts of the Holy Spirit?

The word "ezer or helper", now comes into play. Adam was a Priest and and since God gave him power to rule over the garden, it follows that Adam is like a Bishop. A Bishop in the Catholic Church likes all the Apostles of Christ can confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit and ordain a servant to become his "helper or a deacon".

  Adam as the First Priest in Eden as the Garden Temple
  (G. K. Beale)

  First, the temple later in the OT was the unique place of God’s presence,
  where Israel had to go to experience that presence. Israel’s temple was the
  place where the priest experienced God’s unique presence, and Eden was the
  place where Adam walked and talked with God. The same Hebrew verbal
  form (hithpael) used for God’s “walking back and forth” in the Garden (Gen
  3:8), also describes God’s presence in the tabernacle (Lev 26:12; Deut 23:14
  [15]; 2 Sam 7:6-7; Ezek 28:14).3

  Second, Genesis 2:15 says God placed Adam in the Garden “to cultivate it and to keep it.” The two Hebrew words for “cultivate and keep”
  (respectively, ʿāḇaḏ and šāmar) are usually translated “serve and guard.”
  When these two words occur together later in the OT without exception
  they have this meaning and refer either to Israelites “serving and guarding/
  obeying” God’s word (about 10 times) or, more often to priests who “serve”
  God in the temple and “guard” the temple from unclean things entering it
  (Num 3:7-8; 8:25-26; 18:5-6; 1 Chron 23:32; Ezek 44:14).4
  Adam also is portrayed as wearing priestly attire in Ezekiel 28:13,
  https://sbts-wordpress-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/equip/uploads/2018/10/SBJT-22.2-Adam-as-Priest-Beale.pdf

The ordination of deacons - "in order to serve"

  1569 "At a lower level of the hierarchy are to be found deacons, who receive the imposition of hands 'not unto the priesthood, but unto the ministry."'53 At an ordination to the diaconate only the bishop lays hands on the candidate, thus signifying the deacon's special attachment to the bishop in the tasks of his "diakonia."54http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a6.htm

If Adam is a Bishop and he ordained and confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit to Eve to become "helper or deacon", where is their Temple or God Sanctuaries?

  THE GARDEN OF EDEN AS GOD'S FIRST SANCTUARY (LIFSA SCHACHTER)

  The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and placed
  there the man whom He had formed. And from the ground the Lord
  God caused to grow every tree that was pleasing to the sight and
  good for food, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and
  the tree of knowledge of good and bad. A river issues from Eden to
  water the garden, and it then divides and becomes four branches . . .
  The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden of Eden,
  to till and tend it (Gen: 2:8-10, 15).

Is this the Temple of God in the garden of Eden?

  That Eden was originally understood as a sanctuary can be confirmed by
  examining the Bible for supporting evidence. A partial listing includes the
  description of the Tabernacle as God's dwelling place: And let them make Me
  a sanctuary that I may dwell among them (Ex. 25:8). Implicit in the Garden
  story is the idea that Eden was God's dwelling place, where He dwelt in close
  proximity to the first man and woman. In Deuteronomy the Temple is called
  God's habitation (12:4). While this is not the precise language used in Genesis, the Garden is portrayed as the place where God's presence abided. When
  They heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the garden at the
  breezy time of day, they recognized Him (implicitly from other encounters),
  and Adam and his wife hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden
  (Gen. 3:8). This point is reinforced by linguistic parallels. The Hebrew mithallekh is precisely the verb used to describe both God's "walking about" in
  the Garden and His moving about to protect the Israelites in the desert, where
  they are instructed to keep their camp holy (Deut. 23:15).

  Adam's role in the Garden also alludes to the sanctuary. His task in the
  Garden is to work it and guard it (Gen. 2:15). These two verbs are precisely
  the ones used to describe the work of the Levites in caring for the Tabernacle,
  suggesting a priest-like role for Adam (Num. 3:7-8)
  https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/412/jbq_41_2_gardenofeden.pdf

If Adam is a Priest and Eve is his deacon or helper, what are they offering in the Temple of God? St.Paul has the answers in his letter to the Romans;

  A Living Sacrifice
  12 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. (Romans12:1)

In closing, we can see that Adam is a Bishop a Ruler in the garden of Eden and Eve was given to him by God as his "helper", and since as a Bishop he can ordain and confer the gifts of the Holy Spirit, Adam ordain Eve as a "deacon" in the Church language today.

Now accepting the priesthood of Adam and diaconate of Eve will lead us to understand the nature of their fall.

What do you think the serpent told Eve that convinced her to listen to the serpent and eventually convinced Adam too, to commit the sin of disobedience?

If Adam & Eve, were offering their bodies and work of their hands as a pleasing & living sacrifices to worship God in the Temple in the Garden of Eden, what can possibly the much better offering that the serpent can suggest?

By the way, God sees that it is not good for Adam to be alone in worshipping Him, because the bible teaches us "For where two or three gather together in My name, there am I with them.” (Matthew18:20)

So, what did the serpent told to Eve that is a much better offering to their own bodies and to the work of their hands?

If we know the answer then we will know the "original sin"...the keyword is "Jesus Christ is the firstborn". , the symbolic fruit of the "Tree of Life". The most pleasing sacrifice to God.

  The Eucharist, the Fruit of the Tree of Life

  The Real Presence of Jesus Christ

  The Eucharist is the Source and Summit of our Faith because it is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. This is why we may not partake of the Eucharist if we are in a state of mortal sin. Because the Eucharist is the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary, when we partake of the Eucharist, we unite ourselves to His sacrifice, and thus become united to God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and receive an outpouring of grace from the Holy Spirit.
  http://www.catholic365.com/article/2586/the-eucharist-the-fruit-of-the-tree-of-life.html

This is the reason After the Fall of Adam and Eve, they must be prevented from eating the Fruit from the Tree of Life, because it cannot be eaten if one commits a mortal sin, it would be a sacrilege.

  1 Corinthians 11:27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

The serpent "beguiled" or seduced Eve, to look and imagine if She can produce Her own "Fruit" from the "Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil", and ofcourse She will need the cooperation of Adam to produce the their own "Fruit", their "firstborn" to offer to God as their sacrifice.

It is a good idea coming from the serpent, but like King Saul his offerings were rejected by God because of "disobedience" and like King Saul, Adam had alos lost his position as Ruler or King.

In contrast, the Fruit from the Tree of Life was produce from the chosen Woman, the New Eve..

  "Blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus"..(Hail Mary prayer)

I will end by citing the poem of St.Hildegard to support the word "beguiled" as a form of sexual seduction, to induced Eve to imagine bearing Her "firstborn" as an offering in the Temple of God in the Garden of Eden.

  "She destroyed her womb by her ignorance...(St.Hildegard, Doctor of the Church)


Understanding Jesus counter argument against the Pharisees (Luke 11:19 ) I don't understand the following counter argument by Jesus.

  And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?
  Luke 11:19

One viewpoint is that the Pharisees' students (which I believe is what Jesus meant when he said sons) did try to cast out demons, but that would mean that I would be assuming that the Pharisees' student did actually cast out demons during that time.

1) Would the aforementioned argument be valid?

2) Are there any other ways of understanding Luke 11:19?  If yes, could someone please explain them?

The NET Bible makes an interesting point at footnote 54:

Most read your sons as a reference to Jewish exorcists (cf. “your followers,” L&N 9.4; for various views see D. L. Bock, Luke [BECNT], 2:1077-78), but more likely this is a reference to the disciples of Jesus themselves, who are also Jewish and have been healing as well (R. J. Shirock, “Whose Exorcists are they? The Referents of οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν at Matthew 12:27/Luke 11:19,” JSNT 46 [1992]: 41-51). If this is a reference to the disciples, then Jesus’ point is that it is not only him, but those associated with him whose power the hearers must assess. The following reference to judging also favors this reading.

(L&N refers to Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1988. JSNT refers to Journal for the Study of the New Testament)
In short, if Shirock (in JSNT) is correct about Jesus' your sons referring to his disciples and not the Pharisees' disciples (see Matthew 12:27 for the identification of Jesus' accusers as Pharisees), then Jesus' argument--to me--makes more sense. Jesus' disciples, after all, were chronologically the Pharisees' disciples (i.e., "sons") before they were Jesus' disciples (i.e., "sons"). That would not mean that Jesus' disciples were also Pharisees; it would mean that his disciples (and Jesus, for that matter!) were brought up in Judaism and under the umbrella of Jewish rabbis, teachers, and leaders within the Jewish faith, regardless of their "party" affiliation.
Jesus' reasoning in both Matthew and Luke can be summarized as follows:

If I in fact am casting out demons by the power of their prince, Beelzebub [viz., Satan], that must mean Satan is working against himself, and that does not make sense.

Moreover, if I have given your sons who were brought up under your tutelage but are now my sons the power to cast out demons--and they have done so successfully, then by whose power do they do so: mine or Satan's?

If the Pharisees were to have answered Jesus' question at this point, they would have been caught on the horns of a dilemma! If they said, "Our disciples (i.e., our sons) also cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub," then they (the Pharisees) would be guilty of bad teaching and are just as much to blame as Jesus!
If, however, the Pharisees' former disciples (i.e., their sons) who are now under the authority of Jesus and like Jesus are casting out demons by the finger of God (Luke 11:20), then they will wind up judging the Pharisees.
Moreover, if that be the case, then the kingdom of God which Jesus preaches has not only arrived on the scene but has also surpassed the kingdom with which the Pharisees are aligned. In other words, Jesus turned the Pharisees' argument back onto them, with the implication that they were aligned with the wrong kingdom!
Jesus was therefore accusing the Pharisees of being aligned with Satan's purposes, just as Pharaoh's magicians were in Moses' day, since by their admission only the finger of the one true God could perform the miracle of the gnats (Exodus 8:19).

I don't believe that there is any other conclusion to be had. There are a couple of other verses that came to mind when I had came across this one though.

Mark 9:38-41 & Acts 19:13-20 Both reveal that there were "non-followers" of Christ who were casting out / attempting to cast out demons in the name of Jesus.

I personally am of the opinion that it was not possible to cast them out apart from the power of God, through Jesus, primarily because of what Jesus taught (specifically John 15:1-8) Without HIM I could do nothing.

So the "sons" being judges against those who were being spoken to, would have no doubt understood this, either by their failure, or their successes; and would have had to come to the conclusion that unless it were through the power of God, this result could not be obtained.

Hope that helps.


What is the basis of St. Pius X in 1906 that led to the approval of the prayer devotion: "Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us"? In 1906, Pope Pius X approved a prayer which says “Mary, Virgin Priest, pray for us.” However, a Holy Office decree of 1916 forbade the use of any image that had Mary wearing vestments – some say for fear of the possibilty of an argument for women’s ordination, others that Mary as a priest was a metaphorical image taken too far. -The Priesthood of Mary

NOTE: There is a related thread on this question but the accepted answer is Mary Virgin Priest is not a ministerial priesthood.
Are Catholics permitted to honour Mary as a priest?.
QUALIFIER
For those who believe that Mary Virgin Priest is a valid expression , what kind of priesthood does Mary possessed? Is it similar to the Sacramental Order of the ministerial priesthood instituted by Christ or is it a unique concept associated with Mary at the foot of the Cross.
SPECIFIC QUESTION
What is the basis of St. Pius X in 1906 that led to the approval of the prayer devotion;
Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us?

What are the origins that lead Pope St. Pius X in 1906 to approve the prayer invocation: “Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us”?
Prior to Pope Pius X’s approval to this invocation, Blessed Pope Pius IX had manifested his approval of the same title in a letter addressed to Msgr Oswald Van den Berghe, author of Marie et le Sacerdoce.

Marked by the priestly piety of the school of Bérulle, Pope Saint Pius X was singularly favourable to the invocation of Our Blessed Lady under the title of Virgo Sacerdos. Already in 1875, Blessed Pius IX had manifested his approval of the same title in a letter addressed to Msgr Oswald Van den Berghe, author of Marie et le Sacerdoce. Saint Pius X was pleased when an Italian translation of this work appeared.
When the Daughters of the Heart of Jesus, founded by Blessed Marie de Jésus Deluil-Martiny, asked for permission to invoke the Mother of God, in their chapels, as Maria Virgo Sacerdos, Saint Pius X wishing to extend the devotion to all the faithful, charged Cardinals Vanutelli and Vivès with composing a prayer that would make this Marian title better known. The prayer appeared, indulgenced by Pope Saint Pius X, on 9 May 1906. - Prayer to Mary, the Sacerdotal Virgin

The Postulator of her Cause of Canonization is a priest from my home archdiocese.

The Daughters of the Heart of Jesus
The second phase of Marie Deluil Martiny’s life was a flowering of the first. After a long preparation in prayer, she opened the first house of the Society of the Daughters of the Heart of Jesus at Berchem near Anvers in Belgium on June 20, 1873. The new foundation was characterized by a burning desire to console the Heart of Jesus, and by a mystical participation in His victimal priesthood, patterned after that of His Holy Mother at the foot of the Cross.
Divine Jealousy for Sacerdotal and Consecrated Souls
Mother Marie de Jésus wrote: “They will live from that life of suffering love that was the intimate life of the Heart of Jesus; they will penetrate the most tender secrets of His love: the Eucharist, the Church, His divine jealousy for sacerdotal and consecrated souls.”
Priests: Sacrificers and Victims
“What a calling! The Work must give to Christ souls who offer themselves as a sacrifice of Love, these will be “the victims of Love that Jesus asks for,” by the Holy Eucharist. The Host has become indispensable to my life; I should wish never to leave it for the sake of sacerdotal souls [priests]. Too many of them are satisfied with being Sacrificers and exercise their sacred functions without steeping them enough in the Priestly Spirit, that is, without themselves becoming truly Victims at the same times as Sacrificers, and so God wills that legions of souls who are truly Victims offer themselves as humble supplements for what certain priests are lacking in the Priestly Spirit. Their example is Mary, the Mother of Jesus.”
Offering for Priests
“To offer yourself for souls is beautiful and great,” wrote Mother Deluil Martiny, “but to offer yourself for the souls of priests is so beautiful, so great, that you would have to have a thousand lives and offer your heart a thousand times. . . . I would gladly give my life if only Christ could find in priests what he is expecting from them. I would gladly give it even if just one of them could perfectly realize God’s divine plan for him.”
The Blessed Virgin Mary United to the Victimal Priesthood of Her Son
Marie Deluil Martiny presents the Blessed Virgin Mary as the Mother of Christ the Victim Priest and of all who are called to follow Him in the way of His Victimal Priesthood. By her most intimate and perfect participation in the Victimal Priesthood of her Son, the Blessed Virgin Mary is both Coredemptrix and Mediatrix. She is the Virgo sacerdotalis, sacerdotal, not by virtue of sacramental ordination, but by virtue of her unique and entire adhesion to the Sacrifice of Christ. - A Life Offered for Priests

The above information provides the basis that led to the approval of the prayer devotion: “Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us” by Pope St. Pius X in 1906?
Fr. Francis Marsden, 36 yrs a priest of 36 years with a Cambridge chemistry doctorate puts it this way:

As a Catholic priest, when I saw this question, I thought it was untrue. It’s forty years since I started theological studies, and I don’t remember ever seeing a prayer which addressed Mary as Virgin Priest.
The expression made me rather uncomfortable, especially in the modern context of agitation for the ordination of women.
However, the questioner turns out to be correct. There was a prayer for priests issued in 1906 which uses the expression “Maria, Virgo Sacerdos, ora pro nobis.”
The rationale quotes St Antoninus: “although you (Mary) did not receive the Sacrament of Order, you were full in dignity and grace of whatever is given by it.” You are therefore rightly hailed as Virgin Priest.
It was a prayer which the Daughters of the Heart of Jesus were accustomed to recite in their churches. That’s a religious order I’ve not heard of.
Back in 1906 nobody would have thought of women becoming priests, whereas now it’s all the rage to campaign for it. So I doubt that such a prayer would today obtain official approval.
Just to make sure, in 1916 the Holy Office prohibited pictures of Mary shown in Mass vestments.
Denominations which have ordained women to their priesthood might have less qualms about this expression Virgo Sacerdos. - What is the basis of St. Pius X in 1906 that led to the approval of the prayer devotion; “Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us”?

Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, OFMCap, Pontifical Household Preacher states that the invocation is officially not permitted publicly!
Cardinal Raniero Cantalamessa O.F.M. Cap. (born July 22, 1934) is an Italian Catholic cardinal and priest in the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin and a theologian. He has served as the Preacher to the Papal Household since 1980, under Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. Pope Francis raised him to the rank of cardinal on 28 November 2020.

"First of all I would like to refer to the question of the title of priest attributed to the Virgin in tradition. A writer of the end of the fifth century calls Mary "Virgin, and at the same time priest, and altar who has given us Christ -- bread of Heaven for the remission of sins." After this, there were frequent references to the topic of Mary as priest, which subsequently became the object of theological developments in the 17th century, in the French school of St. Sulpice. In it, Mary's priesthood is not placed so much in the context of a relationship with the ministerial priesthood, but rather with that of Christ."
At the end of the 19th century a true and proper devotion to the Virgin-priest spread, and St. Pius X even accorded an indulgence to its relative practice. However, when the danger was perceived of confusing the priesthood of Mary with the ministerial priesthood, the magisterium of the Church became reticent and two interventions of the Holy Office practically put an end to such devotion.
After the council, the priesthood of Mary is still spoken of, but it is no longer linked to the ministerial priesthood nor to the supreme priesthood of Christ, but rather to the universal priesthood of the faithful. As figure and first fruits of the Church, she possessed in a personal way that "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9), that all the baptized possess in a collective way. - Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, OFM Cap, Pontifical Household Preacher.

Decree of April 8,1916:

Decretum
Circa  Imagines Exhibentes BeatIssimam Virginem Mariam Indutan Sacerdotalibus.
Cum recentioribus praesertim temporibus pingi atque diffundi coepissent imagines exhibentes Beatissimam Virginem Mariam indutam vestibus sacerdotalibus, Emi ac Rmi DD. Cardinales Inquisitores Generales, re diligenter perpensa, fer. iv, die 15 ianuarii 1913, decreverunt: « imaginem B. M. Virginis vestibus sacerdotalibus indutae esse reprobandam ».
Feria vero iv, die 29 martii 1916, huiusmodi Decretum publicandum mandarunt.
Datum Romae, ex aedibus S. Officii, die 8 aprilis 1916.
Aloisius Castellano, & R. et U. I. Notarius.

What is the basis of St. Pius X in 1906 that led to the approval of the prayer devotion; “Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us”?
ANSWER
The prayer image attached contains ten names of the Saints, Theologians and Pope cited by St. Pius X that formed the basis, like St. Thomas of Villanova, St. Ephrem, and Pope Pius IX, etc.

Prayer to which Pope Pius X attached 300 days’ indulgence in 1906
Oh Mary, Mother of Mercy, “Mother and Daughter of Him who is the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation” (1), “Distributress of all the treasures of your Son” (2), “Minister of God” (3), “Mother of our High Priest Christ, both priest and altar” (4), “Immaculate Tabernacle of the Word of God” (5), “Teacher of all Apostles and Disciples of Christ” (6), protect our Supreme Pontiff, intercede for us and for our priests that the High Priest Jesus Christ may purify our consciences, and that we may worthily and piously approach his sacred meal.
O Immaculate Virgin, who not only “has given us Christ the celestial bread in forgiveness of sins (7), but who is yourself ”A most acceptable sacrifice offered to God" (8), “and the glory of priests” (9), and who, as your most blessed servant Saint Antoninius declares, “although you did not receive the Sacrament of Order, you were full of whatever in dignity and grace is given by it”, you are therefore rightly hailed as “Virgin Priest” (10). Please, look down on us and on the priests of your son, save us, purify us, sanctify us, that we may receive the ineffable treasures of your sacraments in a saintly manner and may deserve to obtain the eternal salvation of our souls. Amen - Women can be Priests

What is an indulgence?

The word indulgence (Latin indulgentia, from indulgeo, to be kind or tender) originally meant kindness or favor; in post-classic Latin it came to mean the remission of a tax or debt. In Roman law and in the Vulgate of the Old Testament (Isaiah 61:1) it was used to express release from captivity or punishment. In theological language also the word is sometimes employed in its primary sense to signify the kindness and mercy of God. But in the special sense in which it is here considered, an indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven. Among the equivalent terms used in antiquity were pax, remissio, donatio, condonatio. - Catholic Encyclopedia

Who can grant indulgences?

The distribution of the merits contained in the treasury of the Church is an exercise of authority (potestas iurisdictionis), not of the power conferred by Holy orders (potestas ordinis). Hence the pope, as supreme head of the Church on earth, can grant all kinds of indulgences to any and all of the faithful; and he alone can grant plenary indulgences. The power of the bishop, previously unrestricted, was limited by Innocent III (1215) to the granting of one year's indulgence at the dedication of a church and of forty days on other occasions. Leo XIII (Rescript of 4 July. 1899) authorized the archbishops of South America to grant eighty days (Acta S. Sedis, XXXI, 758). Pius X (28 August, 1903) allowed cardinals in their titular churches and dioceses to grant 200 days; archbishops, 100; bishops, 50. These indulgences are not applicable to the souls departed. They can be gained by persons not belonging to the diocese, but temporarily within its limits; and by the subjects of the granting bishop, whether these are within the diocese or outside--except when the indulgence is local. Priests, vicars general, abbots, and generals of religious orders cannot grant indulgences unless specially authorized to do so. On the other hand, the pope can empower a cleric who is not a priest to give an indulgence (St. Thomas, "Quodlib.", II, q. viii, a. 16). - Catholic Encyclopedia

It would seem to appear that the Church traditions and numerous saints and theologians had acknowledge Mary as a virgin priest, even St. Pius X predecessors had acknowledged this teaching.

The Popes and devotion to Mary Priest
Pope Pius VII (1800 - 1823 AD)
Pius VII approved the devotion to Mary ‘Pastrix Animarum’ [=‘sheperdess of souls’]. This title had arisen in the Capuchin Order at Seville (Spain) from the beginning of the 17th century. Request for the formal approval was submitted to the Holy Father by Jérôme Joseph OFM Cap, a consultor of the Holy Office, in 1796 (addressed to Pope Pius VI who died soon afterwards).
Pope Pius IX (1846 - 1878 AD)
Pius IX wrote a letter to recommend the book Marie et le Sacerdoce [‘Mary and the Priesthood’] by Mgr. O. van den Berghe, Paris 1873. This book is entirely devoted to describing the priesthood of Mary and to documenting its theological and spiritual antecedents in Christian tradition.
Pius IX’s letter of approval was printed as a preface to the book. It contained the following paragraph:

“To inculcate an attitude of sacrifice in the clergy, nothing can be a greater help than the patronage of the Mother of God. There is no more striking example, none more relevant and effective than the deeds of her who reflected divine holiness in herself, as in a mirror without stain, better than it is reflected in any other creature. From Christ’s virginal conception to his cruel death, Mary united herself so closely to the sacrifice of her divine Son that she has been called the 'Virgin Priest' by the Fathers of the Church”. (Marie et le Sacerdoce, pp. V-VI.)*

Note 1. Authors sometimes say that the Fathers never used the title ‘Virgin Priest’. However, ‘Virgin Priest’ is a correct translation of the expression ‘young woman, sacrificial priest’ used by Theodore the Studite. This had been pointed out by Mgr, O van den Berghe in his book.
Pope Pius IX’s letter was seen as giving official approval to the devotion to Mary, Virgin Priest. To quote just two examples:
*“I have rejoiced to see this glorious title of Virgo Sacerdos [=Virgin Priest] vindicated, a title which the growing devotion of the last centuries has built up on a text of ecclesiastical antiquity, then hallowed by the authority of our great Pope Pius IX! It will give a new impulse to the devotion to the priestly Virgin, to Mary Mother of the clergy and Mother of priests.” Cardinal L. Pius, Archbishop of Bordeaux in 1875.
“[Theologians . . . ] have interpreted with knowledge and piety the thoughts of the Doctors of the Church relating to the mystical priesthood of Mary, and these thoughts are like a concert of praise to our majestic Queen. Without having been invested with the priestly character, Mary was so closely associated with the sacrifice of the eternal Priest that the Fathers of the Church called her Virgo Sacerdos [Virgin Priest] and the Brief of our great Pope Pius IX accepts and hallows that glorious title. I too salute this divine Queen of the Priesthood.” Cardinal V. Vannutelli, Vatican in 1875.*
Pope Leo XIII (1878 - 1903)
Pope Leo XIII received ‘with joy’ a painting by the artist Capparoni, of Our Lady in priestly vestments. L. Laplace, La Mère Marie de Jésus, Paris 1906, p. 404. (The illustration is given in the book on page 392; I have not been able to trace it so far.) - The Popes and devotion to Mary Priest (Women can be Priests)

It would be fair to conclude that St. Pius X uses the teachings of his predecessors, their appreciation and devotion in granting indulgences and approving the prayer devotion. Therefore, Mary Virgin Priest is not a metaphor but a real priesthood.

Mary Virgin Priest, pray for us. (St. Pius X: 1906 prayer devotion)

The only question to resolve are:
When was Mary ordained and who ordained Her as a priest?


What is the role of the Holy Spirit in the Roman Catholic church? What is the role of the Holy Spirit in the Roman Catholic church? When I search online, I mostly find stuff about filioque. But I want to know specifically what he does. What is his role? How does he affect our salvation?

The theology of the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost - the two terms mean the same thing) is a huge subject. This article gives a systematic explanation from the Catholic point of view.

Catholic theology of the Holy Spirit is very little different from general Protestant or Orthodox theology of the Holy Spirit, with a few notable exceptions, which I will attempt to list:

It is generally accepted that one of the roles of the Holy Spirit is to guide the interpretation of the Scriptures. There is variation in how the Spirit is believed to do this. Protestants believe the Spirit does this either through Christians in general, or through the community of the church. Catholics believe that the Spirit does this through the church and its structures - specifically the Catholic church.
Catholics would fall in with mainstream Protestants (but not Pentecostals) in believing that the supernatural gifts of the Spirit (tongues, healings etc.) are not given to all Christians, and are relatively rare.
One important but obscure belief specific to Catholics is the belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the God the Father and the Son. This beliefs is notable only because it is the nominal cause of the split between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

There may be others that I am unaware of.

If you attend a mass in a catholic church, the priest usually talks about the gifts of holly spirit and what it does to you. You receive it and it stays with you from the time of your babptise. We do talk about the holly spirit in catholic faith all the time! Here are some suggestion for you: The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude (or courage), knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord. You can find an in-depth discussion of each in The Gifts of the Holy Spirit. If you read the rosary prayer every day, you can see it in our holly rosary prayer and book, there are a lot of indications about holly spirit in our bible etc... when god sends the tongues of fires to his desciples...and what they are for, what they can do for you....


What is the meaning of the parable in Luke 17:7-10? In the first verse of Luke 17:5-10, the disciples ask Jesus to increase their faith. Here is the full passage, in the New King James Version (NKJV):

5 And the apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith."
6 So the Lord said, "If you have faith as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be pulled up by the roots and be planted in the sea,' and it would obey you. 7 And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, 'Come at once and sit down to eat'? 8 But will he not rather say to him, 'Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink'? 9 Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not. 10 So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.'"

The beginning of Jesus' reply in 17:6 seems to be directly connected. But I am having trouble figuring out what 17:7-10 have to do with what was being said. This heavily implies I am not interpreting it correctly, as the Bible tends to make sense in context.
My interpretation of the parable is that God does not owe us anything because of what we do for Him. I just can't figure out what that has to do with the disciple's request for greater faith. There must be some commonly understood explanation for why Jesus used this parable as part of his reply to the disciples' request, but I have been unable to find any easily web-available commentary that addresses the subject.

Increase our Faith! = Make it Easier! (or Lighten the Burden!)

Just before the parable, Jesus says (paraphrasing, for brevity)

Don't be a stumbling block...or else!
Rebuke and forgive your brothers.
Forgive a brother even if he continually sins against you.

The disciples' response is, "Increase our faith!" (πιστις 4102, "trust" "belief" "conviction")

It sounds like the disciples want some help doing what Jesus is telling them to do, because he is not asking them to do something easy. They ask for faith, perhaps because believing better/trusting more would make it easier to endure the difficulties of the life to which Jesus is calling them.

In regards to doing good things, the disciples were at least occasionally at odds with each other about who was better.
The parable about the servant is a way of saying that if you do all these good things, you are still only doing what Jesus has told you to do.

It's almost as if being a heroic Christian is the bare minimum. Increase my faith!

The first part talks about having faith. not an amount of faith, just faith. The poppy seed is the correct translation as it is medicinal and can help cure. The sycamore fig tree is unclean. Figs are used to feed pigs which for Jews are unclean hence prodigal son ends up feeding figs to pigs when he at the lowest level. Sycus was an unclean tax inspector who was relieved of his sins when he couldn't see Jesus so climbed a tree. Guess what sort of tree? A sycamore fig.

So this could be the superficial interpretation as above of direct understanding of the passage. But it could be that Jesus is putting you in charge of this servant. The servant is the unclean thing. That unclean thing could be a problem, an illness etc. are you going to let it rule you or you rule it. You may have to put it in its place as a servant not a master to you. Then the unclean sycamore fig tree can be defeated by the medicinal poppy seed.

So don't let problems overcome you. With faith you can overcome it.


Can someone point to a prophecy about the 3 days between the cross and resurrection? Can someone point me to a OT prophecy about the Messiah being in the tomb for 3 days? As general or specific as you can think of. I think I have one, and it seems pretty obvious to me, but a lot of Bible commentators don't mention it.

Old Testament prophecies are sometimes 'thematic', by 'type' or 'metaphor' as in the case of these three days. There are various places in the Old Testament that give special meaning to three days.  The gospels however only refer to the prophecy of Jonah. Christ said that Jonah would be the 'sign' that God would give the Jews, as a rebuke for their obstinacy. (Math 12:39-40). As Jonah was buried in a watery death for three days, then spit out and believed upon by Gentiles, so would Christ be buried in the belly of the earth and spit out miraculously to be believed on by the Romans and Greeks.

Beyond this single prophecy, there does seem to be more in the Bible and in rabbinic history that enshrines a three-day significance. The main idea seems to stem from Abraham arriving at Mount Moriah to sacrifice his son, on the third-day (Gen 22:4). This is another resurrection image no doubt. The idea is that Isaac was good for dead all three days until God provided a ram in his place.  From this the third day, there seems to have become some concepts of a third day resurrection, further supported by Hosea 6:2. Notice though that Rabbi's often differed among themselves, just as we do with Revelation, so the three days in Hosea 6:2 was interpreted by some as 3000 years.

Despite the differing historical interpretations by the Rabbis, it cannot be denied that this three-day-theme existed before Christ. Still the bottom line is that in the New Testament Christ's reference to Jonah is enough to fully satisfy the statement that Chris was raised on the third day 'according to the scriptures' (I Cor 15:3-4) The Old Testament three day theme is mostly of supplemental interest.

For a deeper analysis on the three day theme, there is an excellent little article by Michael Brown at JewishRoots.net here.

My favorite is Exodus 19 when God tells Moses be ready for the third day. FOUR TIMES in one chapter.
  Moses name means "to be drawn out of the water" representing all born again believers. At the end of the chapter it says (paraphrasing) "When the Lord came down, Moses went up" A picture of Christ coming down on the third 1000 year day. 2015 two days past, we are going into the third day. When he comes down we go up.


Why the resurrection? My understanding is that Christians believe that Jesus died, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven alive.

What is believed to have been the purpose of this? Specifically, once dead, why not just ascend to heaven in soul form like everyone else? I mean, either way, he gets to heaven.

I looked at Wikipedia and saw only that "Paul explained the importance of the resurrection of Jesus as the cause and basis of the hope of Christians to share a similar experience", which doesn't make much sense to me (I assume it doesn't mean that it's believed to allow for modern-day CPR), and that Augustine "argued that the death and resurrection of Jesus was for the salvation of man", which also doesn't.

It has been well said that mankind's greatest enemy is death.  Whoever would be the Savior of all mankind must then, of necessity, conquer mankind's greatest enemy.  Had Jesus merely died and returned to Heaven without overcoming death, then man's greatest enemy would remain unconquered.  As it is, we can ask along with the apostle Paul, "Where, O Death, is your sting?" (1 Corinthians 15:55)  Death's sting has been thoroughly defeated.  So, the first reason is that death had to be conquered.

Secondly, the resurrection proves that Jesus is not merely a great, albeit misunderstood, teacher, nor is He merely a prophet or a narcissist.  No, the resurrection proves that Jesus is divine, as Paul states:

  Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart
  for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his
  prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was
  descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to
  be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his
  resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.  Romans 1:1-4 ESV

Indeed, it was and is the resurrection of Jesus that brings credibility to His otherwise incredible claims.  If there were no resurrection, Christianity would be nothing.  Indeed, Paul also says that very thing:

  And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are
  still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in
  Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only,
  we are of all people most to be pitied.  1 Corinthians 15:17-19 ESV

It is also the resurrection of Christ that gives us the hope of resurrection for ourselves.

So, three significant reasons are 1) to conquer death, mankind's greatest enemy, 2) to prove His Divinity, and 3) to give followers of Jesus the hope of resurrection.

The answer, which most theologians missed out on, is in the story of the 153 fish after the resurrection of Jesus Christ as told in John 21:11.

When Christ shared some of the 153 fish that morning with His disciples, the action makes it a metaphor for the fulfillment of the will of the Father in Jesus Christ, who had said before He died,

  My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his
  work. (John 4:34)

Jesus had died for our sins and His Father had raised Him from the dead.  Jesus had completed His earthly work as our High Priest by offering up His body as per the will of His Father. And the impact of that work is everlasting life for the believers.

The event that morning on the shore of Sea of Galilee is not trivial. In fact, it is the most critical of all events in the Bible because it marks the precise moment humankind can be justified before God, an event that is the culmination of a prolonged process of reconciliation between humankind and God after the fall of Adam and Eve (Romans 6:25).   The resurrection of the Son is the decisive proof of the fulfillment of the will of the Father in His Son.

From an outwardly trivial action of Jesus Christ – His last meal before He ascended to heaven in His 6th and final appearance to His disciples – we reach a startling conclusion: the seemingly arbitrary number 153 is not arbitrary after all; it represents the very heart of the Christian faith.

This event, witnessed by His disciples who shared breakfast with Him that morning, has to be eternally remembered by humankind, and in the absence of a precise date, what a better way to do this than to seal the event with a numeral. The explicit number of fish, 153, is the commemoration of this momentous event.

Let me now show that indeed the number 153 in John 21:11 represents the fulfillment of the will of the Father in His Son, Jesus Christ.

Let us re-look at John 4.34. What is precisely the will of Him Who sent Jesus to live among us? The answer is in John 6:38-40:

  I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me that I should not lose anything that he has given me, but should raise it to life on the last day. This is my Father’s will: That everyone who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him to life on the last day.

In verse 44, we read how the Father chooses those He will give the Son – via His sovereignty in salvation:

  No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him to life on the last day.

In John 17:1–2, we read that the Father gave the authority to the Son to judge all those the Father gave the Son:

  After Jesus had said this, he looked up to heaven and said, Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, so that the Son may glorify you. For you have given him authority over all humanity so that he might give eternal life to all those you gave him.

The phrase “the hour has come” in the first verse above is a reminder of Jesus’ acceptance of the will of the Father for the Him to be crucified for our sins so that we may have eternal life. Jesus had the option to reject the will of the Father, for it is a dispositional or preferred will of the Father.

The above verses reveal a two-step process that leads to eternal life via the Father’s will for His Son. Firstly, the Father exercises His sovereignty to choose those He wants to have eternal life through His Son, and secondly, it is through the free will of those chosen to believe in His Son to have eternal life.  So both God’s sovereignty in salvation and the free will of an individual determine whether the person will achieve eternal life.

With the clear understanding of the will of the  Father, we re-look at John 6:39:

  And this is the will of the one who sent me that I should not lose anything that he has given me, but should raise it to life on the last day.

The statement "I shall not lose anything" is an enumeration statement. Every individual given to the Son by the Father should be accounted for.

Now, let us recall the story of the 153 fish in John 21, beginning with Simon Peter urging some of the disciples to go fishing with him:

  Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing. But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any meat? They answered him, No. And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find. They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes. (John 21:3-6)

The author writes about the multitude of fishes and goes on to provide an explicit amount caught:

  And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes. As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught. Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net broken. (John 21:8-11)

After Simon Peter pulled in the 153 fishes, Jesus invited them for breakfast:

  Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord. Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise. (John 21:12-13)

Jesus commanded His disciples to cast the net to the right side of the boat, for it was where all the fish had gathered, and to haul in the net with the 153 fish towards him standing on the shore.  And the net did not break, for Jesus could not afford to lose any fish.

We have therefore a scenario which is a clear allegory of the Father’s will for His Son. All those chosen by the Father are gathered up and delivered to His Son to be raised on the last day and have everlasting life.

As I wrote above, the resurrection of the Son is the decisive proof of the fulfillment of the will of the Father in His Son. By John 4:34 – My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work – the amount of fish - Jesus’ meat - 153,  therefore precisely represents that fulfillment of the will of the Father in His Son.

In summary, the number 153 in John 21:11 represents the fulfillment of the will of the Father in His Son, Jesus Christ.

Through the fulfillment of His will in His Son, the Father declared us righteous in His sight. That is, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is our justification, the declaration of God that we are free of guilt and penalty of sin and acceptable to Him (Romans 6:25):

  He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.

Our justification also marks the beginning of sanctification, a continual process of being made holy by the power of the Holy Spirit, a lifelong process that makes us more and more like Jesus Christ.

We can argue that the Lord’s Prayer is the foremost declaration of our faith in the fulfillment of the will of the Father in His Son. Therefore, it is a means to justify ourselves to the Father. Via the Lord’s Prayer, prayed daily, we are led by the Holy Spirit in our daily lives and become more like Jesus Christ – the precise outcome of sanctification!


From where does the doctrine that there is no time in heaven originate? I'm quite familiar with the fact that God himself is outside of time, this is very easy to  show through scripture.

However it seems to be an increasingly popular conception that there is no time in heaven as well. For example, in this answer about saints.  (Probably not the best example, but readily available.)

I'm quite certain that time works differently there as we have many examples from scripture where future and past events in heaven are participated in. But a lot of people are explaining it in a way that makes man eternal (not just living forever but, existing eternally as God does in every time frame). I have also heard some Mormons say they were always taught man will become eternal too (don't know if this is official, just what I have heard some say).

This seems to me to create a problem with the fact that Satan was supposed to have been cast out of heaven, but by necessity is still in heaven if there is, in fact, no time. Even if we dismiss the depictions in scripture of time passing in heaven as metaphorical, in order to help us understand certain things.

How widespread is this doctrine and where did it originate? Does any whole tradition hold this view, or is it simply a failure of individuals to communicate their meaning?

It depends what you mean by time. From our faith, as revealed in Scripture, we know that our experience of the heavenly state is to be without end, and without decay or corruption. However, it does not necessarily follow that there will be no perceptible succession of events. In general, orthodox theology has assumed that we will not assume God's own unique attributes - we will not become omnipotent, for example - and so we will not end up  "outside time" in the fullest sense, as this is directly and innately part of the God-nature. (I suspect that some of this insistence is in opposition to gnostic/Neoplatonist ideas.) I'm not aware of any sect that holds dogmatically that we will become atemporal, though perhaps some people believe it, or leave it open as an option.
In theology, much of the speculation has historically been guided by the philosophy of Aristotle. In On the heavens 1.9 he writes (my annotations in square brackets):

It is therefore evident that there is also no place or void or time outside the heaven [= beyond the boundary of the universe]. For in every place body can be present; and void is said to be that in which the presence of body, though not actual, is possible; and time is the number of movement. But in the absence of natural body there is no movement, and outside the heaven, as we have shown, body neither exists nor can come to exist. It is clear then that there is neither place, nor void, nor time, outside the heaven. Hence whatever is there [= the Prime Mover], is of such a nature as not to occupy any place, nor does time age it; nor is there any change in any of the things which lie beyond the outermost motion; they continue through their entire duration unalterable and unmodified, living the best and most self-sufficient of lives. 1

This passage indicates that time as such is particular to our world; whatever is outside the world is beyond time. Similarly, Physics 4.12 speaks of a category of eternal things which are not contained in time, measurable by time, or affected by the passage of time.
From a Christian perspective, it is natural to say that God himself ought to be covered by this concept (and while this articulation of the idea is from Greek philosophy, it's not totally un-Biblical). Can other things - heaven, angels, human souls - be considered atemporal as well? If we try to jam Aristotle and the Bible together, we might well think that souls in heaven are outside of time, because they're no longer in the world.
But in general, theologians have been reluctant to say this. Truly being outside of time is reserved for God alone, as an essential part of his nature. Other things may, through the grace of God, be made perpetual or incorruptible or immutable.
Scholastics, who were the first to tackle the topic systematically, came up with various elaborate categories; the most important here is the aevum or aeviternal, which is the kind of relationship to time that the angels have. They are creatures of time insofar as they experience a succession of events, but they do not decay, or age, or change in any essential way. Moreover, God's knowledge of the future was held to be direct, because in a sense he's already there, whereas angels may only make inferences about the future (see Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.57.3). They are everlasting but not atemporal.
In some writers, the aevum is distinguished from the true eternal in that aeviternal things could be destroyed by God, whereas he himself is immutably immutable. Some sources also note that when the heavens and earth have passed away, there would no longer be an objective way of measuring time, and so the duration of events would be up to our perception alone. This points to a certain "timelessness" of experience, even though there is still a succession of cause and effect.
An influential patristic text is in Augustine's Confessions 11.9,

For, doubtless, that heaven of heavens, which Thou in the Beginning created, is some intellectual creature, which, although in no wise co-eternal unto You, the Trinity, is yet a partaker of Your eternity, and by reason of the sweetness of that most happy contemplation of Yourself, does greatly restrain its own mutability, and without any failure, from the time in which it was created, in clinging unto You, surpasses all the rolling change of times.
nimirum enim caelum caeli, quod in principio fecisti, creatura est aliqua intellectualis, quamquam nequaquam tibi, trinitati, coaeterna, particeps tamen aeternitatis tuae, valde mutabilitatem suam prae dulcedine felicissimae contemplationis tuae cohibet, et sine ullo lapsu, ex quo facta est, inhaerendo tibi, excedit omnem volubilem vicissitudinem temporum.

and another is Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy 5 Pr. 6,

We may say that God indeed is eternal, but the world truly is perpetual.
deum quidem aeternum, mundum vero dicamus esse perpetuum

The exact definition and nature of the aevum was disputed, but the standard account is that of Albertus Magnus in his Summa de Creaturis; the first part, De quattuor coaequaevis, covers the different sorts of time, but the whole text is really one piece. His pupil Thomas Aquinas also mentions the aevum in Summa Theologica 1.10.5-6. For more than you ever wanted to know: The medieval concept of time, ed. Pasquale Porro, BRILL 2001.
1. Translation by  J. L. Stocks, 1922.

According to low of physics and theory of relativity. Time can only functions inside the materialistic world. It must interact with the matter.

  E = mc2

If the spiritual world doesn't consist of matter, which we think doesn't then the time doesn't matter. The beings can be 'at the same time' 'at the same place'. Place has the same meaning as time.

The physicist observed similar phenomena in the sub-atomic world where atoms can go through the walls and be at the same time in every location possible before they are observed. So if there is no material observer(humans) the atoms can be everywhere the human mind can observe.

The spiritual beings are not made out of materialistic substances so only mind is present which makes the time and space non-existent and irrelevant.

Anyway to answer your question is that it originates from the bible.
Revelation 10:6

  And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven,
  and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that
  therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there
  should be time no longer


Authenticity of the Pontius Pilate's letter to Tiberius Caesar? Just looking to find out if this alleged Letter of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar is authentic or a later forgery? I don't care how it physically describes Jesus, just want to know how it was found and why it's claimed authentic or not. Thanks.

I would say probable forgery. First searching for the letter before a link/source was added revealed at least 3 letters, each is written differently:

Letter of Pilate to Tiberius 1 - Unable to verify by finding an image of the original Greek manuscript
Letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar - mentions Copies are in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C. but initial searches reveal nothing, and some sites say mention:

  "The Library of Congress has received a number of inquiries over the years about a purported letter from Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar concerning Jesus Christ. The Library does not have such a letter in its collections".

Fraud by Pilate Letter - although this seems to be claiming the letter is false (I google translated it), the text of this letter is unique from the other two. This also mentions a fiction book, Letters of Pontius Pilate, published in 1928 which may be the basis for many of the supposed letters that mention Jesus
Historic Letter written by Pontius Pilate to Tiberius Caesar - mentioned in OP question mentions it is in the British Museum but searches on that site and of the British Museum Library reveal nothing

I've found a supposed response from the British Museum

  There are no surviving original letters by Herod or Pontius Pilate, to each other or to anyone else. Any manuscripts of them which do exist are forgeries or much later copies. A Syriac MS in the British Library Oriental Collections (reference number Add. 14609) contains a 6th or 7th Century copy of the letters. Here is the catalogue description of the MS:

  THE DOCTRINE Of St. Peter;-The life of St. Anthony, by St. Athan-
  asius;-Account of the Monks in Egypt;-Life of Serapion;-
  Letter of Herod to Pilate, and of Pilate to Herod;-The Recogni-
  tions of St. Clement. On vellum, of the vith or viith century.
  Quarto. [14,609.]

  There are many modern texts and English translations of the letters, including the one on the website link you gave.

  I hope this helps.

  Yours sincerely,

  Zoë Stansell 2

  MSS Enquiries

In favor of the a letter from Pilate concerning Jesus is this book, Archaeological Writings of the Sanhedrin and Talmuds of the Jews by William Dennes Mahan, page 205. This and other sources might be considered pseudipigrapha and Apocrypha.

One to thing to remember is that Pontius Pilate was a Roman prefect for the province of Judaea under Empereor Tiberius Caesar. There probably was correspondences, reports, and/or letters between them.

To answer the second question there is an article talking about when one letter was discovered in Liverpool in 1964 and goes into detail on why he believes it to be a fraud.

Emphasis added by me

1 source is Ante-Nicene Fathers page 459, which is also in English

2 She appears to actually work at the British Library, see the author

Being a Roman Prefect, I do not think Pontius Pilate would have had such a high, un apologetic, vindicating, regard for Jesus, as described in the letter, especially a letter that was to be sent to and read by Tiberius Caesar.  Pontius Pilate vindicates Jesus in the letter as oppose to just relaying the facts about the events to Tiberius Cesar allowing him to draw his own conclusions about the events.  I also think if Tiberius Caesar read the letter, he would have had Pontius Pilate removed from his position if for no other reason, to defend his own authority in the region, the authority of the Roman gods and the authority of Roman rule.  Bottom line: Pontius Pilate vindicates Jesus in the letter to Tiberius Cesar as oppose to just relaying the facts about the events to Tiberius Cesar.


From a Lutheran perspective, does Hebrews 6 mean that some who fall away can never be restored? Francis Pieper says that Lutheranism teaches both monergistic election and a salvation that can be lost:

  What Scripture teaches on final perseverance may be summarized in
  these two statements: 1. He that perseveres in faith does so only
  through God's gracious preservation; the believer's perseverance is a
  work of divine grace and omnipotence. 2. He that falls away from faith
  does so through his own fault; the cause of apostasy in every case is
  rejection of God's Word and resistance to the operation of the Holy
  Spirit in the Word. (Christian Dogmatics Volume III, pg. 89)

Hebrews 6 speaks of a loss of salvation:

  It is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened,
  who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
  and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the
  age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to
  repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to
  their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

The author of the paper The Lutheran Doctrine of Apostasy (where I found the Pieper quote) says:

  James also writes of the possibility of falling away and future
  restoration: "My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth
  and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a
  sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover
  a multitude of sins." This demonstrates that not all acts of apostasy
  necessitate a state of permanent departure from the faith as the book
  of Hebrews discusses.

So my question is, does Lutheranism teach that some acts of apostasy necessitate a permanent departure from the faith, and others do not? When can apostate believers be restored, and when can they not?

Paul Kretzmann, the son of a Lutheran pastor, wrote his Popular Commentary of the Bible, which "has been a favorite among confessional Lutherans since publication of the first volume in 1921."
In his comments on Hebrews 6, he called attention to the characteristics of the one who is spoken of in the passage: they were once enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the world to come. The description, he says, could only apply to those who were actually saved.

If persons to whom this description applies, people that have undoubtedly accepted Jesus as their Savior, placed their trust in His salvation, and anticipated the joys of eternal life by reason of the power given to them through the Word, now fall away in spite of this saving knowledge, by a deliberate denial of that knowledge, then their return to repentance is excluded. The reason for this fact is not to be sought in God, as though His gracious intention and will in their behalf had not been sincere, but in the people themselves. If their apostasy takes place as here described, with a deliberate, malicious denial of the truth, then they crucify to themselves the Son of God and set Him forth to shame and ignominy before men. They purposely and willfully deny all connection with the Lord, who was crucified for them, they brand Him as a criminal, as a false Messiah, who suffered the disgrace of death on the cross. All this they perpetrate against Him whom they formerly acknowledged as the Son of God, whom they knew to be the Savior of the world. They cannot plead ignorance, or that they acted in foolish unbelief. For that reason their behavior brings upon them judgment, eternal condemnation. Therefore the reason why their hearts become hardened, why it becomes impossible for them to return and to be renewed unto repentance, is to be found in the character of their transgression. They steadfastly and persistently persevere in their antichristian, blasphemous conduct, they harden their own hearts against all attempts of the Word to find an entrance, and are thus finally given over into their hardness of heart.
The writer does not say that his readers have reached this stage; he merely states the possibility that it may happen to them as it has to others, thus warning them to beware of spiritual sluggishness, of lack of diligence in the use of the means of grace. ... If, therefore, any persons that have received these blessings harden their hearts and bring forth fruits of blasphemy and malicious denial of grace, they have sealed their own doom. For the behavior here described is the sin against the Holy Ghost, for which there is no forgiveness, neither in this world nor in the world to come.

In other words, the passage is not describing a mere "falling away" -- Kretzmann's position is that "they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put Him to an open shame" is not a characteristic of all apostasy, but of a special kind of apostasy: the sin against the Holy Ghost.
Regarding the sin against the Holy Ghost (spoken of in Matthew 12, Mark 3, and Luke 12), he writes:

The sin is committed, not against the person, but against the work of the Holy Ghost, which consists in calling sinners to Christ and giving them the assurance of their salvation. Not the mere blasphemous thoughts, but the actual speaking, the open mockery of the work of the Holy Ghost, is condemned in these passages. If the work of the Holy Ghost is believed to be, and is openly declared to be, the work of Satan, then the blasphemy is directed against the Spirit. Such blasphemy is uttered in full consciousness and with the most perfect comprehension of the import of the blasphemy; the blasphemer glories in his blasphemy. ... Man having gotten into this condition of continual blasphemy by his own fault, repudiates all attempts of God to influence Him for good. The soil of his heart has become cursed, and will bear nothing but thorns. The sin against the Holy Ghost is therefore one which cannot be acknowledged; a confession of sin and a desire for forgiveness is excluded by its nature.
The person living in this sin will continue in his stubborn resistance, with blasphemous, outspoken mockery of the work of the Holy Ghost, until the end. The sin is not unpardonable on account of its greatness, but on account of its nature of rejecting all pardon. No one has committed the sin that still seeks repentance.

Pardon is excluded not by God, but by the apostate himself, as Kretzmann said in both of the sections I've quoted. "Restoration unto repentance" is excluded because such a person will not seek repentance.
So an act of apostasy is permanent if the apostate wills it to be so by continually rejecting and blaspheming the Holy Spirit. An apostate can be restored upon repentance, but one who never repents is never restored.

From a Lutheran perspective, does Hebrews 6 mean that some who fall away can never be restored?

I also was raised Lutheran. Hebrews chapter six seems to offer two possibilities

  Hebrews 6:4-6  For it is impossible for those who were once
  enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made
  partakers of the Holy Ghost,   And have tasted the good word of God,
  and the powers of the world to come,   If they shall fall away, to
  renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves
  the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

Once a person becomes apostate, he can never be restored.
A saved person cannot become apostate because to be restored would require a second crucifixion.

The writer could be offering a warning of the danger of becoming apostate or he could be writing an encouragement in that for those who are saved apostasy is impossible.

In context, I see the support for the second view. The writer starts by addressing the immaturity of the Hebrews and follows with an encouragement that their previous works should be taken by them as an assurance of their saved status and that the should continue in those works.

In context, I do not see these verses as supporting a view that salvation can be lost.

I do not see the idea of eternal security as being such a minority Lutheran view as to be excluded. Consider this quote from item 4 of section 11 (Election) of Epitome of the Formula of Concord from the Book of Concord in the Confessions of the Lutheran Church.

  The predestination or eternal election of God, however, extends only over the godly, beloved children of God, being a cause of their
  salvation, which He also provides, as well as disposes what belongs
  thereto. Upon this [predestination of God] our salvation is founded so
  firmly that the gates of hell cannot overcome it. John 10:28; Matt.
  16:18.


Since YHWH and the Bible acknowledge other gods, does that mean that they literally exist? Exodus 20:3 (NIV) reads, "You shall have no other gods before Me."

According to the Tanakh (Old Testament), YHWH / Yahweh / (God) is an individual divine being, and the only God.

Some sections of the Scriptures seem to state that He is the universe’s only (truly existing) God; however, others portray him as a supreme god among other gods (that actually exist).

Deuteronomy 4:35, “YHWH is God; there is none else beside him.”

Isaiah 44:6–8, it says, “Thus says YHWH…: I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God… Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any.”

Thus, Yahweh is the only God that exists.

But in Exodus 15:11, after the Israelites escape slavery in Egypt, they sing, “Who is like you, O YHWH, among the gods [Elohim]?”

Deuteronomy 6:14: "Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you"

In Deuteronomy 10:17, it says, “For YHWH your God is the God of gods, and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and terrible, who does not regard people or take bribes.”

In Psalm 95:3, it says, “YHWH is a great God, and a great king above all gods.”

And in Exodus 12:12, it says, “On that night I will pass through the land of Egypt and smite every firstborn, both man and beast, and I will execute judgment against all the gods of Egypt. I am YHWH.”

What are we to make of this, then? Are there lesser/other gods? Do the words used for god, perhaps, have other implied contextual meanings in some passages?

I'm sure much could be written about the specific meaning of the Hebrew word for gods, but let me focus on one important interpreter's take: Paul the apostle.  In 1 Corinthians 8:4–6, he quotes Isaiah and Deuteronomy to make his case that eating food sacrificed to idols is not inherently wrong:

  Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. [ESV]

Isaiah 41:24, the Lord speaks to the gods, saying:

  Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you. [ESV]

And Deuteronomy 4:39:

  the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. [ESV]

Paul interprets these passages to teach that these "so-called gods" have "no real existence." But then, do they have an "unreal" existence, as a reading of verse 5 might suggest? Idols do exist, he says, in the sinful hearts of men:

  Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. [Colossians 3:5, ESV]

The other gods ("elohim") are us according to Psalm 82:6.

"I said, “You are gods ("elohim"), sons of the Most High ("El"), all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” (Psalm 82:6).

It should be noted that the tanakh distinguishes between Elohim and El, whom the earliest Christians called, Christ and True God, respectively.  YHWH was one among the elohim ('gods'), for example, "For who in the skies compares to YHWH, who can be likened to Yahweh among the sons of God ("Elim") (Psalm 89:6).

Paul reveals elohim to be Christ (1), among other places.  Jesus, Paul, and the first Christians (gnostics) knew the "true God and Father", that is, a supreme God over the Elohim, to include over YHWH, Jesus, and us, the "gods" or "elohim".  Paul even teaches in multiple places that we are members of Christ's one body or, in other words, members of Elohim ("gods").

The first Christians from the first through third centuries were mostly gnostics who believed that the true God and Father (John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6) is unknown to the many and whom the prophets, Jesus, and Paul taught to be the true God of gods (El of elohim)  To the gnostics Elohim was a so-called God mistaken by both Jews and the protoorthodox (later called Catholicism and subsequently Protestants) to be “God” whereas, elohim was actually the only begotten Son,  through whom our world exists.  Paul writes about this in his letters but people ignore what he writes because it does not fit with their doctrines (e.g. Trinity).

You don’t hear much about this because by the fourth century Catholicism led by a Roman Emperor, persecuted gnostics and destroyed their writings and confiscated their churches.  Catholic fathers (Iranaeus, Hyppolytus, etc.) who came earlier twisted the teachings of the gnostics and labeled them as false teachers thereby indoctrinating future generations against their beliefs.  Fortunately, the gnostic writings were discovered and scholars are beginning to understand their beliefs (2.,3.), to include the belief in a supreme God (true God and Father) above YHWH Elohim/Christ.

References.

2 Corinthians 4:6. “For God [Elohim], who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” (Genesis 1:3) has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge (gnosis) of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” Simply, Elohim is revealed to be Christ.

2.“Iranaeus’ contradictory presentation of the Valentianians as having both a common (false) doctrine and as constantly disagreeing among themselves is not due to the nature of Iranaeus’ evidence, but to this polemical construction of his enemies….Thus, the whole idea of Valentinian regular is a construction made by Iranaeus to serve his own polemical purpose.”  (The Spiritual Seed, The Church of the Valentinians, Einar Thomassen, pp. 16)

3.“It will thus be seen that the study of Gnosticism from direct sources is quite recent, and that all but the most recent research is out of date.  This new view is all the more forced upon us by the latest discovery which in the Akhmim MS. Places in our hands the means of testing the accuracy of Irenaus, the sheet-anchor of heresiologists.  The Gospel of Mary is one of the the original sources that Iranaeus used.  We are now enabled in one case to control the Church Fathers point by point—and find that he has so condensed and paraphrased his original that the consistent system of the school of Gnosticism which he is endeavoring to refute, appears as an incomprehensible jumble.”  (Fragments of a Faith Forgotten, George Robert Stow Mead)