If Adam and Eve didn't know good from evil, how can we say they sinned (according to Roman Catholicism)? When God made Adam and Eve he said they could eat anything except from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It sounds like that tree grants the knowledge, so before they ate they didn't know good from bad.

But I was taught by Roman Catholics that they sinned. Doesn't sin require intention? If a young child takes something that is not his, we don't say he sinned, right?  Because he didn't know better. Or is that wrong and we do say he sinned?

Yes they disobeyed God but why should they know that's bad?  I want to understand why they (and everybody after them) were punished for this.  According to Roman Catholicism: if they did know that what they were doing was bad, how did they know, or if they didn't know, then what makes it a sin?

Your question appears to ignore some important facts that need to be taken into account.

Evil existed before Adam and Eve ate from the Tree.

Rev 12:7  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

The act of eating the fruit was not the beginning of evil that it seems that would
appear to be the rebellion of Lucifer in Heaven and the war that resulted from it.

Sin in all of it's forms actually boils down to disobedience of God.

Therefore we can accurately say that Adam and Eve sinned in the sight of God.

I must disagree with your concept that they and their posterity are being punished for having the knowledge of good and evil.

They and we are held guilty of choosing evil over good and thus disobeying God,
Without the knowledge of good and Evil such a choice would not be available.

Your example of the child taking something that is not his is a prime example of my point.
Both fault and punishment would be contingent on whether or not the child knew that taking the object was wrong. Most assuredly we would not punish a baby for taking a rattle from another baby, but we would not hesitate to punish a teenager who stole a CD from a store.
This Godly precept is the basis for all of our laws in the United States, that being that at a particular point in one's life they are aware that their actions are wrong.
We might rightly say that the command not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, was the first law given to man by God.

Genesis 2:17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This command also includes the punishment for disobedience.
You may say that the Serpent beguiled Eve and that should somehow mitigate the severity of he disobedience, but we need also remember that Adam was not, and willfully disobeyed God.
That fact is also our downfall in that we willfully choose evil whether it be embracing the wiles of the world, or rejection of salvation. We each have the ability to either choose an eternity with God, or an eternity in the lake of fire.

Adam amd Eve "fell ". That is, they fell into mortality, but in the process gained "agency" (free will). This was necessary. If they had not fallen to mortality, they would not have procreated and thus "replenish[ed] the Earth". So the Fall was inevitable and a necessary part of the plan, as was the Redeemer Jesus Christ. Lucifer's plan would have removed Man's agency, forcing everyone to be "good". This would have prevented any learning or progress on our part. Only in a world with good and evil to choose between can we grow to become more like God, and to return to His presence. We have Adam and Eve to thank for that. In their sin we inherit mortality. But because of their choice, and the free will that that brought to us, we have the opportunity to choose the good, to be saved from sin, and to inherit eternal life with God our Father. We are not born with original sin; we are not responsible for Adam and Eve's sin; only our own, after we are of an age to distinguish good amd evil.


When was papal supremacy accepted by the entirety of the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church has an unbroken list of Popes from Peter through Francis I. Was there a time when all, or at least the vast majority of, Christianity recognized them as the supreme authority over all Christianity?

A book I'm reading (Thomas Bokenkotter. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. New York, NY: Doubleday, 2004) said that the church at the Council of Nicaea "knew nothing of the doctrine of papal supremacy." Is this accurate? Where might I find a source to back this up?

Bearing that in mind, I'm looking for something after 325. Wikipedia suggests my answer may lie in the fifth century. I’d like to find a historical answer if at all possible, from a neutral source, but if that isn’t possible, I’d prefer to find a Catholic opinion on the matter.

INTRODUCTION

The history of the Roman Catholic Papacy of course is long and convoluted, but we can briefly touch on various events, time markers, and players on the stage during the first 500 years of Christianity that help shape and define the idea.

Let’s start with a definition of Papacy.  The Papacy is the office of Pope of the Roman Catholic Church extending from the apostle Peter to the present Pope.  As such, the Pope is the supreme head of the whole Church with complete authority over matters of doctrine and practice (faith and morals).  The Papacy relies on the ideas of Peter as “rock”, a unique power to “bind and loose”, and possession of the “keys to the kingdom”.

Was there a time when most of Christianity recognized this supreme authority?  Kind of, but not really.  Sources follow comments.

HINTS

As mentioned, the Papacy took time to fully develop, but hints of it surfaced within the first generation.  Clement of Rome wrote an epistle circa 95 CE that suggests that one "tribe" will have a priestly authority, as Levi did over the other 11 tribes.  The power to forgive sins, of course, is the whole point of authority.

In 155 CE, Anicetus of Rome and Polycarp of Smyrna argued over the observance of Passover (aka Easter).  In 175 CE, Victor of Rome attempted to excommunicate all of Asia Minor led by Polycrates over the same issue.  It was not until the Council of Nicea ruled with Constantine as its guarantee in 325 CE that the Roman view of Easter prevailed.  It took the State’s authority to force a certain spiritual authority at this early stage.

Tertullian circa 195 CE follows in the footsteps of those who disagreed with Rome’s budding authority.  He first mentions how Rome was usurping the authority given to Peter alone.  Cyprian circa 220 CE will quickly follow, but in a positive note of Rome’s authority; that is, it is necessary as a visible unity of the Church.  In the next breath, however, Cyprian will maintain the right of the bishops to disagree with heresy wherever it arises, as they did over the validity of heretical baptism.

AGREEMENT

Evidently it was in Leo the Great, however, when the full Papacy idea had completely blossomed.  This was circa 450 CE.  This is the time when even Alexandria will fully comply and acknowledge the Easter times of Rome.  The argument used was how could Mark, Peter’s successor, teach something in Alexandria that was not taught in Rome?  Disagree and there goes one’s claim to being an apostolic church.

Besides, Pope Leo successfully persuaded Attila the Hun from invading.  Who could argue God wasn’t on his side?

CONCLUSION

The doctrine or more loosely the idea of “papal supremacy” residing in Rome predates Nicea.  We clearly see Pope Victor of Rome exercising this supremacy, although the rest of the Church disagreed with him.  We also understand Tertullian and Cyprian seeing Rome claiming this authority.  Again though, while Rome may claim it, the rest of the Church does not completely agree with it.  One may claim supreme authority, but that doesn’t mean one checks their brain at the door against heresy.

Yet in Leo the Great, the Papacy is fully known and exercised with at least all of the Church submitting.  No doubt individuals would disagree, but the patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Antioch would evidently all submit.  Even still there was one exception to this authority who came to be the Oriental Orthodoxy.  This was “sub groups” within a couple of the patriarchs.  Of course, 500 years later, the Eastern Orthodox will also disagree.  500 years after that, the Protestants also disagree.

Rome clearly believes in its Papacy.  It has done so for some 2,000 years as the idea of an “authority” over the whole with binding and loosing powers and the keys to the kingdom surfaces within the first generations after the final apostle’s death and carries through today.  The rest of Christendom, however, never really agreed with the view from Rome.

SOURCES

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11451b.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_papacy
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xliii.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.x.html

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxiv.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.viii.xvi.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy

St Irenaeus of Lyon, in his AD 180 attack on the Gnostics called Adversus Haereses, in Book III, chapter 3, paragraph 2, mentions the special place of the Church of Rome among the others:

  Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Later on, in the documents of the Ecumenical Councils, there are the signatures of the attending dignitaries; and in all cases, first comes the signature of the Emperor, as the caller of the first seven Councils. Right after him, comes the signature of the "Pope of Old Rome", and after him the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople; and then the other Patriarchs and Bishops. Even in those Canons which Rome has declined to recognise, like Trullo, the space is there, blank. This is a sign of how in those days, the See of Rome was seen as having priority over the other Sees, even the one of the then-Imperial Capital.

Naturally, our Orthodox brothers argue over the extent of that priority, and they will definitely contest the use of the term Supremacy, but certainly from the deepest antiquity Rome had a special place among the Churches.


What Does "Not My will but yours be done" mean? I need for things in about the bible to line up with our lives down here like when receiving prayer we should get what we ask for. Right now it's all negative coming from the belligerent acting warfare waging war coming up against my life and personal freedoms. When who the son sets free is free indeed, and need His mercies.

It means that people who profess to be Christians must submit their will, or their desires, to the will of God, just as Jesus did.  Jesus said:

Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother (Mark 3:35).

God’s will is knowable and provable:

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is — His good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans12:2).

God's will is about us pleasing God and serving Him:

Teach me to do your will, for you are my God! Let your good Spirit lead me (Psalm 143:10).

Delight yourself in the LORD and He will give you the desires of your heart (Psalm 37:4).

It’s true that Jesus said, “If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer” (Matthew 21:22). But, even in that statement, we have one condition to prayer: faith.
It isn't about what you think you need, or getting what you ask for.  It isn't about what you perceive to be your "personal freedoms."  It's about following Jesus, and taking up your cross.  It's about humility and serving others, just as Jesus did.

This is one verse that shows Jesus having another will to his Father/God.

"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."

John 12:49 ‘I have not spoken on My own, but the Father who sent Me has commanded Me what to say and how to say it’

John 6:38 ‘For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.’

Plainly showing that Jesus cannot be God as in, 'the Father and I are one', by having a differing will.
Indeed Jesus was made just like us - in every way. It doesn't say in many ways or most ways - it says every way, in every respect.

Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things Heb 2:17

Jesus was able to be tempted - yes, even sin - otherwise the temptation would be pointless or just for show.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are--yet he did not sin. Heb 4:15

As God cannot be tempted, this presents a problem.
thus, what does it mean, "not my will but yours be done"?
Jesus, the man, has been 'made perfect' for the mission of being a sinless sacrifice for all men. Heb 5:9 Even though he was born holy, he wasn't yet suitable for such a purpose.
His sacrifice was more than just to cover our sin - it was to also defeat death - the very evil that causes death- the devil. He could only do this as the second Adam - a man without sin, and tested to breaking point without letting self-centred thinking get the better of him. If he was God, this would be a farce.
As Jesus has won the final victory over sin and death, we too share in his win in our lives. He and the Father dwelling in us in spirit grant us the heart and will to submit our will to God.
This is still our choice, but is only made possible by God

for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. Phil 2:13


Why did they choose Barabbas? John 19:38 - 40 (NLT)

  38 “What is truth?” Pilate asked. Then he went out again to the people
  and told them, “He is not guilty of any crime. 39 But you have a
  custom of asking me to release one prisoner each year at Passover.
  Would you like me to release this ‘King of the Jews’?”

  40 But they shouted back, “No! Not this man. We want Barabbas!”
  (Barabbas was a revolutionary.)

Why were they so messed up that they would choose the rebellious, murderous Barabbas over the innocent Son of God?

Mark 15:7-15

  7 And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. 8 And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he usually did for them. 9 And he answered them, saying, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” 10 For he perceived that pit was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release for them Barabbas instead. 12 And Pilate again said to them, “Then what shall I do with the man you call the King of the Jews?” 13 And they cried out again, “Crucify him.” 14 And Pilate said to them, “Why, what evil has he done?” But they shouted all the more, “Crucify him.” 15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

As Mark's version of this event emphasizes, the crowd was driven to cry for Barabbas by the chief priests who were at the root of the push to have Jesus killed. Why would they choose Barabbas as their alternative to prevent Jesus' release? The biggest factor, of course, is that Jesus was a problem for them - he spoke against them repeatedly, criticized their teaching and their ways, and taught many things that contradicted what they taught.

But on the specifics of why the chief priests would choose Barabbas, I think there's a pretty easy answer to reason out, even if the Bible doesn't explicitly detail it. Barabbas, as John mentions, was a revolutionary. That meant he was trouble, but not for the chief priests. He was trouble for the Romans. He wanted to resist Roman occupation and authority in the name of Jewish freedom. It's not hard to get an oppressed people to cheer for someone who wants to end their oppression. This would have been a win-win in the eyes of the chief priests, because they were getting rid of a man who threatened to compromise their authority in exchange for a man who threatened to compromise the authority of their oppressors.

The gospels tell us that under a custom honoured by the Roman authorities, a prisoner would be released by them at the time of the Jewish Passover. Pilate allowed the crowd to choose between Jesus and Barabbas. John Shelby Spong says in Jesus for the NonReligious, page 168, that in his research, he has been able to find no evidence that there was a custom of releasing a prisoner at the time of the Passover. He says the original crucifixion story could have been related to Yom Kippur because in this tradition, one lamb or goat was killed for our sins and one had the sins of the people symbolically transferred to him, after which he was chased away.
Historian Richard Carrier agrees with Bishop Spong that Barabbas took the role of the Yom Kippur scapegoat. His view, available online as part of a review he wrote for a book by Dennis R. McDonald, is that Rome would never have allowed such a practice:

[A] practice [of releasing a prisoner] could hardly have been approved by Rome, since any popular rebel leader who happened to be in custody during the festival would always escape justice.
Of course, Barabbas means "son of the father," and thus is an obvious pun on Christ himself. He also represents the violent revolutionary, as opposed to the very different kind of savior in Jesus (the real "Savior") . . . The Jews thus choose the wrong "son of the father" who represents the Old Covenant (symbolized by the rainbow, and represented by the ideal of the military messiah freeing Israel), as well as the scapegoat (the lamb) sent off, bearing the people's sins into the wilderness, while its twin is sacrificed (Lev. 16:8-10, 23:27-32, Heb. 8-9).

Although Bishop Spong's research suggests there was no such tradition, the gospel account tells us that the Jews were given the choice in releasing a prisoner for Passover, between Jesus, the Son of the Father, and Barabbas, the "Son of the Father". The pun is that they chose the wrong Son of the Father.


Why is Christianity considered a monotheistic religion? One of the commandments states "place no other gods before me". Does this mean God is implying the existence of other gods, or why is this explicitly stated?

The Biblical universe also includes a varied cast of supernatural characters like Lucifer, Metatron, Archangels, Demons, Seraphim, etc. Some of these manifest with power in the world and represent the roles of messengers, warriors, healers, advisers, protectors, troublemakers, and so on.

Why are these not acknowledged as "gods" or "lesser gods" like in the pantheons of other religions: how is the nature of their existence different?

On what basis is Christianity classified as monotheistic given the existence of other powerful beings in the Bible?

Christianity is monotheistic as its adherents believe in only one God.

The first commandment speaks about the gods of other religions. Although Christians believe in only God, they do acknowledge that other gods are believed in by non-Christians.

In other words, there are many gods in which to believe, but you believe in only one if you are Christian.

Also, the same passage applies to Muslims and Jews.

To answer the third part of your question: the belief in the Christian God (i.e. the Trinity) is what defines Christians.

Belief (or lack thereof) in the supernatural attributes of Satan, the Saints, Virgin Mary, angels vary by interpretation, but in general these figures are considered non-divine, and certainly subsidiary to God.

"place no other Gods before me"

I understand this to mean "do not worship any
other Gods in place of me"

To answer your questions, it is necessary to define
what God is and then describe what God is to us, His creation.

God is the originator, the creator, the sustainer. He comes from nothing and nothing comes from him (directly). He need only say 'be' and it is.

He alone is worthy of worship and to Him alone we must turn to for help.

This is the true nature of Montheism i.e. One cannot worship or pray for assistance to anything other than God.

By this definition of unitarian monotheism (the true form of the faith of Abraham), popular Christianity is not monotheistic and it cannot claim to be.

It is in fact polytheistic if it subscribes to the belief in the shield model (below).

It encourages worship of a holy trinity in addition to God and prayer and supplication to at least 3 other entities in addition to God. By this definition it is polytheistic.

You will not find a single decent argument to refute this. Christian apologists try as they may cannot explain this glaring contradiction.

All other beings or entities mentioned in the scriptures are not Gods or demi gods, they are part of the creation.

Man in attempt to satisfy his own needs and fancies has created and creates other gods or demi gods.

Worship and supplication to Christ as Lord and/or God and worship and supplication to Mary are examples of polytheism.


Was baptism practiced before Christ? A simple word search for "baptism" in the Old Testament turns up no matches. However by the time John the Baptist shows up on the scene and starts dunking people and calling it "for forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4) people seem to already have an understanding of what baptism is.

In fact, it seems there might have been other sorts of baptisms practiced at the time other than what John and later Jesus talked about. In particular the questions that pop up seem to be about who was doing the baptizing and on what authority. Nobody seems be too concerned about the act itself -- as if it was a well understood thing already.

Since the OT doesn't seem to speak of it and the NT jumps right in with everybody seeming to understand that such a practice exists (even if there is some question as to who/what/how/when), what happened in between the Testaments? Was baptism something that was done by anybody for any reason? If so by who and what for? Did the religious Jews of the time have such a practice?

Ritual cleansing was a common part of some Jewish sects around the turn of the era. One of the best examples of this (that I know of) comes from Khirbet Qumran (where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found)—where there were found several miqvot (sn. miqveh) used for a sort of "baptism." It is commonly held that the people living at Qumran were Essenes, and some have speculated that John the Baptist may have been a part of this group or one similar to it.

The Qumran community began slightly before the turn of the age and continued into the early 1st century CE, so it was roughly contemporaneous with Jesus. For a really nice intro to the Archaeology of Qumran, see Jodi Magness' The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

There is a ton of literature from and about the "inter-testamental" period (usually referred to as the "Second Temple Period" by scholars). I'll point you to the great intro to the corpus by George Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between The Bible And The Mishnah.

Baptism was practiced before the time of John the Baptist. In fact, Adam, the first man, was baptized as was Eve, Seth, and many of Adam's posterity. The origin of the word "baptism" is Greek and literally means to dip or immerse.

The Law of Moses refers many times to washings, however most of these references are not in relation to the ordinance of baptism in question. John the Baptist was of Priestly Descent which gave him authority to administer the ordinances associated with the Law of Moses but he was also ordained by God prior to his birth to "prepare the way of the Lord." He was "the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." (Isaiah 40:3) When he was 8 days old he was ordained by an angel "to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power." (Doctrine and Covenants 84:28)

While John was not the first to administer the ordinance of Baptism, he was the only man having authority of God to do so. At that time, Israel had fallen away from the teachings of the prophets and although they were observing the Law of Moses, they were doing so without purpose or authority. Israel had not had a prophet with authority from God since the days of  Malachi because of their rejection of God's word. Thus John the Baptist was called by God to prepare the Way for the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom John knew to be the Son of God.

To learn more about Baptism and John the Baptist see

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/baptism
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/john-the-baptist


Meaning of the original Hebrew of "thou shall not" in the ten commandments I noticed that in German (Luther's translation) it says "Du sollst nicht" for "thou shall not."  To me, this sounds more like "thou should not," which makes more sense to me, because if the Almighty says "thou will not" or even "thou may not" it stands to reason that to do so would be impossible.  Saying "thou should not" makes more sense to me because it implies that you have the ability to disobey.

I guess I am sort of asking for a short lesson on ancient Hebrew grammar of, as well as the original Hebrew (and English transliteration) of "Thou shalt not" as it is used in the ten commandments.

I apologize if this is off-topic.  I appreciate if anyone could answer or direct me to a good link.

The syntax of the Hebrew is consistent with other prohibitions throughout the legal texts of the Torah. That is, the negative particle לא (lo) is followed by an imperfective verb.  Although imperfective verbs in other contexts are sometimes translated as simple future tense (i.e. indicative1) verbs in English, those in the Decalogue are clearly volitional — Yahweh is expressing a prohibitive injunction, not merely a statement of fact.

Biblical Hebrew has imperative verb forms, similar to English ("Go and do your homework!"). However, unlike English, imperative verbs in Hebrew can not be negated. Instead, to express negative commands (i.e. prohibitions), imperfective verbs are used. Unfortunately for English translators, this can at times be confusing since the imperfective is also used to express simple present and future tense ideas. One simple (though not fail-safe) test for identifying volitional uses of imperfective verbs is that the verb generally comes first in its clause. This is the case throughout the Decalogue, e.g. Exodus 20:4:

  לֹֽא תַעֲשֶׂה־לְךָ פֶ֣סֶל֙
  You shall not make for yourself an idol....

Perhaps the most straightforward rendering in modern English would be,

  Do not make for yourself an idol.

However, the construction "you shall not..." is consistent with traditional English grammar, where "shall" with second and third person verbs expresses volition (whether desire, injunction, or prohibition). This nuance is frequently neglected in modern English, and the persistence of "you shall not" in most translations of the Decalogue may in part reflect the pervasive nature of the KJV tradition. It's also the case that the use of the particle לא (lo) rather than the alternative negative particle על (al) indicates a more permanent and absolute sort of prohibition. In modern English, the use of "shall" tends to invoke an elevated register which may better accommodate the sort of nuance invoked by an absolute prohibition direct from the mouth of Yahweh.

1. If applied to the decalogue, an indicative verb would entail a translation such as "you will not kill", as a statement of fact. However,  imperfective verbs are not necessarily indicative. This is territory covered by any Biblical Hebrew grammar; see, e.g., Waltke & O'Connor §31.5.

No, "shall" is not necessary in Biblical Hebrew. Look at some of the 10 Commandments from Young's Literal Translation:

17‘Thou dost not murder.
18‘Thou dost not commit adultery.
19‘Thou dost not steal.
20‘Thou dost not answer against thy neighbour — a false testimony.

Biblical Hebrew does not have past/present/future tense like English; they have perfect tense and imperfect tense. In Young's translation, he has made the imperfect verb "kill" present tense with the word dost. The actual Hebrew says nothing more than "not do kill".
Also, I agree. Saying shall (future tense and interchangeable with will) should be reserved for predictions, otherwise it means God was wrong on multiple occasions (Genesis 2:16).


How can Luke 9:49–50 be reconciled with the idea that Christ is the only way? I have been under the impression that Christ's teaching is very much along the way of "Christ is the only path." If so, what's going on in this passage?

  Luke 9:49–50 (KJV)
  49  And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
  50  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

How is this mysterious individual casting out devils without being a follower of Christ, and how is Jesus implying that this mysterious fellow is an ally?

In verse 49, as you have quoted it, this fellow is casting out demons in Jesus' name. As such, Jesus is still the one and only Way.

Jesus' point here is not that there is another name under heaven by which men can be saved, but rather that just because someone is 'not part of the group' doesn't mean they can't be a follower of Christ. In other words, it could be a support for the notion that Jesus is more important than the Institution that proclaims him.

Put another way, it is much like Paul's admonition in Phillippians, where he says he doesn't care whether Christ is preached out of selfish ambitions or good ones, as long as Christ is preached

There are examples in the Bible of people go to God before the Christ.

2 Kings 2:11 NIV

  And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

This is debatable as the Old Testament didn't really talk about people going to heaven.  And some people believe that the word should have been "sky" and not "heaven"

However, since Jesus, it is the Christian tradition that he is the only way.  There are several things that modern Christians sometimes forget.  Such as Jesus really preached about the now.  To be good people now, to love one another.  It wasn't to get into heaven, but to be a good creature for the creator among others.

In the Old Testament, God did things to teach us a lesson.  If it were not already written, we may say these things were bad or from Satan since they were bad.

The bible also talks about other people with "gifts" such as interpreting dreams (Jacob).  So it's not unreasonable that other people had "gifts" to "casting out devils".


Does the Catholic Church teach that Jesus' Human Nature was created? I think this is one of the reasons the we can call Mary the Mother of God.  But I'm confused about the exact meaning of Human Nature and Human Soul.

So my question is mainly this. What was created at the Incarnation?

Human nature entails a human soul. When Christ became man, every aspect of His human nature was created:

  It is to be remembered that, when the Word took Flesh, there was no
  change in the Word; all the change was in the Flesh. At the moment of
  conception, in the womb of the Blessed Mother, through the
  forcefulness of God's activity, not only was the human soul of Christ
  created but the Word assumed the man that was conceived. (The Incarnation, The Catholic Faith)

The soul, as I understand it, is the rational substance that moves the body. See:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm

From my understanding, nothing was created at the Incarnation. Jesus always existed, body was created long ago.

Here is a thorough Catholic answer on the nature of body, soul and incarnation on YouTube.

To summarize the video, there is no separate body and soul in a Cartesian sense. This is a fabrication of the modern world that causes a lot of confusion. The human person is a perfect integration of body and soul.

The body is a perfectly good creation; the soul does not live without a body, or at least not "fully". This is why Catholics believe in the resurrection of the body.


Does modern protestantism have any deviations from sola fide? I have read that modern protestantism on one hand, and catholicism on the other, tended to abridge their historical differences. Are there any cases in modern protestantism where justification can come other than from faith?

Sola fide or faith alone is a key point within Reformed Protestantism.  Sola fide—the doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works—teaches that righteous works are the result and evidence of a born-again person who has been justified by God and regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Sola fide is so important to a biblical understanding of salvation that Martin Luther described it as being “the article with and by which the church stands.”  The teaching that we are declared righteous by God (justified) on the basis of our faith alone and not by works is a key doctrine of Reformed Protestantism.
There are some modern Protestant denominations that insist works are necessary in addition to faith although you would be hard-pressed to find any overt declaration to that effect.  One clue is whether or not that denomination is “performance oriented.”  They may place great emphasis on performance-related works—attending every meeting; volunteering to help at local, regional, and national events; and devoting required minimum amounts of time to proselytizing.   Everyone must do more in the advancement of “God’s work.”  The dedication of each member is tracked and measured by the amount of time, effort, and money they give to the cause.  If an individual’s efforts begin to slip below expectations, it will be noticed, questions will be asked and privileges withheld.
To establish whether or not a Protestant denomination deviates from sola fide and proposes that justification can be achieved other than by faith alone, one would have to examine their doctrinal basis of belief with regard to their position on Calvinism and Arminianism.  It boils down to whether or not the denomination subscribes to Calvinistic soteriology or not, namely:

“that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever; amen.” (J. I. Packer, “Introductory Essay,” p. 6)
“God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will...  God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected...  Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.” (The Five Points of Calvinism by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing in 1963 – pages 16-17)
“All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, is he pleased in his appointed and  accepted time, effectually to call by his word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.” (The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 10, Section 1)

In other words, we are justified not by anything we do, but entirely by what God has done, which includes giving us faith.  Some Protestant denominations have deviated from this original position but it is very difficult to pin down any declaration as to whether they are with Luther and Calvin or whether they are in the Arminian camp.
I have first-hand experience of one fairly new (out of the late 19th century revival) denomination that insists upon good works in addition to faith being necessary to salvation, yet their official web site would lead you to believe otherwise.  And no, I’m not about to name them because Christianity Stack Exchange is not in the business of calling out individual denominations.  The only way to establish what a church really thinks about the Reformed Protestant position on sola fide is to examine how they operate and whether they are “performance orientated” or not.
Edit: The article in this link (provided by One Face) may be relevant to the question being asked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Declaration_on_the_Doctrine_of_Justification


Why did Jesus wear the crown of thorns? Right before his crucifixion, Jesus was made to carry his cross and to wear a crown of thorns.  Why was he made to wear the crown of thorns?

He was being mocked for claiming that he was King of the Jews, so the soliders gave him a "crown." And to make it worse, they made it of thorns, so it was extremely painful.

Jesus was forced to wear the thorns because Jesus claims to be a king. As you claim to be a king you should resemble a king so Jesus was forced to wear a thorn as He claims to be.


What does it mean when God 'hardens' a heart? I love the answer in this question regarding God giving us free will saying :

"..and without choice, there can be no true obedience, or true love, only mindless followers with no will of their own."

And I do believe so. God gives us free will to be able to genuinely love Him, to genuinely obey. but:

Exodus 11: 10 states ".. but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country."

This kinda complicates things, God - loving, kind, and who has given us free will, is the same God who hardens hearts. Another reference is :

Joshua 11: 20 saying "For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses."

This is very clear that the LORD himself hardened their hearts. Is this contradictory to God's claimed character or is there other meaning to it when God 'hardens' a heart? Because by itself it seems as if God is pushing people to wage war, or to do things outside what could have been an individual's free will.

A friend of mine who has been reading a great deal of John Calvin's Institutes said something to me a couple months ago which has been resonating within me ever since. At this point (as of today, that is) I'm beginning to think that what my friend had to say--thanks, in part, to Calvin--is probably closer to the truth than what I believed previously.
What did my friend say? I'm glad you asked that! He said, and I paraphrase:

Unfortunately, many Christians tend to bandy about the words "free will," as if we are somehow on the same level as God in this regard. Now no one would likely even suggest she or he were on the same level as God, but does not attributing "free will" to human beings, simply because they are created in the image of God, imply that? Perhaps a far better expression than "free will" would be "the ability to choose." Now I can live with that!

Having talked with my friend just today, I think he is saying that God has not given an absolutely free will to those He created in His image; rather, He has given them the ability to choose, or to make choices. Only God's will is truly free.
God can do, say, or think virtually anything and everything He wants to do, say, or think. I say virtually, of course, because God cannot lie, He cannot be unfaithful to His holy word and His promises, and most significantly, He cannot think, say, or do anything which is not in keeping with His holy and perfect will, Being, and character. (Oh, and no, He cannot create a rock which is too heavy even for Him to lift, because God does not even entertain a single, solitary, illogical thought, let alone engage in illogical behavior.)
Of the scores of Bible passages I could quote in support of my last paragraph, I will quote but one, and that is 2 Timothy 2:13 NAS:

"[Even] if we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself."

Put differently, God cannot be anything but what He is, and He is perfection personified. The heavenly hosts realize this truth, and that is why they worship God ceaselessly, and will continue doing so through all eternity. Furthermore, God is immutable, unchangeable, and His holiness assures us of His unchangeableness. In this regard, the hymn writer caught some of the transcendence of God when he wrote,

"Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
In light inaccessible, hid from our eyes.
Most blessèd, most glorious, the Ancient of Days,
Almighty, victorious, Thy great name we praise. (words by Walter C. Smith, 1824-1908)

All this to say, there are times when God intervenes in the affairs of mere mortals, and for His own purposes and according to His own sovereign will does things which both surprise and mystify us. After all, He alone is God. We are not. God told Isaiah,

"'For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,' declares the LORD.
'For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are my ways higher than your ways,
And my thoughts than your thoughts'" (55:8-9).

This is not to say, however, that God, as in the account of the hard-hearted Pharaoh of Moses' day, completely bypassed Pharaoh's will. God's will simply trumped Pharaoh's will in the matter. Pharaoh was free to choose to ignore God's word through Moses, but only because it was God's will for Him to do so. Only God's will is free; Pharaoh's will, on the other hand, was constrained and hemmed in by God's sovereign will. Then too, the hardening by God of Pharaoh's heart was at least in part because Pharaoh hardened his heart first. That is at least something to think about.
Does this mean we are not free to choose whether we harden our hearts or not? No, but it does mean our choosing takes place within a larger context; namely, God's ultimate (aka decretive, sovereign, or hidden) will. As one author put it, and I paraphrase for perhaps better clarity,

This understanding of [God's] sovereign will does not imply that God causes everything to happen. Rather, it acknowledges that because He is sovereign, He . . . permits or allows whatever happens to happen. This aspect of God’s will acknowledges that even when God passively--seemingly, to us--permits things to happen, He . . . [in fact] chooses to permit them, because He always has the power and right to intervene. God can always decide either to permit or stop the . . . events of this world. Therefore, [only] in the sense He allows things to happen, has He . . . [willed them to happen] . . ..

God, in other words, can intervene at any time and at His discretion. In doing so, He neither obviates our wills nor makes us choose to do His will; rather, His decretive will trumps our finite human wills. In Jeremiah 18 we read,

"'Arise and go down to the potter's house, and there I will announce My words to you.'
Then I went down to the potter's house, and there he was, making something on the wheel.
But the vessel that he was making of clay was spoiled in the hand of the potter; so he remade it into another vessel, as it pleased the potter to make. 'Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?' declares the LORD. 'Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel'"(vv.2-6).

Apostle Paul mirrors these words in Romans chapter 9, which apropos your question includes a section on God's dealings with Pharaoh:

What shall we say then ? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!   For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH."  So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault ? For who resists His will ?"  On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God ? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?  Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

The key verses, above, would seem to be verses 18-20, which I paraphrase as follows:

God chooses either to have mercy upon or to harden whomever He wills. If we say to God, "Well, how can you blame Pharaoh for hardening his heart if You are the One who hardened it? Evidently, no one can resist your will!" By saying that, you miss the point. Who are you, a mere lump of clay in the Master Potter's hands, to question His ways and say "You can't do that, God!"? What hubris!

There is no contest between God's will and ours. God's will always trumps ours, because He will sovereignly bring to pass the plans He formulated within the Godhead from eternity, before time existed. As Paul said in Ephesians, chapter 1:

". . . we [have] been predestinated according to His purpose, who works all things after the counsel of His will" (part of v.11)

In His sovereign will God gives us the ability to choose to obey or choose not to obey His revealed will, whether it be delivered to a stubborn and proud Pharaoh through Aaron and Moses, or to an average Joe or Jill today through His written word, the Scriptures.
In conclusion, until the end of time, I imagine, God's image bearers will never cease trying to reconcile two seemingly irreconcilable, yet inevitably true, biblical statements. I put forward only two such statements:

"'Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light'" (Matthew 11:29-30 KJV).

And,

"'No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day'" (John 6:44 NASB Updated Version).

What other two seemingly irreconcilable biblical statements can you come up with? I leave it to you.

I believe we need to be careful to say that we don't have a free will. It's clear in the word that God has given us a choice to choose His will or the not.

EX. Adam and Eve, if they didn't have a free will to choose God's will then they wouldn't have been given a command in the first place. Also why did sin enter the world, the Bible is clear that sin enters by being enticed by our own desires(James 1:14).

This being said, God has granted us the ability to choose. Also why is the Bible full of commandments if they are all settled, is it because God just wants to be in charge. Or is He a loving Father that truly wants what's best for His children?

I find it hard to believe that God forced Pharaoh to choose to disobey. More I find it easy to believe the word in Romans 1:28...And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

It's an easier explanation to explain that God made man. God gave man direction and there and wages to obeying and disobeying. And if we continue to disobey then our hearts are hardened more and more. Such in the case of Pharoah.


Why does the throne in Daniel 7:9 have wheels and are they literally wheels? Daniel 7:9

  He sat on a fiery throne with wheels of blazing fire.

There are also references to wheels in Ezekiel Chapter 10 (which may or may not be related).

Is there a significance to the throne having wheels?

Are they actually wheels?  Why are they on fire?

I read the Wikipedia article on Ophanim  and it almost led be to believe that these "wheels" were actually beings that enabled the thrones to move.

David Pawson has an interesting answer, referring to a similar vision in Ezekiel 1. First, bear in mind that the Israelites were at that time in captivity in Babylon. Then:

Clearly, the throne can travel in any direction. This symbolizes the omnipresence of God, who is able to be anywhere and everywhere. He is a mobile God. This is significant because, until this point, every vision of God’s throne in the Bible had portrayed it as static, fixed in Jerusalem. So it was a comfort for Ezekiel to learn that God’s throne was mobile, for it meant that he could move to Babylon. This was an important truth to communicate to the exiles, who may have believed that God lived in one place, hundreds of miles away in Jerusalem.
Furthermore, the ‘eyes’ on the rims of the wheels tell us that God can see everything, everywhere. It’s a very meaningful picture. No wonder Ezekiel was overwhelmed with the vision and fell to the ground.

Summary: yes the throne has wheels to symbolise that God is with His people, even when they are not near the temple. But, no, they are not literal. God is speaking to Ezekiel in a vision which he and the people he preached it to would immediately understand and draw comfort from.
For more information see this page which quotes directly from David Pawson's Unlocking the Bible Omnibus.

I believe this to be a literal description of the Thrown of God. There is plenty of literal scripture surrounding the fiery wheels as to not interpret this as symbolic. Notice the literal descriptions of His person, same as at the transfiguration, him at the second coming and in John's vision in Revelation. And then you have literal descriptions of those attending him and those that stood before him, details not masked by type or symbol. Similarly fiery chariots are literally seen by Elisha and his servant when God opened the servants eyes. In addition Elisha saw an Angle chariot at the ascension of Elijah. I believe these to be descriptions of   Supernatural reality. Then the passage goes on to speak of the literal return of Jesus Christ. So I would not put a symbolic interpretation on the description of His thrown. I think it speaks of God being a God who is omnipresent but can also inhabit space and time with his Creation.

Dan.7:9 “As I looked,
“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.
 “Then I continued to watch because of the boastful words the horn was speaking. I kept looking until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire. (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.)
 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.


What is the verdict on an unjust judge? In order to ask this, let me set a stage. This is just a scenario that will be recast in a second.

As Christians we believe that God is good. We trumpet his justice, rightness, holiness, and so on and so forth. We say that he is the true standard of what goodness and justice are. When we make judgement calls we claim to use his character as the standard of right and wrong.

And yet ... we ascribe to him something so wicked that it should make us shiver to think of it! If an earthly judge --charged by the state to uphold the laws of the state in a fair manner and himself known to be a good and upright judge-- were to knowingly acquit a guilty party we would rage against him. If a criminal proven to have committed every crime in the book from common theft to rape and murder of children, not just once but over and over and over every day of their lives, were to stand before a bench and say "your honor, guilty as charged" -- and the judge were to say "Why thank you, since you know you're guilty you are free to go and here is some money for dinner," how would we react?

Say that your child was one of those that were abused and killed by this criminal. Would you not cry out and scream about the injustice of it all and then write to the papers and get interviewed and do everything in your power to have the evil judge himself brought to justice?

Do you get the picture? We somehow inherently know that what was done was un-just. We also say that our standard of justice is God himself. And yet as Christians, instead of protesting this scenario when the scenario is cast with God as the judge, we celebrate it!

Let us recast the story.

According to our own doctrines we claim that all men are indeed guilty (Romans 3:10). We also claim to that God is a perfectly just judge. When we go on to say that he has indeed acquitted some wicked men (us) we don't even blink, as if there was no problem with this scenario. Yet according to our own inherent sense of justice, this should make him an evil judge worse than the criminals he acquits.

So here is the question: How is it that God can be truly just and yet justify wicked men?

God is in the dock. Is he defensible?

Alright, here's the non-trivial answer.

The idea is that we are all guilty.  It's pretty hard to deny this one:

Romans 3:23 (NIV)

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

Furthermore, while we are all guilty of sin, the punishment for this sin is death:

Romans 6:23a (NIV)

  For the wages of sin is death

If we go on in Romans 3, we see that the Jesus was the atonement for our sin.

Romans 3:25 (NIV)

  God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

Definition of atonement

  satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends.

So, we can see from Romans 3:25 above that Christ was the sacrifice of atonement for our sins.

In essence, we are guilty of the sins that we commit (Romans 3:23 at top).  Because of those sins, a price has to be paid (Romans 6:23a).  Since the price had to be paid, Jesus was presented as the atonement sacrifice. (Romans 3:25).  We can receive this atonement by faith (Romans 3:25 again).

Furthermore, this debt had to be paid to show that he is just.  God is both just and righteous--being the one who deals the justice as well as the one who justifies (through the atonement for the sin).

Romans 3:26 (NIV)

  he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Summary

God is a just God; He requires a penalty be paid for the sins we commit; and Jesus is that atonement for those sins.

Tying this in to my trivial answer, our sins create a debt that must be paid (just as our breaking the law creates a debt to society).  However, this debt has been paid already if we have faith to accept the grace given to us.

The trivial answer is the correct one according to the Christian view. Under the correct circumstances, the price has been paid.

I think the premise of your question is a bit off though. When someone or something has to judge something, they also have to judge it for a particular purpose. When a criminal court judge decides whether someone committed murder, it is for a particular purpose and to a particular standard adapted to that purpose. If you had to judge whether a person committed murder for some reason (maybe to decide whether or not to trust them with your life), you are judging for a different purpose and there is no reason you need to use the same standard. You don't have to swear in witnesses, follow written rules of evidence, and so on.

So I don't think it's sensible to just compare the kind of judging that goes on in a court with the kind of judging Christians hold that God does without taking into account the vastly different natures of the judges and purposes of the judgment.


What date to place the patronal feast day of St. Mary’s Church? According to Catholicism, what are the norms or rubrics that explain what is the patronal feast day of St. Mary’s Catholic Church, when no particular mystery or other title has been indicated?

In my diocese alone there are many churches dedicated to the Virgin Mary with no other indication as to know when we should celebrate the parish feast day!

I am interested in the norms and rubrics for both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Rites of the Mass, whether they are different or the same.

Your hunch "that it is the Feast of the Assumption" appears correct, at least according to

Rev. W. J. Wiseman, “The Titular Feast,” The Pastor 3, no. 5 (March 1885): 129–36.

In the § "Practical Directions" (p. 131), he writes:

  Blessed Virgin is a general title. […](a) If the titulus is simply B. M. V., the titular feast is to be celebrated on the feast of the Assumption, where everything remains as now in the Ordo.

That's interesting it's the Assumption and not the Immaculate Conception (whose dogma Pius IX defined 31 years prior to this article, in Ineffabilis Deus). Of course the feast of the Assumption was celebrated even before Pius XII defined the dogma in Munificentissimus Deus in 1950, too. They're both great (1st class) feasts.

There are several Marian feasts, so it's hard to know.

Marian feasts:

Feb. 2: Purification
Feb. 11: Apparition of Our Lady at Lourdes
Mar. 25: Annunciation
May 13: Our Lady of Fatima
May 31: Visitation of the B.V.M.
July 16: Our Lady of Mt. Carmel
Aug. 5: Mary of the Snows
Aug. 15: Assumption of the B.V.M.
Aug. 22: Immaculate Heart of Mary / Queenship of Mary
Sep. 8: Mary's Nativity (birthday)
Sep. 12: Holy Name of Mary
Sep. 15: Seven Sorrows of Mary
Oct. 7: Holy Rosary
Nov. 21: Presentation of Mary in the Temple
Dec. 8: Immaculate Conception
Dec. 12: Our Lady of Guadalupe

(The dates are from the traditional calendar; you can see if they've been changed in the Novus Ordo calendar.)


Why is rape not in the 10 commandments? Seems like a good one to touch on.

I'm sure there could have been room in there somewhere if he wanted it. Why not?

Note: This answer comes from the perspective of the Old Testament alone, since the question was in regard to the Ten Commandments and gives no indication that it's seeking a "Christian" perspective, but does give indication that it's seeking a historical perspective (since it references the Ten Commandments).
History of the ten Commandments
Why is rape not included among the these commandments?  Because there are many things (including homosexuality, having sex with your fathers wife, not wearing clothes made of both wool and cotton, etc.) that are not in them.
The Ten Commandments were originally written on stone tablets after Moses ascended Mount Sinai.  Their purpose was to provide a set of basic, simple laws that would hold the nation of Israel over until they got the full Levitical law.
The Levitical law was not given until the book of Leviticus, after the Ten Commandments had been given.  These commandments were not meant to be all-encompassing, but simply meant to give them the top-ten basic laws that God wanted the Israelites to obey until they could get the complete Law.
Rape defined
It is important to note that "rape" during those days was not a crime against a woman, but rather a crime against the head of the household (History of Rape).
To understand how rape plays out in the Old Testament, it is important to understand adultery.  Adultery was a sin that had the death-penalty associated with it.

Deuteronomy 22:22 (NIV)
If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

However, if the man were to rape another man's wife, only the man would die, since he is the one that committed the act of adultery.

Deuteronomy 22:25
But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.

Note that in Old Testament times, betrothal came after the marriage price had been paid.  The groom and the bride at that point were effectively married, although there was a waiting period before they could live together.
Now, if a man rapes a woman who is not pledged to be married, then he has not committed adultery and did not deserve death.  Instead, he was forced to pay the marriage price, taking the girl/woman as his wife.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives

What these laws are showing is that rape is not "non-consensual" sex as we think of it today.  It's actually a crime against the man who "owns" the woman (for lack of a better term).  The crime committed in the case of a betrothed or married girl is the crime of adultery.  The crime committed in the case of a non-betrothed, unwed girl is the crime of not paying for something that you've taken.
The punishment for rape back then was the same as the punishment for either adultery or stealing, based on the marital status of the girl.
This also means... there is nothing in the Old Testament saying that non-consensual sex with your wife is wrong.
Rape as Adultery/Theft
With the definition above, we see that rape carried the punishment of either adultery or theft, based on the marital status of the girl/woman.  With that in mind, the laws of adultery and stealing were in the Ten Commandments:

Exodus 20:14-15
14 You shall not commit adultery.
15 You shall not steal.

If we compare these laws established in the Ten Commandments with the rules established in Deuteronomy, we see that rape was considered either stealing or adultery.
Because of this, the root law that is being violated is actually covered in the these commands.
Summary
Rape, from the Old Testament perspective, is either considered adultery or thievery (based on the marital status of the woman).  Those two root laws are specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments.  Therefore, the two laws that might be broken from a given rape are actually written there.

Because the 10 Commandments have little to do with ethics and everything to do with (a) creating an orderly society and (b) distinguising the Jewish community from its neightbours. Women were generally regarded as property by the culture of the time, which wrote the commandments.


What is the theological import behind genealogies? So, several places in the bible are just lists of names:

Genesis 5
I Chronicles 1 - 10
Matthew 1
Luke 3

all come to mind.

In Matthew 1, in particular, I have pulled sermons out of the only four women named (each one has a really good story!), but I wonder what use a genealogy is from a theological point of view.  Obviously, there are good reasons to include them or they wouldn't be there, but I wonder how/if one should make use of these in a pulpit.

I'm not Catholic, but the Catholic Encyclopedia does a good job of outlining the importance of the genealogies here.

There are several purposes for including the genealogies in Scripture, some theological, some merely cultural.

On the cultural side:

  The Hebrews shared the predilection for genealogies which prevailed
  among all the Semitic races. Among the Arabs, for instance, no
  biography is complete without a long list of the hero's ancestors.

On the theological side:

  The priests and Levites had to prove their
  legal descent in order to fulfil the honourable and remunerative
  functions of their respective offices. On returning from the
  Babylonian Captivity several were excluded from the priestly class
  because they could not prove their Levitical pedigree (Ezra 2:62;
  Nehemiah 7:64).

Finally (and most importantly), the genealogies help to establish Jesus as the Messiah, since the Messiah was to come from the line of David.

As for how to use them from the Pulpit, use them as they were intended, and don't fall into the trap of making more of them than what they really are.  It's very easy to take a few verses and read a whole lot of meaning into them that aren't there.  Stick to the Word, and what it says, and you can avoid a whole lot of confusion.

There are a lot of things about the numerology of the Bible which have been lost to time. The genealogy of Matthew actually has a good deal of this (see pg. 224). (Note the repetitions of 14). As Matthew has traditionally been seen as the Gospel "to the Jews" it is also noteworthy that his genealogy starts with Abraham (while Luke, writing to the gentiles, goes all the way back to Adam).

As far as the pulpit is concerned, I've only ever heard these used as a gloss: "notice the saints and sinners" type stuff. It would have been more significant at the time, but most of us are not big genealogy buffs.


Is there a connection between 666 and Solomon? There is another question here that asks for the significance of the number 666.
Most of the answers relate it to papacy, Nero or some other apocalyptic event.
I have read several prophetic websites and they do the same thing. Sum up the numeric value of the alphabets in somebody's name. Multiply it by 2, divide by 3 and it comes to 666.
However I was reading my Bible was surprised to find the following verse -

1 Kings 10:14 The weight of the gold that Solomon received yearly was
666 talents,
2 Chronicles 9:13 The weight of the gold that Solomon
received yearly was 666 talents,

My question is how did everyone over look this? Could it be that the number has nothing to do with papacy or Nero.
There seems to be some sort of connection with Solomon. If so what is it?

I don't think it's too much of a stretch.

If we look back at the law for kings in Deuteronomy 17, It prohibits the king from multiplying horses and chariots, wives, and wealth. This is exactly what Solomon is doing in 1 Kings 10-11. Chapter ten begins by commending his great wisdom, but then steps through his decline - that is, he begins violating the rules for kings by multiplying gold (666 talents a year), multiplying horses and chariots, and finally multiplying wives who turn his heart away from following Yahweh. He sets up centers of false worship for all the foreign gods of his wives. So, the number 666 is associated with Solomon in his fall, his abuse of power, and his turning away from true worship of Yahweh.

In Revelation, Jesus sets up worship interactions under the symbol of business transactions - buying and selling.

  I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see.

This is picked up in chapter 13 with reference to worship in the false temple - the image set up by the beast which must be worshiped on pain of death. Everyone must worship the image, but no one may do so without the mark. The buying and selling referred to here is of the same kind established by Jesus in chapter 3. It is worship - spiritual transactions.

This kind of forced worship of an image set up also has ties back to Nebuchadnezzar.

  King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, whose height was sixty cubits and its breadth six cubits... And the herald proclaimed aloud, “You are commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, that when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, you are to fall down and worship the golden image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. And whoever does not fall down and worship shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace.”

Nebuchadnezzar is acting as a beast (and later, even more so) and sets up an image to be worshiped. Again, we have six and sixty associated with worship of a false image on pain of death.

All of this comes together in the name and number of the man - 666. This sums up man in his fallen state. The number carries with it the fallen glory of Solomon, his degraded wisdom, his failure to follow the word of God, his abuse of power, and his allowing himself to be turned aside to the worship of impotent gods.

Don't be afraid of symbolism; it's good for you :)

I think everyone stating that it's a coincidence is a fool. 666 doesn't show up a ton of times in the Bible. It only shows up 4 times and I whole-heartedly believe they're connected. In addition to that look at Solomon's role in today's society. In Islam it's believed he built the Temple in cahoots with the jinn (the fallen angels) but Islamic belief thinks the fallen angels aren't demonic (like jewish and christian faith assumes) but instead they believe they are free willed like humans, to do either good or bad. So Solomon works with the fallen angels to build a temple. In addition to that, Solomon is the central figure to freemasonry. The whole system is based on his relationship with King Hiram (a faithless king). Furthermore, Israel is trying so hard to rebuild what???? - The temple of Solomon - Which is as ungodly today as it was in Solomon's time! Lastly, Solomon is a part of almost all occult religions and a book called the Key of Solomon is one of the main teaching tools to learn how to engage spirits. I'm not even going to get into Kabballah or Zionism. You are on to something but be aware of the rabbit hole you've just entered because it flips our world as we know it on it's head.


How do we recognize Elijah when he will come before the day of Lord? As predicted by Jesus

Matthew 17:11: He answered, "Elijah does come, and he will restore all things."

and

Malachi 4:5: See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.

Now, as for Jesus's coming we will know him for sure, but how do we recognize Elijah when he will come?
I think he is not one of the two witnesses of Rev 11, because in that time the tribulation should be already in place.

How do we recognize Elijah when he will come before the day of Lord?
In the Book of Revelation we read about two witnesses who will be God’s prophets that will prepare the world for Christ’s second coming.

The Two Witnesses
11 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers. 2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months. 3 And I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth.” 4 They are “the two olive trees” and the two lampstands, and “they stand before the Lord of the earth.” 5 If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies. This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die. 6 They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.
7 Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. 8 Their bodies will lie in the public square of the great city—which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt—where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial. 10 The inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and will celebrate by sending each other gifts, because these two prophets had tormented those who live on the earth.
11 But after the three and a half days the breath[b] of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. 12 Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here.” And they went up to heaven in a cloud, while their enemies looked on.
13 At that very hour there was a severe earthquake and a tenth of the city collapsed. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the survivors were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven. - Revelation 11:1-13

Who are these two witnesses. Most Christians think it will be Elijah and Enoch. Some think it may be Elijah and Moses.

In the Book of Revelation, the two witnesses are two of God's prophets who are seen by John of Patmos, during the "Second woe" recorded in Revelation 11:1-14. They have been variously identified by theologians as two people, as two groups of people, or as two concepts. Dispensationalist Christians believe that the events described in the Book of Revelation will occur before and during the Second Coming. The two witnesses are never identified in the Christian Bible. Some believe they are Enoch and Elijah, as in the Gospel of Nicodemus, since they are the only two that did not see death as required by the Scriptures. Others believe them to be Moses and Elijah because they appeared during the transfiguration of Jesus, or because Enoch was not Abraham's descendant. Some also believe that they are Moses and Elijah due to the description of what they are to do. They have the power to shut the heavens (Elijah) and turn water into blood (Moses) - Two witnesses

In any case, if Elijah and Enoch do show up there is no sure way that we will be able to recognize him at. The Scriptures simply tells us what to look for, but not the absolute certainty that they are going to be clearly identified by believers at all.
Look at the uncertainty that surrounded the ministry of Jesus himself:

Peter's Confession of Christ
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets. 15“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”… - Matthew 16:13-15

There will certainly some who will be able to recognize the Two Witness, but how and when will have to be determined as the future events partaking of the Second Coming of Christ unfold!
For myself, it is not an impossibility that Elijah will preach to the Jews and Enoch to those who are neither Christian or Jewish. For Christians, we have our Church leaders to help us prepare for the Great Day of Christ’s Return.
Nothing is written in stone!
Theodoret wrote that Elijah would do just that:

"Paul insists that only a part of Israel has been hardened, for many of them believe.  He thus encourages them not to despair that others will be saved as well.  After the Gentiles accepted the gospel, the Jews would believe, when the great Elijah would come to them and bring them the doctrine of the faith.  The Lord himself said as much: 'Elijah will come and will restore all things.'"

In Matthew 17:11 this could indeed refer to a prophecy present in Malachi 4:5 like you said

Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the
great and dreadful day of the Lord

Reading from Revelation 11:3-6

3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy
a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing
before the God of the earth.
5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth,
and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in
this manner be killed.
6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of
their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and
to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

In this Revelation passage, my KJV study bible claims about that specific passage we know these two witnesses can protect themselves prevent rain and perform miracles if necessary, bringing to mind Moses and Elijah who exhibited these types of miracles (Exodus 7:19-20; 1 Kings 17:1). Still, their identity is unknown.
Is there something else we know? Yes. In Matthew 11:14

And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

and in Matthew 17:13 (two verses right after your reference)

Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the
Baptist.

Here we see Jesus identifying John the Baptist as Elijah and the disciples understanding it.
So, when you say

but how do we recognize Elijah when he will come before the Lord?

that's an affirmation that isn't necessarily supported by the Scriptures... We don't know if Elijah is really to come or if that prophecy was already fulfilled in John the Baptist.


How did the people know that John the Baptist was a prophet? What reasons gave the people to believe that John The Baptist actually was a prophet and wasn't a hoax? Was it simply the Holy Spirit calling on souls or was there some other kind of proof?

I wouldn't overthink this one, LukeoX.

God obviously called John to be a prophet and a forerunner to His Son Jesus, the Christ (Luke 1:17). Consequently, in obedience to God's call John presented himself to the people as a witness, called by God to be a testimony to the Light. Put differently, John was a light to the people, and Jesus was the Light of the world (see John 1:4-9; cf. 8:12). John's little light paved the way for the big Light.

When people believed John's message, they proved the sincerity of their repentance by submitting to his baptism. They then became John's disciples (see Matthew 9:14; 11:2; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33; 7:18; John 1:35; 3:25; and 4:1). The angel Gabriel told John's father that his yet-to-be-born son would come on the scene "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17). In other words, John's preaching ministry would bear fruit, just as Elijah's did.

Now, what all was involved in being one of John's disciples is not exactly clear to me, nor does the Bible say too much about that. Unlike Jesus, however, I don't think John was called of God to form a denomination such as--oh, I don't know--Baptists perhaps!?
As the Christ's forerunner, he sort of faded into the background shortly after Jesus came on the scene. After all, John admitted humbly,

  "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 3:30).

Not too terribly long after John made that statement, he was beheaded by King Herod. Interestingly, however, just before he died John told his disciples to ask Jesus,

  "'Are you the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?'" (Luke 7:19).

Despite John's greatness in Jesus' eyes ("among those born of women," Jesus said, "there is no one greater than John"), even he struggled with doubts about the identity of his cousin(?), the son of his mom's relative, Mary, whom John's mom called "the mother of my Lord"! (Luke 1:43).

Easy! Anyone that foretells of future events is considered a prophet. A true prophet is one that forecasts correctly. A Hebrew prophet from God is anyone that correctly forecasts about events that influence the Jews/Israelis or their nation. Therefore John the Baptist was considered a prophet.


What was first, sola scriptura or sola fide? I just watched a video with an Orthodox professor, in which he said that "Sola Scriptura" came first, and then "Sola Fide". Is that true? The best I can gather from the Wiki articles on these two topics is that both of them came pretty much simultaneously.

The video itself is in Russian.  Here is my translation of his words (starting at 5:57):

  …And all these new ideologues outraged by this so called scholasticism
  |of Roman Catholic Church| have declared, “The truth is only what the
  Scriptures say. Only the Scriptures and nothing else! Period. Let’s
  abandon all these theologians!” This apparently magnificent thesis
  made a big impression on many Christians. Because many had already
  been racking their brain over some speculations by some |theologians|
  like Duns Scotus or Thomas Aquinas. Indeed, their speculations were
  just abracadabra and no one really knew what to make of it.

  So, they said, “Only the Scriptures!” Perfect! Who would’ve dared say
  anything against that? It really sounded just perfect.

  But what was the outcome of that? |The outcome of that was:| “You
  think this way?”, “And you think another way?”, “And you have yet
  another opinion?!” So, as a result, the whole Protestantism began to
  fall to pieces. Soon it was like peas spilled and scattered all over
  the floor. Everyone had his own opinion.

  And where was the criterion for determining who was right and who was
  wrong? How was one to know which opinion was correct? Well, it was
  already too late |to look for such a criterion|. There were no
  authorities anymore. The Fathers were no longer held as the authority.
  Each person now considered his own way of thinking and his own
  understanding as true. The truth for each person was now his own thoughts
  and convictions. And each one would claim now, “That’s how the Holy
  Spirit showed me this!” (|Of course, it begs the question,| “How can
  it be the Holy Spirit if you are arguing with one another and just
  can’t find any common ground in your understanding?!”) They were
  really now all scattered like peas on the floor! You see? This is how
  sometimes a very attractive thesis, which one would think shouldn’t
  cause any disagreement, can |turn out to be false|.

  So what did they finally arrive at? They arrived at another thesis,
  which came right after “Sola Scriptura”, and that thesis is
  indisputable in Protestantism – the whole Protestantism is standing on
  this thesis like on a strongest foundation. This thesis is “We are
  being saved only by faith” By what kind of faith? By believing that
  Jesus Christ is the Lord, that He has suffered on our behalf, that He
  has redeemed us from sin, that we are saved through His sacrifice…

So he seems to be claiming here that "Sola Fide" was put forth as a reaction to the many divisions among Protestants caused by "Sola Scriptura". Thus, his chronology is as follows:

Sola Scriptura –> divisions –> Sola Fide

This contradicts to a story that I heard before about Martin Luther climbing some ladder on his knees in some temple and suddenly recalling, if I remember correctly, Rom 1:17 ("The righteous will live by faith"), which happened even prior to 95 theses.

However, I may have gotten this story wrong and my knowledge on Reformation is quite limited, so I don't know.

This is a complex topic, for at least two reasons: 1) there was a wide diversity of thought in the pre-Reformation and Reformation periods, and 2) today's definitions of sola scriptura and sola fide vary and the particulars can be difficult to trace within the pre-Reformation and Reformation periods, and any attempts to do so are naturally susceptible to bias.

For example, on one hand, one could argue that Alexei Osipov is simply incorrect – that the extreme version of sola scriptura that he is describing did not appear until the Radical Reformation (~1520s) and that Luther's doctrine of sola fide (~1515) predates that by several years. But many (mostly non-Protestants) would counter that the professor's description of sola scriptura substantially matches that of Protestantism generally, not just the Anabaptists of the Radical Reformation.  And of course, we're ignoring that many Protestants argue that both these doctrines can be found in the writings of the early church.

With those caveats, I'd argue that while Osipov's treatment is imprecise, his general point can be defended in two ways:

Many Pre-Reformation thinkers, like John Wycliffe (1320–1384) and John Huss (1372–1415), placed higher emphasis on the authority of Scripture than was expressed at the Council of Trent by the Roman Catholic church.  These Pre-Reformation thinkers, however, did not clearly articulate "faith alone."
Logically, sola scriptura comes before sola fide, because the doctrine of sola fide as argued by Luther and other Reformers was defended on the basis of the Bible against the tradition and authority of the Church.

Pre-Reformation

At the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church held that both scripture and tradition were authoritative:

  Both saving truth, and moral discipline [...] are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves (Session 4)

In contrast to this, many pre-Reformation thinkers placed a higher priority on Scripture.  Two notable names along these lines are John Wycliffe and John Huss, who both died over a century before Luther released his 95 theses.  These men opposed what they saw as abuse and excess in the Catholic church, and attacked a variety of the church's doctrines, including the papacy, transubstantiation, and indulgences, and often did so on the basis of the Bible.  John Wycliffe "recognised as an authority, apart from reason, only the Holy Scriptures, not tradition." (Lechler, 267)

However, these men did not lay out a doctrine of justification like that of sola fide.  Thus, if the views of Wycliffe on Scripture suffice as an example of sola scriptura as understood today, then it preceded the sola fide of Luther.

Sola scriptura logically antecedent to sola fide

Alistar McGrath writes:

  Every strand of the Reformation movement regarded Scripture as the quarry from which its ideas and practices were hewn (Thought, 91)

That is, in the Reformation, everything ultimately comes back to the authority of the Bible, including justification by faith alone.  We see this, famously, in Luther's 1521 statement at the Diet of Worms:

  Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.

When challenged, Luther naturally fell back to the ultimate basis for his beliefs, which he argued was the Bible – he didn't argue for sola scriptura on the basis of sola fide, but instead held that the things he believed were true because he found them in the Word of God.  Though this doesn't prove that sola scriptura chronologically preceded sola fide in the mind of any particular reformer, we can still say that the logical connection indicates that sola fide needed sola scriptura in order to stand and survive.

The origins of sola scriptura and sola fide

One of the difficulties mentioned above associated with this question is defining sola scriptura.  Alistar McGrath identifies three views that can feasibly carry this name:

Scripture and tradition are "coinherent or coterminous," that is, that Scripture alone is materially sufficient, and tradition acts as a reliable guide that defines the limits of acceptable interpretation

McGrath associates this view with Wycliffe, Huss, and the theologians of the schola Augustiniana moderna, that is, scholastics associated with Gregory of Rimini.

Scripture alone serves as the basis for faith and practice

This is the view expressed by Ulrich Zwingli at Zurich, resulting in the mandate that only Scripture could be used as the basis of public preaching (Origins, 45; see Wikipedia).

Tradition has no relevance in the interpretation of the Bible; "every individual or community is free to interpret the Bible without reference to the Christian past."  (Thought, 100)

This is the view of the Radical Reformers (Anabaptists), originating in the 1520s.

The sola scriptura of the Reformers is often defined along the lines of #2 above.  But is #2 more like #1 or #3?  In his quote, Alexei Osipov closely associates #2 and #3.  But Alistar McGrath argues that #1 and #2 are more closely linked, arguing that the Reformation view was not an innovation in light of the diversity existing in late medieval catholicism (Origins, 145).  He also argues against a close connection between #2 and #3:

  It is totally wrong to suggest that the magisterial reformers elevated private judgment above the corporate judgment of the church or that they degenerated into some form of individualism. No leading mainstream reformer was prepared to abandon the concept of a traditional interpretation of Scripture in favor of the radical alternative. (Thought, 102)

The origin of the doctrine of sola fide, on the other hand, is usually seen to be more straight forward.  McGrath sees its roots in the schola Augustiniana moderna, but it first appears clearly in the thought of Martin Luther around 1515, in his "tower experience." (Thought, 120–21)  Thus Osipov's claim that sola fide appeared as the result of Protestant divisions is incorrect at least in the sense of its origin; it preexisted the division between the Reformers and the Radical Reformers.

Summary

Alexei Osipov lumps together the sola scriptura of the Reformers and that of the Radical Reformers in his discussion, which, depending on one's views on the Reformation, may or may not be agreeable.  But noticing this reveals the difficulty inherent in identifying the origin of sola scriptura and thus its connection with the Reformer's sola fide.  Still, it seems safe to agree with Osipov's general point, that the doctrine of sola scriptura precedes that of sola fide, both chronologically and logically, in the context of the Reformation.

References

Lechler, Gotthard Victor, John Wycliffe and His English Precursors
McGrath, Alister, Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation
McGrath, Alister, Reformation Thought

If God inspired the scriptures, then didn't sola fide come first? Faith must come first in order for someone to believe that they are writing with The Inspiration of God.

The only problem is that Jesus revealed The Merciful Heavenly Father through His Teachings in the clearest way while The Old Testament did not, therefore we can go with sola scriptura when it comes to The Sayings of Jesus. Even then, sola fide must come first since a person must first believe that Jesus is The True Voice that reveals God The Father in order to trust His Teachings in The Gospel:

  "All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him."  (Luke 10:22)

This is what Jesus taught about The Merciful Heavenly Father, His teaching truly is Merciful:

  "But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again." - (Luke 6:35-38)


Where can we find the official records of canonizations? Famous Catholic saints are often surrounded by various popular beliefs. Or sometime there is little that is actually known about the life of a saint (e.g. we don't seem to know that much about Thomas Aquinas). Is there an official website where the Vatican provides the official canonization documents of saints (old or recent)?

Where can we find the official records of canonizations?

If one were to look with some difficulty and in very specific Catholic libraries, such as some traditional monastic or seminaries, you may be able to find a copy in the reference section the source you are looking for.

The following book published by the Vatican (Congregatio pro Causis Sanctorum) every so many years has the information you desire:

Index ac Status Causarum Beatificationis Servorum Dei et Canonizationis Beatorum

The status of every single person proposed for sainthood is in there. When cults of saints are suppressed, it will state why. Every canonization and beatification is alphabetically listed. It is however only in Latin and is hard to find.

The Holy See is not a fan of putting all their richness of information online. Thus many researchers must make use of the now slower method: books and other documents!

The Acta Sanctorum is a collection of official saints' lives by various authors used for their processes of beatification or canonization.

The Acta Sanctorum Database is an online, subscriber-only edition.

The Roman Martyrology, read daily at the canonical office of prime, although not exhaustive, contains only canonized saints.