How does Free Grace Theology reconcile 1 John? My understanding of Free Grace Theology is that it separates the believers salvation from their sanctification, in that sanctification is not the necessary result of salvation.   It separates the call to believe and be saved from the call to follow and be a disciple.  In other words, people may be saved without exactly being "followers" (i.e., without going through the process of sanctification).

There are many passages in 1 John that seem to contradict Free Grace Theology, such as 1 John 3:9-10 (NASB)

  No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in
  him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. [10] By this the
  children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone
  who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who
  does not love his brother

This passage seems to contradict Free Grace Theology's teaching that the saved may not be "followers" of Christ.

How do adherents to Free Grace Theology reconcile/interpret 1 John?

Disclaimer: I understand that this passage is not saying that Christians will never sin, lest it contradict 1 John 1:10.

I recommend you read Zane Hodges' book "The Gospel Under Siege" for a full answer to this question, as he deals with 1 John. I am fully convinced that 1 John is a letter to believers and is a test of fellowship, not a test of life. When it says in the original greek that they are "not of God" it is referring to their fellowship with God, not whether they are saved or not.

Much of the debate around this issue occurs over two separate but connected portions. The salvation of a believer that confesses to Jesus Christ and how such a confession affects the believer's mortal life. Free Grace theology would view these conditions in that a believer is written into the Book of Life at the moment of a true, heartfelt confession. In this line of thinking, a true confession would be one that was always followed by proper christian behavior and beliefs and if it was not, then the confession was not true or even possibly a lie or mistake. Amongst other protestant theology a person can have a true conversion experience before Christ but then falter. In this case they believe that the original confession was valid, but the person failed to live uprightly afterwards.

The crux of this argument really lies in whether or not a person who falters after conversion can be considered to have true committed themselves in the first place. Your view on this completely changes the view of passages such as this and what they mean.

It is important to note that both theologies require that a person who obtains salvation to live a Christ-like life. Free Grace Theology does not grant permission for a person to continue their sinful life after conversion.


Was satan a worship leader? I've heard it claimed that Satan was the worship leader for God's choir. I cannot find any scripture in the Bible that mentions Satan was in worship in heaven and was closest to God. What is the Biblical basis for this belief?

Based on Satan was a cherubim, then yes.

GotQuestions

  Cherubim/cherubs are angelic beings involved in the worship and praise
  of God.

Who is Satan?

Satan comes from Judaism; "Satan" is from the Hebrew word for "adversary." Satan was existed in the traditions of Judaism as the heavenly prosecutor in what Christians call the Old Testament long before the incarnation of the logos aka the birth of Jesus.

Job 1:6 NIV

  One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and
  Satan also came with them.

Satan's origins are hinted at here:

Ezekiel 28:16 NIV

  Through your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you
  sinned. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I
  expelled you, guardian cherub, from among the fiery stones.

Power the cherubim

Isaiah 37:16 NIV

  Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you
  alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven
  and earth.

Here is a popular depiction of the order from Matthaeus (Matthäus) Merian the elder (1593-1650).

 Relationship to music

Ezekiel 28:13 hints to his relationship to music (see pipes and timbrels)

Ezekiel 28:13 KJV

  Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy
  covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx,
  and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and
  gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in
  thee in the day that thou wast created.


What type of angel was the Morning Star? I've read in various places that Lucifer was 'Chief of the Seraphim,' 'Cherubim that covers,' and 'Archangel of the Crown'.  All accounts say he was God's greatest angelic creation, but what kind: Seraph, Cherub, or Archangel?

I'm a novelist and I am currently doing research. If you don't mind, I would like to know what the general consensus or most common views are across Christianity.

You have hit upon a very popular misconception which many have turned into a fable. The only place in the Bible which names "Lucifer" is in Isaiah 14:12.

  " How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"  (KJV)

This verse is contained within a section that is discussing the king of Babylon.  We can know this by looking at the entire chapter, and we find in vs. 4 that the text actually says "king of Babylon" and also calls him "the oppressor".

Then, in vs. 16 it identifies him as "the man"...

  "They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;"

The entire section is one of prophetic judgment which was pronounced against the king of Babylon for his pride and conceit and claim to be like the most High.

Adam Clarke's commentary is most helpful here, and regarding "the parable" of vs. 4 includes:

  "The Septuagint in this place render the word by θρηνος, a lamentation. They plainly consider the speech here introduced as a piece of poetry, and of that species of poetry which we call the elegiac; either from the subject, it being a poem on the fall and death of the king of Babylon, or from the form of the composition, which is of the longer sort of Hebrew verse, in which the Lamentations of Jeremiah, called by the Septuagint Θρηνοι, are written."

And regarding vs. 12 he has:

  "O Lucifer, son of the morning - The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render הילל heilel as signifying Lucifer, Φωσφωρος, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented! Besides, I doubt much whether our translation be correct. הילל heilel, which we translate Lucifer, comes from ילל yalal, yell, howl, or shriek, and should be translated, "Howl, son of the morning;" and so the Syriac has understood it; and for this meaning Michaelis contends: see his reasons in Parkhurst, under הלל halal ."

And on vs. 13:

  "I will ascend into heaven - I will get the empire of the whole world. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God - above the Israelites, who are here termed the stars of God. So the Targum of Jonathan, and R. D. Kimchi. This chapter speaks not of the ambition and fall of Satan, but of the pride, arrogance, and fall of Nebuchadnezzar."  Source: here

Clarke's entire discussion of this chapter would be helpful to you.

Young's Literal Translation of Isa. 14:12 does not use "Lucifer" at all.

  " How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations." (YLT)

Prophetic language of the Bible has some common metaphors which can be identified through scripture.  "Heaven" or "Heavens" is used for the kingdoms and realms of authority of kings as they have a higher authority over the people of the land.  As God has authority over all men, and as He raises up and brings down the rulers / kings over men, then the king's rule is a "heaven" / authority appointed by God.

"Casting down to earth" was being removed from power.  The earth was a metaphor for the realm of the common people who had no authority above one another.

The "stars of God" were those stars of heaven that are identified through metaphorical statements as the children of Israel / Jacob and his father Abraham.

Gen. 26:4, remembering the oath to Abraham,

  "And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven,..."

Joseph's dream in Gen. 37:9,

  "... and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me."

is defined in verse 10:

  "...What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?"

The eleven stars were Joseph's brothers.  So all of the children of Jacob / Israel were referred to in prophesy / poetical language as "the stars of heaven."

We need a Prophetic Language Class 101 so that these metaphors can be more readily recognized.

I do not know that the particular king spoken of in Isa. c. 14 was Nebuchadnezzar as verses 19 & 20 says he slaughtered his people, and destroyed his land.  As Nebuchadnezzar returned to his sanity (Dan. 4:22-37), and seemed to have repented of his pride, this king in Isa. c. 14 might very well have been Nebuchadnezzar's grandson Belshazzar.  Belshazzar was the last king of ancient Babylon mentioned in Dan. c. 5.

This may not be of help to you in your novel.  Contrary to what most people believe, "Lucifer" is actually a mistranslation, and is not a reference to any fallen angel, nor to Satan.

Unless otherwise noted, all scriptural references are from the KJV.  All bold emphasis is mine.

There were people other than Adam & Eve, they were outside the Garden of Eden.
Who do you think Cain took to bare children with?
As said above the Holy Bible has metaphors.

  Cain entered into the land of Nod meaning to wander took him a wife &
  he knew her

(I said with her).

Skip forward; Lot was asked to give the two angels of the Lord to the men of Sodom & Gamorah.

  Give us these men so we may know them.

It has been my understanding that Lucifer/Satan was over the two archangels Michael & Gabriel, who have a pair of wings; Cherubim angels has six or three pair of wings & eyes all about them forward & behind, they move in straight lines. Seraphim angels has a pair of wings & two are on top of the arm of the covenant.

So tell me where Satan fits in yalls understanding, when Satan himself has no wings whatsoever.


Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual? (Note: I know this may start a firestorm, so I will be careful here.)

I believe that the Bible states that homosexuality is immoral.

I also believe that it does NOT condemn homosexuals to hell (a sin is a sin is a sin). When a person receives Christ in them they are saved and ALL their sins are forgiven.

Some faithful Christians believe that it is not a sin to be homosexual. I would like to know the line of reasoning and/or Scripture passages that they use as their basis.

Also, I would like this to be about homosexuality itself, not about homosexuals or the culture of homosexuality (i.e. stereotypes about homosexuals, etc.).

The question asks "Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?" Because clearly, some do. This is not the place to hold forth on your own beliefs on the matter, this is Stack Exchange, where we answer the question posed.
Potentially Valid Reasons

Many Christians (including the Catholic Church, as recently restated by Pope Francis) believe that "being" homosexual (having homosexual sexual tendencies to some degree - remember bisexuals exist too) is not sinful in and of itself , but that having sex with another same-sex person is a sinful act. So a chaste homosexual is as holy as anyone else who's not sinning. Homosexual (or sexual, in general) acts are simply a sin like any other, from gossip to lying, not in some special "worse" category in any mainstream theology; most of the current firestorm about homosexuality specifically is political and bigotry related, not religion related.

Some Christians believe that the Biblical passages regarding homosexuality are misapplied/badly translated and therefore do not speak against what we would today regard as "otherwise moral" homosexual practice.  For more see What does the bible say about homosexuality? and this Human Rights Campaign article of the same name.

Some Christians believe that the Bible is inerrant in concept but not literally inerrant (see the Wikipedia entry on biblical inerrancy), and that there is a lot of cultural baggage associated with it that has to be sifted out to correctly interpret it. There are a lot of things we do/don't do partially based on this understanding (rejection of slavery, for instance).

Related to the previous point, some Christians believe that just as Jesus obsoleted/fulfilled the Law in favor of the love of God and the Golden Rule, we should look at the "big picture" and not focus on lists of sinful acts. Because, to be honest, the Bible says a lot of things. The OT says to not eat shrimp; that ban is not one most modern Christians recognize. If you love God and your neighbor, then the specifics which were intended to generally point you in that direction are not needed any more. Some Christians would say that the rejection of legalism and embrace of a more direct relationship with God (which is more complex than any set of rules) was the main point Jesus was trying to get across to us during his life and that Paul and other writers then also tried to get across in the other letters and such that became books of the Bible.

The church I'm in has better theologians on staff than I, and they say it's OK. Some denominations officially accept homosexuality in whole or in part.  For a good overview of different Christian teachings on homosexuality, see wikipedia. This includes mainline Christian churches such as various Lutheran, Anglican, and United Churches of Christ denominations.

Mostly Invalid Reasons
There are probably other reasons; those previously listed are the ones I feel have a decent foundation.  The illogical/unfounded reasons one might hear are:

"But they're born that way." It's not known for certain that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexual inclinations, but even if there is one (and I think there probably is), that has no bearing on the morality of the act. Sin is about the choices we make, not our DNA. Whether from original sin, the Fall, or the human condition, we all have tendencies that point us towards sin, and though those tendencies may make it difficult to live moral lives, we are not bound by them, and they are never excuses for sin. This is an odd argument that is applied to no other sin; would anyone say that if they had a genetic disposition against monogamy that they could get a mulligan on adultery? Of course not.

"Oh, who cares what the Bible/church says?"  This of course is a difficult position to hold about anything for a Christian. And if you're of another/no faith, we love you and all, but our worldview is guided by those things you reject, so that opinion is of limited help to someone wrestling with this problem from our worldview. One can argue that the Holy Spirit has guided them to this understanding, which is fine, though in general we are asked to test our perception of the Spirit's guidance by the Scriptures and church to verify it's God speaking and not the product of our own creative minds.

"I know a homosexual and they're not a bad person." This is someone unclear on Christianity's teachings in general, unaware that even good people sin and require repentance. The demonization of homosexuals by the more hateful elements in society actually feed this one; once someone meets a homosexual and sees that they don't have little goat horns and rape babies, they assume they were probably lied to 100% and reject even honest Biblical critique. Understandable, but not logical.

The polarization of society on this topic makes a lot of the usual Scriptural measuring sticks difficult to use. We are encouraged by culture and the media to think of things in terms of "right side/wrong side", so when we try to apply, say, "By their fruits you will know them," we see some homosexuals who clearly favor a licentious and ungodly lifestyle, but others who seem as normal as anyone's parents, just gay. And similarly we see some Christians with balanced views on the topic but plenty who are spouting hate and other clearly unchristian stuff as well. Which "side" is right? That's a false dichotomy that leads to confusion. My one contribution to this discussion is that I think we need to reject what the world is trying to tell us about which faction or football team we're on and, like God does, address it on an individual basis. There's a lot of judging around this topic based on the extreme activities of the exceptionally disturbed on one side or the other.

Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?
This answer presupposes that homosexuality as referring to the sexual orientation per se, not the sexual acts of homosexual persons.
Homosexuality is a gift to be celibate
In the Scriptures, it is recorded that Jesus spoke about natural eunuchs (Matthew 19:12). First century contemporary evidence as well as ante-Nicene evidence shows that these eunuchs by birth have no desire for heterosexual marriage due to what we know today as homosexual orientation, intersex conditions as well as transsexualism.
Philo ,a first century Jew (1st century), knew that a man who is natural eunuch does not have sexual desire to a female ( Philo, On Joseph, XII. 58-60).This shows that the eunuch by birth in Matthew 19:12 means men who does not have sexual desire to a female.
Clement of Alexandria provided a complementary perspectiveabout the born eunuch, by way of quoting the Basilidian Christians with respect to the gospel verse about eunuchs (Stromata 3.1.1):
Some men by birth have a nature to turn away from women, and those who are subject to this natural constitution do well not to marry. These, they say, are the eunuchs by birth.
Strong's Concordance:2135 eunoúxos – properly, "alone in bed" (i.e. without a marriage partner) – literally, a castrated (emasculated) man; a eunuch.[ HELPS Word-studies]
Emasculated (ευνουχίζω) = deprived of masculinity [WordReference English-Greek Dictionary © 2015]
How does that translate to natural eunuchs, to eunuchs born that way?
Because the context of Matthew 19:12 is about heterosexual marriage, it highly implies that this shows that eunuchs born that way have "no sexual desire to the opposite sex." It fits the definition of eunuch as emasculated or deprived of masculinity. This may be what we call today as homosexual orientation.
Coming from the same literary source, the issue of divorce in Matthew 19:1-10 and the discourse on threefold types of Eunuch in Matthew 19:11-12 interpret each other.
In Matthew 19:1-10, Jesus spoke of divorce in the context of heterosexual marriage while in Matthew 19:12, Jesus spoke of eunuchs who cannot undergo heterosexual marriage.
Jesus spoke of being “one spirit” with his church in the context of heterosexual union, speaking of “one flesh” fact (1 Corinthians 6:16-17, v. 16 cited Genesis
2:24).
Same Sex Relationship in the Bible is not sexual but spiritual. It is living in holiness.
David and Jonathan’s relationship is an archetype of the relationship of Jesus and his church.

1 Samuel 18:1b Jonathan became one in spirit with David,
1 Corinthians 6:17  But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one
spirit with Him.
1 Samuel 18:1c  and he loved him as himself.
Ephesians 5:28
He who loves his wife loves himself.

Conclusion
Persons who are attracted to the same sex are not sinning. Their lack of attraction to the opposite sex is moral. The Lord Jesus himself spoke of them as blessed for the gift of celibacy (cf. Matthew 19:12). The relationship of Christ with the church is a parallel to the spiritual same sex relationship between David and Jonathan.


What is the biblical basis for Open Theism? Open theism, in a nutshell, asserts that the future free choices of agents endowed with free will are unknowable, and therefore that God, though omniscient, is not capable of knowing in advance what we will freely choose in any particular future situation because future free choices are unknowable things, as I just said.
What is the biblical basis for Open Theism?

“Open theism” is an attempt to explain the foreknowledge of God in relationship to the free will of man. The argument of open theism is essentially this: human beings are truly free; if God absolutely knew the future, human beings could not truly be free. Therefore, God does not know absolutely everything about the future.
Open theism holds that the future is not knowable. Therefore, God knows everything that can be known, but He does not know the future.  Open theism bases these beliefs on Scripture passages which describe God “changing His mind” or “being surprised” or “seeming to gain knowledge.”
For example, in the book of Job it seems that God didn’t know what the outcome would be and so he changes his mind.  Through his prophet, God had told Nineveh He would destroy the city in forty days (Jonah 3:4). However, Nineveh repented of their sin (verses 5–9). In response to the Assyrians’ repentance, God relented:

When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it. (Jonah 3:10).

Prior to the flood, it seems like the wickedness of humanity caught God out and he felt regret.  His disappointment is used to suggest that God was not aware of how things would turn out:

And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. (Genesis 6:6).

Another instance where it looks like God didn’t know how things would turn out is when Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his only son, Isaac.  God had to test Abraham’s faith:

He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” (Genesis 22:12).

After the Israelites offended God by making an image of a golden calf, God’s anger burned against them to the extent he was going to destroy them.  But God changed his mind:

And the Lord relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people. (Exodus 32:14).

There may be other Bible verses that the proponents of Open Theism use to support their views but I’ve run out of time for today and must sign off.  You have not asked for a Christian rebuttal so I will simply refer you to a section in the Wikipedia article which criticises open theism and presents a few verses that support the immutability of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism#Criticism

As some have implied erroneously, it is not a question of what God is capable of, he is capable of anything and everything; it is what has he reveal concerning what he did do. Open Theology  is simply asserted that God has chosen to operate in real time rather than predestinate everything. There are three views to history. It is all predetermined, Calvinism, Arminianism, Sovereign Grace, Presbyterianism; God's forknowledge is due to him having predestinated all things. Or, history is not predestinated but just exist and God looks at the past, present, and future all at once to see what happened, neo-Arminianism (my designation); God's foreknowledge is due to him seeing what happened as it just happened to happen apart from him.
Then there is Open Theology. History is running in real time under the guidance and control of God keeping all within his plan, leading all to his predetermined conclusion. God's foreknowledge would be of those things that he has predetermined from the foundation or judgments made in the course of history.  his prophecies are just telling us what he is going to bring about as he guides and directs history. Many of which are pronounce as judgments upon men and nations for their wickedness and were not from the foundation or beginning.

Isaiah 55:11 KJV  So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

The prophecies are not predictions or prognostications of what he sees in the future but foretelling what God will bring to pass directing the course of history in real time.
Predestination theologies strongly premise their view on the supposition that if all is not predetermined by God then he would not be sovereign. It would be hard to find a more unreasoned, unbiblical, assertion. God is the creator and sustainer of all things; how can he not be sovereign in whatever he does or chooses to do. Regardless of what he elects to do it would be his sovereign will. He would be just as sovereign if after creation he sat back in an easy chair to watch what happened. To insist on anything else would be to limit God.

Psalms 78:41 KJV Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.

This is a major error in the premise of predestination; God does not like to be described as limited.
Even those advocating predestination admit that their doctrine contradicts many passages of Scripture. Any time a teaching conflicts with the obvious meaning of a passage of Scripture it is a clear sign that some part of it is in error. The Bible does not contradict itself.
The idea that God has to look down upon history to see what happen is the most lackluster God limiting view of these theologies. In Open Theology, having history flow in real-time, raises the Lord to heights the others cannot even imagine. Working in real-time, knowing every thought and intent of men as they have them in the moment, knowing all things as they happen, having them in control, guided, and kept within his plan, God turns everything, all Satan’s devises, his and man’s evil intents, to his own purpose. He judges and passes judgment on all and records all in his books, all in real-time. It is mind-boggling; man cannot fathom the depths of the wisdom and power of the Almighty.
Open Theology, as I see it, is the only one that fits the Scriptures without causing contradictions and confusion and otherwise limiting God.


Is there anyone in heaven? (Catholicism) In Catholicism people pray to the saints, angels and the Virgin Mary. Is then, in Catholicism, heaven filled, besides angels, with the saints and the Virgin Mother?

Yes, there are people in heaven.

Some, who were born before Christ's resurrection are:

Elijah

  2 Kings 2:1-12
  “And it came to pass, when the Lord would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind…And fifty men of the sons of the prophets went, and stood to view afar off: and they two stood by Jordan….And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven….And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more…”

Enoch

  Hebrews 11:5
  “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”

The Blessed Virgin Mary

  CCC 966
  "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians...

And probably many others.

It is a point of mild contention whether canonisation is infallible, but most theologians agree that a papal canonisation is infallible.
Most notably St Thomas Aquinas (Quodlib. IX, a. 16):

  Since the honor we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the saints, we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.

So, I would say Heaven is 'full' (although it is an immaterial place) of saints. Although not as full as Hell.

Here are some helpful resources.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm - Infallibility section
https://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/is-assumption-of-mary-in-bible.html
https://www.catholic.com/qa/are-canonizations-infallible

Is there anyone in heaven? (Catholicism)

Answer

Yes, there is the Holy Family in Heaven, Lord Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph all went to Heaven with their souls glorified and their undefiled bodies resurrected.

  Jesus Ascends to Heaven
  "Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”(Acts1:9=11)

  Ascension of Jesus

  Assumptions of the Blessed Virgin Mary

  Dogmatic definition

  On 1 November 1950, in the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus Pope Pius XII declared the Assumption of Mary as a dogma:

  By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.
  - Assumption of Mary

  Church Approved Apparition of St.Joseph

St. Joseph also had an approved major apparition and this would mean that the homily of St. John XXIIII stating the merit of the resurrection of St. Joseph body was true. St. Joseph body was resurrected meaning when St. Joseph appeared in a visions what were seeing is a glorified body and soul like Mary and Jesus.

  On May 26, 1960 Pope John XXIII in his homily for the feast of the Ascension of Our Lord made a statement that the Assumption to Saint Joseph is worthy of pious belief (). He also stated that he believed the same privilege was accorded to Saint John the Baptist33. This is the first time that a Pope has ever made a public statement on the subject and the fact should offer great reassurance to those who feel it would be contrary to their religious sentiments to imagine Christ refusing Joseph this crowning grace. Pope John's words are a guarantee that such a belief is truly prudent and therefore can no longer be classified as a "pious exaggeration". -
  St. Joseph: A Theological Introduction

Here's the link on the Church approved apparitions of St.Joseph;

  Devotion To St Joseph’s Most Chaste Heart – Approved Apparitions…

  Many know about approved apparitions of our Blessed Mother. But only a handful realize that there were apparitions in Itapiranga, Brazil from 1994-1998 in which St. Joseph appeared along with Mary and Jesus.

  In January 2010, after much study, prayer, reflection, observation and seeing the growth in the faith life of thousands, the local ordinary, Bishop Carillo Gritti declared a Decree of Worship favoring the Itapiranga appearances and in an earlier document called it of “supernatural origin.” - Devotion To St Joseph’s Most Chaste Heart – Approved Apparitions

So, the Catholic Church’s devotion to the Holy Family is now complete. The Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Sorrowful & Immaculate Heart of Mary and also the Devotion to the Chaste Heart of St. Joseph.

All the souls of Saints and Martyrs are also present in Heaven and the Catholic Church commemorates their feast day on November 1.

While all the souls who completed their purification in purgatory and now enjoy the beatific vision in Heaven are commemorated by the Church every year at November 2.

In closing, Catholicism teaches that the Holy Family are there in Heaven together with all the angels, saints, martyrs and purified souls and the Catholic Church called this the Triumphant Church.

Churches Militant, Penitent, and Triumphant


What is the biblical basis for the claim that the Father is a bodiless spirit? I was reading another page on this site and someone used this quote "Father is invisible eternal spirit only" as a reason why God could not have a body as well as a spirit. I can't find it in any version of the bible. Meanwhile, LDS believe that God has a body.

What I want to know is, is there any evidence in any Christian scriptures that God can only be a spirit?

I want to know if there is any evidence that he can't have a body. That he could only be a spirit of some sort. If having a spirit is exclusive to having a physical form.

John 4:24 - God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth. The idea of a spirit by definition implies that there is not a corporeal body; one of the reasons why, when the Israelites created an idol to represent God, they were committing a form of blasphemy. When presented in corporeal form, our worship tends to go to that of an idol, rather than that of God.

In scripture, most of the language used to refer to "the right hand of God", etc. is metaphorical, which leads to the conclusion, that no, God does not have a physical body.

GOD is SPIRIT…HE doesn't 'have it' rather HE is IT.
And SPIRIT has no limits (it can be/look like anything) so when HE is SPIRIT that isn't limited but rather unlimited.

Let me explain...

Paul shows us what SPIRIT form looks like.
Part of the problem is that we can't see or really understand GOD or SPIRIT (same thing) with our visual (seeing) eyes.

Or as scripture says "by leaning on your own understanding" Proverbs 3:5

Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15 vs 40 and following, that everything has a different kind of body.  People do, and animals do and birds and fish.
Okay, that is simple enough.

But SPIRIT although invisible to our earthly eyes, also has its own heavenly body.
Each (earthly body) and (Spiritual /Heavenly) body has a splendour and glory to it. They serve (these bodies) a purpose in the environment GOD puts us in.

JESUS said "the SPIRIT is willing but the flesh (earthly body) is weak."
So, they have a splendour to them, and play a roll but the SPIRIT is superior without limitations (like our bodies have).

JESUS when HE rose, was in HIS glorified (SPIRIT) body.  Not limited to what man (earthly body) is limited to.  HE could appear here or there.  HE looked radiant in fact some didn't recognize HIM (as HIS appearance was somewhat different). But HE still ate and loved and touched and could be touched (Thomas touching his hands and side). Also Mary holding onto HIM not letting go in John 20:17

So, GOD is SPIRIT it has a body but it is invisible to earthly flesh/man.

Here is the scripture of 1 Corinthians 15:39-42 I was discussing:

Not all flesh is the same: people have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendour.

-ezeric


When were the angels created? I was preparing a lesson for Sunday school and came across this passage in the teaching material:

  Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, who set its measurements? Since you know. Or who stretched the line on it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7)

The NIV uses "angels" instead of "sons of God" implying angels were present at the creation of the earth.

So my question is, when were the angels created, exactly?  Was it on day one of the "Creation Week"? ... Was it before the first day of Creation? (How is that possible?) ... Was it "outside of time"?

Please use Scripture to support your answer.  I am also curious whether the passage I quoted relates to the answer (do "sons of God" refer to angels), and if so, how?

Thomas Aquinas cites Psalm 148 in STh Ia 61,1 (Whether the angels have a cause of their existence?), holding that the word "they" in verse 5 refers to all of what is listed earlier in the psalm:

  Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!
      3 Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars!
      4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!
      5 Let them praise the name of the LORD! For he commanded and they were created

He seems to be following Augustine here. Compare City of God Book XI, ch. 9, where Augustine cites Psalm 148 and also cites a similar passage from the Prayer of Azariah Canticle of the Three Young Men in Daniel 3 (this portion of Daniel is considered apocryphal by some).

Augustine seems to take it for granted that Job 38:7 refers to the angels, and actually uses this passage as the starting-point in his argument that the creation of the angels is included in what Genesis calls the creation of light (because the angels already existed when the stars were created). I don't know what text of Job he would have had, but he quotes it thus:

  Quando facta sunt sidera, laudauerunt me uoce magna omnes angeli mei.

Literally, "when the stars were made, all my angels praised me in a loud voice". The entire (relatively brief) chapter is basically one fascinating answer to your question.

Well there are a lot of great replies, some guesses, and some scripture, but if we put them ALL together it's quite clear what happened...at least to me lol.

On day one, we know that the heavens and the earth were created, but they were in no means completed. Gen 1:1-2, but we know from Ex chapters 20/31 regarding the Sabbath practice. The Sabbath was the 7th day because EVERYTHING created was done in 6 days, and God rested on the 7th day, chapter 31 says after God said these things (12 chapters), that He wrote all of these in stone with His own finger. He wrote these 12 chapters for Moses, and He didn't stutter. He wrote it in Moses time and understanding, and it wasn't an age, otherwise we should have 6 ages and 1 Sabbath age right? (Well this happens when Jesus returns after 6,000 years since the Beginning and reigns in Jerusalem for 1,000 years). Also, pay attention to the order of creation, flowers rely on two things for survival, sunlight to be fed, and bees and other pollen carrying creations to spread the pollen and procreate other flowers...however flowers were created BEFORE Sunlight, and BEFORE bees, so it could NOT have been ages, only a literal 6 days, He also said "and there was evening and morning, thee first day"...and "thee second day," etc.

In Col 1:16 Paul CLEARLY defines ALL realms as having been CREATED by God, so again reference back to Exodus chapters 20 and 31 and the angels fall EXACTLY into the literal and complete 6 days of creation week.

Also we know 2 things from Ez 28:13-15, first we know it says "...on the DAY you were created." (referring to Lucifer), but we also discover he was "in the Garden of Eden BEFORE iniquity was found in him" so Lucifer and the third of the angels hadn't yet fallen before 6 days was up. As for Job 38:4-7, it says "...ALL the sons of God." which would include Lucifer and a third that later fell, right?

The thing most people miss though, is what was the PURPOSE of creation in the first place? Wasn't it for God to fellowship with man? Well why would He even NEED the angels before they were to help serve mankind and God's relationship? It would be unnecessary, right? It also says we (the saints) will JUDGE the angels in the coming age, I Cor 6:3, they are subject to us, and until the fall, man was above the angels because we could fellowship directly with God (I believe this is the most likely reason of what caused Lucifer to have iniquity, much like Cain had towards Able's fellowship and approval of God).  We ALWAYS need to ask important questions about motive, don't we? So what would have made Lucifer jealous BEFORE mankind???

As for angels being "timeless" as is said in a few posts above, explain me this, it says, "they cry, 'Holy, Holy, Holy'" as they keep discovering new aspects/facets/faces of God's greatness, in Rev 4:8 it says, "Day and night they never stop saying, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come.'" why then would we think they are outside of time, and they keep learning new aspects of God they didn't know before, or am I missing what it says???

It also says in Gen 6:1-8 it says, "...the sons of God (fallen angels) saw that the daughters of man were attractive and they took as their wives...""....when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man (to reproduce half demon/half man) and they bore children to them...{they} were the mighty men...{And} the men of renown." I believe these spawn of demon were the creatures told about in mythology told down from Noah's sons to their sons and sons of sons, but I could be wrong but I don't think so. After the flood God did SEVERAL things. God limited age, He brought about 4 seasons instead of 2 (summer and winter were now here), He destroyed the ice canopy talked about in Gen 1:6, which protected us all from radiation, and allowed dinosaurs to grow to great sizes, allowed us to run forever, and heal almost immediately (scientists are always trying to figure out why fossilized amber has 50% MORE oxygen, the Bible tells them the answers, but II Peter says they are "willingly ignorant"...dumb on purpose), and who knows perhaps man could be 12 feet tall?! In Turkey, they don't want you to know they've uncovered skeletons that are enormously tall, some 12 feet in length, that would make that ark twice as long, twice as high, twice as tall, we use a 6 ft man's cubit of 1 1/2 ft to determine how big we think the ark is, a 12 ft Noah, has a 3 ft cubit?! Also, there is No mention of eating meat till after the flood, I believe it's because that was all there was to eat, grass or meat. PLUS the fear and dread of man on animals came after the flood. Even rain didn't exist before the flood,  which is why the rainbow was God's new promise, before that time no rain, equals no rainbow!  When the fountains of the deep broke forth, you can bet it was super heated water like in a radiator that turned to steam, steam expands 10,000 to 1, and therefore rises immediately! When the steam ran into our protective ice canopy it started to melt, I believe it took 40 days and 40 nights to completely melt, just a guess ;-)

So the last thing is that we KNOW that Jesus said, "and I saw Satan fall from Heaven to earth like a lightning bolt." How could Satan have fallen to earth if earth was not yet around?

How could God say in Gen 1:31 "it is VERY good." if there was a guy in all red, horns and a pitchfork up to no good already here with a third of the Heavenly hosts?

The adjectives "cunning" or "subtle" describe the serpent tempting Eve, these words are used to describe SPEECH and therefore it's being used to say the snake (as an animal, literally) was a better speaker than the rest of the beasts, in Gen 3:1, nobody even wants to discuss that the animals and man spoke and communicated with each other BEFORE the fall of man.

Keep in mind that God creates everything in 5 1/2 days, then He creates Adam, then Adam watches Him create Eden to the East of him, then God places Adam in the garden and creates one of every beast, cattle and bird to both name and find a help meet, none was found, so God puts Adam to sleep, and creates Eve from a rib of Adam, when Adam awakes he sees her and names her woman...this is EXACTLY what Ch 2 in Gen says, read it.

So Adam witnessed God create the Garden of Eden, and one of each kind of land and air animal out of the dust (birds in ch 1 are created out of air, not in ch 2), and knows but did not witness God create Eve, however, and unfortunately, Eve never saw anything created, she just heard Adam recount his story.  It was Adam whom God said not to eat the fruit, and we can conclude by Satan's question, "Hath God truly said?" in ch 3, that Adam had told Eve what God had said. Satan obviously knew Adam had told her 2nd hand, so he used that to create doubt?! See???

I could keep going and going, but I will stop with one last observation, remember that Lucifer was created to "cover" God's full glory to the Heavenly hosts, and Lucifer lead the Angels in corporate worship, this created a unique god-like complex I think, they were facing him, but his back was to God, however when God walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the day, no Lucifer required, so you can simply do the math! I believe this is the catalyst that caused him to be jealous because of man not having to be filtered through him to worship God!!!

I hope I have helped at least one person here, God Bless ;-)


What are the general categories of benefits of being part of a denomination? It seems most Protestant churches fall under one of two umbrellas: denominational or independent. What is the general rationale for a Protestant church to be part of a denomination rather than being independent? What general types of benefits are there in not being independent?

Pragmatic concerns

A denomination allows churches to cooperate and share the cost of many things which are needed to support the Gospel ministry of those churches, including: insurance, banking, and other financial services; HR and other personnel services; legal services; child safety; etc.

Doctrinal centering

With all the various theological debates among Christians, it helps to be able to identify yourself with like-minded Christians, and to be able to easily communicate the broad shape of what your church teaches to visitors and potential new members. No denomination specifies exactly everything their members believe, but there is usually enough that hearing that a church belongs to a denomination will give you a reliable idea of the core of their beliefs. For people who are needing to find a new church, it helps to be able to quickly get a good idea of what each church will be like, rather than spending months slowly uncovering each church's distinctives. Denominations don't reveal everything, but they help you form a shortlist to consider more.

But these denominational identities are not just taken from surveys of what their members believe. In a way they're aspirational. The churches of a denomination know that not all their members agree with everything, but together they believe they can put forward the best case for how they read the scriptures, and will in time strengthen the faith of their members as they grow in their understanding of the core of their doctrine. So I've labeled this section "Doctrinal centering" as I think this is more active than a mere doctrine classification and identification would be. For example, not everyone in a Baptist church will necessarily believe in Believer's Baptism, and that's okay. But the churches that join together as a Baptist denomination don't do so merely because the majority of their members are personally Baptists, but because they believe that their doctrines work to encourage aspects of faith outside of the immediate corollaries of baptism, and that drawing attention to Baptism as they do gives strength to the growth of the Gospel.

In the friendly debates within Christianity, denominations help give structure to our disagreements. As most denominations originated over major theological disagreements, when we want to revisit those debates the denominations remain relevant groupings. They help us work together to put forward the best possible arguments in the debates between camps (such as between Reformed and Arminian for example), as well as giving space for gifted theologians to debate the subtleties of each camp internally, as they consider questions which can be highly important to those within the denomination but may not even make sense to those outside.

I've seen this in regards to theological colleges. Some independent colleges value giving a balanced overview of what all Christians believe but end up not personally challenging their students as much as denominational or confessional colleges. From the perspective of formal academics this is a great strategy, but from the perspective of faith our colleges should be places which encourage the iron sharpening iron of deepening personal faith. I went to a college where I wasn't part of their denomination, but I believe my faith greatly benefited from being challenged by the more subtle arguments that wouldn't have been presented at an independent college even when I wasn't persuaded by all of them.

Mission strategy

Denominations help us plan, coordinate, and carry out our God given mission. At both the local and global level, they help us plan how to take the Gospel into every community, so that none are neglected, and so that we don't step on each other's toes unnecessarily. This is not to say that great Gospel work doesn't get carried out by non-denominational parachurch groups, and many of the largest mission agencies aren't denominational affiliated. But they help churches cooperate to run theological colleges and seminaries, to strategically plant new churches, and to share resources so that ministry work can happen in difficult unpleasant places, and not just beach towns and ski villages. Mission strategising can take place outside of denominational structures, but it's often easiest to work together when you know you're on the same page theologically.

Denominations can function as an umbrella, which affects the way money flows through the churches. When a church takes it's weekly offering, it is sent to the governing body, and then is redistributed. This is the case in Wesleyanism, verified by self. The primary benefit here is that a church that is struggling to carry on due to financial struggles can be revived. It also means that it follows a more accepted doctrine, which is important to most people in picking a church.


What is the Protestant argument against the doctrine of Purgatory? The Roman Catholic Church teaches the idea of Purgatory, which is defined by Wikipedia as follows:

  Purgatory is, according to Catholic teaching, the state or place of
  purification or temporary punishment by which those who die in a state
  of grace are believed to be made ready for the Beatific Vision in
  Heaven. Only one who dies in a state of grace can be in Purgatory, and
  therefore no one who is in Purgatory will remain there forever or go
  to Hell.  Wikipedia

However, Protestant theology typically rejects the idea of Purgatory entirely.

What, then, is the Protestant argument against the doctrine of Purgatory?

Protestants would consistently reject certain things connected to the doctrine of Purgatory. Regarding justification by faith alone: the fate of the dead should not be affected by their own suffering (Christ's atonement being sufficient) nor by the prayers and other works of the living. Moreover, Protestants would not believe in a role for the Church here - in granting indulgences and so forth. All of this comes from the "usual" Biblical basis for those Protestant doctrines, without specifically addressing Purgatory.

If Purgatory is seen only as a place where post-mortem sanctification happens, things are a bit murkier. That is, if we imagine it as merely a necessary cleansing step before dead people can enter heaven, then is there any Biblical argument against it? (Other than the lack of an explicit argument in favour, of course, as the Articles of Religion say: "a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture.")

Protestant thinkers have tended to argue that sanctification is completed or consummated by the moment of death. John Wesley, for example, taught that the perfection we seek in life is completed at "the instant of death, the moment before the soul leaves the body" (Brief thoughts on Christian perfection, 1767). If this is so, then there may be a "very brief transition from death to paradise" (The Last Things, Donald Bloesch, 2004) but not a prolonged period of transformation.

This is backed up by such Biblical references as 1 Corinthians 15, where the raising of the dead in their already-perfected bodies is essentially instantaneous, and Jesus' words to the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). N T Wright points to Romans 6:6 as indicating that the death of the body entails the death of sin (For all the saints? Remembering the Christian departed, 2004), and, more importantly, to Romans 8:38-39 for the vivid statement that nothing, even death, "can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord". Surely, he says, there is no separation for the saved after death.

However, these Biblical texts are not absolutely decisive about timescale. Perhaps time is not even a sensible concept here, as in more recent Catholic thought where specific periods of time are not mentioned (Indulgentiarum Doctrina, 1967). But the objections to Purgatory as a place of punishment, and to indulgences remitting punishment, remain even if some kind of post-mortem transformative sanctification process is accepted.

To combat the errors of the Protestants, the 6th session of the Council of Trent, which treated the question of justification, condemned the following proposition:

  CANON XXX.—If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened [to him]: let him be anathema.

Thus, Protestants think there is no punishment remaining after one commits sin, but Catholics believe that even after a sin is forgiven, punishment remains. So, someone could die with all his sins forgiven and thus merit heaven but still have amends to make for the consequences of those sins first.


What is the basis for saying Christians and Muslims worship the same God? Muslims claim that they worship the same god as Christians do.  (Similarly, Christians claim to worship the same God as the Jews do.)

Are there any Christian denominations that accept this claim?  If so, what is the biblical basis for this claim?

The correct answer to this question is clearly … <err, not so fast>

You see that's just the problem. Christianity doesn't have a clear unequivocal answer to this question that is broadly agreed on across traditions. Islam has now been around for about 1400 years promoting its ideas about the nature of God—who they usually claim is the same God as worshiped by Jews and Christians in times past now rightly understood with his proper name Allah. In all those 1400 years Christianity has not posited a definitive answer to this question.

There are no shortages of answers given. Some say "yes". Others chant "no". You'll see various groups take a stand on an answer—even rant and rave about it. Mind you all these groups profess to be Christian but end up arguing both sides.

The argument for "yes" generally boils down to some variant of "if there really is only one God as monotheistic religions claim, whether known by a wrong name or through corrupted scriptures it must be the same being". This position and its many variations is generally held by more liberal traditions, the far extreme end of which would be something like, "Muslims are our brothers in faith, call God whatever you like as long as you profess there is only one".
The argument for "no" generally boils down to some variant of "given a contradictory set of attributes ascribed to God, they must logically be describing different beings". This position and its many variations is historically more mainstream and is generally held by more conservative traditions, the far extreme of which would be very fundamentalist groups that would go so far as to say things like, "Muslims are the enemy, the god they worship is actually the devil in disguise".

Does this mean there is not a definitive answer?

No, actually it doesn't. There is a definitive answer but you have to ask the right question.

Interestingly, most major Christian traditions do not try to pronounce certain judgment on this issue. The notable exception are Catholics, who issued a statement in 1965 in the affirmative1. While identifying Islam as a non-Christian religion they go out of their way with wording to claim common ground in the person of God. Meanwhile most Protestant traditions and even many major Christian cults steer away from any official doctrine stating "The being worshiped by Muslims is/isn't the same being we worship."

However, the history of cross-tradition disagreement here is not to say that their position on the real issue isn't quite clear. The reason there isn't unanimity on whether to answer this question with "yes" or "no" is that it's the wrong question to be asking. Frankly the answer isn't meaningful. What all major Christian traditions do give us in spades are descriptions of who the true God is and how he is to be worshiped.

The core theological problem lurking here is not whether the beliefs and practices of the God of the Muslims is a different being altogether or just a bunch of misunderstandings about the same being. The question that matters to Christianity is: How has the true God made himself known and how is he to be worshiped? To this question, Christianity has definitive answers. This question, if asked and answered early, provides solid ground for not even needing to ask—much less answer—the question posited above. With the answers to the right question in hand, we can, in fact, outright condemn all other beliefs and systems of worship without even resolving the origins or natures of those other systems.

Now for a clear answer to the right question.

Regardless of the nature of any "other" religion—whether they have the wrong God or whether they have the right God but worship him wrongly—the end result is the same. Blasphemy.

For further study I highly recommend carefully reading a blog post from my friend Kevin Bywater entitled Do Muslims, Mormons, and Christians Worship the Same God? In it he makes the observation that "Worshiping God wrongly is tantamount to worshiping the wrong god(s)."2 Christianity doesn't concern itself so much with what beings other religions do or don't worship, but it does concern itself with correctly identifying the true God's character and with following his commands. Even inside of Christianity, presumably with the true God in mind, one can be guilty of blasphemy by misidentifying his character.

The most salient point to make in reference to any other religion is, I think, well summarized by this quote from the same article:

  Blasphemy is found in ascribing to the true God what is false and in falsely denying of God what is true.

1. Thanks to Peter Turner for pointing this out. I was previously unaware of this statement. (And am personally outraged by it as it is not an accurate representation of either Islam or historic Christianity, but my personal view isn't what this question is about.)

2. Ironically this is a concept that my Muslim friends usually don't usually have a problem accepting.

The understanding of what God is is unique to each individual. God is to be experienced, and cannot be described, or truly known. The answer to your question of whether or not we understand our God to be the same can be found from our own personal experience of God, compared with that of a Jew, and a Moslem.
The question addresses the worship of God - and obviously the various monotheistic Religions have different methods of worship, which we abide by. Even though we worship differently, it does not imply that our God is in any way different  though some Religions do teach this.

In the ACC
the Doctrine of the Apostolic Churches was formulated before the 6th. cent. from the decisions of the Bishops during the first seven Ecumenical Councils, and this before the Muslim Religion was established, so there is no reference in the Church to any Moslem understanding of God.
The ACC does teach that the Jewish and Christian God is the same and God is written as the tetragrammaton YHVH (or YHWH) in the Hebrew writings. In Judaism when YHVH is read, the word spoken is Adonai. In Christianity, the word spoken is Yahwey, or Jehovah. None of these words occur in the NT. So,
many Christians are unclear as to whom The Father of Jesus is in relationship to God YHVH - what is, in fact,  the theological definition of The Father?
And, today, how does this relate to the Moslem idea of God? This, I think is where the confusion lies.

During the first three centuries, the Bishops were unsure of how The Father and the God of Judaism were related. For perhaps a hundred years after the crucifixion, most Christians taught that The Father was not the same as the God of Judaism. Some people believe this today. But the catholic Church (the universal Church of East and West,) eventually stated that the Christian God was the same as the God of Judaism. They were forced into this in order to include Christians into Israel the children of God to whom the covenants were given. At that time (when the statement was made,) the writings of Paul were influential in the Church, in which Paul explicitly says that Christians are grafted into the vine of Judaism, so that the promise of God to Israel also applies to Christians. And warns that if Israel does not gain the promise, then neither do the Christians, and all will be lost.
If, then, Paul is correct, we Christians share the same God as Judaism. And since Moslems also claim to be people of the book (Torah) and share the same God, we can be reasonably sure that we all share the same God.


In what sense they don't have life in them? John 6:53-57 John 6:53-57

  Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh
  of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

In what sense people outside of the Catholic Church have no life in them? What is the Catholic interpretation of this verse?

I believe the counterpoint in the next verse explains it:

  Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.  (John 6:54-55)

They lack eternal life, which John 17:3 defines:

  Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

St Augustine, a Doctor of the Church, teaches in his 26th Tractate on John

  He spoke these words, not certainly to corpses, but to living men. Whereupon, lest they, understanding it to mean this life, should strive about this thing also, He going on added, Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life. Wherefore, he that eats not this bread, nor drinks this blood, has not this life; for men can have temporal life without that, but they can noways have eternal life.

In these last days, Jesus is sharing the "bread" of life and the "cup" with His disciples/believers/Church. This BREAD/flesh is the WORD which gives us wisdom and understanding given through the Holy Spirit to those who have already received Him; the understanding of scripture especially what was veiled/hidden is being revealed in these last days. Please note: it is being revealed bit by bit as we obey God;s law and live a righteous life with the help of The Holy Spirit. This is something no one can fake because it is direct from God. This bread can also be described as the "Hidden Manna" from heaven. Those receiving it are being purified by the divine fire - the baptism of the Holy Spirit. For example, in my case, I go through something and receive understanding afterwards. This I can explain is like when Jesus was at the mount of transfiguration, He told His disciples not to tell anyone what they had seen until He (Jesus) was resurrected. In the same manna, the spiritual "staff" that God has appointed to prepare us; the two anointed witnesses who is the Holy Spirit (Elijah) and the Word of God (Jesus - read John 1) are giving understanding afterwards. So the flesh is the WORD which according to JOHN 1 is made flesh for the edification of the CHURCH. John says the word was made flesh and dwelt among us, but darkness did not recognize it. Being in darkness means being spiritually dead. It means that your spirit has not been awakened. When our spirit is awakened, it goes through a period of transformation, and then it is joined with the Spirit of God and becomes alive. This is the "marriage" of the lamb - the joining together of our spirit and the Spirit of God. The WORD is from God's mouth. "Man cannot live by bread/scripture alone but by every word that comes from God's mouth". This WORD is uttered by God via His angel. "God himself will come down with a loud shout and the TRUMPET of the archangel". Trumpets are messages. For example, in my case, the word that was uttered to me one early morning was "TURN ON THE LIGHT". It was uttered by God in the presence of His council (spiritual)- and we all know that God creates by His word. eg, in creation of the universe, He said "let there be light". God is creating the new regenerated man in these end times. End of this age. Deuteronomy 4:12 - "Then the LORD spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice". The fire mentioned here is the refining fire, or the baptism of the Holy Spirit. When I heard those words, I had gone to bed crying because I was going through this baptism, but at the time I did not understand what was happening to me.
2) The CUP is the suffering we are sharing with Jesus - which includes the baptism of fire by the Holy Spirit. Why is the Holy Spirit one of the 2 witnesses? Because He is playing the role of prophet and only He can call for the fire from heaven - the consuming divine fire that refines. So, true disciples of Jesus are sharing in this cup of suffering. The "cup" that will be poured to the world without mixture is the suffering (wrath of God) that is coming to the whole world to those not sealed after the grace period is over. It is without mixture/undiluted because the "cup" we are sharing now with Jesus is mixed/diluted with God's mercy/grace. I hope I answered your question. God bless you.


Where is the Trinity in the Bible? Possible Duplicate:
  Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity

I've heard of the Trinity multiple times and under the basis of it.

He is one God, but with three personalities. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

But nowhere do I ever see the word Trinity mentioned in the Bible. If I'm going to believe in a God, wouldn't his name or "nickname" at least be listed once (If that makes any sense)? God has many names listed throughout the Bible, but never is Trinity listed. If the Trinity is the basis of who my God and what he is, wouldn't that term of that basis be defined? It's not like the Bible doesn't describe Him. God is omnipotent, all-powerful, etc. God has been given many names and titles, and has been defined and described of who and what he is, but I've never seen the Trinity defined.

I also never even see anyone get baptized in the names of the father, son, and holy spirit. Paul baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and was never "corrected" by God.

Doing a little Google search, I see that the Trinity was introduced years ago by the Roman Catholic church to settle a dispute between the Christians and paganists (sp?). (Long story short).

I would have added more tags, but wasn't allowed to add new tags.

Jesus himself said to baptize that way:

  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
  name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,      (Matthew
  28:19 ESV)

The word "trinity" is not a name or nickname, merely an adjective that describes the fact that there are three distinct persons (not personalities) that together are God.

First of all, I wonder why some Christians are concerned with the true name of the Father and our elder brother Jesus. If the Hebrew names of God and master Jesus are true, why is it a very controversial topic? This verse is very clear:
God

(13) And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? (14) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Exodus 3:13–14 King James Version)

Jesus

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. (Matthew 1:21 KJV)
31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. (Luke 1:31 KJV)

Why Is Master Jesus Only a Mere Man?
Do you know why? Please read these verses first.
Matthew 8:20 (KJV)
20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
Matthew 11:19 (KJV)
19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.
Matthew 12:32 (KJV)
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
Matthew 16:13 (KJV)
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Matthew 17:22 (KJV)
22 And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men:
John 10:23 (KJV)
23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
Then read this important verse.
Numbers 23:19 (KJV)
19 God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
The man Jesus learned the things he suffered.
Hebrews 5:8 (KJV)
8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;


If Adam and Eve were exempt from death, why did they need to eat? Genesis 2:17 gives the implication that Adam and Eve were exempt from death prior to eating from the tree of knowledge, and indeed many literalists take this view.

  but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.

If Adam and Eve could not die, what would be the purpose of them eating, according to those that believe the premise?

Presumably there is purpose to food other than just maintaining life.

Revelation describes the New Jerusalem, which is generally equated with Heaven, the place where the saved will spend eternity. And according to Revelation 22:2, in this city, "In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month." So there is food in Heaven, even though everyone there is presumably living as an immortal soul.

Likewise at the Last Supper, Jesus said, Matthew 26:29, "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” As he died the next day, he must have been talking about something that would happen after his resurrection, when he presumably did not need food and drink to live. Also after his resurrection, he ate food on at least one occasion: Luke 24:40-43, "When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence." (John 21 also describes Jesus having breakfast with the disciples after his resurrection, though I find that on reading it carefully, it doesn't explicitly say that HE ate anything.)

At a minimum, people enjoy eating food. I certainly do. If some pill was invented that would provide all our caloric and nutritional needs more cheaply and conveniently, I think it very likely that most people would still eat food frequently just for the pleasure of the taste and the feeling of fullness.

Beyond that I think we can only speculate. Just because you won't die without something doesn't mean that it doesn't give you other benefits.

From a Biblical point of view, it is a faulty premise to say that Adam and Eve were exempt from death. Most Christians believe that the soul is immortal because this is what they have been taught. However the Bible sustains that a soul can die. God says:

  The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the
  iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of
  the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the
  wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

  Ezekiel 18:20

In fact, it was the devil's first lie.

  And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.

  Genesis 3:4

On the other hand is the quotation from God.

  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.

  Genesis 2:17

There are many profitable reasons why this belief came about. However the Bible sustains that a person that is dead simply sleeps until the Second Coming.

  For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing, And they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten.

  Ecclesiastes 9:5

Jesus describes death as sleep.

  These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend
  Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.

  Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well.

  Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken
  of taking of rest in sleep.

  Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

  John 11:11-14

Paul describes death like sleep and clearly shows that people who die, wait until resurrection at the Second Coming.

  But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who
  have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. For if
  we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with
  Him those who sleep in Jesus.

  For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive
  and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those
  who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a
  shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God.
  And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and
  remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the
  Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore
  comfort one another with these words.

  1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

Biblically, Adam and Eve COULD die. So Biblically, if you believe they could not die, God would have been lying to them and the devil would be telling the truth(See Genesis 3:4 and Genesis 2:17 above). Jesus Himself tells us that the devil is the father of lies.

  You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you
  want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand
  in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie,
  he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of
  it.

  John 8:44

Adam and Eve COULD die like their Creator told them and this is why they were taken out of Eden.

  Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to
  know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of
  the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”

  Genesis 3:22

In order to live forever, Adam and Eve must eat from the tree of life, according to the Scripture above. This is what the tree of life is for.


Do the scriptures indicate the physical appearance of the Israelites? I have seen ancient depictions of the ancient Israelites and there features were different than I expected.

Linguistic experts have stated that Hebrew is one of the early Asiatic-African languages.

The Hamitic people were a dark skinned people, Noah's wife was Hamitic, moses' wife was Hamitic, the ancient Israelites mixed with Hamitic Egyptians for centuries before exodus.

In Acts 21:37-38 the soldier mistakenly took Paul for a Hamitic Egyptian. How could the soldier mistake Paul for an Egyptian unless the ancient Israelites were of a darker skin tone?

Is there any references in Scripture to the physical identity of the ancient Israelites?

We will literally never know without a time machine. However, given the region and it's history, as well as the people living there today it's reasonable to assert that they were a mix of all types of skin tones ranging from the typical Israeli today to the darker toned Northern African people today.

The closest example to a "typical" Hamitic person is this picture of a Bashirin Hamite from Augustus Henry Keane's Man, Past and Present (1899). So if you went with Keane's findings, that'd be your closest answer. However, as I mentioned above, it's not unreasonable to assume they were the typical Israeli/Northern African tone.

There is a strong tradition that some of the descendants of Noah
  through his son Ham were black. Ham had a son named Cush, which means
  "black" in Hebrew. Cush is the most common term designating color in
  reference to persons, people or lands used in the Bible. It’s used 58
  times in the King James Version. The Greek and Latin word is Ethiopia.
  In classical literature, Greek and Roman authors describe Ethiopians
  as black. Archaeology has found these people to be black. In the book
  of Jeremiah, the question is asked, "Can the Ethiopian change his
  skin?"

  Genesis 10:6-20 describes the descendants of Ham as being located in
  North Africa, Central Africa and in parts of southern Asia. Psalm
  105:23 mentions the "land of Ham" in Egypt, and Psalm 78:51 connects
  the "tents of Ham" with Egypt.

I'm going to write this answer from top of my head. It's not unreasonable to believe this theory. If we take in consideration scripture that describes Ancient of Days (name Daniel used for God) having hair like wool. Or in revelations similar description: "The hair of His head was white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes were like a blazing fire." referring to Yeshua... key clue is wooly head which is of course typical "African" (for lack of better term) feature. If we look at ancient archaeology we can conclude that ancient B.C. civilisations like Sumer, Babylon, Akkadian, Hattites, 'Israel', and others had darker complexion... even ancient Chinese etc.

So how did the current Jews some to Israel and no trace of darker complexion?

Well answer is diaspora, exile and numerous ethnic cleansing and wars on the Jews etc...

This is even in scriptures all over the place.

This is why now we have various African Jewish tribes claiming to be "original jews"...

  Genetic tests carried out by British scientists have revealed that
  many of the Lemba tribesmen in southern Africa have Jewish origins,
  according to a report by the BBC. The Lemba, a tribe of 70,000 to
  80,000 members who live in central Zimbabwe and northern South Africa,
  have customs which are similar to Jewish ones: Lemba refrain from
  eating pork or other foods forbidden by the Torah, or forbidden
  combinations of permitted foods, wear yarmulke-like skull caps,
  conduct ritual animal slaughter, have a holy day once a week, and even
  put a Star of David on their gravestones. According to their oral
  tradition, the Lemba are descended from seven Jewish men who left
  Israel 2,500 years ago and married African women, according to the
  BBC. The Lemba prefer their children to marry other Lembas, and
  marriage to non-Lembas is being discouraged.

  Their sacred prayer language is a mixture of Hebrew and Arabic. Their
  religious artifact is a replica of the Biblical Ark of the Covenant
  known as the ‘ngoma lungundu’, meaning "the drum that thunders.” The
  object went on display recently at a museum in Harare, Zimbabwe, and
  has instilled pride in many of the Lemba. They say the ark was built
  almost 700 years ago from the remains of the original ark, which
  according to the Bible was used to store the Ten Commandments. For
  decades, the ancient vessel was thought to be lost until it was
  discovered in a storeroom in Harare recently.

  Members of the priestly clan of the Lemba, the Buba – which is one of
  12 clans – have a genetic element also found among the Jewish priestly
  line, known as Kohanim. "This was amazing," Professor Tudor Parfitt
  from the University of London told the BBC. "It looks as if the Jewish
  priesthood continued in the West by people called Cohen, and in same
  way it was continued by the priestly clan of the Lemba.”

It's not that crazy if you study the history IMO...

There is a lot of correlation between Hebrew customs and African customs of West Africa for example, you have Books like "Hebrewisms of West Africa: From Nile to Niger with the Jews" that describe this.

  In 1930 the Dial Press of New York published a book by Joseph J.
  Williams entitled Hebrewisms of West Africa: From Nile to Niger with
  the Jews. Williams was a Catholic friar who devoted several years in
  Jamaica studying the Ashanti. In his observations, he noted remarkable
  evidence of Hebraic culture amongst them.

  He indicates quite interestingly that, “The very name Ashanti has
  itself a strong Hebraic flavor. For, while some would derive the word
  from ‘Shan’ the name of a plant, and ‘dti,’ to eat, claiming that the
  title must have been acquired in the time of great famine, when they
  found sustenance in the plan in question, this is mere quesswork.
  Actually, the termination of “ti” or “tie” in the names of West
  African Tribes has usually the general meaning of ‘the race of,’ ‘the
  men of,’ ‘the children of.’ This would make Ashanti, ‘the people of
  Ashan.’ There was as a fact, a town of the name Ashan in the domain of
  Juda. Priests were in residence there according to the First Book of
  Chronicles, where the word is spelt ASHAN though in the corresponding
  passage of Joshua it is spelt AIN, which the Jewish Encyclopedia
  suggests ‘may be a corruption of Ashan.’” (pp. 60-61)
  Note: See 1 Chronicles 6:59 and Joshua 21:16 for the Scriptural references.

  Williams also notes a “truly remarkable similarity of the Ashanti Yame
  and the Hebrew Yahweh, first as regards the etymological derivation of
  the words themselves; and then in the tribal concept of Divine
  Attributes and the created channels of Divine influence; and finally
  in the divided service.” (p.320) The Ashanti also believed in a
  Redeemer whose name was Ta Kora, the “son of the supreme God.” (p.320)
  Not all Jews are anti-Christ but to the contrary, the true Jews
  acknowledge Moshiach as being identified as Yeshua.

  Hebrewisms were not just limited to the Ashanti in Jamaica but were
  plentiful in the land from which they came: Africa. Williams notes the
  following irrefutable evidence of Hebrewisms in Africa:
  • The Floggings, the traditional number of strokes: forty less one
  • The common practice of New Moon festivals • The oath drink • The
  expectation of a Moshiach • Jewish distinction between diaboli and
  demonia • The duodecimal division of tribes into families • Exogamy •
  Blood sacrifices with the sprinkling of blood upon the altar and
  door-posts • Mourning Customs • Obsessions • Legal defilement • Jewish
  octave • Law on adultery • Sabbath rest • Levirate marriages •
  Circumcision • Priestly garb

Today there are numerous "Hebrew Isrealite" movements that claim that original jews were indeed darker complexion.

It's still very controversial because of classical icon of Jesus in Roman Catholic church.

But also let's take in consideration Eastern orthodox or Ethiopian orthodox churches their iconography shows darker "Jesus/Yeshua" and old Ethiopian story of how they became Jewish/Christian goes that son of Solomon and Queen of Sheba went south and started Ethiopian empire.

Ethiopia has one of the oldest churches and even claims to have ark of the covenant maybe we should look into their traditions and knowledge to learn what they have to say and not only look at Roman Catholic perspective and imagery.

  The Solomonic dynasty, also known as the House of Solomon, is the
  former ruling Imperial House of the Ethiopian Empire. The dynasty's
  members claim patrilineal descent from the biblical King Solomon and
  the Queen of Sheba. Tradition asserts that the Queen gave birth to
  Menelik I after her biblically described visit to Solomon in
  Jerusalem.1 In 1270, the Zagwe dynasty of Ethiopia was overthrown by
  Yekuno Amlak, who claimed descent from Solomon and initiated the
  Solomonic era of Ethiopia. The dynasty would last until 1974, ended by
  a coup d'état and deposition of the emperor Haile Selassie.

This first image shows Jews being taken to Babylonian captivity

  The blackness of the ancient Hebrews has been vehemently denied by
  most historians and lay people. Most Jews do not want to acknowledge
  this truth because of what it means regarding the present day Jewish
  population. The images in this document prove that the ancient Hebrews
  were black. Notice the kinky short afros in some pictures, the dread
  locks of the Hebrews, the brown complexion of
  skin, and the African facial features of the Hebrews in the pictures.

Siege of Lachish:

Detail of the Assyrian conquest of the Jewish fortified town of Lachish (battle 701 BC). Part of a relief from the palace of Sennacherib at Niniveh


Was the Assumption of Mary a belief in the early church? Was the Assumption of Mary a belief in the early church? If so, where's the evidence?

The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven at the end of her earthly life is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church. On November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII, exercising papal infallibility, declared in Munificentissimus Deus that it is a dogma of the Church "that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." As a dogma, the Assumption is a required belief of all Catholics; anyone who publicly dissents from the dogma, Pope Pius declared, "has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

The question is asked because the Bible is silent about this matter.

Pope Pius XII's 1 Nov. 1950 Apostolic Constitution defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mother, Munificentissimus Deus, says "that, since ancient times, there have been both in the East and in the West solemn liturgical offices commemorating this privilege." He then mentions the Roman liturgy, Gallican sacramentary, and the Byzantine liturgy of the Dormition and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mother.

Pope Pius XII also mentions or quotes St. Anthony of Padua, St. Damascene, St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Peter Canisius, and Suarez, all of whom supported the Assumption (or at least did not deny it).

St. John Damascene (675-749), Encomium in Dormitionem Dei Genetricis Semperque Virginis Mariae, Hom. II, n. 14; cf. also ibid, n. 3.:

  It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God.

St. Germanus of Constantinople (8th century), In Sanctae Dei Genetricis Dormitionem, Sermo I.:

  You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life.

St. Anthony of Padua (b. 1195), explaining "I will glorify the place of my feet" (Is 61:13.), said (Sermones Dominicales et in Solemnitatibus, In Assumptione S. Mariae Virginis Sermo.):

  you have here a clear statement that the Blessed Virgin has been assumed in her body, where was the place of the Lord's feet. Hence it is that the holy Psalmist writes: "Arise, O Lord, into your resting place: you and the ark which you have sanctified."

And that she

  has risen up, since on this day the Virgin Mother has been taken up to her heavenly dwelling.

There are more quotes like these in Munificentissimus Deus.

See also this quote and Shoemaker's Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption.

The belief that Mary was “taken up” i.e. the assumption, after her earthly life was held originally by gnostics Christians and later by Roman Catholics:

Epiphanius in A.D. 377 said that “no one knows if Mary died or not”(source)

Gregory of Tours in A.D. 590 taught the Assumption of Mary not from the Bible nor from the tradition of the church but from an apocryphal gospel Transitus Beatae Mariae of Psedo-Melito of Sardis.(source)

Pope Gelasius in A.D. 494-496 rejected the Transitus Beatae Mariae as heretical and should be avoided by the church.(source)

Summary:

In the 4th century, the church is unaware of the Assumption of Mary as Epiphanus shows and the first one to teach the Assumption of Mary was Gregory of Tours in the 6th Century who used the Transitus writing of the assumption of Mary which was already  rejected as heretical in the 5th century by Pope Gelasius.


Is salvation in the name "Jesus", or in the person Jesus Are we saved because we believed in "Jesus" (the name) or Jesus (the person)?
Because other languages have other names for Jesus. If they call upon that name for salvation would they be saved?

I'm interested in an overview of what different denominations have to say this issue, as well as what the Bible has to say on the matter.

Is Salvation only through Christ?
The biblical answer is YES!

"Jesus answered, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (John14:6)

Is salvation exclusive to Christianity?
The biblical answer is No!.,why? There are a lot of people who lives before Jesus Christ came, and even after Jesus Christ founded His Church, after His ascension to Heaven, the Church had not yet proclaim the gospel of Christ to all people in the four corners of this world.
A good reading of Vatican II Council Documents will enlighten as about the Catholic Church teachings on Inter-religious dialogue;

DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
NOSTRA AETATE
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

What is the fate of the people who never heard the gospel of Christ thru no fault of their own?
The Catholic Church teaches that this people can be save by the mysterious wisdom of God.

Is There Really "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?"
The Catholic Church teaches infallibly, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” or, “outside the Church there is no salvation.” But as with all dogmas of the Faith, this has to be qualified and understood properly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out the truth of the matter succinctly in paragraphs 846-848, but I would recommend backing up to CCC 830 for a context that will help in understanding these three essential points concerning this teaching:

There is no salvation apart from Christ and his One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Again, this is an infallible teaching and not up for debate among Catholics.

Those who are “invincibly” ignorant concerning the truth of #1 above will not be culpable for this lack of knowledge before God.

Those in the category of #2 have the real possibility of salvation even if they never come to an explicit knowledge of Christ and/or his Church.

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation” (quoting, Lumen Gentium, 16).
“Although in ways known to himself God can lead those, who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men” (quoting Ad Gentes, 7, another document from Vatican II).

Is salvation only through the name and person of Jesus?
In the recent famous statement of Pope Francis in the signing of Fraternal Agreement with the Muslims, the statement goes like this;

Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;

Justice based on mercy is the path to follow in order to achieve a dignified life to which every human being has a right;

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS
TO THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
(3-5 FEBRUARY 2019)
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/travels/2019/outside/documents/papa-francesco_20190204_documento-fratellanza-umana.html

As you can see Pope Francis did not condemn other religions, but working on fraternal agreement that people of different faith can live together in peace, harmony and love.
God greatest commandment is to love one another and to love even our enemies. It means loving our neighbor as we love ourselves ,and our love is rooted in the love that we received from God.
Again, is salvation only through Christ? YES!
Proof, all the people in the Old Testament, pre-messianic time of Jesus Christ who had died in friendship with God are in the Abraham bosom's, these righteous people cannot enter Heaven without Christ opening the gate of the Kingdom of God for them.

Bosom of Abraham ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosom_of_Abraham

Is salvation exclusive to Christianity? The answer is NO!
Is salvation only through the name and person of Jesus? The answer is Yes!.

Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name above all names, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.For it is God who works in you to will and to act on behalf of His good purpose… (Philippians2:10-14)

To directly answer the question you asked:

Yes, salvation is only through Jesus Christ.

The Bible says so pretty directly.

However the actual meaning and implications of this are not simple (and not universally agreed on). For example a majority of Christians do NOT take this to mean "If you are not a Christian you are going to hell", which you might think is the straightforward interpretation. A widely accepted interpretation is that Jesus' death and resurrection is the means by which people are saved, and this is true even for people who have never heard of Jesus, or had the Christian message told them. For example, people who lived before Jesus can be, according to the Bible, still saved through him, even though they never heard of him in their lifetimes.

There are plenty of passages in the Bible that contradicts the idea that anyone who is not a Christian goes to hell.