What is the "Leviathan" mentioned in Job? I'm trying to brush up on my apologetics skills, but this is one question I haven't found a clear answer to.

I've seen a few explanations for this — a dinosaur, crocodile, whale etc., but none of them seem to answer the question of why the creature is described as breathing fire (this is described in quite a lot of detail):

  Job 41
  18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light;
         its eyes are like the rays of dawn.
  19 Flames stream from its mouth;
         sparks of fire shoot out.
  20 Smoke pours from its nostrils
         as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.
  21 Its breath sets coals ablaze,
         and flames dart from its mouth.

No known animals could have breathed fire. I considered that it could be a legendary animal known by the people of the time, but then why would God himself talk about it as a real animal? Another possibility could be that the book of Job is more of a parable to teach specific lessons than a historically accurate story.

I'd like to see if anyone else has come across other explanations for this question.

You might like to take a look at the related questions What does the Bible have to say about dinosaurs? and Are Dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible? for some dinosaur-specific ideas; and Do Catholics consider Job to be historical? for, well, exactly what the question title says.

Job is a bit of a tricky book in many ways. It is certainly held up as a preeminent example of "literary" writing in the Bible, regardless of the historicity of the events described. The content and style are sophisticated, in particular the central unresolved ambiguity of the text.1 This sort of thing makes us think that the work might be comparatively "late" (plus certain textual hints), whereas the book seems to be set in an "early" period (no mention of the Law, generally patriarchal flavour in the way Job's life is described). This leads us to a couple of tentative conclusions:

Since the book has many identifiable literary qualities, we  could also expect to see others: perhaps this passage is using hyperbole, symbolism, intertextual reference, etc. This is a short leap in the case of Job, whereas with some other Biblical texts, it's hard to say "oh yes, the author is clearly being figurative" without feeling a bit silly.
Since the book is framed as taking place either very long ago (using the tropes of patriarchal narratives) or not in any particular time (like a fable), we could compare it to other contemporary stories for help in understanding how the text works.
The main moral concept of the text is clear: as Affable Geek wrote in an earlier answer on the monsters of Job, "Basically, they are big and strong, but God is bigger." This is solid, and we can use it as a basis for understanding the detail of how the author of Job presents his message.

Monsters, like Leviathan and Behemoth, are fairly common in the epic literature of the ancient near east. The Enuma Elish, so often related to the Genesis creation accounts, recounts various beasts created by Tiamat:

  She spawned monster-serpents,
  Sharp of tooth, and merciless of fang;
  With poison, instead of blood, she filled their bodies.
  Fierce monster-vipers she clothed with terror,
  With splendor she decked them, she made them of lofty stature.
  Whoever beheld them, terror overcame him,
  Their bodies reared up and none could withstand their attack. 2

Another famous example is Humbaba/Huwawa from Gilgamesh,

  ...the warrior whose face is a lion's grimace, and whose breast is like a raging flood. No one dare approach his brow, which devours the reedbeds. On his tongue, like that of a man-eating lion, the blood never dries. You do not have enough strength for the warrior, such is his might. 3

We even get a mention of fire, though not fire-breathing precisely, in the Lugal-e of Ninurta:

  The Asag leapt up at the head of the battle. For a club it uprooted the sky, took it in its hand; like a snake it slid its head along the ground. It was a mad dog attacking to kill the helpless, dripping with sweat on its flanks. Like a wall collapsing, the Asag fell on Ninurta, the son of Enlil. Like an accursed storm, it howled in a raucous voice; like a gigantic snake, it roared at the Land. It dried up the waters of the mountains, dragged away the tamarisks, tore the flesh of the Earth and covered her with painful wounds. It set fire to the reedbeds, bathed the sky in blood, turned it inside out; it dispersed the people there. At that moment, on that day, the fields became black scum, across the whole extent of the horizon, reddish like purple dye - truly it was so! 4

All of these monsters are definitely big and scary - the terror they impart is the main point. This does match the theme of the Job passage. The reason behind mentioning Leviathan at all is to show the distance between God and Job: Leviathan is incredibly dangerous and incomprehensible to a human, but God is greater still. Other parts of God's speech to Job have a related purpose, such as to show that God knows things which are mysterious to Job, or that God's sovereignty extends over cosmic territory. So here, Leviathan - reminiscent of the famous monsters of other writings - is reframed not as a threat to the divine order, but as a subordinate part of it.

So we see a literary explanation for the supernatural characteristics of the beast. The author is appropriating a familiar image, the fearsome cosmic monster, in order to serve his purpose of teaching the unequaled sovereignty of God. Every phrase that makes Leviathan bigger and scarier also makes God bigger still. Conventional animals do not breath fire: but Leviathan is not a conventional animal. As Matthew Henry said,

  Probably these hyperbolical expressions are used concerning the leviathan to intimate the terror of the wrath of God, for that is it which all this is designed to convince us of. Fire out of his mouth devours, Ps. xviii. 7, 8. The breath of the Almighty, like a stream of brimstone, kindles Tophet, and will for ever keep it burning, Isa. xxx. 33. The wicked one shall be consumed with the breath of his mouth, 2 Thess. ii. 8. 5

These descriptions also help the reader to perceive the connection with monsters like the Asag, who are also described with a kind of "cosmic hyperbole".

It is true that other aspects of Leviathan and Behemoth are reminiscent of real living creatures (hippo? whale? serpent?) or even of dinosaurs. There may be some attempt by the author to unify the cosmic-mythological Leviathan with various known natural creatures, which would more squarely place it in the company of ostriches and donkeys (Job 39) rather than being God-like. But it goes against the spirit of the text to treat Job 41 as a zoologist's description of some existing species. The whole point is that Leviathan isn't a normal sort of creature, but an incomprehensible epic threat.

Does it matter that Leviathan is not a real creature, like an ostrich? I don't think it does. If Job were being written for the first time today, its author could perfectly well say that God eats Death Stars for breakfast and uses Barad-Dur as a toothpick. These are perfectly comprehensible cultural references that are not in the least bit harmed by being fictional.6 We get the point.

Further, there is no need to come up with any outlandish speculation about dinosaur-dragons roaming Mesopotamia. (And so Asag, Humbaba, and company would all be based on folk legends about these real creatures.) That is a theory which explains some things - the answer to "why is Leviathan said to breathe fire?" is "because he actually did". But the theory creates far more problems than it solves. In addition to the obvious archaeological problems, it is bad theology. It is far better to try to read Job as the author probably intended - as a literary, philosophical, and intertextual story about God and humanity - than to project anachronistic notions onto the book.

1. Not to be overly snotty about it, but this is one of the things that people often cite as  distinguishing "proper literary stuff" from "formulaic tripe". I'm thinking of people like Roland Barthes, who exalted paradox, enigma, unresolved tension, and in general any writing that requires the reader to do work (The Pleasure of the Text, S/Z, etc.).
2. Enuma Elish, tablet 2, translated by L. W. King (London, 1902).
3. Gilgameš and Ḫuwawa (Version B), 90-95. From the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, t.1.8.1.5.1.
4. Ninurta's exploits, 168-186. ETCSL, t.1.6.2.
5. Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 3 (1708-1710), commentary on Job 41.
6. Nitpicking about the relative sizes of Barad-Dur and the Death Star, the nutritional value of the latter, or the nature of divine dentition, misses the point. Indeed, it does not make material sense, but neither is it intended to be read in that way.

To understand Leviathan, the reader of Job must understand the spiritual conflict that is going on between God and Satan. I have taken some time and license setting the stage. For the suspicious among you, you may wish to jump to the last summary paragraph. For the less hurried, hardy among you, bring your best thinking about the poetic conflict. You must embellish it. You must critique it. Lest it is some other man's experience that you simply heard about.

In the book of Job, God brings together the two greatest, created moral beings side by side before an angelic and human jury. The same language that he uses to describe Job in chapters one and two, God uses to describe Satan in Ezekiel 28: 'perfect', 'blameless'; none greater. God goes out of his way to emphasize that Job maintains his integrity, but he doesn't have a thing to say about Satan's character. However 'iniquity' is translated 19 times in the book of Job, and it is the character of Satan in Ez 28:15. The reader needs to connect the dots. In the book of Job, God is indicting Satan for his iniquity and Satan is attacking the character of God and the integrity of man. It is very important to note that Job did not create his integrity, innocence, he 'maintained' it. There's only one way for man to be blameless, perfect, that's in the sin offering. And Satan is attacking God's provision for sin...

Satan portrays God as unfaithful: 4:18 '…God places no trust in his servants…' Why should his servants place trust in Him? (This is a lie. Job was steward of God's Blessings and Lucifer had authority.) God is the creator of sin, '…he charges his angels with error…', and suffering, 4:19-20 '...[men] are crushed more readily than a moth! Between dawn and dusk they are broken to pieces…'. How can God hold man accountable for sin? God is careless, '…unnoticed, they perish forever…they die without wisdom’, and unavailable and unsympathetic and unloving, 5:1 'Call if you will, but who will answer you? To which of the holy ones will you turn?' God is aloof, 22:14 'Thick clouds veil him, so he does not see us as he goes about in the vaulted heavens.' God is a selfish prodigal, hedonist monster, unloving, self seeking, malicious, capricious, a vindictive bully, 8:4 'When your children sinned against him, he gave them over to the penalty of their sin…' Man ingratiates himself to God by self righteousness. God is obligated to man yet unable to be subdued. Man can’t collect the debt that God owes; the blessings that he deserves from a god that indulges himself at man’s expense. God is stingy. God is not righteous. He has no integrity. This god is worthy of curses.

Job sarcastically refers to himself as a monster, 7:12 'Am I the sea, or the monster of the deep, that you put me under guard?', implying that he does not use his sovereign freewill against God and God should not use His power against Job. (Compare 41:10 ff:) God sarcastically compares Himself to an uncontrollable monster: using His power and sovereignty in either a self serving or man serving way. In their integrity man and God submit to one and other. Note the idea of absolute power and sovereignty involved in each 'monster'. The idea of integrity involved in the use of freewill, in service to God’s righteousness, or iniquity in service to self righteousness.

God refers to Himself as El: the powerful One (38:41; 40:9,19). By implication He contrasts Himself (41:10) with the most powerful monster, ‘behemoth’ (40:15 ff): he sarcastically lavishes himself (v20), he hides himself (v21). The mightiest of the mighty, Leviathan! (41:1) “…king over all that are proud…” (Satan, 41:34). The mighty can not be subdued (v1-3) by man but He offers Himself with gentile words (v3) by His own agreement (covenant) as a slave to serve man (v4) even as man makes merchandise of God (v4-6). Implicit in the argument is that God gives lavishly to serve man; from His sovereignty He blesses man...

In Creation, the Perfect makes room for the imperfect sinner... Man is less than God. Even as the glory of God...exceeds our understanding, so the horror of sin and iniquity is greater than mans imaginations. The Mighty One that avails Himself to us with gentle words has provided the Way for Creation to 'know' God... It's as if Creation is suspended between Heaven and hell and integrity and iniquity are contending for the allegiance of man. The battlefield is the mind, and the prize is the heart of man.

Why would the Holy One of heaven, the One that is worthy of every blessing, avail himself to every insult...? The answer is: you. God desires your heart. He intended for you before the first stroke of Creation and He attends to you... When Job finally began to grasp the magnitude of God's Love and Wisdom and Power... he repented in dust and ashes... In the depth of suffering the integrity of man can still bless...God... And Satan is without excuse. The sin offering butresses Job in chapters one and forty-two and it underlies Job's merit with God. Jehovah-jirah, The LORD will provide... He is worthy of every blessing...! The reader of Job must join him, in the midst of great Blessings and from the depths of deep despair, Yahweh is worthy of every reverence... The LORD gives and the LORD takes away, blessed be the name of the LORD.

We have no other record of Leviathan in myth or science. Conjecture will not serve the poetic purpose. Hebrew poetry does not involve rhyme or meter. It involves juxtaposing, comparing and contrasting opposing ideas. In this poetic sense Job is brilliant: the divine and the devilish; integrity and iniquity; the plural Elohim and the plural Leviathan; the Hebrew plural as multiplicity or magnitude; much, much more... So I suggest that we allow the beast to serve it's poetic, metaphoric purpose. In Ezekiel 28:18 God is speaking to Satan: "...I made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and I reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. All the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more.” Job 41 is actually a working out of this judgement. Satan's authority in Job's suffering is brought to an end. Job is restored in Blessings and blessings...


Were the Jews expecting God Incarnate? Christians believe Jesus is Emmanuel, God with us. (Isaiah 7:14)

Furthermore Christians believe that the only Son of God is Our Lord Jesus Christ. (Apostles Creed)

And since Christ = Messiah and Lord = Elohim, Christians believe the Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity with two natures, fully man and fully divine.

Did the Jews, who are still in expectation of a Messiah, expect that when He came that the Messiah would also be God, or were they expecting someone less magnificent?

Yes they were, in fact the problem was not that they were expecting something less than God in the flesh, the problem was they were not expecting a lowly appearance. They expected his return in glory and judgment when he establishes peace forever -- what we now understand will happen at his second coming. It was his humanity, not his divinity, that tripped them up.

No.

I hang out asking questions to Jews in their Jewish stack over flow. Neo Judaism is very opposed to the idea of God incarnate or take any human form. To them, God is spirit.

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/10349/if-god-never-incarnate-how-come-he-sat-in-front-of-abrahams-tent-and-appeared

https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/9187/does-g-d-get-incarnated

To Jews, God the almighty is not human and CANNOT take human form, which is strange given that he's almighty and all. I guess He can do anything that doesn't include taking human form.

I got tons of downvotes there for even asking who Jacob wrestled with, or who did Abraham see under the oak of Mamre.

So the answer is no. Jews do not expect God to ever be incarnate and if you don't believe me, go ahead ask the same question in Jewish stack overflow.

In fact, why ask questions on what Jews believe here? It's not fair to them I think. Why not ask them themselves on their forum?

NB: They seems to be pretty pissed that I even asked that in their forum. I do not know whether I am wrong because I don't know hebrew or because they too, like us, have their own religious filter they don't want to change. My impression is, I don't know hebrew, I won't understand that anyway, and well Torah is not for me anyway because I am not jewish so don't worry about it. Maybe I just don't get along with people well.


Matthew 5:13-16 is for the Israelites ONLY? We are having a discussion about how we, as a follower of Christ, are the ‘salt of earth and light of the world’ (Matthew 5:13-16).

Someone insists that the verses are for the Israelite people/disciples only and it is not applicable for us Gentiles/believers now.

We tried to explain and give them verses like 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Galatians 3:28, etc.
They also insists that certain parts of the Scripture are for the Israelites people only, this even includes the Great Commission and other teachings of Jesus.

Can you help me explain better to them the opposite position: that Matthew 5:13-16 is not for the Israelites only.

You are encountering a theology called Dispensationalism.

Plenty of sites will give you an overview, and many better than Wikipedia, but a key part of their theology is that God dealt with Man in distinct ways in distinct times. Most hold that the change from the 'Old Covenant' to the 'New Covenant' occurred only after the death of Jesus (usually at Acts 2) and that until then all teaching - including the teaching of Jesus - was under the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was superceded by the New, and its teaching made irrelevant.This irrelevant teaching includes the teaching of Jesus.

I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs. Dispensationalism is widespread in the United States, and results in significant numbers of people who call themselves Christian yet believe that the teachings of their God in the person of Jesus are irrelevant to them, and indeed were irrelevant only a few years (or even hours) after they were taught. It's easy to work out the implications of that in the current climate.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave finding Biblical arguments against this position for yourself, but you might start asking them for the Biblical support of their claims. If you are part of a church that does not hold dispensationalist beliefs, talk to your church leaders about this theology and the church's attitude to it.

You are both correct in certain parts.  The context has to be considered.  The sermon on the mount from Matt. c.5 all through c. 7 was given to a multitude of people, including His disciples before His crucifixion.  So, the law and the prophets were still in effect, and was referenced in Matt. 5:17-18 in two ways.

"17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."  (KJV)

The "law and the prophets" inclusive of the entire old Mosaic covenant was referred to in the OT prophesies as "heaven and earth".  (See my post Heaven and Earth Have Passed Away at my blog ShreddingTheVeil.)
The passing away of the old covenant, that which was waxing old and ready to vanish away in Heb. 8:13, the "heaven and earth" agreement between God and Israel was a future event in that generation.  It would pass away, be replaced with the spiritually complete new covenant, new heaven and earth agreement after the complete fulfillment of His coming with His kingdom. (All of the posts at my site present the scriptural evidences of His coming in glory and judgment with His kingdom in A.D. 70.)
There was a time of transition between the cross and the coming of the kingdom, and it mirrored the exodus from Egypt and the 40 year period to the entry to the promised land of Canaan.
Christ was telling the people a great message, clarifying much that the Pharisees and Sadduccees had twisted and misconstrued from the law.  All of that sermon was said to people under the conditions of the old law, but looking forward to the new covenant that would apply to all people when His kingdom was fully established.
The trick is that many people do not recognize that His kingdom was established at the destruction of the old sacrificial temple in A.D. 70.
Christ received His kingdom legally at His ascension to the Father in 30-31 A.D. (Rev. 5:6), because He had to go that far country (heaven) to receive His inheritance (John 19:12).  But the fullness, or completeness of the establishment of His spiritual kingdom had to wait that 40 years until the gospel of Christ had been preached throughout the known world (the province of Judea and Roman empire) before that spiritual promised land was brought into full existence.  (See my post The Promised Land: Between the Cross and the Kingdom again at ShreddingTheVeil.)
So everything that Christ was teaching the Jews, the lost sheep of the house of Israel, was to re-orient their thinking in line with God's original intent in His word, and would equally apply to all of His children under the new covenant of the gospel of Christ.
Since it applied to the Jews at that time, it is also our example today.  All who have been baptized into Christ are counted for the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:26-29), and as such all who are in Christ are now Israel.  The definition of Israel changed from the fleshly circumcised to the those of the spiritual circumcision (Rom. 2:29).  (See my post God's Definitions - Part I: The House of Israel at my site above.)
Therefore, all of Christ's teachings apply to all of spiritual Israel.  They actually apply to all mankind as all mankind are going to be held to His word even if they do not believe Him.


In whose name was Jesus baptized? I know that people are baptized now in either:

The name of Jesus (Acts 2:38)
The name of Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19)

But according to scripture, in whose name was Jesus baptized? Thus indirectly, in whose name did John the Baptist baptize?

Scripture doesn't say.

However, what does it mean to "baptize in someone's name"? It means baptizing, having the authority of that person to do so. If we baptize in the name of Jesus, it is as though Jesus had baptized.

John the baptist was son of a priest, so it is safe to assume that he had priestly authority from God to baptize. Thus he baptized in God's name (no matter what he said when he did it).

Before answering the question of "in whose name was Jesus baptized," we must first understand what it means to baptize in the name of someone, or even what it means to do anything in the name of anyone else.

Doing something in the name of someone (or something) else means to act with the authority of the person whose name is invoked (the OED gives "by the authority of" as one of the meanings of "in the name of").  "I baptize you in the name of the Jesus" means "I have authority from the Jesus and I represent Him in baptizing you.  I declare it valid with His authority which means He declares it valid."

The same goes for doing things in the name of God, or as more mundane examples, doing things in the name of your employer, your country, the law, your father, etc.  "Stop in the name of the law!"—the law has authority, not the person citing the law.

Many Christian religions practice doing things in the name of Jesus, such as praying in the name of Jesus, performing ordinances in the name of Jesus, and even working miracles in the name of Jesus.  This essentially means they are acting under the authority of Jesus—they do things that He authorizes, and therefore act in His name.

When Jesus was baptized, his baptism was authorized and commissioned by Himself.  John the Baptist acted under the direction and authority of Jesus in person (as Jesus commanded John to baptize Him; see Matthew 3:13–15).  Therefore the baptism of Jesus was performed under the authority of, or in the name of, Jesus.

Some may say Jesus was acting under the direction of the Father at this time, which is correct.  John then can accurately be said to have baptized Jesus in the name of (or under the authority of) the Father as well.


Are Orthodox Christians all the same faith? I've noticed some churches in my area that are titled things like:
"Greek" Orthodox
"Russian" Orthodox
"Serbian" Orthodox
"Antiochian" Orthodox etc...

Are these all the same type of Christian Church?

This kinda falls into general reference territory.  There are two major groups of "Orthodox" churches.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is one large group of churches that share a common theology. It separated from the Catholic Church (or vice versa, depending on your POV) in 1054 AD.

  Thus many Orthodox Churches adopt a national title (e.g. Albanian
  Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox,
  Russian Orthodox, Macedonian Orthodox, Montenegrin Orthodox, Romanian
  Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox etc.) and this title
  serves to distinguish which language, which bishops, and which of the
  typica is followed by that particular congregation. In the Middle
  East, Orthodox Christians have also been often referred as Roman (or
  Rum) Orthodox, because of their historical connection with the Eastern
  Roman (Byzantine) Empire.

They are the "same type" of church in that they share a theology, but they tend to be ethnically tied - if you go into a Greek Orthodox Church in Texas, you'll still need to speak you some Greek. They don't have a pope, but the group of all their bishops are considered to be the ruling body of the church.

The Oriental Orthodox Church split off earlier (451 AD) over the Council of Chalcedon.

  Despite the potentially confusing nomenclature (Oriental meaning
  Eastern), Oriental Orthodox churches are distinct from those that are
  collectively referred to as the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Oriental
  Orthodox communion comprises six groups: Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian
  Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox
  Syrian Church (India) and Armenian Apostolic churches.2 These six
  churches, while being in communion with one another, are
  hierarchically independent.

This is a pretty small group however; most Orthodox churches you'll see in the West tend to be of the Eastern Orthodox breed.

These churches are all the same faith in the sense that they recognize each other are Christian, but the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox branches are not in communion with each other (or anyone else, I believe) and consider other branches to be schismatic and more-or-less heretical.

There are a lot of churches with similar names and variants. Of course they are mostly synonyms, a trivial canvas of local denomination names and sub-denominations indicates you have to be quite specific. A commenter asked about "the Coptics;" there is a Coptic Catholic Church and a Coptic Orthodox Church, for example.

The first answer was awsome. Very clear and informative. One exception is that Rome & some of the OE Churches have returned to limited communion. Catholics are allowed under special circumstances to also commune at EO Churches and they at ours. Never really happens as the EO won't allow.
However the Catholic Churches who are offshoots of the OE Churches are often much closer to their couterparts abd you do see joint Liturgies.
I also know many OE here in America commune at EO Churches whick I think is not allowed.


Is it fair to say that the Anglican Church was originally intended to be a 'middle ground' between Catholics and Protestants? I was having a discussion with a friend and he made the claim:

  The Anglican Church was originally intended to be a 'middle ground' between Catholics and Protestants.

This seemed half-true to me, but I thought the origins were more based in the interests of Henry the VIII and having an English National church distinct from the Continental Church. My understanding is that the Constitutional documents are meant to be 'inclusive' but I wouldn't have described them as a 'middle ground'.

My question is: Is it fair to say that the Anglican Church was originally intended to be a 'middle ground' between Catholics and Protestants?

There were many people involved in the formation of the Anglican church, and they had different purposes for it.

The most prominent initial issue was of course Henry VIII's desire to get a divorce. But equally significant was the authority of Rome in England: Henry passed laws prohibiting legal appeals to Rome, and removing the church's authority to make laws. He had a theological mind and even wrote a book on the sacraments, but it's hard to establish exactly what he thought a lot of the time. Still it seems that many of the stages of the reform had his input. He wanted English language Bibles to be used in churches and I think he was personally opposed to shrines to saints, relics and pilgrimages.

Thomas Cranmer was the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time of the Church of England's break with Rome and for about twenty years afterwards, and was thoroughly committed to protestant theology. While he was limited somewhat during Henry's reign, during Edward's reign he was able to enact most of the reforms he desired. He wrote the Book of Common Prayer and an early draft of what would become the 39 Articles, which together define what Anglicanism is.

After Edward died his sister Mary became queen. She was strongly Catholic, and reversed the laws which had made England independent of the Catholic Church. She also executed many protestant leaders, including Cranmer.

Mary's sister Elizabeth became queen next, and was protestant. But she was a pragmatist, and wanted a strategy to avoid the violence of her sister's reign. With her reign the via media (middle road) became that strategy. The official doctrine of the church, as shown in the 39 Articles, was thoroughly protestant, but concessions and space was made for the more Catholic people of England. Anglicanism has always kept bishops and rejected the ecclesiological reforms of many continental churches (or Scottish Presbyterianism). The liturgical desires of the puritans were rejected, with churches given the freedom to decide what style to use (what is now called high and low, or somewhere in between).

So the answer to this question depends on what you call the 'original Anglican church'. Mary's reign was only five years, so there were only five years of Catholic dominance between the two protestant eras. There were only 11 years between Henry and Elizabeth. Elizabeth's Anglicanism was not what Henry and Cranmer created, but I think it's close enough so say that the via media has been part of Anglicanism since the beginning. What is five years compared to the four and a half centuries since then?

The split between the Anglican sect and Catholicism was mutual:

Henry VIII made it clear he was forming a new sect separate from the Catholic Church when he declared himself, against the papacy, "Supreme Head of the Church of England."

Pope Paul III excommunicated Henry VIII.

Hence, there is no middle ground.

(source)


Is 'sola gratia' as a soteriology traceable in the period leading to the Protestant Reformation? Protestants often consider the Roman Catholic church to have significantly distorted the gospel. Were there Christians prior to the Reformation who had essentially the same understanding of the doctrines of salvation (particularly sola gratia) as the later Reformers did? I'm interested in people between Augustine (approx. 400 AD) and Luther (1517 AD).

Another theologian who anticipated some of the important thoughts of the Reformation, including sola gratia, was Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), who was frequently cited by both Luther and Calvin.

Yes. They were called heretics. Augustine probably would not have even needed to write about it if it weren't for Pelagius. You can read all about early views like the ransom theory, Abelard's idealistic view on moral influence, Anselm's notion of satisfaction of God's honor in the 11th century and not to mention earlier views seen as heretical like Origen's recapitulation theory which said that demons and the Satan will be be fully justified in the end at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity I could type it all here but to copy would be plagiarising and why do all work for you. You want to learn, read. Best book on early views of salvation is Gustaf Aulen Christus Victor which is cheap on amazon but also can be in your library if your country has them http://www.amazon.com/Christus-Victor-Historical-Study-Atonement/dp/1592443303


Catholicism - Consequences of not believing in all dogmas What are the consequences according to the Catholic Church for members of the Catholic Church in case of not believing in all dogmas?

For example

Rejecting the notion of the bodily ascension or assumption into heaven (alive) as introduced in 1950
Not believing in Transubstantiation during Eucharist but understanding it as a symbolic act like the Lutherans do

All other teachings and dogmas would be believed.

This is an interesting question. Many people are not particularly clear on what dogmas really are and why they are important. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

The dogmas of the faith
88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

Therefore, dogmas are those propositions which Christians are obliged (that is, they must) to believe irrevocably. They are truths which, if not believed, bring down the whole edifice of the Faith and make it empty.
The Code of Canon Law further states:

Can. 749 §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held.
§2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively.
§3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

That is to say, the Supreme Pontiff may "proclaim by definitive act" or an Ecumenical Council may "declare (...) that a doctrine (...) is to be held definitely," or else all bishops may "agree" that a doctrine "is to be held definitely"; and such a "definite" doctrine must, by force of Canon 750, be believed by all, since they are required to safeguard and expound on the Deposit of the Faith — otherwise they would not be declared definitely.
Finally, Canon 751 defines heresy as a baptised Christian refusing to believe those definite teachings, which are to be believe "with divine and Catholic faith." In particular, refusing to believe in the Real Presence (as the Reformed do, but not the Lutherans, who believe in Consubstantiation rather than Transubstantiation) means denying the Sacramental and saving power of Holy Communion, which is a very grave matter to Catholics as a whole.
As for the Assumption of Our Lady (the one defined in 1950 by the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus), it was the result of the consensus of all Bishops, even though it was defined by the Holy Father. Here is the relevant passage:

And, since we were dealing with a matter of such great moment and of such importance, we considered it opportune to ask all our venerable brethren in the episcopate directly and authoritatively that each of them should make known to us his mind in a formal statement. Hence, on May 1, 1946, we gave them our letter "Deiparae Virginis Mariae," a letter in which these words are contained: "Do you, venerable brethren, in your outstanding wisdom and prudence, judge that the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith? Do you, with your clergy and people, desire it?"

But those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule the Church of God"(4) gave an almost unanimous affirmative response to both these questions. This "outstanding agreement of the Catholic prelates and the faithful,"(5) affirming that the bodily Assumption of God's Mother into heaven can be defined as a dogma of faith, since it shows us the concordant teaching of the Church's ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant faith of the Christian people which the same doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way, manifests this privilege as a truth revealed by God and contained in that divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught infallibly.(6)

That is to say, the definition of the Dogma of the Assumption showcases the agreement of the Church, which by Christ's promise, has been protected from error through the action of the Holy Spirit; and denying this dogma implies necessarily that the Church can and does err and is thus not protected from error, falsifying the Christ's words in Mt 16:18, and putting in check all other doctrines which the Church holds, from the Trinity to the Resurrection to the remission of sins and salvation.

88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.
Catechism of the Catholic Church

This marian dogma [assumption of Mary] was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950 on his Encyclical Munificentissimus Deus.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/mary/general-information/the-four-marian-dogmas/

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
-ibid-

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."
-ibid-

So, the Catholic Church defines dogma as something that obliges the Christian people to believe.  The assumption of Mary is a dogma.  If one doesn't believe it, and dies in that state of mortal sin, they teach that the Christian goes to hell.


Why should I choose one particular congregation or denomination? Assuming that one believes in an almighty Lord, why should one choose a particular Christian congregation or denomination?

For example, why should one choose to serve God by helping the poor through the Salvation Army instead of doing so through the Opus Dei, or through Baptists, or through the Catholics?

As long as one lives in a moral fashion, why would God care that our money, faith, efforts and time go through a particular human congregation or another?

It seems to me that there is no particular reason for preferring one denomination over another, and most of them are quite similar, so maybe it's also OK to choose any church to be saved.

To be more specific, I don't care why I should choose denomination or congregation A over B, but why I should choose one at all.

To be honest, you have a good point.

We're all here for the same reason, to glorify God and rejoice in his Son, our savior. For most intents and purposes, any denomination of Christianity will get you that much.

As far as being part of a body of Christians at all, I believe this to be essential. Time alone is also necessary, but good Christian fellowship can go a long way; there are those to help you in your walk with faith, those to keep you on your walk, those to share your experiences with, and those to encourage you. This site could even be called a good site for Christian fellowship. The body of Christ is ever growing, and can a finger or a toe be a part of the body if it doesn't want anything to do with the rest of the fingers or toes, or they eyes or the nose?

As far as picking a denomination, this often happens because of very small, specific beliefs. I (being a Lutheran) selected my denomination because of how closely they keep to the original translation of the Bible (every pastor must learn Greek and Hebrew, and they cite the original languages often) and because of their focus on Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Scripture Alone. I needed to be constantly reminded of the fact that nothing I do can get me to heaven, and that God is the only one that has the ability to save me, and I need to take every chance I get to further my relationship with Him.

Ive been asking that question for years..personally i believe in god not so much man,the bible is the foundation of all christain denominations each has built on the word of god [yes written by man but thats a another debate] which is solid foundation in itself for anyone to build on yet man has created different "buildings" so to speak with house rules some share the same rules plus have different rules to give their denomination an identity yet the bible is the back bone which if one believes in god one must also obey the word of god..the bible...go forth and apply the word of god to your life without the misinterpretations or fear of having too weather you have faith in god or not..no man can tell you weather of not your going to heaven or if you need to be saved or if the life your living is sinful, join a denomination but dont let that take away your identity or freedom of choice as some denominations will do that for you on gods behalf...Love god with heart and soul and treat each other as one would themselves when judgement day takes place we will all be exposed/naked judged individually not as a group..and if its all a lie? at least a productive and love filled caring life on earth was achieved so weather or not one believes in god i strongly believe the bible values are more important then any denomination can add...personal opinion only if one wishes to discuss further feel free too


According to LDS teaching could Adam and Eve have children before the fall? 2 Nephi 2:23 states

  And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have
  remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no
  misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

Often, it is said that Adam and Eve could not of had children, based on this verse. But the verse says would, not could.

Are there any other verses or latter day saint doctrine explaining whether or not they could have children?

In Doctrines of Salvation, 1:108, Joseph Fielding Smith stated:

  Things were not changing as we find them changing in this mortal existence, for mortality had not come.  Today we are living in a world of change because we are living under a very different condition from those which prevailed in the beginning and before the Fall of man.

Sometimes we focus too much on a single word, such as would vs. could.  I presume what you're asking is, was there anything physiologically stopping Adam and Eve from conceiving children?

Taking Pres. Smith at his word, the answer is "yes."  The time of the Garden of Eden was static.  Nothing grew, nothing died, nothing changed.  The moment you allow (e.g.) a child to be born you have something changing and that change must somehow stop when they become, what, 20 years old?  30 years old?  But, worse than that, you need to start dealing with the concept of (e.g.) dead skin flaking away from a growing child's body.  (Not to mention the changes to a woman's body when conception occurs, or the change of conception itself.)

Except nothing changed.

Therefore, no, Adam and Eve could not have physiologically conceived children in the Garden.  The physiological change that occured to them as a consequence of the Fall was necessary for conception.

Interestingly, Genesis 4: 1 says":

"Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.”  "

The verse does not say that Cain was the first-born child of Eve. We see in other places in Bible,  a special mention of the first-born , as in 2 Samuel 3:2:

"Sons were born to David in Hebron: His firstborn was Amnon by Ahinoam the Jezreelitess"

So, there is a fair chance that Adam and Eve had already had  daughters before they committed sin and were thrown out of Eden.


What percentage of US Christians are Dispensationalists? What percentage of US Christians are dispensationalists?  I think it has a serious impact on American policy in the Middle East.

  Dispensationalism is a religious interpretive system and metanarrative
  for the Bible. It considers Biblical history as divided by God into
  dispensations, defined periods or ages to which God has allotted
  distinctive administrative principles. Source

I can't find any surveys that asked Americans about dispensational belief directly. Dispensational theology is mainstream in evangelical Protestant circles, though being an evangelical doesn't necessarily mean one believes in premillenial dispensationalism. Many people probably do not have fixed theological positions, and cannot fairly be said either to believe or disbelieve dispensationalist theories. There are also theologically conservative Protestant churches that might not be called "evangelical" that hold to dispensationalism.  I would guess that the number of evangelicals in the US provides an upper bound on the number of dispensationalists. According to the Pew Research Center, as of 2014 about 25% of Americans are evangelical Protestants.

More directly relevant to the reasoning behind the question, a Pew Research Center study from 2003 reports that 36% of Americans (of any religion) say that Israel fulfills Biblical prophecies about the Second Coming. I don't see why you would have to believe in dispensational eschatology to believe that, though. For example, 25% of Catholics said they believed Israel fulfills Biblical prophecies, and official Catholic doctrine is not dispensationalist. Of course, ordinary Catholics may not conform to official doctrine, and I'm pretty sure the official Catholic doctrine is that the state of Israel has no religious significance.

That study also reports that 63% of self-identified evangelicals believe Israel fulfills Biblical prophecies. Again, not all of them are necessarily dispensationalists. One could also, in theory, be a dispensationalist and not think the current state of Israel is the fulfillment of prophecy, but the dominant dispensationalist view says it is. If we assume that nearly all evangelicals who think Israel fulfills prophecy are dispensationalists, and that those who think it doesn't are not, and we assume that 63% of evangelicals still think Israel fulfills Biblical prophecy in 2014, then we might take 63% of 25% = 16% of Americans as a lower bound on the number of dispensationalists.  Since about 80% of Americans are Christian, that would be about 20% of Christians. But I've made some pretty suspect assumptions here. My guess is that between 15% and 25% of Americans are not not dispensationalists; that is, their beliefs are basically consistent with dispensationalism, even if they don't have articulated eschatological beliefs.

One addendum: the 80% of Americans who are Christians excludes people of no religion, who mostly come from Christian families.  Only about 5% of Americans identify with a non-Christian religion.

Within the context of your question, I take dispensationalism to mean those Christian denominations who believe the Church has NOT replaced Israel in God’s program and that the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been transferred to the Church, that God is not finished with Israel and that Israel will feature prominently in the tribulation period before the millennial reign of Christ is established.  It is my understanding that Catholics, Anglicans, Latter Day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses believe they have replaced Israel (spiritually speaking).

  The United States has the largest Christian population in the world, with nearly 240 million Christians.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States

From the total number of Christians in the U.S. in 2017                 240 million

Subtract all the Catholics                              70.4 m

Subtract all Latter Day Saints (Mormons)                        6.6 m

Subtract all Jehovah’s Witnesses (neither Protestant nor Catholic)          2.5 m

Remainder of Christians in the U.S.                         160.5 m

That leaves an approximate number representing non-denominational Bible churches, some Baptists, Pentecostals, and Charismatic groups who subscribe to dispensationalism.  Not sure where Anglicans or Methodists stand on dispensationalism and Israel, but they come under Protestant.
I suspect that the total percentage of Christians in the U.S.A. who uphold the dispensationalist view that the Church has NOT replaced Israel in God’s program and that the Old Testament promises to Israel have not been transferred to the Church is not as high as some might suspect, given the lack of statistical information about non-denominational, evangelical and charismatic groups.

Disclaimer: I am a complete dunce when it comes to maths, ending up in the bottom of my class at school.  Also, I know nothing about demographics or how statistics are arrived at, but here are my sources:

Source of statistics for U.S.A. in 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country

Catholics in the U.S. 70,412,021 (22% of population) (2017)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States

Jehovah’s Witnesses in the U.S. 2.5 million (0.8% of population) (2017)
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/2017-service-year-report/2017-grand-totals/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses

Latter Day Saints in the U.S. 6.6 million (9.2 m North America, 16.1 m worldwide)
https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics/country/united-states

EDIT: I am not trying to come up with "an accurate number" because that would be utterly impossible given the confusion within various sources of demographic information available.  Below is a Wiki link for the religious demographics of the United States.  Make of it what you will, bearing in mind that there are zero statistics to say how many Protestant denominations support Israel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States#Religion


Is it historically inaccurate that Jesus is usually portrayed as European looking? Is it historically inaccurate that Jesus is usually portrayed as European looking, having certain facial and bodily features (muscular)?

Would most people follow Him if he did not look white or was heavy set? It almost seems like a trick sometimes to get certain people to believe.

Does the Bible say anything about his physical appearance and how we are to physically think of Him?

vs.

(A special on PBS about scientists who put together a large study to determine what Jesus looked most like, and it is not how he was usually pictured.)

With regards to ethnicity and geography, the direct answer to this is a big Yes, it is wrong. Bethlehem is in Palestine, Asia. The borders of this nation is the red sea, Egypt, Lebanon Jordan, the Dead Sea and Syria, (varied with time). The closest picture we could estimate should be that of an Arab or middle eastern.

Theories that Jesus was European were forged, and claims that he was black, partly because Jesus lived as a small boy in Egypt, are inaccurate as well.

  "...the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying,
  Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and mother and flee
  into Egypt...that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord
  by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Matthew
  2:13-15).

These claims do not have any  concrete scientific bases and are purely subjective.

Nowhere in the bible is was Jesus physically described apart from the transfiguration. We are only told of his descent Solomon and David, all from Israel and over 14 generations afterwards.

  "And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of
  her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam; and
  Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;....And Jacob begat Joseph the
  husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
  (Matthew 1:6-16)

The names couldn't be European either.

Another possible answer also by logic is that God could not give him any look different from the people around him.

Let's assume that Christ was born in Eastern or West Africa where you can find the darkest people on earth. For Him to live an exemplary life so that people wouldn't find it a big deal doing what he did, he must have had the looks of blacks, not white to look strange for his black society to think it takes something supernatural to live a righteous life.

Remember that the society could not doubt him as the son of Joseph, the carpenter.

  "Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and
  his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" (Matthew
  13:55).

Remember Jesus hungered, slept, wept and got angry to prove his earthly being. The best assumption is that, in the Middle-east, he would be born Middle-eastern as some sort of placebo to win friends and followers.

Here is a description of Jesus from his outfit to his color. Nevertheless, to limit too much writing so people can have the time to read and refer back to the bible because it is our only source, I would make it short. Read the rest for yourself.  Revelation 1:12-20. Verse 14.

  Head white like wool, as white as snow, his eyes were like flames of fire, his feet like polished bronze refined in a furnace, and his face like the sun in all its brilliance.

Looking at this scripture, I can say that Jesus was black. Why? Because wool is rough, and it describes a black man hair.
Likewise bronze  polish in a furnace is a chocolate color.  Eyes like flames of fire looks like a light brown piercing eye color to me with immense personality.

Nevertheless, we are losing the entire focus. Christ is for all. Whether others are using his image as their race, it does not matter. The ultimate goal here is living a righteous life. I am a black man, and it does not matter what image is used to personify Christ. Whatever reason people do it for whether good or bad, it still accomplishes the main purpose, and that’s faith in Christ our Lord.  So, let us laid aside all of the bickering and embrace our brothers and sisters for whether white or black or any other race that might be.   The greatest deception Satan has accomplished is divisiveness, and idleness , if we embrace this kind of ideology we are doom for eternal suffering.


Where did Moses write about Jesus? Jesus said that Moses wrote about Him:

  If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

John 5:46

Where did Moses write about Jesus? My thoughts were:

  And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

Genesis 3:15

and possibly Deuteronomy 18:15-19.

Are there any other places that Moses wrote about Jesus?

Moses wrote many things that foreshadowed the coming of the Messiah.

Jesus is, indeed, the Passover Lamb, as those who put their faith in His death and the blood He shed are rescued from the judgment that is to come.  (John 3:16-18)
Like the manna in the desert, Jesus is the Bread from Heaven (John 6:51) that satisfies our spiritual hunger and gives us life.
Like the water that sprung from the rock, Jesus is the living water (John 7:37) that satisfies our spiritual thirst.
Like the snake in the desert that was lifted up that those who were bitten by deadly snakes could look upon and be saved, Jesus was lifted up so that we who have been bitten by Satan in our sin can look upon Jesus and be saved from spiritual death.  (John 3:14-15)
Like the rock that was struck the first time, but should never be struck again, Jesus suffered once for all. (1 Peter 3:18)
Jesus is the offspring of the woman spoken of in Genesis 3 that would crush the head of Satan (Genesis 3:15)
Jesus is the fulfillment of the life of Joseph, which foreshadows Him being the beloved Son, being envied by His own, begin rejected by His own, cast down into the pit, resurrected, sent to a distant country where He became lord of all, and who then provided salvation for His own.
Jesus is the Lion of the tribe of Judah: cf. Genesis 49:8ff as interpreted by Revelation 5:5
Moses also said that God would raise up "a prophet like me" (Deuteronomy 18:15), and this is probably the clearest reference to the coming Messiah.

As many have already stated, there are many times when Moses spoke of Jesus whether in writing Genesis or though times and situations in his own life... however I'm pretty sure that in the Gospel passage you quoted from Jesus was referring to Deuteronomy 18:15-19 specifically.


Does the Bible ever say that the Ark of the Covenant flew or levitated? I've heard several references in History and Discovery channel type TV programs that say that the Bible talks about the Ark of the Covenant miraculously flying. Not to mention there was a line about that in Indiana Jones. I am not aware of any Bible reference that says any such thing. Is there some verse I'm missing? If not, is there some other ancient source -- the Talmud or Josephus or something -- that makes such a statement? Or is this just some crazy idea that came out of nowhere?

The Ark of the Covenant is never recorded as having flown in Scripture.

There were only two means by the Ark ever moved -

Per God's command, the Ark was transported by the priests, using the Acacia poles which held it through the base, for this purpose.

When the Priests carried it into the Jordan River when it was still flowing in Joshua 5, for example, the river receded. If it could have flown, there would have been no need for the priests to "step out" in faith.

On two occasions, contrary to God's command, an ox cart was used to transport it.

a. In 2 Samuel 6, the Ark is being drawn "on a new ox cart," as follows:

  And they carried the ark of God on a new cart and brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. And Uzzah and Ahio,[a] the sons of Abinadab, were driving the new cart,[b] 4 with the ark of God, and Ahio went before the ark.

Famously, it began to tip, and Uzziah tried to steady it.  For this, he was immediately zapped (that's not a technical term) by God, and died instantly.  Had the Ark been capable of flight, one would have assumed that it would have steadied itself in such an instance.

b. Also, in 1 Samuel 5, the Israelites had lost the Ark in battle to the Philistines.  When the Philistine's local deity Dagon kept falling over before it, as if it were bowing, the Philistines started moving it from Ashdod to Gath and throughout their cities.  Problem was- people kept dying.  So, eventually they decided to get rid of it, and send it on its merry way with a bunch of gifts for the Israelites.

1 Samuel 6 records:

  The men did so, and took two milk cows and yoked them to the cart and shut up their calves at home. 11 And they put the ark of the Lord on the cart and the box with the golden mice and the images of their tumors. 12 And the cows went straight in the direction of Beth-shemesh along one highway, lowing as they went. They turned neither to the right nor to the left, and the lords of the Philistines went after them as far as the border of Beth-shemesh. 13 Now the people of Beth-shemesh were reaping their wheat harvest in the valley. And when they lifted up their eyes and saw the ark, they rejoiced to see it. 14 The cart came into the field of Joshua of Beth-shemesh and stopped there. A great stone was there. And they split up the wood of the cart and offered the cows as a burnt offering to the Lord.

The story of the Ark of the Covenant being moved by Nazi jeep pickup truck is, alas, non-canonical, and adheres only to the obscure Spielbergian sects of Christianity.

In all seriousness, however, the legends of the ark flying may be attributable to the winged cherubim on top of the mercy seat. This ornament of two angels, only either end of the ark, their wings touching, may have inspired such an idea, but they were strictly ornamental.

In regards to the above text: "Consider Numbers 10:33-36, the ark seems to be flying in this text".  I think that your statement is somewhat interpretive of the text.  Nothing is hidden in the Bible.  You can take the text at face value.  If you do, then the above passages do not mention the ark flying by any means.  When I read that passage it would appear to me that Israelites in charge of carrying the Ark scouted 3 days ahead of the main tribe and that Moses' blessed the Ark upon exit and return.  I think its these type of passages that can be twisted to create alternate paradigms that seem plausible to luke warm Christians (of which I have been guilty of as well).  That said, The "History Channel"or the Atheist Channel as I like to call it is no source of viable, accurate scripture for Christians.  Shows like Ancient Aliens are clever at throwing in Bible passages and references (They had a great time fabricating stories when they discussed the book of ezekiel) to muddy the waters,but even mainstream scientists say the work is largely founded on wild fantasies that have no merit in the scientific world.  Also regard these type of programs with respect as they are undoubtedly one of the largest tools that diseminate lies creating doubt, traps and pitfalls for Christians.

Jefferson

Matt 6:34


What is the argument in support of personal interpretation of the Scriptures? The Catholic church teaches that only the Church (Magisterium) has the right to interpret Scriptures whereas Protestant churches typically believe that anyone has that right.

What is the argument that supports the idea that anyone can and should interpret Scripture for himself or herself?

The Bible itself -- if you'll pardon my interpretation -- seems to support such a practice.

In the Old Testament, the law is read aloud to the people (Deut 31:10-13; Josh 8:34f; 2Kgs 23:2; Neh 8:1ff) and the king is required to copy out the law so that he may know it and do it (Deut 17:18ff). In both cases, it is read "raw" and the people and rulers are to understand it and do it. Likewise, the Psalms are meant to be sung by the people, and Proverbs is in part a training manual in wisdom for princes to be read and understood.

In the New Testament, Jesus preaches directly to the people, the Apostles and missionaries preach to the people, and Paul intends that his letters be read aloud to the people (Col 4:16 -- possibly with the courier providing some additional clarification).

Now these are authoritative teachers teaching, so one could argue they are similar in function to the Magisterium, but the "noble Bereans" are also commended for independently searching the scriptures to confirm Paul's teaching (Acts 17:11); Priscilla and Aquila, who are certainly not in the Magisterium, tutor Apollos (Acts 18:24ff); and Luke-Acts was written for the private individual Theophilus (Luke 1:1ff; Acts 1:1).

None of this is to say there is not a binding authority given to the church; there certainly is -- even in Protestantism (how else could church discipline exist as one of the "true marks" of the church?). But individuals are still encouraged to read, hear, understand, and apply the words of the Bible themselves.

In Richard Pratt's formulation of Reformed hermeneutics, IIRC, there are three sources of interpretation one seeks to respect: historical (the church of the past, tradition), community (the church of the present, your pastor and elders), and individual ("private interpretation", conscience, internal illumination by the Holy Spirit). In "remnant" situations, the individual interpretation may be the most correct, and God expects his people to abide by his true word, regardless of what the corrupt authorities say (cf. the OT prophets, and Jesus and John the Baptist vs. the scribes and Pharisees in the NT). That being said, going against broad agreement in interpretation across history and in one's present community should be done only with great prayer, humility, self re-examination, and trepidation.

A footnote on 2 Pet. 1:20 ("no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation"), a contested verse in this context: "Prophecy" here is effectively "God's communication." Reading the surrounding verses shows (I think!) that the passage is concerned with the origin of a prophecy, specifically that it does not come from a private or merely human source. It is not addressing interpretation or understanding of that divine communication, which is what we're talking about in this question.

The interpretation of scripture has always been a prerogative of educated clergy and laymen (able ministers - see below.) If one is uneducated in Theology, then any personal interpretation is fraught with difficulties.
Peter warns readers.

“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:16, KJV.

Paul warns us:
“Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” 2 Corinthians 3:6, KJV.

To be safe, an interpreter should refer back to the writings of the Church Fathers, in order to confirm any personal understanding, and if there is a disagreement, then the personal interpretation is probably in error and not safe to teach others. The opinions of uneducated people (not trained in Hebrew, Greek and Latin) cannot be relied upon to accurately represent the meaning of the text. English Bibles disagree with one another on basic Christology, and interpretations will differ because of this.

In the Catholic churches (Anglican, Greek Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Syrian, and Roman) the Church Fathers are the source for interpretation of the text. Their councils since the 4th. cent. have been decisive in determining the Christology of the Church. In the confessions of the various Catholic churches the Church Fathers are considered to be the source for the Doctrine of the Church. Everything that has been told about Christ comes from the writings of the Church Fathers and the official documents of the Church.

From the Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Worldwide Anglican Catholic Church:

We are, therefore, in principle, not a sect but a Church, with a universal mission. In fact, as Anglicans we are less sectarian in fundamental impulse than almost any other Christian body: for we firmly assert that while our mission is universal, the particular forms of our own Anglican worship and our own Anglican culture are not exclusive. We deny that we have any unique Anglican Catholic doctrine, but rather we stand for the unique authority of the patristic witness and the Conciliar tradition, and we assert the incompleteness of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches in their more exclusivist claims. We are Catholic, but do not claim to be the only Catholics. We are Orthodox, but do not claim that in principle all others are heretics. We have clarity of doctrine, but a clarity that embraces East and West, Rome and Orthodox, past and present.
... Our primary goal is not to preserve a tradition, but to share it, even as we recognize that we will have nothing to share if we do not preserve intact what we have received.

The ACC confession of faith:
We declare this church to be, and desire that it shall continue, in full Communion with all Anglicans throughout the world who remain faithful to Apostolic Order (including the male Episcopate, Priesthood, and Diaconate), as an integral portion of the one Body of Christ composed of Churches which, united under the One Divine Head and in fellowship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, hold the one Faith revealed in Holy Writ, and defined in the Creeds as maintained by the undivided Primitive Catholic Church in the Seven Ecumenical Councils; receive the same Canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as containing all things necessary to salvation; teach the same Word of God; partake of the same Divinely ordained Sacraments through the Ministry of the same Divinely instituted Apostolic Orders; and worship one God and Father through the same Lord Jesus Christ, by the same Holy and Divine Spirit Who is given to them that believe to guide them into all truth.

The Anglican Catholic Church is a constituent member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, faithfully continuing the Anglican tradition. This Church upholds the historic Catholic Faith, Apostolic Order, Orthodox Worship, and Evangelical Witness as set forth in the 1962 Canadian and 1928 American editions of the Book of Common Prayer, and accepts as binding and unalterable the received Faith and Traditions of the Church, and its teachings, including the male Episcopate, Priesthood, and Diaconate, as set forth in the Holy Scriptures; the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds; the writings of the "ancient Catholic Bishops and Doctors"; and especially as
defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church.

SECTION 4. OF TRANSLATIONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. The Authorised (King James) Version is the received Standard English translation of the Holy Scripture (Old Testament, New Testament, Apocrypha).

We acknowledge that rule of faith laid down by St. Vincent of Lerins: “Let us hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all, for that is truly and properly Catholic”.The received Tradition of the Church and its teaching as set forth by “the ancient catholic bishops and doctors”, and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church, to the exclusion of all errors, ancient and modern.


Can humans fall in love with each other in heaven? How does falling in love work in heaven? Do we still fall in love?

Is it possible to fall in love with more than one person? Or are we set to love just one person or none at all? Are intimate relationship in allowed heaven at all? Is having sexual relationship allowed in heaven?  Or, is heaven just a sexless, harp-playing place?

In other words, what is the role of sex and love between humans in heaven, beyond the place of the love for God?

So, there are passages that are particularly relevant here:

Matthew 22:29 - 32

  29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[b]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

From this we know that there is no marriage but that doesn't say there isn't love.
1 Corinthians 13:12

  12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Historically there has been an interpretation of this verse that says our current understanding of love is highly limited - our sinful nature is such that we are capable only of a simulcrum of love, one which gets jealous when it reaches more than one, and one which is held back by our fleshly nature.  In contrast, in heaven, where there is perfection, we are able to love more deeply more fully than here.

Indeed, C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce explores this theme, suggesting an almost open kind of love that is neither pornographic nor chaste.  Mere Christianity picks this up, saying:

  The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and backbiting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.

He develops this further, saying that sex is a second thing, not a first one. InFirst and Second Things, he shows that sex is spiritual, but that made an end unto itself, it loses its meaning. As Peter Kreeft writes:

  It could certainly be spiritual intercourse—and, remember, that includes sexual intercourse because sex is spiritual. This spiritual intercourse would mean something more specific than universal charity. It would be special communion with the sexually complementary; something a man can have only with a woman and a woman only with a man. We are made complete by such union: "It is not good that the man should be alone." And God does not simply rip up His design for human fulfillment. The relationship need not be confined to one in Heaven. Monogamy is for earth. On earth, our bodies are private. In Heaven, we share each other's secrets without shame, and voluntarily. In the Communion of Saints, promiscuity of spirit is a virtue.

In short, the idea of heaven in this understanding is that sex will be way more open, the complete perscription to the diagnosis in Genesis that it is not good for the man to be alone.

If this is true, we'll be getting way more, and way better sex up there than down here. Whether or not this is physical, whether or not this is even true, the real point is that anyone who is simply convinced there can't be sex in heaven does have a bit of theology against which to contend.

Well matthew 22:30 is interesting because christ said we will be like the angels, its important to note that in genesis 6:1-4 the angels had sex with the daughters of men and produced giants as offspring, therefore angels could have sex and impregnate the women.  We in our resurrection bodies will continue being male and the females continue being female, we will still be human beings but on a level of perfection, being partakers of the divine nature, yet still human with physical, resurrected, perfect bodies.

A few things to think about

A) The angels could have sex

B) The angels could impregnate the women

C) There is Christ the husband and the church is the bride, we will all be married in christ.

D) On the New Earth God will have removed the curse of sin, reversed its effects, all things will have become pure. Everything before the fall was good, Adam and Eve enjoyed heavenly sex until the fall when sex became marred by sin.

So a form of heavenly sex does exist and the angels could not only have sex but also impregnate.


Did any medieval Catholics believe in the possibility the repentance was possible immediately after death? Did any medieval Catholics have a pious belief that immediately after death, God gave people a last chance to repent of their sins and thus save their immortal soul from going to hell for all eternity?

I recently came across the following tidbit about St. Padre Pio in which he affirmed his own belief that repentance immediately after death was possible.

  "I believe that not a great number of souls go to hell. God loves us so much. He formed us at his image. God loves us beyond understanding. And it is my belief that when we have passed from the consciousness of the world, when we appear to be dead, God, before He judges us, will give us a chance to see and understand what sin really is. And if we understand it properly, how could we fail to repent?" - Close encounters of a special kind with Padre Pio: The Souls in Purgatory, The Guardian Angel, the devil.

This got me thinking of what a priest that once told me some years ago: “Some Catholics in the Middle Ages (500 AD - 1500 AD) had a pious belief that immediately after sinners had died, Our Lord gave them a final chance to repent!”

The priest in question is no longer amongst us and I have never known him to state something like this erroneously.

Can anyone find any references from any Catholic sources about the possible existence of this pious belief during the Middle Ages?

John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) (in)famously held the opinion that one's particular judgment did not occur immediately after death. His successor Benedict XII (reigned 1334-1342) defined the following dogma in Benedictus Deus (1336):

  we define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately (mox) after death and there suffer the pain of hell.

Thus, those who die in a state of mortal sin do not have a chance to repent after death.

Now that this dogma has been defined, it's not a pious opinion but heresy to hold a contrary view.


Is there any historical evidence of Early Church Christians denying the divinity of Jesus during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD? I'm essentially asking the counter-question to this one. Is there any historical evidence of Early Church Christians (post-New Testament) openly denying the divinity of Jesus in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD? I know that Arianism became a thing in the 3rd century AD, but what about the previous two centuries?

Some clarifications:

Documents published at the time that include unambiguous statements are preferred. By unambiguous statement I mean something like "Jesus is not God, he is not divine, he didn't pre-exist, he was just a human being and nothing more, period."
I'm open to answers that cite the New Testament as a piece of historical evidence, as long as only unambiguous quotes are provided (see previous point).

In the first two centuries CE:
Adoptionism, reflected in canonical epistles, the earliest of which pre-date the writing of the gospels. The letters of Paul the Apostle, for example, do not mention a virgin birth of Christ. Paul describes Jesus as "born of a woman, born under the law" and "as to his human nature was a descendant of David" in the Epistle to the Galatians and the Epistle to the Romans.
Ebionism during the first 2 centuries CE - A majority of the Ebionites rejected as heresies the proto-orthodox Christian beliefs in Jesus's divinity and virgin birth.
Cerinthus in the late first and early second century. He lived in Asia Minor and was deemed heretical by early church fathers (e.g., Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 1.26.1; Hippolytus of Rome, Refutation 7.21; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.28–35, 7.25.3). According to these sources, Cerinthus denied the virgin birth, taught that Jesus was a normal human who was exceedingly wise, and that he was empowered by the Christ-spirit upon his baptism.
Gnosticism - the oldest Christian critiques of gnosticism dat from the early 2nd century CE, so it must have been in existence before that, though we have few documents. Most scholars place the origin of Gnosticism around the first century CE. In particular, Marcion preached that the benevolent God of the Gospel who sent Jesus Christ into the world as the savior was the true Supreme Being, different and opposed to the malevolent demiurge or creator god, identified with the Hebrew God of the Old Testament.
Theodotus claimed that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit as a non-divine man, and though later "adopted" by God upon baptism (that is to say, he became the Christ), was not himself God until after his resurrection

I came across this documentary called, "The Secret Family of Jesus", by a British Academic Theologian named Dr. Robert Beckford.  Among the topics discussed was Christ's divinity in the eyes of those close to him (his siblings). Though not stated explicitly or openly, the Documentary argues that because due to certain vernacular and language not being used to describe Christ as Divine (Virgin Birth, Saved by the Blood, etc) by his siblings (James and Jude) that they did not see him as being Divine in the sense of being GOD but as being more human.  All of this beginning (roughly) at the 1hr 30Min, the documentary begins to focus on how Christ brothers were relegated in Christianity due to portraying Yashua/Jesus as their Master but not Divine, a human character blessed by GOD.  A contributor within the Documentary, Dr. James Tabor states that the Epistle of James emphasizes the teachings of Christ but not the teachings about Christ: "Doesn't mention the cross of Christ, The Blood of Jesus, Doesn't mention forgiving of Sins through believing of our Lord and Savior who is in Heaven".  In one of the texts mentioned in the documentary, The Didache, Dr. Robert Beckford alludes to it being weird how there is no mention of the Virgin Birth, no mention of the Resurrection, and no mention of Christ as GOD within the text. When asked why they speak of Jesus just as Lord and not LORD GOD, Archbishop Aristarchos (a representative of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem) stated that in his opinion (paraphrasing) "Within the New Testament there was a balance seeing Christ as The Son of Man and The Son of GOD.....The Lord in whom we believe is Divine but he is Human".  The question stated, "Is there any historical evidence of Early Church Christians (post-New Testament) openly denying the divinity of Jesus in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD?", though the documentary did not show anything explicit material or sources that specifically pointed against Christ divinity, it goes to show that viewpoints that could possibly be interpreted as going against the doctrine of Christ being Divine were glossed over, not placed in the forefront and even almost downplayed in importance.  Can read the
here. (Didache).


Do Catholics believe that they are actually eating the body of Christ? Does this make them cannibals? The Roman Catholic celebrates the Holy Eucharist in commemoration of the Last Supper in which during the celebration, Catholics believed that bread and wine are transformed into blood and body of Christ.

Now. What is the stand of the catholic church for eating the blood and body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist?

Yes, Catholics do believe that the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood. Sort of. The "sort of" is because the technicalities of it go back to Aristotelian philosophy, which greatly influenced Thomas Aquinas, who is still in many ways the preeminent theologian of the Catholic Church.

Before we get to Aquinas, though, let's look at the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is a teaching document, not primarily a theological discussion, so it doesn't go into technical specifics the way we'll see that Aquinas did. But we see (numbers are paragraph numbers):

  1333 At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ’s Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord’s command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread...." "He took the cup filled with wine...." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation.

  1353 In the epiclesis, the Church asks the Father to send his Holy Spirit (or the power of his blessing) on the bread and wine, so that by his power they may become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and so that those who take part in the Eucharist may be one body and one spirit. ...
  In the institution narrative, the power of the words and the action of Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit, make sacramentally present under the species of bread and wine Christ’s body and blood, his sacrifice offered on the cross once for all.

  1374    The mode of Christ’s presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained." "This presence is called 'real'—by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

  1375 It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion.

(emphases added, except epiclesis emphasized in original)

Now, what does Aquinas say about the technicalities of the situation? In other words, if the wine becomes the Blood of Christ, why isn't there hemoglobin in it?

Aristotelian philosophy made a distinction between what (in modern philosophical jargon) is called "substance" (from Latin substantia, the essence or nature of something) and "accident" (from Latin accidens, something that happens to be true of an entity). Aristotle of course used Greek, but Aquinas used the Latin. The substance of something is what makes it what it is: I am a human being because I am human "in substance"; that is, because I have "humanness". I look the way I do as a human because I have particular accidents—my eyes are a given color, my hair and skin, I'm a given height. Any of those things could change, or could have been different; that would change what I looked like, but not what I am (i.e. human).

The Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is that during the Eucharistic celebration, the substance of the bread and wine—what they truly are—is changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ. But their accidents—what they look and act like physically—remain the same.

In the Summa Theologica, Aquinas devoted several sections to this. The first one (Third Part, Question 75, Article 1) is titled "Whether the body of Christ be in this sacrament in very truth, or merely as in a figure or sign?" After looking at several objections, he concludes:

  I answer that, The presence of Christ's true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority. Hence, on Lk. 22:19: "This is My body which shall be delivered up for you," Cyril [i.e. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem] says: "Doubt not whether this be true; but take rather the Saviour's words with faith; for since He is the Truth, He lieth not."
  Now this is suitable, first for the perfection of the New Law. For, the sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ's Passion, according to Heb. 10:1: "For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things." And therefore it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ Himself crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth. And therefore this sacrament which contains Christ Himself, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. iii), is perfective of all the other sacraments, in which Christ's virtue is participated.

  Secondly, this belongs to Christ's love, out of which for our salvation He assumed a true body of our nature. And because it is the special feature of friendship to live together with friends, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix), He promises us His bodily presence as a reward, saying (Mat. 24:28): "Where the body is, there shall the eagles be gathered together." Yet meanwhile in our pilgrimage He does not deprive us of His bodily presence; but unites us with Himself in this sacrament through the truth of His body and blood. Hence (Jn. 6:57) he says: "He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him." Hence this sacrament is the sign of supreme charity, and the uplifter of our hope, from such familiar union of Christ with us.

  Thirdly, it belongs to the perfection of faith, which concerns His humanity just as it does His Godhead, according to Jn. 14:1: "You believe in God, believe also in Me." And since faith is of things unseen, as Christ shows us His Godhead invisibly, so also in this sacrament He shows us His flesh in an invisible manner.

In other words, he says:

Given that we have faith in Christ, it's incumbent on us to have faith that when he says "This is my body", we are to believe that he is giving us the truth, and not just a signification.
It is more characteristic of Christ's love for us that he would find a way to actually be with us, not just to be represented among us.

So, yes; Catholics believe that the bread and wine are substantially (in a couple of different senses) transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. This belief is part of a longstanding interpretation of Scripture, and writings of the early Church fathers. Catholics do not, however, consider themselves to be cannibals, because the "accidents" of the bread and wine (the ingredients, the flavor, the shape, and so on) are not those of Christ Himself.

I could go into the details of what potential objections to the belief Aquinas considers, and how he responds to them; but that would be matter for a different question.

The issue is "substance" which is a philosophical construct of the mind from Aristotelian times1.

It is not directly related to reality because substance is not physically verifiable as being anything other than the DNA of some kind of unleavened wheat.  The same can be said of wine, and its DNA from some kind of grape.

It is a spiritual conjecture which cannot by its nature be physical--it is not physically verifiable. Catholics are spiritual "cannibals" at best (or at worst).  Lastly, my statement does not mean Christ is not present for and to us, as in the liturgy of the Word and Eucharist.   When we bless, break, and share bread we are in communion with one another as the body of Christ living today. We become the body of Christ when we receive both the "word" and the breaking of the bread.  Thomistic teaching has really missed the point of communion.

1 This use of substance is related to a theological term: Greek Homoousian and Latin consubstantialis; the usage reaches back to the Early Church, and is how Jesus being of the same substance as the Father is described.  Reference: Nicene Creed.


What's the difference between a psalm, a hymn, and a spiritual song? Is the difference between a psalm, a hymn, and a spiritual song/song from the Spirit defined anywhere in scripture or church tradition?

Paul said this to the Ephesians:

  Ephesians 5:18-20 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (NIV)

Paul's Greek was ψαλμοις, υμνοις and ωδαις πνευματικαις.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon (via Blue Letter Bible) has

  ύμνος, -ου, ο, in Greek writing from Homer down, a song in praise of gods, heroes, conquerors, [cf. Trench as below, p297], but in the Scriptures of God; a sacred song, hymn.

Thayer quotes Richard Chevinix Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament:

  ύμνος, ψαλμός, ωδή: ωδή is the generic term; ψαλμός and ύμνος are specific, the former designating a song which took its general character from the Old Testament "Psalms" (although not restricted to them, see 1 Cor 14:15, 26), the latter a song of praise. "While the leading idea of ψαλμός is a musical accompaniment, and that of ύμνος praise the God, ωδή is the general word for a song, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, whether of praise or on any other subject. Thus it was quite possible for the same song to be at once ψαλμός, ύμνος, and ωδή" (Bishop Lightfoot on Col 3:16). The words occur together in Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19. See Trench, Synonyms §78.

Psalm: a song from the Book of Psalms, often accompanied
Hymn: a song of praise, often unaccompanied
Song: any song

Psalm - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/psalm
Hymns - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hymn
Songs from the Spirit - Since there is no definition for this, I've always seen it as being lead to do either 1 or 2 by a prompting of the Holy Spirit.