What is the essential argument in favor of the tripartite nature of man? A common belief regarding the nature of mankind is that we have a body, a soul and a spirit.  This is known as the Tripartite Nature of Man.

What is the essential argument in favor of this view?  I would also be interested to know how early in the Scriptures this is indicated or understood.  It would be really interesting to know how the Old Testament speaks of this and whether or not that idea was held by Jewish people prior to the coming of Jesus.

Your question is one with which I wrestled for several years before making these discoveries in Scripture and I hope that it will give you the answer you are seeking.

Genesis 1:26  and 27 King James Version

  26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

  27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So I researched the word image and it's true meaning. The original Hebrew word was:

צֶּלֶם

  tselem (tseh'-lem) n-m.

    a phantom, i.e. (figuratively) illusion, resemblance
    (hence) a representative figure, especially an idol
    [from an unused root meaning to shade]

    KJV: image, vain shew.

notice the translation Phantom. this word has no connection to any physical substance, and in this case must be talking about other properties other than Physical. That leaves us to deduce that it must refer to spiritual characteristics.

Also please note the word * likeness* in verse 26. the original word used was:

  dmuwth (dem-ooth') n-f.

    resemblance
    (concretely) model, shape
    (adverbially) like

    KJV: fashion, like (-ness, as), manner, similitude.

Since the word is used in its adverbial form it means like, and the word our makes it plural.

Actually in the interlinear Hebrew translation  the phrase 'in our image' was:

בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ

  bə•ṣal•mê•nū

  which literally translated means 'in our image.'

This leaves us to understand that it is in reference to Spiritual beings and it must refer to a multiplicity.

So how do we get from there to what the likeness to that multiplicity means regarding man.

We must go back to:
Genesis 2:7  KJV

  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

We need to begin with what is the breath of life.

Breath:
נְשָׁמָה

  nshamah (nesh-aw-maw') n-f.

    a puff, i.e. wind, angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect. or (concretely) an animal

    KJV: blast, (that) breath(-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.

Life:
חַי

  chay (khah'-ee) adj.

    alive
    (hence) raw (flesh)
    fresh (plant, water, year), strong
    (as noun, especially in the feminine singular and masculine plural) life (or living thing), whether literally or figuratively

    KJV: + age, alive, appetite, (wild) beast, company, congregation, life(-time), live(-ly), living (creature, thing), maintenance, + merry, multitude, + (be) old, quick, raw, running, springing, troop.

It is imperative that we first understand that the noun here is nshamah or breath and chay alive is an adjective.

That 'God breathed  into his nostrils' means that God transferred from himself to man's nose his breath. The noteworthy point here is that since God is Eternal that of necessity requires that his breath is also eternal.

Why this is important lies in what is said next ' man became a living Soul.

The significance of that is that the Soul created by the breath of life is an eternal being.

The importance of that was given by Christ in:

Matthew 10:28  KJV

  And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

The true significance of that statement is that only God has the ability to destroy the soul.

So now we have covered the body and soul, but if we are to be in the image of the trinity we need a third part, and that third part is the Spirit.

So what is the Spirit, and how is it different from the soul? The Hebrew word is:

πνεῦμα

  pneuma (pnyoo`-mah) n.

    a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze
    (by analogy or figuratively) a spirit
    (humanly) the rational soul
    (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc.
    (superhumanly) an angel, demon
    (divinely) God, Christ's spirit, the Holy Spirit

    KJV: ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind

According to the Hebrew it is the rational soul, or the vital principle, or mental disposition. So the Spirit and soul are inextricably joined and the Spirit is the composite of all the persons knowledge and personality.

These are the conclusions I have reached from my study of the Bible.

I have found the 1 Thess.5:23 passage's inclusion of "spirit and soul and body" very compelling in that it affirms a nature given to man, one of bearing the image of God, that is easily associated with the knowable nature of God (as opposed to all that which is unknowable), His triune existence.
   There seems to be an example of this type of unity that may serve to illustrate it: the computer. A computer exists in three senses. It has a body, all that is material. It has an operating system which serves as its basis of operation, which parallels the 'spirit'. Its first two components then form the vehicle through which software can do useful functions, which parallels the 'soul'.
   In this illustration, the 'spirit', or system, is the repository of the values, or things that are permissible for the computer to do. Values are indeed maintained here in the 'heart' of the computer. (In the computer systems that are available to purchasers, there is a choice between two systems: Apple or PC. There are two options of internal values in humans which are manifested: one in the lost and one in the redeemed.)
   Also, in this illustration, the 'soul' (software/applications) is dedicated to doing its work as it is designed to be in accord with what is permissible by its operating system (spirit); i.e. Apple programs won't run on a PC.
   No illustration is perfect in such matters as these, but in this there might be something of value. The heart, or spirit, contains our values (either God-placed or of ungodly origin). When the soul is about its daily business of directing the body, there is constant communication with the spirit, consulting over what those values permit or disallow. There seems to be a working interface between these separate entities that would be called 'the conscience'.
   When God vacated man's spirit, this place of values became open to all other input. In the unregenerate, there may be remnants of godly values mixed with much of the ungodly. In the regenerate, the spirit becomes the place of the Holy Spirit's residence and begins the patient, internal work of forming God's values there.


Did the Jews use icons and images to help them worship as Catholics or Orthodox worshippers do? I understand that some worshippers use icons to 'lift up their minds from earthly things to the heavenly things'? I am not interested about those using them as stage-props for a play (in comparison), but in those who do it from a religious sense, of helping them in prayer or worship.

Did the Jews ever do this?

The remains of an ancient Jewish Synagogue have been found at a site known as Dura-Europos. Inside this Jewish Synagogue, all the walls are covered in frescoes of scenes from the Tanakh, which date to about 250 AD.

The sanctuary ordinance entrusted to Israel have objects in the place of worship.

These objects are not the "object of worship" rather they are the furniture that are required to perform the rituals.  Moreover, these furniture have ornaments.  Ornaments are neither the "object of worship"  They are just there to portray art and its purposes of expressing aesthetic value.

The problem is when people idolize art and makes out of an object an exercise of veneration.  That's why God made a transcript of His eternal Law understandable in human language in giving the 2nd commandment listed in the covenant AS A REMINDER.  God is not against art but He does acknowledge the danger that comes with art.

For example, the Jews venerated their temple to an extent that they make it the source of their dignity instead of making God the only reason for their existence and integrity.

SO IN ESSENCE THEY WORSHIP THE TEMPLE INSTEAD OF GOD.  AND THIS IS CONVEYED THROUGH THE CHARACTER OF THEIR PRACTICE OF RELIGION WHICH GOD, AS WE SEE FROM THE BIBLE, HAS DECLARED TO BE ISRAEL'S APOSTASY.  They use the temple as the source of their national pride thinking God will never favor any nation besides them.  SO THE WHOLE TEMPLE AND ITS ORDINANCE BECAME THEIR "IDOL WORSHIP" AS PERCEIVED IN THE TRUE ESSENCE OF THEIR PRACTICE.  This is how Jesus in a large sense condemned the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders leading the whole nation in an apostasy with the worst and most subtle kind of idolatry that people hardly perceived it.  THEY HAVE MISREPRESENTED THE PURPOSES AND MEANING OF THE TEMPLE AND ITS SANCTUARY ORDINANCE.

God declared their apostasy has filled His cup of righteous wrath in rejecting the very object of the Temple ordinance in the person of Jesus.  GOD DESTROYED THEIR IDOL IN A.D. 70 AND THE EARTHLY TEMPLE IS DECLARED NO LONGER TO RISE.

In the case of Christians, they have no need for images to represent God and have no need for their patrons and patronesses.  This is but the essential blending of pagan practices with the Christian movement.  With the images, come the doctrine of IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, thus we find some Christians praying to a person who has passed away and having that person represented by a sculpted or painted image provided that person is declared to be a saint and is therefore residing in heaven with God.  The alleged doctrine simply violates Scriptural testimony on the state of the dead and method of salvation.  The Scriptures essentially declare these views as heresies.

These sincere Christians technically do not worship the image, but essentially practice idolatry according to its principles.  Moreover, others are led into cult worships of the same images according to the beliefs they have connected with it.  STILL THIS IS AN OPEN FORM OF IDOLATRY.  The deception is to rationalize that representations of the images do not make the practice idolatrous, but finding the origins of this form of worship leads us back to the practice of idol worship of the ANC cultures (ANC- Ancient Near East).

The metallic serpent that Moses was instructed to put up is an isolated case.  IT HAS A DEFINITE PURPOSE AND WAS NOT INTENDED FOR WORSHIP.  It was an instrument used for a certain TEST that only the Hebrews at the time were privileged to participate.  And that test was a test of faith and obedience.  However we find that the idolatrous inclinations of the Hebrew people prevailed as their apostasy increased and eventually they are found VENERATING AND WORSHIPING THE METALLIC SERPENT AND GIVING THEIR OFFERINGS TO IT.  Thus the faithful act of Hezekiah is justified to DESTROY all objects that people attempted to venerate in worship.

Again, the objects at the Tabernacle of the Sanctuary and Temple of the Sanctuary are NOT THE OBJECT OF WORSHIP although they have purposes that represented the methods of salvation that God is going to fulfill according to His blueprint for the redemption plan.  The temple of Jerusalem has served its purpose upon the fulfillment of Christ's sacrificial offering on a cross and therefore its ordinances have come to cease.  But the Jews idolized the temple more than they have obeyed God in its rituals that foreshadowed the fulfillment of Christ's mission on earth and ministry in heaven for the salvation of repentant sinners, THUS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE IN A.D. 70.  It is divinely ordained that the instruments of God's purposes in fulfilling His plans when taken to a distorted use MUST BE DESTROYED to protect and redeem His faithful people from idolatry.

(Pardon me for my CAPS, they are only intended for emphasis.  Thank you.)


What is the Biblical basis for the concept that Jesus spent time in Hell? The Apostles Creed makes reference to Jesus descending into Hell.  I have heard it claimed that His time spent in Hell was part of His redemptive work--in other words, that was necessary for Him to completely "pay the price" for our sins.  However, John 19:30 says:

  When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Which I have generally heard interpreted to mean that the work of redemption was finished at that moment--the moment of His death.

I have also heard that the original language of the Apostles Creed did not mean Hell in the sense of "place of eternal punishment" but more in the sense of a metaphorical, ambiguous "place of the dead."

Is there Biblical evidence that Jesus spent time in Hell (as we know it today--the place of eternal punishment)?  If so, was His time there necessary for our redemption, or was there some other purpose to His visit?

Yes!  Errr... NO!

There are three competing theories on this.

Jesus went to Hell with the damned.
Jesus went to paradise in Hades
Jesus went to heaven.

All of these beliefs are based on a few critical verses.

Verse 1: 1 Peter 3:18-20

In 1 Peter 3:18-20 (NIV), we see:

  18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.
  19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the
  imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God
  waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In
  it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

This supports (pretty conclusively) beliefs 1 and 2 by stating that Jesus, in the spirit, went to speak to the "imprisoned souls".

Verse 2 Luke 23:43

We see in Luke 23:43 (KJV)

  43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou
  be with me in paradise.

This pretty conclusively states that he went to paradise.  This supports beliefs number 2 and 3.

Verse 3 Luke 23:46

Luke 23:46 (NIV) states:

  46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I
  commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last.

The idea is that Jesus definitely didn't go to hell, since he committed his spirit into the Father's hands.  Therefore, this is used to support beliefs 2 and 3.

Vers 4 Ephesians 4:9

This verse is often used to say that Jesus "descended into hell" or "the depths" or something (NIV)

  9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the
  lower, earthly regions?

However this doesn't really hold water since the reference point of the ascension means that he really descended to earth.  Also, the translation "lower, earthly regions" supports the idea that he descended to Earth rather than other translations which state "lower earthly regions" (notice the lack of the comma, which is an invalid translation).

This verse is often used to support belief #1.

So, which belief is correct?  This is something that is difficult to see.

1 Cor. 13:12 (KJV)

  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.

I should note another idea that supports belief #2 is the fact that there are two different words for "Hell".  One is the fiery pit referred to in Revelations and one is the place called "Hades".  Unfortunately, we don't have any good, solid definition for "Hades", so some have interpreted that as the "paradise" that Jesus was referring to on the cross.  This interpretation is used to support that second belief.

Read this article for much more information.

He went to the Limbo of the Fathers which is part of Hell.  The Nicene Creed tells us he descended into Hell and on the third day he rose again.  The Limbo of the Fathers is where the Justified of the Old Testament resided until after the Resurrection.

  Q: What are we taught in the Fifth Article: He descended into hell;
  the third day He rose again from the dead?  A: The Fifth Article of
  the Creed teaches us that the Soul of Jesus Christ, on being separated
  from His Body, descended to the Limbo of the holy Fathers, and that on
  the third day it became united once more to His Body, never to be
  parted from it again"  Catechism of St. Pope Pius X, The Fifth Article
  of the Creed

  "Q: What is here meant by hell? A: Hell here means the Limbo of the
  holy Fathers, that is, the place where the souls of the just were
  detained, in expectation of redemption through Jesus Christ" Catechism
  of St. Pope Pius X, The Fifth Article of the Creed


When did the African-American population become Christian? As someone who's never been to the USA I might be making a completely wrong assumption, but from all the media, it seems that the majority of the African-American population were traditionally Christian. Knowing that most of their ancestors arrived as slaves from Africa, they could not have been Christians upon arrival(right?). Was there a revival or some other major event that brought them into Christianity?

Pretty much the classic study of the African-American Church in America is E. Franklin Frazier's 1964 The History of the Negro Church in America.  Indeed, its popularity can be evidenced by another book, The History of the Black Church since Frazier.

In a nutshell, the history of the black church in the United States is what you'd expect:

Slaves were brought over
They were taught Christianity

What was unexpected was what happened next:
During the Great Awakening, the church grew
Blacks made the church their own
Christians, seeing other Christians not being treated Christian, changed the culture at large.

The interesting part of the story is the motivation and whether the movement was "forced" upon Blacks or whether it was a blessing coopted by them.

Ever since 1619, when African slaves were imported to Jamestown, the slaves were the nucleus of Christian training and education.  The cynical will say it was a means of controlling the population, and the sociologist may argue that the church was written onto the cultural tabula rasa that arose in the absence of any other common tradition or language. (Per Frazier, the American slave population was drawn from the vastly different regions of the slave coast, and thus there was no single common identity from the Old World.)  And, to be sure, there were "purer" motives of "saving the heathens" - both paternalistic and out of genuine concern.

A modern missiologist, however, would most likely argue that the history of the black church is the history of Joseph - what [we] intended for evil, God used to work for good. Indeed, Frazier argues the church rose as much for economic motives (replacing the tribal cultural an massing the strength of the African American community) as religious ones.

But to merely ascribe the rise of the church to "population control" motives misses out on the fact that the black population truly made the church their own is to do African Americans a major disservice. The story of Richard Allen, Absalom Jones and the rise of the AME church, for example, shows that it was not something "forced" upon them.  In the 1780s's, Jones and Allen led a black congregation that met in St. George's Church in Philadelphia in the early morning. Jealous of the success of that church, the white vestry that owned the building made life progressively more difficult, culminating in an episode in which Allen, in the midst of leading prayer, was savagely beaten at the altar.  His congregation moved out and later helped nurse Philadelphia through an outbreak of yellow fever - in spite of the opposition of the establishment.

As to the amazing rise of the church, it should be remembered that much of the slave trade - muchly stopped by the British who made it illegal to transport slaves across the Atlantic in 1808 - coincided with the First and Second Great Awakenings of the 1700s.  The fact that most African Americans today are Methodist and Baptist is indicative of that fact.  (Remember, they were imported into a colony - my own Virginia - that was strictly Episcopalian, and the "E" in AME is Episcopalian, but that "M" is Methodist). The overall rise in religiousity in American culture simply spilled over across racial lines.

I have no argument that slavery was anything less than unmitigated evil. That it was even justified in theological terms (Cursed be Caanan / Gen 10) is reprehensible.  And indeed, if you look at how segregation in churches was the response to the loss of the Civil War, I think it difficult to justify. But, in the same way that God used the sins of Joseph's brothers to glorify Himself, so to the rise the church that was introduced at the lash of the whip came to change the consciousness of the slave owner.  From the Christian Abolitionist movement of the early 1800s to the Civil Rights era of the 1950s (note, there is a reason Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr called it the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the issue of the "black man" was radically redefined when understood in the light of Jesus. To call the church "forced" upon blacks may have been true for a very short period, but they truly made it their own.

I think it's closer to the truth to say that the Africans brought to the US as slaves were exposed to facets of Christianity by many who used it as a tool for subjugation (which then brings into question the sincerity of their faith i.e. were they even Christian to begin with?) as the overwhelming violence surrounding the the nature of enslaved African life in the Americas seems to be in stark contrast to any Christian value.

At any rate early enslaved Africans received a mostly myopic teaching of the Bible focused on the subservience of slaves to slave owners despite the fact that the Bible is a book more about freedom from bondage than anything else. Over time the churches of Africans in America came to gain a fuller understanding of the entire word of God.


What happened to Ananias and Sapphira after death? Acts 5:1-11 (NIV)

  1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.  3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

  5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

  7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

  “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

  9Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

  10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

This is the only passage that I know of in the New Testament that tells us of Christians being put to death. As far as I understand, it was God that put them to death for lying to the Holy Spirit.

My question is what might have happened to them after their sudden death. Did they go directly to hell, or did they go to heaven? Was their death a kind of instant judgement that sent them away from God and directly to hell?

We don't know
The Bible doesn't tell us.  The only answer I can give is a tautology - if they were saved, then they went to heaven.  But the Bible doesn't tell us whether they were saved.
However, it should be noted that the nature of their punishment does not rule out the possibility of their salvation.  Consider 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 (NASB):

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Although the meaning of "destruction of his flesh" is debated, one possible interpretation is that this person was being sentenced to death.  Yet it is made clear that, despite the severity of the punishment, the man himself was saved.
But the question remains of whether Ananias and Sapphira were saved in the first place, as nothing in the text rules out their salvation, or indicates their possession of it.

I wonder if they were Malformed Christians. Remember this is the time of evangelistic explosion upon the Earth when all souls were of salvation interest. I do not believe God would have instantly condemned struggling weak or nonbelievers wanting to join the church but afraid to give their all..., if that was the case with them. it is more consistent that the apostles would have sought to straighten them out for the sake of their redemption. However, if they were compromised believers, and the ultimate recognition of their sin in the manifest presence of God struck their conscience and killed them, likely that was the penalty paid: death! To go to hell also would have been a double penalty. This could have happened with them, but somehow i think their death was the payment required at that moment. Lying to the Holy Spirit is not the same as blasphemy which is to attribute evil to the Spirit, saying bad things ABOUT Him rather than lying TO Him.


According to Scripture, is sacrifice a requirement for salvation? Regarding salvation, I was always under the impression a sacrifice had to be made (and as Christians we know Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for all sins), but looking through the Bible I see instances of God forgiving sins without requiring a sacrifice..

2 Chronicles 7:14 God forgave without a sacrifice. In Matthew 9:5 Jesus forgave without a sacrifice.

I'm used to hearing the judge analogy which states "A good judge can't dismiss sin, there has to be a punishment". According to Scripture, if God is righteous/a good judge, how can he forgive sins without a punishment/sacrifice?

What is salvation according to Scripture?

The OP has the right understanding. People are saved from their sins by Jesus

  Matt 1:21 (RSVCE) 21 she will bear a son, and you shall call
  his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Why is a sacrifice required?

Again OP has a right understanding. God is good, merciful and just. In justice, atonement for sin needs to be made, in his mercy, he has provided for forgiveness of sin. He has required sacrifice to achieve both ends. Saint Paul explains in Roman 5:1-10

  5 For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for
  sins. 2 He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he
  himself is beset with weakness. 3 Because of this he is bound to offer
  sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people. 4 And
  one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God,
  just as Aaron was.

  5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but
  was appointed by him who said to him,

  “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”;[a] 6 as he
  says also in another place,

  “Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchiz′edek.” 7 In
  the days of his flesh, Jesus[b] offered up prayers and
  supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save
  him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. 8 Although he was
  a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; 9 and being made
  perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,
  10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of
  Melchiz′edek.

  a. If Jesus was to be mediator, he had to have a human nature
  like ours, and, moreover, he could not appoint himself, but had to be
  appointed by God.
  b. Greek he

What is sacrifice?

  SACRIFICE The highest form of adoration, in which a duly authorized
  priest in the name of the people offers a victim in acknowledgment of
  God's supreme dominion and of total human dependence on God. The
  victim is at least partially removed from human use and to that extent
  more or less destroyed as an act of submission to the divine majesty.
  Thus a sacrifice is not only an oblation. Where an oblation offers
  something to God, a sacrifice immolates or gives up what is offered.
  In sacrifice the gift offered is something precious completely
  surrendered by the one making the sacrifice as a token of humble
  recognition of God's sovereignty. (Etym. Latin sacrum, holy, sacred
  + facere, to make, do.) - Dictionary: SACRIFICE | Catholic Culture

All the acceptable sacrifices in the Old testament were a type of Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus' sacrifice is the one that actually effects forgiveness of sins past, present and future.

  Matt (RSVCE) 28 for this is my blood of the [new] covenant,
  which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

God can forgive sin without sacrifice. Psalm 40:6 .....'Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required."

Jesus said that if we forgive those who trespass against us, our Father in heaven will forgive us. If we do not, then neither will our Father in heaven forgive us. (Matthew 6) VERY SIMPLE. Believe - trust - obey. And we are taught we must turn our hearts from our evil ways (the world) and towards Him (the Father), repent, forgive our fellow man, and then will God forgive us. No need for sacrifice. As even before Christ, blood sacrifice only atoned for unintentional sins, and were not required for gentiles. And after all, if the wages of sin is eternal death, and Jesus has risen (that is the truth), then he didn't pay the wages for our sin as he is obviously NOT eternally dead! And if the wages of sin is only physical death, then we all pay that debt on the day we die. Also, if our sins have been payed for already, there would be no need to repent, or change our ways, since no matter how much we sin, we're simply saved for believing so. Yet Jesus emphasized obedience to the will of the Father, and giving to the poor and needy.

As for how can God forgive sins without sacrifice? Well, he is God, and is loving, and just, and good. He also wishes that no one perish, but that all be saved, and is a merciful God. He is our Father, and we his children, and all he wants is for us to come back home (FOLLOW HIM - turn our hearts from the world, to Him). If we do that, then he will forgive us. That is how he can forgive men their sins. MERCY. LOVE. GOODNESS. The same way he forgave King David without a sacrifice is the exact way he can forgive you without a sacrifice! He does demand a sacrifice, just not blood. He demands that we forsake this world (Satan, evil, deception) and turn to him and follow him (God, Righteousness, Truth). That is the sacrifice - being willing to give our earthly life (if he so demands) for him, so as to save our soul for eternity. Jesus sums this up perfectly when he states that he who loves his life will lose it, but he who hates his life will have life eternal.


Why do Catholic persons not partake of mass every single day? The Douay Rheims bible states this for Matthew 6:11 :

Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.

Why, therefore, do Catholic persons not celebrate the mass every day ?

If the Douay Rheims bible states this for Matthew 6:11 : “Give us this day our super-substantial bread.” Why is it, therefore, that Catholics not attend Mass every day?
The short answer is that many choose not to or can not do so for a variety of reasons.
Daily Mass is attended out of devotion and piety. There is no official obligation on the part of the Church to go to Mass everyday of the week.
For myself, the number one reason, why I can not get to daily Mass is work. But some may ask: Surely there would be enough time after work? Well not true! There are three parishes in my area. Daily
Mass is at 8:00 AM at all three and that corresponds with the middle of my shift!
No pope has interpreted this passage as solely meaning the Eucharist, but it may well be applied to the Eucharist. According to Catholicism it can  be applied to another interpretation as well:  our daily necessities or our daily Eucharist.

Our Supersubstantial Bread
The Lord has left us a mystery to contemplate.  It is right there in the middle of the “Our Father” when Jesus teaches us to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread.” (Mt. 6:11) This is generally recognized to mean pray for our basic daily necessities. (CCC 2837)  This is true.  Yet, hidden in the mundane and seemingly redundant word “daily” is the veiled, mysterious Greek word epiousios (επιούσιος).  Epiousios is a unique word, sacramental-like in nature, a visible sign of a hidden reality.  Epiousios occurs nowhere else in the Greek Bible except in the same Our Father passage in Luke 11:3 and the Apostle’s Didache.  In fact, epiousios is not found anywhere else at all in Greek literature.  The only recorded reference to epiousios, ever, is Jesus’ prayer.
As the early Church Father and master of the Greek language Origen (d. 254 AD) concludes, epiousios was “invented by the Evangelists.”  The millennia have bore out his assertion that epiousios was a new word, a neologism of uncertain etymology.  The usual Greek word for “daily,” hemera, is, after all, used this elsewhere in the New Testament, but not in this instance.  Why did St. Matthew and St. Luke feel compelled to create a new Greek word to accurately reflect the words of Jesus?  They most likely had to use a new word to faithfully translate a novel idea or a unique Aramaic word that Jesus used in His prayer.  What was Jesus’ new idea?  Although there are multiple levels of meanings to epiousios, Jesus is making a clear allusion to the Eucharist.  “Our daily bread” is one translation of a word that goes far above our basic needs for sustenance, and invokes our supernatural needs.
St. Jerome translated the Bible in the 4th century from the original Latin, Hebrew and Greek texts to form the Latin Vulgate Bible.  When it came to the mysterious word epiousios, St. Jerome hedged his bets. In Luke 11:3, St. Jerome translated epiousios as “daily.”  Yet, in Matthew 6:11, he translated epiousios as “supersubstantial.”  The root words are: epi, meaning “above” or “super;” and ousia, meaning “being,” “essence,” or “substance.”  When they are read together, we come to the possible translations of “super-substantial,” “above-essence,” or, in effect, “supernatural” bread.  This translation as supersubstantial is still found today in the Douay-Rheims Bible.  Taken literally, our supersubstantial bread is the Eucharist. (CCC 2837)  In his commentary on St. Matthew’s gospel, St. Jerome states this directly: “We can also understand supersubstantial bread in another sense as bread that is above all substances and surpasses all creatures.”
St. Jerome translated the Bible in the 4th century from the original Latin, Hebrew and Greek texts to form the Latin Vulgate Bible.  When it came to the mysterious word epiousios, St. Jerome hedged his bets. In Luke 11:3, St. Jerome translated epiousios as “daily.” Yet, in Matthew 6:11, he translated epiousios as “supersubstantial.” The root words are: epi, meaning “above” or “super;” and ousia, meaning “being,” “essence,” or “substance.”  When they are read together, we come to the possible translations of “super-substantial,” “above-essence,” or, in effect, “supernatural” bread. This translation as supersubstantial is still found today in the Douay-Rheims Bible. Taken literally, our supersubstantial bread is the Eucharist. (CCC 2837) In his commentary on St. Matthew’s gospel, St. Jerome states this directly: “We can also understand supersubstantial bread in another sense as bread that is above all substances and surpasses all creatures.”
St. Jerome also suggests that the Hebrew word for epiousios was the word maar meaning “for tomorrow,” invoking an eschatological interpretation of epiousios. In this sense, we are praying “this day” for our bread “for tomorrow,” or our future bread.  We are petitioning God for tomorrow’s future bread today. Pope Benedict reflects on this “petition for an anticipation for the world to come, asking the Lord to give already ‘today’ the future bread, the bread of the new world – Himself.”  This again has Eucharistic overtones, as the Catechism states, “the Eucharist that is already the foretaste of the kingdom to come.” (CCC 2837)
This eschatological interpretation is also borne out in the parable for the “coming day’s bread,” that Jesus teaches immediately following the Our Father. In Luke 11:5-8, Jesus tells the story of a man, who at “midnight” asks a friend to lend him three loaves of bread, as another friend of his has arrived from a journey and he has nothing to give him. As scholars have noted, there is the crucial matter of timing in this parable.  In the morning the man can provide an abundance of food and bread for his guest, but at midnight he has nothing.  This is an allusion to the fact that in the coming day of the Lord in heaven we will have a superabundance to meet our every need, both material and spiritual. But, as of yet, in this temporal life, a constant need remains. - Our Supersubstantial Bread

The Church has never obliged the faithful to go Mass everyday. This would cause undue hardship on many. Historically, this would have been impossible for those working in agriculture in days prior to modern machines.
Would one travel x miles to Mass and leave the fields or livestock unattended?
In towns and cities, it would be more possible to attend daily Mass. But then, this too is thought as by being out of devotion and not out of obligation.
So, why do Catholic persons not partake of mass every single day?

Sometimes the distance to Mass is very great and not all Catholics have vehicles.
Some Catholics are in prison or doing military service for their country.
Work schedules for many conflict with Mass times, especially the further away from cities one dwells in.
Daily Mass has never been an obligation for the faithful. Many do go to daily Mass.

Matthew 6:11-13 is referencing Proverbs 30:8. In context to Proverbs 30:8 - "Daily Bread" or in hebrew "my Prescribed Bread" (Lechem Chuqi, לֶ֣חֶם חֻקִּֽי) relates to God's "Perpetual Statutes" (Chaq-Olam,  חָק־עוֹלָ֛ם) which are symbols of His Presence. God's Word is "Lechem Chuqi" or our daily bread which helps us understand how to "Keep falsehood and lies far from me" or  "lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil".
[Mishlei (Proverbs) 30:8]
"Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread."
(שָׁ֤וְא וּֽדְבַר־כָּזָ֡ב הַרְחֵ֬ק מִמֶּ֗נִּי רֵ֣אשׁ וָ֖עשֶׁר אַל־תִּֽתֶּן־לִ֑י הַ֜טְרִיפֵ֗נִי לֶ֣חֶם חֻקִּֽי)
By reading, understanding, and allowing scripture to shape our minds daily, we physically eat our prescribed bread with our eyes by seeing His Statutes (חֻקֵּי) and chew the verses by reciting each word of the Bible.


According to the Roman Catholic Church, is halal meat being offered up to idols? For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well. (Acts 15:28–29, ASV)
No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. (1 Corinthians 10:20, NIV)

In some nations there are Muslims working in the slaughterhouses blessing the meat so it becomes halal meat, so that Muslims can eat it when it is sold in the stores.
For many this is  not okay. What does the Roman Catholic Church say about this? Is this meat being offered up to idols?

The Roman Catholic Church does not teach that food certified by either the appropriate Jewish authorities as meeting requirements for Kosher certification, or by Islamic authorities as meeting requirements for Halal certification are foods offered to idols. The Catholic position is that the God of the Jews and the God of Muslims is the same God as the Christian God,, and therefore not an idol.

In explaining different understandings between most Jews and most Muslims, from the understanding that most Christians have of God, Catholics teach that Jews and Muslims,  and frankly many non-Catholic Christians,  too, have (at best) an incomplete knowledge of the nature of God.

Asking if “this [hallal] meat is being offered up to idols” seems to me a similar question as asking whether islam is idolatry (from a Catholic point of view).

What is idolatry?

A longer discussion of this definition can be found in the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (“IDÔLATRIE”). The Church Fathers understand idolatry as a worship rendered to false gods (Clement of Alexandry, St Gregory of Nazianzus). Origen is more precise and distinguishes the image (είκων) – true representation of an existing thing – from the idol (εἴδωλον) – false representation of a thing that doesn’t exist.

This sense is also the one of the Holy Scriptures (if you need more details about it please see the little bibliography at the end of my answer). That’s why idolatry must be defined as (translation of the formulation by F. Prat, Dictionnaire de la Bible, at “IDÔLE”):

  The supreme and absolute cult rendered to any other than the unique and true God.

So the question is: (according to Catholic Church) do they render a cult to the true God?

Is the Allah of Islam the same as the God of Christians?

According to Athanase Creed (recited by Catholics at Prime on Sunday, and admitted by Protestants), “the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God” (Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres dii, sed unus est Deus).

All human have the same God, in the sense that He is our Creator, whereas it doesn’t mean that all humans believe in Him: any God that isn’t triune is not the true God of Christians.

Even if they are right to be monotheistic, Muslims believe (ShahadaW):

  There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God.

And in fact Muslims oppose with force and sometimes violence against Christians precisely because of the trinitarian dogma. That’s why it remains clear that, from a Catholic point of view, they worship an idol that they name Allah and that isn’t the triune God.

Hallal meat

So now is hallal meat being offered up to Allah? It seems so: according to Wikipedia:

  Dhabīḥah (or zabiha, Arabic: ذَبِيْحَة dhabīḥah IPA: [ðæˈbiːħɐ], 'slaughter'(noun)) is, in Islamic law, the prescribed method of ritual slaughter of all lawful halal animals (goats, sheep, cows, chicken) excluding locusts, fish, and most sea-life. Unlawful animals like pigs, dogs, lions, bears, etc. are not allowed to be slaughtered or zabihah. This method of slaughtering lawful animals has several conditions to be fulfilled. The butcher must be Muslim, the name of God or "In the name of God" (Bismillah) must be called by the butcher upon slaughter of each halal animal separately, and it should consist of a swift, deep incision with a very sharp knife on the throat, cutting the wind pipe, jugular veins and carotid arteries of both sides but leaving the spinal cord intact.

  Dhabihah

What we have demonstrated is that, according to a catholic definition of idolatry and to the fundamental differences between Islamic Allah and catholic dogmas about what is God, Allah is in fact an idol from a catholic point of view.

Furthermore, it seems that dhabīḥah is a sacrifice to this Allah. So we may say: “Yes, hallal meat is being offered up to idol.”

From a Catholic point of view, it is meat sacrificed to idols, and so 1 Cor 10, 2 Cor 6, Acts 15:28–29… could be applied to hallal meat. By the way, this answer isn’t exactly an answer of the Catholic Church as it seems that no text of the Magisterium specifically deals with halal meat (and I personally find it logical): this answer is only an argumentation build on what the Catholic Church teaches.

As a conclusion, this interesting commentary of Blessed Innocent V on 1 Cor 10:28–32 (usually included in Saint Thomas Aquinas commentaries, translation by the Aquinas Institute):

  If I partake with thanksgiving, why am I spoken ill of for that for
  which I give thanks? [n. 568]

  Above he warned them to beware eating the food of idols, and he has
  given four reasons for his admonition: here he teaches, third, the way
  to beware the abovementioned things, by showing how one is allowed to
  eat, and how not.

  First therefore he shows whether it is licit to eat;

  second, when it is not licit, at but if any man says;

  third, what to attend to in either case at therefore, whether you eat
  (1 Cor 10:31).

  read more…

Bibliography

On the definition of idolatry

Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, “IDÔLATRIE”

On the sense of idolatry in the Holy Scriptures

Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, “IDÔLATRIE”
F. Prat, Dictionnaire de la Bible, “IDÔLE”
Hagen, Lexicon biblicum, the definition of the word “[IDOLOLATRIA][2]”

Commentaries on Aquinas

Translations by the Aquinas Institute are available online

In addition: some exact references to the teaching of Catholic Church

Believing in God cannot be separated from believing in the One he sent, his ‘beloved Son’

  For a Christian, believing in God cannot be separated from believing in the One he sent, his ‘beloved Son’, in whom the Father is ‘well pleased’; God tells us to listen to him. The Lord himself said to his disciples: ‘Believe in God, believe also in me’ (Jn 14:1). We can believe in Jesus Christ because he is himself God, the Word made flesh: ‘No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known’ (Jn 1:18). Because he ‘has seen the Father’, Jesus Christ is the only one who knows him and can reveal him (Jn 6:46; cf. Mt 11:27). (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 151)

Islam denies that Christ is truly the Son of God

  He [Mohammed] says that the Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit, but a creature and a servant, and that He was begotten, without seed, of Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron. For, he says, the Word and God and the Spirit entered into Mary and she brought forth Jesus, who was a prophet and servant of God. (St John Damascene, Concerning Heresies, 101: PG 94, 766)

  First of all we must observe that Muslims are silly in ridiculing us for holding that Christ is the Son of the living God, as if God had a wife. Since they are carnal, they can think only of what is flesh and blood. For any wise man can observe that the mode of generation is not the same for everything, but generation applies to each thing according to the special manner of its nature. […] So generation should be understood of God as it applies to an intellectual nature. (St Thomas Aquinas, Compendium on Reasons for the Faith against Muslim Objections, 3)

  O People of the Book, exceed not the limits in your religion, and say not of Allah anything but the truth. Verily, the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of Allah and a fulfilment of His word which He sent down to Mary, and a mercy from Him. So believe in Allah and His Messengers, and say not ‘They are three.’ Desist, it will be better for you. Verily, Allah is the only One God. Far is it from His Holiness that He should have a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And sufficient is Allah as a Guardian.
  (Koran 4:172)


What's wrong with the Summa Theologica? I've heard that there were two points of Catholic doctrine in Aquinas' Summa Theologica that were later successfully defended to the contrary.  One, I think is the Immaculate Conception of Mary (although I don't know where that is in the Summa) and I'm not sure what the other one is.

Excluding things that might not exactly measure up to modern science. What are the points of doctrine in the Summa that don't line up with Eternal Law?

There are two types of errors in the Summa. The first are of the type caused by a Medieval understanding of science and biology. The second are actual theological dead ends.

The most famous of both has the first causing the second. Thomas believed that the entirety of the body was in the man's "seed". Because of this he argued that the Virgin Mary was purified from sin in the womb. The current Catholic teaching, of course, is that the purification was at conception.

After that it really does become difficult to say that there are "points of doctrine in the Summa that don't line up with Eternal Law". There are competing perspectives which have been proposed, but that does not mean that that Thomas was wrong, simply that there are other, valid views and vocabulary which have been used to express the same thought.

Constancy of Change in Sexual Ethics, By Fr. James T. Bretzke, www.americamagazine.org/issue/5151/article/road-ahead
"Today neither magisterial teaching nor most moral theologians fully embrace the Angelic Doctor’s paradigm of “unnatural vice” (masturbation), a species of lust, contrary to both reason and the natural order and, after bestiality and sodomy, the “gravest sexual sin,” ranking ahead of, in descending order of gravity, incest, rape, adultery, seduction and fornication (ST II-II. Q. 154, art. 11-12). Masturbation’s violation of the sexual faculty’s sole primary procreative end made it seriously sinful."

If Aquinas named this sin as worse than incest and rape, his logical faculties were not as great as they are praised to have been. If he could screw this up, what else did he screw up?

To be fair, here is an alternative which attempts to explain II-II Q#154:
http://www.pathsoflove.com/blog/2009/06/aquinas-on-sexual-sins-dangers-of-speaking-formally/

But I am still in possession of my negative opinion: The vocation of a theologian depends upon two things: (a) knowing the truth, and (b) being able to communicate it. On numerous occasions neo-thomists have to clean up what was said in the original. "He didn't mean that." "You are mistaken." "If you only knew the context," etc. In cases like this (II-II Q#154) it is clear that St. Thomas Aquinas himself screwed up. If he meant something different he should have said something different. Let's assume that you, the author of this blog's response, are correct and the actual text, interpreted correctly, is without blame. What then is the purpose in studying Aquinas' works if it takes SOOOOO much effort to interpret what he has said on such a simple matter as saying that the sin of masturbation is the least of the list, not the greatest of the list? I can only imagine the pitfalls one stumbles through in Aquinas' statements about more complex matters, ones where the common man, with common sense doesn't already know the answer.


What is the Biblical basis for not making circumcision a requirement for Christians? I recently read an argument which was basically 'Paul against Jesus' type and was something like this:

Jesus said that He didn't come to abolish the Jewish laws but to fulfill them:

  Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17, NET)

And we have this verse in OT:

  Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin will be cut off from his people – he has failed to carry out my requirement. (Genesis 17:14, NET)

It is argued that even though Jesus was circumcised, it is not a requirement now for Christians because Paul preached so.

What is the Biblical basis for not making circumcision a requirement for Christians?

Scripture (and that I mean here the law) clearly tells us that the circumcision is not to be of only physical nature.

  Jeremiah  4:4 Just as ritual circumcision cuts away the foreskin as an external symbol of dedicated covenant commitment, you must genuinely dedicate yourselves to the LORD.

In Jeremiah 9:25, scripture says that if we are not circumcised in our hearts than it is of no use. Here the argument of Paul verses Jesus is clearly defeated since Paul is basing his teaching on what was said in the law which Jesus was saying in Matt. 5:17 that He came to fulfill the law. Paul being a learned Jewish scholar knew all these prophecies which were being fulfilled in Jesus.

  Jeremiah 9:25 The LORD says, “Watch out! The time is soon coming when I will punish all those who are circumcised only in the flesh. 9:26 That is, I will punish the Egyptians, the Judeans, the Edomites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, and all the desert people who cut their hair short at the temples. I will do so because none of the people of those nations are really circumcised in the LORD’s sight. Moreover, none of the people of Israel are circumcised when it comes to their hearts.”

So above verses and following verses from scripture (law) rather tells us that we need to be circumcised in heart also.

  Ezekiel 44:7 When you bring foreigners, those uncircumcised in heart and in flesh, into my sanctuary, you desecrate it – even my house – when you offer my food, the fat and the blood. You have broken my covenant by all your abominable practices.

  Ezekiel  44:9 This is what the sovereign LORD says: No foreigner, who is uncircumcised in heart and flesh among all the foreigners who are among the people of Israel, will enter into my sanctuary.

Now coming to the New Testament, we see in verse of Act:10.45 that even uncircumcised believers were filled with Holy spirit.

  Acts: 10:45 The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were greatly astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles,

And in Verse Act. 11:5 Peter’s vision tells us about to accept uncircumcised believers:

  Acts 11:5 “I was in the city of Joppa praying, and in a trance I saw a vision, an object something like a large sheet descending, being let down from heaven by its four corners, and it came to me. 11:6 As I stared I looked into it and saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild animals, reptiles, and wild birds. 11:7 I also heard a voice saying to me, ‘Get up, Peter; slaughter and eat!’ 11:8   But I said, ‘Certainly not, Lord, for nothing defiled or ritually unclean has ever entered my mouth!’ 11:9 But the voice replied a second time from heaven, ‘What God has made clean, you must not consider ritually unclean!’

Elsewhere also we see that there is a strong Biblical basis for not following the practice of circumcision in the following verses:

  Acts 15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that some time ago God chose me to preach to the Gentiles so they would hear the message of the gospel and believe. 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, has testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 15:9 and he made no distinction between them and us, cleansing their hearts by faith. 15:10 So now why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? 15:11 On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they are.”

  Romans: 2:25 For circumcision has its value if you practice the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcised man obeys the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 2:27 And will not the physically uncircumcised man who keeps the law judge you who, despite the written code and circumcision, transgress the law? 2:28 For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something that is outward in the flesh, 2:29 but someone is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit and not by the written code. This person’s praise is not from people but from God.

  Romans 4:12, “And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.”

So it is not Paul who stopped the circumcision on his own but his preaching was firmly based on the various verses in the law which Jesus came to fulfill and those verses are to be fulfilled by not circumcising physically but spiritually.

Thank you for asking this question. You do see that Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them." (Matt. 5:17).

What is missed is the "fulfill them" part. Holy God made it pure righteousness to perfectly execute the law. Therefore in his spirit he continually fulfills the laws that we transgress of to the perfection that he himself requires. People error in the thinking that by his death only, that this one act was all that was necessary to complete the law. What I tell you is that he magnifies in his ultimate glory everyday as he works to complete the law for the ones that have the faith that he will.

This also points out peoples misunderstanding of faith. The perfect law says eye for eye. Now if an aggressor takes out my eye, and I believe that God will remove the eye of the aggressor. I become Justified in my action because my trust in him. For my actions become circumcised, yet the law becomes complete because of "his righteous judgement".

Now in the Old Testament it states: "Any uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin will be cut off from his people – he has failed to carry out my requirement." (Gen. 17:14). This is symbolic to what Paul is preached by saying "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people" (1 Corinthians 5:9 NIV). The actual circumcision of the flesh was meant as a permanent physical reminder that sexually immorality was to be rid of. No longer the flesh of all women, the flesh of the wife instead. A minimization, a separating, a cause to create specialization for the temple of the body, for Love.

No instead Paul preached a harder teaching. He said that the spirit was against the flesh (Galatians 5:17), and to crucify the desires of the flesh (Galatians 5:24). Since indeed the heart of this teaching being so much more severe. Satisfies the need for symbolization. So the symbol is no longer needed.

It is argued that even though Jesus was circumcised, it is not a requirement now for Christians because Paul preached so. Jesus I'm sure was circumcised for he was to be the expression to the meaning behind the law. So hear this now, the circumcision of the flesh is indeed necessary. So important that the penalty is that of death (Romans 8:6). Only now the circumcision exists inwardly instead of symbolically and outwardly.

What is the Biblical basis for not making it a requirement for Christians? A counsel was formed to determine what laws should continue now that the perfection offered by the works of God. In this counsel the outcome "You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell." (Acts 15:29 NIV). Notice that abstaining from sexual immorality continued on from the base of the law. For adding on sexual immorality into ones life they indeed are not slicing away that part of their flesh. But the separation of the flesh from the Spirit is relayed often.

Notice also "Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer." (Deuteronomy 10:16) and "No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person's praise is not from other people, but from God." (Rom 2:29)


What does the moniker "the beloved disciple" imply about the marital status of John the Evangelist? John the Evangelist occasionally refers to himself as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (Jn 12:23; 19:26; 21:7; 21:20). (Interestingly, no other evangelist makes such a reference.) Is it possible that Jesus had a special consideration for John because of that status? What is the Catholic view of it?

In Church Tradition, St. John was very young, perhaps an adolescent, when he first followed Jesus, and it is said he was never married.

In Chap. 16 That All May Be Saved, 266 in the book Friends of God, St. Josemaría Escrivá preaches:

  'Whereupon the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, It is the Lord.' Love, love is farsighted. Love is the first to appreciate
  kindness. The adolescent Apostle, who felt a deep and firm affection
  for Jesus, because he loved Christ with all the purity and tenderness
  of a heart that had never been corrupted, exclaimed: 'It is the
  Lord!'

  'Simon Peter, hearing him say that it was the Lord, girded up the
  fisherman's coat, and sprang into the sea.' Peter personifies faith.
  Full of marvellous daring, he leaps into the sea. With a love like
  John's and a faith like Peter's, what is there that can stop us?

In the Gospels there is another young man who Jesus looked at and loved, and that was the Rich Man, who had observed ALL the commandments from his youth.

Where can therefore conclude from the preaching of St. Josemaría and from the Gospels that St. John was the beloved disciple because he, like the Rich Young Man, was uncorrupted from his youth, but unlike the the Rich Young Man, St. John followed Jesus and was faithful to the end of his very long life.

Conclusion

From Catholic Tradition and from Scripture, one cannot imply anything about the marital status of St. John the Evangelist from the moniker "the beloved disciple" .

The Catholic New American Bible, in its introduction to John's Gospel says, "Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person," so perhaps we can no longer think of the Gospel as entirely, if at all, the work of the apostle John. The Introduction says that although tradition identified the source of the fourth gospel as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this. This means that the evangelist who actually wrote John's Gospel was not referring to himself, nor in all likelihood to John.  Therefore we do not know the identity of 'the disciple whom Jesus loved'.

From the synoptic gospels it does appear possible that John was unmarried during the life and mission of Jesus, although Paul seems to have believed that the apostles were married:

  1 Corinthians 9:5: Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?

The references to 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' provide no certain information about the apostle John and, unfortunately, after the passage of two thousand years we could not truly say whether Jesus had a special consideration for John because of his marital status, if indeed he was unmarried.


"You must use the psalms of the day at Sext" - why? I've recently taken to praying the Liturgy of the Hours using the Universalis program. This is fabulous in all kinds of ways. Today, however, I found something that I didn't understand.

Normally at the daytime offices (Terce, Sext, None) you can choose whether to say the psalms of the day or the complementary psalms (which are always the same). Today, however, there is an instruction at the psalms for Terce and None:

  SPECIAL FOR TODAY: If you are celebrating Sext today, you must use the psalms of the day at Sext, and use the complementary psalms now.

There is a similar instruction on Wednesday, but this time the psalms of the day are to be used at None  instead.

Why are there these specific instructions about which sets of psalms to use on these certain occasions?

I alerted Martin Kochanski, the author of Universalis, to this question, and he's written a blog post specially for it, to which readers are referred.

The simple answer is: on certain days in the four-week cycle, the Breviary has a small and slightly obscure rubric whose effect is that the complementary psalms aren't allowed at a certain daytime Hour.
No reason is ever given, but when I was programming Universalis I finally managed to work it out. On those days, some of the complementary psalms in question appear in one of the main Hours. For instance, on Monday of the third week of the four-week cycle, Psalm 70(71) is recited at Vespers. Psalm 70(71) is also one of the complementary psalms for Sext — so, to avoid repetition, the Breviary says "don't use the complementary psalms at Sext".

Similar things can happen at Lauds with the Invitatory psalm, and even in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, where some psalms which are alternatives to canticles are prohibited where they occur in the ordinary course of reciting the psalter.

The idea of praying to God regularly is to build your trust and faith in him. How can you do that if you are reciting someone else's prayer? Philippians 4:6

  "Do not be anxious over anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication along with thanksgiving, let your petitions be made known to God"

James 4:8

  "Draw close to God, and he will draw close to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you indecisive ones."

Prayer to God should always be from your heart. You cannot cultivate a relationship with God by merely reciting words that really have no meaning to you. Doing so takes away from the real intention of prayer. The Jew's made the mistake of doing things out of habit and routine. That is not what God want's from us and even warns against it at Matthew 6:7-8

  "When praying, do not say the same things over and over again as the people of the nations do, for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words. So do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need even before you ask him."

You can look at those prayers in order to gain an understanding of what is proper to ask for. Even the prayer that Jesus gave us in Matthew 6 is just a model.

I think the purpose of using the psalms of the day is to get people to read the bible and to keep them thinking about spiritual things. Doing so is a good precursor to making regular prayer and maybe that is the goal of this schedule. Good motive, but what the bible teaches us to do is make our own regular prayers to God. 1 Thessalonians 5:17-18

  Pray constantly. Give thanks for everything. This is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.


Are there Christian denominations debating whether Jesus was really the son of God? I don't know what others christian denominations say, but it is sure that Catholic Church doesn't pose any doubt that Jesus was the son of God, nor a discussion about this believing is in its agenda.

Abstractly speaking, there is no argument to exclude that God exists, but nowadays more than one doubt arises about the fact that Jesus was the son of God.

So, are there any Christian denominations discussing or debating whether Jesus was really the son of God?

Would believing that Jesus is not the son of God also be denying the existence of God (the God of Abraham)?

In other words, is there any room in Christianity for believing that Jesus was not the literal son of God?

Your question ends asking this:

"In other terms, is there a way to conceive Christianity refusing the concept that Jesus was the son of God?"

It would be a clear "NO".

To say that Jesus is just like any other great Godly man having special friendship with God, as you have put it in  one of your comment, is to look at those places in Bible where Jesus is equalled with God, as major flaws and contradictions in the Bible. To take Jesus in this manner and to say that He was only human and with no divine nature is to reduce the whole Bible into a bundle of inconsistencies. All those verses in Bible where Jesus is sometime portrayed as human and sometime as Divine, remains in harmony  with each other especially in New Testament, only when we accept Jesus as having both human as well as Divine nature. Without this we would be representing Christianity in complete contradiction to the Old Testament as well as what we have in New Testament.

We cannot overlook all those verses where Jesus is clearly portrayed as having Divine nature. He was crucified for saying that He was Son of God. Further in John 8:58 He declares:

  John 8:58 Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”

Then we have at other places where Jesus forgave third person’s sins. If you do something against me, I have the right to forgive you. However, if you do something against me and somebody else comes along and says, "I forgive you," what kind of cheek is that? The only person who can say that sort of thing is God himself, because sin, even if it is against other people, is first and foremost a defiance of God and his laws. So along comes Jesus and he says to sinners, "I forgive you." The Jews immediately recognize the blasphemy of this. They react by saying, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Not only did Jesus forgive sin, but he asserted that he himself was without sin. And certainly sinless-ness is an attribute of deity. as if it is against Him, equalling Himself as God and many places He equalled Himself with God. All these events and quotations would glaringly be biggest contradiction which would stare at Christianity and for which there would be no plausible explanation to offer.

In the verse below, we find Jesus giving the highest honour to John the Baptist and that John is more than a prophet.

  Matt. 11:9-11 What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’ “I tell you the truth, among those born of women, no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is.

This would mean that Jesus makes Himself smaller than John, which cannot be. Since John was someone who was more than a prophet, it only shows that Jesus was not just a prophet or someone more than that but someone much greater than that.

Again we find in Gospel of Mathew;

  Matt. 16:13-17 When Jesus came to the area of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They answered, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!

And finally: Early in the Old Testament God introduced this idea of one innocent being shedding its blood in place of the sinner’s. However the solution of sacrificing bulls and goats and lambs for the sins of each person’s sin was a temporary fix. The next year, another animal would have to be sacrificed for the same person. A more permanent solution was needed, as noted in Hebrews 10:4:

  For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

That meant a human was needed to die for humans’ sin. But all humans are sinful, so another sin-filled person dying for us just wouldn’t work. A human without sin was needed.
But ever since Adam, every human born is sin-filled, so how could a sinless man happen? The only way was if God did it Himself.

Yes.  Mine is--we recognize that Jesus can't be the son of god, because we recognize that an inescapable corollary of the Christ's teachings is that there is not a god.  Thus, as Christians, we are enjoined from believing in a god, and so we recognize that Jesus can therefore not be its son.


What did God mean when He said to Moses, "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh"? Perhaps I'm not seeing the meaning behind the translation, but while reading the KJV Exodus, I'm confused by chapter 7 verse 1, which reads:

  "And the Lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet."

The verse throws me off. I'm sure that God isn't meaning that Moses is literally God. But I thought Moses was the prophet, and Aaron was just a priest under Moses (the prophet). Why would God use this wording, calling Moses "a God"?

Found a useful thought on the page https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2004206#h=23:0-24:0, which notes:

  How was Moses made “God to Pharaoh”? Moses was given divine power and authority over Pharaoh. Hence, there was no need to be afraid of that king.

Highlighted here on another page https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2002564#h=27:0-28:0
 is the following idea:

  Aaron served as a prophet, not in the sense of foretelling future events, but by becoming Moses’ spokesman, or mouthpiece.

Consider that the Pharaoh was himself seen as a god, and that Moses acted in behalf of the "God of gods", who "removes kings and sets up kings" (Daniel 2:21,47). It must have been a fearful thing to be at the Pharaoh's mercy, as the Egyptians would probably have obeyed the Pharaoh without any questions asked. As consequence, it may have been the first time for someone to speak against the Pharaoh at all, not to mention the bold and open manner in which it was to happen. No wonder then that Moses could do with all the reassurance he could get!

@David ~ William Ford published his doctoral thesis as an academic book, called: "God, Moses + Pharaoh" ~ what he told us in an extramural short course was that God was reminding Moses that he was to be God's Priestly and Oracular intermediary between Moses and Himself; and also that, given that Pharaoh's whole culture was governed by many gods, and that Pharaoh and his people regarded Pharaoh himself as a god, Pharaoh would already be ready to engage with Moses, as Moses' dramatically demonstrated God's power, speaking for a/the God of great power, as if Moses himself was that God. And of course you require a more academic response such as you could find in Wm Ford's tome.


Are there theological explanations for why God allowed ambiguity to exist in Scripture? Doctrinal differences abound in Christianity. This is attested to by the numerous times the Church has suffered splits and given birth to different denominations, branches, and sub-branches. The question Can somebody summarize the different “branches” of Christianity to me, and explain why they exist in the first place? gets this point across tremendously well.
But this inevitably leads us to ask the question: Why did God allow something like this to happen in the first place? If we look at the root causes of the many divisions in the history of the Church, one main reason that immediately stands out is the many different ways in which the Scriptures have been interpreted throughout history. And this is nothing to be surprised about when you have Scriptures that are inherently ambiguous, lending themselves to different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, interpretations.
And just to make matters even more complicated, even before we get to interpret anything, the question about what is considered part of the canon of Scripture and what isn't is also controversial in and of itself (for evidence of this, simply take a look at the many questions that have already been asked on the topic of the canon of scripture).
If God was behind the scenes inspiring and guiding the compilation of the Bible, then it follows that the existence of ambiguity in Scripture (what should be included in the canon, how Scripture should be interpreted, etc.) couldn't have been a coincidence. It had to be intentional. God, for some unknown reason, deliberately and intentionally allowed ambiguity to exist in Scripture.
Why?

(*) Note: I don't intend this question to be opinion-based, so I would rather encourage answers that draw on reputable sources, e.g., the works of reputable Christian philosophers or theologians that have discussed this question before, etc. Alternatively, if a denomination has an official denominational answer to the question, it would be great to know about that too.

Related: Are there any denominations that give official advice on how to handle the uncertainty in their doctrines?

In Matthew 13, Jesus reveals that it is God's will that some people understand and others be confused:

11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of
heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be
given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have,
even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to
them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. 15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’
16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because
they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people
longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you
hear but did not hear it.

Jesus is here repeating sentiments found in Psalms 115 & 135 and in Isaiah 6.
Furthermore, Proverbs 2 tells us that wisdom only comes to people who make a long study of Scripture.

My son, if you accept my words
and store up my commands within you, 2 turning your ear to wisdom
and applying your heart to understanding— 3 indeed, if you call out for insight
and cry aloud for understanding, 4 and if you look for it as for silver
and search for it as for hidden treasure, 5 then you will understand the fear of the Lord
and find the knowledge of God. 6 For the Lord gives wisdom;
from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. 7 He holds success in store for the upright,
he is a shield to those whose walk is blameless, 8 for he guards the course of the just
and protects the way of his faithful ones.
9 Then you will understand what is right and just
and fair—every good path. 10 For wisdom will enter your heart,
and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul. 11 Discretion will protect you,
and understanding will guard you.

You have to prove you believe, that God's word matters to you and is precious before such wisdom is entrusted to you. Also, as Jesus said, the Kingdom of Heaven is one that grows like a mustard seed (Matthew 13 & 17). It does not start out full size. You begin with small understanding and if you cultivate it patiently, you end up with great understanding.
Thus the Church is filled with people at every level of understanding, and some charlatans with no understanding.
In the last three years, through an increased thirst for the reading of scripture, I have learned more than in the previous two decades combined. What that tells me is that even after thirty years of being a Christian, I have much to learn. If it is true for individuals like me, it is also true for denominations and other groupings of Christians. In my study of Ecclesiastes 3, I have found two interesting things. First, the 28 times (a time to be born , a time to die, etc) describe the phases we go through as we grow from infancy to adulthood, with the final time being peace. Second, these times also describe the history of Israel and the Church as God's people corporately grow from infancy to maturity. We are still not all the way there, but we will get there.

Are there theological explanations for why God allowed the existence of ambiguity in Scripture?
The answer is Yes. And that was the purpose why Jesus founded His Church on the rock. And the Church will be the guardian and pillars of Truth.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”(Matthew16:18-19

if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.(1Timothy3:15)

We can see clearly that Jesus had chosen the twelve Apostles to teach them and gave them authority and promised them the guidance of the Spirit of Truth, take note, Jesus promised them not the "gifts of the Holy Spirit" but the "Spirit of Truth" who also personifies the "another Advocate". And Jesus called His Apostles "friends".

No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not understand what his master is doing. But I have called you friends, because everything I have learned from My Father I have made known to you. (John1:15)

All Christians and Catholic faithful can read and understand the bible and even interprets it according to the gifts of the Holy Spirit or according to their inspiration and faith-lived experiences. But, Christian and Catholic individuals cannot claimed that their personal interpretation is the Truth, that's the key difference from the Apostles.
The Apostles were given the power to bind their teachings and interpretation, while individual followers or disciples has no teaching authority.

"Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." ... Matthew 18:18

But, Peter was especial because of the this two passages Matthew16:19 and an assurance that his faith will not fail in Luke22:32.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[a] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[b] loosed in heaven.”

But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

Actually, Peter's faith failed by denying Christ three times, and also the remaining Apostles who made their oath along with Peter that they will not deny Jesus the Son of Man during the Last Supper ceremony. Judas was already gone when they made the oath to Jesus Christ in the gospel of Matthew chpater26.
Peter was able to rise-up as he was led to seek the help of the Theotokos the Advocate or Advocata in the First century Christian Tradition. Peter was consoled by the Blessed Virgin Mary, and after that Peter consoled all the Apostles who somehow also deny Jesus by hiding in the hour of His passion and death, Luke22:32 was fulfilled as Peter was able to console and strengthen the Apostles, his brethren.
In closing, is there an ambiguity in scriptures? Yes. Did God purposely allow the ambiguity? Yes, because God wanted to establish His Church and Authority, so that all ambiguity can be settled by Church Authority as the Final Authority because they were chosen by God, they were taught by Jesus, they were ordained by Jesus and promised the guidance of the Spirit of Truth and the another Advocate that were not promise to any individual Christian and even to Pastors.


Did Moses Have A Speech Impediment? Did Moses have a speech impediment?  Because Acts 7:22 says he was powerful in speech and action which contradicts Exodus 4:10.

Acts 7:22 And Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds.
Exodus 4:10 But Moses said to the Lord, “Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue.”

Exodus 4:10 says that when God asked Moses to speak for him, Moses came up with the excuse that he was “slow of speech and tongue.”  Some Bible commentators have suggested that Moses might have suffered from some sort of speech impediment.  However, it’s more likely that Moses was simply resisting God because he was unwilling to return to Pharaoh’s court and stand up for the Hebrew slaves.

What we do know about Moses is that he was brought up as the adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter and would have benefitted from the finest education.  That’s why Acts 7:22 says Moses was instructed “in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and he was mighty in his words and deeds.”   That is not a contradiction of what Moses said in Exodus 4:10.  The events that led up to the exodus of the Hebrews out of Egypt testify to the fact that God used Moses and his brother in the outworking of His divine plans.  It was God who enabled Moses.  Moses’ feeble excuse that he was “slow of speech and tongue” didn’t work.  In spite of Moses’ failings, God saw fit to use him and to empower him.  Because God was with Moses then no impediment, real or imagined, would stand in God’s way.

Acts 7:22 when it says  "he was mighty in his words and deeds", means he was truthful when he spoke and his deeds we're great. Many contradictions in the Bible but these two passeges aren't one of them. Nabi Musa(alaihi salaam) didn't have a speech impediment, when he was a child he burnt his tounge on a  hot peace of coal. A test from the Pharaoh to see if he could tell the difference between a bowl of hot coals and a bowl of jewels and gold after grabbing the Pharaoh's beard and smacking him in the face. when he began to reach for the jewels and gold Angel Jibreel guided Musa (peace be upon him) hand to the bowl of  hot coals. Afterwards putting it into his mouth and burning his own tounge. The Pharaoh spared Musa's life thinking if he couldn't tell the difference between hot coals and jewels then he was no threat to the Pharaoh himself


Do angels possess 1) a body, soul and spirit, 2) a soul and spirit or 3) just a spirit? My personal understanding is that plants have a body, animals have both a body and a soul, and mankind has a body, a soul and a spirit.  However, angels, as I understand, do not have a body that is physical.  Jesus seems to have indicated this after His bodily resurrection.

  See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.  Luke 24:39 ESV

Are angels, then, classified as spirits, having no flesh and bones?  If so, are they spirits with souls or just spirits?

I would like an answer from the perspective of those who hold to the tripartite nature of mankind (body, soul and spirit).  I do not know if positions differ between the traditions of Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic.  If they do, I am specifically interested in what Protestants believe on this issue and and in what ways this is distinct.

Within the writings of defenders of the trichotomic nature of man there is significant variation on the question of the nature of angels.  The trichotomy of man is a much more popular doctrine within Protestantism than in other branches of Christianity, so that's the background of the theologians quoted  here.
The simplest part of this question is, do angels have spirits?  It's not surprising that these theologians hold that angels are spirit or have spirits.  Evidence for this will be seen as I handle the remaining two questions: Do angels have bodies?  Do angels have souls?
Do angels have bodies?
Defenders of the trichotomic nature of man fall into three camps on this question: (a) angels do not have bodies, (b) they have a particularly pure body, unlike our own, and (c) we don't know.
(A) J. Rodman Williams belongs to the first camp:

Angels are pure spiritual beings.  [...] This is not an attribute or quality of their being; rather in essence angels are spirits.  Angels, accordingly, are incorporeal: they have no bodies. A spirit, a pneuma, does not have flesh and bones.1

Another proponent of this view is Franz Delitzsch.  He discusses the visible manifestations of angels as follows:

The angels have no bodies; but, by the miraculous power of their will, they might be able to make themselves visible, and to take what forms they pleased, according to the object of their mission, and the subjectivity of the beholder.2

This, he says, is the only sense in which it can be said that angels have bodies: that "like the divine nature, [their spiritual nature] is capable of manifestation."2
(B) The second camp holds that angels have bodies, but that these bodies are somehow more pure or more spiritual than those of man.  Clarence Larkin simply states, "angels have bodies."3  John Bickford Heard, while saying that angels have no "physical nature,"4 nonetheless suggests that angels, like resurrected men, have "pneumatical bod[ies]":

To man [belongs] the nutritive, sentient, and rational, with the germ of the spiritual, and to angels the sentient, rational, and spiritual, without the nutritive. [...] Since man hereafter is to be equal with the angels, the nutritive or plant life cannot form part of his resurrection body. [...] This transformation of man from a psychical to a pneumatical body is analogous to the transformation of insects.5

(C) Those more hesitant to take a position on this question include Lewis Sperry Chafer, who writes, "if the angels have bodies, their bodies are of a spiritual order."6  Similarly, Jan Jacob van Oosterzee calls the question "wholly uncertain" of whether angels were "created free from all corporeity, or simply from our more gross one."7
Do angels have souls?
Here we have more agreement, though some commentators do not directly address the question.  Not surprisingly, members of the first group above, Williams and Delitzsch, do not believe that angels have souls.  Delitzsch writes:

Not as though the angels also had souls: we could only speak of the souls of angels as of a [soul] of God. [...] Scripture only speaks of souls of men and of brutes.8

Heard does not discuss angels having souls, and Johann Tobias Beck writes that "we never hear of a soul in angels."9  Chafer approvingly quotes10 another trichotomic theologian, Hans Martensen, who says:

It is precisely because the angels are only spirits, but not souls, that they cannot possess the same rich existence as man, whose soul is the point of union in which spirit and nature meet.11

Conclusion
In conclusion, we can summarize the views of trichotomic theologians as follows:

Angels are, or have, spirits.
Angels do not have bodies like men; if they do have bodies, they are in some sense spiritual bodies.
Angels do not have souls.

References:

Williams, Renewal Theology, Volume 1, 173–74.
Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 81.
Larkin, Rightly Dividing the Word, 93.
Heard, The Tripartite Nature of Man, 87.
Heard, The Tripartite Nature of Man, 354.
Chafer, Major Bible Themes, Chapter 20. (also archived on WebCite)
Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics, 316.
Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, 231.
Beck, Outlines of Biblical Psychology, 9.
Chafer, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 2.
Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 133.

a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. (Luke 24:39 ESV)

This may refer to an apparition or ghost, which the disciples first suspected. Scripture clearly demonstrates and personal experience further confirms that many angels do indeed have full and tangible bodies.

It is a misunderstanding of the spirit realm and of angelic beings to assume that they can not materialise and even function as a human being, (this can be seen early in the book of Genesis).

The spirit realm is much more "real" than the material world we live in. God is a SPIRIT, do you assume he has less substance than yourself or all of His glorious creation?

It is probably counterproductive to rationalise as to whether angles have the specific qualities you enquire about. We cannot begin to imagine Heaven. We cannot grapple with the absence of time and without it, we have barely a notion of what eternity is. Yet, eternity is that which born again believers have already entered! We can sit in our office, drive our cars, dig ditches and yet at the same time be seated in Heavenly places in Christ!


Psalm 14 and psalm 53 are similar? Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 are almost identical with little differences.

Is there any reason why the same psalm is repeated?

Are these psalms composed by the same author?

Psalm 14 is for the director of music, and is ascribed to David.  Psalm 53 is also for the director of music and is “according to mahalath - a Maschil of David”.  A ‘Maschil’ is a contemplative Psalm.
The Hebrew word ‘mahalath’ comes from a word meaning lyre. https://www.behindthename.com/name/mahalath
Although both psalms contain very similar words, the musical arrangement may have been different.
There is a clear lyrical difference towards the end of each psalm:

Psalm 14:5–6 states, “But there they are, overwhelmed with dread, / for God is present in the company of the righteous. / You evildoers frustrate the plans of the poor, / but the Lord is their refuge.” By contrast, Psalm 53:5 says, “But there they are, overwhelmed with dread, / where there was nothing to dread. / God scattered the bones of those who attacked you; / you put them to shame, for God despised them.”

What is the difference? Psalm 14 focuses more on God’s deliverance of the righteous, while Psalm 53 focuses more on God’s defeat of the wicked. It is possible that one of the songs is an adaptation of the earlier song, and the change in lyrics commemorates a specific event.

The third difference between the two psalms regards the use of God’s name. Psalm 14 uses “the Lord” (Yahweh) in verses 2, 4, 6, and 7. Psalm 53 uses “God” (Elohim) in all seven places where God is mentioned.   Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Psalms-14-53.html

Although the musical arrangements to both psalms may have been quite different, there is one significant similarity - both psalms are about the salvation of God. Both psalms end with these words: “Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion! / When the Lord restores his people, / let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad!” (Psalm 14:7; cf. 53:6).
This article I found looks into the division of the psalms into five books: https://www.gotquestions.org/Psalms-five-books.html

Could it be that Psalm 14 addresses the Jewish fool, while Psalm 53 addresses the Gentile fool? In Psalm 53 the psalmist mentions the bones of a fool encamped against God, which seems to suggest a Gentile attack against Jerusalem.