Why is acting not a sin? If lying is a sin then why is acting not a sin? By 'acting' I mean intentionally deceiving others.

Example: You meet with someone and act happy, but you are mad at them they now are deceived and think you're happy with them.

It cannot be wrong to be discreet or to present a specific outward appearance to others for Jesus commands his disciples that when they fast they are to anoint themselves with oil and they are not to advertise the fact that they are fasting, Matthew 6:16.

Nor can it be wrong to deliberately adopt an appearance that is anonymous or that is unidentifiable for Jesus did so on the Emmaus road, maintaining that presence for quite some time until the two disciples realised to whom they had spoken, Luke 24:15.

But it is clearly wrong to deliberately put on an act in order to present oneself in a good light to others, deliberately enhancing oneself in order to give a false appearance since Jesus condemns such things as praying long prayers in public and deliberately displaying the physical effects of fasting, calling it 'hypocrisy', Matthew 5 and 6.

We are told to be honest one with another and to speak to anyone who has trespassed, privately, in order to avoid grudges, Matthew 18:15, not to pretend that nothing is wrong, if it is. There is no need to 'act' as if nothing was wrong, if indeed it is.

Lying and deception are closely connected.  According to St. Thomas Aquinas both are sinful, but a lie is more likely to be a mortal (or grievous) sin.  In a way this is because a lie is a more stark deception than deception that does not involve a lie.  For Aquinas and the Church they are both sins because they are both contrary to the virtue of truth (CCC 2484), and lying is more contrary to truth than deception is.  Indeed lying is a sin contrary to the very act and purpose of speech (CCC 2485).  Further, the gravity of individual lies and deceptions are measured against the degree to which they distort and injure truth.

The other reason traditionally given for why deception is less grievous than lying is the fact that deception involves more fault on the part of the one deceived than lying does, and thus they bear a greater share of responsibility for the resulting deception than they would if they were being bluntly lied to.

A more concise answer to your question is as follows: deceptive acting (or dissimulation) is usually a sin, though in certain cases it is only a minor sin.

Sources and References:

Aquinas on Truth
Aquinas on Lying
Aquinas on Dissimulation and Hypocrisy
Augustine, "On Lying"
Augustine, "Against Lying"
John Henry Newman, "Lying and Equivocation"
John Henry Newman, Appendix 1.8 of Apologia Pro Vita Sua
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2464-2513


What effect did the 1897 decree regarding the Johannine Comma have on Catholic scholarship? The Comma Johanneum, found in some versions of 1 John 5:7–8, such as the KJV, is a disputed text that has been used since at least the Middle Ages to defend trinitarian doctrine.  Scholars now widely consider it to be a later addition to the text, but this was a subject of significant debate in previous centuries.  The Catholic church took notice in 1897, and apparently applied some sort of restriction on allowable positions within the church:

  The Catholic theologian [...] cannot pass over the disciplinary decision of the Holy Office (13 January, 1897), whereby it is decreed that the authenticity of the Comma Johanninum may not with safety (tuto) be denied or called into doubt. This disciplinary decision was approved by Leo XIII two days later. Though his approval was not in forma specifica [...] all further discussion of the text in question must be carried on with due deference to this decree. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Epistles of St. John)

According to Wikipedia, this state seems to have ended in 1927, when Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma was open to dispute.  I'm trying to better understand the practical implications of the 1897 decree during the 1897–1927 period.  In that vein I'll pose the following (hopefully indicative) questions:

Around the time of 1897, what did the phrase "with safety" mean?  For example, did it imply the possibility of excommunication or loss of salvation?  Or perhaps simply that rejection of the Comma was a sin?
Did the 1897 decree provide specific guidance regarding what kind of "calling into doubt" was not permitted?

Presumably direct statements would be included, like saying "The Comma is not authentic," but what about publishing research that could be interpreted as suggesting inauthenticity?

Are any Catholic theologians known to have been punished for violating the 1897 decree during this period?

Wikipedia includes a note that the 1927 decree clarified that the original decree was not meant to stop "moderate and temperate" investigation by scholars who promise to accept the Church's authority.  Be that as it may, I'm not convinced that that's how the 1897 decree would have been understood prior to the 1927 decree, so I'm focusing on how it was originally (perhaps mistakenly) interpreted and applied.

Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., discusses this in the introduction (§ "New Testament Testimony On The Three Persons") of his The Trinity & God the Creator (1952):

The second text of St. John referring to the three persons together is the famous Johannine comma: "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one" (I John 5:7). A great controversy has arisen about the genuineness of this text. Those who attack the text argue from the fact that it is not found in any Greek codex of any authority, nor in many Latin codices and versions. From this they conclude that this "comma" was originally a marginal note which in the course of time was incorporated into the text. Consequently the text would enjoy only the force of tradition. The defenders of the text say that it was always in the Latin version, which is more ancient than the Greek codices, for it is found in many Latin codices and is cited by many of the Fathers, by Tertullian, St. Cyprian, and St. Augustine. The omission of this verse in the Greek codices is explained by the fact that the seventh and eighth verses begin and end in the same way and thus the scribes could easily have omitted the seventh verse. In the Latin version the seventh verse is: "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one." The eighth verse is: "And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one."
On this matter the Holy Office has issued two declarations.[Denz., no. 2198] In the first, dated January 13, 1897, we read:The authenticity of this text of St. John cannot be safely denied or called into doubt.Later, on June 2, 1927, the Holy Office declared:This decree has been issued to repress the temerity of those private teachers who have attributed to themselves the right of completely rejecting this 'comma' of St. John or at least by their final judgment of calling it into doubt... . It is in no way intended to deter Catholic writers from investigating the matter more fully,... or from adopting an opinion opposed to the genuineness of the text, as long as they profess to be willing to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom has been committed by Jesus Christ the duty not only of interpreting the Sacred Scriptures but also of guarding them faithfully.


What is the argument against the ICOC doctrine of "Disciples Baptism"? The International Church of Christ, as I understand, teach the idea of "Disciples Baptism", which is distinct from both "Believer's Baptism" and "Infant Baptism".  It teaches that people who are just believers can not be baptized, but only believers who have attained to a certain level of discipleship where they can be considered disciples.

What, is the argument against this specific teaching?

There are two main arguments against it.

One argument is that it is fairly arbitrary to decide how far advanced in
discipleship someone needs to be in order to be baptized. Whatever
level you set, there will be some who never attain that level of
discipleship - however normal Christian doctrine would say that
those people are nonetheless true Christians and members of the
church. Likewise some may attain that level of discipleship and then
fall from it.
The main argument however is that the Bible is full of examples of people
who were baptized as soon as they were converted. Acts 2, Philip and
the Ethiopian in Act 8, and a whole host more.

Great question.  Here is a snippet from my 2006 essay found on REVEAL.org entitled, "From Ignorance to Heresy: A Modern-day Movement of Man."  In section two, I have described their historical departure from orthodox Christianity in a section, "Countdown to Heresy."  You might find it helpful.  Keep in mind that "disciple's baptism" ALSO includes the prerequisite, even today's ICOC, that the seeker agrees to being 1:1 discipled or salvation is withheld.  BOTH  these teachings violate the gospel along the lines of Galatians, Chapter One.

Boston Chooses “works model” over “grace model” - it's important to note that prior to 1986 these Crossroad's trained leaders lined up with the mainstream COC's 5-finger plan of salvation that had no add-ons or prerequisites.  McKean and Gordon Fergus, Elder, said that God had "revealed" to them that "disciple's baptism" was an old truth, rediscovered...The comments already posted on problematic NIV and word order are excellent!  Some time before 1988, the poisoned pill had taken affect, they added to the gospel and chose a 6-finger plan, and a host of "reconstructions" swept the US churches making most folks "lost" until rebaptized and saved.  That gave them a great deal of power.

So what’s the point in all this? These leaders had a fundamental change in their basic and long held beliefs. All of these men believed in the plan of salvation as applied in the book of Acts as summarized below:
1. Hear the message—Romans 10:17, Acts 11:14
2. Believe—John 3:16, Acts 16:31
3. Repent—Luke 13:3, Acts 3:19
4. Confess Jesus as Lord—Romans 10:9, I Timothy 6:12
5. Be immersed—Acts 2:38, I Peter 3:21 (17)

Now, however, they had adopted a human-effort gospel that looked something like this:
1. Hear the message
2. Believe
3. Disciple’s Repentance—Seekers had to demonstrate and prove “advanced level” changes in irrelevant and unrelated areas of their lives in order to be baptized. The group used three individual studies to weigh down newcomers-Repentance, Lordship, and Counting the Cost. Failure to perform and appear broken before leadership in any area meant you had a “bad heart” and were unworthy of God’s grace. The group’s idea of repentance was that one must perform the deeds of an already saved Christian before they had even become one, and without the power of the Holy Spirit (II Cor. 3:18). Even Paul himself did not meet these requirements nor did any of the other conversions in the book of Acts. Any lack of perfection or abandonment of sin only proved you weren’t ready to be baptized and therefore ready to be saved.

In fact, every time God’s plan of salvation is presented, the seeker is told “that they should repent and turn to God,” performing deeds appropriate to repentance (Acts 26:19-20). Thus, turning to the Lord follows repentance and occurs at baptism (Acts 2:38). By looking further into Saul’s conversion in Acts 9:17-22, we see that he was not expected to give a works demonstration of repentance before being saved and filled with the Holy Spirit. Saul did make a decision to change but his repentance was one that was appropriate in that it initially began at baptism. The deeds came afterward.

An Old Testament illustration of trying to transform oneself outside God’s plan can be seen in the changes in Moses’ face when the Lord descended in a cloud and spoke to him in the tabernacle. In Jay Wilson’s book Cleansing the Inside of the Cup, he says:

The question here is, “How much work could Moses do to make his face shine?” The answer, of course, is that Moses could never do enough work to change his face; it took an act of divine power to transform his countenance. In the same way, there is no amount of work we in our age can do to make our “spiritual faces” shine; it takes an act of divine power to transform our spiritual countenances.

Those changes and attempted changes which a person makes outside the transformation connected with beholding the Lord are the “dead works” of the Law (Heb. 6:1). Those changes are humanly possible changes which effect the external performance of the individual. But the transformation which God recognizes is that which the Holy Spirit accomplishes when the Christian beholds the glory of the Lord.

In the end, the movement’s practice of “disciple’s repentance” would simply be works salvation. It was a laundry list of uninspired obligations one had to do in order to produce cheap, visible zeal, and the outward appearance of righteousness. All who passed through these gates would become guilt-motivated, works-oriented Christians, without realizing it until later, sometimes much later.

This teaching is clearly a perversion of the gospel. The elders, evangelists, and interns used this deception, directly or indirectly, as many as several times in a day when doing individual bible studies with newcomers, to show that only their church was repenting correctly. They also preached it from the pulpit in an arrogant and exclusive manner as if to prove they were better than everyone else. This was a very damaging and abusive teaching used by the false teachers to gain more converts. It also met their need, consciously or unconsciously, to manipulate and control people for personal emotional gain in the name of discipling.

Confess
Disciple’s Baptism (immersion)—Seekers had to demonstrate and prove “advanced level” changes in irrelevant and unrelated areas of their lives in order to be baptized. The group used at least four individual studies to weigh down newcomers with their confusing definition of “disciple”—Discipleship, Repentance, Lordship, and Counting the Cost. Failure to perform and appear broken before leadership in any one area often meant you had a “bad heart” and were unworthy of God’s grace. Converts were expected to perform the deeds of an already saved Christian before they had even become one, and without the power of the Holy Spirit. This concept can’t be found anywhere in the bible. The ICC expected that a person was to act like a Christian before he/she received the Holy Spirit according to interpretations of Acts 2:38 and Matthew 28:18-20, which would be impossible!

Once again, this call to conversion limited baptism to those who would give a works demonstration of repentance and who would “walk as a disciple” before they could become disciples (based on Matthew 28:19. “… go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them …).

Which gospel sounds like good news to you? Either the group that taught the need to have faith, repent, confess and be baptized, the pre-1986 group, are false teachers or the add-on group of post-1986 are false teachers. Either way, one of the teachings was “another gospel.” Obviously, the Boston Movement/ICOC took the course of heresy.

There is no doubt as to the sincerity of this group, but I believe this gathering of false teachers, in their willful ignorance, did not realize they were teaching falsehood. After all, like the Judaizers, they weren’t wrong on all doctrinal points.


What are the teachings of Catholic Church on the implications of gender-change by individuals, in their life-after-life? We read at Gen 5:1-2:
""... When God created humankind, he made them in the likeness of God.  Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them “Humankind” when they were created. "
That implies that each human being continues to belong to his/her  gender in the life-after-life. Now, there are some who opt to change their gender for various reasons, former wrestler Gabbi Tuft being the latest edition to the list. To what gender do such individuals belong to, in the life to come  is a matter of curiosity for all. Will they retain the gender in which they had been born , or will they change over to the newly assumed gender , in the life to come ? My  question therefore,  is: What are the teachings of Catholic Church on the implications of gender-change by individuals, in their life-after-life ?

"Sex-change operations" are mutilations of the body, changes in the accidents (not substance) of a human.(The soul doesn't have a sex; St. Ambrose On Virginity ch. 15: "anima enim sexum non habet", "for the soul doesn't have a sex".)

Only scars of wounds, not lost limbs or major mutilations, can remain in resurrected bodies, as St. Thomas writes in Summa Theologica suppl. q. 82 a. 1 ad 5:The scars of wounds will not be in the saints, nor were they in Christ, in so far as they imply a defect, but as signs of the most steadfast virtue whereby the saints suffered for the sake of justice and faith: so that this will increase their own and others' joy (cf. q. 54 a. 4 ad 3). Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxii, 19):We feel an undescribable love for the blessed martyrs so as to desire to see in that kingdom the scars of the wounds in their bodies, which they bore for Christ's name. Perchance indeed we shall see them for this will not make them less comely but more glorious. A certain beauty will shine in them, a beauty though in the body, yet not of the body but of virtue.Nevertheless those martyrs who have been maimed and deprived of their limbs will not be without those limbs in the resurrection of the dead, for to them it is said (Lk. 21:18): "A hair of your head shall not perish."

∴, the sex of humans with their resurrected bodies will be that in which God created them.

There are verses in the Bible that allow a reading of God as androgynous (i.e. both male and female). Since Genesis 5:12 claims humans are made in the image of God, such a reading renders human gender change void of implications.
Such a reading is not accepted by most denominations, including Catholic authorities, who insist gender change does not change anything in the eyes of the Church. See:
Male and Female He Created Them: Towards a Path of Dialogue on the Question of Gender Theory in Education
Isaiah 42:14

I have kept silent from ages past; I have been quiet and restrained
Myself. But now, I will groan like a woman in labor, gasping
breathlessly.

Isaiah 49:15

Can a woman forget her nursing child, or lack compassion for the child
of her womb ? Even if these forget, yet I will not forget you.

Hosea 13:8

I will attack them like a bear robbed of her cubs and tear open the
rib cage over their hearts. I will devour them there like a lioness,
like a wild beast that would rip them open.

Numbers 11:12

Did I conceive all these people ? Did I give them birth so You should
tell me, ‘ Carry them at your breast, as a nursing woman carries a
baby,’ to the land that You swore to give their fathers?

Deuteronomy 32:18

You ignored the Rock who gave you birth; you forgot the God who gave
birth to you.

Furthermore, God is described as breastfeeding new believers in several verses:
1 Peter 2-3:

Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may
grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is
good.

1 Thess 2:7-8

Instead, we were like young children[a] among you. Just as a nursing
mother cares for her children, so we cared for you. Because we loved
you so much, we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel
of God but our lives as well.

1 Cor 3:1-3

Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by
the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ.
2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it.
Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since
there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are
you not acting like mere humans?

Heb 5:12–13

In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need
someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over
again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk,
being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about
righteousness.


If one abandons his faith in Catholicism and becomes an Atheist, could he still go to heaven? If one has been raised a Catholic for all their life, and have just never found meaning in it, and then plans on becoming an Atheist  after a difficult conversation with their parents.
I would like to know, if God was real, could they still go to heaven, even though they have left their faith and turned away from Christianity?

Introduction (personal opinion)
Before presenting the Catholic Church's teaching on abandoning a person's childhood Catholic faith, I would like to review the connection of all elements in your question: God, heaven, the Catholic church, Atheism, the meaning of Catholic practice, and the fear of not going to heaven if Atheism turns out to be false.
God, as understood by Christians, is a good and loving Father who wants to save us from the power of sin by sending His Son Jesus to die on the cross for us as a sacrifice of love, a tangible sign so we can believe His ultimate intention for us: to enter heaven.  That is the Gospel.
So God invites us to live in His house: heaven.  But only people with hearts that fit for heaven can enter since heaven is the place for love.  It makes sense, because to flourish in heaven we need to have the hearts that have the same character as God: loving.  Do you think entering heaven is automatic?  Are our hearts ready to enter heaven today?  Since God gives us free will, we have a choice on how to shape our hearts:

To the Christian standard, the way God created us to be
To the standard that we create for ourselves, because that's what Atheism basically is.

We also need to be aware that there is an enemy!  It's not just us and God.  This enemy is Satan and his minions, the one who tempts us to sin, the one who tirelessly tries to prevent us from entering heaven through lies such as false religions and false belief systems.  Satan is the prince of the world for now until he is completely defeated at the end of the world.  We now live in enemy occupied territory.  Satan's main mission is to prevent us from shaping our hearts to God's standard by enticing us to create our own standard, like Atheism!
Can Atheism prepare our hearts for the Christian heaven?  Remember, heaven is the Christian God's house.  But Atheism means believing that God doesn't exist. If through living our lives we shape our hearts as though God doesn't exist, it's like living in the same house with our parents but we:

never say anything to them
never ask them what we can do to please them, and
set our own rules while living in THEIR house!

A heart that habitually ignores God instead of loving God.  Does it fit?  It simply doesn't fit !!
The only fitting choice is to prepare our hearts according to Christianity, God's standard, the owner of heaven.  That is why God establishes the Catholic Church on earth, a stronghold within the enemy occupied territory.  The Catholic Church's main mission is to help us prepare our hearts for heaven in the following ways:

reconcile people to God (baptism, confession)
teach the truths about God (catechism)
nourish the faithful spiritually (mass, prayer, eucharist)
help us to be more loving (church life)

The teaching of the Catholic Church (presented below) is meant for the discernment of our true state of heart, to help us discover the sins of our hearts and to help us grow in our love for God and our neighbors.  It is not the Church who sends a person to heaven or to hell; the Church is merely a reliable guide, a "truth telling thing" as the great Catholic apologist G.K. Chesterton put it, to counter Satan, the Father of Lies.  The Catholic priests help administer the sacraments throughout our earthly journey to heaven: Baptism, Confirmation, Communion & Confession, Marriage / Ordination (optional), and Last Rites (a combination of Confession + Anointing of the sick + final Communion) just before we die.  If our destination is the Christian heaven, what's the point of leaving the Catholic Church?
Finally, let's talk about fear.  There is a bad fear and a good fear.  Bad fear is doing things only because we don't want to be punished.  We do them simply because other people (like our parents) tell us to do them.  Or we do them without love and without understanding why we do them.  Bad fear is a fear of servitude or slavery, which God wants to turn into a good fear.  Good fear is respect and gratitude for God expressed in good actions dedicated as an offering to Him.  We are fearful for going astray because this will grieve God's heart who wants us to safely complete our earthly journey to enter His home: heaven.  It's like being fearful to hurt people who love us, like our parents, who only want good things for us. Good fear also means freely choosing and submitting to the standard that God sets for us (Christianity), because the standard will sets us more free to love Him and leads us to a more meaningful life, on earth as well as in heaven.
Teaching of the Catholic Church
From your description, since the person seems to be

a baptized Catholic who
voluntarily (without external threat) and
knowingly (after consulting parents, who I presume would guide him/her in the Catholic Faith, and therefore is no longer ignorant; whether partially / fully ignorant it's hard to determine)
leaves the Church and
joins the creed of Atheism

then from the point of view of the Catholic Church the person has committed at least a material sin of heresy which could develop into the formal variety, and even worse, to the sin of apostasy (who leaves not just the Catholic Church but abandons Christ Himself!).
If either heresy or apostasy are committed with full knowledge and full intentionality (which is hard to determine because we cannot see into the person's heart completely) then it is a grave matter and therefore a mortal sin, and thus incurs automatic latae sententiae excommunication.  Excommunication does not mean that the Catholic church sends a person to hell (see good explanation here).  One must also satisfy the general conditions for canonical culpability set out in Canon Law Code 1321-1323.  But if this person's act of becoming an atheist can with certainty be classified as a mortal sin, this person will not go to heaven.
About your subquestion "if God was real, could they still go to heaven", this reminds me of Pascal's wager that "humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not".  Adapted to this context:

If the Christian God exists then the above criteria of entering heaven applies
If the Christian God does NOT exist, that means there is no Christian heaven to enter either

The bottom line (quoted from ChurchPOP website article Abandoning Christ: The Forgotten Sins of Heresy, Apostasy, and Schism):

If you are a baptized Christian, you should hold fast to the teachings of the Church, keep practicing the faith, and maintain unity with your bishop and especially the Pope.
Doing anything less is abandoning Christ and his Church!

My personal advice:

Consult the Catholics you can trust, like your priest, deacon, catechist / RCIA team, or knowledgeable members of the parish.
Bring out the specific elements of Catholicism that are objectionable to you and do additional research.  There are a LOT of excellent Catholic defense of the many varieties of atheism in quality websites, books, and journals.
The most common variety of atheism resulted from lack of meaning is because of Nietzsche's pronouncement that God is "dead" (irrelevant) and developed further by Albert Camus who taught that there is no objective meaning in life.  The great Catholic apologist G.K. Chesterton's response to Nietzsche can be read here while Camus's error, which in effect is the soul's destruction, has been wonderfully exposed as a logical consequence of existentialism here.
Many atheists, (such as Edward Feser), have converted into becoming Catholics so they may likely have already considered the reasons for you to become atheist and refuted them.
Therefore, please BE SAFE and remain a fully practicing Catholic while doing the research.  Asking questions is not sin.  Having doubts are not sin either, but ACTING on them (by rejecting the Faith) is.

Variations
The answer above is based on a case where all the elements identified above are present in the act.  The Catholic Church also considers a variety of cases when only some elements apply.  Examples:

A person who has never been presented with the Gospel (so has never rejected the Gospel), who therefore out of ignorance holds a false idea of God (like Atheism), may still go to heaven.  See the Catholic Answer website article on How Can Atheists Go To Heaven?.  But in the OP's case, this option is most likely no longer available.
Heresy, Apostasy, and Schism can only be be committed "after the reception of baptism".  Therefore, people without valid baptism cannot commit them.  (Most Protestant churches's baptism are valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church.)
A non-Catholic Christian (like a Protestant) who has true faith in Christ is still technically classified as a material heretic but out of charity, the term heretic is now used only for those who willingly embrace what they know to be contrary to revealed truth (thus guilty in their conscience before God).  Therefore, Protestants are no longer automatically culpable heretic.
Members of the Protestants and Orthodox churches are technically only materially schismatic so they are not culpably schismatic nor are they now called schismatic out of charity.
A Catholic who out of ignorance holds beliefs contrary to the teaching of the church is a material, not formal (culpable) heretic.
A Catholic who simply abandons the practice (i.e. no longer going to church) but doesn't intentionally repudiate the faith is not an apostate.  But the moment he joins another religion (including falling into unbelief like Atheism), he becomes an apostate.

References used for the answer above

A 2001 EWTN article published in Catholic Culture website article Heresy, Schism and Apostasy - Definitions by Colin B. Donovan, STL cites the Catechism and the Canon Law during a discussion of the difference of "heresy", "schism", and "apostasy" and divides each into material or formal sin, linking it with the principle of invincible ignorance, culpability, excommunication & other ecclesiastical sanctions, and other related topics.

A ChurchPOP website article Abandoning Christ: The Forgotten Sins of Heresy, Apostasy, and Schism explaining further what does it mean for those who are guilty of heresy, apostasy, and schism.

Do Catholics Excommunicate People to Hell? by apologist Dave Armstrong who covers the Biblical basis for excommunication, contrasting it with anathema.  He also explains how neither implies condemnation of people to hell but "to warn the sinner of the danger he runs of incurring eternal ruin, unless he repent of his sin", again with Biblical precedent.

CCC 2087-2089 (within the article about the 1st commandment) distinguishes "voluntary doubt", "involuntary doubt", "incredulity", "heresy", "apostasy", and "schism":

Faith
2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"⁹ as our first obligation. He shows that "ignorance of God" is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.¹⁰  Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.
2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief.
Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.
2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.
"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;
apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith;
schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."¹¹

Catholic Essentials website article on Apostasy quoted a definition from the 1951 Catholic Dictionary, distinguishing 3 kinds: apostasy from the Faith, abandonment of the practice of the Faith, and presumption of Apostasy:

Apostasy from the Faith is the act by which a baptized person, after possessing the true Christian faith, totally rejects it. The complete abandonment  of the practice of the Faith is NOT apostasy, or even presumption of Apostasy. A person is an apostate whether he joins a non-Christian religion, as Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, or falls into unbelief, atheism, materialism, agnosticism, rationalism, indifferentism, or "free-thought". Apostates from the Faith incur excommunication ipso facto, and other penalties"

Actually,  you don't "Convert" to atheism.  It's a belief or worldview, that denies God, and also heaven and hell.
Think about it for a minute.
If there is no God, then there is no absolute truth, and no sovereign divine Judge who is keeping a record and there is no absolute standard for morality - [the Bible] and heaven and hell are meaningless.
People are atheists, not because there is a lack of evidence for a divine creator, but at the end of the day, they don't want to be accountable for their actions, and so it's easier to just deny God, but any intelligent person would laugh at the notion that a ticking watch in the forest just came about by random chance, or came about from an explosion.
Design implies a designer. Even a mousetrap with 5 parts could not create itself, and illustrates the concept of "irreducible complexity' - if you just took away any one of the 5 simple parts of a mouse trap, then it's no longer  mouse trap. All the parts have to be present and working together.
Being an atheist is not logical.
The biggest and most important issue is that you seem to hold the erroneous view that being a Catholic means you "already are going to heaven"?
Being Protestant or Baptist or Catholic does not automatically make you born again.
There are millions of "religious people" who do the motions outwardly, but they don't have a relationship with Christ, and Christ himself said of the religious leaders who prided themselves in doing good works and keeping the law - that they were like "white-washed graves, but inside, they are like dead mens' bones."
Going to church, and doing good works, or giving money to the poor means nothing if we are not born again, and if we have not repented of our sins and asked Christ to forgive us.   This is true for every person whether Catholic or Protestant.

"Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, but by me.  John 14:6
John 3:3  "Jesus responded and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Romans 10:9-10 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
I John 1:9 Berean Study Bible
If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.


Do Reformed paedobaptists call for the baptism of household servants, just as Abraham's servants were circumcised? In Genesis 17:9–13 we read:

  9 And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, 13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. (ESV)

I understand this passage to say that male household slaves and the male children of household slaves were to be circumcised, regardless of any "statement of faith."

In modern times we don't see many examples of household slaves or servants.  However, several hundred years passed between the beginning of the Reformation and widespread prohibitions on chattel slavery in the West.  Other forms of generational household servitude continued even longer.

Many Reformers affirm that baptism is the new sign of the covenant, replacing circumcision, and therefore practice infant baptism (or paedobaptism) for the children of believers (WCF 28-4).  Thus, my questions:

Do any Reformed paedobaptists, past or present, explicitly argue that members of one's household, including one's household slaves or servants, ought to be baptized (even if they make no statement of faith)?
In the absence of any examples of (1), do any Reformed paedobaptists, past or present, explicitly explain why household slaves and servants ought not to be baptized?

In a limited sense, yes, some Reformed paedobaptists have supported this: the presentation of slave children for baptism by their masters was practiced and supported in the Presbyterian Church in the USA in the antebellum period.  However, I find no evidence that adult slaves were baptized except upon their own conversion (that is, not when the master was converted, nor when the slave was purchased by a Christian master).

A resolution by the General Assembly in 1816 concluded that slave children should be presented for baptism by their masters if the latter were in a position to "train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord":

  That it is the duty of masters who are members of the Church, to present the children of parents in servitude to the ordinance of baptism, provided they are in a situation to train them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, thus securing them the rich advantages which the gospel promises.
  That it is the duty of christian ministers to inculcate this doctrine, and to baptise all children of this description, when presented to them by their masters.

The Synod of New York and Philadelphia made a similar declaration in 1786, holding that Christian masters had the "duty" to have "children of their household" baptized, even those "born of parents not in the communion of any Church."

The Testimony and Practice of the Presbyterian Church in Reference to American Slavery, pages 122 and 123.

Gen14:14 When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, 318 of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.

Abraham had a gigantic household – 300 men of fighting age, not including children or the elderly.  That was a lot of cirumcisions – and problematic for those who teach that God's everlasting covenant with Abraham was merely about a genetic people group since of the hundreds circumcised, only Isaac and Ishmael were descendants of Abraham.

Not much of a notion of religious freedom in those times, so everyone in Abraham's household (probably 1000+) would have been taught the ways of Abraham's God.

In our time, certainly, it's a bit different.  Even if the Brady Bunch converted to Christianity, I doubt they would have forced Alice to convert or expect her to be baptized with them. They probably would have taught her some of what they were learning...but ultimately she was more of an employee who ran her private life autonomously.

The real question, though, is what view of religious freedom was held by 1st century Jews.  When Lydia converted there was no mention of her household believing, yet the bible does teach their baptism.  When devout Jews like Paul and Peter – who certainly had Abraham's story memorized and woven tightly into their cultural worldview - taught the baptism of “households”, they certainly would have had a cultural understanding of “households” that was closer to Abraham's. As such, their notions of households would have included extended family – who were more likely to share a household in those days than now – and servants/slaves (including any infants of either group).  If the head of the household announced that they had converted to a new religion, then the entire household would have been discipled in those new teachings.

Baptism is for disciples, just as circumcision was.  While Baptists suggest that they baptize only believers, that was not true in NT times and it is not true now.  The baptized NT church included the likes of Ananias and Sapphira, Simon Magus, Hymenaeus and Alexander (with their shipwrecked faith), the apostates in 1John 2:19 who left the church and thereby showed they never really believed, and guys like the one in 1Cor5 who was shacked up with his stepmom and had to be removed from the church.  In the OT times, not all Israel was true Israel...and as the Bible describes the OT people of God and the NT people of God with the same language, it is no surprise that such a situation continues to be true.

I do think Jesus practices “believer’s baptism.”  Jesus knows what is in our hearts.  When Jesus washes us with his Spirit (when we are “baptized into Christ” in a baptism without human hands) there is a perfect 1:1 correspondence with saving faith.  The same was true of circumcision - “circumcision of the heart” was a perfect correlation with true saving faith in the OT, while Jews were admonished not to trust in physical circumcision.

That is what the new covenant passages are teaching - “And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me...”  But while Baptists believe that applies to how they run their churches, they baptize non-believers (because unlike Jesus, they cannot perfectly see our hearts) and continue to recruit pastors and Sunday School teachers.  I get that they mean well but you simply cannot administrate the Church like that with fallen people involved. (and don't get me started on how Baptists assume everything in the OT is the “old covenant” - Heb8:9 specifies that the old covenant is the one made with Moses.  God's covenant with Abraham is fulfilled and reaffirmed in the NT.  In what sense is Abraham the “father” of gentiles today? He’s not my genetic father. He’s not my spiritual father (that would be God). Romans4 and Galatians3 seem to be pointing out that the Abrahamic covenant was not just for the OT.

Eph2:11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ…19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone…)

While modern households include notions of DINKs and SINKs and empty-nesters, I don't believe Paul and Peter were teaching and writing with these notions in mind.

So if Baptists deny their young children autonomy in this matter (as I think they should) and drag them to church when they are young even if it's a bit unwillingly sometimes, then I think it is right to baptize their babies as they will be discipled and brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (just as the people of God did in the OT.)  Circumcision and baptism are both signs that point to the need for justification by faith (“that faith makes you clean”) and both are appropriate for application to infants who lack the facility to express faith.

More discussion is here if you really are hung up on the servant/slave aspect:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/85273-Should-I-baptize-my-slaves


Should protestants not make the sign of the Cross? I'm not a Catholic, but I've been aware since I was little that Catholics will "Cross" themselves. Early on I felt like I shouldn't copy it as it always had been portrayed in tv/film as something ritualistic or superstitious. But now that I understand some of the Catholic's reasoning, I'm wondering if there is any doctrine in protestantism that addresses why you shouldn't do it, or is it simply because we don't want to imitate Catholicism?

Catholic brethren please feel free to talk about the reasons why it should be done, in the comments.

I don't think there's any harm in making the sign of the cross.  I don't think we could equate it with the type of superstition that equates to idolatry or occultism.  (I'm sorry if that sounds offensive to anyone who practices it.  Please read on, and you'll see I don't mean to offend.)

It's definitely meant as a Christian gesture for the Catholics and the other denominations that did or still do practice it.

I think that if you're a protestant that is not in a denomination that practices it, you should not practice it.  Not because it's wrong, or for Scriptural reasons but because there's really no good motive to do so and because it just plain shows common decency to respect the traditions of others, so long as they are not anti-Christian, or anti-God.

To do it flippantly would seem to dishonor it and could prove offensive to those who hold it as important.  As a Baptist, I imagine I'd get annoyed if a bunch of Catholics went down to the beach and held dunking-style baptisms just to do it.  To me, baptism is very symbolic, and an important rite. Not that it saves you or anything, but it's not something to be made fun of.  For those that make the sign of the cross, I'd imagine it's the same.

Since there is no scriptural prohibition against it, and it's important to some, I'd say that we should just keep our silence, and show respect for their beliefs and practices, as we'd hope they'd have respect for ours.

Catholics and Orthodox followers cross themselves. If you are a Protestant you can do it, just recite what Catholics call 'Et Nomine' in your language (but not in toungues!)


What is the biblical defence used by Anglicans to appoint female vicars/bishops? What is the biblical defence used by Anglicans to appoint female vicars/bishops?

I thought the Bible was explicitly clear:

  1 Timothy 2:12
  I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.

  1 Corinthians 14:34-35
  34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
  35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Ordination of women in the Anglican Communion (Wikipedia)

The Anglican church has different ordination guidelines in different countries, and often the parishes are allowed to make the decision for or against provided they give sufficient argument and evidence.

For example, although CofE as a rule accepts ordaining women, here is a case where it was forbidden: Anglican church bans women from vicar's job on 'biblical' grounds.

Arguments given

As you already know, it's a hot topic for debate. Typical biblical defences given by Anglicans to appoint female vicars and bishops can be among the following:

that Paul's request to Timothy was actually referring to women exercising their authority over their husband and unbalancing the marital unit, not about whether women can be given titles of leadership;
that it may have been a cultural norm at the time for women to exercise self-restraint, and the lack of it was bringing embarrassment on the Christian community in front of the unbelievers instead of them functioning as a light to the world;
that there may be certain laws in the Bible which are based on customs which become less relevant as times change, or when perfection sets in (such as the eating of certain animals);
that there are already examples of female leaders in both the Old Testament (Deborah who was appointed as a leader over the people) and the New Testament (Priscilla, wife of Aquila, whom Paul himself called his "fellow worker[s] in Christ", and who helped teach Apollos with her husband in Acts 18:26).

More often than not, much like their Methodist counterparts - they hold onto Galatians 3:28

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

This verse is often used to support the idea that women can hold the offices of elder and pastor because there is neither male nor female in Christ. The argument states that if we are all equal, then women can be pastors.


Why do today's Christians never express any kind of criticism against other religions? I've been listening to local and far-away Christian radio stations for a long time.
What strikes me is that, not even once, have I heard them (any of them) say a single word that could in any way be interpreted as criticism in any manner against Jews, Muslims, etc.
If anything, they are very eager to speak about the "people of Israel", etc., in very positive wording, almost as if they were speaking about themselves. There seems to be no question to them whatsoever about the question whether Jesus was a Jew or not; as far as they are concerned, this is 100% established, and not a contradiction in any way.
Maybe there is some kind of Christian branch which does have such criticism, but if they exist, I have certainly never been able to find them. And I suspect that they must have a very small following/reach if such is the case.
But how can this be? One would assume that they would be talking about how the other religions are wrong and theirs is right, but... nope. I almost get the feeling that they actually consider themselves to be Jews, only with a slightly different view on some things.
Even just the fact that the Old Testament is the basis of Christianity (expanded with the New Testament) is very strange to me since it only talks about Jews and not Christians.
"Back in the day", I get the feeling that they had a quite different perspective. What has happened in recent decades?

My experience has not been similar to yours, in that I do hear church leaders criticise other religions. In addition, as a young man I don't know what things were like a few decades ago to compare it too. Nevertheless, I want to attempt to answer the question.
This article, from a prominent Evangelical source, discusses the way in which the author suggests Christians interact with other religions. While we could debate whether the author is correct, I would say this is a common view. The author generally tries to hold together two opposing views: a) belief in Jesus is the only way to salvation, and therefore we must criticise other religions, b) we must do so in a way that helps our cause, rather than hinders it.
The Apostle Paul says a similar thing in Collosians:

Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone. Collosians 4:5-6 (NIV)

Exactly what being wise and gracious means will depend on the circumstance, the people involved, and the nature of the society we live in. I suspect every Christian will have a different idea were that line is, and I've heard many say our modern (in particular, Western) Christianity are a bit too generous with this line.
However, I understand why a Christian radio station in particular would choose to avoid criticism of other religions. They have chosen to perform a particular role, and leave other functions up to the church. For comparison, consider the way this Stack Exchange runs. Two thoughts that immediately jump to mind:
Firstly, a public radio station needs to cater to a wide range of Christians. There are denomination here on Christianity.SE that I strongly disagree with, and feel ought to have their beliefs criticised - but I recognise this isn't the platform for doing so.
Secondly, a pubic radio station has no ability for personal discourse. If I disagree with the pastor of my church, I can go talk to him after the service (and on occasion have done!), and he can get to know my particular objection and life situation. A radio broadcast doesn't allow for this. Again, this SE has made similar decisions, albeit about a slightly different topic.
In conclusion, I would say that the reason some Christians publications choose not to openly criticise because:

They believe there is biblical precedent for being wise towards other religions
They believe in our current climate, "wise" means avoiding public, impersonal criticism
They have chosen to perform one specific function, and leave the rest of the church's responsibility to the church.

Whether one agrees with this logic, I would say that is the decision being made. I would hope that an individual church would recognise the need to expose the un-truths in other religions, and would seek to do so in a clear but wise manner.

Todays Christians generally agree that genocide is bad, that World War Two happened, that the good side won. And Jesus was not a time traveller.
Your question belies a deep ignorance about Christianity, Judaism and History generally.

Even just the fact that the Old Testament is the basis of Christianity
(expanded with the New Testament) is very strange to me since it only
talks about Jews and not Christians.

Christianity is a theological divergence from Judaism, the two religions share the same origin, that is why Christians refer to the Old Testament. It is a religious text that predates the New Testament; hence the moniker “Old” vs “New”.
Jesus was a jew because historical evidence suggests that everyone living in that time and place were jewish. There was no such thing as Christianity at that time, it did not exist. Jesus could not be Christian because he could not read a book with an account about his death because he had not died yet.
There is no credible text that indicates Jesus was a time traveller from the future who read the New Testament (an account of his own life and death), then travels back in time to fulfill the future timeline.
Jews and Christians worship the same God. The Old Testament includes ‘Genesis’ the story of creation. Where God created everything, if Christians reject the Old Testament they have to devise a new creation story.

"Back in the day", I get the feeling that they had a quite different
perspective. What has happened in recent decades?

“Back in the day” you might be referring to the holocaust.
Yes during the holocaust there were many Nazi who made manipulative and deceitful statements about Jews to turn the public against them. The purpose was to recover economically. Germany could rob a significant portion of their own population through a systematic campaign of murder and then gain power by warring and dominating other nations.
In “recent decades” people have generally come to the viewpoint that the holocaust was a human atrocity. And that murdering people due to their religious affiliation is morally reprehensible.

Maybe there is some kind of Christian branch which does have such
criticism, but if they exist, I have certainly never been able to find
them.

Yes a Christian branch did exist with a view that Jesus was not Jewish, that branch existed in Nazi Germany. Hitler attempted to redefine Jesus as an Aryan.

During the Third Reich, German Protestant theologians, motivated by racism and tapping into traditional Christian anti-Semitism, redefined Jesus as an Aryan and Christianity as a religion at war with Judaism. The Aryan Jesus, by Susannah Heschel

There maybe quasi Christian groups that continue to follow these teachings; however that Hitler (a notorious figure) is the principle inventor of this branch of Christianity is generally repulsive to people aware of his role in the genocide of millions of innocent people.
It is unlikely then that an ahistorical, debunked, recently invented account of an Aryan Jesus would be propagated on radio.
Todays Christians are more likely to align with the prevailing view that Jesus was a jew, than the Nazi view that Jesus was an Aryan. This is because some time ago the Allied powers mobilized nearly every man across earth for a time to murder millions of Nazi’s.
Today most Christian learn in early school curriculum about WW2 (the largest theatre of war ever), and their nations role in preventing a world dominated by Hitlers ideology.


Does yearning to know more about God for a stronger relationship leave us hanging in confusion? Many times we try to ask questions not to challenge the Christian faith but rather to know more and perhaps draw closer to God.

How can one get the confidence in trying to explain to and convert a learned and highly educated unbeliever who always has strong reasons from philosophy, logic, psychology etc to support his rigid stand?

The bible actually seem to halt us in seeking to know more from God.

  who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (Romans 9:20, KJV).

Romans 14:5 also says:

  Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

And then we have this:

  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. [...] so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8–9).

These and many more make me feel incapable of winning souls for Christ and often leaves me hanging and tongue-tied myself. How do we manage this as Christians?

This is one of my favorite scriptures to turn to with questions like this.

  James 1:5 if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6) But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

So James tells us that we should ask God for any knowledge that we don't know. But with a condition attached. You need to ask in faith that God will answer your question. If you do so its promised that the Lord will give to you freely. And He always keeps His promises. I would add that @San Jacinto was right on in that you need to be humble in asking as well.

John 20:29 NET Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are the people who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Apparently, those who accept without proof are more blessed than those who are filled with doubts. What is the blessing?
They don't have to be burdened with the need to satisfy those who feel lost without the answers! ;p
Hope you don't feel lost about  the answer to this question now!

NASB Luke 11:9 “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 “For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened. 11 “Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? 12 “Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? 13 “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”
Galatians 3:5 NET Does God then give you the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law or by your believing what you heard?

What should we seek? The Holy Spirit.
The Kingdom of God is easier to enter for the foolish, the humble, the weak, the poor. Rightly so, because God loves those who believe in Him and depend on Him with a simple faith.
That's why the Gospel is such good news for such as they. All it requires is for people to understand that those who turned to God can now be vindicated. That which is foolish to the wise, the message of the Cross, has long been recognised to be the only way to live by the disadvantaged: unless a seed dies, it cannot live.
I have a hard time accepting that salvation is to be entered through getting doubts cleared. Think about it: if the latter were true it would mean that a huge swathe of mankind would be excluded from salvation because clever people are fewer than the simple. It also means that God only intends to save the clever, because intelligence is a gift, not a result of hard work.
After studying Scripture, we reach the conclusion that all that is required is to acknowledge God's goodness in helping us, through the Cross, and telling people to turn to Him. The details of the process are unnecessary and not useful:

Luke 7:31-32 NET “To what then should I compare the people of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to one another,
‘We played the flute for you, yet you did not dance;
we wailed in mourning, yet you did not weep.

You will find that when you reach your destination, the simple folk are already there:

Matthew 18:2-4 NET He called a child, had him stand among them, and said, “I tell you the truth, unless you turn around and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven! Whoever then humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.


What are other explanations for Malachi 4:5-6? The LDS church believes the prophecy in Malachi 4:5-6 (KJV) has been fulfilled, and those verses are often cited while explaining why they're so interested in genealogy.

What other explanations exist for this prophecy? What do other denominations think it means that Elijah will "turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers?"

The Bible teaches that the Spirit of Elijah would be sent to the earth a total of 5 times (5 is the number of grace1). By Spirit of Elijah, I mean God's spirit anointing a man to bring a message, in the same way that the first Elijah was anointed (a straight shooter, hard hitter, come out of the wilderness, etc).

First, Elijah Himself

An examination of Elijah's traits may be beyond the scope of this question. If requested, I can revisit later.

Second - Elisha

  II Kings 2:9 And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that
  Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I be
  taken away from thee. And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double
  portion of thy spirit be upon me.

  II Kings 2:15 And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at
  Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha.
  And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before
  him.

Third - John the Baptist (Forerunner to Jesus' First Coming)

  Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the
  way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his
  temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in:
  behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

  Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias,
  to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient
  to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the
  Lord.

  Matthew 7:11-13 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly
  shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That
  Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him
  whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of
  them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Fourth - Forerunner to Jesus' Second Coming

Reading Malachi 3 as referring to John the Baptist's fore-running of Jesus' first coming, Malachi 4 can be read as another fore-runner preparing the way for Jesus' second coming. This man will turn the hearts of the children (the believer's of today) to the original faith preached by the early church apostles (fathers), just as John turned the hearts of the fathers of Israel to the "children" that received his message of the coming Christ. Malachi 4:5 predicts that this messenger will come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord, and if his message is rejected, the earth will be smitten with a curse.

Luke 1:17 specifically states that John would turn the hearts of the fathers to the children (Jesus' first coming), but does not include the Malachi 4:5 reference to turning the hearts of the children to the fathers (Jesus' second coming). This is similar to how Jesus, in the synagogue, began to read from Isaiah 61:1-2, but stopped halfway through verse 2 before he got to "and the day of vengeance of our God". He would fulfill that part of that verse at his second coming, but not his first.

Fifth - One of the Two Witnesses to Israel

  REVELATION 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they
  shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in
  sackcloth.

See my response to this related question: Who Are the Two Witnesses?

To briefly summarize that more detailed response, the characteristics of the two witnesses are so similar to Moses and Elijah that we can conclude that the anointing of the two witnesses will be the same that was with Moses and Elijah. This is the fifth and final time that the spirit and power of Elijah will be manifest on earth.

1 See EW Bullinger's Number in Scripture, on the number five.

You just described William Branham's Ministry. Unlike LDS and Islam, God's prophet won't have to write a separate Bible, the true messenger (Earthly angel)  will turn the Heart's of the children back to the revealed word that's been misconstrued through Man's theology, just as the Pharisees had misconstrued the Old Testament of their day. But unlike Paul, John, and the Old Testament prophets that had an anointing to write the message of God, according to Revelation 10:7, this 7th angel, the 7th angel to the Laodiceans of Revelation 3, will have an anointing to speak the word, "In the days of the VOICE of the Seventh Angel". God told John to seal up those things and write them not in Revelation 10:4, but we come to the 7th verse He says, "BUT in the days of the VOICE of the 7th angel, when HE shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be FINISHED, as He hath declared to His servants the Prophets". That word angel is translated as messenger. Another interesting note, the name Malachi means "Angel". Coincidence? Is anything in the Bible ever a coincidence? Then as soon as Revelation 10 is finished, Revelation 11 reveals that Moses and Elijah will witness to the JEWS, when the gospel has been turned from the Gentiles back to the Jews due to the Gentiles rejecting the Gospel. Whether they physically are Moses and Elijah, or spiritually, we have no authority to say, for God will reveal that in due time.


Does God have the capacity to sin? Can God sin? To clarify,

this question is not asking for a "justification" of those times, described in the Bible, when God struck someone dead. Life is His to take.
the question is also not asking strictly whether Jesus had the capacity to sin. The answer should not hinge on whether Jesus was God (He was, assume this), or whether Jesus was one or two persons (He was one divine Person, assume this).

The question is asking if God can sin, with attention to, for example, how that might be reconciled with his omnipotence and benevolence. I expect that there are some theological constructs already in place to deal with this question or others like it. If there is some well-established theological difference between "can sin" and "has the power to sin" or "has the capacity to sin", then this should be clarified.

Can God (three Persons, one Being) sin?

God cannot sin, not because He lacks the free will to do so, but because it would be inconsistent with His character and His nature.

From http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html

  The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible, but has been
  inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is
  most often translated "almighty."1 However, the Bible never claims
  that God can do all things. In fact, the Bible makes a point that
  there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot
  commit sin.2 God cannot lie.3 Therefore, biblical omnipotence does
  not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is
  contrary to His holy character. However, God can do anything that He
  determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the
  ability to do anything that one sets out to do.

Technically, God could sin if His nature were not perfect - if He chose to, but because His nature is Holy, Perfect, Flawless, to sin would be contrary to His nature.  He would never "set out" to do it,even if it is conceivably within HIs power to do so.

A pastor (I can't remember which) once put it like this:  "If I were to say I can't eat rotten garbage, that doesn't mean that it would be physically impossible for me to do so.  I have the physical capability to pick it up, put it in my mouth, chew, and swallow.  However, I say I cannot do it because it is so repulsive to me.  In this same way, it is possible for God to be omnipotent, yet be unable to sin."

God created everything (Gen 1.1).  If sin exists, God created it .  The question really should be then Why did God create sin?"  To say that God did not create sin is to say that either the devil did when he rebelled against God or Adam did when he disobeyed God. Can the devil create something God did not? (it is common Christian belief that the devil cannot create something that God did not) If so then God would not be all powerful because one of His created beings created something that did not exist as something created by God (common Christian belief in God's attribute of Omnipotence).

What about Adam?  If sin did not exist before Adam disobeyed then Adam created sin through his act of disobedience.  Again, sin would have been created by one of God's created beings and again that would mean that God is not omnipotent because another being created something God did not.  The act of creation is an act of omnipotence. Omnipotence is only attributed to God not to any of His created beings. Therefore, if sin exists God created it **Gen. 2:9. God created the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.  Life pre-existed Adam, and Good and Evil pre-existed Adam.  Who created Life?  God.  Who created Good? God.  Who created Evil? The logical answer following this line of questioning/reasoning should lead one to conclude that God created evil.  Further, in Gen 3:21 it states that Adam acquired the knowledge that God had of Good and Evil.  Knowledge of a thing necessitates that the thing that is known exists.  If it does not exist, it cannot be known.  As the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil existed before Adam fell, this knowledge was acquired when he fell.

Addressing evil (sin) it existed before Adam. Consider the lie (sin) told by the serpent to Eve before she took of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil Gen. 3:4.  The Bible clearly shows that sin existed before Adam.  Who then created it?  Did Lucifer? Did he do so when he as an angel rebelled against God? Isa 14:12-14.  The angels were created free-will being just as Adam was.  To have free-will implies having a choice between at least two options.  One cannot have free-will with only one option.  The angel Lucifer chose one of at least two options - to obey God [good] or disobey/rebel against God [evil].  He chose to rebel against God.  He could not choose something that did not already exist.  If we say that evil came into existence as a result of his rebellion, then we must also say that he or at least his act created something that God did not.  This leads back to the opening statements of my submission above.  That is, something that God did not create came into being through the direct will or act of one of God's created beings.  Then God would not be omnipotent because someone else created something that God did not.  We as Christians would not accept that God is not omnipotent).**

The fact that free will is exercised by God means that a choice exists.  A choice between what is contrary to God and what is not contrary to God.  If there is no choice to be made then there would be no need for free will.  God's free will existed before the creation of the devil and Adam.  Therefore, what is contrary to God (sin) and what is not contrary to God existed before the devil and Adam so neither of these created beings could be the creator of sin.  The  fact that God exercises free will means that a choice exists for God. God does not sin because it is impossible for Him to sin but because He chooses not to sin.  Can God make a choice contrary to Himself? Only if He truly has a free will which He does.  But because God is Holy, He would not (free-will) choose contrary to Himself.  It would only be impossible for God to choose contrary to Himself if He did not have a free will because there would would be nothing to choose between "good - contrary" or "evil - not contrary".  Only "good - not contrary" would exist therefore free will would not exist neither would sin exist.  We can readily observe that this is not the case.

The existence of free will means the existence of choice which means the existence of "good -** not contrary to God" and "evil - contrary to God".  This same choice existed for the devil and Adam.  For Adam this is manifest in the existence before he was created of the Tree of the knowledge of good (what is not contrary to God) and evil (what is contrary to God).  Exercising free will Adam chose evil.  How can he choose something that does not already exist?  If it already exists, who created it?  Is the devil a creator?  No, the devil exercising free will as an angel chose "contrary to God" which had to already exist. The question should be asked, why did God create sin.

In answer to the question posed "Does God have the capacity to sin, can God sin?" God has the capacity to do anything because one of His attributes is that is is omnipotent.  Therefore, God has the capacity to sin, God can sin.  However, because God also has the attribute of holiness, and He also has a free-will, He CHOOSES not to sin because He chooses not to violate His holiness.    In other words, because He is omnipotent, He says "I can", and because He is holy He says "I won't".


Who found whom? After Jesus FINDS Philip, why does Philip tell Nathanael "We have FOUND the One..."? In John chapter 1, the Scriptures record that Jesus found Philip and said to him, "Follow me."  Two verses later, Phil tells Nathanael, "We have found the One Moses wrote about..."

  The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said
  to him, “Follow me.” 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of
  Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have
  found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus
  of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

So, who found whom?  And who is "We"?

tl dr;

Q: Who found whom?

A: They both found each other - Jesus found a disciple and Philip found a Messiah.

Additional guff:

Overall, this question is essentially based on a translation issue - there is a tacit assumption that the meaning and grammar associated with the original word translated as "found" is essentially identical to how we understand this word in the context of the english language. While understandable, an assumption like this is not particularly helpful in general, and particularly so in this case. The actual word in question is:

  εὑρίσκω

  Greek transliteration: heuriskō

  Gloss:
  (act.) to find, discover, meet; (mid.) to obtain; (pass.) to be found

  Definition:
  to find, to meet with; to find out, to detect, discover; to acquire, obtain, win, gain; to find mentally, to comprehend, recognize; to find by experience, observe, gather; to devise as feasible (source)

In english, 'found' is nearly always used in a transitive sense with a well defined distinction between subject and object, eg: "I [subject] found it [object]". One of the alternative translation choices - 'meet' - is capable of being used intransitively however, eg: "we [subject/object - ie ill-defined object] met yesterday", and if it is used in a transitive construction grammatically, the semantics don't necessarily demand strict choices for subject and object - grammatically, there is a difference between "Harry met Sally" and "Sally met Harry", but as far as semantic distinctions go, you'd be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find one.

If you're a whiz with ancient/koine greek grammar, perhaps you could make more of this issue than I can, but to my mind, we should be wary of unnecessarily projecting a transitive sense into the grammar. Additionally, the alternate translation options, imply that even if the underlying grammar implies transitivity, there may be no particular semantic significance to that transitivity. In conclusion, don't read so much into it.

The short answer I've given above is based on understanding the overall context of the passage - it's relatively agnostic regarding the 'correct' translation choice of εὑρίσκω (just following the crowd) and how strictly transitive the grammar is, it merely relies on the fact that both εὑρίσκω and 'found' can be used with varying levels of significance.

Re the 'we' issue, a somewhat unlikely possibility is that Philip was the one unnamed disciple of the pair mentioned in vv35-40, and his 'we' just meant himself and Andrew. A more likely option, is that Andrew, the unnamed disciple, Peter, Philip and Nathaniel knew each other well enough to think of themselves as a group, and that by that stage, Philip had found out about the other interactions of the group members with Jesus, while Nathaniel had been off doing something else. According to this interpretation, 'we' refers to the rest of the group apart from Nathaniel.

The answer is in John 1:44:

  "Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter."

The "we" would be Philip, Andrew, and Peter. When Andrew says "we" to Simon in v41, it would appear he was referencing at least John the Baptist and some of his other disciples (who were all following John to find Christ).

Also, somewhat obviously from the text, the "Him of whom Moses" wrote is Jesus.

So "we" is Philip, Andrew, Peter, and perhaps others. And the "whom" is Jesus.


Please clarify Phil 2:8-9 with reference to the Trinity In Philippians 2:8-9 we read:

  He [Jesus] humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross.
  Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names

For many years I studied with the Jehovah's Witness, and now years later I still have trouble with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Can you please clarify this passage for me:

If Jesus is God, how could he humble himself in obedience to God? (As God he could do no wrong and therefore could not be disobedient by definition?)
If Jesus is God, how could God elevate him [Jesus] to the place of highest honour? (Surely Jesus was already at the highest place because He is equal to God?)

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses your questions in his Summa Theologica I q. 42 ("Of Equality and Likeness among the Divine Persons"). Specifically, regarding your

first question, see ibid. a. 6 obj. 2:Objection 2: Further, greater is the power of him who commands and teaches than of him who obeys and hears. But the Father commands the Son according to Jn. 14:31: "As the Father gave Me commandment so do I." The Father also teaches the Son: "The Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doth" (Jn. 5:20). Also, the Son hears: "As I hear, so I judge" (Jn. 5:30). Therefore the Father has greater power than the Son.and St. Thomas's reply (ad 2):Reply to Objection 2: The Father's "showing" and the Son's "hearing" are to be taken in the sense that the Father communicates knowledge to the Son, as He communicates His essence. The command of the Father can be explained in the same sense, as giving Him from eternity knowledge and will to act, by begetting Him. Or, better still, this may be referred to Christ in His human nature.

and your

second question, see ibid. a. 4 obj. 1:Objection 1: It would seem that the Son is not equal to the Father in greatness. For He Himself said (Jn. 14:28): "The Father is greater than I"; and the Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:28): "The Son Himself shall be subject to Him that put all things under Him."and St. Thomas's reply (ad 1):Reply to Objection 1: These words are to be understood of Christ's human nature, wherein He is less than the Father, and subject to Him; but in His divine nature He is equal to the Father. This is expressed by Athanasius, "Equal to the Father in His Godhead; less than the Father in humanity": and by Hilary (De Trin. ix): "By the fact of giving, the Father is greater; but He is not less to Whom the same being is given"; and (De Synod.): "The Son subjects Himself by His inborn piety"—that is, by His recognition of paternal authority; whereas "creatures are subject by their created weakness."

cf. also Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s commentary on this question from his Trinity & God the Creator.

If Jesus is God, how could he humble himself in obedience to God? (As
God he could do no wrong and therefore could not be disobedient by
definition?)

Jesus Christ is God in bodily form (Col. 2:9).Obeying God, the Father, does not make Him different from God, the Father, in  terms of nature. The personal distinction between the Father and the Son makes this instructing(not commanding) and obeying (i.e. voluntary complying) relationship possible.

To obey simply means to do what you are told to do, that is, to carry out instructions. (Source).

God told to Jesus to represent Him on earth (John 17:6). Jesus obeyed God(Phil. 2:8). Hence, while on earth, Jesus Christ was living as God's viceroy.He is the agent of God whose duty is to reveal God. The name "Word" reveals this very function of Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:1-18).

If Jesus is God, how could God elevate him [Jesus] to the place of
highest honour? (Surely Jesus was already at the highest place
because He is equal to God?)

Jesus was given back the Equality and Exaltation that He  had

Jesus Christ "always had the nature of God" (Phil. 2:6 TEV). However, He chose not to use His divine attributes - the reason? -  so that He could live not only as human by nature but also as human by experience (Phil. 2:7). In his genuine human form, He did humble himself and did what God told him to do, that is, to die on a cross (Phil. 2:8). After completing his mission, God elevated Him as co-equal by bestowing on Him "the name above every name" (Phil. 2:9 NASB).

The Greek word "echarisato" (Lit. given by grace)is correctly translated in the NASB  as "bestowed" (Phil. 2:9). To bestow is to give a free gift.Jesus did not work for exaltation, He did not merit His exaltation. In other words, He did not do anything to obtain it. Rather, it was freely given to Him by God the Father. The reason is that He voluntarily gave up temporarily the use of his divine attributes (["He emptied himself..."] Phil. 2:7 ESV) and God merely gave back to Jesus what He had enjoyed before -- equality with God -- in using all divine attributes (Compare Phil. 2:6 with Phil. 2:9).

God himself humbled himself. Psalm 78:61 explicitly shows God's self-exinanition. Hence, self-emptying was not unique to God the Son because God the Father had it first!

  And gave up His strength to captivity And His glory into the hand
  of the adversary.

  Psalm 78:61 (NASB)


What are the major criticisms of the NIV? While researching for this answer and reading different posts on this site over the past few days, I've come across some criticisms of the NIV I'd never heard before. I've seen articles claiming that it changes the Bible to make it more friendly to homosexuality, but these claims were more general and more significant. For example, the one that stuck out to me the most was where someone said that the NIV translators knew no Koine Greek, just modern Greek, and that they used two secular translators to translate the NT into modern Greek.

These are some pretty serious claims. I've never liked the NIV myself, but that’s never been anything but my personal preference. I'd link to the places I saw these claims if I could remember. What arguments exist against the NIV? I'd like to find reliable references if at all possible. I’m not looking for small, minor issues like a few missing verses. I’m looking for larger, more significant problems that could conceivably affect the integrity of the text as a whole.

I'm not just looking for valid arguments; I'd also love to hear about any well-refuted claims against the NIV, so long as they had some intelligent basis in the first place. I know this question seems a bit open, but if any of these claims are true, I want be sure to avoid using an unreliable translation of God's words. I’m sure the same goes for others on this site and across the Internet.

I've seen three major categories of criticism for the NIV, but often people will combine two or three of them.

1. Text criticism: the NIV is based on critical texts

The NIV is a translation of the Nestle-Aland critical text of the Greek New Testament. It also critically evaluates the BHS for the OT, and often takes the Greek Septuagint as being a more reliable record than the Masoretic Hebrew.

Now most translations today are also based on these critical texts, and most people and scholars approve of their use. But there is a small minority of people who think the Textus Receptus or the Majority text is more reliable. Some of these fit into the KJV only movement, while others are not as concerned with the translation, just which source texts are used. If you see anyone talking about "missing" verses, this is what they mean: compared to the TR or MT the NIV has less verses. But most Christians wouldn't say that these verses are missing, but instead that they were added to some manuscripts after the texts were written.

2. Translation method: the NIV is a thought-for-thought translation

The NIV describes itself as "the very best combination of accuracy and readability.". It ranges between a word-for-word translation and a thought-for-thought translation. Clarity in the target language (English) is highly valued by the translators, and whole verses can be rearranged from the order which the source languages have, and which more word-for-word translations may copy. Another issue is idioms: phrases where the meaning of the whole is not found in the meanings of the individual parts. Translations like the NIV recognise more idioms than translations like the NASB, and when there are verses that are unclear in the original languages, unlike translations which translate the individual words even though they don't make sense in English, the NIV will give what the translators consider to be the most likely interpretation.

A number of people strongly disagree with any translation method other than word-for-word. In my opinion, they are misguided. Translating word-for-word is impossible to do completely, and gives little benefit even when you try.

3. Translation method: the NIV is a "progressive" translation

The NIV, and particularly its offshoot translation the TNIV (now largely merged together into the 2011 NIV), has been attacked for being progressive, in particular its gender accurate language. While some people say that it is trying to erase the gender distinctives of scripture, the changes it makes are only according to the current scholarly consensus: that the supposedly gendered language in the source languages is not actually gendered, and that formerly neutral terms in English now are strongly gendered. To ensure they were actually translating accurately into contemporary English they commissioned an independent report from Collins dictionaries to determine which words are actually used now - questions like whether it is more common to say "forefathers" or "ancestors", or "people" vs "mankind". This shows a great commitment to accuracy: true accuracy needs not only a right understanding of the source language, but also the target language. If other translations rely only on their translators' intuitions about what English is like, then we should expect they will occasionally make mistakes. This is why I don't say that it is "gender neutral", but instead "gender accurate" - the goal is not to make it neutral, but to make it accurate.

In all of these categories there are always individual verses where well-intentioned scholars will disagree. Text criticism, translation, and even knowing contemporary English are all difficult. In my opinion the NIV is a highly reliable translation for contemporary English. Even though no translation is perfect, praise God that we are blessed in English to have so many good options to compare between! And support the efforts to continue translating the Bible into every language which needs it.

NIV changes singular pronouns into plural pronouns in several places. I presume that this is to prevent "guilt" on the part of some readers. If NIV did this, what else?   Sounds like NIV cabal was trying to be "relative" rather than "absolute." I don't need political correctness in the Bible I read.


What did Jesus mean when He said we must "eat His flesh and drink His blood"? In John 6, Jesus states that unless we eat His flesh and drink His blood, we have no life in us:

  Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of
  the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  Whoever
  eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise
  him up at the last day.  For my flesh is real food and my blood is
  real drink.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me,
  and I in him.  Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of
  the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.  This
  is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna
  and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.  (John 6:53-58 NIV)

Could this have been a reference to the Passover Lamb of which the Israelites were supposed to eat all of it?  What  is the common Protestant understanding of this?  Do some traditions associate this with Communion?

We often let ourselves get trapped by not searching for other Scriptures which may help to explain what we do not fully understand.

This particular scripture is complicated by the part following which denotes his following lessening, because they did not understand that Jesus was not speaking of literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Today after knowing all about his death and resurrection understand that.

Jesus being an eternal being would have seen all of his teachings as if they were one continuous diatribe. Therefore we must consider all of his teaching at once. the following are some of his sayings which give meaning to this particular Scripture.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation, unless otherwise noted.

  John 6:35  And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

This Scripture gives meaning to eating his body and drinking his blood, and we need to also remember the reason we eat and drink in the first place. Our reason for eating and drinking is to sustain life. The same is true of our spirit and our eternal life. If we are to remain in consonance with Jesus teachings we need to continue to feed that spirit in order to keep it alive and well.

  John 6:32 and 33 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33  For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

It is quite obvious that Jesus is not talking about Worldly bread, as the Manna and quail which Moses asked of God; but is referring to Spiritual bread. All of these saying were in direct response to his disciples.

  John 6:28 through 31  Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29  Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. 30  They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31  Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

It probably frustrated Jesus that they could not put together his teachings to understand, and it must still frustrate him, that we cannot understand; even today with all of his word condensed into the Gospels. Which is probably why he said:

  John 14:26  But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

For them they had been with him during his teaching, however we did not have that privilege, and must study the Scriptures in order to connect all of his teaching.

It would have been necessary that they completely remember and understand his teachings since they would be tasked with passing them on to posterity, in written form.

Hope this helps

Jesus was speaking about the spiritual world, not about the physical.

When He spoke of Himself as the Bread of Life, He was not speaking of bread that we eat with our mouths, but rather spiritual food which sustains our souls.

So when Jesus says "you must eat my flesh", He means that our souls need Him if we are to continue living after our physical bodies no longer function.

Jesus is the food and drink of our Spirit, He is our only true sustenance. The flesh counts for nothing, for we are spirit, not flesh.