What is the modern argument against obligatory head coverings? 1 Corinthians 11:4-6 gives these instructions about head coverings:

  4 Every man who prays or prophesies while having something on his head dishonors his head, 5 but every woman who prays or prophesies with uncovered head dishonors her head, for she is one and the same with the one whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover herself, let her hair be shorn off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her head shorn or shaved, let her cover her head.

This instruction is disregarded by many modern denominations as being only culturally relevant. Why is this argument applied to this particular instruction whilst in the same denominations it is not applied to most other instructions in the New Testament? I presume there must be something making this instruction unique from the perspective of the theologians in those denominations. However, I have been unable to find out how they argue this.

Since the question does not specify a denomination, I am assuming that any denomination is OK.  I thus am basing my answers with one of the clearest doctrinal statements I could find.  However, it is pretty representative of most arguments that argue against obligatory head coverings, coming from a variety of theologies.

Here is a statement by the Reformed Presbytery In North America, which I believe is considered pretty conservative on most issues.  The argument is that the context of 1 Corinthians shows it is an example of Paul's larger argument of being culturally sensitive, not an instruction for all people in all cultures.  In the later part of chapter 10, Paul discusses meat offered to false idols.  He says that it would be unlawful for a Christian to eat such meat in the context, because that would constitute worshiping the idol.

  10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. (NRSV)

Immediately after that statement, however, he says

  23 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are beneficial.

(The quotes are added by NRSV because it is seen as something Corinithians were saying to justify their behavior.  Paul responds not be denying the statement, but by saying there are other considerations in play than just lawfulness.)  Paul goes on to make it clear that it is not the act of offering it to the idol that makes the meat unlawful, but the cultural context.  He goes on to say

  27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I mean the other’s conscience, not your own. For why should my liberty be subject to the judgment of someone else’s conscience?

Thus he is saying 27) don't cause offense by asking if the meat had been offered to an idol, but also 28-29) if you know it is, don't eat it and appear a hypocrite, because (implied) this may inhibit the unbeliever from being Christian.

Next comes the head covering passage at the start of chapter 11 and then instructions about receiving the Lord's Supper.  He says that some member have been causing offense by making their higher social status known during the meal.  He advises these members to "eat at home" so as to not cause offense by displaying their cultural status.  Or as the linked document says:

  similar to Paul's concern for godly order, decorum, and the eschewing of offense in 1 Corinthians 10 (in regard to meat offered to idols), Paul instructs the Corinthians how they should order the circumstances that surround the celebration of the Lord's Supper. He teaches them that it is offensive and divisive to fail to wait for one another, and that if the reason one cannot wait is hunger, then it would be expedient to eat something at home before coming. Although, we may never see this particular offense arise in our circumstances, nevertheless the principle of unoffensive behavior in a public setting is applicable to many circumstances.

The argument continues that the next several chapters cover similar themes - the orderly use of spiritual gifts and how to conduct church service in an orderly fashion - which can be understood as respecting cultural norms.  Thus

  In keeping with this context, we believe that Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 was continuing in the same general line of argument. He addresses the headcovering practice which was culturally acceptable to the Corinthians, and seeks to teach them that they are not to be offensive, divisive or contentious by altering the customs of the land, when they come to worship. He is laying down the same principle as that taught both before and after the headcovering passage. In effect he is saying, do not alter the established order of this circumstance when you see that it will be offensive and destructive to the unity of the church.

Since it is no longer a cultural norm to where head coverings for women, the advice no longer applies.

To cross-reference, here is another argument by a believer coming from a completely different background.  He adds some points (such as the setting of Paul's instruction likely not being a church service) and explains the cultural background, but the basic argument is the same - the context of the passage shows it is not a specific instruction, but rather part of a general argument to respect cultural sensitivities.  I imagine this would be the route taken by most who would not adhere to a "headcoverings are required" doctrine.  This reasoning wouldn't apply to (most) other passages, because there is no surrounding context saying "X is lawful, but should be avoided anyway" in other NT writings.

What is the modern argument against obligatory head coverings?

  1 Corinthians 11:15  But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to
  her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Paul says that the long hair of women acts as a covering. "for a covering" can be translated "in place of a covering" or "instead of a covering".

The actual prohibition is rather narrow. Only women who have short hair while they prayeth or prophesieth are required to have a "covering".

Most churches do not have anyone, male or female, who prayeth or prophesieth so the issue becomes moot.


Is the Creed a prayer? (Catholic mass) The Creed (Nicene, Apostles, etc) is formally a "profession of faith". It's basically Catholics publicly declaring their beliefs.

But, is it also a prayer? It doesn't seem to be directed to God, nor to anyone in Heaven, so it seems the answer is a plain no. For what I can read in the Catholic Encyclopedia (e.g. here), it doesn't seem to have been created as a prayer either.

Is this the case?

Is the Creed a prayer? (Catholic mass)

The short answer is no.

While the creed is said at Mass, at the beginning of the rosary and on other occasions, it remains simply a code of Catholic beliefs.

  Term

  CREDO

  Definition

  I believe. A creed or code of beliefs; also applied to any one article of faith. (Etym. Latin credo, I believe.)

St. Thomas Aquinas explains the three conditions that make up a prayer and the creed does not constitute a single condition at all.

  Three conditions are requisite for prayer. First, that the person who prays should approach God Whom he prays: this is signified in the word "prayer," because prayer is "the raising up of one's mind to God." The second is that there should be a petition, and this is signified in the word "intercession." On this case sometimes one asks for something definite, and then some say it is "intercession" properly so called, or we may ask for some thing indefinitely, for instance to be helped by God, or we may simply indicate a fact, as in John 11:3, "Behold, he whom Thou lovest is sick," and then they call it "insinuation." The third condition is the reason for impetrating what we ask for: and this either on the part of God, or on the part of the person who asks. The reason of impetration on the part of God is His sanctity, on account of which we ask to be heard, according to Daniel 9:17-18, "For Thy own sake, incline, O God, Thy ear"; and to this pertains "supplication" [obsecratio] which means a pleading through sacred things, as when we say, "Through Thy nativity, deliver us, O Lord." The reason for impetration on the part of the person who asks is "thanksgiving"; since "through giving thanks for benefits received we merit to receive yet greater benefits," as we say in the collect [Ember Friday in September and Postcommunion of the common of a Confessor Bishop]. Hence a gloss on 1 Timothy 2:1 says that "in the Mass, the consecration is preceded by supplication," in which certain sacred things are called to mind; that "prayers are in the consecration itself," in which especially the mind should be raised up to God; and that "intercessions are in the petitions that follow, and thanksgivings at the end."

  We may notice these four things in several of the Church's collects. Thus in the collect of Trinity Sunday the words, "Almighty eternal God" belong to the offering up of prayer to God; the words, "Who hast given to Thy servants," etc. belong to thanksgiving; the words, "grant, we beseech Thee," belong to intercession; and the words at the end, "Through Our Lord," etc. belong to supplication.

  In the "Conferences of the Fathers" (ix, cap. 11, seqq.) we read: "Supplication is bewailing one's sins; prayer is vowing something to God; intercession is praying for others; thanksgiving is offered by the mind to God in ineffable ecstasy" [adoration]. The first explanation, however, is the better. - Article 17. Whether the parts of prayer are fittingly described as supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings?

Elsewhere St. Thomas in question 84.2 of his Summa, speaks more exactly about adoration as follows:

  Adoration is directed to the reverence of the person adored. Now it is evident from what we have said (God). Hence the adoration whereby we adore God is an act of religion.

There are four basic forms of prayer and the creed is not one of them:

  Prayer of Blessing and Adoration

  In this prayer we express praise and honor to God. We praise God for giving us life, for the wonder and beauty of our world, and for all the many blessings we enjoy. We open ourselves up to praise God for all the wonders of creation. This form of prayer encourages bodily expression, such as standing with arms raised or dancing.

  Prayer of Petition

  This is probably the most familiar prayer form of prayer. We are often taught to ask God for the things we need, but asking and praying for them are not necessarily the same. When we pray our petitions, we are asking God, who loves us very much, for something that we believe is good—for ourselves or for others. By using this form of prayer we are mindful of the needs of others as well as of our own needs. We are aware that God wants us to bring our problems and worries to prayer knowing that he will always hear and answer those prayers. God may answer our prayers in a different way and in a different timeframe than we are seeking but God will always give us what we need.

  Prayers of petition serve to remind us that God expects us to care for one another and for all his creation. We can pray about the ordinary experiences of life— for people who are sick, for someone who needs a job, for help in our school work, for a safe trip. We pray for peace in our families and in our world. We can also express our sorrow and contrition to God in our prayer.

  Prayer of Intercession

  This form of prayer is prayer on behalf of others. This form of prayer can be a source of blessing upon others, the Church, and our world. Because we know that Our Lady and the saints intercede for us before God, the Church encourages us to pray to them for their intercession. Such prayer can bring us great strength and courage and also great peace of mind and heart.

  Prayer of Thanksgiving

  This form of prayer helps us to be grateful for God's many blessings, spiritual and temporal, and helps us to recognize and appreciate all the good things God gives to us. Reserving some time to praise and thank God for his gifts—the gift of life; the gift of our families and friends; the gift of food, clothing, and shelter; and the numerous other gifts we often take for granted—helps us to form a true spirit of gratitude. - Basic Forms of Prayer

The word creed itself means "I believe". The Apostles' Creed is the first of the Catholic Rosary prayers because it lists the important truths taught by Jesus. It summarizes who God is and how he deals with us, His children. This prayer deals with the Blessed Trinity.


Are we living with Angels in flesh? Are we living with angels in flesh? I've heard of the spiritual element of angels through the Bible and other mediums, but the following verse introduces them in flesh.

  "Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing some
  people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it." - Hebrews 13:2 (NIV)

Is this verse simply metaphoric or is there a deeper significance?

Angelic apparitions could be either metaphoric or real depending on who you ask.

"Throughout Scripture, we see numerous instances in which angels were an integral part of God’s plan. One verse alludes to the possibility of angels walking among us today: “Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it” (Hebrews 13:2). The obvious reference is to Abraham, whose angelic visitors appeared to him as mere men (Genesis 18). This verse may or may not confirm that angels are indeed walking among us unawares; “have shown” is past tense, so present-day encounters are not explicitly mentioned.

There are dozens of scriptural examples of angelic encounters, so we know that God can and does use angels to accomplish certain things. What we don’t know for sure is how often angels allow themselves to be seen by people. Here are the basics about angels from the Bible: angels can instruct people (Genesis 16:9), help people (Daniel 6:22), deliver messages to people (Luke 1:35), appear in visions and dreams (Daniel 10:13), protect people (Exodus 23:20), and help carry out God’s plans.

We know that God created angels, and He uses angels in His plan. Angels have a sense of individuality, as some have names (such as Gabriel and Michael) and all have different responsibilities within the angelic hierarchy."- Are there Angels among us?

Let us not forget that the Angel Gabriel appeared to Mary at the Annunciation.

Many Catholics believe that an angel appeared to the three children of Fatima in 1916.

It is also said that St. Frances of Rome (1384-1440) was guided by an Archangel that only she could see.

Hebrews 13:2 reflects a strong cultural injunction throughout the ancient Hellenic world. Even pagans feared offending strangers who could be gods in disguise. In Euripides' play, The Bacchae, the god Dionysis disguises himself and, through him, King Pentheus learns the consequences of inhospitality to strangers.

Had the author of Hebrews known of actual examples of people entertaining angels without knowing it, we can be sure there would have been more than a single verse placed in the middle of a whole range of scarcely related material, with no hint of evidence. We can be sure this verse this verse was simply metaphorical and intended to encourage good conduct and hospitality.


Can Patron Saints be "dethroned"? For instance lets say there's a patron saint of infants, but that a recently canonized saint is clearly superior to the previous one when it comes to infants.

Is it not then warrented to make the previous saint step down to leave the place of patron saint to someone who is holier?

Catholics, Orthodox, some Anglicans and some Lutherans believe in patron saints. But considering that Catholicism has the most well defined grasp this doctrine I would prefer an answer which agrees with Catholic theology.

Patron saints are not, in general, centrally designated by the Vatican. (St Thomas More is a notable exception. He was declared patron saint of statesmen and politicians by the motu proprio E Sancti Thomae Mori, issued by Pope St John Paul II in 2000.)

The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on patron saints discusses only patron saints of churches and locations. Nevertheless, what it says of these patron saints is true in general:

  A patron is one who has been assigned by a venerable tradition, or chosen by election, as a special intercessor with God.

In other words, a saint is  considered by the Church to be a patron saint of a particular cause, group of people, or situation simply because a sizable group of people, either in a single locality or more broadly through the Church, has decided to invoke their help for that purpose, and has done so for a long time. It's a very "organic" sort of process.

In the kind of situation you propose, what might happen is that a small group of people would venerate the second saint as the patron saint of infants, either along with or in place of the first. As the number of people invoking this saint's help grew, both saints might separately be considered the patron saint of infants. It isn't at all unusual to have multiple saints as patrons; for example, both St Valentine and St Dymphna are patron saints of people with epilepsy.

(There doesn't appear, by the way, to be a patron saint of infants, but there are three patron saints of children: St Nicholas of Myra, St Raymond Nonnatus, and St Nicholas of Tolentino.)

Finally, it's not necessarily the case, as you seem to imply, that saints who are invoked more often and produce many miracles are by that fact known to be "holier" in some sense. All saints are glad to intercede for us before God, Who chooses His responses at His Will. Even if a miracle, or the desired result, does not come about, God hears and responds. It is God, not the saint, who is responsible for any result, and it is God's decision, not the saint's holiness, that determines the response.

Can Patron Saints be “dethroned”?

Short Answer

Only the Pope have the canonical  power to proclaim a pious souls into sainthood. But, no future pope more so an office like the Congregation of Sacred Rites who has no authority apart from the Supreme Pontiff can undo the canonization or decanonized any saint that was previously canonized or elevated into sainthood. A pope decanonizing or dethroning a saint would mean that the Church united to the Pope committed an error, this scenario never occurs in the 2000 Church history.

So, the absolute answer is NO! The Church in elevating and proclaiming a pious souls to sainthood cannot err.

  The 2000 years Church Tradition states the Church united to the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit it cannot err.

Explanation to support the No answer:

Are Popes bound to follow the normal canonical procedure issued by Congregations of Sacred Rites? The answer is No, the recent canonization of St. Mother Theresa and St. John Paul II does not follow the canonical procedure and many others.

Jesus gave Peter and only to Peter the Keys to His Kingdom and the power to bind anything. The Pope alone can bind anything in governing the Church of Christ as the Supreme Interpreter, Teacher and Guarantor of Faith.

  "And I tell you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven." (Matthew16:18-19)

To answer specifically your question, St Philomena's case is a good example to consider.

The answer above cited a link that was written by a Canon Lawyer and cited the Congregation of Sacred Rites directives of removing the names of St. Philomena in the liturgical calendar? Was this directives officially bears the approval of St.John XXIII who is the reigning pope in 1961?

Let's consider their ground for removing the feast of St. Philomena in the liturgical calendars; in the link provided by Ken Graham's answer.

Thee article claimed that the Church does not canonized a Saint by a mere vision or dream as it requires a solid evidence of miracle. They forgot that Pope Gregory XVI is a personal witness to numerous miracle and one first class miracle is the miraculous healing of Pauline Marie Jaricot:

  For thirty years miracles continued to increase in number at Mugnano, and the glory of the "Thaumaturga" (Wonder-worker) filled the Universe. Various appeals were addressed to the Holy See so that a feast day might be established, and an Office and Mass permitted in her honor.

  In n 1835, Pauline Jaricot, foundress of the great French lay social institution in aid of the missions, Propagation of the Faith, and also foundress of the Association of the Living Rosary, and of other good works, was close to death. She suffered from a heart disease which had affected her health for some years and had left her suffering from frequent heart attacks. She had been unable to walk for the previous year and a quarter. The slow deterioration was leading to death. Doctors had given up on her case and deemed it hopeless.

  Drawn by an irresistible attraction, she wanted to visit Rome and the Holy Father. When she arrived at Rome after a terrible journey, her state was such that she could not go to the Vatican, and it was the Holy Father who went to visit her in the convent of Trinita dei Monti. The young lady asked Pope Gregory XVI if he would approve the cult of Saint Filumena, if she was cured by the Saint.

  "Surely, my child," replied the august Pontiff, **"for that would indeed be a first class miracle." This miracle indeed took place at the Sanctuary of Saint Filumena. On her return to Rome, the Sovereign Pontiff wanted Miss Jaricot to stay a full year there until all doubts about the completeness of the cure were quashed. Then, in a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, confirmed by the Pope on January 30, 1837, the feast of Saint Philomena was established as the eleventh of August.

January 30, 1837 - Pope Gregory XVI Confirmed the Feast of St. Philomena Established as August 11 - St. Philomena, Patroness and Protectress of the Living Rosary

The article claimed there was no canonization process that takes place recognizing the sainthood of St. Philomena.

  On January 30, 1837, Pope Gregory XVI issued a solemn pontifical decree confirming the rescript of the Congregation of Rites authorizing Saint Philomena’s public cultus and approving the office, Mass of the Common of a virgin and martyr with a proper fourth lesson at Matins in honor of St. Philomena, virgin and martyr on August 11. This papal approval of public liturgical devotion was first granted to the clergy of the Diocese of Nola, and later extended to other dioceses, including Rome itself. The fourth lesson officially inserted into the Breviary in liturgical honor of Saint Philomena on August 11 acknowledges the finding of her remains in the Priscilla catacombs, her martyrdom status, the rapid spread of her extensive popular devotion amidst the faithful due to her miraculous intercession, and the permission of the Pope to celebrate liturgically the office and mass in her honor (as here presented):

DIE XI AUGUSTI
IN FESTO S. PHILUMENAE
Virginis et Martyris
In II NOCTURNO - LECTIO IV

  In summary, Pope Gregory XVI in a papal decree, granted official approbation of the liturgical cultus and, thereby, official ecclesiastical recognition of the sanctity of St. Philomena, virgin and martyr. The Pontiff, fully aware of the absence of any historical account of the martyr Saint "Filumena," granted to her the privileges of public liturgical veneration based upon the foundation of the great quantity of miracles ecclesiastically documented and recognized as having occurred through her direct intercession.

Magisterial Decrees Pertaining To Devotion to St. Philomena

  From the liturgical approval of Pope Gregory XVI to the papal decrees of St. Pius X, Nineteen acts of the Holy See in the course of five successive pontificates were issued in positive promotion of popular devotion to Saint Philomena expressed in the form of elevations in rank of liturgical cultus, the erection of confraternities and archconfraternities, and the granting of plenary and partial indulgences.

  Several acts of the Holy See particularly display the Magisterium’s approval and encouragement of ecclesial devotion to this Christian Saint and martyr. Beyond the elevation of the rank of the mass and office previously granted by Pope Gregory XVI, Bl. Pius IX approved a proper mass and office dedicated to St. Philomena with the papal confirmation of the previously submitted decree, Etsi decimo on January 31, 1855, a significant liturgical elevation, even though her name was never entered into the Roman Martyrology. The granting of a proper mass and office to Saint Philomena, which took place following the return of Bl. Pius IX from a papal pilgrimage to Mugnano during his forced exile from Rome, was an unprecedented act in honor of a Christian martyr known only by name and evidence of martyrdom. Bl. Pius IX also granted plenary and partial indulgences to devotions in honor of St. Philomena at the Sanctuary in Mugnano.

  Pope Leo XIII granted papal approbation to the Cord of Saint Philomena with several plenary indulgences in association with its wearing, and accorded the title and privilege of "archconfraternity" for the respective Philomenian devotion and work in France. Pope St. Pius X continued the papal succession of encouragement for public Church devotion by approving the extension of the Archconfraternity of St. Philomena to the universal Church.

  "Far more than one solitary papal act by Pope Gregory XVI, the papal Magisterium has repeatedly encouraged the nature and growth of ecclesial devotion to Saint Philomena, in official recognition of her status as a Saint, in public liturgical and devotional sanctions which extended to the universal faith and life of the Church, and thereby manifesting official and essential liturgical and devotional characteristics of her status as a Saint as defined by the Church. - St. Philomena, Patroness and Protectress of the Living Rosary

In closing, no future pope can decanonized or detroned a saint previously honored and venerated by the Church more so a mere liturgical directives coming from Congragation of the Sacred Rites has the canonical power to do so. The brief confusions in 1961 because of the directives to remove the feast of St. Philomena from liturgical calendars was immediately corrected when it brought to the attention of St. Pope Paul VI by an Indian priest in 1964. St. Pope Paul VI instructed to simply disregard the directives of the Congregation of the Sacred Rites. Up to this very day the Catholic Church recognized St. Philomena universally as Virgin & Martyr and the numerous cult & association founded in honor of St. Philomena enjoyed a canonical status, Archconfraternity and Universal Archconfraternity as a solid evidence that the Catholic Church recognized her a saint.


Are Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharistic allowed to break the host? I'd like to know if Eucharistic Ministers are allowed to break a consecrated host?

I witnessed this happening and I didn't think they had the right to do it.

I was searching for the answer but some say yes and another no. Is there any official teaching or how do I find out if it's ok in my parish or diocese?

The official website of the Vatican seems to be silent on this issue. Nevertheless it may be up to the local ordinary to make special norms for the diocese in question!

The following is taken from Redemptionis Sacramentum of the Vatican:

  [160.] Let the diocesan Bishop give renewed consideration to the practice in recent years regarding this matter, and if circumstances call for it, let him correct it or define it more precisely. Where such extraordinary ministers are appointed in a widespread manner out of true necessity, the diocesan Bishop should issue special norms by which he determines the manner in which this function is to be carried out in accordance with the law, bearing in mind the tradition of the Church.

A eucharistic minister is only a person. An ordained Catholic priest is the only person allowed to touch the consecrated host .o Only a concecrated priest is allowed to touch it. Lay people are commitimg sacriledge.


Why wasn't Solomon's polygamy sinful? I know that Solomon was a king, but why doesn't the Bible describe his polygamy as sinful? Was he allowed to commit sins others could not because he was a king? I thought God showed no partiality.

Although the narrator in Kings and Chronicles may not say so, Deuteronomy does say it was a sin, in Deuteronomy 17:15-17

  [15] you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God
  chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you;
  you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. [16] But
  he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to
  return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the Lord has said to you, ‘You
  shall not return that way again.’ [17] Neither shall he multiply wives
  for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply
  silver and gold for himself. (NKJV)

Solomon broke all these provisions, multiplying horses, wives, and gold and silver.

  All King Solomon’s drinking vessels were gold, and all the vessels of the House of the Forest of Lebanon were pure gold. Not one was silver, for this was accounted as nothing in the days of Solomon.  (1 Kings 10:21 NKJV)

Accounted as nothing because he had so much of it.

The simple and quick answer is because plural marriage (i.e. polygamy) isn't a sin according to Scripture. Solomon was instructed not to take foreign wives because they would lead his heart away to other gods. THAT was the sin that Solomon committed. It's not a sin for a man to be married to more than one woman.


Why is "elohim" translated as "God" and not "gods"? I was looking at the Holman Christian Standard Bible and I saw that Elohim is plural. Were it to be translated plural it would read something like:

  "In the beginning, gods created the heavens and the earth."

But our English translations all show that "God" created the heavens and the earth, not "gods".

This made me think of a later passage in Genesis (same chapter, though):

  Genesis 1:26 (NIV) (emphasis obviously added)
  Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

In both the NIV and HCSB translations, Elohim (plural) says "Let us" in the English translation.

I can't imagine that the entire translation of "God" throughout the bible has been wrong for thousands of years.  Yet, the word is plural!!

Why is the plural "elohim" translated as the singular "God"?

The reason this plural noun is translated into other languages as a singular noun is because it's being used with a singular verb.
This would be comparable to saying "Ants is here to stay" instead of "Ants are here to stay".  It turns this plural word ("ants") into a proper noun.
Example with singular verb
In Genesis 1:1 (referenced in the question), we see a great example of the plural elohim being used with a singular verb:

In this text, elohim is being matched with the singular verb bra.  This indicates elohim is the proper noun and it's translated as "God".
King James Version

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Example with plural verb
However, when Elohim is used with a plural verb, it's translated as plural "gods":

Here, elohim is used with olim, which is also plural.  This is, therefore, translated as "gods" (or sometimes "spirits").
King James Translation (emphasis added)

And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

Plural as Singular
Dori pointed me to a question on Judaism.se discussing this point.  Their answers show that there are some words in Hebrew that, although they end in the im (making them plural), are not actually plural. The Hebrew word for "sky" (shamayim) also ends in im, making it plural in some cases, singular in others: based on the verb.  (Also, this makes the translation "heavens" or "sky" based on the plurality, for what that's worth.)
This accounts for why a word that appears to be plural--indeed many reference sites indicate that it indeed is plural--but is actually used as a singular word.  When we read the original Hebrew, we presume that because it ends in im, it is plural.  The truth is, though, that this may or may not be a plural word; we have to look at the verb.
(There are a couple of analogues to this in English:  For example news, clothes, species, panties, etc.)
Summary
Because of the verb that is being used is singular, we can be confident in our assessment that this is a singular god that is performing all these tasks.  Also, the use of the singular verb converts this plural noun into a proper name.
Source

Jesus Christ Created the Earth and the Heavens
What you're seeing is Christ speaking with His father.

Colossians 1:14-16  (NKJV)
14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of
sins.  15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all
creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and
that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions
or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and
for Him.


Did Jesus visit the temple before the wise men came? I was looking into the accounts of Jesus' birth both in Matthew and Luke and tried to make something of a chronology of the events on a piece of paper so that I can get it clear in my head.

The thing that I came to notice is that there could be a large time gap in between Luke 2:38 and Luke 2:39...

Now if we read the 2 accounts carefully we will understand that the wise men came to Jerusalem (The city of the King), expecting to find the newborn King there. However, Herod, consulting the scholars of the day sent them to Bethlehem (as it has been prophesied) (Mat. 2:1-6).

Now, we are not actually told that they actually went to Bethlehem as the star appeared and guided them again. However, certainly that is the assumption of most people.

Later we read (Mat. 2:16-18) that Herod went about killing all the male children aged 2 years or less, based on the information he had acquired from the wise men, concerning the time that the star appeared (Mat. 2:7).

So it is safe to say that the wise men came to Jesus anytime before He was 2 years of age.

However, what makes it more interesting is that it is written that after the wise men left, Joseph was told in a dream to flee to Egypt with Mary and Jesus.

Knowing this, we look back into the account by Luke and see that they went into the Temple in Jerusalem, for the cleansing of Mary (Luke 2:22) as it is written in the Law (Lev. 12:3-8)... According to this passage for a male child this is done 33 days after (birth?).

Which would mean that they visited the temple before the wise men came to them?

And then returned to Bethlehem where the wise men came (even though Lk. 2:39 says they went back to Nazareth - assuming there is a gap and this speaks after their return from Egypt.) OR they went back to Nazareth straight after the cleansing in the temple (approx. a little over a month after the birth), meaning that even though the wise men were sent to Bethlehem by Herod, the star guided them to Nazareth..?

So, my question:

Now, more than one question arise from the comments above, however my main question is:

According to my observations, is it safe to say that Jesus went to Jerusalem and into the Temple before the wise men got there? Are there other places in Scripture that confirm this or is there perhaps a flaw in my logic?

Here is my attempt to harmonize the accounts of Matthew 2 and Luke 2, This assumes a literal retelling of the story. (Luke as a careful writer has been vindicated again and again by archaeology.)

  NAZARETH (above Samaria to the north) to BETHLEHEM

Luke 2:4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David,

  BETHLEHEM (just south of Jerusalem)

Luke 2:7 Jesus born in a manger

Luke 2:8-20 Jesus still in manger when shepherds see them

Luke 2:21 Eight days for circumcision

  JERUSALEM

Luke 2:22-24 Now when the days of her purification [33 days] according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord. [They gave gifts as poor people would, so the Magi had not given them riches at this time.]

Luke 2:25-35 Simeon sees Jesus.

Luke 2:36-38 Anna sees Jesus.

  JERUSALEM to NAZARETH

Luke 2:39 So when they [Joseph and Mary] had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth.

  Approx. 1-year GAP. Then NAZARETH to JERUSALEM to HILL COUNTRY(?)

Luke 2:41 We learn from this passage that they went to JERUSALEM every year for the Passover. So we see them no longer in Nazareth, but in Jerusalem. Perhaps they turned aside to Bethlehem at that point to visit relatives and family. In Luke 1:39, Mary visits Elizabeth in the "hill country of Judah," which, according to this map, includes Bethlehem. After all, this is Joseph and Mary’s home town where their families could still be living, so it’s not inconceivable that they would go see them or stay with them during the Passover. Bethlehem is just below Jerusalem -- see the map above.

Matthew 2:1-8 “Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem,” [The Magi visit Jerusalem and Herod, where they are told by the scribes that the ruler is to come out of Bethlehem.]

Matthew 2:9-11 “When they [Magi] heard the king, they departed; and behold, the star which they had seen in the East went before them, till it came and stood over where the young Child was.” [This was not their home in Nazareth, but “the house” (Matt. 2:11), perhaps a family’s or relative’s home. This Magi’s visit was perhaps the first Passover after Luke’s account, for Herod said to kill children 2 years old and under.]

Matthew 2:12 The Magi return home without telling Herod.

  BETHLEHEM to EGYPT

Matthew 2:13-15 “Now when they [Magi] had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”

Matthew 2:16 babies killed in Bethlehem. [The slaughter may not have happened until several months after the Magi and family had left, when Herod finally wises up and causes those children 2 years old and under to be killed. It took time for the Magi to journey here from the east, so maybe they told Herod that the Ruler was born when they first saw the star? Adding that time and the time the Magi departed would come to about 2 years by Herod’s reckoning. If this is so, then the Magi may have come here at the first Passover after Luke’s account.]

Matthew 2:19 Herod dies. [The family survived in Egypt on the gifts of the Magi.]

  EGYPT to NAZARETH

Matthew 2:22-23 Joseph is told to return, for Herod was dead. “…. And being warned by God in a dream, he turned aside into the region of Galilee. And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, ….” Now we are back to Nazareth.

The nativity stories in Matthew and Luke are an example of what is known as a doublet - two different stories about the same event. As such, we should not attempt to harmonise the two stories, but read each on its own and on its own merits.

A careful reading of Luke 2:22,39 shows Jesus was taken via the Temple in Jerusalem direct to Nazareth, the home town of Joseph and Mary, soon after his birth. A careful reading of Matthew's Gospel shows that Bethlehem was the home town of Joseph and Mary, and they remained there until the arrival of the wise men, after which they were told to flee to Egypt. After the death of Herod, they began the return journey to Bethlehem in Judea but, being warned in a dream, turned aside and instead travelled to Galilee, where they settled in a city called Nazareth, thereby fulfilling the prophecy that Jesus be called a Nazarene. As far as Matthew is concerned, this is the first time Nazareth enters the picture.

I think the following selection is a fair representation of scholarly opinion on why it is not possible to harmonise the two gospel accounts, and why there is no meaning in trying to establish which event occurred first:

John Shelby Spong say (Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus, pages 89-90) that among people he knows in New Testament circles, the universal assumption is that the magi [wise men] were not actual people. Matthew was clearly writing Christian midrash. Spong goes on to say that Matthew is drawing a parallel between Jesus and Moses in the Old Testament: Joseph took his family to Egypt just as the patriarch Joseph had done, in order to escape death. The killing of all male babies reflects the story of the pharaoh ordering all the male babies under two to be killed.
Raymond E. Brown says, in An Introduction to the New Testament, page 114 that Luke's infancy narrative is not only massively different from Matthew's, but also in details is virtually irreconcilable with it.
Ian Wilson,in Jesus, page 47, discounts the nativity account in Luke's Gospel, saying that the author may have been trying to make it appear that he knew more about Jesus’ birth than he actually did.
Uta Ranke-Heinemann says in Putting Away Childish Things, page 11, Luke handles the facts arbitrarily, so that the facts themselves refute him.
Burton L. Mack says in Who Wrote the New Testament, pages 165-6, the stories of Jesus' birth and infancy are seen by biblical scholars as incredible, implausible, far-fetched fictions.


Did Neanderthals have a soul? From when do people exists/have soul? Does the church agree with some kind of Darwin evolution and big bang theory? If so, from when does human exists? If we think of human as we have soul, did Neanderthals had one? Was it like this individual does not have soul yet but from now, his children do have a soul and are the first people that could go to heaven?

Did Neanderthals have a soul? From when do people exists/have soul?
Do animals have souls like human beings?
The Catholic Church teaches that animals may have mortal souls whereas modern man (after Adam and his descendants) has an immortal soul!
Do animals have souls? Do plants have plant souls? Although not a defined dogma, it is permitted for Catholics to believe Neanderthals may have possessed an animal, yet mortal soul only.
The soul is the principle of life. Since animals and plants are living things, they have souls, but not in the sense in which human beings have souls. Our souls are rational–theirs aren’t–and ours are rational because they’re spiritual, not material.
Animals and plants can’t do anything which transcends the limitations of matter. Although some animals seem clever, they don’t actually possess conceptional intelligence. They can’t, for instance, conceive of the abstract notion of justice.

Most people have experienced the sadness of witnessing an animal die, usually a beloved pet who brought great joy throughout their short lifespan. During the grieving period, it’s common for parents to tell children that there’s a special place for all the animals who have departed from their world – like a pet heaven.
This image of a pet no longer in pain and experiencing paradise can certainly alleviate the worry of a young child wondering where their favourite animal has gone to, but is there any truth to the claim?
The Church has no official teaching on the matter of pets entering heaven, but there are theological principles that can direct us to what answer is most probable.
Catholics believe that all living things have souls, and this includes not only humans, but also plants and animals. When a living thing dies, the soul separates from its body or organic makeup. In the case of animals, the soul goes out of existence. However, the souls of human beings are radically different from the souls of other living things. Whereas the souls of animals are contingent upon their material makeup, human souls remain in existence after death because it is immaterial.
This means that that human souls can’t be destroyed, and so are immortal.
Reasonable
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said in a sermon in 2008, that when an animal dies, it “just means the end of existence on earth”. It’s reasonable to believe then that all animals that die before the Second Coming and the creation of the “new heaven and new earth” will cease to exist.
This, however, doesn’t necessarily mean that there won’t be any animals after the Second Coming.
Some theologians argue that animals flourished in the Garden of Eden, before sin entered the world, and so there’s no inherent or theological contradiction in positing that God could create more animals.Animals were present when the fullness of grace abounded. However, others argue that there will be no need for animals to exist in the new creation, which pertains to ultimately knowing and loving God. Of course, this is all just speculative, and we will only really ever find out the answer at the end of time.

“The souls of human beings are radically different from the souls of other living things”

Do animals go to heaven?

Ultimately, this question should deal with the prospect of whether or not the Neanderthals had the intellectual ability to worship God. In other words were the Neanderthals more animal like or human like?
For those who believe in evolution, the Catholic Church allows the faithful to believe in this theory. The Church equally makes some qualitative point that are to be observe in this domain.
It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).
In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated:

“When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37).

In other words, either Adam and Eve were created as the Scriptures literally tells us or Adam and Eve somehow evolved from some preexisting humanoid form such as the Neanderthals. Only Adam and Eve along with their descendants were infused with the gift of an immortal and rational soul. Thus Neanderthals would not have possessed an immortal soul! They simply possessed a mortal soul like that of any other animal lower in dignity than man.

Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels: thou hast crowned him with glory and honour, and hast set him over the works of thy hands. - Hebrews 2:7

The human lineage of  Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.
Although they say nothing is written in stone, with the exemption of the Ten Commandments written by God, there is lots of room for debate on this issue of human evolution. This is just one perspective.
Just today the news made headlines:

Remains of nine Neanderthals found in cave south of Rome May 8, 2021.

My personal dilemma is whether the Sasquatch (Bigfoot) a living relic of the Neanderthal???


Is there any equivalent of the Shivoham experience in Christianity? A seeker's question to followers of Christianity:

In all the religions that originated from India, there is a concept of oneness with God.

My question is: What is the equivalent of this in other religions, like Christianity?

Explanation:

(1) There is but one God ==> Monotheism

(2) There is but one, God ==> Advaitic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, etc.)

Please understand the difference in the two.
The first (1) statement, is more like a moral science lesson, which says there is one God, God is one. There should not be a fight between my God and your God, because God is one. There is no your God and my God ... etc.

The second statement means,
There is only God in the universe and we are all part of Him. Oneness with God. It also implies, the entire universe is not separate from God. The entire universe is filled with divine consciousness. We all are one with each other, and one with God. There is no individual identity - what we call EGO. Advaitic philosophy says, that EGO is a illusion, because there is no individual separate existence. It is like God is a big ocean (param aatma / super consciousness), we are drops(aatma/consciousness) in that ocean. And Upanishads go even further to tell us, even if you take out that drop(aatma) from the ocean(param-aatma), even then that drop(aatma) is not separate from the ocean(param-aatma).

In short, we are one with God. This is celebrated as
Shivoham => I am Shiva / God (one with God & universe)
Soham => I am that (whomever you believe as God )
etc.

What is the equivalent OR alternative of this in Christianity?

In the terms you describe, most - if not all - forms of Christianity are Monotheistic in nature.  That said, there are three key concepts (that again most forms of Christianity subscribe to) that are somewhat comparable to 'Shivoham' as you've described it: God's Immanence, the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in a believer, the Glorification of believers.

Before describing those three concepts, I will firstly explain why Christianity* should be regarded as Monotheistic (versus Pantheistic) in character because God is transcendant over His creation:

  ...[this] means that God is above, other than, and distinct from all he has made - he transcends it all. - Theopedia.com

This is repeatedly implied in the Bible through descriptions of God as Holy (cf. Isaiah 6:3,Revelation 4:8,Leviticus 20:26) - ie separated, other, above - as well as stated more explicitly in certain passages such as:

  8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
      neither are your ways my ways,”
  declares the Lord.
  9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
      so are my ways higher than your ways
      and my thoughts than your thoughts. - Isaiah 55:8-9 NIV

The concept of the transendence of God in Christianity is antithetical to the concept of Shivoham.

Moving on to briefly outline the three more comparable concepts:

Firstly, The doctrine of the Immanence of God means:

  ..."to be within" or "near" in relation to God's creation. Immanence is closely related to God's omnipresence, in that God is always present within the universe, though distinct from it. God is 'within' the universe in that God is its sustaining cause. - Theopedia.com

This teaching empasizes the closeness of God to his creation and can be seen in passages such as:

  27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ - Acts 17:27-28 NIV (emphasis added)

While this doctrine does not go to the extant of Shivoham in identifying God as inseparable from creation, it qualifies our understanding of transendence - God may be 'other', but He is not completely separated from His creation, rather He is close and His presence sustains it. This is an explicit disavowal of Deism.

Secondly, the doctrine of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers is inextricably linked to the concept of sanctification and teaches that not only is God 'close' in a particular way to them, but through the agency of the Holy Spirit, he allows them to become partakers in the divine nature:

  Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. - 2 Peter 1:4 NIV (emphasis added)

Most forms of Christianity are not universalist however, and this particular identification of the (renewed) nature of the believer with the nature of God is restricted to the 'household of faith'.

Finally, the doctrine(s) of the Glorification of the believer address the end stage of spiritual development and while appearing in somewhat different forms in the various branches of those who identify as Christian, most will affirm something very similar to:

  ...“glorification” is God's final removal of sin from the life of the saints (i.e., everyone who is saved) in the eternal state (Romans 8:18; 2 Corinthians 4:17). At Christ’s coming, the glory of God (Romans 5:2) – His honor, praise, majesty, and holiness-- will be realized in us; instead of being mortals burdened with sin nature, we will be changed into holy immortals with direct and unhindered access to God’s presence, and we will enjoy holy commune with Him throughout eternity. In considering glorification, we should focus on Christ, for He is every Christian’s “blessed hope”; also, we may consider final glorification as the culmination of sanctification.

  Final glorification must await the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13; 1 Timothy 6:14). Until He returns, we are burdened with sin, and our spiritual vision is distorted because of the curse. “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). Every day, we should be diligent by the Spirit to put to death what is earthly in us (Romans 8:13). - gotquestions.org

In conclusion, while there are some elements of the doctrines of Immanence, Indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Glorification that are somewhat comparable to the concept of Shivoham as described, they cannot be considered as identical, as they assume the transendance of God which explicitly denies it.

*Generally on this site, we seek to avoid characterising 'Christianity' as a whole, as there are many religions that claim such a label that possess exclusionary elements to each other. This is so even within the largest generally recognized meta grouping of Nicene Christianity (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants). That said, 99.9% of Christian sects can be accurately characterised as monotheistic despite the very real distinctions in many other aspects of their theologies.

We can either be one with God, or not.
If not, then we can be on a path that takes us to God.  If we are not on that path, we have our lifetime to straighten out and fly right, i.e Repent, but we never know when our time will come.
If we practice in all earnestness the 2nd part of the greatest commandment that Jesus gave us - Love our neighbour as ourselves - this is Agape love - then we are already with God, and we can say with assurance शिवोऽहम् (Shivoham), because we will be doing God's will, not our will, not the ego's will.  But we cannot say it otherwise.  In all humility  it is not prideful to say I Am With God - शिवोऽहम् - if we are putting ourselves subservient to God's will, and doing it quietly without advertisement and looking for credit, enjoying the love we share, evidenced by our actions, to doubt it would be to doubt God.
God is Love, and if we have Love, we are with God!   This holds true for anybody of any faith or no faith, for religious, agnostics or atheists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.


Is it possible for The Bible to contain errors? For those who profess to follow the word of Christ, everyone agrees that the Bible is the infallible word of God as transcribed by many different men compiled together in one book. But for this question, I'm not talking about "The Bible" as in the idea of the perfect Bible, but of the copies and translations mankind reads; the one you and I have on our bookshelves. This may seem like a stupid question for some, and I apologize, but is it possible for these books to contain errors?

The way I see it, The Bible is a product of mankind, written by man, transcribed by man, duplicated on printing presses created by man, and thus it may contain errors, mistakes, even contradictions; these mistakes are the result of man's imperfection, not God's.

It occurred to me after reading through many questions on this site that some people think that The Bible is 100% infallible, let alone that their particular copy may be a poor/inaccurate translation. It's almost as if they believe it was written by God himself, so they tend to blame errors on our own reasoning and interpretation of the Bible, as opposed to the simple fact that a particular passage could have been translated incorrectly (which often seems more likely, especially when it stands out from all the rest).

Note that whether errors/mistakes do (or do not) occur in The Bible is irrelevant; this questions asks merely whether it is conceivably possible that it could contain errors.

Yes, it is absolutely possible for editions of the Bible to contain errors. There is no magical mechanism to prevent this. There are some notorious printing mistakes, for example:

A 1631 printing of the King James version is now called the "Wicked Bible", owing to its rendering of Exodus 20:14,

  Thou shalt commit adultery

In 1763, the "Fool's Bible" said in Psalm 14:1,

  The fool hath said in his heart there is a God

The "Owl Bible" of 1944 says in 1 Peter 3:5,

  For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their owl husbands.

Some more are listed at Wikipedia under Bible errata. These are mostly simple mistakes, but some of them might be deliberately introduced (like the Printer's Bible of 1612, having "Printers have persecuted me without a cause" in Psalm 119:161).

In earlier times, when books were copied by hand, monks attributed such slips (in jest) to a demon called Titivillus 1, whose job was to introduce errors into manuscripts, especially of important texts.

Even in the earliest Biblical manuscripts, there are disagreements, as can be seen by consulting most modern editions that have footnotes - it's not hard to find verses with annotations that note differences among early texts.

1 Or possibly Titivilus or Tituvillis, etc., it being perfectly in keeping with his nature that there is no correct way to spell his name.

In Holy Tradition of Orthodoxy it is known the life of the saint Mary the Egyptian (+522), which is an example of repentence, overwhelming for the human nature. From very young age she left her parents. Far from home, she spent 17 years into lechery. One day happened a miracle in her life and she realized how sinfull she was. Very ashamed in front of the God, she felt so much guilt. Counting on the help of the Virgin Mother of God, she left the world and she went deep in the desert spending there 47 years in very wild places, without to see any human face, without food and loosing her few clothes in a short while. Her surviving there was a miracle. One year before to die, God sent abba Zosima, a monk, to find this treasure hidden deep in the desert. When he met Saint Mary, he implored her to tell about all her life from early ages until the last day. Abba Zosima was very impressed, crying all the time when he heard her story, but in the same he was amazed about the fact that she cited words of Scripture, knowing in the same time that she never learnt from the books and she never heard anyone who sang or read these words.
Saint Mary told to abba Zosima:

The word of God are alive and active, by itself teaches a man knowledge.

The saint John Chrysostom, in Homilies on Matthew, explains that God gave us His word, not using ink and paper, He writes directly in human hearts with Holy Spirit. God didn't gave writtings to Noah, to Abraham, to his offspring, to Job, to Moses. Instead of writtings, He gave to the apostles, the Holy Spirit saying:

(John 14:26) He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
(Jeremiah 31:33) I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
(2 Corinthians 3:2-3) You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts

And saint John Chrysostom, concludes in Homily 1 on Matthew:

But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second best course: the written Scriptures.

In his Homilies, saint John Chrysostom tell that even in his times, 347-407, the Scriptures had many enemies trying to change them, to cut them or to destroy them completely:

Matthew 28:12-15 And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep.’ “And if this should come to the governor’s ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble.” And they took the money and did as they had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day.

It is known that Orthodoxy is a very "conservative religion" with everything old and everything hard to be understood by our modern minds. But its Holy Tradition, is not tradition made by men, is the way to keep everything revelated from the the God, in its original form as much as possible, unaltered, unreformed, uninfluenced by the temporary teachings of humanity. It is made only by saints, to remain Holy. And the Scriptures are part of this Holy Tradition.
Even if some texts of the Bible were altered by "academic" translations, re-writtings, the good news is the word of God cannot be changed, or losed definitively, because the finger of God will write His word every time in humble hurts looking for Him.


What is the best interpretation of Matthew 24:29, from the perspective of an evangelical Christian? In the verse mentioned above, Jesus narrates:

"Immediately after the distress of those days "'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

Now, every educated  evangelical is well aware of the fact that the moon does not emit its own light, and that the size of most stars is far greater than that of the Earth.

Taking note of the same, is an evangelical Christian supposed to take this verse literally or metaphorically?

In the case of the former, is there any valid explanation?

An evangelical understanding of scripture would affirm that the words of Jesus are accurately recorded in Matthew 24:29 and that they are infallible and inerrant. Therefore, evangelicals would not accept explanations like, "Jesus was wrong," or, "Matthew got it wrong."

Most Evangelicals interpret this verse metaphorically and the rest interpret it phenomenologically. The metaphorical explanation understands that the cataclysmic, universe-shaking language of Jesus is tapping into the apocalyptic/prophetic tradition of the Old Testament where it was perfectly common to use the language of "creation coming to an end" to signify real-life events that were complete reversals or "turning the world upside down."

The Evangelicals who interpret the verse phenomenologically would consider it to be describing events that would seem to an observer like the events described were happening, regardless of what was literally happening (e.g. saying "The sun rose" when really the earth just rotated revealing the sun). So the phenomenological interpretation would say something like, "it will be completely dark and the stars will seem to have disappeared (or firey star-like substances will fall to the earth!)" This kind of interpretation generally stems from evangelicals of more dispensationalist leanings who tend to think that unless there is a specific biblical indication that the verse is metaphorical it should be interpreted literally as the most faithful interpretation. In this case, the phenomenological approach is the closest to literal that is reasonable.

Revelation talks about a war in heaven. Satan and his angels(stars) cast down to earth a great earth quake and smoke darkening the sun the moon. Christ said he seen Satan cast from heaven . Most likely this verse is in reference to sixth seal.


Is it official Catholic dogma that Mary is the wife of the Holy Spirit? I've seen many posts here from Catholics describing Mary as the spouse or wife of the Holy Spirit. Catholic Answers calls it a "pious custom".

Is this official Catholic dogma? If so, when was it formally defined? If it isn't, then how widely supported is it? Where along the path to dogma described by this question is this belief?

It is not dogma

Were it a dogma you'd find a record of it at the Pope's official web site.

Ludwig Ott states in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma that,

  "The Church honours her on account of her position as Mother of God, and on account of her high endowment with grace deriving from her position as daughter of the Heavenly Father and Spouse of the Holy Ghost." (Part 3 {The Mother of the Redeemer}, Chapter 1, Section 2 (p. 196))

Ott does not list it as a dogma of the church. (thank you, @zippy2006) (Nor does Denzinger clearly identify this pious belief as a dogma).

The two dogmas most recently published, and in these two cases pronounced ex cathedra, concerning Mary are the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception.  We have Q&A on both of those topics.  That they are both alluded to during Adoration seems to bear on your question.  Remember that the Church won't endorse polygamy.  During the holy hour of Adoration (which has seen a revival ever since John Paul II became pope), during the  Reposition the faithful pray The Divine Praises

  Blessed be God. Blessed be his holy name.
  Blessed be Jesus Christ, true God and true man. Blessed be the name of Jesus. Blessed be his most Sacred Heart. Blessed be his most Precious Blood. Blessed be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar. Blessed be the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete.
  Blessed be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy. Blessed be her holy and Immaculate Conception. Blessed be her glorious Assumption. Blessed be the name of Mary, virgin and Mother.
  Blessed be St. Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
  Blessed be God in his angels and in his saints. Amen.

No pope has formally declared the Holy Spirit's "spouse" being Mary to be dogma (by speaking ex cathedra) nor condemned it.   (To answer your comment: why would they condemn such a belief?  See Ott's observation above).  Only the Pope can define or reject something binding on Catholic belief one way or another (dogma).

The Catholic church embraces a variety of expressions of belief and faith (for example scapulars, and other sacramentals) without them becoming dogma.  Your look into this "pious custom" has already given you your answer at the Catholic Answers ... but do they have the Nihil Obstat?  (no).  If you check the Catholic Encyclopedia, its treatment of Mary does not include a discussion of her being the spouse of the Holy Spirit.  Nor do you find it as a dogma on the Pope's official site at vatican.va.

The church does not go out of its way to keep a nearly infinite list of "Oh, and this isn't dogma, nor this, nor this ..." - it's rather pointless.

No: the position or belief that Mary is the spouse of the Holy spirit is not dogma.  You are invited to read up on an official written discussion of dogma and its formation here.

An excerpt of the much longer treatment ...

  The study of the history of dogma shows clearly that in these dogmas the Church has not simply taken up already existing conceptual schemes. She has rather subjected existing concepts, imprinted by the upper levels of the language of the milieu, to a process of purification and transformation, or reworking. In that way, she has created the language that fits her message. Take for example the distinction between "substance" (or nature) and "hypostasis", and the working out of the concept of person which was unknown, as such, to Greek philosophy. In fact, it came about as a result of reflection on the reality of the mystery of Salvation and on biblical language.

  The language of the Church's dogma was then forged partly in debate with certain philosophical systems, but is not bound in any way to any definitive philosophical system. In the process of seeking language for the faith, the Church has created a language of her own in which she has given expression to realities hitherto unperceived and unknown, but which belong now, precisely by means of such linguistic expression, to the Paradosis of the Church and through it to the historical heritage of humanity.

Is it official Catholic dogma that Mary is the wife of the Holy Spirit?

The answer is Yes.
The key to understand the word "Spouse" is the keyword "perfect union" written in Lumen Gentium Chapter 8. This would provide us a good understanding why Mary a type/model of the Church is not only the Spouse/Bride of Christ but also a Bride of the Father with reference to Isaiah 54:5 and Isaiah 65:5. Bride of the Father and the Son, will it follows that Mary is also the Spouse/Bride of the Holy Spirit? Because the Most Holy Trinity are inseparable, Mary had a perfect relationship with the Triune God living a Trinitarian faith as St. John explained in his written Gospel.
The Catholic Church teaches us, the Church/Body of believers is the Mystical Body of Christ and Her soul is the Holy Spirit. This is the "perfect union" of the Church with the Holy Spirit like "body and soul" are one.
St. Kolbe teaches the mystical union of Mary and the Holy Spirit surpasses the perfect union, it is a mystical union between the soul of Mary and the Holy Spirit. It surpasses the "perfect union" because according to St. Kolbe, the Holy Spirit takes over the soul of Mary completely as if the soul of Mary is the Holy Spirit that animates her thought,words and actions. This profound mystery is called "quasi-incarnation". Please see the linl article from Dr. Miravalle for a fuller explanation.
Reading Lumen Gentium Chapter 8 with a mind like St. Augustine, St. Francis, St. Liguori, St. Montfort, St. Kolbe, and the mind of the pious popes like Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Paul VI, Pope St. John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI not to mention numerous well known theologians and Church Fathers, we can see that Lumen Gentium a Dogmatic Constitution of Church had expressed implicitly the "perfect union" of Mary and the Holy Spirit. It takes the mind of the Saints and Popes to grasp this profound mystery.
Mary's dignified title as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit can be found in Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Church.

The Church indeed, contemplating her hidden sanctity, imitating her charity and faithfully fulfilling the Father's will, by receiving the word of God in faith becomes herself a mother. By her preaching she brings forth to a new and immortal life the sons who are born to her in baptism, conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of God. She herself is a virgin, who keeps the faith given to her by her Spouse whole and entire. Imitating the mother of her Lord, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, she keeps with virginal purity an entire faith, a firm hope and a sincere charity.(20*)

It is also noteworthy to consider, the LG65 described Mary as also the Bride or Spouse of Christ. In the following dogmatic statement.

But while in the most holy Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she is without spot or wrinkle, the followers of Christ still strive to increase in holiness by conquering sin. And so they turn their eyes to Mary who shines forth to the whole community of the elect as the model of virtues. Piously meditating on her and contemplating her in the light of the Word made man, the Church with reverence enters more intimately into the great mystery of the Incarnation and becomes more and more like her Spouse. For Mary, who since her entry into salvation history unites in herself and re-echoes the greatest teachings of the faith as she is proclaimed and venerated, calls the faithful to her Son and His sacrifice and to the love of the Father. Seeking after the glory of Christ, the Church becomes more like her exalted Type, and continually progresses in faith, hope and charity, seeking and doing the will of God in all things. Hence the Church, in her apostolic work also, justly looks to her, who, conceived of the Holy Spirit, brought forth Christ, who was born of the Virgin that through the Church He may be born and may increase in the hearts of the faithful also. The Virgin in her own life lived an example of that maternal love, by which it behooves that all should be animated who cooperate in the apostolic mission of the Church for the regeneration of men.

LG65 described Mary had already reach the perfection and had fully become the Spouse or the Bride of Christ while the followers of Christ the Church had yet to conform. But Mary, being the type or model of the Church had already merited the eternal reward of becoming the Bride of Christ.
Mary is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit and the Spouse or Bride of Christ were affirmed in Lumen Gentium a Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.
To understand the meaning of the word spouse or espousal union between Mary and the Holy Spirit. Dr. Miravalle citing the teaching of St. Maximillian Kolbe in this article will shed more light on this profound mystery.

. . . Creatures, by following the natural law implanted in them by God, reach their perfection, become like him, and go back to him. Intelligent creatures love him in a conscious manner; through this love they unite themselves more and more closely with him, and so find their way back to him. The creature most completely filled with this love, with God himself, was the Immaculata, who never contracted the slightest stain of sin, who never departed in the least from God's will. United to the Holy Spirit as his spouse, she is one with God in an incomparably more perfect way than can be predicated of any other creature.
What sort of union is this? It is above all an interior union, a union of her essence with the "essence" of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit dwells in her, lives in her. This was true from the first instance of her existence. It is always true; it will always be true.
In what does this life of the Spirit in Mary consist? He himself is uncreated Love in her; the Love of the Father and of the Son, the Love by which God loves himself, the very love of the Most Holy Trinity. He is a fruitful Love, a "Conception." Among creatures made in God's image the union brought about by married love is the most intimate of all (cf. Mt. 19:6). In a much more precise, more interior, more essential manner, the Holy Spirit lives in the soul of the Immaculata, in the depths of her very being. He makes her fruitful, from the very instance of her existence, all during her life, and for all eternity.
The uncreated Immaculate Conception and the created Immaculate Conception. The Divine Spirit and the human spouse perfected in His grace are united by an interior, essential union. Uncreated love conceives and dwells within the depths of her soul, and she becomes His quasi-incarnation. (3) For this reason, as St. Maximilian tells us, Mary is also the Mediatrix of all graces and gifts of the Spirit:
The union between the Immaculata and the Holy Spirit is so inexpressible, yet so perfect, that the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse. This is why she is Mediatrix of all grace given by the Holy Spirit. And since every grace is a gift of God the Father through the Son and by the Holy Spirit, it follows that there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose. (4)

In view of the above official Church Magisterium teachings solemnly promulgated by St.Pope Paul VI united to more than 2,000 College of Bishops during the Second Vatican Council.
Can an ordinary laity even a Bishop now reject Mary's dignified title as "Spouse of the Holy Spirit"?
Remember the magisterial weight of Lumen Gentium is greater than Pope encyclicals and even greater than approved Magisterial Teachings coming from Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith. Lumen Gentium is the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church.


Who is the prophet Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15? Who is the prophet Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15 ?
I was thinking Moses was talking about Jesus, but Jesus is not considered a prophet is he ?

Deuteronomy 18:14-16 (NIV)
14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.”

There are three key positions in ancient Israel, that of Prophet, Priest, and King.  A prophet would hear from God and speak to the people.  A priest would hear from the people and intercede for them to God.  A king would, of course, rule.
Jesus fulfills all of these positions.  He spoke of His own death and even of future events, like when He spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem (see Mark 13:2) and of end times.
He was most certainly a priest, though not of the Levitical (and especially not the Aaronic) priesthood, but the Melchizedek priesthood. (see, e.g., Hebrews 7)
He also is the King of Kings (Revelation 19:16), and heir to David's throne (2 Samuel 7:12-16, Mark 10:47, et. al.)
So, yes, this is speaking of Jesus.
To be more precise about how exactly Jesus was a prophet like Moses, note the following similarities from this article:

1 Both Moses and Jesus were born when Israel was under bondage (Moses in Egypt Ex.1:8,10, and Jesus during Israel's Roman bondage. Mt.2:1,Lk.2:1-2)
2 Edicts were issued by the gentile powers of both Pharaoh and Herod for their death at birth. (Ex.2:3, Mt.2:15)
3 Both were miraculously delivered from death during their infancy from their enemies of Israel (Ex.2:3, Lk.2:7;Mt 2:14,15)  and were preserved in childhood.
4 Both had been born and found in unusual places. Moses was found in the water floating in a basket of bulrushes (Ex.2:3) Jesus in a manger (cave) wrapped in burial cloths (Lk.2:7)
5 Both Moses and Jesus were protected and preserved by the faith of their parent. Moses was hidden by faith (Ex.2:2-3 and Heb.11:23) Jesus’ life was preserved by his parents obeying the message in a dream. (Mt.2:13-14)
6 Both Moses and Jesus stayed safely in Egypt for a time. Moses (Ex.2:10) Jesus dwelt safely in Egypt (Mt.2:14-15)
7 Both had their brethren and family speak against them. Moses had Mariam and Aaron speak against him taking a Cushite wife (Numb.12:1) Jesus had his family criticize and reject him (Mt.13:54-57, Jn.7:3)
8 Both Moses and Jesus were reared in the house that was not their natural parents. (Moses in the house of Pharaoh (Ex.2:10) Jesus by Mary the mother of his humanity and his stepfather Joseph.
9 Both predicted Israel's history (Deut.28:15-28; Mt.23:34,24:1,2,8,34)
10 Both spoke out against Israel's enemies and persecutors. (Deut.23:3-4; Mt.25:41-48)
11 Both were considered a snare to Israel (Ex10:7; 1Pt.2:8=Isa.8:14)
12 Both cleansed leprosy. From Moses’ time no one that was Jewish was cleansed until Jesus came (Numb.12:10-16, Mk.1:40-41). This is a very significant factor that proves Jesus was the prophet Moses spoke of, since no other cured one of the brethren of this disease from Moses' time.
13 Both were used of God to feed Israel miraculously, Moses with manna in the wilderness (Ex.16:14-17) Jesus with the five loaves and two fish fed four and five thousand two times. (Mt.14:19-21) Jesus also called himself the true manna that came from heaven in Jn.6, comparing himself to the miracle that sustained Israel alive through the desert.
14 Both had the forces of nature obey them (the seas) Moses (Ex.14:21-22) Jesus (Mt.8:26-27)
15 Each had seventy helpers Moses (Num.11:16-17) Jesus ( Lk.10:1).
16 Both fasted 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness to bring a covenant to Israel. Moses on the top of Mt. Sinai (Ex.24:18, 34:28, Deut.9:9) Jesus in the desert as the Son of God (Mt.4:2)
17 Both had a face to face relationship with God unlike any other person. Moses (Ex.33:9-11, Deut.34:10; Numb.12:7-8) Jesus was with God=face to face from eternity (Jn.1:1,18)
18 God spoke audibly and directly from heaven to both Moses and Jesus. Moses (Ex.20:22, 24:12-16) Jesus (Mt.3:17; Jn.12:28)
19 Both were God's spokesman to and for the people. Moses (Ex.9:35; Numb.12:2) Jesus (Heb.1:1-3). They Spoke as oracles of God (Moses Deut. 18:18) Jesus (Jn.14:24, 5:24)
20 Both Moses and Jesus reflected and shown the glory of God. Moses reflected his glory temporarily. (Ex.34:29-35; 2 Cor.3:7-14) Jesus at the transfiguration, his face shown brighter than the sun revealing his true nature (Mt.17:2; Jn.1:14)
21 Both were known for their humility and meekness as God's servants. Moses (Numb.12:3) Jesus (Mt.11:29; Phil.2:3-8)
22 Both contended with masters of deception and darkness Moses with Pharaohs magicians (Ex 7:11, 1 Tim.3:8) Jesus with the Devil (Mt 4:1).
23 Both prayed for the people intercessory prayers and were willing to bear the consequences of the people's sins. Moses asked to be blotted out of the book of life for the peoples sake (Ex.32:32-33).  Jesus asked for them to be kept from falling away (Jn. 17:9-17). Jesus asked for those to be forgiven while he bore the consequences in their stead. (Lk.23:34, 2 Cor.5:19, 1 Pt.2:21-24, Isa.53:8)
24 Both Moses and Jesus were rejected by their own brethren for a time and accepted by the gentiles. Moses (Ex.2:14-22, 32:1) Jesus was rejected by his own people and received by another who were not his own. (Isa.53:3; Mt.12:21; Mk.6:4; Lk.20:9-17, Rom.11:20)
25 Both Moses and Jesus established a priesthood. Moses began the Aaronic priesthood which was temporary under the law (Lev.9; Numb.8:20-26; Heb.9:19-22). Jesus established a eternal priesthood under the new covenant of grace which He alone functions as the high priest forever. (Heb.7:17,19,23,25-28; 9:12)
26 Both sprinkled the blood of the covenant on the altar and the people. Moses (Ex.24:7-8; Lev.8:19) Jesus (Heb.9,12:24; 1Pt.1:2)
27 Both were sent by God to reveal His name, person and law to the people. To Moses God said to tell them I Am sent you. (Ex.3:13-14) Jesus said God sent him as his exact representative revealing his name (I Am) and nature to the people. (Jn.8:42; 17:6,11-12; Col.2:9; Heb.1:3)
28 Both were involved in giving the covenant to the people Jn.1:17 the law came through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” At the feast of Pentecost Moses gave the law. At the feast (Pentecost) in the new covenant Jesus gave the Holy Spirit (Acts 2).
29 Both brought deliverance to the Jewish people. Those who followed Moses out of the bondage of slavery to Egypt. (Ex.3:7-8,10;12:31-33,42) Jesus brought people out of a greater bondage, slavery to sin. (Rom.3:24-25,6:6-7,8:2-4; Eph.1:7;Heb.9:26)
30 Both had an angel guard their graves. After Moses died Michael the Arch-angel guarded his body. (Jude 9) And when Jesus rose an angel guarded his tomb. (Mt.26:2-6)
31 Both re-appeared after they died, Moses ( Mt 17:3 with Jesus before his death) Jesus (Acts 1:3)

Moses the compassionate prophet and leader of the Israelites was concerned about the Israelites just like a mother (Numbers 11:12). He was comforting the Israelite children during some of his last days on earth!
Israelites who feared God did not want God to speak to them directly but wanted God to speak to them through the prophets (Exodus 20:18,19). So Moses wanted to address the concern of the Israelites of how God would speak to them after his death. So he was comforting them that God would send prophets just like him (Deuteronomy 18: 15-22)! Please read the entire passage to understand the context of the message (Particularly Exodus 20:18,19 and Deuteronomy 18:16-18).


What happens to people who have never heard about Jesus? There seems to be general consensus inside Christianity that in order to be saved, you must have faith, and that this faith has to be in Jesus Christ. Here is one verse sometimes cited for the necessity of having faith:

  Hebrews 11:6 (ESV)
  And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

There is also another verse that seems to indicate that this faith only comes from hearing specifically about Jesus Christ:

  Romans 10:17 (ESV)
  So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Isn't this kind of rough luck on your average illiterate jungle tribe without contact with the outside world? How is it fair of God to offer salvation only to a limited subset of people who happen to have access to this news? Are they to be dammed for something out of their control?

At the heart of this question (and many similar ones) is another question: Is God fair?

If God requires acknowledgments of truths that people haven't had a chance to hear in order to be saved, then of course He is not fair.

If we begin with the assumption that God will never act unjustly or unfairly though, then we can assume that He will make Divine provision for everyone, including tribes in remote jungles, to respond to Christ. This provision does not need to be a human delivering a message, but can be angels, dreams, visions, or other unknown methods.

Look at the following quote from Jesus:

  Joh 5:24-25 NIV  "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and
  believes him who sent     me has eternal life and will not be
  condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (25)  I tell you
  the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear
  the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.

What is meant by "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God" can be understood different ways, but I think one of the ways we may possibly understand it is those who have died without the opportunity of receiving Christ will have that opportunity.

However God offers this choice to people, if you assume He is good and will always act justly, whatever He needs to do to accomplish this (He is God after all) He will do. Believing in God's essential goodness is in itself a mark of faith (as you quoted in your question):

  Heb 11:6 NIV  And without faith it is impossible to please God,
  because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that
  he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

They burn for all eternity, if you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

There is some controversy here since many Christians would disagree with this.

I agree it is rough luck.

Yes, Evidently they are dammened for things out of their control. There are almost innumerable tragic deaths every day, and it fuels the passions of those of us that build systems that save lives and reduce suffering.

There are a few interesting articles about "what constitutes a good Christian" which may help with your question. There is information suggesting it may not be as simple and clear as "You must accept Jesus..."


Is there an explanation in Catholicism as to why it was the Son and not the others of the Blessed Trinity to become man and be crucified for our sake? According to Catholic faith and theology, once God decreed to save mankind, redemption would be by the work of God-made-man.

  For us men and for our salvation,
  he came down from heaven:
  [...]
  and became man.
  For our sake he was
  crucified. - The Nicene Creed.

And

  But God decided that man should be shown mercy and be pardoned. His
  mercy was to be above all His works; and He also decreed that this
  mercy and pardon were to be granted because of the full satisfaction
  of justice by adequate atonement. Hence it became necessary that One
  of the Trinity assume created nature and in that nature offer
  reparation to God for man's great sin. - Library: The theology of
  the Precious Blood | Catholic Culture.

Within Catholicism is there an explanation of why it was the Son and not the Father or the Holy Spirit who for us men and our salvation became man and was crucified?

St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this question in Summa Theologica III q. 3 a. 8 ("Whether it was more fitting that the Person of the Son rather than any other Divine Person should assume human nature?") c.:

It was most fitting that the Person of the Son should become incarnate. First, on the part of the union; for such as are similar are fittingly united. Now the Person of the Son, Who is the Word of God, has a certain common agreement with all creatures, because the word of the craftsman, i.e. his concept, is an exemplar likeness of whatever is made by him. Hence the Word of God, Who is His eternal concept, is the exemplar likeness of all creatures. And therefore as creatures are established in their proper species, though movably, by the participation of this likeness, so by the non-participated and personal union of the Word with a creature, it was fitting that the creature should be restored in order to its eternal and unchangeable perfection; for the craftsman by the intelligible form of his art, whereby he fashioned his handiwork, restores it when it has fallen into ruin. Moreover, He has a particular agreement with human nature, since the Word is a concept of the eternal Wisdom, from Whom all man's wisdom is derived. And hence man is perfected in wisdom (which is his proper perfection, as he is rational) by participating the Word of God, as the disciple is instructed by receiving the word of his master. Hence it is said (Ecclus. 1:5): "The Word of God on high is the fountain of wisdom." And hence for the consummate perfection of man it was fitting that the very Word of God should be personally united to human nature.
Secondly, the reason of this fitness may be taken from the end of the union, which is the fulfilling of predestination, i.e. of such as are preordained to the heavenly inheritance, which is bestowed only on sons, according to Rm. 8:17: "If sons, heirs also." Hence it was fitting that by Him Who is the natural Son, men should share this likeness of sonship by adoption, as the Apostle says in the same chapter (Rm. 8:29): "For whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son."
Thirdly, the reason for this fitness may be taken from the sin of our first parent, for which the Incarnation supplied the remedy. For the first man sinned by seeking knowledge, as is plain from the words of the serpent, promising to man the knowledge of good and evil. Hence it was fitting that by the Word of true knowledge man might be led back to God, having wandered from God through an inordinate thirst for knowledge.

The objections to the question and St. Thomas's replies are interesting, too.

Short Answer

It could not be the Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit doesn't have a body (beyond the Son's, more on that later).

It could not be the Father, since God is not bound by death. (God is eternal: always is, was and shall be, as taught by the Catholic Church).

Who does that leave?  The Son.

Discussion

The Doctrine of the Trinity holds that the Triune God is three persons sharing one essence/one substance (the Son being "consubstantial" with the Father is in the Nicene Creed) -- only one of whom had a mortal/fleshy nature to give up in sacrifice.
(CCC = Catechism of the Catholic Church)

CCC 198

  198 Father is the first divine person of the Most Holy Trinity

CCC 430

  430 Jesus means in Hebrew: "God saves." At the annunciation, the angel
  Gabriel gave him the name Jesus as his proper name, which expresses
  both his identity and his mission. Since God alone can forgive sins,
  it is God who, in Jesus his eternal Son made man, "will save his
  people from their sins". In Jesus, God recapitulates all of his
  history of salvation on behalf of men.

The Second Person is revealed in the flesh: why?  (CCC 458-459)

  458 The Word became flesh so that thus we might know God's love: "In
  this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his
  only Son into the world, so that we might live through him."(1 John 4:9)  "For
  God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever
  believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)

  459 The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness: "Take my yoke
  upon you, and learn from me." Mt 11:29; ⇒ "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." Jn 14:6. "On the mountain of the Transfiguration, the Father commands: "Listen to him!" (Mark 9:7) Jesus is the model for the Beatitudes and the norm of the new law: "Love one
  another as I have loved you." (John 15:12) This love implies an effective
  offering of oneself, after his example.

CCC 684-685

  684 Through his grace, the Holy Spirit is the first to awaken faith in
  us and to communicate to us the new life, which is to "know the Father
  and the one whom he has sent, Jesus Christ." But the Spirit is the
  last of the persons of the Holy Trinity to be revealed. St. Gregory of
  Nazianzus, the Theologian, explains this progression in terms of the
  pedagogy of divine "condescension":

  The Old Testament proclaimed the Father clearly, but the Son more
  obscurely. The New Testament revealed the Son and gave us a glimpse of
  the divinity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit dwells among us and grants
  us a clearer vision of himself.  It was not prudent, when the divinity
  of the Father had not yet been confessed, to proclaim the Son openly
  and, when the divinity of the Son was not yet admitted, to add the
  Holy Spirit as an extra burden, to speak somewhat daringly.... By
  advancing and progressing "from glory to glory," the light of the
  Trinity will shine in ever more brilliant rays.

  685 To believe in the Holy Spirit is to profess that the Holy Spirit
  is one of the persons of the Holy Trinity, consubstantial with the
  Father and the Son: "with the Father and the Son he is worshipped and
  glorified."  For this reason, the divine mystery of the Holy Spirit
  was already treated in the context of Trinitarian "theology."

Put another way: of the three persons in the Trinity, only one had the characteristic of being mortal/human that could giving up a life for any reason.  (The Salvation of Mankind).

The other point is less canonical and more practical, and involves setting an example as a form of sending a message.

From First to Last ...

Beginning/Baptism: Jesus was already divine (being of both divine and human nature, per Catholic Dogma and most Christian belief) so why did he go into the River Jordan to let John the Baptist baptize him?  Jesus, didn't need to repent from sin as those who were coming to John's baptisms need to.  Jesus set by his actions the perfect example for how to turn away from sin and back towards God.  (No further digression into Baptism, as that isn't the question).

Middle/Ministry: Jesus' ministry was about teaching by word and deed how to turn back towards God, and how to better fulfill the role of being God's children.  About a thousand years later, St. Francis provided the following advice to all Christians in terms of how to be a better disciple:  "Preach the Gospel every day.  Use words when you have to."1

Jesus didn't just talk the talk, he walked the walk.  His ministry as recorded in the Gospels demonstrated (among other things) how to live correctly (as God had intended for us to).

End: Crucifixion/Sacrifice.

The crucifixion can be seen through the lens of Jesus' command to his disciples: "love one another as I have loved you."  Love in this sense is best understood as agape -- which is a self-sacrificial love, a divine love, and a love that can hurt.  Jesus set the extreme example of how much of a sacrifice one man can make for his fellow man by giving it all up, to include His life.

That example only works as a message (actions speaking louder than words) if you are made of flesh in the first place.  If you are a being made wholly of spirit, you can't sacrifice a mortal life, and thus can't set this example.

The message obviously got across.   (Pun intended).

1 The provenance of that aphorism has been challenged, but it is consistent with St. Francis' message.