In John 14:16, according to the Catholic Church, who is the Spirit of Truth? "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever – the Spirit of truth" (John 14:16–17, NIV)

From Jesus' words the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit, but if we consider the succeeding verses below, it seems like it's describing the role of the Holy Spirit as a Teacher of Faith and someone who will testify in full about who Jesus is.

  But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.
  (John 14:26)

  When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father — the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father — He will testify about Me.
  (John 15:26)

My question is: according to Catholic teaching, is the Spirit of Truth a person in whom the Holy Spirit chose to dwell, to testify to and become the teacher and guide of the Apostles?

The Catholic Church holds that the "Spirit of Truth" here is simply the Holy Spirit:

  When he proclaims and promises the coming of the Holy Spirit, Jesus calls him the "Paraclete," literally, "he who is called to one's side," advocatus. "Paraclete" is commonly translated by "consoler," and Jesus is the first consoler. The Lord also called the Holy Spirit "the Spirit of truth." (Catechism, §692)

This section cites the verses you quote and a few others (John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and 16:13) in support of its statements, so it's fair to say that this is how these passages are understood.  The Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture, though not as official as the Catechism, states in relation to John 16:13:

  The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth (14:17; 15:26) because he leads the disciples to understand in faith the meaning of Jesus' revelation. (source)

There’s a two title that is stated in this verse “another Advocate” and “Spirit of Truth”.
In 1John2:1 the First Advocate is Jesus Chirst., the another Advocate & Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit that was not Incarnated but can dwell in human soul to manifest Her/His presence.

"My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One."(1John2:1)
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?(1Corinthian6:19)

So, this passage in John14:16 tells us in reading that the “another Advocate” and “Spirit of Truth” is the same being or the same person.

Therefore, identifying who is the “another Advocate” would mean She/He is also the “Spirit of Truth”.

To identify who is the "Spirit of Truth" we can use the hint provided by Jesus in John5:36 as Jesus said to the Apostles you can testify too meaning the "Spirit of Truth" will give the Apostles & disciples the power &  graces to testify.
But Jesus said there is one who will who testify to witness the "fullness of who He is" and "His redemptive works". This one is greater than John the Baptist.

"But I have a greater witness than that of John..."(John5:36)

Now Christian said this is the Abba Father, but considering the Wisdom of Jesus this will be an elementary discourse, Why? we all know the Abba Father cannot be compare to any creature even to John in terms of Infinite Greatness, Jesus is talking of "another person greater than John the Baptist.
And the big question is how can the Abba Father "testify" to the people of God, we have no "beatific vision". Jesus is clearly talking of a corporeal being that the Holy Spirit will "indwelt" to testify to the TRUTH.
If we study and search who is the possible person during Jesus time that is greater than John the Baptist,  and even greater than all the Apostles & Disciples in the Upper Room.
The only question is it's testimony is hidden in the bible it remain a mystery for all of us.But, we are not left totally left in the dark, although the bible is not complete we have an Apostolic Tradition and Prophets(Approved Private Revelation) that is deposited to the Catholic Church. Like the Mysterious painting of St.Luke below referred to as achiropita—'made without hands, the painting is called "Advocata Nostra".

An Archangel testify that She is 'Full of Grace".(Luke1:28)

She said the "Mighty One had done great things for me..."(Luke1;49)

And Her mere greetings made John the Baptist leaped in the womb of Elizabeth, and the Holy Spirit sanctified John the Baptist and Elizabeth also was filled by the presence of the Holy Spirit that Overshadowed the Handmaid of the Lord.(Luke1:41)

4.She can give the testimony greater than John because She will witness from "womb to tomb" and the "Eternal Redemptive Mission of Jesus his beloved son'.

Lastly, according to Church Fathers only Mary can explain the Mystery of the Holy Trinity because She lived a Trinitarian Life" in full by the power of the Holy Spirit forming Her a new creature as Her Spouse.

But the Catholic Church like Mary is a humble Church, they wait for God's Providence to give Her a title according to God's Will and timing.
Are we certain that all the Apostles & Disciples in the Upper Room never asked the Theotokos to "testify & witness to them who Jesus is and His Redemptive Mission"?
This is still a Mystery, but a Catholic Church proclaiming Mary as the Advocate in the Fifth Dogma by a Papal solemn definition will follow the identification of the "Spirit of Truth".
For now, the Catechism of the Catholic Church the “Spirit of Truth” and “‘Advocate/Paraclete” is identified as the Holy Spirit in CCC692.

692 When he proclaims and promises the coming of the Holy Spirit, Jesus calls him the "Paraclete," literally, "he who is called to one's side," ad-vocatus. "Paraclete" is commonly translated by "consoler," and Jesus is the first consoler. The Lord also called the Holy Spirit "the Spirit of truth."

Also, there’s one Article of Faith in the Catechism pointing to Mary’s title as Advocate.

969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."

This Article of Faith is CCC692 & CCC969 has two person identified by Catholic Teaching as both Advocate, the Holy Spirit and Mary.
The Catholic Church thru Papal solemn definition will clear the meaning to harmonize this two article of faith.
Advocate. or Paraclete , one that pleads the cause of ... Spelling: (par-ak'-lay-tos)
Short Definition: an advocate, comforter, helper .
St.John Paul II the Great called Mary's powerful intercession as Maternal Mediation and below is the link on St. Jonh Paul II Teaching on CCC969
MARY HAS UNIVERSAL SPIRITUAL MOTHERHOOD
(Pope John Paul II)

Our Lady is mother of all humanity because she co-operated with faith, hope and charity in Christ’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls
The Blessed Virgin, "having entered the Father's eternal kingdom, closer to her divine Son and thus closer to us all, can more effectively exercise in the Spirit the role of maternal intercession entrusted to her by divine Providence", the Holy Father said at the General Audience of Wednesday, 24 September, as he discussed Mary's motherhood in the order of grace. He went on to explain the meaning of the Marian titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress and Mediatrix. Here is a translation of the Pope's catechesis, which was the 64th in the series on the Blessed Virgin and was given in Italian. - MARY HAS UNIVERSAL SPIRITUAL MOTHERHOOD

How about during Apostolic Times do the Apostles recognized Mary as their Advocate?

Peter and Judas account

Peter and Judas both betrayed our Lord Jesus Christ but Peter seek Mary’s refuge and was able to rise up while Judas did not and eventually hang himself to death.

St.James the Greater account in year 40AD “Our Lady of the Pillar Apparition”

St.James the Greater feel desolation in preaching the Gospel and Mary appears to him to strengthen and comfort him.
Note: This is an apparition not a bi-location, Mary does not appear in an ordinary human appearance, She was on top of a 6 foot Jasper Column accompanied by angels. Mary is above all men and angels were Her servants.

Do all the Apostles recognize Mary as Advocate? St. Luke's painting speak louder than words.

Advocata Nostra, the oldest icon of Mary in Rome, at the Dominican Sisters Convent on Via Trionfale on Monte Mario. This icon can be traced back to its origin in Jerusalem, where tradition has it that it was painted by St Luke after the Resurrection, at the request of the apostles. But the tradition also states that after St Luke had sketched the outline, the image of Our Lady appeared on it. No human hand was involved. Such works are referred to as achiropita—'made without hands

From the 2000 years of the Catholic Church from Apostles, early Church Fathers, Church Fathers, Saints, Theologians and faithfuls all seeks and invoke Mary’s powerful intercession.
The Litany of Saints, all those names have a deep devotion to Mary as their Advocate.
Include also Popes and all the known Clergy from Cardinals, Bishops and Priests all had a lot to say about the Maternal Mediation of Mary.
But the 3 Giant Marian Saints who stood tall in pointing to Mary as the “another Advocate” are;

St.Alphonsus Liguori

"In His eagerness to show you,mercy, God has given His Son as your Advocate. And then to make your confidence even stronger, He has given you "another Advocate', who obtains through her prayers whatever she asks.Go to Mary, and you will see salvation. -St.Alphonsus Ligouri

St.Louis DeMontfort

God the Holy Spirit entrusted his wondrous gifts to Mary, his faithful spouse, and chose her as the dispenser of all he possesses, so that she distributes all his gifts and graces to whom she wills, as much as she wills, how she wills and when she wills. No heavenly gift is given to men which does not pass through her virginal hands. Such indeed is the will of God, who has decreed that we should have all things through Mary, so that, making herself poor and lowly,, and hiding herself in the depths of nothingness during her whole life, she might be enriched, exalted and honoured by almighty God. Such are the views of the Church and the early Fathers. (True Devotion to Mary)

St.Maximillian Kolbe

“St. Kolbe teaches that Mary is the “quasi Incarnation of the Holy Spirit” meaning Mary is “Possessed”, Her thoughts, words and actions are perfectly and completely coming from the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit And Mary
How About Church Magisterial Teaching and Documents, what does it says about Mary & the Holy Spirit?
Magisterial Documents: Mary and the Holy Spirit
Below are direct quotes from Post-Vatican II Magisterial Documents concerning the following themes. These teachings of the Catholic Church may prove useful to include in talks, in homilies or for research.

FASHIONED BY THE SPIRIT (HER WHOLE EXISTENCE)
Lumen Gentium, 1964
[Mary] fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature [cf. Germanus >of Constantinople, "Hom. in Annunt. Deiparae": PG 98, 328A, etc.] 56
Signum Magnum, 1967
prophetic canticle she had uttered under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit >[Magnificat] 3
She freely and earnestly heeded the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit at >all times. 16
her generous efforts under God's inspiration [see "fullness of grace" ahead] 21
General Catechetical Directory, 1971
The gift of Christ's Spirit is manifested in her in an altogether singular >manner, because Mary is "full of grace" (Lk 1, 28) and is "a model of the >Church." (LG, 63) 68
In her,
who was preserved from all stain of original sin,
who was freely and fully faithful to the Lord,
and who was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory,
the Holy Spirit has fully manifested his gift. 68
Behold Your Mother (USA), 1973
"fashioned by the Holy Spirit into a kind of new substance and a new creature." >(LG 56) 52
led by the Holy Spirit in everything (PO 18) 69
servant of the Spirit 106
The role of the Holy Spirit in the life of Mary is especially pertinent to our time. Mary of the Magnificat is, after Jesus himself, the supreme New Testament example of one who is led by the Holy Spirit. Not only the Magnificat, but Mary's whole life was a song of love inspired by the Holy Spirit. "Led by the Holy Spirit, she devoted herself entirely to the mystery of man's redemption." (PO 18) [Discussed under Mother of the Church] 118
Marialis Cultus, 1974
adorned her with gifts of the Spirit granted to no one else 25
Theological reflection and the liturgy have in fact noted how the sanctifying intervention of the Spirit in the Virgin of Nazareth was a culminating moment of the Spirit's action in the history of salvation. Thus, for example, some Fathers and writers of the Church attributed to the work of the Spirit the original holiness of Mary, who was as it were "fashioned by the Holy Spirit into a kind of new substance and new creature." (LG 56) 26
Gaudete in Domino, 1975
The attainment of such an outlook is not just a matter of psychology. It is also a fruit of the Holy Spirit. This Spirit, who dwells fully in the person of Jesus, made him during his earthy life so alert to the joys of daily life, so tactful and persuasive for putting sinners back on the road to a new youth of heart and mind! It is this same Spirit who animated the Blessed Virgin and each of the saints.
Redemptor Hominis, 1979
under the special influence of the Holy Spirit, this heart Final paragraph
Ephesus, 1550th Anniversary, 1981
In her there dawned the new humanity which with Christ was presented in the world in order to bring to completion the original plan of the covenant with God, broken by the disobedience of the first man. 4
Redemptoris Mater, 1987
[Calvary] And how powerful too is the action of grace in her soul, how all >pervading is the influence of the Holy Spirit and of his light and power! 18
The Virgin Mary in Intellectual and Spiritual Formation, 1988
"She is, at it were, fashioned and formed into a new creature" (LG 56) by the Holy Spirit. 8
Veritatis Splendor, 1993
Mary experiences, in perfect docility to the Spirit, the richness and the universality of God's love, which opens her heart and enables it to embrace the entire human race. 120
Tertio Millennio Adveniente, 1994
...and then in the whole of her life allowed herself to be guided by his interior activity, will be contemplated and imitated during this year above all as the woman who was docile to the voice of the Spirit, a woman of silence and attentiveness, a woman of hope who, like Abraham, accepted God's will "hoping against hope." (cf. Rom 4:18) 48
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 Fidei Depositum, 1992
493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia) and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature." (LG 56) By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
722 The Holy Spirit prepared Mary by his grace. It was fitting that the mother of him in whom "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Col 2:9) should herself be "full of grace." She was, by sheer grace, conceived without sin as the most humble of creatures, the most capable of welcoming the inexpressible gift of the Almighty. It was quite correct for the angel Gabriel to greet her as the "Daughter of Zion": "Rejoice." (Cf. Zeph 3:14; Zech 2:14) It is the thanksgiving of the whole People of God, and thus of the Church, which Mary in her canticle (cf. Lk 1:46-55) lifts up to the Father in the Holy Spirit while carrying within her the eternal Son.
744 In the fullness of time the Holy Spirit completes in Mary all the preparations for Christ's coming among the People of God. By the action of the Holy Spirit in her, the Father gives the world Emmanuel, "God-with-us." (Mt 1:23)
Vita Consecrata, 1996
It is in the contemplation of the crucified Christ that all vocations find their inspiration. From this contemplation, together with the primordial gift of the Spirit, all gifts, and in particular the gift of the consecrated life, take their origin. After Mary, the mother of Jesus, it is John who receives this gift.. John is the disciple whom Jesus loved, the witness who together with Mary stood at the foot of the cross (cf. Jn 19:26-27) ... John, together with Mary, is among the first in a long line of men and women who, from the beginning of the church until the end, are touched by God's love and feel called to follow the Lamb (cf. Rv 14:1-5) (cf. Proposition 3). 23
Consecrated life looks to her as the sublime model of ... openness to the Spirit 28

Now, a Papal solemn definition on the Fifth Dogma proclaiming Mary as the Advocate looking on the 2000 history of the Church invoking the Maternal Mediation of Mary and highlighting the 3 solid teaching of this 3 giant Marian Saints one a Doctor of the Church and the other (St.Montfort ) also in the process of proclaiming a Doctor of the Church plus the voluminous Magisterial Teaching on Mary fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature (All Her Existence)
The Mystical and Espousal Union of Mary and the Holy Spirit which St.Kolbe called “quasi Incarnates” meaning Mary became the perfect image of the Holy Spirit would mean all the titles and salvific works of the Holy Spirit are done in perfect & complete cooperation of the Theotokos.
The proclamation of the Fifth Dogma with Papal Solemn definition of Mary's Role as Co-Redemptrix,Mediatrix, and Advocate will clear perfectly the passage on John14:16 and will harmonize the Church Official Doctrine on CCC692 & CCC969.

Mary as the "another Advocate"(St.Liguori Teaching; a Doctor of the Church), manifest the mission and salvific role of the Holy Spirit perfectly and completely as the "Spirit of Truth".****(St.Montfort & St.Kolbe's Teaching both advocate of Total Consecration to Mary).


Can a Catholic have communion if they married outside of the Catholic Church? My husband and I were married by a Protestant pastor, not a Catholic Priest. I have returned to the Catholic Church a couple of decades later. Can I participate in communion, or does my husband have to agree to marry me a second time in the Catholic Church?

If it matters, my husband was raised in a non-denominational Christian Church, and I was raised Catholic, but attended non-denominational Church after college.

About receiving communion currently

Based on this guidance from the Catechism, unless you've been adhering to the annual "Easter Duty" you may need to go to confession first before you receive communion. (It may be that simple).

  CC 1389 The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation{aka confession} to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season.  But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily.

About your marriage

You may be seeking to convalidate your marriage.  Based on what you've presented in your question, there aren't enough details to assess whether or not the Church would find it to be sacramental. (Canon Law;  1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven).

How to convalidate the marriage

Meet with your local Catholic pastor, explain the situation you find yourselves in, and the details of your marriage, and he will be able to advise you on the path to take for your particular situation. Details matter.

  In Catholic canon law, a validation of marriage or convalidation of marriage is the validation of a Catholic putative marriage.  A putative marriage is one when at least one party to the marriage wrongly believes it to be valid.

Convalidation is not "getting married a second time" but it is a method by which the Church officially confirms that the marriage is indeed sacramental.  (In my experience, there was usually a rite or ceremony or celebration of varying complexity depending on the wishes of the couple).  The difference between a licit and a valid marriage may seem obscure, but from the point of view of adhering to Canon Law it matters to the Church. (The Church, to affirm any marriage, has to follow its own rules).

Based on the Catholic Canon Law a valid marriage requires certain elements:

  THE FORM OF THE CELEBRATION OF MARRIAGE
  Can.  1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted
  before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by
  either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the
  rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the
  exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127,
  §§1-2.
  Can.  1117 The form established above must be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act, without prejudice to the prescripts of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.

The most likely finding by the pastor, since you are the Catholic party, would be technically termed "a defect of form" since you joined in matrimony under other circumstances than are called for by Canon Law.  That doesn't mean that your bond is not sacramental, particularly as you are both baptized, but the Church has to look into all particulars to confirm that.
You may not be able to receive communion until convalidation, but you may, since the details of your situation matter(see the above about guidance on communion).  Your situation needs to be laid out to the pastor and discussed in detail so that you can get the advice that suits your situation.

If you'd like to take it a step higher, go to your local diocese at the Chancery.  They can advise you on how your marriage can be convalidated in your diocese.  There may be other reasons for the Church to find the marriage invalid1

If your case is one where your consent upholds as it did on the day you took your vows, but the "defect of form" is found(as above), and you are still married, you may be eligible for a radical sanation

  Can.  1161 §1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment, if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and the retroactivity of canonical effects. {My deacon used to call this "short form" convalidation}

  §2. Convalidation occurs at the moment of the granting of the favor.
  Retroactivity, however, is understood to extend to the moment of the
  celebration of the marriage unless other provision is expressly made.

  §3. A radical sanation is not to be granted unless it is probable that
  the parties wish to persevere in conjugal life.

  Can.  1163 §1. A marriage which is invalid because of an impediment or a defect of legitimate form can be sanated provided that the consent of each party perseveres.

We have a number of questions and answers on convalidation, to include these two here.
3  and 2.

If you search for the tags marriage, Catholicism and convalidate (or convalidation) you'll find a number of other questions (with answers) similar to yours.

One of the things I learned in the RCIA ministry is that in the case of marriage between two baptized persons, if one of them is Catholic then the Catholic Church expects the Catholic party to adhere to Canon Law, but it does not require that the other party become Catholic for marriage.  Since you have already married outside of the Catholic Church, it can get a bit more complicated, but it may be very simple (and accepted as sacramental) if neither of you was ever married previously.  So once again, sit down with a priest and discuss the details.

  Can.  1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

  Can.  1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

  Can.  1107 Even if a marriage was entered into invalidly by reason of an impediment or a defect of form, the consent given is presumed to persist until its revocation is established.

1 MIXED MARRIAGES

  Can.  1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a
  marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is
  baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and
  has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is
  enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with
  the Catholic Church.

  Can.  1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if
  there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the
  following conditions have been fulfilled:

  1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to
  remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere
  promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are
  baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

  2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the
  promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is
  certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of
  the Catholic party;

  3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential
  properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to
  exclude.

I think this question can be answered without any reference to marriage convalidation. In fact, I think they are unrelated issues.
Guideline of when can Catholics receive communion is given in this document, prepared by the Diocese of Westminster. These are:

you must be in a state of grace. This mean you have not committed a mortal sin. About this, the document states:

A mortal sin is any sin whose matter is grave and which has been committed wilfully and with knowledge of its seriousness. Grave
matter includes, but is not limited to, murder, receiving or participating in an abortion, homosexual acts, having sexual intercourse outside of marriage or in an invalid marriage, and deliberately engaging in impure thoughts (Matt. 5:28–29). Scripture contains lists of mortal sins (for example, 1 Cor. 6:9–10 and Gal. 5:19–21). For further information on what constitutes a mortal sin, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

you must have been to confession since your last mortal sin.

you must believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation.

you must observe the Eucharistic fast (no food or non-water drinks one hour before communion).

one must not be under an ecclesiastical censure. On this respect the Canon Law states:

"Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" (CIC 915).

Now, key here is, in my view, 1 and 5 (the others could be said to be standard among Catholics, regardless of the type of marriage they have). This is, was your marriage with a non-Catholic, by definition, an act of mortal sin? Also, has such marriage, by definition, derived in a form of ecclesiastical censure? The answer to both of them is no. The answer is partly in this article explaining the Canon Law, commenting the state of Catholics in non-sacramental marriages. The key here is the fact that

the Catholic Church does indeed permit Catholics to marry non-Catholics, whether baptized or not

and

Note that there is nothing necessarily wrong with a Catholic having a non-sacramental marriage.  If the Catholic party arranged with his/her pastor to obtain a dispensation in advance, and was married in a Catholic wedding ceremony, the marriage is recognized by the Catholic Church as valid.  In no way can a Catholic who was married in this sort of scenario be faulted for doing something morally objectionable!

This other article  from the same website states:

as the Second Vatican Council’s Document on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae stated unequivocally,

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom.  This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion… in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs… (DH 2 ).

Within the context of marriage, this means that the Catholic Church will not—because it cannot—claim that you can only get married if you are a Catholic, or only if you’re a baptized Christian.

In conclussion, having married a non-Catholic does not mean by itself that you have committed a sin that invalidates you from receiving the Holy Communion, nor has by itself being a reason to receive an ecclesiastical censure. Thus, as long as you, as any other Catholic, obey rules 1 to 4, you can receive the Holy Communion.


How should Selah be read? Many of the Psalms feature the word "selah" which as I understand is a musical or liturgical term.  When the Psalms are read aloud, how should selah be uttered?  I've heard it both said aloud, or left as a pause for empahsis.

Roger Ellsworth in "Opening Up the Psalms" says not to pronounce the word:

The word ‘Selah’ appears seventy-four times in forty psalms. This word signifies a pause or interlude. It may have been used to inform musicians to change instruments or to call for both musicians and listeners to ponder the truth that had been sung. In the public reading of the psalms, we honour each ‘Selah’, not by actually saying the word, but rather by pausing.

The Believers Church Bible Commentary has a really good summary.  Key points:

The original meaning has been lost
It has been translated as "Interlude" or "Pause and Reflect"
It could be a voice signal for louder or raised - in any event, it would be like 'crescendo' or 'rotando' - some form of musical notation.
Martin Luther, in particular, thought this a signal for deeper meditation.

SELAH Selah (selâ), appearing 71 times in 39 psalms and three times in Habakkuk 3 as a marginal note, is likely a musical instruction. With few exceptions, the term is used in psalms that have titles. The majority of the titles identify the psalms containing Selah with David or the Levitical singers, and about 75 percent of the titles also make reference to the “musical director” or “choirmaster” [Superscriptions].
Translated “interlude” in the LXX, the original meaning is unclear. The three basic interpretations focus on the root sll “lift up”; slh “repetition”; and the Aramaic root ṣl’, “to bow” or “to pray.” Thus, interpreters have suggested that Selah might call for the instruments to enter, raise the pitch or volume, affirm what has been said, or serve as a breath marker.
In addition to suggestions that Selah might signal raising the voice, changing the voices, or increasing the volume, scholars have offered other possibilities. It could be a unit marker in some contexts, as in the paired Psalms 9 and 10. Selah appears at the ends of Psalm 9:16 and 20, marking off verses 17–20 as a unit, almost exactly in the center of the two psalms when they are read as one (Tate, 2004:410–11). Michael Goulder (103–5) has offered the suggestion that it means “recitative,” marking a pause at which there should be the recitation of a prayer or story from Israelite tradition (68:7, 19, 32). Martin Luther referred to Selah as a sign that we are to think more deeply and at greater length what the words to which it is attached mean to say. He called Selah “a punctuation mark of the Holy Spirit. Whenever we find it in the Psalter, the Holy Spirit wants us to pause and ponder; there he wants to touch and enkindle our heart for particularly deep meditation” (Luther, 1956:37).
References: Craigie, 2004:76–77; Goulder: 103–5; Luther, 1956:37; Tate, 2004:410–11.

Finally, The Eerdmann's Dictionary of the Bible points out:

The 'pause' translation came from the LXX.
Some scholars via Jerome have suggested it derives from "forever":

Selah (Heb. selâ)
Likely a musical or liturgical notation, occurring 71 times in 39 Psalms and 3 times in the psalm of Hab. 3. In the LXX Selah is rendered as Greek diápsalma (“pause in singing”), suggesting some type of caesura. According to the Targ., followed by Jerome, the term means “forever” or “everlasting.” Perhaps this was a directive to insert a benediction, refrain, or prayer collect at that point. Proposals based on etymology include “voice modulation,” “increase in volume,” “prostration,” and “prayer ritual.” Others have suggested that the consonants of Selah form an acronym for “voice modulation” or “repetition.”
Gerald M. Bilkes

In Hebrew, the word Selah (סלה) means "forever".  For example, the end of Psalms 3 reads in Hebrew:

  לַיהֹוָה הַיְשׁוּעָה עַל עַמְּךָ בִרְכָתֶךָ סֶּלָה:

Which can be translated as

  It is incumbent on God to save, and it is incumbent on your nation to bless you forever.

Since, as you mentioned, it could also have some kind of musical/rhythmic meaning, I would assume that the best way to recite it would be untranslated in order to capture all of the different meanings.


Did the gospels really copy from each other? In school, I learned that the different gospels did copy a lot from each other. This was the explanation for why there are so many overlapping events between the gospels.

Is there substantial evidence to support this besides the bible?

Yes, although not quite the way you put it.

It is agreed by pretty much all Bible scholars that there is some degree of interdependence between the gospels. This is based on the fact that many of the stories in the gospels are told in a very similar way. Exactly what depended on what is the subject of much debate, and more information can be found on Wikipedia and Catholic Answers. This belief is very old, with Augustine laying down one of the most widely believed dependencies.

Some of the beliefs of dependency include:

Augustinian view: Matthew written first; with Mark using Matthew, and Luke using Matthew and Mark
Q source Matthew and Mark used a now lost source called "Q". Luke used both Matthew and Mark
Markan priority Mark was written first, with Matthew using both Mark and an unknown source
Four-source Mark and three unknown sources were written first, which the other gospels drew on.

It's worth pointing out that the interdependency has never been seen as in any way invalidating the gospels as sources. Any thorough modern biographer would also make use of other documents about their subject, and the parallel passages can be seen as evidence of the thoroughness and accuracy of the gospel writers. it's worth noting that all the gospels also contain some material found in no other gospel. Clearly none of the gospels was composed simply by copying other gospels. The wording differences are great enough to rule that out. Nor does it rule out the idea that the writers were eyewitnesses of at least some of the events themselves.

In answer to your final point, the only evidence for this is from analysis of the gospels themselves, though that includes the dating of manuscripts of the gospels and fragments of the gospels. None of the hypothesised sources such as Q has been definitively identified.

The fact that some people are taught in school that the gospel writers copied from each certainly does not make it so.  One question that arises at the outset is, "Why would the gospel writers copy from each other?

If, the gospel writers were each eyewitnesses, then there would be no need to copy from each other, since each would be recalling events from personal experience.  However, if the gospel writers were not eyewitnesses, then the need for copying becomes apparent.

There is sufficient evidence to support the idea that the authors were, indeed, eyewitnesses, though this should be covered in a separate question and is certainly disputed by some.

Another question that arises is, if the gospel writers were copying from each other (or a different source), what was the purpose of even creating very similar accounts of the same story?  Why not just stick with the original source?  It doesn't seem to make much sense.  It only makes sense if the original source was not a written "Q" document, but the actual eyewitness experiences of the three authors.

A great question to ask is, "What would we expect to find if the gospel writers did, in fact, copy from each other?"  We would expect to find very significant agreement in the details of each event as well as the order.  However, we find quite a few differences.  Luke includes details about John the Baptist and Elizabeth, while the others do not.  Matthew introduces us to the Magi, while the others do not.  Matthew's genealogy does not match Luke's, and Mark leaves it out altogether.  The text of the Sermon on the Mount differs significantly between Luke and Matthew, and Mark again omits it.  The three differ on the specific details given about the trial, death, and resurrection of Christ.

Copying from each other does not seem to be able to account for so many differences.  It is much more sensible to conclude that each recorded what impressed them most from their shared experiences of the same events.

Now, there are a lot of the same events mentioned in each of the Synoptics.  It is reasonable to assume that each is confirming the accounts of the others by giving their own accounts of many of the same events.  Each wrote for a specific purpose for a specific audience.  It is certainly likely that the second and third authors were aware of those that wrote before them, and this could have shaped the event selected in their own writings.

So, we can't know with absolute certainty, but it is certainly rational and reasonable to conclude that each author shared his own record of events, highlighting what impressed him the most.


Why does Satan collect souls that are subservient to him according to mainstream Christian scriptures? Pardon my ignorance, I'm by birth a non-christian and just trying to learn...keeping up with the philosophy of this stack-exchange forum.
According to Christian, Gnostic/Book of Q or other Abrahamic scriptures,
is there any description on Why Satan collects souls that are made subservient to him later on? To what purpose does it serve? Is it to fight with the Second coming of Jesus or to fight ultimately with the Father/God? Do they remain subservient to him after they are dead? Is there are reference to the number of souls he needs for that purpose?

A better question might be “Is there any biblical basis for thinking that Satan collects souls that are subservient to him?”  That’s because there is no such teaching according to mainstream Christianity.
The idea that Satan “collects souls” is neither biblical nor Christian.  The Bible tells us that every living soul belongs to God” (Ezekiel 18:4) and that only God has the power to kill the soul (Matthew 10:28).  Jesus also said that there is an eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41) and that Jesus has the keys of death and hades (Matthew 16:18).   Hebrews 9:27 informs us that “man is destined to die once and face judgment”.  This is God’s judgment, not Satan’s. Wherever the souls of persons who have physically died end up is entirely according to God’s will, not Satan’s.

Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight.  Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13).

There are some denominations, however, that appear to subscribe to the power of Satan and his demons with regard to having control over the souls of the dead:

‘Aerial toll houses’ refer to a teaching held by some Eastern Orthodox saints and Eastern Orthodox Christians about the immediate state of the soul after death. It holds that "following a person's death the soul leaves the body, and is escorted to God by angels. During this journey the soul passes through an aerial realm, which is inhabited by wicked spirits (Ephesians 6:12). The soul encounters these demons at various points referred to as toll-houses where the demons then attempt to accuse it of sin and, if possible, drag the soul into hell."[1]
In some forms, the teaching is taught in hagiographical and other spiritual texts from quite early in the history of the church, but it has never been formally promulgated by any ecumenical council.[1] A number of the Orthodox saints, modern elders and theologians have openly endorsed it, but some theologians and bishops, starting from the last century, have condemned it as heretical and gnostic in origin.[2] The content is somewhat similar to that propounded by John Climacus in The Ladder of Divine Ascent. Some say that given the amount of fear that comes along with the teaching, the love of Christ becomes misunderstood and is forgotten, but others suggest that fear is perfectly natural and salvific for Orthodox Christians.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_toll_house

Another source of “misinformation” comes from ‘The Divine Comedy’, written by Dante Alighieri between 1308 and 1321. It is written in the first person as Dante describes his imaginative journey through the three realms of the dead:
Inferno (hell); Purgatorio (Purgatory); and Paradiso (heaven).  Dante describes hell as comprised of nine concentric circles, representing an increase of wickedness, where sinners are punished in a fashion befitting their crimes.  At the bottom of hell, Satan waits to gorge on the miserable creatures who reach him.

Dante’s literary vision of hell is depicted by Botticelli in his painting Map of Hell as a subterranean funnel of suffering—a wretched underground landscape of fire, brimstone, sewage, and monsters, with Satan himself waiting at its core. It’s all very disturbing, and effective as a work of art, but it is based on the imaginations of men, not the Word of God.
In Dante's Inferno, Satan is portrayed as a giant demon, frozen mid-breast in ice at the center of Hell.  As opposed to the popular conception of the era, which viewed Satan as an all-dominating beast of Hell, Dante gives the portrayal of Satan as simply another victim of Hell's tortures. He places Satan trapped within the ice, stripped of voice and power and thus sets forth a new conception of who and what Satan is.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante%27s_Satan

These views do not represent mainstream Christian beliefs about what happens to the soul at death.  Jesus said:

Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41).

God and Jesus are in control.  End of.

He doesn't.
He just happens to be where people who reject the Light go.
A drain doesn't pull water to it. He was just there first.


Would it have been possible for Jesus to sin? I think most, if not all of us, agree that Jesus did not sin.  However, the devil tempted Jesus, at least in the wilderness, prior to Jesus' public ministry (Matthew 4:1-11).  Does this mean it would have been possible for Jesus to sin?  Or was the devil just too stupid to realize his efforts were futile?

Yes
John 10:18 (NIV)

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

Jesus, in this verse, says that he has the ability to choose whether he laid down his life or not.
Because of this, he had the free will to choose to follow God's wishes or not.  Therefore, yes, he had the ability to sin.

Wow, I thought this was a pretty obvious answer.  Some more concepts to back up this idea:

Perfection does not preclude sin
Adam and Eve were perfect and sinless in the Garden of Eden.  However, they, who knew no sin, were tempted and succumbed to sin.  Clearly, perfection and not having previously knowing sin is not a preclusion to actually sinning.

Divinity does not preclude sin
Others claim that because of his divinity--more specifically, his part of the trinity--that he was incapable of sin.  However, John 10:18 (shown above), clearly shows that Jesus himself (not the other members of the trinity) had the authority to choose to sin and go against his Father.  Also, his prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane shows that his will and his father's will were separate.  Since their wills were separate and since he had the ability to choose to sin, it would have been possible for Jesus to have put his will first and chose to go against his father's will.

Therefore, Jesus had true and complete free will and the ability to sin.

This is one of those questions where our understanding is not sufficient to truly get to grips with.

The bible, as has already been stated, says that Jesus was able to sin. And Christians thus respect those words as being the inspired, infallible word of God, and thus appropriately ascertain that Jesus was able to sin.

However, at the same time we know that Jesus was perfect and holy in every way. He was, and is, God and how can God sin? or even be able to sin?

But if we say that Jesus was not able to sin, we contradict the bible.

I think the problems stems from an ability to understand what sinless perfection actually means or looks like, since we don't experience it and no human does (except Jesus) so we can't really study it.


Do Matthew and John have a discrepancy with regards to Jesus before Pilate? Matthew 27:11-12 (Mark has a very similar account in Mark 15:1-11)

  11 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
  “You have said so,” Jesus replied.
  12 When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. 13 Then Pilate asked him, “Don’t you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?” 14 But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge—to the great amazement of the governor.

John 18:33-37

  33 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
  34 “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”
  35 “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”
  36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
  37 “You are a king, then!” said Pilate.
  Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

How do we reconcile these texts with one another, then, seeing that Matthew essentially states that Jesus was silent while John reports Jesus holding a conversation with Pilate?

John's account of Pilate's questioning of Jesus is more detailed: in Matthew it's given only four verses, 27:11-14, but in John it's given nine verses, 18:33-38, 19:9-11.

In both gospels Jesus responds to Pilate's question of whether Jesus is the king of the Jews: Matthew 27:11 and John 18:34-37.

And in both gospels Jesus is later silent when Pilate questions him at the insistence of the Jewish leaders: Matthew 27:12 and John 19:7-9.

John 18:28 explains that Pilate's questioning took place without the Jewish leaders being present, because they refused to enter the governor's headquarters so that they wouldn't be defiled. Matthew collapses the whole of John 18:28-19:11 into four verses which of course means it is less detailed. But in both gospels Jesus' two kinds of responses, accepting the title of king of the Jews and not deeming the Jewish leader's accusations worthy of a reply, are presented.

There is a high level of consensus among New Testament scholars that Matthew's Gospel was substantially based on Mark's Gospel, with many also agreeing that John's Gospel was indirectly based on Mark.  Adam Winn says on page 1 of The Purpose of Mark's Gospel that at least eight significant critical commentaries on Mark’s Gospel were published in the preceding eight years (2000-2007), and all eight assume Markan priority as a starting point. So any reconciliation of texts should start from understanding their divergence, if any, from Mark.

Part of the discrepancy between John chapter 18 and Matthew is that in John 18:28 the priests intended the celebrate the Passover feast that evening, yet Matthew 26:17-20, following Mark 14:14-17, says that the Passover feast had been celebrated the previous evening. Here and elsewhere, Matthew's Gospel follows quite consistently, whereas John's Gospel develops new themes while following Mark much less closely. While the synoptic gospels place little emphasis on the divinity of Jesus, this is a major theme of John's Gospel. So John 18:36 has Jesus say, “My kingdom is not of this world," thus telling its readers that Jesus is indeed king of the heavenly world to come.

Matthew states that Jesus was silent, because Matthew's source (Mark) had said this. John reports Jesus holding a conversation with Pilate in order to enlighten the book's readers, with Jesus finally answering Pontius Pilate:

  John 18:37: Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Faced with this marvellous testimony, Pilate went out again to the Jews and said he could  find in Jesus no fault at all.


On what basis was Jesus’ death sufficient for redemption according Non-Trinitarians who maintain that Jesus was not eternal God as God the Father is? To Peter Turner’s point A) Scripture is the source that says blood was necessary and that blood was sufficient, question revolves around why a Non-Trinitarian Jesus has sufficient worth to save mankind from sin of He is not God and therefore not infinitely valuable as God is.

“For by a single offering (blood offering) he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.”
Hebrews 10:14

.

“he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.”
Hebrews 9:12

To point B) this question is for non Trinitarians, if moderators require a more specific group, to Jehovah Witnesses. (Not for Modalist Non-Trinitarian)
——————
The OT foreshadowed a coming sacrifice through which sin would be purged and expunged

“For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”
Hebrews 10:4

Animal sacrifices were done in faith anticipating the future redemption of mankind
But why was Jesus’ death/blood sufficient?
If Jesus was merely a coequal to satan or of the same kind any other ‘angel’ as some claim, and NOT God incarnate (as Trinitarians say He is) then why is an angel incarnate a sufficient sacrificial lamb for the sins of mankind?
It is clear that prior to incarnation Jesus existed as a non “Adam” man, two texts, one is His own admission because the conversation was prior to the prepared body

“Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me;” “Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’Hebrews 10:5,7
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.”
John 6:38

And secondly
“But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from eternity.””
Micah 5:2
If He is not God, as God the Father is God, but a created being on what basis is His sacrifice sufficient?

“But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent ( not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.”
Hebrews 9:11-14

Why is His blood sufficient if he is not the eternal God?
————

Animals were used in substitution for sin as foreshadowing
One man could die for another man or take the punishment in substitution
Since when can an angel substitute the sins of all mankind?
It would make sense if it were the eternal everlasting God but a created being makes no sense, humans are created, as are angels why is one angel worth all of mankind?

This is from the perspective of Jehovah's Witnesses. A full explanation of Jesus' ransom sacrifice can be found in chapter 5 of the book, "What Can the Bible Teach Us?"

Jesus' death is sufficient for redemption from sin on the basis that Jesus was a perfect man, without sin, just as Adam had been.

When Adam was created, he was perfect, but when he disobeyed God, he became sinful, selling himself and all his children to sin and death. (Romans 5:12; 7:14) In order for Jehovah God to have a legal basis to repurchase mankind, forgive sins, and restore humans to a perfect state with the opportunity to live forever, there must be a corresponding ransom to replace the life that Adam lost, one who lives their whole life without sin, obedient to God. (1 Tim. 2:6; Romans 5:19; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22) No descendent of Adam can serve as this ransom because we are all born sinful, imperfect. (Psalm 49:7, 8)

To provide the ransom, Jehovah miraculously caused one of his perfect spirit sons to come to earth as a human. (1 John 4:9; Luke 1:35) This was Jesus. Jesus remained obedient to God until death. Later, when Jesus returned to his Father in heaven, he presented the value of his perfect human life to Jehovah as the ransom. (Hebrews 9:24) Furthermore, Jesus disproved Satan's accusation that no human would remain obedient to God if that person was severely tested. (Job 1:9-11; Prov. 27:11)

According to Biblical Unitarians...
There is no biblical precedent for Jesus' sacrifice/offering to be God. None! Since Gen 3 prophecies speak of a man to come, not God. There IS a precedent for the offering to be without fault and blemish - this is driven home throughout the OT.
Jesus was without fault and spiritually perfect as he was without sin - being the son of God and not with a human father which Paul shows is the means for inherited a corrupted nature.
He could only be perfect - w/o sin, if he was born outside of the sin of Adam (Rom 5) which he was, as his Father was God, not Joseph.
The whole deal of Jesus, the man, being foreknown by God and already 'slain' figuratively was always part of God's plan of redemption before the first sin happened. So he has appeared ‘in these last days’ (Heb 1)n to finally accomplish God's plan of salvation prophesied throughout the OT.

1 Pet 1:20 For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world,
but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you

IF Jesus was 'God' he couldn't be tempted as we are, able to sin as we do, or die as we do. He was raised to immortal life as all who believe in him will also be.
When God 'gave His only son' He meant it! He didn't give 1/2 a son in a flimsy mock-up sacrifice.
As the last Adam, Jesus death is sufficient to cover the sin of all men and to redeem his Father's creation from the results of Adam's sin and the adversary’s deception because all are included by God's grace.
Jesus’ death was sufficient because he was without sin... as Hebrews 10 sets out in abundant detail.
The consistent expression of ‘flesh’ and ‘blood’ are components of man, not God.
Most probably understand the basics of OT sacrifice/worship. The priest could enter the Holy of Holies only once a year an behalf of the people of God. He had to thoroughly cleanse himself according to God's specific instructions. No one else could enter in - they would surely die! Even the priest would die if he did things wrong - Aaron's sons died because they didn't follow instructions carefully (Lev 10:1,2).
Jesus is now the high priest - operating constantly for our well-being. His one sacrifice - for all people for all time, far supersedes the old model. He is perpetually clean because of the sinless life he lived in obedience to the Father's will.
If the blood of an animal could 'atone' for sin for a time (as a type, Heb 9/10), Jesus one perfect sacrifice atones for all until there is no more death.
Simply, there is NO need or precedent for God to somehow die.
We have the moment when the veil was torn, as Jesus granted us access to the Father like never before (Matt 27:50). There is no more 'Holy of Holies' in a physical tabernacle - it is defunct.

Hebrews 10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter
the Most Holy place by the blood of Jesus.

God has to accommodate the law. Sin = death. Sin is annulled when a death covers it. We can die for our own sins, but never get raised up again - ever. Jesus, foreknown by God before the world began, is the life that could be raised again, and we in him, because he was without sin.
Jesus is only worthy because he, as a man, was without sin. Having God w/o sin as a sacrifice is a nonsensical construct without biblical support.
Of course, God is without sin, and unable to be tempted- how then is Jesus tempted is he could not sin? He already said he came, ‘not to do my own will, but the will of God’ John 6:38. Having a differing will makes him clearly not God! How can God have two wills?

The odd construct that an 'angel' could suffice is nonsensical in that they would NOT be an 'Adam' as Jesus was. A man to battle the adversary (seed of a woman Gen 3:15) is a fair deal. For the devil to battle God is also nonsensical - it would be called a foul. God does not need to stack the deck - ever!
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/articles/why-did-jesus-have-to-suffer-and-die


Did God create man to worship and praise Him? I heard it many times from some Christians and even preachers that God created us to worship and praise Him. I think this idea came from the fact that Psalms contain many phrases like "Praise the Lord" and many words related to worship. I'm still not convinced with verses from Psalms that the main purpose of creating us was to praise and worship God. The purpose of creating human, as I see from Genesis 1:28 is to multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.

Is there any verses from the Bible that clearly indicates we were created mainly to praise and worship God?

Actually, the answer to that question is longer than one should post on a question and answer site, but I would recommend the book "Desiring God" by John Piper. He explains it excellently , but in summary he says this:

  God is the greatest thing that exists, ever has existed  or ever will exist. Therefore, for us to glory anything else, would be sin, as there is nothing greater than God, there is no calling greater than praising God. This is true not only for us, but surprisingly also for God himself, he being the greatest , to glory in anything else would be idolatry. Therefore, if the greatest thing God can do is give himself glory, and no created thing does can be greater than God, the greatest thing we can do (our purpose, you might say) is to glory him.

I praise and worship Him because He is the creator of all. every "product" worship their creator. they can not live without their creator (the source). if you have a problem with the product, you go back to the Creator (manufacture).
Rev 4:11  O Lord, You are worthy to receive glory and honor and power, because You created all things, and for Your will they are and were created.

I agree the purpose He created us to : Genesis 1:28 is to multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.
when we (human) do according to His plan, we bring glory to His name, our creator, because we are function as His plan.


Can a person be baptized against their will, according to Catholicism? In the 2006 film Nacho Libre, there is a scene where Ignacio, a Roman Catholic (but not an ordained priest), decides to sneak up on his tag partner Steven and baptize him, despite Steven not wanting anything to do with the church.

Ignacio: I'm a little concerned right now. About…your salvation and stuff. How come you've not been baptized?
Steven: Because I never got around to it, okay?
[Ignacio shrugs and starts to fill up a bowl with water]
Steven: I don't know why you always have to be judging me. Because I only believe in science.
[Ignacio finishes filing the bowl with water and starts walking up behind Steven]
Ignacio: But tonight, we are going up against Satan's cavemen. [Makes the sign of the cross] And I just thought it would be a good idea if you … [dunks Steven's head in the water] are baptized!
[Steven is in shock]
Ignacio: Felicidades.

While this is played for comedy, would forced baptism, like that shown in Nacho Libre, be valid according to Catholicism? What would be the rationale if it isn't?

In short, the answer is “no.”

Even for the Catholic Church, according to which Baptism is an instrument through which saving (sanctifying) grace is infused into a person’s soul, a forced baptism or baptism imposed by trickery would not be valid.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his treatise on Baptism (part of the Summa theologiae) explains as follows:

  I answer that, By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and begins a certain newness of life, according to Rm. 6:4: “We are buried together with” Christ “by Baptism into death; that, as Christ is risen from the dead … so we also may walk in newness of life.” Consequently, just as, according to Augustine [Serm. 351], he who has the use of free-will, must, in order to die to the old life, “will to repent of his former life”; so must he, of his own will, intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament. Therefore on the part of the one baptized, it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament (Summa theologiae, IIIa, q. 68, a. 7).

If the receiver of baptism, then, were opposed to receiving the sacrament, or (as in the case described in the O.P.) it were conferred on him without his consent, then it would be invalid.

(Of course, pretending to receive baptism while internally refusing to allow it to occur, or else—as in the O.P.’s example—forcing or tricking someone into being baptized, is at least objectively a grave sacrilege. Although I am not familiar with the story, it seems as though Ignacio is well-intentioned but misguided.)

Note that, at least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, although a person with the use of reason (and hence the ability to make free-will decisions) can prevent Baptism from taking place by an internal act of the will, there is nothing to prevent infants from being baptized. Infants, not having the ability to make free-will decisions, cannot place an obstacle to baptism, and so it takes place in them without fail.

(I will also observe that Ignacio’s attempt at baptism would have been invalid, even if it were not against Steven’s will, because the Trinitarian formula is necessary for validity. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1239-1240.)

A note about Aquinas’ notion of intention

In discussing the sacraments, most Catholic theologians use Aquinas’ notion of intention, which would be good to recall. The term intention, which comes from the Latin in (which translates better in this case as “toward” or “into” than the English “in”) and tendere (to tend). Intention, then refers to any tendency toward an end.

In Aquinas, intention gets special attention when he speaks about our faculties and other natural tendencies. When applied to these, intention refers to the actuation of these faculties and tendencies in response to their proper object. For example, the proper object of the intellect is the beings that exist in the world around us, and so the concepts that we form about these beings can be called intentions.

However, intention can also apply to the will (which is the usage most familiar to us nowadays). In the case of the will, it specifically refers to choosing the means so as to obtain an end. I have the intention to go for a walk, as soon as I start to put on by walking shoes and go for the door (which are the means required for me to go for a walk).

That is the precise meaning that Aquinas gives when he says (in the passage I quoted above)

  so must he, of his own will, intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament.

and

  it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament

That means that you can’t just sneak up on a (conscious, adult) person and baptize him without his knowledge. The receiver’s will has to be involved and actually want the baptism (provided, of course, that it is not physically impeded: as is the case in infants, or in comatose or unconscious persons, or mentally handicapped persons).

In Catholicism as with the majority of Christian traditions, it is recognised that baptism in itself is not the thing that saves, but rather faith made complete by the action (James 2:22). It is the common 'point of entry' for a Christian because it functions as a point where an individual places their faith in God to save them through the death and resurrection of Jesus:

  "this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" - 1 Peter 2:31

Similarly, it is affirmed throughout the New Testament that salvation comes by faith, not works or actions which we do or which are done to us:

  "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" - Ephesians 2:8

So in conclusion - no, forced baptism is not valid. Salvation only results from an individual's repentant faith in God to save them through Jesus, as outworked in their life thereafter.

EDIT: The role of Baptism and Faith in Catholicism

The catechism of the Catholic Church is clear on this matter - Baptism is the point of entry as outlined above, but not the driver or 'enabling factor' for salvation itself. Faith in Jesus as outlined in the New Testament is still the only means by which men and women are saved. Baptism is called "the sacrament of faith", because it is the key action by which that saving faith is completed (again, James 2:22), though it must also be followed by other sacraments including the Eucharist:

  Catechism of the Catholic Church > Part Two > Section Two > Chapter One

  1229 From the time of the apostles, becoming a Christian has been accomplished by a journey and initiation in several stages. This journey can be covered rapidly or slowly, but certain essential elements will always have to be present: proclamation of the Word, acceptance of the Gospel entailing conversion, profession of faith, Baptism itself, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and admission to Eucharistic communion.

  ...

  1236 The proclamation of the Word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, which is inseparable from Baptism. Indeed Baptism is "the sacrament of faith" in a particular way, since it is the sacramental entry into the life of faith.

  ...

  1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith. But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!"

  1254 For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after Baptism. For this reason the Church celebrates each year at the Easter Vigil the renewal of baptismal promises. Preparation for Baptism leads only to the threshold of new life. Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth.


Where does the Body, Soul and Spirit of man go after Death? Here is a question that came during a Bible study and I believe it is very interesting. So much I want to share here and see what answers can come out.

I am going to keep it simple.

So, we all have a Body, Soul and Spirit. Now, at death, the Body returns to dust while the Spirit returns to God (Genesis 3:19, Ecclesiastes 12:7) but where does the Soul go?

I read the bible as teaching that you do not have a soul, but that you are a soul. This being the combination of body and spirit.

Eg, read Genesis 2:7 account of Adam’s creation where God breathed the breath of life into the clay and Adam became a living soul (nephesh) in Hebrew.

Animals are the same. “Nephesh” is used with them too.

The soul, and in particular the idea of an immortal soul, comes from Greek philosophy and is not a biblical teaching. The Bible teaches that you die (which is like sleep in that you are not aware of your surroundings or the passage of time). You cease to be. The breath of life, the spirit, returns to God.

Jesus: “into your hands I commend my spirit”. On his death, Jesus, slept until his father called him from the tomb and returned his breath of life (spirit) to him.

Note that the simple words “breath of life” hide a transformative effect, a massive alteration of the clay in Adam’s case, or the body as in the case of Jesus or Lazarus.

Taking Adam as an example, the breath of god turned clay into living cells in exquisite detail, DNA, blood, brain, muscles and a nervous system, but also included a fully “programmed” or “imprinted” brain. IE, A character. Adam received the knowledge of language, co-ordination, the ability to focus his eyes, to walk, to reach out and grasp, all those things a new born baby does not have though it is otherwise complete and perfect.

To Jesus and to Lazarus were returned their original characters, knowledge and memories. It was everything that made Jesus Jesus, and Lazarus Lazarus. In the case of Jesus he received also the power and authority that he had laid aside when he “emptied himself” and took the form of humanity, but that is another topic entirely.

——
Addendum:

Lesley has asked below for more references re “soul sleep” as the statement is given that most christians, protestant or catholic, believe in an immortal soul.

True, it is a catholic teaching and originated with them, and from which many churches have inherited the same.

I will refer to the original protestant, the well known Dr Martin Luther who said the following:

"But I permit the Pope to make articles of faith for himself and his faithful, such as The Bread and wine are transubstantiated in the sacrament. The essence of God neither generates, nor is generated. The soul is the substantial form of the human body. The Pope is the emperor of the world, and the king of heaven, and God upon earth. THE SOUL IS IMMORTAL, with all those monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals, that such as his faith is, such may be his gospel, such his disciples, and such his church, that the mouth may have meat suitable for it, and the dish, a cover worthy of it."

(Edit 3: FULL CAPS added by me for easy reference to the pertinent comment. I should also add, as others have in quoting this passage, that this forthright and coarse-sounding language was used frequently by these robust Reformers. To ears accustomed to the suavities and euphemisms of our times, they sound rough and uncouth. But such phraseology was part of the common parlance of the time, employed by outstanding men of the day who were desperately in earnest. They were fighting a relentless, merciless and deadly foe at close quarters and against terrific odds, and in so doing they used blunt phrasings. Martin Luther escaped death only by the protection of German nobility else he too would have ended as did Huss and Jerome)

Luther further wrote:

“For just as one who falls asleep and reaches morning unexpectedly when he awakes, without knowing what has happened to him, so we shall suddenly rise on the last day without knowing how we have come into death and through death. We shall sleep, until He comes and knocks on the little grave and says, Doctor Martin, get up! Then I shall rise in a moment and be happy with Him forever."

It is also a Seventh-day Adventist teaching, but as you can see, originated centuries before them and not from them.

For biblical reference see Jesus referencing death as sleep, and the statement that the dead know nothing in Ecclesiastes.

Further reference that the bible teaches that immortality belongs to God, and is not a human trait. God said if you eat of the tree you will surely die. Satan said you will surely not die.

The teaching that you (the essence of you, your soul) does not die is the same thing that Satan taught. The teaching is his, not God’s.

When you believe that the soul is immortal you get into all kinds of trouble with the resurrection. Jesus returned to the tomb to fetch his body why? He returned to the tomb, entered his dead body and then waited a moment or two till Gabriel told him his Father was calling him back “and this time bring your human body with you”? Does Joseph return to earth to collect his dried bones? For those who died millenniums ago, for which no trace of body remains, why do they return to the earth to be resurrected? Only good old earth clay will do?

No, Martin Luther hit that nail on the head 500 years ago, this is an invention of Catholicism. It is not a biblical teaching.

——
Addendum 2:

For a good reference to Greek philosophy being the originators of the soul being distinct and separate, then try https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/


What is the significance of water from Jesus' side? John 19:34 "one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear,
  bringing a sudden flow of blood and water."

I know this is supposed to be something great as in the next verse the apostle tries to ensure us just how true this is -

  John 19:34 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He
  knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may
  believe.

What is so significant about this? Is it symbolic of something?

Mason and Dan have both noted the literal significance of the blood/water issue. It was a medical indication that A) he was dead and B) he didn't die as the direct result of the crucifixion.

On practical thing we can note from this is that Jesus was in control of things right up to the end. We know from Scripture that nobody forced Jesus's life from him, he gave it up willingly. This is rightly applied to Jesus' willing submission to his captors, even stopping his disciples from fighting his arrest. However, we see this is true all the way to the end, when it is Jesus who surrenders himself to his Father and lets go of his own life rather than the physical reality of the cross actually taking his life.

  Luke 23:46 (ESV)
  46  Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last.

Another practical result that came out of the deal was that finding him already dead at such an early time frame, they did not go on to break his legs to induce a quick death by suffocation as would have been required otherwise.

Thus, something that was said about him in the OT that could have been understood figuratively, also literally happened in spite of the odds.

  Psalm 34:20 (ESV)
  He keeps all his bones;
       not one of them is broken.

I've been bugging the Holy Spirit about this for days. Here's the answer I arrived at:

The water is lymphatic fluid, which is made in the thymus gland seated right upon the heart and flame-shaped, creating what looks like The Sacred Heart of Jesus. The body's fluid is lymph (6-10 liters) and blood (3.5-5 liters) combined. Interestingly, the word lymph means water in Latin and is clear and odorless and rids our bodies of infection and death, really. Thus, the "living water" He mentions. The lymphatic system runs all through the body just like our veins but has no pump for its system like the heart pumps blood so we ourselves have to manually move the fluid with massage and exercise. Thus, the "healing touch" or laying on of hands.

I wondered a lot about the water and blood connection. Its also in Saint Faustina's vision of Jesus' Divine Mercy shining out of His chest in rays of red and white. In her painting it looks like the same roughly 2:1 proportion of lymph and blood.

AND the thymus gland that this living water comes from shrinks when we're depressed and grows when we've got our "yin and yang" in balance.


What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic teaching that infant baptism cleanses from original sin? The Catholic Church, possibly the Orthodox Churches, and even some Protestant churches practice Infant Baptism.  However, I understand that Catholicism teaches that infant baptism cleanses the infant from original sin, but I am unaware of where this doctrine draws its biblical foundation.  So, that is my question:

What is the Biblical basis for the Catholic doctrine that infant baptism cleanses from original sin?

There are biblical references to baptism as imparting new life in Christ on which to base the practice.

And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." [Acts 2:38–40]
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [Romans 6:4]
God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. [1 Peter 3:20–21]

The Church cannot deny the grace imparted by baptism to a child simply because he is a child.

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called [Cf Col 1:12–14]. [Catechism of the Catholic Church]

The Catechism holds that infant baptism is "an immemorial tradition", practised from the earliest days of the Church recorded in Acts.

1252 The practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole "households" received baptism, infants may also have been baptized [Cf Acts 16:15, 33; Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16]

It is important to understand what 'Sin' is and how the Early church lived and what is the orthodox teaching. First of all, sin in greek means 'missing the target'; Sin has no existence at all. The Church Fathers are consistent in this regard. Sin is a disease it is a sickness that affects all ...

"for unless we say the flesh was capable of receiving the things which belonged to it, with the exception of sin - for this is NOT part of the ousia, but a sickness which, as I have said, occurs as a result of inattention.." - St.Severus of Antioch

Because sin is nothing in essence and has no existence, it can NOT be part of our nature. Sin is only a sickness, it is missing the target (of course our target is Christ and his recapitulated life here on earth). Understanding this is important if one was to understand what sin means according the Fathers. Sin can not be past from parents to children, simply because it doesn't exist; it is not part of our nature. Man is by nature corruptible and mortal, not, man's nature is sinful (nature here of course meaning in the essence of Humanity). I could add in more quotes by other Church Fathers but i'll try to be as short as I can.

Another important point to make is that condition and nature are not the same. Man was always by nature mortal and corruptible because he came into being from nothing (St.Athanasius and St.Severus). But because God granted him a grace (to live in a CONDITION that is ABOVE his natural state and that transcends his natural state, he was able to share (through external participation (grace) NOT in essence with God's immortality and incorruptibility)). That does NOT mean man's nature changed .. No! Nature does not change. A chicken's nature that doesn't change into a horse nature, nor does a man's nature changes.But the condition changed .. Adam lived in a condition that was ABOVE is natural being, but that was only a grace given by God. Therefore when adam sinned, his nature did not changed (he was always mortal and corruptible) but his condition changed, ie. He went back to his original state and lived in that condition that is matching with his nature ...

"This, then, was the plight of men. God had not only made them out of nothing, but had also graciously bestowed on them His own life by the grace of the Word. Then, turning from eternal things to things corruptible, by counsel of the devil, they had become the cause of their own corruption in death; for, as I said before, though they were by nature subject to corruption, the grace of their union with the Word made them capable of escaping from the natural law, provided that they retained the beauty of innocence with which they were created." - St.Athanasius, on the Incarnation

And  ...

"If however, he had continued to maintain his vision of God, he would have transcended the natural corruptibility and remained incorruptible" – St.Severus of Antioch

All this was just to introduce the idea that sin, has no essence, and is nothing. Thus I ask ..Can we move darkness?? ofcourse not .. why? because it does not exist (it is the lack of light!) but conversely I ask, can we move light? Yes we can, as light in essence is made up of photons, packets of energy, etc. Therefore as sin is nothing and can NOT be part of our nature as the Holy fathers of the early church taught us, then it can not be transmitted, let alone through sex.

Moreover, in Psalm 51, the following is read .. "and in sinS did my mother conceive me". This is the ORGINAL translation found in the septuagint LXX. It is clear that it is sins (plural) not sin (singular). The jewish Scholars knew what they were doing when they translated the hebrew into greek. David the prophet here is NOT talking about a specific form of sin that we are born with that has been passed onto us from our parents, but rather he is talking about the sinful experience that our parents are passing unto us and that we will pass unto our children. Since the Septuagint has sins and not sin, it clarifies what David the prophet meant; sins are endemic to humanity.

Last but not least, our church Fathers are very clear about how we are born ..

"The sin of those who engendered us, viz. the sin of Adam and Eve, is NOT NATURALLY MIXED WITH OUR SUBTANCE, as the evil and impious opinion of the Messalians ... we are born mortal insofar as we are born of mortal parents, but NOT sinners insight as we of sinful parents. For IT IS NOT TRUE that sin is a NATURE and THAT IT NATURALLY PASSED FROM PARENTS TO THEIR CHILDREN" -  St.Severus of Antioch

WE inherit the condition and the consequence of the original sin, we are still born dead (separation from the source of life), but we are not born sinners, baptism is the remission of sins of course, but baptizing infants is allowing them to die WITH christ and rise anew, being the abode of the holy spirit; St. John Chrysostom teaches us ...

" For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are sinless, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members".

We are born mortal nor sinful, we baptize infants even though they are sinless in order to give them the trinity and the seal of the Holy Spirit (St.Gregory the Theologian).


Why does the (N)KJV put Jesus' name in all caps in Matthew 1:21 and Luke 1:31? It's only in the King James and the New King James, but why is Jesus' name in all caps?

  And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS:
  for he shall save his people from their sins.Matthew 1:21

  And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
  and shalt call his name JESUS. Luke 1:31

It isn't like this anywhere else in the Bible. The word in the Greek is the same as in other instances of the name. Why? And why only in the KJV?

I'm pretty sure this is just a typesetting decision---more akin to using quotation marks.
For example, when the Gospels say what was written on the sign above Jesus' cross, they tend to typeset the message in all caps:

And the superscription of His accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mk 15:26
And a superscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. - Lk 23:38
And set up over His head His accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS - Mt 27:37
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. -Jn 19:19-20

On the other hand, an identical construction occurs only a few verses before the Lk passage for John:

But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. - Lk 1:13

One other thing to consider, since Jesus' name is Semitic---and in Mark's case its meaning has bearing on the story ("for he will save his people from their sins")---it may be because it was in a different language (though of course, still written in the Greek script). The difficulty here is that the KJV doesn't capitalize transliteration elsewhere.

It is not a typesetting decision.

This is the First time the name Jesus is used in Matthew. It is IN BOLD PRINT OR CAPS because it is a substitution.

The name Jesus did not exist in the Original writings. Notice it is followed by a colon. What is written to the right of the colon defines the meaning of the name. English names do not have meanings but Hebrew names do. The name should be YAHUSHUA. Yahushua means YAH or YAHWEH SAVES Isaiah 43:11


Is saying "Oh My God" really using God's name in vain? It's become habitual for me to say "Oh my God" in a situation where I am shocked or surprised, as I'm sure it's become for a lot of people.

I said "Oh My God" in the presence of a friend of mine once, a long time ago, and he said, "Don't use God's name in vain" or "Don't use the Lord's name in vain." People have said this to me very often since then.

This intrigued me, so I was just wondering...does the phrase "Oh my God" really use God's name in vain?

According to the definition of "in vain", I'd say yes, it is in vain.

  in vain,
  a. without effect or avail; to no purpose: to apologize in
  vain.
  b. in an improper or irreverent manner: to take God's name in
  vain.

While it may not be directly insulting or condemning God in any way, I would say that "Oh my God" is not using his name in a reverent manner, specifically one that may be bringing him glory.

With regards to the habit, my wife had the same habit.  After realizing that it was taking his name in vain, she was able to quickly get over it.  While "Oh my gosh" has the same meaning (most likely in your case), it does remove the risk of trivializing God.  Maybe once you accept that it is taking God's name in vain, you'll be able to quickly get over your habit.  (I wouldn't expect anyone to get over it immediately unless you pray for God's help and he breaks it at once.)

I'm pretty sure this can't be taking The Lord's name in vain since his name is Jesus. I don't think we need to argue the name of the Son of God is Jesus, but let me concrete this a bit more.

I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. (John 5:43 KJV)
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26 KJV)

So, here we have it, there is one God whose name is Jesus, regardless of the manifestation.


Who were the 'synagogue of Satan'? In the letter to the Church of Philadelphia in Revelation 3, John writes concerning the synagogue of Satan and those who claim to be Jews, but are not.

  Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you. (Revelation 3:9 ESV)

What group was it that claimed to be Jews and were not?  What was it about them that made them the synagogue of Satan?

I would guess that the reference to the synagogue of Satan is not to some local synagogue of Satanists that were pretending to be Jews, but instead to all those everywhere who claimed to be Jews but were not really, spiritually, Jews.  Consider Jesus' words in John 8:

  They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. ... You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. John 8:39,40,44

In other words: "your actions show you aren't Abraham's children (i.e. you aren't Jews); you're children of Satan."

And then, also consider this passage, which divides everyone into two groups: children of God and children of the devil:

  By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. 1 John 3:10

Also, consider Galatians 3:7-10:

  Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith."

Finally, Romans 9:6-8:

  ... not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

So we see that the true sons of Abraham, the true Jews, are those who are "of faith".  Thus, I would conclude that the passage you quoted is simply referring to Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah.

I Am The Witness has a profound narrative discussion specifically on the topic in question. It is a re-post of a writing by theologian and preacher John D. Keyser edited for this website, which does not delineate far from the original.  It points out that the reference 'those of the synagogue of Satan' refers primarily to the Sadducees, Pharisees, and those who, yes, were Jewish, but saw no authenticity in Christ's Messiahship or refused to see him as good. In that time, it could be said that those were 'false Jews' did not even see the good of Christ regardless of honoring his Messiaship.  There were those who to fell as bad Christians, but the link's explanation is much more thorough and better worded than mine.


What is the status of Eunuchs now in the Church and also in the world to come? Eunuchs, who are considered to be the third gender, are also human beings. Some eunuchs are made by other human beings, particularly in the ancient times. Some people voluntarily become eunuchs as an expression of their devotion to their faith or religion. However, some people are born eunuchs from their mothers' wombs [Matt.19:12]. These are obviously created by God Himself.
What is the protestant Christianity's position on the status of Eunuchs in the church? What is the protestant Christianity theological understanding with regard to the status and pleasures Eunuchs get in Heaven if they are faithful believers in this life?

What was an Ancient Ivri (Hebrew) Fetsua (Eunuch)? - Emasculated (פְצֽוּעַ) man.
Deuteronomy 23:2 [MT] "He shall Not (לֹֽא) Enter (יָבֹ֧א) Who is emasculated (פְצֽוּעַ) by crushing (דַּכָּ֛א) or cutting (וּכְר֥וּת) Shafekah (שָׁפְכָ֖ה) into-Assembly (בִּקְהַ֥ל) of YHVH (יְהֹוָֽה)."

Becoming a Hebrew "Fetsua" (פְצֽוּעַ) or damaging male Shafekah (שָׁפְכָ֖ה)** was prohibited by Moshe (משֶׁה֙) in [Chapter 23, verse 2] in the scroll of "Devarim" (דְּבָרִ֗ים) known by English translations as the book of "Deuteronomy". The English KJV, NIV, NASB translations of the Hebrew Torah change the verse-number & word-order of "Devarim" (דְּבָרִ֗ים) or "Deuteronomy".

Deuteronomy 23:1 [NASB] :"No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."
Deuteronomy 23:1 [NIV] :"No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord."
Deuteronomy 23:1 [KJV] :
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."
Why does the Law of Moshe (Moses) get reversed by Yeshua (Jesus) in Matthew 19:12-14 ? - Perhaps Jesus regarded a spiritual union between humans which creates only a philosophical understanding of God > greater than the physical union between humans which provides a tangible understanding of God in the creation of children.
Matthew 19:12-14 [NASB] :
"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
Matthew 19:12-14 [NIV]
"For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Perhaps Jesus understood the ultimate loss of children by emasculated men took away worldly joy & blessings, causing Eunuchs to inherit a spiritual joy & blessing in the kingdom of heaven.
Acts 8:27-39 offers righteous Eunuchs hope in their salvation / spiritual union with the Assembly of YHVH.
How is a Eunuch viewed in Protestantism?

In Methodism, John Wesley's Commentary : "The eunuch — Who is here joined with the stranger, because he was forbidden to enter into the congregation of the Lord, Deuteronomy 23:1. Under these two instances he understands all those, who either by birth, or by any ceremonial pollution, were excluded from church privileges, and so he throws open the door to all true believers." [https://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=wes&b=23&c=56]


Is Jesus eternally the Son of God the Father? Throughout scripture Jesus is identified as the “only begotten of the Father”.   Is Jesus eternally the Only Begotten of the Father or did He become the Son at His incarnation?

Scripture to me seems clear that Jesus is eternally the begotten of the Father, which imposes an eternal "family" dynamic within the Godhead.  Do Christians generally agree with this perspective and if not how do they view the sonship of Christ?

The Nicene Creed (Wikipedia: "It forms the mainstream definition of Christianity for most Christians.") answers this question (emphasis added):

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
  the only begotten Son of God,
  begotten of his Father before all worlds,
  God of God, Light of Light,
  very God of very God,
  begotten, not made,
  being of one substance with the Father;
  by whom all things were made;

Fantastic Bible index of all scriptures by topic. Then click on Jesus Christ, Antemortal Existence of. (pre-earth existence)

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/jesus-christ?lang=eng&letter=j

specifically:

John 17:5 - glorify thou me … with the glory which I had with thee before the world was