Who are "Communicators" according to Pope Francis? In Fratelli Tutti Pope Francis wrote, quoting his 2016 World Day of Peace Address that:

Communicators also have a responsibility for education and formation, especially nowadays, when the means of information and communication are so widespread. Their duty is first and foremost to serve the truth, and not particular interests.
Fratelli Tutti 114

By "Communicators" is he talking about journalists?  The media in general or is it broader to mean communication platforms such as Facebook and Twitter?  I was reading through Fratelli Tutti and that word "Communicators" struck me as odd, the link back to the Holy Father's other declaration showed me he was talking about the media, but given the context of Fratelli Tutti I'm thinking he's talking about something different.
So in general, when Pope Francis uses the vague term "Communicators" which may not be so vague in Italian, who is he talking about?

Who are “Communicators” according to Pope Francis?
The communicators that Pope Francis is referring to are parents and teachers of children. It is so explained in the whole 114th paragraph of his encyclical letter Fratelli Tutti::

The value of solidarity

I would like especially to mention solidarity, which, “as a moral virtue and social attitude born of personal conversion, calls for commitment on the part of those responsible for education and formation. I think first of families, called to a primary and vital mission of education. Families are the first place where the values of love and fraternity, togetherness and sharing, concern and care for others are lived out and handed on. They are also the privileged milieu for transmitting the faith, beginning with those first simple gestures of devotion which mothers teach their children. Teachers, who have the challenging task of training children and youth in schools or other settings, should be conscious that their responsibility extends also to the moral, spiritual and social aspects of life. The values of freedom, mutual respect and solidarity can be handed on from a tender age… Communicators also have a responsibility for education and formation, especially nowadays, when the means of information and communication are so widespread”.

Traditionally, teachers and parents have always been held as the primary communicators of divine truths to Catholic children!
However the text in Italian is somewhat more general as well as more encompassing in what Pope Francis sees as to whom these commentators seem to mean.
In lieu of the English word of commentators the text uses the phrase: Anche gli operatori culturali e dei mezzi di comunicazione sociale.
This implies that those in change of social media and those making use of social media are to ”commentators that are meant in the definition of Pope Francis in the original text of his encyclical letter Fratelli Tutti.
Here follows the Italian full text:

Il valore della solidarietà

Desidero mettere in risalto la solidarietà, che «come virtù morale e atteggiamento sociale, frutto della conversione personale, esige un impegno da parte di una molteplicità di soggetti, che hanno responsabilità di carattere educativo e formativo. Il mio primo pensiero va alle famiglie, chiamate a una missione educativa primaria e imprescindibile. Esse costituiscono il primo luogo in cui si vivono e si trasmettono i valori dell’amore e della fraternità, della convivenza e della condivisione, dell’attenzione e della cura dell’altro. Esse sono anche l’ambito privilegiato per la trasmissione della fede, cominciando da quei primi semplici gesti di devozione che le madri insegnano ai figli. Per quanto riguarda gli educatori e i formatori che, nella scuola o nei diversi centri di aggregazione infantile e giovanile, hanno l’impegnativo compito di educare i bambini e i giovani, sono chiamati ad essere consapevoli che la loro responsabilità riguarda le dimensioni morale, spirituale e sociale della persona. I valori della libertà, del rispetto reciproco e della solidarietà possono essere trasmessi fin dalla più tenera età. […] Anche gli operatori culturali e dei mezzi di comunicazione sociale hanno responsabilità nel campo dell’educazione e della formazione, specialmente nelle società contemporanee, in cui l’accesso a strumenti di informazione e di comunicazione è sempre più diffuso. “


Why is Jesus occasionally referred to as "The Christ"? Is there a different definition between the two? I've occasionally heard of Jesus Christ referred to as "The Christ" and the phrasing has always struck me.  What are the differences (if any) between referring to him as Jesus Christ versus "The Christ", and what is the origin of the title?

The word "Christ" is simply the English transliteration of the Greek word "Χριστός" (pronounced "khristós"). It has the same meaning as the word "Messiah" which is simply a loose English transliteration of the Hebrew word "מָשִׁיחַ" (pronounced "mashíach"). Therefore, you'll find the word "Christ" used in translations of the New Testament and the word "Messiah" used in translations of the Old Testament.

Both words essentially mean "the anointed one".  In other words, Jesus is the one chosen by God to save His people. He is the Messiah who was promised to the children of Israel. He is the fulfillment of the prophecies.

When people call Jesus, "Jesus Christ," they are simply using the word as his title or epithet.  And when Jesus is called "The Christ," it is the same thing as calling him "The Messiah" or "The Anointed One." There is no obvious distinction in meaning between the two. It is simply a matter of grammatical style.

To say that Jesus is the Christ or the anointed one is the same as saying that Barak Obama is the President. When we say the President we know that is his TITLE, his calling, his purpose, but we also know who we are talking about. Don't complicate it. Keep it simple. Satan was defeated by Jesus. That name & that name alone is the name Satan hates. That name & the man behind that name is who defeated Satan. Jesus told us to pray in that name. The name of Jesus. Not Christ, Not Messiah, not the anointed one but the name of Jesus.

I pray that this helps.


How did Matthew conclude that Isaiah 7:14 refers to Jesus? The verse reads: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Matthew quotes it in Matthew 1:23, with it's fulfillment in Jesus' birth.

But when we read the context in Isaiah 7:1-17, we find that the sign is in reference to God telling King Ahaz that the Assyrians will come against Israel, and the 7:14 sign is to indicate something about when it will happen. 7:8-9 tells us that Ephraim will be broken in 65 years; 7:15-16 tells us that something will happen while the child of 7:14 is still young.

In what way can this passage of scripture be likened to Jesus' situation so that it reasonably applies to him? Since Matthew believes Jesus is the Christ, and this passage refers to Jesus, I am asking for answers from likeminded writers as to how this passage can apply. Perhaps Matthew had a similar point of view in mind.

Here are the verses:

Isa 7:1-9

  And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham,
  the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and
  Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to
  war against it, but could not prevail against it.

  And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with
  Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the
  trees of the wood are moved with the wind.

  Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and
  Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in
  the highway of the fuller's field;

  And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be
  fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the
  fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.

  Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil
  counsel against thee, saying,

  Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach
  therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of
  Tabeal:

  Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to
  pass.

  For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin;
  and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it
  be not a people.

  And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is
  Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be
  established.

Isa 7:10-17

  Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,

  Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in
  the height above.

  But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.

  And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for
  you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

  Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin
  shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

  Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil,
  and choose the good.

  For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the
  good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her
  kings.

  The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy
  father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim
  departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.

Since all scripture is inspired by God1, no one comprehends it except by the Spirit of God2.

There are at least a couple of ways from scripture that may have enabled St. Matthew to present what he was writing as a fulfillment of the Isaiah passage.

Since he was the Gospel writer, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, God, who inspires all scripture, and
Since he was an Apostle, when the LORD opened their minds to understand the scriptures3.

Were he not an Apostle, the third way to know would have been from they to whom it had been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God4 as was the case with the Ethiopian Eunuch to whom Philip, beginning with a passage from Isaiah, told of the good news of Jesus5.

1. cf. 2 Tim 3:16 (RSVCE).
2. cf. 1 Cor 2:11 (RSVCE).
3. cf. Luke 24:45 (RSVCE).
4. cf. Luke 8:10 (RSVCE).
5. cf. Acts 8:26-40 (RSVCE).

Please see also bruisedreed's answer. It's an excellent addendum.

Your consternation may stem from  not considering that time has no meaning in the realm where God resides. As with most Old Testament Prophesy it may span a period of days, years or even centuries, as we see in the book of Daniel (as an example ) and in the New Testament book of the  Revelation. All of the time of the Earth will not even be a blip in Eternity.

It also must be remembered that Jesus told them:

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

It also must be remembered that they were still waiting after centuries for the Messiah, prophesied in the prophets. That they were used to not having Prophesy fulfilled quickly is explained by David Guzik in his commentary of the entire Bible, concerning the Passage you asked about, which I have included for your perusal.

  (13-16) The LORD's sign to Ahaz: the sign of Immanuel.
  Then he said, "Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings."

    a. Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? The rulers of Judah treated other people poorly, but they treated the LORD even more poorly. If many of us expressed the same distrust we have towards the LORD towards other people, we might get a punch in the nose!

      i. "How heartily angry is the prophet, how blessedly blown up in this case to so great dishonor done to God! We should be so too." (Trapp)

      ii. Spurgeon speaks well to this point: "Did I not hear some one say, 'Ah, sir, I have been trying to believe for years.' Terrible words! They make the case still worse. Imagine that after I had made a statement, a man should declare that he did not believe me, in fact, he could not believe me though he would like to do so. I should feel aggrieved certainly; but it would make matters worse if he added, 'In fact I have been for years trying to believe you, and I cannot do it.' What does he mean by that? What can he mean but that I am so incorrigibly false, and such a confirmed liar, that though he would like to give me some credit, he really cannot do it? With all the effort he can make in my favour, he finds it quite beyond his power to believe me? Now, a man who says, 'I have been trying to believe in God,' in reality says just that with regard to the Most High."

  b. Therefore the Lord Himself will give you as sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. This is one of the most famous prophecies regarding the birth of Jesus the Messiah in the Bible. It also illustrates a principle of prophecy, that prophecy may have both a near fulfillment and a far fulfillment.

    i. Spurgeon said of this passage, that it is said to be "One of the most difficult in all the Word of God. It may be so; I certainly did not think it was until I saw what the commentators had to say about it, and I rose up from reading them perfectly confused."

    ii. "It is characteristic of predictive prophecy that it often mingles different times together in one composite picture" (Martin)

  c. The near fulfillment of this prophecy centered around Ahaz, Jerusalem, and the attack from Israel and Syria. For Ahaz, the sign centered around a time span (For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings). Simply put, God would give Ahaz a sign that within a few years, both Israel and Syria would be crushed. This was a sign of deliverance to Ahaz.

    i. Many commentators think that this was immediately fulfilled when a young woman in the royal household shortly married, conceived a son, and unknowingly naming him "Immanuel." Before this boy came to eat solid food, Israel and Syria were be defeated. It is also possible that God is just referring in a figurative way to a year or two period of time.

    ii. "The name 'Immanuel' was a rebuke to Ahaz. If 'God is with us,' then why should he have feared the enemy?" (Wolf)

    iii. "The 'sign' of the child, therefore, constitutes an indication that the all-sovereign and all-knowing God has the situation completely in hand, and it rebukes the king's lack of faith in him." (Grogan)

  d. The far or ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy goes far beyond Ahaz, to announce the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

    i. We know this passage speaks of Jesus because the Holy Spirit says so through Matthew: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, "God with us." (Mat. 1:23)

    ii. We know this passage speaks of Jesus because the prophecy is addressed not only to Ahaz, but also to David's entire house (O house of David!).

    iii. We know this passage speaks of Jesus because it says the virgin shall conceive, and that conception would be a sign to David's entire house. Those who deny the virgin birth of Jesus like to point out that the Hebrew word translated virgin (almah) can also be translated as "young woman." The idea is that Isaiah was simply saying that a "young woman" would give birth, not a virgin. While the near fulfillment may have reference to a young woman giving birth, the far or ultimate fulfillment clearly points to a woman miraculously conceiving and giving birth. This is especially clear because the Old Testament never uses the word in a context other than virgin and because the Septuagint translates it categorically virgin (parthenos).

    iv. We know this passage speaks of Jesus because it says He will be known as Immanuel, meaning "God with Us." This was true of Jesus in fact, not only as a title. Immanuel speaks both of the deity of Jesus (God with us) and His identification and nearness to man (God with us).

  e. Jesus is truly Immanuel, God with us. "Christ, indeed, was not called by this name Immanuel that we anywhere read of . . . but the import of this name is most truly affirmed and acknowledged to be fully made good in him." (Trapp)

    i. "He is, therefore, called God with us, or united to us; which cannot apply to a man who is not God . . . it denotes not only the power of God, such as he usually displays by his servant, but a union of person, by which Christ became God-man." (Calvin)

    ii. "In what sense then, is Christ GOD WITH US? Jesus is called Immanuel, or God with us, in his incarnation; God with us, by the influences of his Holy Spirit, in the holy sacrament, in the preaching of his word, in private prayer. And God with us, through every action of our life, that we begin, continue, and end in his name. He is God with us, to comfort, enlighten, protect, and defend us, in every time of temptation and trial, in the hour of death, in the day of judgment; and God with us and in us, and we with and in him, to all eternity." (Clarke)

As with most Old testament Prophesies they span a long time in our world, but almost nothing in eternity. as an example take the prophesy in Daniel chapter 9:

  Daniel 9:22through 27  And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. 23  At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision. 24  Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 25  Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27  And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

This explanation was given to Daniel by the Angel Gabriel, while in captivity sometime around 600 BC, and covers centuries, and yet Jesus said:

  Mat 24:15  When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

when explaining the end times to his disciples.

This has become quite long otherwise I would give you more examples, but you can search out those for yourself.

In closing remember that there were many teachers of the Jewish faith, (Rabboni)  and every Jew was schooled in the Prophets, so when the Holy Spirit taught them, and brought all thins back to their remembrance this surely would have caused them some consideration and the connection of the birth of Jesus to the prophesy of Isaiah was probably discussed among the Apostles.

Hope this helps .


Is chastity only expressed in virginity? Blessed Alexandrina da Costa of Balasar

  On Holy Saturday of 1918, while Alexandrina, Deolinda and a young
  apprentice were busily sewing, three men violently entered their home
  and attempted to sexually violate them. To preserve her purity,
  Alexandrina jumped from a window, falling four metres to the ground.

Also

  Like St Maria Goretti, she was ready to die rather than consent to the
  man's lustful advances.

I'm sure there is more women who were saints and had similar story.
My question is how does a woman who is raped or forced to an unwanted impure act lose her purity? Does only a virgin keep her purity intact? I personally don't think they would lose their purity even if they "let" them to rape them.

I agree with what the saints did and see it as a heroic act. I just don't understand why do they say "and this way they preserved their purity" like they would lose it if they let them. This tells me that you can only be pure if you stay a virgin. What is the catholic church understanding on this?

Virginity is the highest degree of chastity/purity, as St. Thomas Aquinas shows in Summa Theologica II-II q. 152 a. 3 "Whether virginity is a virtue?" ad 5:

  Conjugal chastity is deserving of praise merely because it abstains from unlawful pleasures: hence no excellence attaches to it above that of chastity in general [communem castitatem].
  Widowhood, however, adds something to chastity in general; but it does not attain to that which is perfect in this matter, namely to entire freedom from venereal pleasure;
  virginity alone achieves this.

  Wherefore virginity alone is accounted a virtue above chastity [in general],* even as magnificence is reckoned above liberality.

*[what he said above: communem castitatem / "chastity in general"]

So, here's the ranking of "freedom from venereal pleasure" (descending order):

virginity
chaste widowhood
chaste marriage / "chastity in general"

It's interesting to note that the Dominican friar Laurent d'Orléans, O.P., in his Somme le roi, whom French king Philip III commissioned in 1279 (not long after St. Thomas's death in 1274), devised a sevenfold ranking of chastity:

The chastity of

non-consecrated virgins
unmarried repentant non-virgins
marrieds
widows
consecrated virgins
ordained priests
the religious (monks, nuns)

how does a woman who is raped or forced to an unwanted impure act lose her purity?

She can keep her virginity.

Consenting to illicit sexual intercourse (such as fornication) is a sin. The Bl. Alexandrina and St. Maria Goretti stories show that they would rather die than sin. Sin requires free consent of the will; no one can be forced to sin.

St. Maria Goretti was stabbed several times for her refusal to consent. Alessandro Serenelli, her "would-be rapist" (ch. 25 of Modern Saints: Their Lives and Faces vol. 1), was trying to seduce her; cf. St. Thomas on the distinction between rape and seduction.

St. Lucy is another example. Some claim she was actually raped, yet this did not take away her virginity, as the Church honors her as a virgin martyr.

St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica suppl. q. 96 a. 5 "Whether an aureole is due on account of virginity?" ad 4):

  If a virgin is violated, she does not forfeit the aureole, provided she retain unfailingly the purpose of observing perpetual virginity, and nowise consent to the act. Nor does she forfeit virginity thereby; and be this said, whether she be violated for the faith, or for any other cause whatever. But if she suffer this for the faith, this will count to her for merit, and will be a kind of martyrdom: wherefore Lucy said: "If thou causest me to be violated against my will, my chastity will receive a double crown"*; not that she has two aureoles of virginity, but that she will receive a double reward, one for observing virginity, the other for the outrage she has suffered. Even supposing that one thus violated should conceive, she would not for that reason forfeit her virginity: nor would she be equal to Christ's mother, in whom there was integrity of the flesh together with integrity of the mind.[*Office of S. Lucy; lect. vi of Dominican Breviary, December 13th]


Does the Catholic Church oppose universalism? I've been reading George MacDonald as of late and have heard in a few places that he argues for universalism. I though that had something to do with unitarianism, but in looking it up a tad more, I guess it means the idea that everyone will be saved.

Is this theology considered a heresy to the Catholic Church? If so, when where and why was it condemned?

According to this article (and I'm not expert enough to verify the reliability) the answer seems to be "not any more."

  A Summary and Some Resources

  The doctrine of universal salvation (also known as Apokatastasis or
  Apocatastasis) has usually been considered through the centuries to be
  heterodox but has become orthodox. It was maintained by the Second
  Vatican Council and by Pope John Paul II and it is promoted in the new
  Catechism of the Catholic Church and in the post-Vatican II liturgy.

It was supported by Pope John Paul II  the following are three quotes from him.

  Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which
  human beings are effectively involved in it. (General Audience of July
  28, 1999)
  Christ, Redeemer of man, now for ever ‘clad in a robe dipped in blood’ (Apoc, 19,13), the everlasting, invincible guarantee of
  universal salvation. (Message of John Paul II to the Abbess General of
  the Order of the Most Holy Saviour of St Bridget)
  If the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is to convince the world precisely of this ‘judgment,’ undoubtedly he does so to continue
  Christ’s work aimed at universal salvation. We can therefore conclude
  that in bearing witness to Christ, the Paraclete is an assiduous
  (though invisible) advocate and defender of the work of salvation, and
  of all those engaged in this work. He is also the guarantor of the
  definitive triumph over sin and over the world subjected to sin, in
  order to free it from sin and introduce it into the way of salvation.
  (General Audience of May 24, 1989)

As for the statement that the author claims that the teaching is found in the catachism, here's the rationale:

  The new, post-Vatican II Catechism of the Catholic Church also gives
  us to hope that all will be saved.

  1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: ‘Lord, let me never be parted from you.’ If it is true that no one can save himself,
  it is also true that God ‘desires all men to be saved’ (1 Tim 2:4),
  and that for him ‘all things are possible’ (Mt 19:26).
  1821 We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one
  of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end’
  and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good
  works accomplished with the grace of Christ. In hope, the Church prays
  for ‘all men to be saved.’

Although in reading those myself, I don't know that they teach that universalism is true but rather that they have hope that it is.  But, clearly, if the have hope that it's true, it's not opposition to the teaching.  And much searching has failed to turn up recent statement denouncing universalism.

The Catholic Church condemns universalism.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra:

  “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless
  each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in
  eternity"

  Saint Leonard of Port Maurice [A.D. 1676-1751], on the fewness of the
  saved: “After consulting all the theologians and making a diligent
  study of the matter, he [Suarez] wrote, ‘The most common sentiment
  which is held is that, among Christians [Catholics], there are more
  damned souls than predestined souls.’  Add the authority of the Greek
  and Latin Fathers to that of the theologians, and you will find that
  almost all of them say the same thing. This is the sentiment of Saint
  Theodore, Saint Basil, Saint Ephrem, Saint John Chrysostom. What is
  more, according to Baronius it was a common opinion among the Greek
  Fathers that this truth was expressly revealed to Saint Simeon
  Stylites and that after this revelation, it was to secure his
  salvation that he decided to live standing on top of a pillar for
  forty years, exposed to the weather, a model of penance and holiness
  for everyone.  Now let us consult the Latin Fathers. You will hear
  Saint Gregory saying clearly, "Many attain to faith, but few to the
  heavenly kingdom." Saint Anselm declares, "There are few who are
  saved." Saint Augustine states even more clearly, "Therefore, few are
  saved in comparison to those who are damned."  The most terrifying,
  however, is Saint Jerome. At the end of his life, in the presence of
  his disciples, he spoke these dreadful words: "Out of one hundred
  thousand people whose lives have always been bad, you will find barely
  one who is worthy of indulgence."

The Vatican II counter-church does not condemn it.


Jesus' power to forgive sins and to cure the sick If one is to answer this question which Jesus  posed to the scribes :  "..For which is easier, to say,  'Your sins are forgiven ', or to say 'Rise and walk' ?... "(Matt. 9:5)  one would opt in favor of the former for an answer. But, Jesus appears to have had the latter option in mind, as is forthcoming from the subsequent narrative. Is it true that the power to forgive sins was entrusted to a limited few, and those who exercised that power without authority were  treated to have committed blasphemy , thereby putting themselves at risk ?
Can someone enlighten me ?

It is not true that others were given the power to forgive sins on the Earth. Only Jesus had that authority. Forgiving sins is not a power it is an authority.

Matthew 21:23 and24 KJV  And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? 24  And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.

Only God himself can forgive sins, but he gave Jesus the authority to pass that forgiveness to others while on Earth. Jesus explained this relationship in the following passage:

John 5:24 through 30 KJV Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26  For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27  And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28  Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29  And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. 30  I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Before leaving Earth Jesus gave his disciples certain authority, but not the authority to forgive sins.

Luke 9:1 KJV  Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

Even Peter did not pretend to forgive sin, but professed that the authority to overcome infirmities was of Jesus.

Acts 3:6 KJV Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Acts 4:10 KJV Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Hope this helps.

John 20 is interesting in this regard ...

  21 Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I
  am sending you.” 22 And with that he breathed on them and said,
  “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins
  are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Jesus sent the disciples, and breather the Holy Spirit on them and gave them the ability (authority/power) to forgive people's sins.

By inference, that same sending is given to us, with the same Holy Spirit and, I suggest, the same ability to forgive peoples' sins.

That healing is one of the gifts of the Spirit also suggests that we are able to heal as Jesus did.

My conclusion from this is that the healing and forgiving are both available to Christians.


Who assigned the gospel authors originally? According to the theory of the originally anonymous gospels, the titles of the most ancient surviving manuscripts were added later on.

I would like to know:

For each gospel, how many different, distinct, "assigners" were there? When did they do the assignment and where were they? I am not asking about the authorship of the gospels, but supposing there were no titles, who assigned them.

For example:

The gospel according to Matthew was assigned by:

1) X1 person or group, in the Y century in the Z region.

2) X2 person or group, ...""

If much of this is not possible at least list the number of the different assigners and whether they may have assigned these texts independently of one another.

The gospel according to Luke... ""

Please give sources, thank you!

One of the earliest "assignees" so-called of the same names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to their respective gospel accounts is Irenaeus of Lyons (~130-202 AD) who was a well-known, respected, apologetic writer about Classic Christianity.

Here is his account of the 4 gospels and his reasonings.

  It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh. From which fact, it is evident that the Word, the Artificer of all, He that sitteth upon the cherubim, and contains all things, He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit. As also David says, when entreating His manifestation, "Thou that sittest between the cherubim, shine forth." For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faces were images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, [as the Scripture] says, "The first living creature was like a lion," symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but "the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,"-an evident description of His advent as a human being; "the fourth was like a flying eagle," pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church. And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Also, "all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made." For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person. But that according to Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham; " and also, "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." This, then, is the Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,"-pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel; and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character. And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory; but for those under the law he instituted a sacerdotal and liturgical service.
  -AH III XI 8-

In addition from this, the same gospel names have survived to this day.

I am not aware of any other names assigned to the four gospel accounts besides these four until perhaps circa 1800 as questions from the Tubingen School of Theology arose specifically about why John's gospel supposedly contradicts the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) account of the days and dates of the death, burial, resurrection of Christ Jesus.  Because of that so-called contradiction, ideas that John's gospel really wasn't written by John arose.

Gospel copies with titles do not start appearing until around 200 CE. Tradition ascribes certain identities and stories to the authors of the Gospels, but they are not based on what most textual historians would regard as significant evidence. For example, the Gospel of Matthew reads like a Greek original, not a translation or interpretation of a text that was originally written in another language.

The most likely theory is that the names of the apostles were added at that time to enhance the importance and credulity of these texts, in very much the same way and period a collection of Ancient Egyptian texts were given the title "The Scrolls Of Toth" in the Ptolemaic (Greek) dynasties. It was a Greek custom to attribute texts mythical authorship in the Hellenistic period.

From The Classical Tradition

We do not know the names of the individual scribes who first assigned the apostolic names to the texts.


Does taking communion break the fast? Is there a Scriptural or Traditional case to be made either way? Now, once, I was fasting. I was destined to fast for three weeks. Now the church that I went to had Communion once every month, and it happened that my second last Sunday of fasting was my church's Communion.

Does taking the communion break my fast? If so, should I leave from taking the Communion? Is fasting a "good enough" reason?

Per @awe and @Jamess, there are really two sides of this.  It can go either way.

Are you breaking your fast?  Yes.  You truly are.  But you have to question: Why am I fasting?

If you are fasting in order to grow closer to God and find reliance only on him, then taking communion would not necessarily be bad.  Since communion is meant to draw us to God, then the two acts (fasting and communion) are moving towards the same purpose: moving us closer to God.

If you are fasting, however, in prayer over a specific thing (such as the salvation of a person or deliverance from a trial), then you should avoid the fast.  The purposes of the two acts (fasting and communion) are at odds.

Having said all of this, I believe this verse is appropriate to the subject:

1 cor. 10:31

  31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to
  the glory of God.

If you chose to break fast for communion, make sure you do it for God's glory.  If you chose to skip communion for the fast, make sure it's for God's glory.  If you follow that advice, you won't go wrong.

Fasting is definitely a "good enough" reason not to take the communion. The communion is to remember the last meal Jesus had with his Diciples, and fasting is to not have a meal. Although the communion is not just any meal, it is still a meal.


What Bible verses suggest that humans can become angels? There a number of biblical passages (such as 1 Corinthians 4:9) that are worded as such indicating angels were created separately from and and are different from humans.

  For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. (1 Corinthians 4:9, NIV)

From time to time I hear someone talking about their deceased love-one being an angel in heaven. I see this in works of fiction on TV and the like too.

Is there anything in the Bible that suggests humans can become angels?

No.

The general accounts of men, angels and the interaction between the two makes a pretty clear distinction that they are different KINDS of beings. Both are created by God but each has a different purpose and different destiny. We understand some things they do not. They are not bound by some of the physical limitations we are.

One interesting note is that angels were never offered salvation. The 1/3 of the angels that sided with Satan in his rebellion were cast out of Heaven and every indication is made that they will never see it again.

Revelations 22: 8-9:

  8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

  9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

Looks like a pretty clear "yes" to me: the angel sent from heaven to John to deliver the message identifies himself as a (most likely post-mortal) prophet.


What does it mean that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are of the same nature but different personas? To be clear right from the start: I have noted that some people do not believe in the doctrine of trinity, namely "three personas, one nature", but my question is not about whether the doctrine is true! It is about understanding the doctrine. Thus this is not a question of opinion.

I have heard multiple times the doctrine that Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit are personas of God or "one God in three Divine persons" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity). According to Wikipedia:

The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, whereas a "person" is who one is.

But what does this mean?
Sometimes it is compared with water also having three appearances, gas, liquid and ice, but I have been told that this is an example of Modalistic Monarchianism, which, as I have been told is a heresy according to one of the large early church councils. I do not have evidence for any of that because I am recalling from memory and are happy for corrections if I got something wrong. In any case, I see that for instance at the baptism of Christ, the Father, Son and Spirit are all distinctly present and interacting. So I see how this is not like water.
Quoting https://christiantoday.com.au/news/the-trinity-is-like-waterand-other-bad-analogies.html:

Other bad analogies
If water is inadequate, there are a wide array of alternative analogies we can turn to in modern theological parlance. Eggs are one, yet comprise yolk, shell and albumen. The sun comprises the sun itself, its light and its heat.
These are likewise erroneous or even heretical. Each part of the egg make up only one portion of the whole—the yolk is not the fullness of the egg. Yet the orthodox view is that each person of the Trinity is fully divine. Similarly, light and heat are simply creations of the sun, yet it is the heresy of Arianism to claim that the Son or Spirit are mere creations of the Father.

Ok, so I see what we do not mean when talking about the trinity. But what do we mean?
In that context I am not so much looking for a good analogy, but instead of a good explanation of the terms "nature" and "person" in the context of the trinity and in order to understand the trinity.
It seems to me that if those words cannot be defined properly, there is no point in using them in the first place, because that would be the same as stringing together syllables without meaning. In that case I would prefer to say "Jesus, Father, Spirit are distinct and one at the same time and we don't know how that is possible." without introducing fancy words like "nature" or "persona". To be honest, it actually sounds misleadingly similar to "three gods", because a friend of mine and I also have the same "nature" of being human and are two different persons.
EDIT: I was asked to clarify what is unique of my question. In contrast to Are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit explicitly identified as "persons" in any writings directly associated with the Nicene Creed? I would like to get definitions of the words "persona" and "nature" and use these definitions to explain the term "three personas, one nature".

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one Deity. This is a matter of nature, just as we are one humanity.
But in our humanity we cannot (you and I) be a single humanity. Even if we be conjoined twins, there is only a partial unity.

But since God is Spirit and since 'fulness' is an attribute of divine nature, the persons of Deity are divinely one, in nature and form, in a perfection of union that is indivisible - one God.

See the First Council of Nicea. But some definitions are difficult to understand as they use terminology from outside of scripture or scriptural words (like 'hypostasis' and 'substance' and 'essence') which are not quite as scripture uses them.
What I have stated above ('unity', 'Spirit', 'fulness' and 'form' ) is in terms which are used in scripture.

I and my Father are one.[John 10:30 KJV]

God is Spirit [John 4:24, KJV]

For in him (Christ) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [Colossians 2:9, KJV]

... being in the form, God ... [Philippians 2:6, KJV]

You, me and Fred are three different people.
But you me and Fred are all human - we share the same nature.
But you me and Fred are different in our characters, desires, life-history and genetic makeup.
Now God the Son, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are three different "people".  They each have their own will, own understanding, own likes and dislikes.
But each one of these three people is perfect in all respects.  It turns out their wills, though uniquely their own because they are people in their own right is also actually identical to the wills of the other two.  In fact, because each one is perfect in knowledge, in understanding, in power, in ability, in loves and hates, infinite in all things, you can say "Whatever the Father wills, the Son also wills and the Holy Spirit wills"  "Whatever the Father can do, the Son can do, and the Holy Spirit can do".
In all that makes each one a person there is absolutely no difference in their characters or abilities because they all share the same perfections of Godhead.  So whereas humans differ one from another in personality and ability, the persons in the Godhead, because they are each one perfect, cannot possibly differ.
The perfection of Godhead belongs with each one of them, and therefore they must be the same One God in three persons.
If others see my mistakes in underestimating the three in one nature of the Godhead then know this is a bit of a rushed answer (sorry). Please let me know and I will update, or simply point to your comments or remove altogether.
If the Bible said there are four persons in the Godhead we would believe that.  But the Bible says "Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" Matthew 28:19.


Do Calvinists believe that God is the author of evil? "Arminius taught that Calvinist predestination and unconditional election made God the author of evil." -Wikipedia

I have heard Calvinism presented in a similar way, where God has designed everything - including evil - just the way it is, all for the maximization of His own glory.

My question is: Do Calvinists actually believe that God is the author of evil? Or is this a misunderstanding / strawman / caricature of Calvinism?  (If it is, please elaborate.)

Please restrict the answers to the standard view of strict / classical / 5-Point Calvinists.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (the doctrinal standard for many Presbyterians), Chapter III, makes it clear that at least one well recognized portion of Calvinists firmly rejects the claim that God is the author of evil (emphasis added):

  I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

Point VII might also be worth mentioning (emphasis added):

  VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

This clearly shows that these Calvinists recognized such as a "high mystery" and vulnerable to careless interpretation and application.

On the "please elaborate" front, I think Calvinists are trying to embrace God's omnipotence, omniscience, and Goodness (and pancracy--all-ruling, "Almighty" in Revelation) while still recognizing the presence of evil in the world--all of which are strongly witnessed in Scripture.  Accepting God's absolute sovereignty and goodness (so could not be the author of evil) and the presence of evil results in a logical problem that is resolved by assuming that the understanding of the terms is inadequate (i.e., mystery).  This, of course, does not mean that one should reject one's partial understanding of the terms even when one does not yet know how they are reconciled.

Again, Calvinism isn't monolithic in its views across the board.
Quote from Pen and Parchment article:

As I assumed, upon further investigation, Keathley’s assessment was correct: Sproul Jr. has simply taken Calvinism way too far. His father R.C. Sproul Sr., also a Calvinist, has been much more tentative and modest about the question of sin’s starting point; he basically concludes that this is a mysterious matter, stopping well short of attributing the origin of evil to God:

Herein lies the problem. Before a person can commit an act of sin he must first have a desire to perform that act. The Bible tells us that evil actions flow from evil desires. But the presence of an evil desire is already sin. We sin because we are sinners. We were born with a sin nature. We are fallen creatures. But Adam and Eve were not created fallen. They had no sin nature. They were good creatures with a free will. Yet they chose to sin. Why? I don’t know. Nor have I found anyone yet who does know” (Chosen by God [1986], p. 30).


Is the gender of the Holy Spirit, feminine or masculine? I know the Holy Spirit (רוח הקודש) is usually referred to as masculine. But, what is the reason for that?

The Hebrew word רוח (ruach; "wind; spirit") is one of the few words that is sometimes used as masculine (cp. Eccl. 1:6; 1 Kings 19:11), although it is mostly used as feminine.

In other Hebrew literature, such as the targumim, the Shekhina (שכינה), which some believe to be the equivalent of the Holy Spirit, is also feminine.

Therefore, I find it questionable that all the persons of the Trinity are considered male in gender. Personally, I think connecting more to the feminine side of god can lead to a softer and more understanding and open approach, whereas connecting too much to the male side might lead in my view to a judging, hard, and maybe sometime, even aggressive religious approach.

This place seems to agree with my observation: "Gender of the Holy Spirit"

The Hebrew language only has two grammatical genders: masculine (זָכָר) and feminine (נְקֵבָה). Therefore, every Hebrew noun has an inherent grammatical gender. In the case of the noun רוּחַ, the grammatical gender is feminine. Yet, this does not mean the natural gender of the Holy Spirit is feminine. As for why the Holy Spirit would be "male," so to speak, it is because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Yahveh (Jdg. 3:10), and Yahveh is a He. I say "so to speak" because Yahveh is "male" in a different way than animals, which are determined to be male or female based on their chromosomes. Rather, Yahveh is described as a male, in part, as a consequence of His headship over all creation.

That any Spirit, God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit, or for that matter any Spirit is referred to as either male or female; is no more than the fact that in some languages all things are divided into one of only two genders that being either male or female. Spanish is an example of such languages.
As far as describing spirits there should be a third gender, that being sexless; or possibly both sexes, but preferably sexless.
Let's look at some Scripture so that you can see what my reasoning is:

Genesis 1:1 and 2 NKJV  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2  The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

At this point all material things begin. Prior to this there was only God. God is not Material and therefore has no material parts which includes genitalia. This only makes sense because Spirits do not eat or drink, therefore; they have no need to void, and it is those parts both internal and external which separate the genders.
We get a glimpse of this when Jesus says:

John 4:32 through 34 NKJV  But He said to them, "I have food to eat of which you do not know." 33  Therefore the disciples said to one another, "Has anyone brought Him anything to eat?" 34  Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.

Jesus was not talking about his physical self, which of course needed material food to sustain it, and that also had to be voided. He was referring to his Spiritual being which is sustained by other than material things.
My reasoning for saying, that Spirits should be a separate Gender is based on several things.

Genesis 1:26 and 27 NKJV  Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27  So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

If we take a closer look at this Scripture we see two things in verse 26.

To make mankind in God's image cannot possibly mean physical appearance since man and woman are so physically different.

2 there are two very important words used here, and both indicate a multiplicity.

a. Us this indicates that God is made up of more than one part; or if you will more than one Deity. All of which make up one entity God.
b. them This indicates that what God called  man  is also more than one.

We get a hint at what the likeness of God means in verse 26 where God says; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Just as God has dominion over all of creation he gave man dominion over all other ambulatory creatures. There is more to that than we first realize in that in order to have dominion, man must have the power to reason, and to make available all those things necessary for the creatures to survive. Along with that comes free will or the ability to choose whether or not to care for those creatures, or for that matter whether or not to obey God in any of his actions. That choice when it is to not obey is what we call sin.
At this point I would like to point out that God could choose whether or not to even create all things, but decided to do so in spite of knowing how we would mistreat him and his creation.
But back to gender identification, The reason God created man in both male and female genders is for one and only one reason. God being omniscient knew before creation everything that would happen within his creation from day one until the last day.
He knew that Adam and Eve would not remain sinless, as would their posterity, and therefore in order to populate the Kingdom of Heaven he told them:

Genesis 1:28  Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

What God did by making them both male and female, was that he gave them the final part of his likeness, The ability to create life.
You may agree with my reasoning and how I read the Scriptures, or not but I am sure that God uses reasoning in everything he does, and that seems to me to be the most logical reasoning.


In what different ways is the word "cult" used as a label inside Christianity? The word "cult" gets bandied about quite a bit, but is there an official definition or some kind of formula which can be used to consistently identify whether a group is a cult or not? Baring an absolute standard, what are the various usages and who tends to use each possible meaning?

In particular, I am interested in focusing on the sense in which the word is able to adapt to apply to both one man whack jobs such as David Koresh as well as larger stable groups such as Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses but not for the major traditions such as Catholics or Protestants? What definition is used in Christian circles that makes this usages make sense?

Cult is not an easy word to define.

In popular culture usage, it is often used to refer to any "group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre"1. This easily explains the bulk of the general usage, particularly by media. It is an easy label to slap on any group small enough if their practices are abnormal or bizarre enough to attract attention.

However I would argue that this definition is roughly meaningless in the context of Christianity.

During the period the term was first established in English, it often carried the connotation of being "new". Any new religious movement, whatever their beliefs were, could be labeled as a cult. This partially explains why faiths new to the world scene (such as Mormonism) were easily qualified as Cults at first, but that label is disputed today. In popular usage, there seems to be some expectation that cults would eventually self-destruct (e.g. Waco, Jonestown, Heaven's Gate) whereas any set of beliefs that survived the second generation should be considered a religion (or sect of a religion as appropriate) as opposed to a cult.

In the context of established religions it can have a much more specific and meaningful connotation. This definition is based on the relationship of the Cult to some other religion. The term is used this way to describe cults of other religions as well. The definition I'd suggest as most meaningful goes something like this:

  A group of people who claim identity/membership with an established religion but who, because of their beliefs, are rejected by the members of that religion as being unorthodox.2

In this sense, the term is only useful when combined in reference to what religion they were originally related to. An Islamic Cult would be a group that claimed affiliation with Islam (or even claimed to be true Islam) who's views are divergent enough that are rejected by the larger main body of Islamic teaching. The same would be true for a Buddhist Cult.

Applied to Christianity, this definition would encompass any group of any size smaller than the whole who claimed to be "Christian" but were identified by more established or larger bodies as being divergent on enough core beliefs to actually make them a different religion. What beliefs qualify as core does vary depending on who you talk to, but not so much as to make it impossible to use this label in a general and meaningful way. The standard issues would be the nature of God, particularly in relation to the Trinity, and the fundamental nature of man and how salvation is accomplished.

Using this definition, it is usually accepted that the major branches that comprise mainline Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) each share enough common ground to be called sects or traditions (even if we massively disagree on important issues) while many other groups get labeled as cults by having divergent views such as:

denying the trinity (e.g. Oneness Pentecostals)
having a radically different view of heaven and hell where a limited number of human souls have eternal existence (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses)
or ascribing to God a physical body and making Jesus and Satan out to be brothers (e.g. Mormons)

In this definition, it is also necessary to distinguish between a full blown Cult of another religion and just a "cult" in a generic sense. For example, Heaven's Gate mixed some aspects of Christian doctrine in the formulation of their beliefs, but they did not claim to be Christian and therefore are not properly a "Christian cult", just a "cult". On the other hand, Westboro Baptist Church could easily qualify as a Christian Cult.

Using this definition, it is also possible to note that other religions are not "cults", they are other religions. For example, even if Islam borrowed from both Judaism and Christianity, today it makes no claims of belonging to those religions. Instead it claims to be a true religion in it's own right and should be identified as such. On the other hand, even very large groups (e.g. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses) that could easily claim independence as a unique religions choose not to do so and continue to be labeled as Christian Cults because they continue to claim affiliation but are rejected because of their beliefs. In fact some of these cults have cults of there own. There are several LDS Cults that claim to be the true LDS church but are rejected by it because of errant beliefs.

Interestingly, Christianity was originally considered to be a cult of Judaism by the Roman Empire. The earliest people to bear the name "Christian" were a sect or subset of Jews whose beliefs were rejected as being unorthodox by the Jewish religious leaders. In time, as the movement grew and the disparity between the beliefs became more pronounced as Jews rejected the more and more established Christian beliefs, Christianity came to be recognized as an independent religion.

There are of course alternate definitions. It is not uncommon to see Christians (particularly Fundamentalists) who use the term Cult to describe any and every religion apart from their own sect. There are reams of articles on the web expounding on how Islam is a cult, Protestantism is a cult, etc. Other definitions provide long lists of attributes, suggesting that you might be a cult if you match enough of them. These list usually include things like dominating leadership, strict adherence to rules, abuse of dropouts, pressure on members to conform, the existence of secret rituals, etc. While many of these are helpful things to understand about cults they are really not a good way to identify them. Everybody has a different list and these are really more of common factors than defining factors.

TL;DR: While it is possible to be used in a meaningful way, the variety of uses mean you should always check what the speakers definition is. The usage of the term will often tell you more about the beliefs of the person using it than those being described by it.

It might be worth mentioning that the scope of this particular site is Christianity and all its heresies, so heterodox teaching is just as much on topic as orthodox, meaning Christian Cults have just as much place here as Christianity itself. Generic cults that do not identify as primarily Christian or other religions maybe off topic.

Footnotes:

See Wikipedia on Cults.
I got this from student handout notes from an Apologetics class by a seminary professor, which I think he in turn had based on The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin.

Speaking from experience; in general use I would advise against it. It's used more as a curse than a description, as such it does not achieve anything other than anger, seperation, contention and hate.

As a technical description all abrahamic religions (IE christians, jews, and muslims) would fall under the term cult.

People generally associate a negative context with the term cult due to various historical extreme individuals and groups that were cults. Due to this cultural context, the term cult is often used to belittle others rather than to provide an accurate and informative description of them.

IF you think something is evil and needs to be avoided, I would advise to be more specific than just using the term cult.

Dictionary.com - Cult


What is the difference between an Apostle and an Evangelist according to Charismatic Christianity? Consider the following passage from the letter to the Ephesians that lists a number of offices of ministry.

  Ephesians 4:11-14 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

It seems to me that the role of an Apostle is to establish the churches by traveling, proclaiming the Gospel as they went in order to fulfill the Great Commission. But isn't this also what an Evangelist does?

According to Charismatic traditions that teach that these offices of ministry and spiritual gifts are still distributed within the Body of Christ (i.e. that the office of Apostle was not just for the first disciples and/or NT authors), what is the difference between the office of Apostle and that of Evangelist?

From a Pentecostal perspective that believes in a restored five-fold office-gift ministry:
An apostle is a "Sent One" & and an apostle's "sentiness" manifests in the supernatural authority they bear in terms of enacting the mission that they have been entrusted with. Apostles are leaders par excellence, and are usually identified after they have pioneered the establishment of new networks of churches. They tend to be very focused on discipling and raising up effective leaders who can further multiply disciples and oversee congregations or ministries. They excel in imparting the vision they carry to others. While church planters and missionaries may be engaged in "apostolic work", they tend not to be recognized as apostles until they have successfully overseen the establishment of many individual congregations.
It could be argued that evangelists are also "sent ones" as they have received a burden from the Lord to go out and win souls at every opportunity. While apostles may also be effective soul winners, they are distinguished from evangelists by their grasp of the bigger picture - how the whole church can function effectively and grow in maturity; an evangelist on the other hand primarily concerns themself in conversion of the lost, content to leave ongoing discipleship and church governmental issues in the hands of others, although the most effective evangelists are usually actively involved in discipling, raising up and empowering more evangelists.
Examples of people regarded as modern day apostles are Chuck Smith and Phil Pringle.
Examples of people regarded as modern day (office-gift) evangelists are Billy Graham and Reinhard Bonnke
This perspective retrospectively applied to the interesting case of the two principal leaders in the (first) Methodist revival - George Whitfield, the greatest soul-winner of his generation is rightly acknowledged as an office-gift evangelist; whereas John Wesley although a very gifted soul-winner as well, possessed a superior organisational ability that marks him as the apostle of Methodism. While the two had significant theological differences (Calvinism vs Arminianism), the former acknowledged the wisdom of the latter's establishment of his "classes" (effectively small group discipleship meetings) in these terms:

Whitefield met an old friend, Mr John Pool and accosted him in the following manner:
“Well, John, art thou still a Wesleyan?”
Pool replied, “Yes, sir, and I thank God that I have the privilege of being in connection with him, and one of his preachers.”
“John,” said Whitefield, “thou art in the right place. My brother Wesley acted wisely—the souls that were awakened under his ministry he joined in class, and thus preserved the fruits of his labor. This I neglected, and my people are a rope of sand.” (source)

Rather simple, if one sticks to the documented will of JC, and not all the later attempts to get in on the action.

Twelve disciples were directly selected by JC in his travels through Galilee. The disciples are enumerated in Mark and Luke and include Judas.

About two years before the crucifixion, and shortly before the Sermon on the Mount they were designated by JC as his messengers [literally "sent away"], apostles in Greek.

Four Gospels are in the Canon since the late 2nd century, and their authors are the original Evangelists.  BTW, this makes Matthew the only Apostle Evangelist.


How does Jesus describe God in the Gospels How did Jesus explain the nature of God in the NT narratives ? Please cite only the relevant verses where Jesus himself describes the nature of God.

I wanted to again clarify , that I am interested in Jesus's sayings  firsthand and not someone else interpreting it what he said.

I attempted to list a few verses below where the Father character is described in detail.

Joh 10:29  My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

Greater than all.

Joh 3:35  The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
Joh 3:36  He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Loving, Saving and Wrathful.

Luk 11:9  And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
Luk 11:10  For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
Luk 11:11  If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
Luk 11:12  Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
Luk 11:13  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Good and Generous.

Joh 14:7  If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
Joh 14:8  Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
Joh 14:9  Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
Joh 14:10  Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
Joh 5:19  Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
Joh 5:20  For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
Joh 5:21  For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
Joh 5:22  For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
Joh 5:23  That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Every act of kindness, compassion, healing and deliverance which is attributed to Jesus can also be attributed to the Father. Every sermon and judgment made by Christ can likewise be attributed to the Father.

I have one thing that comes to mind.  Before we begin you must remember the side story David and Bathsheba.  They had a son together and God said the child will not live for it would give occasion for the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme (paraphrase)

Jesus was asked what is the greatest commandment.  If i did not know anything out of the Hebrew bible, what would i NEED to know.

He gave them 2 commands and i believe they accurately reflect Jesus describing the nature of God.

"Love the LORD your God with all your heart, mind, body, and soul, and the second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself." - (Paraphrase)

When Jesus said this He made 2 things very clear:
First we do not understand how important it is to love our neighbors.
Second God's glory is His first concern.  Love the LORD your God with all your heart, but His concern for humanity is a runner up, Love your neighbor as yourself.

This might be considered a stretch and if it is :)  Sorry!  If there is typos sorry, i have not proof read my works


If Jesus is not God according to Jehovah’s Witnesses, why was He accused of blasphemy? Denying the deity of Jesus Christ is one of the core beliefs of the Jehovah Witnesses: Jehovah’s Witnesses View of Christ.
John 5:18 states,

For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill
Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was
calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

John 8:59,

Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid
Himself, and went out of the temple.

John 10:31,

The Jews took up stones AGAIN to stone Him.

John 10:33,

The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for BLASPHEMY; and because You, being a man make Yourself out God.

Also, according to the trial record at Matthew 26:57-66, and specifically at vs65 the high priest Caiaphas makes a strong accusation:

The high priest tore his robes, saying, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, have you not heard the blasphemy;"

What was the blasphemy, according to the Jews, that Jesus committed that resulted in His crucifixion and eventual death?
Related question asked here

The Jehovah's Witnesses have published in their literature their explanation - that the religious leaders who accused him of trying to make himself God misunderstood. In their New World Translation of John 10:33, they have those leaders saying, “because you, although being a man, make yourself a god.” This is also in their 2006 book, The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived, section 81, giving the JW explanation as to why there were further attempts to kill Jesus. After quoting that verse, the book asks,

“Since Jesus never claimed to be a god, why do the Jews say this?”

JWs say that Jesus was not God, but “a god”, and have rendered John 1:1 that way too. However, your question is not about that, but as to why JWs say religious leaders back in the day misunderstood Jesus as claiming to be God.  Even if that is taken to include the idea that Jesus was “a god”, which would also warrant stoning to death in the view of those religious leaders, why do the JWs claim that they had misunderstood Jesus? That book states:

“The Jews, however, overlook the fact that Jesus acknowledges
receiving authority from his Father. That Jesus claims to be less than
God, he next shows by asking, ‘Is it not written in your Law [at Psalm
82:6], ‘I said: “you are gods”? If he called ‘gods’ those against whom
the word of God came,… do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and
dispatched into the world, ‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, I am God’s
Son?”

Without going into any argument as to why Jesus’ quoting of that Psalm need not mean what the JWs think it means, the outstanding question is, why did his explanation not pacify the Jews so that they realised Jesus was not claiming to be God? According to the NWT rendition of Jesus’ next comment, those who ‘misunderstood’ him would have had it completely cleared up when he added, according to their NWT,

“…believe the works, in order that you may come to know and may
continue knowing that the Father is in [union with] me and I am in
[union with] the Father” (John 10:38).

That could not be clearer, could it? Jesus was apparently denying being God but only claiming to be in union with God the Father. Why, those religious leaders would likely make the same claim of themselves! They were appointed god-like status as representing God on earth, entitling them to respect (not stoning to death), and they were zealously seeking to act in union with God.
This shows that the NWT has Jesus effectively denying being God. The NWT does not give reasons for that slant, but masses of JW literature reiterates their belief that Jesus had a starting point in time, being the first and only direct creation of Jehovah as the Word. This is the basis for their renditions of John 1:1 and 10:33, 38, and why they won’t have Jesus taking the Divine Name, the I Am, to himself.
The problem of how those religious leaders could have possibly continued to ‘misunderstand’ Jesus’ claims here simply increases with the NWT rendition of events. According to the NWT, Jesus is really denying being God. He is making clear that he is merely ‘a god’ and only ‘in union with’ God – not “in God” as all other translations of the Bible state. By changing “God” to “a god”, and “in him” to “in union with him”, that is the same as Jesus saying, “I’m not God! Why are you trying to kill me? I’m not God!”
Of course, we all know that the Bible nowhere has Jesus saying, “I am not God,” but the NWT in those verses comes as close as it can to that. Not because the JWs have misunderstood the words of Jesus, any more than those religious leaders back then did, but because they cannot have their rendition of the Bible saying in any sense that Jesus is God, and that he is in the Father, as the Father is in him. Thus, the NWT tries to have Jesus portrayed as “a god” and saying he is merely “in union with the Father.”
If that is correct, then in the NWT Jesus disabused those religious leaders of a false notion, that he was claiming to be God. He would have taken all the wind out of their sails, and none of them would have picked up a stone to kill him. It is only according to other translations that we see they did not misunderstand Jesus. They knew full well that Jesus was claiming to be God.

The question contains an incorrect premise. Blasphemy is a vague charge, and only in the extreme form would stoning someone to death for blasphemy involve someone claiming to be God.

To blaspheme is to speak with contempt about God or to be defiantly irreverent. Blasphemy is verbal or written reproach of God’s name, character, work, or attributes.
https://www.gotquestions.org/blasphemy-blaspheme.html

Jehovah's Witnesses follow a similar understanding in so far as understanding blasphemy to be a vague charge.

Blasphemy includes the act of claiming the attributes or prerogatives of God, or ascribing these to another person or thing. (Compare Ac 12:21, 22.) The Jewish religious leaders accused Christ Jesus of blasphemy because he said that the sins of certain persons were forgiven (Mt 9:2, 3; Mr 2:5-7; Lu 5:20, 21), and they tried to stone him as a blasphemer because of his declaring himself to be God’s Son. (Joh 10:33-36)
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000769

To ancient Jews, anyone claiming to be God would be making a category error - a human cannot be God, who is Spirit. (Indeed, Jesus says the same thing - John 4:24, "God is Spirit." Funny that.)
For a JW source, see Worship God “in Spirit”.
You might as well ask "If St. Stephen wasn't claiming Jesus is God, why was he accused of blasphemy?" Nowhere does anyone say St. Stephen is claiming Jesus is God. Yet he's still accused of blasphemy (Acts 6:11-14) and stoned to death after being tried for blasphemy (Acts 7:51-58).


Why would God send a deceitful spirit? 1 Kings 22:19-28
19 Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’
“One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’
22 “‘By what means?’ the Lord asked.
“‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.
“‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’
23 “So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.”
24 Then Zedekiah son of Kenaanah went up and slapped Micaiah in the face. “Which way did the spirit from[a] the Lord go when he went from me to speak to you?” he asked.
25 Micaiah replied, “You will find out on the day you go to hide in an inner room.”
26 The king of Israel then ordered, “Take Micaiah and send him back to Amon the ruler of the city and to Joash the king’s son 27 and say, ‘This is what the king says: Put this fellow in prison and give him nothing but bread and water until I return safely.’”
28 Micaiah declared, “If you ever return safely, the Lord has not spoken through me.” Then he added, “Mark my words, all you people!”

So God sends a spirit enticing Ahab in order to attack Ramoth Gilead. If I may dare ask, why does God feel the need to send a deceiving spirit? Would this not go against the Commandments God has given? And why was such a spirit even within the close proximity in the presence of the Lord in the first place? I wish to know how to reconciling this text with others.

Regarding your question, if it is a matter of deceit or not - consider the original context.

First you should read the whole chapter: 1 Kings 22

The subject has to do with truth, amazingly.

  13 The messenger who went to call Micaiah said to him, Behold now, the
  prophets unanimously declare good to the king. Let your answer, I pray
  you, be like theirs, and say what is good.

  14 But Micaiah said, As the Lord lives, I will speak what the Lord
  says to me.

The king demands to hear the truth.

  16 And the king said to him, How many times must I charge you to tell
  me nothing but the truth in the name of the Lord?

So the prophet tells the truth.

Then there is the part you mention where God asks "who will go fool Ahab" and a spirit says "I'll be a deceptive spirit in his prophets..." and that is agreed upon.

And thus the prophet summarizes:

  23 So the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these
  prophets; and the Lord has spoken evil concerning you.

Notice too - what God said was distinctly different than what the lying spirit said.

So you can see that although there was indeed deception, God revealed the truth (he cannot lie, and he is the "revealer of secrets") but as usual Ahab follows his own self-convenient thinking and heart as many do.

This is similar to what is said here:

Deuteronomy 13:1-3

  If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a
  sign or a wonder,

  2 And the sign or the wonder he foretells to you comes to pass, and if
  he says, Let us go after other gods—gods you have not known—and let us
  serve them,

  3 You shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer
  of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you
  love the Lord your God with all your [mind and] heart and with your
  entire being.

Again - with the fore-knowledge of such things, you actually have the truth of the matter ahead of time so the seeming deception is irrelevant - unless one's lying heart wishes to believe it. God has not lied. (Romans 3:4)

Similar passages:
2 Samuel 15:31

  31 David was told, Ahithophel [your counselor] is among the
  conspirators with Absalom. David said, O Lord, I pray You, turn
  Ahithophel’s counsel into foolishness.

Job 5:13

  13 He catches the [so-called] wise in their own trickiness, and the
  counsel of the schemers is brought to a quick end.

The deceitful spirit sent by God. God wraps himself in darkness.

  Then Solomon said, "The LORD has said that he would dwell in a dark cloud (1 Kings 8:12, 2 Chronicles 6:1)

So God sends a spirit enticing Ahab in order to attack Ramoth Gilead. God has also sent Satan.

  The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.” Then Satan went out from the presence of the Lord. (Job 1:12)

If I may dare ask, why does God feel the need to send a deceiving spirit? Notice the deceiving spirit asked. (Ref: 1 Kings 22:21). You must also understand a spirit is a personality. So he has given the prophets a desire to lie. We are faced with temptations to prove to God that we are true.

Would this not go against the Commandments God has given? No.

And why was such a spirit even within the close proximity in the presence of the Lord in the first place? Notice God invited the answer. (Ref: 1 Kings 22:20)

I wish to know how to reconciling this text with others. Hope the others are soon reconciled.


What happened to Aaron's staff and the jar of manna placed by Moses in the Ark of the Covenant Please note, I am not asking what was inside the Ark of the Covenant (question asked in June 2013) but what happened to Aaron's budding staff and the jar of manna by the time the Ark of the Covenant was placed in the temple built by Solomon.

Exodus 16:33-34 says the jar of manna was placed in the Ark in front of the stone tablets.

Numbers 17:10 says Aaron's budding staff was placed in front of/before the Ark of the Covenant.

1 Kings 8:9 and 2 Chronicles 5:10 both say that by the time the Ark of the Covenant was placed in the temple built by Solomon there was nothing inside the Ark except for the two stone tablets of the testimony/covenant.

However, Hebrews 9:1-4 says the Ark contained the two stone tablets (the terms of the covenant), Aaron's rod (or staff) and the gold jar containing manna.

What happened to Aaron's budding staff and the gold jar of manna?  Were they lost or were they stolen? And why does the writer of Hebrews mention them?

After Solomon had built the temple in Jerusalem (960 B.C.) there was nothing in the Ark except the stone tablets that Moses had put there at Horeb (1 Kings 8:9 and 2 Chronicles 5:10). The NIV Study Bible notes on 2 Chronicles 5:10 say the jar of manna and Aaron’s rod were presumably lost when the Philistines captured the Ark of the Covenant. (See 1 Samuel 4:11 to chap. 6)

Various Bible commentators have pointed out that the tabernacle referred to in Hebrews 9:4 is the one built under Moses. The ESV Study Bible makes this comment:

  “By the time of Solomon’s temple, it was noted that there was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone (1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chronicles 5:10), but that may suggest that other items had previously been in the ark.”

Some 400 years had elapsed between the time of Moses and Aaron and the Ark of the Covenant being placed in Solomon’s temple.  The fact that the Ark had been stolen by the Philistines and it took them some time to return it may mean that the Philistines looted and plundered some of its contents.  Perhaps they stole the rod and the jar of manna, though given the plagues that afflicted them wherever the Ark stayed, fear would surely have prompted them to return any pilfered items!

However, Exodus 16:32-34 does not actually say the manna and rod were placed inside the Ark. It says they were ‘placed before the Lord’ in front of the Testimony. This anticipated the later description of the tablets containing the Ten Commandments as “the two tablets of the Testimony” (31:18; 32:15; 34:29) hence “the Ark of the Testimony” for ‘testimony’ is an old-fashioned word for ‘covenant’. Exodus 25:21 simply says that God instructed ‘the Testimony’ to be put inside the Ark – the stone tablets.  Now, I may be wrong, but I wonder if it is mistaken to conclude that the manna and the rod were also placed inside the Ark? If I’m wrong, please may someone correct me!

Hebrews chapter 9 states that the Holiest of all in the tabernacle contained the golden censer and the Ark of the Covenant.  In the Holiest part of the tabernacle was also placed the golden pot of manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant. This was with regard to the tabernacle and not the temple in Jerusalem. And it does not need to imply that the manna and the rod were inside the Ark; all those items were in the Holiest part, but not necessarily all inside the Ark. The censer was not inside it. The other items (apart from the stone tablets) need not have been inside it either.

My answer, therefore, covers both contingencies – that the manna and rod were inside the Ark, then stolen by the Philistines, but my own view is that they were never inside the Ark and that Exodus 16 and Hebrews 9 do not necessarily imply that they were.

First, I would like to say that the Greek text of Hebrews 9:4 does support the idea that the pot of manna and Aaron's rod were in the ark of the covenant. The reason this is so is because the Greek word for "ark" is feminine, even though it doesn't look like it. There are other Greek nouns like this as well, but this isn't common.
As correctly stated in a comment, "Εν η" is the phrase "in which" in Hebrews 9:4. The "η" is feminine. Since "κιβωτον" ("ark") is feminine, "η" can refer to "ark."
Verse 5 says, "And over it [αυτης] the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat ...." If "η" in vs. 4 referred to the tabernacle, then "αυτης" in vs. 5 should as well, since it's feminine too. But the cherubim shadowing the mercyseat refers to the cherubim on the top of the ark, not cherubim over the tabernacle.
And so, what happened to the pot of manna and Aaron's rod prior to Solomon's temple being inaugurated?

Revelation 2:17 refers to hidden manna.
Revelation 11:19 refers to the ark of the new covenant in the heavenly temple.
Hebrews 8:5 indicates that the earthly tabernacle was a copy of the heavenly.

If the earthly copy of the heavenly ark contained a pot of manna and a rod that budded, it would be logical if the heavenly did as well. But since there is no indication that the earthly pot of manna and Aaron's rod were copies of anything, it would make sense that these two items were transferred from the earthly ark to the heavenly ark at some point in time.