Animal Kingdom before Sin Came into The Garden

According to Genesis there were no carnivores in God’s original creation.

  Genesis 1:29 and 30  And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. * And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so*.

God even told Adam that he would till the Earth in order to eat.

  Genesis 3:17 through 19  And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Since there were no meat eaters there would have been no reason for animals to fear either man or other beasts. God changed things with the birth of Noah.

  Genesis 5:28 and 29  And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

But God did not cause that prophesy to come to fruition until he had purified the Earth through the Flood.

  Genesis 9:1 through3  And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Although it does not say that he gave certain of the animals the same ability to eat meat it must be assumed that that was so.

Hope this helps you to understand the fear of animals for man and other animals.


In Catholicism is salvation by grace alone or by following the ten commandments and confession?

This is more complicated than you might expect, since Catholicism and Protestantism (which often takes a "salvation by grace alone" approach) can have slightly different approaches to concepts like justification, salvation, faith, grace, and merit.
In Catholic belief, salvation is achieved not in an instant, nor by predestination before birth, but over a lifetime. Ultimately justification, which is "not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man"1, is a gift of the Holy Spirit:

The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1987, quoting Romans 3:22)
Justification is not merited by the works of any human being, but by the death of Christ, and is granted to the believer at Baptism, "the gateway to the Sacraments":

Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life.

(Catechism, paragraph 1992)
Justification, however, does not ensure our salvation. Justification enables us to cooperate with the saving grace of God; but if humans do not cooperate with His grace, they will fall away from His love and may in the end come to reject him.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "we cannot ... rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. ... reflection on God’s blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us" (paragraph 2005).
Works—that is, the good things that we do, impelled and strengthened by God's grace—do have a place in our salvation; but it is not precisely correct to say that "we are saved by works":

The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.
Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.
The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God.

(Catechism, paragraph 2008, 2009, 2010; emphasis in bold added)
Thus, the belief of the Catholic Church is that neither "salvation by grace alone" nor "salvation by works" is true in itself; rather, salvation begins when God gives us His grace, which allows us, through His Son's love, to come to merit further graces and sanctification, and ends when, at the end of our lives, we can accept his offer of life with Him in heaven. The Catechism quotes St. Thérèse of Lisieux:

After earth’s exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone.... In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.

As far as what your friends are saying, each of them is correct in a sense, but incomplete. Surely it is grace, as I said above, which ultimately renews and sanctifies us, and which gives us the ability to merit salvation; but as I mention it is not entirely correct, or at least not entirely complete, to assert that "salvation is by grace alone". We must cooperate with God's grace.
On the other hand, following the Ten Commandments—the "Old Law"—is not complete in itself, either. Jesus has given us much more.

According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good, yet still imperfect. Like a tutor it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a "law of concupiscence" in the human heart. However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.
The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit given to the faithful through faith in Christ. It works through charity; it uses the Sermon on the Mount to teach us what must be done and makes use of the sacraments to give us the grace to do it.

(Catechism, paragraphs 1963, 1966)

1 Council of Trent, cited in Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 1989.


Why do Protestants say: "In Jesus' name. Amen.", whereas Catholics say: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."?

Protestants do not see that Christ ever instructed his followers to pray (only to baptize) "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit". On the other hand, Christians are repeatedly called to invoke the name of the Lord:

To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ ...

(1 Corinthians 1:2a, New International Version)

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you ... so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.

(John 15:16, New International Version)

"Let everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord avoid evil."

(2 Timothy 2:19, New International Version)
Thus, there is solid Scriptural evidence that the early Christians directly invoked, and were instructed (directly or indirectly) to directly invoke, the name of the Lord, rather than speaking the names of the Trinity; the only occurrence of the phrase "the name of the Father" refers to the "Great Commission" passage in Matthew:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ..."

(Matthew 28:19, New International Version)
Jesus, furthermore, is the only one to whom humans need turn in order to approach God. This is pounded into the heads of Christians especially in the Letter to the Hebrews:

... Jesus the mediator of a new covenant ... (Hebrews 12:24)
For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (Hebrews 9:15)

And most famously

For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. (1 Timothy 2:5–6a)

He is not only mediator, but mediator in the sense that the Jewish high priests were mediators between God and the nation of Israel:

We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure.  It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 6:19–20)

(All quotations from the New International Version)
Thus many Protestants, following the example of Scripture, feel that it is far more appropriate to invoke the assistance of God by calling upon the name of Jesus.

I should note that not all Protestants follow this example all the time, or perhaps even much of the time. For example, the website of the United States Conference of Seventh Day Baptists contains a prayer for the sick and shut-in which ends "These things we pray in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." Thus, perhaps the question should be phrased "Why do some Protestants say ..."

Catholics, on the other hand, use "in the name of the Father ..." as part of "the Sign of the Cross"—a sacramental (that is, a sacred activity which resembles a sacrament; see Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 1667–1668). In this sacramental, the Catholic makes the outline of a cross on his body: he touches his forehead as he says "In the name of the Father...", then his chest or stomach, saying "... and of the Son, ...", then each shoulder in turn, saying "... and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
The Catechism explains:

The Christian begins his day, his prayers, and his activities with the Sign of the Cross: "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." The baptized person dedicates the day to the glory of God and calls on the Savior’s grace which lets him act in the Spirit as a child of the Father.

This is not done as a Biblical command, but as a reminder of the One who saved us by his death.


No.

Well, at least this appears to be Martin Luther's answer

  Augustine has sometimes erred and is not to be trusted. Although good
  and holy, he was yet lacking in the true faith, as well as the other
  fathers...But when the door was opended for me in Paul, so that I
  understood what justification by faith is, it was all over with
  Augustine. (Luther's Works 54, 49)

  It was Augustine's view that the law...if the Holy Spirit assists, the
  works of the law do justify...I reply by saying "No". (Luther's Works
  54, 10)

As to your statement about the popular belief that the reformers (and their descendants) frequently quoted a plethora of Church Fathers to demonstrate the legitimacy of their doctrine...

This is simply not true. Augustine is for the most part the only Church Father cited by Luther and Calvin.  The early reformers relied virtually entirely upon Scripture to formulate doctrine.

Reference: Calvin


What is the Roman Catholic view of Christian perfection or entire sanctification?

Essentially the answer is "No, for most people the believer cannot be perfectly free from sin in this lifetime. Indeed, the case is even worse. We must constantly fight against the concupiscence (bias toward sin) we inherit through original sin. Through God's grace present in the Sacraments the believer may gain forgiveness of sins, and she must aim for perfection throughout her life, but she cannot hope to achieve it for more than a relatively short amount of time, so that she must be constantly on guard against sin." Catholicism does not admit the impossibility of perfection in this lifetime, but does point out its obvious rarity and difficulty "since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." All is not lost, however, because any lack of perfection is rectified after death in purgatory. It's theologically inescapable that this must occur either before or after death because Rev 21:27 makes clear that nothing in any way imperfect or impure or sinful can be in God's presence.

"Entire sanctification" is not a phrase typically used in Catholic theology. It's a fair question, though, to ask "To what extent do Catholics believe Christians can be free from sin in this life?"

Certainly believers are called to strive for perfection:

  All the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status, are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of charity.

(Lumen Gentium, section 40)

In Article 4 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, titled "The Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation", we find a reminder:

  "You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" [1 Corinthians 6:11] One must appreciate the magnitude of the gift God has given us in the sacraments of Christian initiation in order to grasp the degree to which sin is excluded for him who has "put on Christ." But the apostle John also says: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

(Catechism, paragraph 425)

Catholics believe that the Virgin Mary was not only free from original sin, but entirely free from personal sin throughout her whole life. However, this was a special grace of God for her, not a result purely of her own effort:

  The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All–Holy” (Panagia) and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature." By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

(Catechism, paragraph 493; emphasis added)

This special grace, called the Immaculate Conception, was given only to Mary to equip her for the unique task of bearing God in her womb. It was a special appropriation of the merits of Christ obtained on the cross and applied out of the sequence of time so that Mary, too, receives salvation only through the one door to the Father, Jesus Christ. Note that we too, obtain whatever level of perfection we do in this life through grace, specifically sanctifying grace. It is not by our own merits that we are sanctified, but rather the gifts we receive from the Holy Spirit. These gifts are imparted to us through the sacraments by the Holy Spirit from the store of merits earned by Christ on Calvary. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us
  of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it
  of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace
  received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of
  sanctification:48

  Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has
  passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who
  through Christ reconciled us to himself.49

  2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural
  disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with
  God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to
  live and act in keeping with God's call, is distinguished from actual
  graces which refer to God's interventions, whether at the beginning of
  conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

Concerning purgatory, Augustine said, in The City of God, that "temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment" (21:13) thus indicating that no one stays in purgatory past the general judgement. The decision of whether a soul goes to heaven, purgatory and then heaven, or hell is made at the particular judgement where an individual's life is evaluated. From the Catechism again:

  1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly
  purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after
  death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness
  necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

  1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of
  the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the
  damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory
  especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the
  Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a
  cleansing fire:607

  As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final
  Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that
  whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned
  neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we
  understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but
  certain others in the age to come.608


Why does Jesus value leap of faith more than those who rely on direct evidence?

he would have to accept any word of mouth relating any miraculous claim that was supposedly witnessed by anyone ever

That's quite the extrapolation there. He was asked to believe what his core group of three years had seen, regarding the most important event in their lives, regarding their leader (that he had seen perform miracles). Not "any miraculous claim", not by "anyone", not "ever".
I'm going to assume that you don't dispute the basic facts of science, say physics, astronomy, etc. Have you done the math yourself? Have you done the experiments yourself? Of course not, and so you are trusting others (who are themselves respected by many), the scientists, on what they tell you. You trusted other people's testimony about most things your learned at school, you trust other people's testimony when you read the news, etc., etc.


What is the Biblical basis that God's sacrifice is sufficient for all of our sins (past included)?

The question you are asking here is really the essence and the magnificence of the Gospel itself. The scripture that we're all familiar with John 3:16-17

  16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only
  Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have
  eternal life.

  17 God sent his Son into the world not to judge the
  world, but to save the world through him.

Jesus knew what your friend has done when he died on the cross and died for him just the same.

If you are looking for precedence see these examples:

The Samaritan woman in John 4 - she was not living a moral life yet Jesus takes time to reach out to her.
The Woman caught in adultery in John 8
Peter, Jesus' disciple denying him in John 18 and then Jesus restoring him in John 21
Paul in Acts 8 and 9 - he killed many Christians
The ultimate example comes in Luke 23:34 when Jesus is on the cross and He forgives the very ones crucifying him.

Jesus even talked about this in a few of His parables for example the lost sheep and the prodigal son.


Has Revelation 14:9 changed from bibles printed over 40 years ago?

BibleGateway.com has about fifty English translations of this verse, and they all include hand.

This includes older translations like the KJV, RSV, and The Living Bible (1971).  Of course, Bible Gateway is not exhaustive, so it's possible that you had a children's Bible using a different translation or paraphrase.

That said, it's clear that the inclusion of hand in this passage is not a recent development.


Do Protestants understand Jesus to be both "the son of Adam" and "the son of God"?

Protestants believe that Mary was a virgin when she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, but they do not go along with the Catholic view that Mary herself was without sin.  The Bible says nothing about Mary being sinless.

The Protestant view is that Jesus was fully human and this came from Mary being his biological mother. Jesus alone was born of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Jesus had no human father. The fact that Jesus was without sin is clearly stated in the Bible:

  For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21).

  You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin (1 John 3:5).

I am unfamiliar with the expression that Jesus was “in Adam” but the Bible likens Jesus to the first man Adam:

  The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven (1 Corinthians 15:45-49).

  Just as Adam was the first of the human race, so Christ is the first of those who will be raised from the dead to eternal life.  Adam came first on this earth and was made from the dust of the earth. While it is true that Christ has existed from eternity past, He is here called the second man or second Adam because He came from heaven to earth many years after Adam. Christ came as a human baby with a body like all other humans, but He did not originate from the dust of the earth as had Adam. He “came from heaven.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-second-Adam.html

That, as far as I am aware, is the Protestant view of Jesus being both fully human and fully God.  Mary was a descendant of Adam and, like all humans, was herself subjected to inherited sin.  Jesus was without sin because he came from heaven, from above, and no human father was involved.

Additional information regarding the Baptist view of Jesus being without sin:

  The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)  Section 8: Christ the Mediator
  The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being true and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of the same substance and equal with Him;

  Who made the world, and who upholds and governs all things which He has made,
  did, when the fullness of time had come, take upon Himself man's nature, with all its essential properties and common infirmities, with the exception of sin.
  He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her and the power of the Most High overshadowing her, so that He was born to a woman from the tribe of Judah, a descendant of Abraham and David, in accordance with the Scriptures.
  Thus two whole, perfect and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion;
  So that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, yet He is one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
  http://www.romans45.org/creeds/bcof.htm#part8

The New Testament writers had to combat a form of Gnostic teaching that denied the full humanity of Christ.  They believed flesh was evil but spirit was pure, therefore God would never have incarnated as a fleshly human.  They said Christ only appeared to be human, but it was an illusion – he was actually spirit.  The New Testament declares Jesus was human and also God incarnate.


How have major theological traditions handled "continuing to indulge in sin when saved?"

You've asked how various groups of Christians handle the problem of the believer who continues sinning in a particular way (presumably without even a show of repentence?) I can give you maybe three schools of thought on this.

The "Carnal Christian" view: this view takes the doctrine of the preservation of the saints to a different level (one not intended by most adherents). The idea is that if God saves me, I'll be saved no matter what I do, so I might as well eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow I'll die and go to heaven. This idea is related to the Lordship controversy. Anyone in the Lordship controversy who argued that one can have Jesus Christ as Savior but not as Lord of their life, would adhere to this Carnal Christian view.
The Arminian view: this view argues that one can lose one's salvation by sinning a lot. I don't think any Arminian would say that you could lose your salvation by sinning just once, but certainly, if you remain in sin for a long time, you would lose your salvation. Arminians include many, but certainly not all, Baptists, Methodists, Pentacostals, and no doubt others.
The Reformed view: people who are in this sort of sin are one of two kinds of people: the elect or the non-elect (impossible for humans to determine - only God knows). If the deeply sinning person is elect, then the Holy Spirit will work in that person's life to lessen the power of sin, since God's purpose is not just to remove the guilt of sin, but the power of it as well. If the person is non-elect, then his "salvation" was illusory in the first place. Since we don't know who is elect and who isn't, it is not possible to distinguish between the two cases. However, the approach is the same for either: assume that a true believer will improve in their holiness and start sinning less. Those holding to the Reformed view would include many Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed (Continental), and Calvinist Baptists.


First, I don't think:

  That all sins are equal in the sight of a perfect God

is a biblical statement:

  Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin." (John 19:11, emphasis mine)

All sin is offensive to our holy God.  I don't think the Bible teaches all sin is equally offensive to God.

To answer your question, this parable seems to indicate that intentionality does matter:

  And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. 48 But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more. (Luke 12:47-49)

So, what are the implications of the believer?  Sin is like an infection, the more you partake of it, the more corruption it works on your soul:

  Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. (Gal 6:7-8)

The person who is sinning intentionally is working harder at sowing to the flesh and will therefore reap more corruption.


A non-denominational church is exactly what it sounds like.  It is a Church that doesn't adhere to any earthly authority other than maybe the local Pastor at that Church.  It doesn't recognize any denominational authority, just that of God and His Word.

I'd like to also address this portion of your question as well:

  I was under the impression that since all Christians don't belong to
  one church, (They agree to disagree on Ephesians 4 and opt for the Nicene Creed) then all Christians doctrines are denominations
  - there by: 1c penny doctrine, 5c nickel doctrine, 10c dime doctrine, 25c quarter doctrine, 50c half-dollar doctrine,
  etc
  = 1.00 dollar Eph 4 Church - some claim all Christians are part of the universal church.

Most Christians understand the universal Church to be the body of all saved Christians, period. It has nothing to do with denominations.

From Gotquestions.org

  The universal church is the name given to the church worldwide. In
  this case the idea of the church is not so much the assembly itself
  but those constituting the church.

See also A Study of the Nature and Meaning of Jesus' Church: Universal and Local

  A. The Church (Universal) Is the Body of All Saved People Everywhere.

  It includes all those who have been redeemed by Jesus' blood, have
  received forgiveness of their sins, and have been born spiritually
  into His family.

In fact, it's recognized that within any given denomination, there are likely saved and unsaved people, so not all Baptists, for example, belong to the Universal Church, but some do and so on.

This can be represented with a really crude drawing (Sorry about the quality. the only graphics program I have on this PC is MS Paint.)

The large circle represents the Universal Church, and the little ones, the individual denominations and non-denominational churches.  Bear in mind that according to the doctrine of Sola Fide, it's also possible for someone to be saved, and therefore also a member of the Universal Church without belonging to any earthly Church.

As for the One Doctrine...

If the definition of "Universal Church" is what I say above, then the "one true doctrine" is the "right" doctrine about Christ. By definition, it would be the doctrine that separates true Christians from false.  It is what defines "who are the real Christians?", which means it exists out there in the real world, but is not answerable on this particular site.


Did the conversion of Paul occur before or after the Ascension?

Have you considered what the narrative in Acts, 9:1-9, records?

The Conversion of Saul [NRSV]
1 Meanwhile Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 He asked, “Who are you, Lord?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one. 8 Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 For three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Paul, and those in whose company he was traveling, heard the Lord, but, as verse 7 makes clear, they saw no one. So it was not so much a vision, as it was like divine interactions with others of the prophets, such as those prophets in the Old Testament, and John in the new, who testified, "The word of the Lord came to me ...".
Further, we know that Saul journeyed to Damascus after the stoning of Stephen the Martyred Deacon, who was elected after the election of Matthias, who which was after the appearance of Peter and John in the temple, all of which was after the Ascension of Our Lord, narrated at the close of the Gospel of St. Luke.


Can dogma ever be modified, and how does this relate to papal infallibility?

First, some much-needed background. The pope is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra. Ex cathedra is not a linguistic formula, it is simply a way to recognize those times when the pope gives a teaching that is correct and will remain correct forever. Ecumenical councils are another organ of infallibility, but we can talk about just the pope without missing anything important to this question. The pope does not always speak ex cathedra, so papal infallibility isn't called into question over every statement the pope makes. Only those statements about faith and morals would even qualify.

Some people think that when the pope speaks in this way, he is to be seen as creating something, like an artist adding paint to a canvas. That is not what the pope does. Imagine instead an unchanging mural set into a rock. Parts of it are obscured by debris, and other parts are splashed with paint. Some people are performing restoration. Others try to paint on top of paint. The pope, as pope, does not get involved with any of this. The pope does not paint. Instead, he sits down on a chair that's set apart, and, guided by the Holy Spirit, points to the exposed surface of this mural that is (and remains) immaculate, free of all human machination and accumulated grime. If his hand were covered in blood it would still, by the Holy Spirit, point up to truth. If millions of people surrounded him and raised their hands up in disarray, it would be his hand that Catholics would know to look for. His hand is guided by the Holy Spirit and directed at the Word. He sits upon the seat of Saint Peter. Catholics try to raise our hands to point to the same place.

I hope the above is not too metaphorical, but it is difficult to convey what role the pope and magisterium play in Catholicism by just saying that the pope is never wrong and that doctrines never change.

In case things are still not clear, here are some short answers to your questions:

No pope has ever infallibly proclaimed that he is fallible.
No pope has ever denounced an infallible teaching.
Nor has one infallible statement ever been set against another one.
Nor has any pope ever made a doctrinal error when speaking in this way:

  The broad fact, therefore, remains certain that no ex cathedra definition of any pope has ever been shown to be erroneous. (The Catholic Encyclopedia on Infallibility)

Dogma is not developed and adjusted and fitted over time.
Infallible statements are made when confusion begins to arise on a certain clear matter.
Doctrines cannot be changed:

  No, the Church cannot change its doctrines no matter how badly some theologians may want it to or how loudly they claim it can. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are the deposit of faith revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, and handed down in their entirety by the apostles to their successors. Since revealed truth cannot change, and since the deposit of faith is comprised of revealed truth, expressed in Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the deposit of faith cannot change. (From "Catholic Answers")

Of course, a person might disagree with the Pope, or with Ecumenical Councils, or with the Catholic Encyclopedia, or with the idea of papal infallibility, or even with the idea of there being anything to point to. That would be another hand being raised; we can only pray that all our hands will eventually point up to the same place. This site is not set up for argument, though: if you'd like to know if some particular ex cathedra declaration of the pope has been proven incorrect according to some standard, you would need to ask another question about the particular case.


Yes, that is a common understanding of the passage.  On this interpretation the Israelites disobeyed the following commandment:

  “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me... (Exodus 20:4-5 RSV)

The following source lends credibility to this idea:

  Although both Exodus and Kings portray "calf worship" as disloyalty to YHWH, most scholars believe that it was not really an abandonment of Yahwism.  Archaeological finds, including the El texts from Ugarit, indicate that Near Eastern gods commonly were envisioned as standing invisibly on the backs of calves, bulls, or other powerful animals.  The calf figures were merely pedestals for the divine presence. (Harris and Platzner, The Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible)

See also Exodus 32:4, where the graven image is identified with the power that brought them out of Egypt, as well as verse 5 which includes a reiteration of their fidelity to the Lord.


What is the ordering of events in Nahum and Jonah?

Typically, Jonah is dated to the period of Jeroboam, i.e 780 - 750s BC, whereas Nahum is dated to either shortly before (615BC) or after (612BC) the fall of Assyria (and its capital, Nineveh). Thus, Nahum is at least 150 years after Jonah.

So, to answer the question directly, No - Nahum is not the promised vengeance of God against Nineveh promised by God in Jonah.  If it were, then God is not "slow to anger, but abounding in compassion," as Jonah himself points out in chapter 4, nor is the "incomplete ending" of Jonah to any effect.

The key date that differentiates these works, however, is 722BC, when Assyria conquered the northern kingdom of Israel, leaving only the last two remaining tribes of Israel - Judah and Benjamin. Jonah presumes a full, diverse Israel, whereas Nahum is only addressing the remaining "Israel" in the sense that most people think of Israel today.  The fuller complement of Israel would have been more steeped in idolatry and the "sins" people think of today.

When Jonah goes to Nineveh to preach repentance, the amazing thing is that Nineveh does repent, much to Jonah's annoyance.  That generation is completely spared the wrath of God and lives, so to speak, happily ever after.

It isn't for another 150 years (think the time between now and the American Civil War)  that Nahum is writing.  He is fortelling the doom of Nineveh in order to encourage (Southern) Israel from prematurely capitulating to Assyria.  The later parts of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles tells the stories of Hezekiah and Josiah, set in this time period, and the constant question is whether Israel should rely on God, or trust in some bigger foreign power like Egypt or Assyria, the two big players in the region.  Imagine, for example, you're Belgium just before WWII.  Do you rely on God or make peace with either Germany or France, and you're beginning to get the picture.

As it happens, Egypt itself had fallen shortly before Nahum, and Assyria does fall very shortly after (or if you don't believe in prophecy, before) the writing, so in any case, its good advice.

Unfortunately for Judah, however, Babylon is the instrument of Assyria's departure from the scene, and within only about 40 more years (587 / 586 BC) they will invade Judah itself, thus destroying the last vestige of the kingdom, and sending all the peoples into exile.


Does the Catholic Church put the death of Samson in the category of suicide?

St. Thomas Aquinas gives this precise objection in his question on "Whether it is lawful to kill oneself?" (Summa Theologica II-II q. 64 a. 5 arg 4):

Samson killed himself, as related in Judges 16:30, and yet he is numbered among the saints (Heb. 11:32). Therefore it is lawful for a man to kill himself.

To which he replies (ibid. ad 4):

As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i , 21*),

not even Samson is to be excused that he crushed himself together with his enemies under the ruins of the house, except the Holy Ghost, Who had wrought many wonders through him, had secretly commanded him to do this.

He assigns the same reason [De Civ. Dei i, 26**] in the case of certain holy women, who at the time of persecution took their own lives, and who are commemorated by the Church.

*"Of the Cases in Which We May Put Men to Death Without Incurring the Guilt of Murder"**"That in Certain Peculiar Cases the Examples of the Saints are Not to Be Followed". He shows that if a soldier obeying his commander to kill does not commit murder, then a fortiori someone obeying God's command to kill himself does not murder himself.


The way I interpret this passage

  Psa 8:4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man,
  that thou visitest him? Psa 8:5 For thou hast made him a little lower
  than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

God is the God of all creation. Jesus IS also God who dwelt among men (John 1). He lowered his status as God himself to dwell among men and die for them. That's what it is referring to being made lower than the angels.  The angels are up in heaven.  Men are down here on the earth.

  Phil 2:5-8  -  Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
  6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not a thing to be grasped to be equal with God: 7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the
  form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became
  obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

As for the specific question about is man God's greatest creation I would says yes absolutely.

God didn't send Jesus to die for Angels, or plants or animals.  He didn't become a horse when he came to live among men.  He became a man.  We were made last on the earth for a reason.  It was because in the beginning everything on the earth was made for man to enjoy.  Only man is made in His image and we were the ones who were given dominion over the earth.

  Gen 1:27-28  27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful,
  and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
  over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
  living thing that moves upon the earth.


According a Catholic interpretation of the natural law, do individuals posses a right to privacy?

In Catholic Republic written by author Timothy Gordon (page 38ff), he outlines there are only 3 rights directly under Natural Law: Right to Life, Right to Liberty and Right to Property, so one cannot directly say that according to natural law one has a right to privacy. However, that doesn't mean that from Natural Law, it would be perfectly moral to "pry into details" or "keep things" to yourself; it just isn't a "right"


Are there non-medical miracles that can get a person beatified/canonized?

Yes.

Miracles for beatification or canonisation do not have to be medical. The Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the Vatican investigative body, only retain, on a general basis, medical experts, but can consult other technical expertise, as well as medical specialists,  when needed. Another stage in the process of validating a miracle is considering whether it is something God might reasonably be expected to have done, which is pretty much a given in the case of healings.

In the last hundred years miracles have included visions, delivery from accidents (by means of a broken rope, and of a flash of light) and a miracle of multiplication (similar in principle to the Multiplication of the Loaves and Fishes.

The rest of this answer reports some instances.

Miracle of Multiplication - occurred in 1949

St. John Macias was born in Western Spain in 1585. He emigrated to South America, eventually settling in Lima, Peru. He became a lay brother at the Dominican Priory of St. Mary Magdalene in that city, where he worked as doorkeeper until his death in 1645. He was known to levitate. He provided food for many of the poor people in Lima. Donations were collected for him by a donkey who, following  certain regular  routes through the more prosperous districts, brayed loudly to inform residents he was there to receive donations in  his pack.  Many miracles were recorded during his life, and he (John, not the donkey) was beatified in 1837  by Pope Gregory XVI.

In January 1949, in Olivenza, Spain, near where John was born, the following miracle took place. This account is from the New Scientist, 8th April, 1982 (page 74):

  On the afternoon of 25 January, 1949, Leandra, the cook of a religious institute in Olivenza, went down to the kitchen to light her stoves. She had to prepare dinner for a group of students who lived in.

  It was the invariable habit of the institute to offer dinner to the poor families of the neighbourhood as well, but on this occasion Leandra opened the cupboard to find 3 cups of rice, about 750g [ just over a pound and a half] in all. She proposed to cook this up in water with another 750 grams of meat, some onions and a bay leaf to feed at least the paying students. Then, putting the pot on the fire,  Leandra  invoked the aid of the Blessed Juan Macias to care for the poor who would find nothing to eat that evening. Then she went on to other tasks, keeping one eye on the fire in the way that any cook does.

  After about a quarter of an hour, she stopped to check the rice and was amazed to find it about to spill over the brim of the 10-litre [18 Imperial pints, 21 US pints]  kettle. Other cooking pots were produced, one of around 8 litres and another of 10 litres. Leandra and the other women who had swarmed into the kitchen to see what was happening ladled the overflow from the first pot into the second two and, from there, distributed the rice to all comers.

  They kept this up for four hours. More than 150 people are reported to have eaten their fill.

It goes on:

  The Congregation [for the causes of saints]  was able to call 22 eye witnesses.....Most were women from the neighbourhood,  not trained observers, but wise in the cooking of rice.

  In 1975 when the Congregation concluded its 25-year investigation of these events, the Blessed Juan Macias became Saint John Macias, canonised and promoted mostly on the strength of this miracle.

Miraculous Mountain Rescue through the Snapping of a Rope

Marguerite Bays was born in Siviriez, in the mainly Roman Catholic  canton of  Fribourg, Switzerland, in 1815. She neither married nor joined a religious order and, as Pope John Paul II said at her Beatification, she was an unaffected woman who lived an ordinary life. She helped her brothers with farm work and also worked locally as a seamstress or dressmaker. She attended Mass almost every day and was active in parish work including catechising  children and  visiting the sick and old. She suffered from  cancer and, rather than pray to be freed of suffering, asked to suffer in a way that would allow her to share more directly in Christ's Passion. On her 39th birthday, 8th September, 1854, she was cured at the exact moment  Pope Pius IX proclaimed the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. From then on, every Friday  she relived, physically and spiritually, the Passion from Gethsemane to Calvary. She suffered with stigmata and wore gloves even in the Summer. She died in 1879.

After her death she was the object of local devotion, but the miracle which led to her beatification, in 2005, took place on Easter Monday, March 25th, 1940.

It is called the Dent-de-Lys Miracle, after the mountain on which it occurred.

Fr. Claude Morel writes of it in pages 16 to 18 of  his book "A Closer Acquaintance with the Blessed Marguerite Bays".

The local chaplain took a lady church worker and two male students on an Easter Monday outing to the top of the six thousand foot high mountain, the Dent-de-Lys.  They reached the top and began the descent about 4pm. The party were roped together, the idea being that if one slips and falls the others will hold on and so rescue the one who slipped. One of the students,19-year-old  Marcel Menetrey, seems to have suffered from vertigo, and was praying to Margeurite to bring them safely down.   He went first and  reached a ledge, on which he stopped.  The others should then have followed one by one, but this seems not to have been followed. The lady slipped and fell and this led to the other two also being jerked into space. Marcel watched his three companions hurtling down past him, expecting when the rope tightened that he too would be pulled down with them. He again called on Marguerite . The rope snapped about ten feet away from him and, although his three companions hurtled to their deaths, he was able to descend the mountain alone and in safety. The breaking of the rope was a miracle, procured by the intervention of Marguerite Bays.

Marcel went on to become a priest, and died in 2000, living to see the Beatification of Marguerite Bays in 1995.

Before Marguerite can become a saint (or, more correctly, be recognised as one) another miracle is needed. One occurred in 1998 when a 22-month-old girl was run over by her grandfather's  tractor, but emerged unhurt, following his invocation of Marguerite.  This, however, is a medical miracle, as it concerns the health implications of being run over by a tractor. This miracle has been accepted so canonisation is a possibility in the relatively near future.  (ADDENDUM - Marguerite was canonised on 13th October 2019.)

This auto-translated article presents a more sceptical view, held by local resident Bernard Pochan who has investigated,  and who has said he was abused by a priest aged 15.  It also refers, briefly, to theological concerns regarding the limited nature of the miracle.

A Murderer is converted by a vision of his victim

Maria Goretti  was born in 1890 in Italy and was a very religious and devoted girl. After her father's death her family shared a house with another family whose mother was dead, , the Serenellis. When she was nearly twelve the Serenelli son,  Alessandro, aged 20, wanted to have sex with her but she told him it was against God's will. He threatened to kill her, but she still refused. He then stabbed her several times and  went  into his room thinking she was dead. When he heard her whimpering he came out and stabbed her some more, fourteen stabs in all.

When their parents (his father and her mother) came back, Maria was taken to hospital and Alessandro to prison. Maria died a day later, saying she forgave Alessandro and wanted him to be with her in heaven.

Maria was credited with many healing  miracles but one miracle, mentioned in the case for her beatification, concerned a vision. Alessandro was  an angry, unhappy and unrepentant young man. In 1908, about six years after he  murdered Maria he had a vision.

The website www.mariagoretti.org says:

  But no miracle was to be greater than the conversion of her murderer! It was an astonishing sequel to the drama of a would-be rapist who was sentenced to 30 years of prison. Unrepentent, showing no remorse for his awful crime, Alessandro would undergo a remarkable change. This was to occur after a remarkable dream he had during his 8th year of imprisonment.

  The dream was so vivid he could not distinguish it from reality. The prison bars and walls fell away and his cell was a sunlit garden blooming with flowers. Towards him came a beautiful girl dressed in pure white. He said to himself: 'How is this? Peasant girls wear darkish clothes.' But he saw it was Marietta. She was walking among flowers, smiling, and without the least fear. He wanted to flee from her but could not. Marietta picked white lilies and handed them to him saying, 'Alessandro, take them!' He accepted the lilies, one by one, fourteen of them. But a strange thing took place. As he received them from her fingers, the lilies did not remain lilies but changed into so many flaming lights. There was a lily turned to purifying flame for every one of the 14 mortal blows he struck her on the fatal day in Ferriere. Marietta said smilingly, 'Alessandro, as I have promised, your soul shall someday reach me in heaven.'

  Contentment entered his breast. And the scene of incredible beauty dissolved in silence. When he awoke, it seemed that the rabid, choking, consuming feelings of hate, destruction, and bitterness that ruled within him were loosening their invisible bonds from his mind and flesh." ("The Penitent" by Pietro DiDonato- Hawthorne Books, N.Y., 1962; pages 109-110)

When he was eventually released he attended mass with Maria's mother who welcomed him as a son, and he ended his days in a monastery.

A Railway Miracle in 1961

A miraculous flash of light, on October 25th, 1961, at Malaga Station in Spain, enabled a man to save his own life. A man called Antony Barres Nararro fell under a train at Malaga Station sand called upon a deceased relative. She was Maria Antonia Bandres Y Elosegui, a Spanish nun who died, aged 21, in 1919. She was well known for her piety and the effect she had on agnostics.

Father John Zuhlzorf describes what happened:

  A man behind schedule, rushing to board a moving train, slips off the rain-wet step he jumps at. In front of many witnesses, he falls sidewise between the car and platform onto the track under the wheels of the train. In that instant he has the presence of mind, nay rather the habit and discipline of mind, to call out to Sr. Antonia, a distant relative, to save him. Suddenly a light under the car illuminated a metal tube that the man, large in frame, grabbed hold of with his hands and then hooked with his feet. He was subsequently dragged amidst the train’s wheels in the narrow space between the wheels and the platform. He emerged with torn clothing and some bruises. There was no source of illumination under the car, either artificial or natural. He was dragged over 60 meters in the narrow gap with no serious injury. The experts consulted by the Congregation determined that the light and his escape remained entirely inexplicable by natural causes. The miracle was approved, and Sr. Maria Antonia, who had lived a life of heroic virtue, was beatified on May 12,1996. Her feast is April 27.


What is meant by the "fullness of the Gentiles" or the "times of the Gentiles"?

Does the Bible tell us what the phrase “times of the Gentiles” or "fullness of Gentiles" means?

Often the Bible says something that offers a glimpse of something that raises many more questions than it answers.

  Luke 21:20-24  And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies,
  then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.   Then let them which
  are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the
  midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries
  enter thereinto.   For these be the days of vengeance, that all things
  which are written may be fulfilled.   But woe unto them that are with
  child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be
  great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.   And they
  shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive
  into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles,
  until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

The context of Luke 21:24 is a description Jesus is giving about the "days of vengence". There are some other verses that bear upon this time.

  Daniel 9:26-27  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.   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.

That this can be taken to describe what Jesus is talking about can be seen from the parallel verses in Matthew;

  Matthew 24:14-16  And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
  all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end
  come.   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:)   Then let them which be in Judaea flee
  into the mountains:

From Daniel we get an understanding that after the arrival of Jesus there will be a seven year (a "week" being shâbûa "sevened" in Hebrew) interruption by the "prince" that shall come.

Some feel that everything described in Daniel, Matthew, Luke , and Revelation all happened at the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. I think you have to reach too far to advance that theory.

I think an allowance has to be made for the offer of the Kingdom to the nation of Israel. If Israel had accepted the offer of the Kingdom that Jesus proclaimed, I think the destruction and seven year interval written in Daniel would have happened right away.

I think we see an allowance for the possibility the Israel would not accept the kingdom at that time when Jesus makes the announcement of his ministry.

  Luke 4:17-20  And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet
  Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it
  was written,   The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath
  anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal
  the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and
  recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are
  bruised,  To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.   And he closed
  the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the
  eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

  Isaiah 61:1-6  The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD
  hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me
  to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and
  the opening of the prison to them that are bound;   To proclaim the
  acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to
  comfort all that mourn;   To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to
  give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the
  garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be
  called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might
  be glorified.   And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise
  up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the
  desolations of many generations.  And strangers shall stand and feed
  your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your
  vinedressers.   But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men
  shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of
  the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves.

The portion of Isaiah that Jesus read did not include the full text. He stopped before the proclamation of the "day of vengeance".

It is at this point where allowance is made for the nation of Israel to accept the Kingdom or not. When Paul wrote Romans, I see this offer to Israel still open.

  Romans 11:11  I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall?
  God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the
  Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

I see a future time when a faithful remnant of Israel will receive the kingdom.

  Revelation 1:7  Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see
  him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth
  shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

  Isaiah 66:8  Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things?
  Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation
  be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her
  children.

The variability of when Israel would receive the kingdom bears directly on what might be called the time of the gentiles. I see potentially it might have been as short as seven years.

Paul had hoped that seeing gentiles come to salvation and manifest the works of the Holy Spirit would be sufficient to provoke Israel to jealousy and become motivated to, as a nation, receive the offered kingdom.

The last thing the disciples asked Jesus was when the kingdom would be established.

  Acts 1:6-7  When they therefore were come together, they asked of him,
  saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to
  Israel?   And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times
  or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

Jesus was describing how Jerusalem would be under the control of gentiles for a period of time. Paul was describing a period of time in which gentiles were brought ("come in") to salvation without the aid of a faithful Israel.

In dispensational doctrine, when Christians are taken out of the world at the rapture, the world reverts to an Israel centered perspective and the seven year period Daniel wrote about starts. This period of time could have been as short as seven years. The future 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth from Jerusalem could have been already established for two thousand years.

  Romans 11:12  Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and
  the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more
  their fulness?

From various verses in the Old Testament we can get a picture of what things will be like and could have been like with the "fulness" of Israel.

No war;

  Isaiah 2:4  And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke
  many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and
  their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against
  nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Long life;

  Isaiah 65:20  There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an
  old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an
  hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be
  accursed.

Nature less hostile;

  Isaiah 11:6  The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard
  shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the
  fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

While we are waiting for the time of the gentiles to end and the arrival of the kingdom, we can take comfort that our King is faithful and will accomplish all he has promised.


What is Reasoning behind the Inquisition and Separation of Holy days to be separate from the Israeli Sabbath

With respect to the Inquisition: the Catholic Church has long recognized this as an evil done by the Church of past years, and has repented and asked God for forgiveness:

  The institution of the Inquisition has been abolished. ... The children of the Church cannot but return with a spirit of repentance to "the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of the truth" ("Address to the International Symposium on the Inquisition Organized by the Central Committee for the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000", 31 October 1998, n. 4; L'Osservatore Romano English edition, [ORE], 11 November 1998, p. 3).

  This spirit of repentance, it is clear, entails a firm determination to seek in the future ways to bear witness to the truth that are in keeping with the Gospel.

  On 12 March 2000, on the occasion of the liturgical celebration that marked the Day of Pardon, forgiveness was asked for errors committed in the service of the truth by recourse to methods not in keeping with the Gospel. The Church must carry out this service in imitation of her Lord, meek and humble of heart. The prayer I addressed to God on that occasion contains the reasons for a request for forgiveness that can also be applied to the tragedies associated with the Inquisition, as well as to the injuries to memory that result from it.

  "Lord, God of all men and women,
  in certain periods of history
  Christians have at times given in to [forms of] intolerance
  and have not been faithful to the great commandment of love,
  sullying in this way the face of the Church, your Spouse.

  Have mercy on your sinful children
  and accept our resolve
  to seek and promote truth in
  the gentleness of charity,
  in the firm knowledge that truth
  can prevail only in virtue of truth itself.
  We ask this through Christ Our Lord."

(Letter of John Paul II to Cardinal Roger Etchegaray on the occasion of the presentation of the volume "L'Inquisizione", 15 June 2004)

The Church rejects what it has done, in the understanding that the Holy Spirit has led it to a new interpretation of how to bring others to the knowledge of God.

Similarly, the Church recognizes that some of its actions and attitudes with respect to Jews were not in keeping with the commandment to "love your neighbor". This attitude, too, has been rejected:

  True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

  Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

(Nostra Aetate, "Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions", October 28, 1965)

Finally, with respect to your comments on the Sabbath: The Church teaches that the Sunday observance is in fact distinct from the Sabbath, and replaces the Jewish Sabbath observance:

  Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ’s Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man’s eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:

    Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord’s Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death. [St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistula ad Magnesios (Letter to the Magnesians)]

  The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all." Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2175–6; emphasis added)


What are the biblical justifications for racial segregation?

Bob Jones/Bob Jones University is probably the most (in)famous defender of American racial segregation on the Christian side of things.
In 1960, Bob Jones Sr. issued a sermon entitled "Is Segregation Spiritual?" apparently issued in direct response to a call by Billy Graham for church leaders to get behind ending segregation.  The sermon was then made into pamphlet form and published as a justification of the universities stance against allowing black students.  Here is a scan of the pamphlet, which I will summarize below.
Jones' argument is based largely on a single Bible verse, Acts 17:26:

And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,  (ESV)

To which he says

Now, what does that say? That says God Almighty fixed the bounds of their habitation...  God Almighty did not make of the human race one race in the sense that He did not fix the bounds of their habitation. That is perfectly clear. It is no accident that most Chinese are in China.

He then suggests that racial conflict exists solely because man has disobeyed God's plan and moved out of their appointed territories.  In fairness, he makes it quite clear that "superiority" of one race doesn't enter into the equation:

The Chinese people are wonderful people. The Japanese people are ingenious–they are wonderful people. The Koreans are wonderful people. The Africans are wonderful people. In many ways, there are no people in the world finer than the colored people who were brought over here in slavery in days gone by.
You talk about a superior race and an inferior race and all that kind of situation. Wait a minute. No race is inferior in the will of God. Get that clear. If a race is in the will of God, it is not inferior. It is a superior race. You cannot be superior to another race if your race is in the will of God and the other race is in the will of God. But the purposes of these races were established by Almighty God; and when man attempts to run contrary to the directive will of God for this world, there is always trouble. Now, that is the trouble.

Jones says white men broke God's will when they brought black slaves to America (duh), but God overthrew that evil plan and created a good one its place by ending slavery and making the former slaves into Christians, saying the black church is in many ways superior to the white church.  He then claims the desire to integrate comes not from blacks, but from "Satanic agitation" using misguided white pity.  And integrating will destroy not only the white church, but also the black church.
Jones then supplies some examples of "the races [mixing] up in large numbers" that caused problems.   Again and again he says none of these things would have happened if people just stuck to their assigned habitation.
Then, Jones turns to his only other Biblical argument:

God Almighty had a purpose for the Jewish race; and for that purpose to be carried out, He had to separated them from among the nations of the earth. God chose Israel; and through the loins of Israel, He brought us the Messiah... [The Jews] have been scattered over the face of the earth, and they have kept their racial identity through the years.
The Jews are back in Palestine with a Government today. God scattered them, but He brought them back to their homeland...
Yes, God chose the Jews. If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty because He made racial separation in order to preserve the race through whom He could send the Messiah and through whom He could send the Bible. God is the author of segregation. God is the author of Jewish separation and Gentile separation and Japanese separation. God made of one blood all nations, but He also drew the boundary lines between races.

So, God created race, God authored the boundaries that separate the races, God segregated the Jews from all others and His salvation plan could not have occurred otherwise, and God wants the boundaries to remain (Acts passage).  Therefore, segregation is God ordered, and integration is a "Satanic aggregation".  But, all races are equal in God's eyes - they just have different traits and different purposes; they should remain separated so that each race can fulfill its intended purpose.
(It should go without saying, but I obviously do not endorse any of this myself.)


In Catholicism if God is infinite love, can love always increase in intensity or does that mean quantity? We define this by how close we are to God, the closer that we are the more intensity there will be to his presence. Our humility however will decide if the quantity will be one of rejoicing or one of outrage. (Romans 9:33)

According to the official facts laid out by the Pope and his Magesterium, as God is unending love and joy, does that mean that these emotions can always 'rise' in their intensity? They can rise until we are with him (Matthew 10:24).

For instance, we know the beatific vision is joyous beyond anything to be had or imagined here but in experiencing God would we be loving and happy to this degree because He is many, many, many good things or because our actual ability to enjoy is able to be increased? It shall be beyond what is imaginable (1 Corinthians 2:9).

Now this is conjecture, I do not think our ability to enjoy will be increased. For at what moment in your life can you say that you have felt the fullness of your ability to enjoy? And so if you have then I would say that you have already received your reward (Matthew 6:1-21, 2 John 1:8).

Can emotions increase beyond their greatest scale on Earth? No, the scale itself was determined by God, if he chooses to lift the scale to reward his son then that will be the new greatest.

Water cannot get wetter than water...are emotions the same? Yes.

Can love be more loving than the best kind of love? No, for the best kind of Love is God.


According to Catholicism, who is the leader of devils?
In one or two words: Satan also called Lucifer.
This answer will be based on the Catholic traditions in regards to Satan and the nine choirs of angels.
Although it is now generally accept that there are nine choirs of angel and each choir is of angel is different and ranked accordingly.

During the Middle Ages, many schemes were proposed, some drawing on and expanding on Pseudo-Dionysius, others suggesting completely different classifications. According to medieval Christian theologians, the angels are organized into several orders, or "Angelic Choirs
Pseudo-Dionysius (On the Celestial Hierarchy) and Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica) drew on passages from the New Testament, specifically Ephesians 1:21 and Colossians 1:16, to develop a schema of three Hierarchies, Spheres or Triads of angels, with each Hierarchy containing three Orders or Choirs. Although both authors drew on the New Testament, the Biblical canon is relatively silent on the subject, and these hierarchies are considered less definitive than biblical material.
Choirs in medieval theology
St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica (1225–1274):

Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones;

Dominations, Virtues, and Powers;

Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. - Christian angelology (Wikipedia)

St Thomas Aquinas' list is by far the most widely accepted list of angelic choirs and places the Seraphic order of angel as being at the highest level of angels followed by the Cherubim, and so on. According to St Thomas:

The angels that rebelled and became demons did not lose their nature or their connatural gifts. They cast away, by their sin, the grace in which they were created. They did not cast away the beatific vision, for they never had it. Now, if we think of angelic orders as orders of angels in glory, then, of course, there are no orders of bad angels. But if we consider angelic orders as order of angelic nature simply, there are orders among the demons.

Certainly, there is a precedence among bad angels; there is a subjection of some to others.

Demons of superior nature do not enlighten inferior demons; enlightenment here could only mean the manifestation of truth with reference to God, and the fallen angels have perversely and permanently turned away from God. But demons can speak to one another, that is, they can make known their thoughts to one another, that is, they can make known their thoughts to one another, for this ability belongs to the angelic nature which the demons retain.

The nearer creatures are to God the greater is their rule over other creatures. Therefore, the good angels rule and control the demons. - Orders Among the Fallen Angels

This  stated it only makes sense that Satan was a Seraphim, for surely some of the Seraphim fell in great revolt against God. Although one can not say with certainty it is generally believed Satan was a Seraphim.

Sin of the Fallen Angels

Lucifer who became Satan, leader of the fallen angels, wished to be as God. This prideful desire was not a wish to be equal to God, for Satan knew by his natural knowledge that equality of creature with creator is utterly impossible. Besides, no creature actually desires to destroy itself, even to become something greater. On this point man sometimes deceives himself by a trick of imagination; he imagines himself to be another and greater being, and yet it is himself that is somehow this other being. But an angel has no sense-faculty of imagination to abuse in this fashion. The angelic intellect, with its clear knowledge, makes such self-deception impossible. Lucifer knew that to be equal with God, he would have to be God, and he knew perfectly that this could not be. What he wanted was to be as God; he wished to be like God in a way not suited to his nature, such as to create things by his own power, or to achieve final beatitude without God's help, or to have command over others in a way proper to God alone.

Lucifer, chief of the sinning angels, was probably the highest of all the angels. But there are some who think that Lucifer was highest only among the rebel angels. -  Angels: From the Teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas


Are there disagreements between Reformed Theology and the teachings of A.W. Tozer?

Although not a Tozer ‘fan’ per se, I would not label him as a mystic, although he does falsely appear that way a bit, in that he highly emphasised the Spirit and was also a poetic sort. A.W. Tozer is an interesting person to compare with the reformers. On one hand he was more like them than most who claim to be like them and on the other hand he certainly felt in some areas he had a better understanding then them, but so do many in one way or another.

What makes Tozer most different from reformers is simply that he did not believe in the cessation of those highly miraculous gifts of the Spirit, but rather urged that we should pray for them now.  This does not make him a mystic it simply makes him a modern day charismatic.  Among charismatics I would say Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones and Tozer are among the best. From my memory of some of his audio sermons that fed me spiritually quite a bit as a young believer, I would say Tozer had a very clear sense of the cross and an in-depth knowledge of early church father theology as well as reformed theology and generally preached accordingly. I would say that Tozer was closer to Calvinistic in his view of the atonement rather than anything else.

Where I would criticize Tozer to some degree is where he personally found it most humorous.  I remember him making fun of one of his critics by calling him a ‘spiritual perfectionists’ and as funny as it sounds I think this label fits to some degree. If you ever read Tozer and notice to what degree he expected a Christian to be sanctified and holy, inwardly truly following Christ, it is almost as though the Apostle Peter would have come way to short for him! Paul may have just made it! This is really what Tozer was about he was a unique charismatic holiness preacher. He seemed to be a man of prayer and very serious in his reverence for God’s word. He would have not approved of Christian rock music for example (something I like a lot). In some ways my criticism seems like a compliment and it is, but at some point it just starts to rub the wrong way and I do not think Tozer books on their own create a balanced diet. Tozer is possibly a good supplement to a balanced diet. One needs to put him in perspective during a generation that was influenced by the charismatic movement and holiness movements.

In the end, I still have to say I like Tozer as a person, he was so very genuine and honest. I would not place him among the ‘bad guys’ or ‘mystics’ but let him sit over with ‘the good guys’. I would not recommend his books on the Spirit (if you are Charismatic I would read Lloyd-Jones). I would highly recommend his book on the ‘Attributes of God’ as possibly the best on the subject. This is merely my opinion on having read several Tozer books and much more reformed books.

Maybe the best compliment I can give Tozer in how he was received by those most reformed is, by quoting J.I. Packer, who seems to like Tozer even more than I do:

  “Through all of Tozer’s books and articles there shines a passion for God that puts our shallowness to shame. Reading him is like drinking at an oasis in the desert.” (J.I. Packer)


What is the Biblical basis for preachers to be paid from members' tithing?

That's an easy question to answer. The key is to know what the title pastor was referred to in both the Old Testament & also the New Testament. They didn't use the term pastor, like we do today. In the OT the term pastor was called a Priest. In the NT the same title pastor is known as an Elder. (Some of the synonyms for those titles, can be found at the bottom of this message.)

If you use a Bible search engine like these & look for "priest" plus "tithe", you can find the answers which you're looking for. (Or you can scroll down & keep reading.)

Bible Gateway
Lumina
Bible Hub
Bible.com

Here is the OT answer from Numbers 18:28 (NIV):

  In this way you also will present an offering to the Lord from all the
  tithes you receive from the Israelites. From these tithes you must
  give the Lord’s portion to Aaron the priest.

Aaron was the high priest. So the best part of the tithes was to go to him. We call that "the best of the best". It's the top 1%. (Formula: 100% / 10 = 10% / 10 = 1% = Best of the Best = the Lord's portion!)

Here are some NT answers:

Hebrews 7:5 (NIV):

  Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, from their fellow Israelites—even though they also are descended from Abraham.

This is the verse which you're looking for:

1 Corinthians 9:12-13 (NIV):

  Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

Here is why you're probably confused:

Paul didn't want to be a burden on anyone, so he chose tent making as his trade. Just remember that his calling was to be a traveling missionary to the Gentile world & not necessarily a stationary synagogue elder to the Jews in Jerusalem.

Part of Acts 18:2-3 (NET):

  ... Paul approached them, 3 and because he worked at the same trade, he stayed with them and worked with them (for they were tentmakers by trade).

Paul didn't want to take anything from the tithe as he wanted a reward. Paul just has a hard time explaining it though in 1st Corinthians 9:15-18. In v. 19, we see what his heart really wanted:

1 Corinthians 9:19 (ESV):

  For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.

There are some indirect verses too. Since I'm not going to do all of your Bible study homework for you, you can continue studying by checking out these verses too:

See: Galatians 6:6
See: 1 Corintians 9:11
See: Genesis 14:18-20
See: Luke 10 where Jesus sends out 72 local missionaries. Read verse 7.

If you're thinking about becoming a pastor, you'll need to read 1st Corinthians 9 plus the entire Bible, MANY MANY times & pray a lot to ask God if it's His will that you should become one! For the sake of your own eternal future, DO NOT choose the profession lightly! But seek His guidance through prayer & Bible study. Then patiently wait upon The Lord to answer you! If He says yes, then by all means pursue becoming a pastor! If He says no, then don't force it. See James 3:1 for the reason. Someday, I hope to see you in Heaven!

Here is a note about the title of the ordained office, for clarification purposes: One of the synonyms of the title for a priest/pastor/elder would be a Presbyter. Bible translations tend to refer to priests in the OT & elders in the NT. It's someone who reads the Words of God - AKA scrolls - and then teaches the congregation. The printing press wasn't invented until around 1440 A.D. Anyone who was called by God & then ordained by God & set apart where God gave them their primary job, which was to read His Word and/or copy His Word or translate His Word like Martin Luther did & preach + teach His Word to others, would be considered a priest, rabbi, elder, overseers, presbyter, bishop, reverend, pastor, etc... (The Internet wasn't invented until the 1960's with the WWW in 1990. Now we can easily get digital copies of the Bible for free!) Someone who didn't preach 2,000 years ago, but just copied scrolls, was a scribe. Someone who served under a priest, but isn't a full-time called & ordained pastor, but was allowed to serve in the church - like on weekends & is a full-time worker somewhere else... like in an office or a factory - is a deacon.


Is it against the LDS Word of Wisdom to use marijuana as medicine?

No, medical use of prescription drugs is compatible with the Word of Wisdom. Opiates, alcohol (e.g., cough syrup), and other drugs are commonly used as medicine but would clearly violate the Word of Wisdom if taken recreationally. A recent article in the Ensign (the official Church magazine) stated, "We should not use any drugs except when they are necessary as medicine. Those who misuse legal or illegal drugs need to seek help so their bodies can become clean again and free from addiction" ("The Lord Has Given Us a Law of Health", Ensign, Feb. 2012).

However, using drugs recreationally with a prescription is by no means the same thing as legitimate medical use. Spencer W. Kimball (12th president of the Church) stated, "We hope our people will eliminate from their lives all kinds of drugs so far as possible. Too many depend upon drugs as tranquilizers and sleep helps, which is not always necessary" (General Conference, October 1974). As with many issues in LDS doctrine, individuals are expected to prayerfully make responsible decisions. A bishop in a temple recommend interview asks a fixed set of questions (which are somewhat vague). A temple recommend holder is considered responsible to God if they are dishonest or insincere.

Boyd K. Packer's book, The Holy Temple, and the adapted pamphlet based on it, Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple, discuss the introspective purpose of temple recommend interviews:

  [A temple recommend interview] is an occasion to explore with an ordained servant of the Lord the pattern of your life. If anything is amiss in your life, the bishop will be able to help you resolve it. Through this procedure, you can declare or can be helped to establish your worthiness to enter the temple with the Lord’s approval... The person must certify that he or she is morally clean and is keeping the Word of Wisdom, paying a full tithing, living in harmony with the teachings of the Church, and not maintaining any affiliation or sympathy with apostate groups.


When did Mary and Joseph learn that they were never supposed to have marital relations, according to Roman Catholic doctrine?

For many the miracle of the Virgin Birth is one thing, but lifelong abstinence from sexuality is impossible to accept. The lives of monastics and ascetics around the world and throughout history attest to the fact that it is possible. Sexual purity is only one of many challenges set for these spiritual warriors, and for many, perhaps most of them, it is not the greatest.

Mary’s Vow of virginity was before the Annunciation:

Two important facts are depicted in this verse. First, already at this moment:

  Mary is a virgin betrothed to Joseph, meaning that she is at the first stage of Jewish marriage. She is truly married to Joseph but not yet living with him, for she has not arrived at the second stage of marriage known as the "coming together," when husband and wife typically would begin to live in the same house and consummate the marriage.

  Second, Mary has been told by Gabriel that at some time in the future she will bear a son who will be the royal Son of David, the Messiah-King. Notice the future tense: "You will conceive in your womb and bear a son" (Lk. 1:31, emphasis added). So far, Gabriel gives no indication that the conception will take place right now or in the immediate future. In fact, the timetable is quite open-ended. Without giving any time specification, the angel simply informs Mary that she will conceive this child at some time in the future.

  In this light, Mary’s question seems rather peculiar: ... If Mary is planning on consummating her marriage with Joseph in the near future, the answer to her question should be obvious. While she does not right now have the power to conceive a child (since she doesn’t yet "know" man sexually), if Mary intends to know Joseph after the coming together, then she evidently will be able to have a child at that point. Therefore, if Mary is planning on consummating her marriage with Joseph, her question ... simply does not make sense. (source)

This view has been held by theologians such as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Bonaventure and even Martin Luther.

Luther wrote on the Virginity of Mary:

  It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. ... Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer's The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

Luther also wrote on February 2, 1546 that Mary was "a virgin before the conception and birth, she remained a virgin also at the birth and after it."

Calvin also upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary, as did the Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli, who wrote:

  I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.)

Zwingly wrote in January of 1528: "I speak of this in the holy Church of Zurich and in all my writings: I recognize Mary as ever virgin and holy."

Reason for the belief that Mary was virgin after the birth of Jesus:

Pope St. Siricius said that God the Father reserved the womb of the Blessed Mother solely for his only-begotten Son. St. Ambrose and St. Thomas Aquinas assigned a spiritual meaning to Ezekiel 44:2:

  "Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut." (Ezekiel 44:2).

Mary is the gate, and Jesus was the only one to enter it. This has always been interpreted by the Fathers of the Church to be a typological reference to the Virgin Mary and the Incarnation. When we consider that God took flesh from the Virgin's womb, it is not difficult to imagine that this womb would remain virgin. The place where the saviour of this world was nourished was not to be used by any one else.:-- Base source.

Further reading here and this source:

  To say that they had sexual relation after birth of Jesus, Son of God, is to suggest something else that is greatly implausible...: that neither Mary nor her protector, Joseph, would have deemed it inappropriate to have sexual relations after the birth of God in the flesh. ... Mary became the vessel for the Lord of Glory Himself, and bore in the flesh Him whom heaven and earth cannot contain. Would this not have been grounds to consider her life, including her body, as consecrated to God and God alone?

Then Why Would Mary Marry?:

A variety of accounts have been offered:

  Perhaps since remaining a single woman was not as socially feasible in the ancient world of Judaism as it is today, marriage would have provided economic stability and social protection for Mary.

  Perhaps the marriage was arranged.

  Perhaps marriage would free Mary from other men seeking her hand in marriage and thus protect her vow.

  Perhaps God led Mary to marriage because in His providence, He wanted to protect her reputation for the future when she would conceive by the Holy Spirit. (source)

John Paul II wrote the following in a 1996 papal document:

  We can wonder why she would accept betrothal, since she had the intention of remaining a virgin forever . . . It may be presumed that at the time of their betrothal there was an understanding between Joseph and Mary about the plan to live as a virgin. Moreover, the Holy Spirit, who had inspired Mary to choose virginity in view of the mystery of the Incarnation and who wanted the latter to come about in a family setting suited to the child’s growth, was quite able to instill in Joseph the ideal of virginity as well.

If Mary had told Joseph of her vow of virginity (as surely she must have), then we are led to conclude that, since Joseph agreed to marry her, he too must have made a vow of perpetual continence (i.e. to refrain from all sexual relations even within marriage).

  Surely his wife's miraculous conception and birthgiving (confirmed by the angel in dream-visions) and the sight of God incarnate in the face of the child Christ would have been enough to convince him that his marriage was set apart from the norm. Within Mary's very body had dwelt the second Person of the Trinity. If touching the ark of the covenant had cost Uzzah his life, and if even the scrolls containing the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets were venerated, certainly Joseph, man of God that he was, would neither have dared nor desired to approach Mary, the chosen of Israel, the throne of God, to request his "conjugal rights"!  (source)


What happens to marriage on the New Earth

Putting the verse you just cited (Matthew 22:30) back into context will clear up a bit of your confusion. First of all, the question was posed by the Jewish leaders about tedious Jewish customs in an attempt to catch Jesus off guard, as they frequently tried to do. The chapter even goes as far as to specify that they were Sadducees, which did not even believe in the resurrection. Furthermore, Christ's answer that they will not be married nor given in marriage refers to this contrived example (if you look at the KJV translation, it says "they" rather than "people") and not to couples in general. So this verse does not provide much support against marriage after the resurrection.

My experience is that most Christians agree that marriage between husband and wife is ordained by God...at least for this mortal life. The Bible does not say much else about marriage after death, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus among the various denominations as to the state of marriage after death.


Is it true that Martin Luther used some bad language in his own writings?

It should be noted that profanity is a relative cultural concept. That is, what one culture considers to be profane may not be offensive in another. For example, various hand gestures that are perfectly acceptable in the USA would be highly offensive in the Middle East. Similarly, the word "bloody" in the UK carries a harsher connotation than in American English. Thus we should not be quick to dismiss quotes because they do not match what our culture considers to be profanity, especially in Western culture that allows horrific words, violence, and sexuality to be displayed routinely on public television. With this in mind, I offer some quotes by Martin Luther:

  "Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts?" (On the Jews and Their Lies)

  "He who hears this name [God] from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw pig poop at him when he sees him and chase him away." (On the Jews and Their Lies)

Of course "fart" was highly offensive at the time and "pig poop" (older translations say "sow dung") can be translated more harshly - I don't think I need to spell it out ;)