How can one say the Novena to St. Michael?

Novenas are an ancient part of the the Church’s devotional life. Many trace the structure back to the nine days between Jesus’ ascension and the feast of Pentecost. A novena (meaning “nine days”) is a special time of prayer, typically for a specific intention.

In the treasury of Catholic prayers there exists many novenas to St. Michael the Archangel that may be prayed during any time of the year, but is a most fitting preparation for his feast day on September 29.

Unfortunately the website you noted in your question is rather poorly done and makes it somewhat confusing to those who wish to pray a true novena by simply listing various prayers to St. Michael the Archangel without any clarification. The website seems to list different possible novenas on its' page.

For example the Chaplet of St. Michael the Archangel is used by many of the faithful as a novena in itself, just as others use the Litany of St. Michael as a novena. I myself have done both of these, but not together.

For a novena to St. Michael, I would suggest that you perhaps pray one of the traditional ones such as the following:

  Saint Michael the Archangel, loyal champion of God and His People. I turn to you with confidence and seek your powerful intercession. For the love of God, Who made you so glorious in grace and power, and for the love of the Mother of Jesus, the Queen of the Angels, be pleased to hear our prayer. You know the value of our souls in the eyes of God. May no stain of evil ever disfigure its beauty. Help us to conquer the evil spirit who tempts us. We desire to imitate your loyalty to God and Holy Mother and your great love for God and people. And since you are God’s messenger for the care of His people, we entrust to you these special intentions:...specific intentions are stated here....Lord, hear and grant our special intentions for this Novena. Amen.


In Hebrew 5:9, what changed about the Son's perfection?

Calvin has this to say about Hebrews 5:9, using the word 'sanctified' for 'perfect' :

  Sanctified suits the passage better than "made perfect." The Greek word teleiotheis means both; but as he speaks here of the priesthood, he fitly and suitably mentions sanctification. And so Christ himself speaks in another place, "For their sakes I sanctify myself." (John 17:19.) It hence appears that this is to be properly applied to his human nature, in which he performed the office of a priest, and in which he also suffered. [90]

Biblehub

Gill adds the word 'completed':

  And being made perfect,.... In his obedience, through sufferings; having completed his obedience, gone through his sufferings, and finished his sacrifice, and being perfectly glorified in heaven:he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him

Biblehub

Matthew Henry uses the word 'consecrated' in related to 'perfect' :

  (2.) By these his sufferings he was made perfect, and became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him, v. 9. [1.] Christ by his sufferings was consecrated to his office, consecrated by his own blood. [2.] By his sufferings he consummated that part of his office which was to be performed on earth, making reconciliation for iniquity; and in this sense he is said to be made perfect, a perfect propitiation.

Biblehub


What arguments are there that, by him who is Logos, life was not - immediately and purposefully - created on earth?

Your main question prompts me to respond quite simply – “There are lots of arguments that life on earth was NOT created deliberately by one called the Logos” (who, the Bible informs us, later became the man Jesus Christ.) That is because many people who try to formulate arguments about life arising on earth make zero mention of even the possibility of a supernatural First Cause. So, every argument devoid of including God would be such an argument as you ask for.

Many people these days express great annoyance at the very idea that this God deliberately created this universe and life in it. I frequent a web-site where there are often vitriolic verbal attacks on all who dare to suggest that God deliberately created life on earth. They claim that evolutionary theory shows there was “no necessity for God”. Those people sometimes present arguments too, but I am not going to repeat them here – they can do that for themselves, should they so wish.

Your additional points are worth commenting on, and here I quote from the book below, written by a scientist who believes God (the Logos) created this universe and all life in it – deliberately.

  When Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1953, it was
  realized that the specification for life is 'written' on huge
  molecules using an elegant genetic language having an alphabet of just
  4 'letters'. Yet that is not proof of the existence of an Intelligent
  Designer of DNA. Here's the proof...
  Information is stored on DNA
  molecules, transcribed on to RNA molecules and translated into
  proteins (the work-horses of the living cell). The processes of
  storage, transcription and translation closely mimic an advanced human
  language, involving codes, syntax and semantics.
  This 'language of
  God' (as Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project, calls
  it) is present in all living systems and, without it, no life would be
  possible. It follows that the essence of life resides not in chemistry
  but in information and communication - things that can only be the
  product of intelligence - not chance - and which the hypothesis of God
  would lead us to expect.  Who Made God? Searching for a theory of everything,
  chapter 12, Edgar Andrews (EP Books 2012 Edition)

I will not go into the matter of "arguments made by so-called 'old earth' theorists who argue for an evolutionary 'creation' - which is impossible (see below) - rather than an immediate creative act in producing life on earth." The time element is a subject in its own right, not least because many 'old earth' supporters do not argue for an evolutionary 'creation'.

That is why my answer to your last question is simply that no explanation for a single cell ever forming by chance can give a satisfactory answer. Life can only arise from the Intelligent and Eternal Creator of all things, who is the source of life.


Was Jesus' power limited relative to the belief of others?

It's not like it's a video game and He needs "faith power-ups". The idea of God being dependent on us is a a ridiculous heresy.

From http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue3.htm

  Some claim that Jesus at least temporarily lost His deity. This cannot
  be true if Jesus is "I AM" as He claimed repeatedly in the Gospel of
  John, and if He is "the same yesterday and today, and forever" as
  Hebrews 13:8 asserts. If Jesus was not God at anytime and was
  therefore dependent on something or someone else to become God, then
  His "deity" would be contingent and not true deity. Such teachings
  must therefore be rejected as heretical. Jesus by His eternal nature
  does not and cannot cease to be God.

And there are plenty of easily found commentaries that explain this verse.  Like this one:

From Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible found here:

  And he could there do no mighty work,.... Or miracle; not that Christ
  had no power in himself to work miracles, though their unbelief and
  contempt of him were very great; but it was not fit and proper that he
  should do any there, since such were their prejudices against him: it
  is an usual way of speaking with the Hebrews, when either it is not
  "fit" and proper that a thing should be done, or they "will" not do
  it, to say it cannot be done; see Genesis 19:22; and even it is said
  of God himself, "So that the Lord could no longer bear, because of
  your evil doings"

Or The Geneva Study Bible

And he {d} could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

(d) That is, he would not: for we need to have faith if we are going to receive the works of God.

All of the commentaries seem pretty united that it doesn't denot a lack of power, but that He simply would not. It's the same basic usage in saying "God cannot sin".

It's not the He does not possess the power to do so, but that it's completely against His nature to do so.


What is the Catholic Church's official position on the Spanish Inquisition?

Yes. The Catholic Church has repudiated the Spanish Inquisition. In fact the late Pope John Paul II has apologized for the atrocities committed during the Spanish inquisition.

In the Apostolic letter "TERTIO MILLENNIO ADVENIENTE" he made this apology:

  Hence it is appropriate that as the second millennium of Christianity draws to a close the Church should become ever more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and His Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of her faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal. Although she is holy because of her incorporation into Christ, the Church does not tire of doing penance. Before God and man, she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters.

He also reiterated his apology in his letter to Cardinal Roger Etchegaray on the occasion of the release of the "Report of the International Symposium on the Inquisition".


What Greek manuscripts were used for the KJV NT other than the Novum Instrumentum omne?

The King James Version is a variety of the Textus Receptus. The translators who produced the King James Version relied mainly on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588-9). But they also  frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot.

According to Scrivener (1884), out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus.

However, at the time, in 1611, the focus of the AV translators was to produce an English bible, not a Greek text. They consulted the above texts, intelligently, and - in effect - were producing a new Greek text, an improvement on what had gone before, but they were recording their improvement in English, not in Greek.

So, in 1881, Frederick Scrivener, under contract to the Cambridge University Press, published the Greek text underlying the King James Bible. This edition of the Received Text has been republished many times, most recently by the Trinitarian Bible Society and by the Dean Burgon Society. It conforms to the KJV.

[Compiled from online information in the public domain.]


Genesis 2:16-17 is the closest that comes immediately to my mind. (quoted from NIV):

  16And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”


What does Matthew 19:8 teach us about the law given by Moses?

In order to better understand what Jesus means in Matthew 19:8, it is profitable to consider why the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus.  They asked him if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife “for any and every reason”.  This comment is made in the New International Version Study Bible regarding Matthew 19:3.  Matthew was writing to the Jews...

...who were aware of the dispute between the schools of Shammai and Hillel over the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4.  Shammai held that “something indecent” meant “marital unfaithfulness” – the only allowable cause for divorce.  Hillel (c. 60 B.C. – A.D. 20) emphasised the preceding clause, “who becomes displeasing to him”.  He would allow a man to divorce his wife if she did anything he disliked – even if she burned his food while cooking it.  Jesus clearly took the side of Shammai (see verse 9), but only after first pointing back to God’s original ideal for marriage in Genesis 1:27; 2:24.

The Hebrew phrase used in Deuteronomy 24:1 was usually a reference to sexual indecency such as adultery (Leviticus 18:6-18) or indecent exposure (Deuteronomy 23:14).  When Jesus responded to the Pharisees he reminded them that it was never God’s intention for a man to divorce his wife.  The “beginning” in Matthew 19:8 refers to Adam and Eve who had been joined together in a lifelong union.

Though divorce was not part of God’s original plan for marriage, sinful humanity demanded it, and the Mosaic Law addressed occasions when it was permissible. Jesus and the New Testament teachings affirm the original intent of marriage as being a lifelong relationship between a man and woman while specifying limited occasions when divorce is acceptable. Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-24-divorce.html

Malachi 2:13-16 is also worth considering.  God hates divorce because marriage is not a contract.  Marriage is a covenant and divorce destroys the whole concept of this important covenant.  Here is a brief extract from an article on this point:

Marriage is a picture of the covenant God has with His people (Hebrews 9:15). A covenant is an unbreakable commitment, and God wants us to understand how serious it is. When we divorce someone with whom we made a covenant, it makes a mockery of the God-created concept of covenant relationship. The Church (those individuals who have received Jesus as Savior and Lord) is presented in Scripture as the “Bride of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 19:7-9). We, as His people, are "married" to Him through a covenant that He established. A similar illustration is used in Isaiah 54:5 of God and Israel.
When God instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden, He created it as a picture of the greatest unity human beings can know (Genesis 2:24). He wanted us to understand the unity we can have with Him through redemption (1 Corinthians 6:17). When a husband or wife chooses to violate that covenant of marriage, it mars the picture of God’s covenant with us.
When Jesus was asked why the Law permitted divorce, He responded that God had only allowed it "because of the hardness of your hearts, but from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8). God never intended divorce to be a part of human experience, and it grieves Him when we harden our hearts and break a covenant that He created. Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/God-hates-divorce.html

Moses wasn’t making it up as he went along; rather God himself is the author of the Mosaic Law that was given to His people through Moses, his spokesman.  If Moses had exceeded the authority ascribed to him by God, then Jesus, God incarnate, would not have told the hypocritical Pharisees that although Moses “allowed” for divorce in the Law it was never part of God’s divine plan for men to divorce their wives.  That God permits divorce (on the basis of adultery) even though he hates divorce suggests that God Himself made allowances by making provision for divorce within the Law.
Jesus' words have significance, not regarding the integrity of the law that God gave to Moses, but to the manner in which men have hardened their hearts against God’s binding covenants, marriage being one of them.  Jesus reminds us that there are occasions when God permits His people to do things that grieve Him.  Also, Jesus’ words remind us that marriage is a serious, life-long covenant.


Isn't CS Lewis's idea that time is still successive in Heaven frustrating?

Lewis is pointing out that if the object of hope can never be attained as a better state (i.e., it is better to seek with anticipation than to find), then true hope is impossible (with the exclusion of false perception, i.e., "and known to be true"). One cannot hope for a worse state.

One could say that in the glorified state hope is no longer significant. "Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?" (Romans 8:24, ESV) Passing beyond hope does not end joy (but, in this case, makes the joy complete).

With respect to frustration, I am reminded of a comment in G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy in a rather different context:

  Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, "Do it again"; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, "Do it again" to the sun; and every evening, "Do it again" to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.


Malachi 4:6 vs Matthew 10:35: did Jesus come to reconcile parents and children or the reverse?

This scripture in Malachi 4:5-6 refers to John the Baptist, not Jesus.

Luke 1:17 "And he [John the Baptist] will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous–to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Matthew 11:14 "And if you are willing to accept what I [Jesus] say, he [John the Baptist] is Elijah, the one the prophets said would come."


Was eternal life promised by the Mosaic Law?

Was there any promise of eternal life associated with any of the
  Mosaic Law. For instance, was animal sacrifice promised with eternal
  life?

No.  Eternal life is foretold in the Old Testament, but never as a promise associated to obedience to Mosaic Law.

The following verses refer to life after death, hinting at the eternal nature of life.   This explains the how the man in Matthew 19:16 knew about eternal life.

All are NIV.

  Psalm 71:20

  Though you have made me see troubles, many and bitter, you will
  restore my life again; from the depths of the earth you will again
  bring me up.

  Isaiah 26:19

  But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You who dwell in the
  dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the dew of the
  morning; the earth will give birth to her dead.

  Ezekiel 37:12-14

  12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign
  Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up
  from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you,
  my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and
  bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will
  live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that
  I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’”

And one that clearly teaches everlasting life as part and parcel with resurrection:

  Daniel 12:2

  Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to
  everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

However, these are prophetic or poetic works, not books of the Law.  I'm not aware of any teachings on eternal life in the Pentateuch - this first five books, which are commonly referred to as the "books of the Law".  Technically, those are "The Law of Moses" or "Mosaic Law", so it would seem that the answer to your question is "no" if you wish to be that precise, but there are Old Testament teachings/revelations/writings on it.

From a traditional Sola Fide perspective, you wouldn't expect it to, though.

Most of the Mosaic laws talked about consequences or punishment for sin, along with a few promises of reward for obedience.

However, Scripture clearly teaches that eternal life is not earned through obedience to the Law.   It is a gift from God, not of works.  (Ephesians 2:9.) We are not justified by works of the law (Galatians 2:16)

If the Mosaic Law promised eternal life based on obedience to the Law, the entire message of Christianity would be invalidated.


Luke 2 tells the story of Jesus as a boy in the Temple.  His parents had taken Him to a feast there and had left Him behind on their return trip. When they returned to Jerusalem to find Him, Jesus asks His mother a question--"Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?"

Now, the Temple was not where Joseph lived, but was the House of God.  So, from that very early age, Jesus understood who He was and that His Father was not Joseph, but God the Father.

  Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the
  Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to
  custom. And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy
  Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, but
  supposing him to be in the group they went a day's journey, but then
  they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances,
  and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching
  for him. After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among
  the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who
  heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. And when
  his parents saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him,
  “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been
  searching for you in great distress.” And he said to them, “Why were
  you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's
  house?” And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them.
  And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to
  them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart.  Luke 2:41-51 ESV


It means to believe the propositions of Scripture to be true. Everyone believes some set of propositions to be true, which they cannot prove. For a Christian this axiom is: That the Bible is the Word of God (and hence is true in what it teaches).

Same applies to any belief....e.g. for a Muslim, they believe the propositions of the Koran to be true. Likewise Hindus believe the propositions of Vedas to be true. Atheists believe the propositions of Bertrand Russell, Dawkins and so on to be true. And if I believed all that your Pastor said (say his name is "Smith") then I would be called a Smithian in my belief.

But a Christian believes the propositions of the Bible to be true. For a person to say they are a Christian but say they don't believe the Biblical propositions is nonsense. A person may not state it exactly that way, but if they do not believe the Bible to be true then all they have left are their own muddled thoughts at least as far as being a Christian is concerned. So the propositions that God made the world, that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died and rose again from the grave and is coming back again, that God is a Trinity of persons etc all these propositions are clearly in the Bible (1 Cor.15:1-4). To believe these to be true is to be a Christian. Not to believe them is to be something else.

You ask, "Does it denote a literal interpretation"?  It depends on the genre of the passage being read e.g. if the genre is metaphorical then the passage needs to be read metaphorically or else confusion will reign. Where it is historical genre, then it needs to be read as history,  poetry as poetic and so on. The Bible is not written in a single genre.


May a priest say Mass for himself?

The short answer is yes.

There is nothing forbidding such a thing. Personally, I would recommend this. Priests must sanctify themselves and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is, as Pope St. Paul VI said, the Mass is the apex of our faith. Priests may say the Mass intention for themselves.

There is nothing to prevent a priest from offering a Mass for himself at the request of one of the faithful.

I am presuming that the priest in question is saying the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Nevertheless, I would like to enforce this possibility with an example taken from the missal of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

In the Tridentine Rite, priest are permitted to added prayers (collects) to the Mass they say each day for various reasons and/or occasions that may arise here and there. For example a priest may add the collects for the time of pestilence to the Mass he is saying, regardless if it is a Feast Day or not. One of the collects a priest may add to his Mass is For the Priest Himself (Missae Pro Seipso Sacerdote)!

The following example of several collects of the Mass, including the Missae Pro Seipso Sacerdote prayers can been seen on page 463.

In other words, John, go for it! It is totally permitted in either Rite.


To what extent do Mormons believe that miraculous healing happens in our days?

Yes, Mormons believe in gifts and miracles of both spiritual and physical healing in these days.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave a talk in 2010 called Healing the Sick. The whole talk is relevant to your question but here's a snippet (not sorry for making it essentially my whole answer):

  Latter-day Saints believe in applying the best available scientific knowledge and techniques. We use nutrition, exercise, and other practices to preserve health, and we enlist the help of healing practitioners, such as physicians and surgeons, to restore health.

  The use of medical science is not at odds with our prayers of faith and our reliance on priesthood blessings. When a person requested a priesthood blessing, Brigham Young would ask, “Have you used any remedies?” To those who said no because “we wish the Elders to lay hands upon us, and we have faith that we shall be healed,” President Young replied: “That is very inconsistent according to my faith. If we are sick, and ask the Lord to heal us, and to do all for us that is necessary to be done, according to my understanding of the Gospel of salvation, I might as well ask the Lord to cause my wheat and corn to grow, without my plowing the ground and casting in the seed. It appears consistent to me to apply every remedy that comes within the range of my knowledge, and [then] to ask my Father in Heaven … to sanctify that application to the healing of my body.”

  Of course we don’t wait until all other methods are exhausted before we pray in faith or give priesthood blessings for healing. In emergencies, prayers and blessings come first. Most often we pursue all efforts simultaneously. This follows the scriptural teachings that we should “pray always” (D&C 90:24) and that all things should be done in wisdom and order.

  ...

  Truly, as the Book of Mormon teaches, God “manifesteth himself unto all those who believe in him, by the power of the Holy Ghost; yea, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, working mighty miracles … among the children of men according to their faith” (2 Nephi 26:13).

  ...

  Many scriptures teach that the servants of the Lord “shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover” (Mark 16:18). Miracles happen when the authority of the priesthood is used to bless the sick. I have experienced these miracles. As a boy and as a man I have seen healings as miraculous as any recorded in the scriptures, and so have many of you.

You might say that the LDS believe in modern medicine as a miracle in and of itself. Elder Russell M. Nelson, another member of the Twelve, is a world-renowned heart surgeon who developed several new techniques for saving lives. But, as he has stated in his own talks on the matter, not without faith and prayers and fasting.

The Book of Mormon says, in Moroni 7:27,29,35-36:

  27 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased because Christ hath ascended into heaven, and hath sat down on the right hand of God, to claim of the Father his rights of mercy which he hath upon the children of men?

  29 And because he hath done this, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased? Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither have angels ceased to minister unto the children of men.

  35 And now, my beloved brethren, if this be the case that these things are true which I have spoken unto you, and God will show unto you, with power and great glory at the last day, that they are true, and if they are true has the day of miracles ceased?

  36 Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men? Or has he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he, so long as time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved?

  37 Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.


I had reached a point after decades of struggling with this sin where I had just resigned myself to this being part of who I am.  I honestly figured I would just struggle with this sin for the rest of my life - I would take it to my grave.

For me, freedom came through Christopher West's teaching on Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body.  The MP3 version is available for free download.  It's not possible to do justice to Chris' 12 hour summation of years of JP II's teaching, but I'll try.

As I have analysed what happened through that teaching, I conclude that among other nuances the change in my thinking was to see clearly what it means to be a person created in the image of God as a body and a spirit in one cohesive being.  Fundamental was the understanding that other people, being in the image of God, are worthy, nay fundamentally entitled, to be treated with the dignity commensurate with being in the image of God.

Heavily entwined in all of this is the idea that the incarnation was always part of God's plan.  That the incarnate Jesus (even post resurrection in his glorified state) is a mysterious combination of Spirit and Body.  This causes me to elevate my body away from the "shell I am waiting to escape in the next life" to being an integral part of who I am which will be glorified and redeemed in the next life, but not thrown away.  Thus my body needs to be treated with dignity.

Suddenly my body was not something "bad" from which I was waiting to be freed, but it was part of the image of God in which I was created as a person, which was created "good".

Somewhere in there, washed in the Word of God, my mind was renewed and my heart was changed in a dramatic way.  I no longer desired to be "that man" who used other people, including my wife, for his own selfish gratification.  I began to see people differently; I began to see myself differently; for the first time in my life I was comfortable in my own skin.  I just didn't want to do that any more.  One day, I realized that somewhere over the previous 6 months I had been set free.

I finally realized what JP II was getting at when said words to the effect of: Freedom from the law is not freedom to break the law, but freedom to conform to the law in all it's meaning because I no longer desire in my heart that which is contrary to the law. (And with Paul I then concur, "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." - Rom 7:12).


Where can I find some information about Nathanael besides John 1?

Nathaniel in the New Testament was a good friend of the Apostle Philip's and became one of Jesus' Apostles later on. He is only seen with the name Nathaniel in the Gospel of John but in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, he is mentioned under the name of Bartholomew. He witnessed the majority of Jesus' ministry along with his death and resurrection. Afterwards, it is thought that he was a missionary to India, and was eventually flayed and crucified for his testimony the Jesus' life and teachings.


Were there any converted children or teenagers among Jesus disciples or in the first century church?

Suffer the little children to come unto me, for such is the kingdom of God. (Paraphrased)

It is entirely the opposite. Unless you are converted and become as one of these little ones,  you shall in no wise enter the Kingdom of God.

  Mar 10:13-16  And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. (14)  But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. (15)  Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. (16)  And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

I do realize, that you make the special case of qualifying 'teenagers' in your post, as well as children in general. I can only attribute this to some notion of accountability, which in Jewish tradition is , I believe, age 13. I do not see any support for this as a regulatory restriction, in any terms of eligibility for salvation.

There is certainly not a single mention in all of scripture that would support this idea that children would, of all souls, ever be denied by Jesus Christ; Old or New.
I will say in response to the question of some ineligibility; emphatically, no.


How should Christians act toward non-Christians?

They are our neighbors and we should love them as ourselves.

  John 13:34-35 (NIV)

     34  “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35  By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

If it turns out that they are our enemies then we should love them all them more.

  Matthew 5:43-44 (NIV)
      43  “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44  But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,


Had Jesus formally been given authority to preach in the synagogue?

From the commentary on St. Luke 4:16 by Conelius à Lapide, S.J.:

  And stood up for to read. It was (and still is) the custom among the Jews that each one should read the Hebrew books of Holy Scripture in the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, both that he might learn the law of God from it, and also that he might be stirred up to the worship, love, and service of God. Moreover, it was the part of the Rabbin and the teachers, such as Jesus was, to read the Holy Scripture publicly, to interpret it, to preach, and to teach.

St. Ambrose commentates (recorded in St. Thomas Aquinas's Catena Aurea on Luke 4):

  The Lord in every thing so humbled Himself to obedience, that He did not despise even the office of a reader, as it follows, And he rose up to read, and there was delivered to him the book, &c.

Quite amazing! As Origen says:

  He opens not the book by chance, and finds a chapter containing a prophecy of Himself, but by the providence of God.


In 1 Peter 4:18, what does Peter mean by the righteous having difficulty to be saved?

I would not separate this 'salvation' from salvation from hell, for I do not think there is any other kind of salvation. Sin, hell, the world and the devil are all arrayed against the believer making our death to the world and our life in Christ a target of conflict; an inwardly felt weakness and struggle. This target (the faith of believers) is the end direction of all the energy, malice and aggression that the Devil and all the whole world enslaved to sin aims at, making our salvation very difficult. Not that we can ever loose it but that it is a road of conflict by nature of the evil in this world and the remans of sin within our own selves.

On the other hand, sinners often have an easy life for their lusts are harmonious with the desires of the whole world.  If a sinner has wealth, or very good looks or a very reputable name in business or religion, he may live an easy life without intense inner conflicts against sin, for he freely follows his lusts without conflict in the world and is praised for it by the world.

The statement is saying that if a real believer who 'feels so weak' and is often actually 'externally weak' in terms of worldly power, and who 'struggles daily' like a 'bruised reed and a smoldering wick', if they are saved through this kind of 'difficulty', how will the wicked find the final judgment to be after their life of ease and lack of struggle?

The answer is clear, sinners who have no struggle with a world of sin will find hell swallowing up their souls in sudden terror, whereas the struggling weak and tortured believer, whose faith seems always tested from without and within due to our backsliding hearts, will enter at last into glory forevermore. What a contrast! This is the point of it, a contrast of life in this world and one's corresponding destiny hereafter.


What are the duties of a Pope? Can a pope be "good" or "bad" in this perspective?

The Duties of a Pope
Pope St. Pius X mentions his papal duties at the very beginning of his encyclical against Modernism, Pascendi Dominici gregis (1907):

The office [of the papacy] divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord's flock* has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called.

*cf. John 21:15-17, where Jesus tells St. Peter, the first Pope, to feed his flock (i.e., to give Christians the truths necessary for salvation).
St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on John 21:15-17 overviews the duties of a pope. A pope is to feed the flock (i.e., all Christians) by:

teaching: "And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding" (Jer 3:15).

example: "Set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity" (1 Tim 4:12); "Upon the mountain heights of Israel," that is, in the excellence of great men, "shall be their pasture" (Ez 34:14).

being offered temporal help: "Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep?" (Ez 34:2).

So, a pope must teach (cf. the Great Commission, Mt. 28:19: "Going therefore, teach ye all nations"), sanctify, and rule (yes, even temporally; cf. Cdl. Manning's The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Christ).
The Council of Florence defined, and the First Vatican Council (Pastor Æternus cap. 4) reiterated, that

the Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that to him in blessed Peter was delivered by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and governing the whole Church.

Vatican I called this the Roman Pontiff's "pastoral duty" or pastorale munus (ibid.).
Pope Benedict XIV wrote (Pastoralis Romani Pontificis):

the duties of his [i.e., of a Pope's] office, are principally and above all manifested in maintaining and conserving the unity and integrity of the Catholic faith, without which it is impossible to please God.

"Bad Popes"
Bad popes would be those who do not live up to their aforementioned duties.
Regarding "bad popes" and such bad "popes" that they are not even popes, see this article:

The “Bad Popes” Argument


Does Christianity have any other books besides the Bible that the disciples use for following?

It really depends on which branch of Christianity you're asking about.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) recognize the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants.  They also believe in continuing revelation.

Jehovah's Witnesses use the periodic publications of the Watchtower as authoritative.

The Catholic Church recognizes the Deuterocanon as part of the Bible, which most other Christian faiths do not.

The Community of Christ, formerly Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, recognizes the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Revised Common Lectionary.

Seventh Day Adventists use the writings of Ellen White.

For a more comprehensive summary, see this article on Wikipedia


In Presbyterianism, what is the basis for a parallel between the office of deacon and Christ's priestly office?

Sorry Nathaniel, I'm not able to comment yet, I'm new to this site :).
It's basically a model of Jesus's ministry and the actions of the early church. He chose several disciples/apostles, trained them in helping the poor, healing the sick, and leading the Church, and eventually set them out on their own.  See Acts 6:

Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Indeed, this is true in many modern Presbyterian churches. In my own, the elders typically have more longevity and lead the church intellectually and spiritually, while we've had many deacons who have been trained by our elders and pastors, given responsibilities in caring for our church members, and eventually set out as missionaries or church planters.
Hope this helps some; sorry I can't substantiate my claims more, I'm not as read-up on these topics as I used to be and as I wish I was.. In short, I believe it's a model based upon Jesus's example.


Can you give example about prophecies that have and haven't been fulfilled?

The example that you gave, the lesson from a fig tree (Mathew 24:32-35) is actually already fulfilled in 1948, if we assert that the fig tree here represents the nation of  Israel, because the nation of Israel was reborn in 1948. After the destruction of Israel in AD 70 by the Roman Empire, after wandering around the world for almost 2000 years, the Jewish people could once again claim their land and the long lost nation of Israel was reborn.

If you want to know prophecies in the Bible which are yet to be fulfilled, the best place to find them is the Book of Revelation. Some of the pending prophecies yet to be fulfilled are -

The Rapture: The faithful will be caught up in the clouds. (1 Thess 4:16-17) If this prophecy had already happened, then we are the unlucky ones who are left behind to be tormented by the Antichrist. :-)
The rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem: Some Bible scholars say that the Third Temple in Jerusalem will be built in the last days. (Daniel 9:27, 2 Thess 2:4) This has not happened yet. The Western wall/Wailing wall still stands in Jerusalem and no progress of rebuilding it yet.
The fall of Babylon: Usually identified as the false religion who will initially control the Beast. Also called the whore, who sits on seven hills. (Rev 17-18)
The Antichrist: The Beast who will enforce the number 666 and controls all economies. (Rev 13)
The two witnesses: They will proclaim the truth about the Messiah, killed by the Beast in Jerusalem and resurrected by God after 3 days. (Rev 11)
The Tribulation: Followers of Christ will be killed by the Antichrist. (Rev 7)
Armageddon: The last world war to be fought, probably world war III. (Rev 16:16)
The wrath of God: The wicked people on earth punished by plagues, catastrophes etc. (Rev 16)
The second coming: Jesus will come back as the Rider on the White Horse to defeat the Beast and the kings of the earth. (Rev 19:11-21)
The 1000 years: Jesus will rule the earth while Satan is in the abyss. (Rev 20:1-6)
The Judgement Day: Satan and anyone whose name is not in the Book of life will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. (Rev 20:11-15)
New Heaven and Earth: The last thing that the Bible mentions about the destiny of the faithful believers. (Rev 21)

etc.  etc.


Why does Satan collect souls that are subservient to him according to mainstream Christian scriptures?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God and Jesus are in control.  End of.


Is there Christian scripture or literature absolving the old Jewish laws of usury?

Taken from Wikipedia, but edited with passages from the NIV, off of Bible Gateway.
The New Testament contains references to usury, notably in the Parable of the talents:

Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.
—Matthew 25:27

So interest was accepted, otherwise Jesus wouldn't have used that as an example?

"Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
—Matthew 5:42
"And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked."
—Luke 6:34-35

This suggests that you shouldn't even accept repayment, never mind interest.

"Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
—Luke 6:38

So there is nothing absolving the rules, and abolishing them, but there is equally nothing that reiterates that they are wrong - to the contrary, there is a parable that speaks about it in a good light.


Did any of the Catholic or Protestant paramilitary groups of the Northern Ireland conflicts of the 60s and 70s ever have an actual theological creed?

The paramilitary organisations did not hold particular theological positions and members were not, in general,  especially pious. They were, for the most part, members or adherents of their respective churches. For Protestants this was mainly  Presbyterian and Anglican.  Religious background, as a proof of allegiance and a guard against infiltration, was more important than personal faith or religious practice. Church leaders of all denominations condemned paramilitary violence.

The conflict was between two communities who defined themselves, and each other,  as Protestant and Catholic, hence the use of these words to describe them. To suggest a dichotomy between  "Irish"  and "British" would  have been highly controversial.

There were particular theological/biblical motifs resonant in the wider Protestant community. There was an understanding of themselves as part of God's chosen people in a way Roman Catholics were not.  Loyalty to the Protestant Queen, Elizabeth II, was a religious imperative and to be contrasted with loyalty to the Pope. The UVF (a Protestant paramilitary group) had its motto "For God and Ulster";  while the UDA (the other main Protestant one) had "Quis Separabit" - meaning "who shall seaparate us?". This is from Romans 8, 35 "who shall separate us from the love of Christ" but was taken as meaning who shall separate Northern Ireland from Great Britain.   The number two and a half was regarded as symbolic, and this referred to two of the tribes of Israel:  Reuben and Gad,  and the half-tribe Manasseh.  These two and a half tribes did not live with the other tribes on the West side of the Jordan, but remained on the East side. Nevertheless they were in every way as much a part of Israel as the other tribes. In this way Northern Irish Protestants, though separated by water from their co-religionists in Great Britain, were no less British  than Gadites were less Israelite.

A frequent motif on Northern Irish Protestant  banners is that of Ruth the Moabitess with a text from Ruth 1, 16 "Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God."  This is taken as symbolising the loyalty of Northern Ireland to Great Britain, even if Great Britain were, like Naomi, to urge Northern Ireland to go back.

A much more common motif is that of King William III who defeated James II (and VII of Scotland) in Ireland in 1690, settling the Glorious Revolution and Protestant monarchy for the whole British Isles. William was James' son-in-law, just as David was Saul's. Saul lost God's favour and was replaced by David and in the same way, James by his Catholicism was held to have lost God's favour.  This gives another theological/biblical facet to Protestant understanding of the conflict, as part of a centuries long dispute with biblical parallels.

One reason for the predominance of Catholicism in most rural parts of Ireland was the bungling of the Reformation. The reformers believed liturgy and scripture should be in the language of the people and in England many accepted this had advantages. In Ireland the authorities in Dublin wanted to spread the English language amongst the Gaelic speaking rural areas,  and so initially introduced liturgy in English. In trying to do two things at once, they accomplished neither.  The reformation was rejected by the ordinary people. This may explain the questioner's reference to Catholic as synonymous with "Irish".


Why do some Pentecostal preachers claim that Lucifer was a worship leader?

It is based on the understanding that some aspects of the Prophecy given by Ezekiel against the King of Tyre are more correctly directed at the demonic influence empowering that King identified to be Satan himself and the influence the KJV has had on the formation of Pentecostal doctrine.  Consider:

  12 “Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord God:
  “You were the signet of perfection,
      full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
  13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
      every precious stone was your covering,
  sardius, topaz, and diamond,
      beryl, onyx, and jasper,
  sapphire, emerald, and carbuncle;
      and crafted in gold were your settings
      and your engravings.
  On the day that you were created
      they were prepared.
  14 You were an anointed guardian cherub.
      I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God;
      in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
  15 You were blameless in your ways
      from the day you were created,
      till unrighteousness was found in you.
  16 In the abundance of your trade
      you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
  so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God,
      and I destroyed you, O guardian cherub,
      from the midst of the stones of fire.
  17 Your heart was proud because of your beauty;
      you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
  I cast you to the ground;
      I exposed you before kings,
      to feast their eyes on you.
  18 By the multitude of your iniquities,
      in the unrighteousness of your trade
      you profaned your sanctuaries;
  so I brought fire out from your midst;
      it consumed you,
  and I turned you to ashes on the earth
      in the sight of all who saw you.
  19 All who know you among the peoples
      are appalled at you;
  you have come to a dreadful end
      and shall be no more forever.” - Ezekiel 28:12-19 ESV

It doesn't appear to be talking about just a man (despite that exact sense being given to the preceding verses). The particular sense of worship leader has come from translation of some of the obscure words in verse 13:

  13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. - Ezekiel 28:13 KJV (emphasis added - cf. other versions)

This has been taken to mean that musical instruments have been incorporated into the very form of the 'guardian cherub' which seemed to have a special place on 'the holy mountain of God' hence the inference that the being referred to was the leader of worship in heaven. That it's identity is that of Lucifer is seen more from comparing this passage and in particular verse 17 with Isaiah 14:12-14 (cf. also this on-line article).


Was Esau's Birthright also a physical token?

Probably not. Even in our modern era, there is such a thing as a valid, non-voidable, oral contract, and it is enforceable in a court of law, under certain circumstances. If person "A" promises orally to do something for person "B" or to give something to person "B" in exchange for something else (the technical term being consideration), then the two parties have a legal contract.

This assumes, of course, there is no element of illegality and/or coercion involved in the contract, and that both parties are of sound mind and of a certain age (whatever the age of majority happens to be in the particular jurisdiction). If these things pertain, then the contract is valid and can be enforced legally.

In the biblical narrative to which you allude (viz., Genesis 25:29-34), you'll notice that Jacob, the supplanter or usurper, after famished Esau expressed his willingness to sell his birthright to Jacob in exchange for some stew, said,

  "'First swear to me'; so he swore to him , and sold his birthright to Jacob" (v.33).

The narrative concludes with this thought:

  "Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew; and he ate and drank, and rose and went on his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright" (v.34).

There was no need for an exchange of a token, or talisman, or "immunity idol" (for you fans of the television show "Survivor") to seal the deal between Jacob and his brother Esau. While in our modern society there is a preference for a contract to be in the form of a writing, an oral contract can still be recognized as valid, just as it was in the days of Jacob and Esau. Despite there being so much at stake in the birthright-for-beans episode, for Esau to swear to his brother obligated him to hew to the deal he had made.

Today, an observant person might object to the deal the twin brothers struck, saying that there was an element of coercion involved on Jacob's part, since Esau was evidently weary and famished, and his brother took advantage of him in his weakened state. That is where other scripture verses indicate Esau's true state of mind.

We've already read in Genesis 25:34 that "Esau despised his birthright." In other words, he did not value it, being as he was a man of appetites as well as an autonomous soul who would rather depend on his skill as a hunter than depend humbly on God to supply his needs. In Hebrews 12, the writer tells us

  "See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled; that there be no  immoral (< Gk. pornos, an immoral person) or godless person (< Gk bebeilos, vile, godless, and irreligious) like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears" (vv.15-17; cf. Genesis 27:36).

Before concluding these remarks, I think it appropriate to point out that in Esau's day, the birthright was more than simply a double-portion of goods and chattel (e.g., slaves) which passed from a father to his firstborn son. According to Dr. Anne K. Davis, in her article "Israel's Inheritance: Birthright of the Firstborn Son",

  "The inheritance of the birthright was more than the commonly understood double portion of the father’s possessions. The firstborn also received four additional benefits and responsibilities: a special blessing, the office of high priest to his tribe, a position of leadership and authority, and procreative power—all apparently for the role of leading God’s people. However, the son born to the birthright could lose this special inheritance by failing to develop and exhibit commitment and service to God that are characteristic of priestly service and leadership in battle. When the firstborn sons lost their birthright (Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, and Manasseh), this special inheritance passed on to another son considered worthy of assuming a leadership role and procreative power (Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Ephraim)."

As we can see from various scriptures, including Malachi 1:2-3, Romans 9:10-13, Genesis 25:23 and 26:34 (where we learn that Esau, against the wishes of his father--see 28:1--took two Hittite women--"daughters of Canaan"--to be his wives), God knew what he was doing when he told Rebekah even before her twins were born that contrary to custom, the firstborn, Esau, would serve the second-born, Jacob. The reason:

  ". . . so that God's purpose according to his choice would stand, not because of works but because of him who calls . . . [is why God said to Rebekah] 'THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.' Just as it is written, 'JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED'" (Romans 9:11b-13; cf. Malachi 1:2-3).


Is "A mighty fortress is our God" anti-Catholic?

The estimated date of Luther composing this hymn is between 1527-1528.  In the summer of 1528 the city Luther lived in fell to the bubonic plague. Instead of evacuating Luther chose to risk disease and stay ministering.

  Some scholars have argued that during these weeks of the plague, in which also the tenth “anniversary” of the posting of The Ninety-five Theses fell, Luther composed his A Mighty Fortress is Our God (Luther's Works 49.175)

I searched Luther's works and their is no direct links of his identification of the Pope with the antichrist, or other anti-catholic implications to this hymn.

The copy I have is entitled 'Our God is a castle strong'. The only place where it is likely that Luther may have personally thought of the papacy was here:

  If they take our life,
  Wealth, name, child and wife—.
  Let everything go:
  They have no profit so;
  The kingdom ours remaineth.

However even under fears that the Pope would have Luther murdered for his faith, the plague may have been more forefront in his mind.


According to dispensationalism, why will Satan follow what is written in Revelation?

My guess is, Satan knows God will do it, but doesn't know exactly HOW. I can tell you two examples:

1) Satan know about about Jesus passion, but he is unable to entirely stop it... Satan tries Jesus on desert 3 times, and "enter in Jude" to betray Jesus, start storms on sea, etc... Look at these verses:

  And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he
  cried out, Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou
  Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou
  art, the Holy One of God. (Mar 1:23-24)

The devil know about Jesus and the task of Jesus, but cannot do anything to stop it.

2) Look at this prophecy:

  Then Elisha said, Hear ye the word of the LORD; Thus saith the LORD,
  Tomorrow about this time shall a measure of fine flour be sold for a
  shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in the gate of
  Samaria. Then a lord on whose hand the king leaned answered the man of
  God, and said, Behold, if the LORD would make windows in heaven, might
  this thing be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes,
  but shalt not eat thereof. (2Kings 7:1-2)

and finally:

  And the people went out, and spoiled the tents of the Syrians. So a
  measure of fine flour was sold for a shekel, and two measures of
  barley for a shekel, according to the word of the LORD. And the king
  appointed the lord on whose hand he leaned to have the charge of the
  gate: and the people trode upon him in the gate, and he died, as the
  man of God had said, who spake when the king came down to him. (2Rs
  7:16-17)

How interesting! The lord on whose hand the king leaned knows about the prophecy, and it happened in the next day, and he cannot avoid it at all. So, probably will be something like that.


Can Catholics serve as godparents at an Anglican infant's baptism?

It would seem so:

Pontificium Consilium ad Christianorum Unitatem Fovendam See ¶98 & 98a.

  It is the Catholic understanding that godparents, in a liturgical and canonical sense, should themselves be members of the Church or ecclesial Community in which the baptism is being celebrated. They do not merely undertake a responsibility for the Christian education of the person being baptized (or confirmed) as a relation or friend; they are also there as representatives of a community of faith, standing as guarantees of the candidate's faith and desire for ecclesial communion.

  (a).  However, based on the common baptism and because of ties of blood or friendship, a baptized person who belongs to another ecclesial Community may be admitted as a witness to the baptism, but only together with a Catholic godparent.107 A Catholic may do the same for a person being baptized in another ecclesial Community.


What is the falling out between Tullian Tchividjian and The Gospel Coalition about?

Tullian, in his blog, mentions that over the past several years he felt the messaging of the Gospel Coalition had changed (he used the word "morphed") to the point where he was finding himself for drawn to Liberate's specific message, also saying that

  "So, now is the right time to pull the trigger. In fact, it's probably over due.

It was also noted that he publicly criticized (and I say publicly because it was an interview, which was made public) members of TGC for their defense of CJ Mahaney:

  "the good-old boys club covering up with own"

as well as

  "I've just been sort of disgusted by the whole thing."
  As well as alleging that CJ Mahaney knew about what was going on.

We then have Tim Keller and Don Caron who said he was "asked to leave" because of the sanctification debate, which they said it was becoming apparent that "the dispute was becoming increasingly sharp and divisive."

Tullian said his decision to leave was his own, but the timing was TGC's doing. According to him, no one had even said anything before he was told to leave:

  "No one ever said anything to me from the Gospel Coalition staff, not Don Carson, Tim Keller, the president, the vice president, no one from the Gospel Coalition ever even uttered a word about concern, which is why, when I was told 'You need to go immediately,' I was shocked."

Tullian does not believe it a result of clashing theology, and he himself summed it up best here I think:

  "Theology is not to blame here. You can't blame theology for the way that you handle it. It's good theology in the hand of bad sinners. That becomes dangerous," said Tchividjian. "When the Christian faith becomes little more than theological propositions and categories, you're not actually thinking about how theology serves people, it can become divisive."

http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/51352/20140524/tullian-tchividjian-refutes-tim-keller-d-a-carsons-gospel-coalition-statement-on-his-exit.htm

EDIT: Here's a little bit more from his article with the Christian Post. It appears TGC started taking on a very critical, we're right-your wrong vibe that he didn't agree with. The following is an excerpt:

  Tchividjian believes that some at TGC have adopted a very critical tone. “I think that’s their tone. That has become their tone. That’s not the tone of everybody there but that is the tone of some prominent voices there: critical, very, very quick to point out what’s theologically wrong out there, very slow to pick apart what’s theologically wrong in here in terms of their own position … and I think people pick up on that,” he said.
  Tchividjian, who considers himself Reformed, noted that just because these voices also considered themselves Reformed, one should not see their behavior as the fruits of their doctrine.

  “Theology is not to blame here. You can’t blame theology for the way that you handle it. It’s good theology in the hand of bad sinners. That becomes dangerous,” said Tchividjian. “When the Christian faith becomes little more than theological propositions and categories, you’re not actually thinking about how theology serves people, it can become divisive.“
  “Anytime you associate yourself with a movement, you think that is at the center of the universe, and there is a much larger Christian and Evangelical world out there that is now looking at The Gospel Coalition, which seemed to start out as a positive movement that was for Gospel centrality and cultural engagement,” continued Tchividjian. “And now the tone from all the people I hear and my opinion is very much ‘what we’re against.‘ People just aren’t attracted to that.”


Do Christians typically switch denominations?

The answer to this will in large part depend on how you'd answer the question of Why should I choose one particular congregation or denomination?

Christians do regularly switch congregations and denominations, but usually only within the branch of Christianity they adhere to. If they have chosen their old church on the basis of their doctrinal position, then to switch branches would mean they have changed their minds on several major doctrines. To switch between denominations within a branch might not require them to change their minds about anything, or if it does, only for small insignificant things.

For this reason it's more likely to occur for protestants, because the non-protestant branches generally only have one denomination. If you believe the Roman Catholic Church is correct, then there's only one denomination for you. I don't know enough about the Orthodox churches to know if their members would be comfortable switching between the churches they are in communion with (say between the Orthodox Church of Alexandria and Antioch) - they may or may not.

But within protestantism there are lots of very similar denominations. If you are Pentecostal there are lots of Pentecostal churches with almost identical beliefs. If you are a Calvinist then the Anglican and Presbyterian churches are almost identical except for whether you should be lead by a single person (a bishop) or a committee (session). If you're a Baptist then there are many denominations you'd be happy in. Protestants may change churches or denominations because of personal situations (such as moving house), or personal problems (not fitting in with the people in your old church.)


How did Nathanael see the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man?

According to someone in this question (moved from christianity to hermeneutics):

  First, the phrase "the angels of God ascending and descending" links Jesus' statement back to Jacob's dream in Genesis 28. In that story Jacob himself glimpses a new reality. He says, "Surely the LORD is in this place, and I was not aware of it. How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven." In connecting himself to this, Jesus is perhaps indicating that what Jacob saw, Nathanael will soon see in the Son of Man: namely, the presence of the I AM, the "house of God" and the "gate of heaven" (cf. John 8:58, John 2:19-22, John 10:1-9).

Also according to bible.cc:

  Heaven open - This is a figurative expression, denoting "the conferring of favors." Psalm 78:23-24; "he opened the doors of heaven, and had rained down manna." It also denotes that God was about to work a miracle in attestation of a particular thing. See Matthew 3:16. In the language, here, there is an evident allusion to the ladder that Jacob saw in a dream, and to the angels ascending and descending on it, Genesis 28:12. It is not probable that Jesus referred to any particular instance in which Nathanael should literally see the heavens opened. The baptism of Jesus had taken place, and no other instance occurred in his life in which it is said that the "heavens were" opened.

As both quotations seem to say that it has something to do with Jacobs Ladder I think that it is safe to say the same. Also it is interesting to note that Nathanael was a descendant of Jacob. This link here also talks a little about this topic, saying:

  this passage shows Nathanael to be a thoughtful and reflective sort of person.  The statements of Jesus Christ about being an Israelite relate to his descent from Jacob, who was certainly a man full of guile and deceit during his early life.  That said, it would appear as if Nathanael was under the fig tree (a common representation of a philosophical sort of person) thinking about the dream of Jacob where angels went up and down the stairway to heaven, showing the relationship between heaven and earth and the possibility of communication between the two realms.  This musing on deep and spiritual matters allows Jesus Christ to call him as a member of the twelve without hesitation or complaint.

I don't know if people dislike so many quotations, but I found that they all relate quite well to the subject. I don't know. Think what you will from the quotations and links. What i get from it is that it was more of one of Jesus' encrypted sayings, not really meaning exactly what he says.


How do deniers of the personhood of the Holy Spirit interpret Romans 8:26-27?

The latest comments exchanged between myself, Miguel de Servet, and Nigel J, should  already provide something more that a hint to an answer.
Anyway, the Spirit (pneuma/ruach), of which we read, in particular, at Romans 8:26-27, is neither a "person", nor a "personification": like the Word (logos/dabar) it (it ..) is an eternal, essential attribute of the One and only God, the Father Almighty.


Which cup of wine did Jesus tell his disciples to drink during the Last Supper?

Per 1 Corinthians 11:25 (NIV)

  25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is
  the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in
  remembrance of me.”

(emphasis added, obviously)

This seems to indicate that it was the third cup.

Here is a much larger article about it.

This is presuming that it was the Passover meal at all.


They seem to be of the magicians that worked against Moses in Egypt:

  They also appear in Pliny the Elder's Natural History, together with Moses, as famous magicians of antiquity; Pliny's citation is also referred to in Apuleius. Numerius, a Pythagorean philosopher, calls them sacred Egyptian scribes.

This has been taken from Wikipedia, and I don't know how much weight should be given it. However, they seems to be evidence backing it up:

  The Apocryphon of Jannes and Jambres the magicians is a manuscript among the Chester Beatty Papyri No XVI, which has been edited and translated by Albert Pietersma.

The Jews have long since known of them. Taken from a Jewish Encyclopedia:

  Names of two legendary wizards of Pharaoh "who withstood Moses" (II Tim. iii. 8) by imitating "with their enchantments" the works of Moses and Aaron, though they were defeated (Ex. vii. 11, viii. 7). According to rabbinical tradition they were the two chiefs of the magicians at the court of Pharaoh who foretold the birth of Moses, "the destroyer of the land of Egypt," thereby causing the cruel edicts of Pharaoh (Soṭah 11a; Sanh. 106a). They said to Moses when he performed his miracles with the water and the rod: "Dost thou wish to introduce magic into Egypt, the native land of the magic art?" (Men. 85a)


What is a good reference to explain the different protestant sects and denominations?

For ease of access and breadth of scope, it would be hard to go past Wikipedia. Perhaps you should start with either their article on Protestantism or the one on Christian denominations and then start chasing links from there.


What is the biblical basis for the logical Problem of Evil?

Good evening,  I have broken your question down and cited the relevant scriptural response.

What is the biblical basis that such a logical problem exists?

The bible acknowledges that the world is currently under the power of the evil one thus raising the question of why is evil granted any power?:

  19 We know that we are God’s children, and that the whole world lies under the power of the evil one. 1 John 5:19

More specifically, what is the biblical basis that God has unlimited power?

  Psalm 147:4-5
  He determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names. Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.

What is the biblical basis that God has the capacity to know everything that there is to know?

  1 John 3:20
  For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

  Psalm 147:5
  Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.

  Isaiah 40:28
  Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.

What is the biblical basis that God has unlimited or infinite good will or disposition to do good?

  Job 34:10
  ‘Therefore, hear me, you who have sense,
      far be it from God that he should do wickedness,
      and from the Almighty that he should do wrong.

  “The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He," (Deut. 32:4).

  "Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst not look on wickedness with favor," (Hab. 1:13).


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that a living person may visit heaven or hell?

It happened before in the Bible, so I don't see why it cannot happen again. In 2 Corinthians 12:1-10, Paul the Apostle tells about a time when he is taken up to Paradise "and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter" (v4). He could not tell whether he was in a body or not (v3).

Perhaps the most famous occasion of a man going to heaven and coming back to earth to record the experience would be John, who wrote the book of Revelation. He saw much in heaven. It appears that he actually took notes while he was in heaven; at one point he was admonished not to write about the 7 thunders (Rev. 10:4). He was told to write what he saw and deliver it to the angels of the 7 churches (Rev 1:10-11).


What did Paul mean when he called Jesus the "firstborn from the dead"?

In a family, the firstborn son had special privileges that set Him above all others.

Jesus, in ushering in the resurrection for all, had the privileges of that firstborn son.

Note: For a long time, I used to think of this strictly in chronological terms - but it isn't warranted.  Elijah & Elisha resurrected dead people. Lazarus and Jairus' daughter were also raised before Jesus' resurrection - so it can't simply be a matter of being the first raised to physical life.

As to eternal life, which Jesus ushered in, sure - but not physical.


What did the Early Church Fathers think about pets (animals) going to Heaven upon death?

I've read a lot of the early Church Fathers and don't recall them addressing this issue.  A good site for reading their writings (for free) is at:  http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

Generally, the early Fathers are focused more on answering pagan criticisms of the Christian faith, arguing against heretical ideas, and generally building up the faith of believers.  Ignatius, for instance, wrote letters of exhortation to the congregations he was passing by while on his way to Rome for execution.  Clement of Rome wrote to the church in Corinth, calling them to remember the words of Paul which he had written to them.  Justin Martyr wrote two Apologies to the Roman emperors, defending the Christian faith.  Irenaeus wrote "Against the Heresies" to counter heretical beliefs and to defend the "rule of faith" (i.e. the creedal belief taught by the Apostles as they founded congregations).

My sense, then, in reading the Fathers is that the issue of pets was not something they were concerned about.  I'm not sure how they would have taught about this issue, either, since the Bible is largely silent on the topic.  What the Bible does depict, however, is that God is concerned for His whole creation, and that Jesus Christ is redeeming and restoring all of his creation.  This is seen also, for instance, in the fact that God had Noah preserve the animals on the ark.

Thus, in Revelation, after the resurrection we see the "new heavens and new earth" that has been fully restored to the perfection in which God originally created it.  Things will be perfect, but different there, and we don't quite know what it will be like, other than that it will be "very good" (cf. Isaiah 65:17, Isaiah 66:22, 1 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1, Matthew 22:29-32).

To the underlying question of "will we see our pets again in heaven or at the resurrection," the only answer I have is that God doesn't tell us; I suspect that's why the early Church Fathers don't seem to have addressed the question either.  However, we trust that all things will be made right by God at the resurrection and that He will complete everything according to His goodness.


Are there any surviving Acta Diurna copies mentioning Jesus' trial or other aspects of his life?

As there is no positive proof that Acta Diurna relating to the trial of Jesus ever existed, the options are i) we do not know, or ii) they did not exist. The first of these options is generally unhelpful, but I believe I can show that they almost certainly did not exist - bearing in mind that it is considered almost impossible to prove a negative conclusively.

If there were any contemporary Roman record of the trial of Jesus or of any other aspect in his life, we can be sure that this would be carefully preserved, to become one of the best known and most cited record in the Christian faith. Of course, to the Romans, Jesus would have been a minor criminal on the fringe of empire and it would be hardly worth making records of his life and crucifixion. We ought not be surprised that Roman records do not exist, and their absence proves nothing about the historicity of Jesus.

The best proof that Roman records of Jesus did not exist is the pseudepigraphical Acts of Pilate, written in the second century, allegedly providing a report of the Roman procurator concerning Jesus. Had a true record existed at that time, then the Acts of Pilate would probably not have been written. Further evidence is that Justin Martyr cited the Acts of Pilate, the only 'Roman record' known to him. The Report of Pilate to the Emperor Claudius is another pseudepigraphical document found in the Greek Acts of Peter and Paul and as an appendix to the Gospel of Nicodemus in Latin. The Report of Pilate would appear to be older than the documents into which it had been inserted and is evidence that a true record did not then exist.

As a protege of Emperor Flavius, the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus had access to Roman records and would surely have mentioned the life and crucifixion of Jesus if Jesus had a momentous impact on Jewish society, since he reported on several other revolutionaries and false messiahs who preceded Jesus.  Josephus does mention Jesus in two passages, but only in regard to Christian beliefs about Jesus. Because of these two passages, which provided a tenuous link back to Jesus, the works of Josephus were preserved, although not in autograph.

Bishop John Shelby Spong researched the gospel account of Barabbas and says, in Jesus for the NonReligious, at page 168, that has he been able to find no evidence that there was a custom of releasing a prisoner at the time of the Passover.

No Roman record of Jesus is known to have existed; the evidence of history is that such a record probably did not exist.


What evidence is there from scripture for why Daniel did not eat the King's food?

There are two primary, though related reasons for why Daniel would not eat the king's food and drink.

Daniel was an Israelite (Dan 1:3) of the tribe of Judah (Dan 1:6).  He would be bound by the dietary laws regarding clean and unclean foods (see commands for example at Lev 11:46-47).  As well, there was preparation and cooking instructions to be followed.  Daniel had no control over these things as regards the food, but only the vegetables and water.

The other reason is that most likely the king's food would have been offered to idols before eating.  This too was not permitted.

  It was the custom to throw a small part of the viands and wine upon the earth, as an initiatory offering to the gods, so as to consecrate to them the whole entertainment (compare Deu 32:38 ).
  -Fausset-

So, the evidence from scripture about why Daniel will not eat basically boils down to it was against their Covenant.


There is very similar imagery in Revelation to particular verses in Joel. A comparison is shown below:

Joel 2:4-5 (NIV)
4 They have the appearance of horses;
they gallop along like cavalry.
5 With a noise like that of chariots
they leap over the mountaintops,
like a crackling fire consuming stubble,
like a mighty army drawn up for battle.
Revelation 9:7-8 (NIV)
7 The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. 8 Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. 9 They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle.

So, there is support for the idea that Joel's Army is an end-times army. But wait! Shortly after that bit in Joel, there's these few verses:

Joel 2:25-26 (NIV)
25 “I will repay you for the years the locusts have eaten—
the great locust and the young locust,
the other locusts and the locust swarm[b]—
my great army that I sent among you.
26 You will have plenty to eat, until you are full,
and you will praise the name of the LORD your God,
who has worked wonders for you;
never again will my people be shamed.

This sounds more literal, and as such, it makes it seem like the earlier passages may have been metaphors. However, immediately after that, it's back into end-timey talk:

Joel 2:28-32 (NIV)
28 “And afterward,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your old men will dream dreams,
your young men will see visions.
[...]

As it doesn't really make sense that Joel/God would insert a short literal passage in a chapter of symbolism, I'm going to say that Joel's Army appears to be an end-times army.


Would believing the coming again of the Son of Man has already happened be considered heretical by the Catholic Church?
The short answer is yes, as it definitely goes against the traditional point of view of the Church and almost all Catholics would not accept it. It also goes against the Apostles Creed: "He will come again to judge the living and the dead."
The constant tradition of the Church believes the Second Coming of Christ has yet to happen.
Prophecy is generally not accepted as being complete until the events of the things prophesied have fulfilled their course. The Church has never accepted that the prophecies concerning the Second Coming of Christ have been fulfilled. In fact, I have never known any Catholics who have expressed this perspective. The Church simply believes it is yet to come. To believe otherwise is not heresy, but is not official stance of the Church.
There is a lot of speculation on this subject matter, even within the Catholic Church, but the vast, vast majority of the faithful hold that the Second Coming is yet to come.

It is the traditional view of Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians, preserved from the early Church, that the Second Coming will be a sudden and unmistakable incident, like "a flash of lightning".[Mt 24:27] They hold the general view that Jesus will not spend any time on the earth in ministry or preaching, but come to judge mankind. They also agree that the ministry of the Antichrist will take place right before the Second Coming. - Second Coming


Are there Christian traditions/literatures regarding fear of God and Heaven in the afterlife?

The Bible itself is replete with commands that we are to have a reverent fear of God that is to coexist with our love of God. The fear of God is a recurrent theme in Scripture, and it is commended and linked directly with holiness. Nave's Topical Bible, for example, shows several subtopics and a multitude of individual references for the topic "Fear of God." See also the prophet's experience in Isaiah, chapter six.

That being said, the short answer to your question is: yes, the fears that you list, and many others, seem plainly reasonable for sinful human beings -- that is to say, all human beings. Prior to entering heaven, however, the believer is changed so that those fears cease to be relevant. Here's why.

The Christian "ordo salutis," or "order of salvation," has been developed from a close study of the Scriptures. While different traditions have slightly different teachings about the number and order of the steps, a frequently offered summary includes the steps of:

Justification, which occurs when one receives faith in Christ and forgiveness of sins;
Sanctification, the ongoing process by which a Christian is brought into greater conformity with Christ over time; and
Glorification, the final perfecting of a believer which takes place after death and prior to entrance into heaven. The particular timing will vary according to one's eschatological views.

At glorification, the Christian is entirely cleansed of his "sin nature," and he no longer has any inclination towards sin whatsoever. Being perfectly free of sin enables him to delight wholly in God, and all other things become secondary and unimportant in the immediate presence of God's glory.

That's why nothing else matters in heaven. Man was originally designed to find satisfaction in God alone. When sin entered the picture, we became distracted and focused on the creation, instead of the Creator -- that is, we all became idolaters, to greater and lesser degrees. Glorification remedies that problem.

Here's a bit of further reading on glorification in Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, with several references to Scripture.

Here's a link to the "Order of Salvation" entry in volume three of The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge at CCEL.

Here are some links to related discussion from John Piper. Each video is about three minutes in duration, and he directly explains why Christians have no need to fear heaven. As always, he explains things much more clearly and simply than I ever could, and I recommend his teachings wholeheartedly: Video 1, Video 2

And for more on the idea of finding satisfaction in God alone, see Desiring God, the ministry of John Piper. He teaches about something called "Christian Hedonism."