Why did the Jews comment that Jesus was not yet fifty years of age?

This is a very obscure subject to research accurately using Catholic sources. There is certainly no definitive statements on the subject whatsoever and as such Catholic interpretation on the subject matter is open to various points of view even within the Church.

That said let me do my best, which is a far cry from perfect or even well done, but here it is!

I can remember reading about this very subject some 25 years ago. I can not recall the exact texts or Catholic author, but the gist of what the Jews were getting at was the Our Lord has not yet attained the age of obtaining wisdom for he was still a young man. Being unable to find the exact references desired, I will do my best to explain it.

St. Ireaneus tries to explain what the texts means in his Adversus Haereses, book II, chapter 22, but admittingly it is somewhat confusing. “Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master.”

  Part of the process of recapitulation is for Christ to go through every stage of human life, from infancy to old age, and simply by living it, sanctify it with his divinity. Although it is sometimes claimed that Irenaeus believed Christ did not die until he was older than is conventionally portrayed, the bishop of Lyon simply pointed out that because Jesus turned the permissible age for becoming a rabbi (30 years old and above), he recapitulated and sanctified the period between 30 and 50 years old, as per the Jewish custom of periodization on life, and so touches the beginning of old age when one becomes 50 years old.

  In the passage of Adversus Haereses under consideration, Irenaeus is clear that after receiving baptism at the age of thirty, citing Luke 3:23, Gnostics then falsely assert that "He [Jesus] preached only one year reckoning from His baptism," and also, "On completing His thirtieth year He [Jesus] suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age." Irenaeus argues against the Gnostics by using scripture to add several years after his baptism by referencing 3 distinctly separate visits to Jerusalem. The first is when Jesus makes wine out of water, he goes up to the Paschal feast-day, after which he withdraws and is found in Samaria. The second is when Jesus goes up to Jerusalem for Passover and cures the paralytic, after which he withdraws over the sea of Tiberias. The third mention is when he travels to Jerusalem, eats the Passover, and suffers on the following day.

  Irenaeus quotes scripture, which we reference as John 8:57, to suggest that Jesus ministers while in his 40s. In this passage, Jesus' opponents want to argue that Jesus has not seen Abraham, because Jesus is too young. Jesus' opponents argue that Jesus is not yet 50 years old. Irenaeus argues that if Jesus was in his thirties, his opponents would've argued that He's not yet 40 years, since that would make Him even younger. Irenaeus' argument is that they would not weaken their own argument by adding years to Jesus' age. Irenaeus also writes that "The Elders witness to this, who in Asia conferred with John the Lord's disciple, to the effect that John had delivered these things unto them: for he abode with them until the times of Trajan. And some of them saw not only John, but others also of the Apostles, and had this same account from them, and witness to the aforesaid relation."

  In Demonstration (74) Irenaeus notes "For Pontius Pilate was governor of Judæa, and he had at that time resentful enmity against Herod the king of the Jews. But then, when Christ was brought to him bound, Pilate sent Him to Herod, giving command to enquire of him, that he might know of a certainty what he should desire concerning Him; making Christ a convenient occasion of reconciliation with the king." Pilate was the prefect of the Roman province of Judaea from AD 26–36. He served under Emperor Tiberius Claudius Nero. Herod Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, a client state of the Roman Empire. He ruled from 4 BC to 39 AD. In refuting Gnostic claims that Jesus preached for only one year after his baptism, Irenaeus used the "recapitulation" approach to demonstrate that by living beyond the age of thirty Christ sanctified even old age. - Irenaeus (Wikipedia)

They were certainly not discussing his age with any precision accordingly. They simply gave good measure. Jesus was still a young man. He could not claim even to be one of the elders. How then could He possibly have seen Abraham? Notice that the Jews do not repeat Jesus exactly. He speaks of Abraham seeing His day, they of His seeing Abraham.

But the phrase “fifty years” was the period of full manhood in the ancient Hebrew way of thinking (Numbers 4:3; Numbers 4:39; Numbers 8:24). This could expressed in such numbers as 50 years old, and there is no care to be more exact in comparison with the two thousand years which had passed since the close of Abraham’s earthly life. The thought of those present could be thus seen as: “Thou art still a young man, and hast thou seen Abraham who died twenty centuries ago?”

We can see that in Numbers 8:25 the Scriptures speak of the retirement of the Levites and as such are honoured for their past service.

  Retirement for Levites

  23And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 24This is the law of the Levites: From twenty-five years old and upwards, they shall go in to minister in the tabernacle of the covenant. 25And when they shall have accomplished the fiftieth year of their age, they shall cease to serve: 26And they shall be the ministers of their brethren in the tabernacle of the covenant, to keep the things that are committed to their care, but not to do the works. Thus shalt thou order the Levites touching their charge.

Jewish tradition suggests that at the age of 50, one would be considered to be old, wise and an elder.

  At forty, one achieves (bina) understanding, at fifty, one is prepared to give (aitzah) wise counsel, at sixty, one is given the deference of seniority (zikna), at seventy, one is considered a sage (sayva).

  And what of 50 and beyond? What is aitzah, zikna and sayva? It means becoming an elder who earns eternity by teaching, by mentoring, by leading. - THE WISDOM OF JEWISH ADULTHOOD

Now for the Gematria of Nun.

  Gematria of Nun

  According to Jewish gematria, Nun represents the number 50 - a number representing freedom and fullness of life.

  50 days from the Exodus to the giving of the Torah
  (50 days for the count of the Omer)
  50 years for a Jubilee Year (yovel)
  50 references to Exodus in the Torah
  50 years of age before one has wisdom

This last point is where I am actually going. (Although the actual source evades me at the moment, I will try to find the reference desired, but it will time quite some time.) What the Jews were possibly getting at is that Our Lord was not truly considered an elder, for he was too young to have obtained true wisdom.

  ELDER (Heb. זָקֵן, zaken). In Israel, as among all other ancient peoples, the elder is not only a person of advanced age, but also a man of distinct social grade (cf. šībum in Akkadian, senator in Latin, geron in Greek, and sheikh in Arabic). The elders were the consulting body of the city, the nation, or the king respectively, and as such were considered "the wise" (cf. Ezek. 7:26 with Jer. 18:18). As a social institution, various types of elders are named: elders of a people (Israel, Judah, Moab, and Midian, Num. 22:4, 7; Egypt, Gen. 50:7); elders of an area (Gilead, Judg. 11:5–11); elders of a tribe (Deut. 31:28); elders of the Diaspora (Jer. 29:1); elders of the priests (II Kings 19:2; Jer. 19:1); elders of the city (passim); and elders of the house (i.e., palace, Gen. 50:7; II Sam. 12:17). The most prominent are the elders of the people or the country and the elders of the city. - Jewish Virtual Library


Why does God choose the tiniest paintbrush to do his detailed work?

Your question is fully answered by the Apostle Paul :

Ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
That no flesh should glory in his presence. [I Corinthians 1:26-29, KJV.]

All of the praise and the honour and the glory in justification, redemption and salvatuon - and in all the work and administration of God in connection to it - is due to God alone and not to that which comes of flesh and blood.


What does it mean to be "weak in faith"?

Romans 14 addresses this question in a practical way.  It largely assumes that the reader already understands what is meant by weak faith, but the chapter still gives insight into what Paul meant by "weak faith".

(All quotes below are NASB.)

  1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

Paul mentions the specific case of dietary laws, but a generalization of his view presented here is that the person with weaker faith has a bigger tendency to be legalistic and the person with stronger faith is comfortable with a larger variety of activities.  The bottom line though is that neither brother should allow difference in faith to affect their view of the other.

Both in verse 3 above and verse 10 below Paul points out that the person with weaker faith tends to judge others (for their "improper" behavior) while in contrast the person with stronger faith tends to view others with contempt (for their lack of understanding of their freedom).

If you have a tendency to judge others or if you have a tendency to view others with contempt, you need to consider who the ultimate judge is.

  10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

  11 For it is written,

  “AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME,
  AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.”

  12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God. (Emphasis added.)

So what's the practical application/result of this understanding of "weak faith"?

  13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way.

  22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Live your life according to the convictions God has given you.
Do not judge the convictions of a brother in Christ.
Always be willing to yield your behavior to the stronger convictions of a brother so that you will not cause him to stumble.


Martin Luther: "Therefore it is not a Christian Church either"?

Luther doesn't deny the existence of true Christians, throughout history, within the church controlled by the popes. For instance he writes:

  “Do you not think that God was able to preserve His own under the papacy even though the priests and monks have been the devil's teachers in Christendom and have gone to hell? Very many children and young people have died in Christ. For Christ, even under the Antichrist, has with might preserved Baptism, the bare text of the Gospel in the pulpit, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed, so as to preserve very many of His Christians and thus His church”. (from his letter on translating and on the intercession of the saints 1530)

The quote you give from his Large Catechism should be understood with reference only to those who were taken in and deceived by Roman Catholic teaching. Children who heard the text of the Gospel could be saved through believing it without realising that their church was corrupting the meaning. Likewise older people if they placed their trust in Christ alone could be saved. Luther approved of the practice within the Roman church of a crucifix being placed before the eyes of dying people because it brought to their attention the suffering and death of Christ who alone, apart from works, could save them.

To Luther the true Church is invisible because it's composed only of those with true faith in their hearts, and no one can see another's faith. So within the visible Roman Catholic church you basically had (and have) two different entities: the false church which followed the teaching of the popes, and the true Church which followed the teaching of Christ. Of course this latter was obviously in a weakened state because it had failed to recognise the heretical nature of the Papacy, but it was still part of the one true Church that existed throughout the world wherever faith in Christ was found.

With regards to the Roman Catholic clergy of Luther's day it appears he didn't think any of them were true Christian teachers. Yes in previous centuries he recognised some of the clergy as being true Christians like Augustine and Ambrose but that's going back hundreds of years before the establishment of the Papacy and the corruption in doctrine which afterwards took place. Luther was confident that if Augustine had been alive when he (Luther) was, that he (Augustine) would have joined him in separating from the Roman Catholic church.


How is "Free Grace Theology" linked with dispensationalism?

The origin of today's "Free Grace Theology" movement is typically associated with Lewis Sperry Chafer, the famous dispensationalist, and one of its leading proponents has been Zane Hodges (of Dallas Theological Seminary, a major dispensationalist institution).  In Major Bible Themes, Chafer writes:

  The Scriptures are violated and the whole doctrine of grace confused when salvation is made to depend on anything other than believing. The divine message is not "believe and pray," "believe and confess sin," "believe and confess Christ," "believe and be baptized," "believe and repent," or "believe and make restitution." (Chapter 28)

This is a fundamental divergence from the historic Protestant doctrine of conversion, which sees both faith and repentance as necessary.  For more on the differences between these two approaches, see my answer to How does repentance fit into the doctrine of sola fide (“by faith alone”)?

FGT flows naturally out of some varities of dispensationalism because of the clear dividing lines drawn between "law" and "grace," and "Old Covenant" and "New Covenant."  Covenant Theology sees them as more connected, arguing that both Old Testament and New Testament saints are saved the same way (the grace purchased by Jesus Christ on the cross) and that the law acts as a restraint, model, and guide for the church in all ages (both BC and AD).  This disagreement has led to debate over whether FGT is a form of the heresy antinomianism.

Incidentally, not all dispensationalists make such strong distinctions between law and grace, and thus not all are comfortable with FGT.  John MacArthur, a reformed baptist and dispensationalist, wrote the book The Gospel According to Jesus, in which he defends the traditional Protestant understanding.

As may now be clear, holding to both Covenant Theology and Free Grace Theology seems fraught with difficulty, though it wouldn't surprise me if some have tried.  Not only do the two views have different views of law and grace, but their doctrines of salvation diverge as well in areas like regeneration, conversion, and sanctification.  A Covenant Theologian would have to jettison quite a bit in order to accept FGT, at which point some would ask if the Covenant Theology label still has any meaning for that person.


Where in the Bible does it say "I will destroy those who destroy My land"?

You may be thinking of Jeremiah 16:18:

  I will repay them double for their wickedness and their sin, because they have defiled my land with the lifeless forms of their vile images and have filled my inheritance with their detestable idols.

(NIV)

That's the closest thing I was able to come up with on a BibleHub.com search.


Unexpected sexual incompatibility in marriage

(This is not really a 'Christian' answer, but then your question isn't really a 'Christian' question.)

If 'sexual chemistry' is a thing, is there any guarantee that it will survive a wedding, or 7, 10, 20 years of married life and child-bearing-induced-body-morphing?

If not, your 'test drive' won't help much. You'll need something other than 'lust' to stay the course.


According to Preterists did "the man of sin" (2 Thessalonians 2:3) become manifest before 70AD? If so, who was it?

The Preterist Archive gives this answer, among others.

  The best answer - we believe - is that it was both an office (the "what") and a person (the "one who" or "he").  More specifically, it was the institution of the Jewish priesthood led by Ananus, the high priest.

What About Paul's Man of Sin? - Preterist Archive

They also say:

  Josephus also records that before this John of Gischala, the son of Levi, was established as the Zealot leader in control of the Temple area (there were three Zealot factions), the power of Satan was already doing his deceitful and treacherous work.

Wikipedia notes that John 17:12 also uses the term "son of perdition," referring to Judas. It also gives this information.

  Some scholars[3] and theologians[4] down through history, including Hippolytus,[5] Luther,[6] Wesley,[7] Manton,[8] Schaff,[9] et al, say that first "Son of Perdition" reference is to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the man who attacked the Second Temple in Jerusalem and defiled it by sacrificing a pig on the altar, erecting a statue of Zeus as himself in the temple, raiding the Temple treasury and minting coins saying "Theos Epiphanes" (God manifest), etc. Even those theologians who advocate an interpretation of Daniel that includes the Roman Empire in their analysis recognize Antiochus as a prototype.[10]

Son of perdition


What prophecy was about Timothy?

  Timothy 1:18  This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according
  to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them
  mightest war a good warfare;

Both the Amplified and the Weust translations use the phrase "prophetic intimations" for the word "prophecies" in the KJV. This might mean that what was prophesied about Timothy was not specific.

Since Paul is citing them as a resource to use in bolstering Timothy for the work under difficulty that is before him, we might surmise that these prophesies were at least in general indicating a favorable report of the work Timothy was to do.

We know that Timothy had received a spiritual gift.

  1 Timothy 4:14  Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given
  thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

This may have been the gift of evangelism.

  2 Timothy 4:5  But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do
  the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Timothy may have been inclined to put off the work to which he was called and in need of encouragement and exhortation.

  2 Timothy 1:6-7  Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up
  the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.  For
  God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love,
  and of a sound mind.

It would seem theat the "prophecies" about Timothy were not from the Old Testament but from the milieu of prophetic activity that was to be found in the early church.

  1 Corinthians 14:3  But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to
  edification, and exhortation, and comfort.


Purpose of giving up a prisoner on the Passover

Like many judicial systems, the Roman legal system had provisions for pardoning of crime. It is likely the appointed time for pardon appeals coincided with the passover because that was the time many of the Jews in the region came to the city. In other words, it was politically expedient for the governing officials to grant a request before the largest audience of each the year.

(Not unlike how politicians today use "phtot-ops" at events with large public appeal, but then sign lesser received legislation on Fridays right after all the press goes home for the weekend...)


How did the Born Again teaching be associated with one first believing in Jesus Christ?

A common theme in the New Testament is rebirth in salvation through Christ. So the idea of being "born again" isn't all that cryptic. To specifically address your question of why we equate a new spiritual birth with the point of salvation, I'll direct you to a few scriptures.

First, we must clarify what the point of salvation actually is:

Romans 10:9-10

  because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe
  in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
  For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth
  one confesses and is saved.

So if a confession of faith and a belief in the Christ is what brings salvation, then we can now compare that language to other scriptures that speak of being born again.

John 1:12-13 ESV

  But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the
  right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of
  the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

Here we see a belief in the name of Jesus (point of salvation) being coupled with the idea of being born of God. We see this again in 1 John:

1 John 5:1 ESV

  Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God,
  and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.

...and again in verses 4 and 5...

1 John 5:4-5 ESV

  For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is
  the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that
  overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son
  of God?

Again we see a tight coupling of two ideas: belief in Jesus and being "born" again into a spiritual family.

This same idea of "new life" is presented in several different ways throughout the New Testament. Paul tells us we are a new creation at the point of salvation:

2 Corinthians 5:17 ESV

  Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has
  passed away; behold, the new has come.

Again we see the idea of a "rebirth" -- since we are "in Christ" the moment we confess and believe, then it is at the moment of our salvation that we become a new spiritual creation.

Something else we need to consider is that some scripture points to being "born again" as the starting point, with pursuit of holiness coming as a result of our initial rebirth. This seems to contradict the idea that being born again is something that comes later in one's "spiritual journey," as you put it. For example:

1 Peter 1:22-23 ESV

  Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a
  sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,
  since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of
  imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;

Peter calls us to love one another earnestly as a result of being born again. It seems clear from this passage that the rebirth was the starting point, and Peter is referring to this past event as the reason for why we should want to pursue love in this way.

As I mentioned earlier, a common theme in the New Testamanet is one of new life in Christ, and it seems clear that the idea of being born again fits with this new life we find in salvation through Christ. Sometimes this is referred to as being born of God or passing from death to life (John 5:24), but the message is quite clear that a life without Christ leads to death, and a life with Christ leads to a new life. Jesus even said it himself a few verses later in his conversation with Nicodemus:

John 3:14-16 ESV

  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son
  of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal
  life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that
  whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

It seems unlikely that Jesus would so strongly emphasize the belief in the Christ as the initial point of salvation right after telling Nicodemus that somewhere along your "spiritual journey" you have to have this other event of being "born again" to see the kingdom of God. It doesn't make sense unless being born again is the actual point of salvation.


What country has the largest Catholic population without a cardinal?

The 24 nations with the largest Catholic populations all are currently represented by cardinals.

Of all nations without cardinals, Bolivia has the largest Catholic population. About 8 million of its 10.5 million people (75%) are Catholic. It has been represented by two cardinals in the past. Guatemala is second in terms of Catholic population, but it has also been represented in the past. Paraguay, with about 6 million Catholics out of 6.8 million people (90%), is third and has never been represented by any cardinals.

It may also interest you to note the nation with the highest proportion of Catholics and no cardinal. Aside from the Vatican, that honor belongs to East Timor, formerly a part of Indonesia (which has had cardinals in the past), with about 97% of its one million people being Catholic.

I primarily used the tables in Wikipedia's list of living cardinals and Catholicism by country articles, but both tables required a little bit of massaging. The spreadsheet I created is available for download here.


Is the following rationale for sharing the gospel consistent with reformed theology?

Perhaps the two "common" responses are not "intellectually satisfying", but at the very least, they are both highly biblical:

  And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation." {Mark 16:15}

and

  for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved."
  How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news of good things!"
  However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" {Romans 10:13-16}

Therefore, it glorifies God to preach to all because His Word is being proclaimed, and we also know that His Word never returns "empty" {Isaiah 55:11 and 1 Corinthians 15:58}:

  So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.

and

  Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.

While God's Will is ultimately accomplished - whether via displaying His grace or in pouring out His wrath on evil, He does not please Him to punish anyone:

  "For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord GOD. "Therefore, repent and live." {Ezekiel 18:32}

and

  "Say to them, 'As I live!' declares the Lord GOD, 'I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?'"  {Ezekiel 33:11}

The first point you raise, therefore, would be both biblical and in keeping with reformed theology, but the second point (regarding helping to increase punishment to Hell) is both unbiblical, and out of line with reformed thinking.


According to Catholicism and Revelation are we going to be able to eat meat in Heaven or the Garden of Eden?

Interesting question as it deals with two separate locations in one question.

We might eat in heaven and the Prophets Elijah and Enoch might also eat in the Garden of Eden, but meat would not be found in either.

First of all we can suppress the idea that we are not talking about any random restaurant which may incidental be called Heaven.

St. Thomas says that animals will not be in heaven:

  Will there be animals in Heaven?Are there animals in Heaven?

  St. Thomas Aquinas says no. I say yes. Please keep this in mind for the rest of this column: while the Church has never taught definitively on either side of the question, St. Thomas Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church. He is The Man when it comes to all things theological. I am a doctor of nothing. Let’s allow the Doctors to be the people we pay more attention to. If you are interested in reading why St. Thomas Aquinas arrives at his theological opinion, you can find his argument online if you click here. This was written for graduate students who had completed five years of study in philosophy. If you find his argument simplistic, it may be one’s ability to understand the nuance of his argument that is lacking rather than his argument.

As for responding to this question, I would like to treat the ideas of Heaven and the Garden of Eden as two separate places.

Will we eat food in heaven?

  Many people ask whether we will eat food in heaven because eating is not only necessary to stay alive, but it is also so very enjoyable! Because eating is enjoyable, many people conclude that what is enjoyable on earth (sex, family relationships, etc.) will naturally be present in heaven. Although the Bible does not give us a detailed answer to the question of eating food in heaven, a few observations from the Scriptures are in order.

  It is interesting to note that when the Lord Jesus celebrated the Passover with His disciples shortly before His crucifixion, He referred to eating and drinking in the kingdom. “Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the Kingdom of God’” (Mark 14:25). The earthly millennial kingdom is certainly in view here, and in that kingdom all who are His followers will have already received their resurrection bodies. It would appear from this statement that we, in our glorified bodies, will eat and drink in the millennial kingdom. But what about the heavenly kingdom?

  When John the Apostle was given a vision of the New Jerusalem, he was shown “a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. And there shall be no more curse…” (Revelation 22:1-3). The text does not say whether we will actually eat the fruit of the tree of life, but that is certainly possible.

  If we will be eating in heaven, we don’t know for sure what the heavenly menu may contain, although it has been suggested that perhaps our diet will be like that of Adam and Eve in paradise before the fall. “And God said, ‘See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food’” (Genesis 1:29).

  In the end, we don’t really know if, or what, we will eat in heaven. Believers only “know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:9). The joys of being forever with our Savior who is the Bread of Life are beyond our limited abilities to comprehend, for “it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, even as He is pure” (1 John 3:2-3).

At a Catholic viewpoint Heaven and the Garden of Eden are not the same place.

Many believe that the earthly paradise, known as the Garden of Eden no longer exists. However this go against the constant tradition of the Church. Tradition places the Two Witnesses from the Book of Revelation in the Garden of Eden waiting for their allotted time to bare testimony to the truth in the last days.

So where is the Garden of Eden and what do the two Prophets eat?

  On the last day of liturgical season of Advent, the Church reads the concluding verses of the Old Testament prophecy of Malachi. These verses explicitly forecast the miraculous arrival of the real prophet Elijah to the Earth from Paradise so as to perform a mission in preparation for the Return of Jesus. It is also written and implied in other books that the ancient Enoch will return with Elijah. Here is a summary of all the writings concerning this predicted event: See the following article - The Future Return of Enoch and Elijah

In essence, the Church has no idea where the Earthly Paradise is located, but Scripture, tradition and various Catholic mystics gives us glimpses to various possibilities.

St. Thomas tells us that both of the Prophets Enoch and Elijah are in the Garden of Eden which is situated in what he calls an atmospheric heaven. Where exactly this is he does not say.

  Enoch lived before the great Flood. We read the following about him:

  “And all the days of Henoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. And he walked with God, and was seen no more: because God took him.” (Genesis 5:23–24, D-R)
  Concerning Elias we read that he was taken up in a Chariot of Fire:

  “And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold, a fiery chariot and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” (2 Kings 2:11, D-R)

  As you can see, these two men did not die. According to St Thomas Aquinas, they are preserved in the atmospheric heaven (which is identified with earthly paradise), but not in the empyrean heaven (Heaven proper). See Summa theologiae III, q. 49, a. 5.

  Saint Thomas, in agreement with the Church Fathers explains why Enoch and Elias are waiting out there in outer space. Saint Thomas writes these two men will return at the end of time to do battle with the Antichrist. It is unthinkable that these two men would never die since this is contrary to the Apostolic teaching:

  “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:” (Hebrews 9:27, D-R)

  Enoch will evangelize and organize the Jews who will seek baptism and convert to the Catholic Faith during the reign of the Antichrist. Elijah will evangelize and organize the last wave of Gentiles that will convert to Christ during the Antichrist’s reign of terror. Both prophets will be slain, rise again, and ascend to Heaven as explained in Apocalypse chapter 11.

  I cannot help but wonder about the identity of “atmospheric heaven.” Saint Thomas Aquinas sees it as synonymous with “earthly paradise.” This could be a location in “outer space.” It could be a place hidden on earth. Or perhaps it is the Garden of Eden transferred to another place. There state, I imagine, would be one of natural paradise without the beatific vision. - Enoch and Elias are in the Atmosphere…They will return to battle the Antichrist

The Catholic mystic Blessed Catherine Emmerich has this to say about the Garden of Eden:

  I now see Paradise far, far off like a strip of land directly under the point of sunrise. When the sun rises, it mounts up from the right of that strip of land which lies east of the Prophet Mountain and just where the sun rises. It looks to me like an egg hanging over indescribably clear water which separates it from the earth. The Prophet Mountain is, as it were, a promontory rising up through that water. On that mountain, one sees extraordinarily verdant regions broken here and there by deep abysses and ravines full of water. I have, indeed, seen people climbing up the Prophet Mountain, but they did not go far.

  Flesh meat was not eaten before Abel's death. - Life of Jesus Christ by Anne Catherine Emmerich, 1774-1824, Vol 1

Mount Ararat, like an egg...over water. Where is the Garden of Eden now and does an angel with a flaming sword still guard it?

No sources say that meat will be eaten in either Heaven or the Earthly Paradise called Eden.

Eden will cease to exist when this world passes away.


If we assume that the Christian worldview is accurate, then a true Christian has something that a Stoic doesn't: the Holy Spirit.
Acts 1:8 (ESV):

8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

The Holy Spirit empowers the Christian to be able to overcome the desires of the flesh and produce the fruit of the Spirit:

16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [Galatians 5:16-24, ESV]

The Holy Spirit also distributes supernatural gifts among Christians as He sees fit:

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. [1 Corinthians 12:4-11, ESV]

In light of this, when you say "if a Christian and a Stoic both live the same exact life, and the only difference in their essence is that the Christian believes in the gospel [...]", I say: the condition of your question is ill-defined from the Christian viewpoint, since a Stoic, who lacks the gift of the Holy Spirit, by definition, cannot be living the same exact life as a Spirit-filled Christian. The latter enjoys the supernatural empowerment and assistance of the Spirit of God that the former lacks.
I will close with a pertinent quote from Romans, chapter 8 (ESV):

9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Answering concerns raised in the comments:
(1) Is the spirit something you can feel within you, and recognize in others? Also, regarding faith, do you "know" when you have faith in Christ? Is it a change in category or a change in degree?
I think these questions can be answered both scripturally and by appealing to the first-hand experience of many believers.
Scripturally, the Bible has lots of examples where believers were filled with the Spirit and had extraordinary experiences. The book of Acts is a good example. That said, a more common --and perhaps less extraordinary-- experience is the "inner witness of the Holy Spirit", which is described very well by Romans 8:15-17 (already quoted above):

15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Experientially, throughout history many believers have reported personal encounters and extraordinary experiences with the Spirit of God. I have asked questions about this in the past, feel free to take a look: 1, 2, 3.
(2) This answer is self contradictory, since at least some of the fruits of the Holy Spirit listed therein coincide with Stoic virtues, yet the answer goes on to subsequently deny that the Stoics are, at least partially, indwelled by God's Spirit.
Without the Holy Spirit, a Stoic would not be able to achieve 100% of what they otherwise would be able to with the power of the Holy Spirit. But that doesn't mean that they will achieve 0%. It's still theoretically possible for a pagan to develop some moral virtues that would place them somewhere in between the two extremes. Claiming that it's either 0% or 100% would be a false dichotomy, and I never intended to claim such a thing in my answer.
Regarding the salvation status of virtuous pagans, this question might be of interest: What is an overview of Christian viewpoints on the eternal destiny of individuals who die never hearing the Gospel?


Why are there fourteen stations of the cross?

With regard to the number of Stations it is not at all easy to determine how this came to be fixed at fourteen, for it seems to have varied considerably at different times and places. - Way of the Cross (Catholic Encyclopedia)

The article as a whole actually goes into quite a few different variations which are found and expounds on those which were varied and altogether absent. To compound the matter further, some parishes will include a 15th station: the resurrection.
It is my suspicion (using this article), but this is, at best, speculation, that it happened to be that the 14 stations which are used today happen to be the 14 stations which were used at the time in Rome. It is not unheard of for normalization to be propagated based on what was common in the area of the Roman See and, lacking better evidence, this seems like it makes for a good fit. Of course the fact that there were a number of published documents describing things not wholly unlike the modern practice from the two centuries prior does not hurt either.
This ambiguity was also something which lead to Blessed Pope John Paul II creating a new stations of the cross in the 1990's.

While this is by no means a mystery on the level of the sacraments, it is still something which cannot be known.


There is more to know than that which is written

Try the very last verse of the book of John:

  Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

  — New International Version

Beside that, it is obvious that much of the minutia of daily life is missing from the Bible.


Why do some Christians oppose Tarot cards?

Tarot cards are widely used for fortune telling and other occult practices, which most Christians consider to be sinful. While the cards may not be themselves considered bad, or possessing them inherently sinful, it is likely to be thought of as an indication that you are involved with occult practices, or are laying yourself open to temptation in that regard.

Having a good reason for possessing Tarot cards, not involved with occult practices, is going to be looked on differently. The Tarot deck is in fact just a standard card deck from the 15th century, and only came to be associated with occultism in the 18C. There are a number of historical games (some of which I play) that use the deck, and have no occult connections at all.


What is the Baptist justification for anti-confessionalism?

Baptists*, in particular, are fond saying "We have no creed but the Bible."  As this wonderful video shows, that is a creed, but it gets to the heart of your question - why do Baptists view creeds negatively?  [Really -  go watch the video. It does a better job than I will of explaining the reasoning, and debunking it!]

There is one scriptural reason and one legacy:

Baptists have a very particular notion of 'vain repetitions' as used by Jesus in Matthew 6:7. Even the Lord's Prayer or the liturgy--anything that smacks of 'saying the same words without any meaning behind them'--is taught against regularly in Baptist teaching. As such, there tends to be a distrust of anything liturgical.  Along those lines, some will also add Paul's bit about some following Paul, others Apollos, and other 'Christ.'
The simple fact of the matter is that 'credalism' or 'confessionalism' as you prefer to put it, is really a mask for a greater issue - namely, Baptists have a very significant distrust of Roman Catholicism.  This distrust has historical roots and is often taught using the concept that 'traditions' are less 'good' than scripture. (We won't get into the fact that how one reads scripture is a tradition.)  This manifests itself in the 'Trail of Blood' rhetoric and has a long pedigree.

As you can see, even as a Baptist, I don't put much stock in these arguments, but they are deeply engrained in the teaching.

*Just to clarify, I'd suggest that a big asterisk go on "Baptists" here.  This tends to be the view of an older, more fundamentalist strain of Baptistic thought than what is probably the mainstream today. I use the word here to denote what types of protestants are most likely to meet your criteria, moreso than to argue the point for the whole. That said, I don't have any numbers either...


A great many atheists / humanists are essentially applying scientific process, and science is adaptable; it is entirely willing to change, as new discovery and observation is made. All you need to do, then, is to provide some kind of tangible evidence that actually stands up for more than a few seconds in the face of the appropriate community (so, the science community if such proof is scientific, etc). Such evidence has never been forthcoming so far.

A very good example of this is the current speed of light claims. Now, general accepted wisdom is that the speed of light cannot be exceeded; however, some scientists have submitted interesting results, with decent explanation of their method and workings, and have invited the community for feedback. The scientific community did not say "pfff you're wrong", but rather (paraphrasing) - "wow; that's staggering; that challenges an awful lot of existing findings - but hey, your process is not without merit - let's look into that some more". Indeed, regardless of the outcome, the science will have progressed for the better.

(Reversing that, the problem with religious dogma is that it generally cannot be changed, even when it is outright contradicted by science).

So: in answer to your question: find evidence. Any evidence of actual merit, that can be inspected, discussed, and validated or disproved (any genuine theory must be refutable - otherwise it is simply not a theory in the way that science means).

As another example; I currently have no reason to believe that fairies exist. I am aware that some people do believe in fairies, but my default position (given a complete lack of reason-for, or evidence-of, their existence) is that : fairies do not exist. However! If you can find reasonable evidence of fairy-folk, I'll be surprised and shocked, but I'll seriously consider it (by which, I mean I should also evaluate the merit of the evidence too; photoshop is rather too good these days, for example). By the same token, homeopathy - it has proponents, but also has a lot of counter-evidence about the subject. In many ways, the argument here is alarmingly similar to religion. To paraphrase Tim Minchin (by removing the rude bits advisory)

  If you show me
  That, say, homeopathy works,
  Then I will change my mind
  I’ll spin on a (redacted) dime
  I’ll be embarrassed as (redacted),
  But I will run through the streets yelling
  It’s a miracle! Take physics and bin it!
  Water has memory!
  And while it’s memory of a long lost drop of onion juice seems Infinite
  It somehow forgets all the poo it’s had in it!

  You show me that it works and how it works, and when I've recovered from the shock
  I'll take a compass and carve "fancy that" on the side of my (redacted).

A common answer here is that religion is outside of things like science; that is an acceptable answer, but in that case do not engage science with logic. We can always agree to coexist without trying to convert each-other.


When did Martin Luther begin to see the church as entirely apostate?

The best source I have that actually does the homework necessary to trace the historical timeline of Luther's theology as well as the timing of its appearance into the world at large is in well written and accurate book entitled, 'MARTIN LUTHER’S THEOLOGY Its Historical and Systematic Development by BERNHARD LOHSE'

In answering your question I only need to provide a high level summary from this book and if you want the longer story I recommend that it be purchased.

In this book it had a historical timeline part and a theological development part. In the historical part the first steps of little Luther are found in his scribbles and noted in his own studies of St. Augustine as well as the scholastic works of Peter Lombard (a kind if standard theological text-book of his day) which he had not as yet made a full break away from. In a nutshell Luther kept scholastic norms, did not yet develop his doctrines but at the same time showed signs of understanding the nature of sin more towards an Augustinian view and more towards the Apostle Paul's view, avoiding the scholastic ways of defining sin and preferring Paul's own language which seemed to make more sense to Luther and seemed to side with Augustine as opposed to Lombard.

In these early years, before it would appear that Luther was clearly and without doubt a Christian believer (as judged by a modern day evangelical standard) he yet starts to begin in a lot of criticism against the theology of his day.

Luther repeatedly attacked the philosophy, evidently having in mind the extensive significance of Aristotelian philosophy for scholastic theology.13 Aristotle was a “chatterbox.” .....Luther engaged in comprehensive criticism not only of the theology of his day but also of the church and of particular aspects of church life. He reproached his contemporaries for holding the truth down in superstition, that is, in foolish and idle observatio, or in a superfluous, indeed, false, religio, like stupid old wives. While they wanted to be ever so “religious,” they were superstitious, as is evident in the sacrament of extreme unction.28 At this point as well as at many others in his marginal notes, Luther’s criticism could be interpreted of the Observantes, that is, of those in his own order who adhered to strict observance of the rules, thus not in any general terms. (P47-50)
We should make it clear though although Luther showed signs of rejecting philosophy and self-righteousness as well as beginning to understand a more radical sense of sinfulness he had not yet expressed the concept of justification by faith in his marginal notes of 1509/1510.

The next traceable stage of Luther in history is found in a series of lectures on the Psalms and a fairly new Christological hermeneutic which he began to trace (1513–1515).   In short Luther still did not break out in clear justification by faith teaching as a single event, but did more and more refuse to use any traditional distinctions about different types of graces while focussing more and more in the concept that Christ is the only source of forgiveness and all men are sinners, leaving little interest in other subjects. While taking this spiritual approach to the Psalms he even avoided almost all talk about sacraments, which would have otherwise been woven into the subjects by his contemporaries. Regarding criticism of the papacy he said not much and did not seem to suspect any great conflict with the Pope. However he did show serious signs of criticism of any religious person, including his own contemporaries who thought a strict following of rules would justify a person. Rather faith to Luther at this time was almost synonymous with humility, by confessing that we are sinners we glorify God and his judgment.

  Just like the Jews or the heretics, the observants were “much too holy,” trusting more in their merits than in the Word of the Lord. At times Luther could warn against works in any form and emphasize that everything depends on the imitatio Christi through faith and hope in him. Ignoring the works of Christ results in the many deeds that people believe they must perform themselves. (page 55)

To the point though all of this is a rumbling of a future change not the change itself. Luther did not yet attack the Papacy and did not yet teach the doctrine of justification by faith through an external righteousness occurring in one moment and lasting through to eternity apart from the moral works of the law.  The study of the Psalms seemed to basically coincide with Luther's greater sense of his sinfulness and the need of confession to God without much interest in external forms of religion of the sacraments. Yet he may have already had his Tower Experience around this time as is so evident in his next set of studies for his Lectures on Romans (1515/1516), Galatians (1516/1517), and Hebrews (1517/1518). What Luther historians know about his thought at this time is not the well developed post reformation thoughts laid out in his published commentaries available today but in notes recorded by his students.  But clearly during his lectures on Romans he had mention all the basic concepts of original sin and an un-polished version of justification by faith. Luther therefore attacked indulgences in (1517/1518) after he had already developed core doctrines that would be the cause of separating him far from the papacy.

Once the conflict was unleashed, if you read Luther's own account of the events, he seemed to be partly naive in how swiftly the Pope and papacy would oppose him.  In the back of his mind it almost seemed Luther thought he might be able to have is faith while remaining in the Catholic church and that the Pope would quietly tolerate him and he the Pope.  However, once he realized that the Pope would not allow what he considered essential Christian faith, he then realized that the Pope was actually an antiChrist and the two could never be reconciled.

In conclusion Luther was inwardly wrestling with two main ideas, original sin and justification by faith.  This is what separated him from the Catholic church. However the attack on something less important, triggered the comparison of beliefs and mad evident how impossible it was to have unity with these differences.   this ultimately led the Pope to denounce Luther which in turn made Luther realize he must denounce the Pope.

For illustration here is quote from his letter To John von Staupitz on May 30, 1518. He is trying to avoid conflict with the Pope as his 95 Thesis was meant to trigger a debate not to throw himself into danger and potential death as a heretic.

  And so I am asking you to receive this poor writing of mine and to forward it with whatever speed is available to you to our excellent Pope Leo X, so that it may serve me there as an advocate, so to speak, in the face of the contrivings of the evilminded. I ask this not because I want to get you involved in my danger; I prefer to take all the risk myself. Christ will know whether my words are his or my own. Without Christ’s command not even a pope can speak, nor is the heart of a king in his own hand.23 This Christ is the judge whose verdict I am awaiting through the Roman See. (Luther's Works Volume 48, page 70)

As is noted by the Editor of Luther's works on this passage:

  When Luther made this statement he obviously was still willing to acknowledge the authority of the Papal See. In the following months his view underwent a rapid change until, during the Leipzig Disputation, 1519 (see p. 126), he challenged this authority and made acceptance of any papal verdict dependent upon its agreement with Scripture. See also p. 74, n. 7; pp. 88 f.


Who, exactly, are James son of Alphaeus and Judas the Son [Brother] of James?

According to the Bible, there was a tax collector named Matthew (also called Levi) son of Alphaeus. James son of Alphaeus is most likely Matthew's brother.

As said in the comments, there were many people by the names of Jude and of James. Jude could have been anybody; and if Jude is the son of James, his dad was not a disciple nor a brother of Jesus. Most of the Disciples were as old as teenagers, with the exception of Peter. Only Peter and Jesus had to pay taxes (Matthew 17:24-27). Jude couldn't have been a brother of Jesus because none of them believed He was the Messiah until after the resurrection. Greek translations show that Jude was called Jude James. In the Israelite culture, sons would inherit their father's name. So James was probably Jude's dad.


What has been said about happy unbelievers?

To be sure, unbelievers can live in a certain state of fulfillment (happiness).  However, that fulfillment would be limited to body and soul.  A person may be very healthy and may have a great career, a great family and great relationships.  Christianity would assert that fulfillment in these areas comes as a result of following the teachings of the Bible, whether knowingly or not.  For instance, overindulging the flesh does not lead to fulfillment.

However, from a biblical perspective, we are not merely bodies and souls, but spirits as well.  Just as our bodies need and enjoy and are satisfied with physical things, so too our spirits need and enjoy and are satisfied only within a relationship with God.

It should be noted, though, that many people who have never experienced a relationship with God really do not know or have no experience to understand what they are missing.  Thus, they may feel completely satisfied, having no understanding that there is more to be enjoyed.

A person who has never tasted ice cream may assume that all that they have is all they could ever hope for.  One stop at Dairy Queen, though, and they realize they were missing out and will never be satisfied again if they have to live without a hot fudge sundae.

So, there is a deeper spiritual fulfillment that can only be found in God that unbelievers do not experience.


Does saying "Thank God!" count as using God's name in vain?

Depends on the intent of the speaker. Do they say it with gratitude and in recognition of God? Who could find fault with that? It would not be vain then. But, if it is said without such a sentiment, it is vain.


Will people in hell be able to remember people in heaven?

Yes, those in hell can remember their past life; no, I know for a fact (according to the Bible; if you don't consider the Bible a valid source, then I got nothin :) ) that it doesn't apply in either. (Didn't want to just say "yes" or "no" because that would have been ambiguous.)

In Luke 16:19-31, the rich man in hell pleads for Abraham to allow Lazarus, a man he knew during his time on earth (not the Lazarus in John 11), to bring him even a drop of water from heaven. Clearly, the rich man remembers Lazarus, even though he is in hell (and Lazarus is in heaven). Also, Abraham remembers not only the rich man's identity, but also the things he did. Also, since Abraham had likely never met the rich man or Lazarus during their earthly lives, we can assume that those in heaven also know/remember the people they did know on earth, regardless of the final destination (heaven or hell) of either. The rich man also remembers the people he left behind and begs Abraham to send someone to warn them about hell.

Additionally, the Bible says we will be rewarded in heaven for the things we do for Christ. I'm trying to imagine what it would be like if nobody remembered anything:

  God: Hey, great job. Here is your crown; it's got orange on it 'cause you really like orange. I really loved your dedication to Me in your workplace, even when it meant not getting that promotion.
  Person: ...Thank you? I don't know what any of this is for? (Neat. I guess I like orange.)

I feel like the passage about wiping tears away means that the things that pain and upset us now won't matter anymore in heaven, and not necessarily that we won't remember that they ever happened.

No matter what heaven's like, though, I'm sure God will get it just right :)


Did Paul write the Epistle to the Hebrews?

Most hold that Hebrews was not authored by Paul because the style and form of the Greek is so good and fine, compared with the style of Paul's other, non-anonymous, writings. The style of Hebrews is almost as if it were a prepared sermon.

However, it would be hard to disagree that the contents (the theology and doctrine) agree perfectly with that of Paul's teachings. Hebrews sounds like something Paul would say, but the original Greek doesn't read like Paul usually wrote.

Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, had this to say...

  That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts

My personal feeling is, because the theology and doctrine matches Paul's other writings so perfectly, coupled with his knowledge of scripture gained by sitting at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), that Paul was the author of Hebrews. Perhaps he had someone to assist him as he dictated, or perhaps he simply spent more time grammatically fine-tuning this particular epistle. But the spirit of the letter feels Pauline.


What process will be followed for the Anglican Covenant after its rejection by the Church of England?

I believe that it will be final. Until the heads of diocese who voted in the negative die, or leave their leadership positions, as well as a compelling case being made for it, the Church of England simply has no reason to join. It gives other churches power within the Anglican Church that there's no reason to relinquish. As I see it, the accord will simply continue on without them. They already have enough churches to make this document significant, and there's no guarantee that if they change it that the Church of England would accept and ratify it. Better to stick with what they have and accomplish what they can without the Church of England, than to change it in a way that may alienate other churches.

Summary I believe it will pass without the ratification of the Church of England, at least for a long time. It provides what many churches are seeking, with regard to conflict resolution, and providing more overall unity.


What are the rules of Exorcism (Catholic Perspective)

In the Roman Catholic Church, only a priest or higher rank prelate may perform an exorcism over a possessed person.  A priest may only perform an exorcism over a possessed person with the permission of the local ordinary or bishop. This permission may be on a case by case necessity or may be general as was the case in the life of St John Vianney.

Not all exorcisms involve a possessed person and an exorcist is often aided by members of the community during an exorcism. And there is the fact that there are different types of exorcisms which the laity may freely pray.

One can read the rules involved in performing a Major Exorcism here. Rule 19, for example states:

  While performing the exorcism over a woman, he ought always have to assisting him several women of good repute, who will hold on to the person when she is harassed by the evil spirit. These assistants ought if possible be close relatives of the subject, and for the sake of decency the exorcist should avoid saying or doing anything that might prove to an occasion of evil thoughts to himself or others.

What types of exorcisms are there in the Latin Rite?

  Major Exorcisms

  Major Exorcism only applies when there is sound evidence that a person is possessed (Latin obsessis, Italian ossessa, Spanish obsesa).

  Only a priest specifically appointed by the Diocesan Bishop (as a general exorcist or to minister to a specific person) may carry out the Rite of Major Exorcism.

  Minor Exorcisms

  The only minor exorcisms specifically published by the Church are those for children and adults preparing for baptism. These may be celebrated by deacons and priests, and also by catechists in dioceses where the bishop has specifically mandated them to do so. Clerics, but not lay catechists, may also use the Oil of Catechumens in the manner set down in the ritual books.

  Sacramentals

  Following the implicit logic of Summorum Pontificum, all priests in good standing have the ability to use the Extraordinary Form rites of blessing and exorcising salt, oil and water. These sacramentals may be given to the faithful for their own private use.

  The medal of St Benedict is an important sacramental, the use of which expresses faith in Christ’s protection from the Enemy.

  Places and Things

  Where there is prudent reason to believe that a place or a thing is under demonic influence, a priest may seek permission from the local Bishop to perform Appendix I of the1999 Rite. Alternatively, (following the implicit logic of Summorum Pontificum), if he has his bishop’s general permission to make use of the Exorcismus in Satanam et Angelos Apostaticos, he may do so without needing to seek explicit permission for the particular case.

  It should not be forgotten that simpler remedies – such as blessing the place with holy water (perhaps exorcised using the older Roman Ritual) – or celebrating Mass in the place – may have a powerful effect without needing to have recourse to the Rite of Exorcism. The inhabitants of a place may, of course, make free use of the Appendix II prayers privately. - Exorcism and Prayers for Deliverance: The Position of the Catholic Church

Pope Leo XIII has given permission to use a simple exorcism that may be used by the laity "whenever the action of the devil is suspected, causing malice in men, violent temptations and even storms and various calamities."

  Prayer of Exorcism by Pope Leo XIII

  A beautiful prayer (a minor exorcism) that anyone can pray to ask Our Lord to drive the lingering influence of Satan away from a
  place. Recommended by His Eminence Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke for use by the laity, August 2, 2014. - EXORCISM OF SATAN AND THE FALLEN ANGELS

Years ago the Simple Exorcism for Priests or Laity by Pope Leo XIII was published in a little flyer form which was available in many parish churches. I am still in possession of a few of these copies and have been unable to find more in the last few years. This exorcism is intended to curb the influence of the devil in places or things. The following website shows exactly what was is on the flyers that I have.

  Prayer Against Satan and the Rebellious Angels

  Published by Order of His Holiness Pope Leo XIII

  The following is a simple exorcism prayer that can be said by priests or laity. The term “exorcism” does NOT always denote a solemn exorcism involving a person possessed by the devil. In general, the term denotes prayers to “curb the power of the devil and prevent him from doing harm.” As St. Peter had written in Holy Scripture, “your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.” (1 St. Peter 5,8)

  The Holy Father exhorts priests to say this prayer as often as possible, as a simple exorcism to curb the power of the devil and prevent him from doing harm. The faithful also may say it in their own name, for the same purpose, as any approved prayer. Its use is recommended whenever action of the devil is suspected, causing malice in men, violent temptations and even storms and various calamities. It could be used as a solemn exorcism (an official and public ceremony, in Latin), to expel the devil. It would then be said by a priest, in the name of the Church and only with a Bishop's permission.

  For the actual text of this simple exorcism see this.


Which languages did Huldrych Zwingli know?

It would be highly unusual for a major theologian of that (or any) erra (and certainly for any of the Protestant reformers) to not have at least some familiarity with the source languages of the texts they studied and taught from. Also, Latin is pretty much a given for any scholar of that time whether at a seminary or in any other field.

A little background reading from Wikipedia makes this comment about the time of one of his early posts as pastor. In other words he clearly studied Greek early on, then during his first tenure as pastor also took up Hebrew.

  He perfected his Greek and he took up the study of Hebrew

Digging a little further, it seems clear that his Hebrew must have been more than a smattering. At one point in his education he was required to translate texts from Hebrew to Latin and Greek and make commentary on it as part of devotionals five days a week. We also find he had at various times at least two qualified tutors in Hebrew, one of which was the author of a Hebrew grammar book of the time. (Source: Hebrew Bible, Old Testament: From the Renaissance to the Enlightenment by Magne Saebo and The Swiss Reformation by Bruce Gordon.)

There seem to be plenty of sources that talk about the education he had and the abilities that those required. Try searching for things like zwingli hebrew on Google Books for further study.


Does "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23, 5:12) include every single human being?

According to Catholicism: Does “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23, 5:12) include every single human being?

According to Catholicism the short answer is: No.

The two exceptions according to the Church were Jesus called the Christ and his mother Mary.

  The belief that Mary lived without sin from the moment of her conception springs from Church tradition. It evolved over a period of time and was not formally defined as a teaching of the Church until 1854. It is not found explicitly in Scripture, but seems for Catholics to flow naturally from the testimony of Scripture that Mary was “full of grace” (Luke 1:28) and “blessed” (Luke 1:42).

  In Catholic understanding, the belief in Mary’s “immaculate conception” does not say so much about Mary as it is about Christ’s saving power. We believe that God created the human person to be in God’s own image. Grace is more original than sin. Our natural state was to be “full of grace.” Sin is our universal experience, but it’s not what God intended for us in the past nor wants for us in the future. We are saved from sin through Christ. Mary’s being conceived without sin takes place in the context of the entire saving act of Christ. In being “full of grace” she is a model of what we human beings were intended to be and who we are redeemed to be through God’s saving power. She is the first sign of God’s victory over sin in Christ. - Where in the Bible does it say that Mary, mother of Jesus, is sinless? And if it is not in the Bible, why does the Catholic Church act like she is?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it this way:

  490 To become the mother of the Saviour, Mary “was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role.” The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as “full of grace”.  In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.

  491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

    The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

  8 Things You Need to Know About the Immaculate Conception


To the best of my knowledge, the details of purgatory have never been set out in an official Vatican document (like a papal bull, council decree, etc.). The magisterium of the church is somewhat vague on this point. (For some well-cited reading on various aspects of purgatory, see New Advent's Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Somewhat recently, however, Pope Benedict tried to shine some light on the matter. In a January 2011 talk about St. Catherine of Genoa, author of a treatise on purgatory, the pope agreed with the saint's conviction that "purgatory was not a place, but a process."

  "'The soul that is aware of the immense love and perfect justice of God consequently suffers for not having responded correctly and perfectly to that love,' the pope said, adding that the suffering is purgatory."


Is it hypocritical to be a Christian and also be against welfare?

There are many times in the Bible we as Christians are called to give to the poor such as "If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18 NIV

So, while it is said that we  must be willing to serve and give to the poor, it does not say it is the government's job to serve and give to the poor.

While I won't say if I am for or against government welfare, I do not believe the Bible tells us we must support government welfare.


Why do Mormons wait until the age of 8 to baptize their children?

It is in D&C 68:25–27, a revelation Joseph Smith received in November 1831, that this doctrine is outlined with the age of eight years old specified:

25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.
26 For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized.
27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.

As for why this age in particular is the age of accountability, I don't think a specific justification is given in any Mormon scripture. But there is a discussion in Mormon scripture about why the baptism of young children in general is considered wrong. The reasoning is that young children cannot repent and do not need baptism. See, for instance, Moroni 8:9–12:

9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.
10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.
11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.
12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

Going back to the age of eight: In the Joseph Smith Translation for Genesis 17:11, a connection is made between circumcision at the age of eight days old and baptism at eight years old. In that verse, it states that circumcision was established to help those living at the time to understand that their children were not accountable to God before the age of eight:

11 And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee, and it shall be my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know forever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old.

The idea that circumcision was performed when a child was eight days old is established in scripture that is not exclusive to the LDS Church, both in the Old Testament (Genesis 21:4, Genesis 17:12) and in the New Testament (Luke 2:21, Luke 1:59).
Interestingly, there is also a scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants, D&C 84:28, that states that John the Baptist was ordained and baptized at the age of eight days old, on the same day he was circumcised:

28 For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.


What is Ultramontanism & Neo-ultramontanism?

The English word "overseas" is used to refer generally to other countries, or parts of the world. This stems from the fact that historically the majority of English speakers, when going to another country,  travelled over the sea.  In Italy, and other parts of Continental Europe, the way to other countries was more often over the mountains than across the sea.  The word  ultramontes, over the mountains,  was thus originally  etymologically equivalent to overseas, as a way of referring to abroad, or foreign.

In the Eleventh Century there was a series of disputes between the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, in Germany,  and Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand), in Rome. This was partly about who should appoint bishops, the Investiture Controversy. Henry declared the Pope deposed, something his father had succeeded in doing to a previous pope, but Hildebrand did not accept his deposition and retaliated by declaring Henry deposed.  Not everybody in Germany sided with Henry, and those who did not were called ultramontanists - their loyalty was to a foreigner (beyond the mountains) rather than to their own country.  That was the insinuation.

The word came  to be used at various periods of history to refer to a strong belief in, or respect for,  Papal authority, often beyond that actually claimed or exercised by the pope himself, and often in contrast to local  or national authorities, or to dispersed authority. It is typically, but not always,  used in a somewhat derogatory sense.  This can be seen in the Catholic Encyclopaedia article, written in the years before the First World War,  which, on the one hand, asserts that all Roman Catholics are ultramontanists, in the sense they accept Papal authority,   yet goes on to say that the adversaries of Catholicism accuse them of ultramontanism but are in reality anti-Catholic even if they claim to be only  anti-ultramontanist.

The Reformation depended on anti-ultramontanist principles, that, as Church of England Article 37 says,  the Bishop of Rome has no jurisdiction in this realm. The ultramontanist position would be that he should have at least some level of jurisdiction.

During the so-called culture wars, the Kulturkampf, in nineteenth century Germany, the Roman Catholic position was accused of being ultramontanist. This was particularly following German Unification in 1870 which brought many Catholic states under the control of Protestant and somewhat liberal Prussia. Schools were brought under government control and were told to teach what the government and Kaiser said, not what the Church and Pope said. Prussia was no longer officially Protestant, as it had been up to 1848, and as England is, but this had made little difference in practice to Protestant  domination, and Prussia, thanks to the exclusion of Austria, was  dominant in the new German Empire.

Within Roman Catholicism the word is sometimes used in contrast to Conciliarism.  Conciliarists believed that General Councils were of higher authority than the Pope, those who disagreed were called Ultramontanist and their position was the one endorsed at the First Vatican Council, which asserted papal infallibility.

Ultramontanism is not necessarily a consistent  set of beliefs on all matters, nor is it a movement or grouping. It is a tendency to support, defend  or extend papal authority, but a person might be ultramontanist in regard to doctrine but not administration, or to spiritual but not temporal affairs, or in everything. It is very context-dependent.

Those who opposed the Unification of Italy, preferring that the Pope retain authority in the Papal States, were called ultramontanists, as were those who  subsequently argued for the creation of the Vatican State.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia says

  It is altogether false to attribute to the Church either political aims of temporal dominion among the nations or the pretence that the pope can at his own pleasure depose sovereigns that the Catholic must, even in purely civil matters, subordinate his obedience towards his own sovereign to that which he owes to the pope, that the true fatherland of the Catholic is Rome, and so forth. These are either pure inventions or malicious travesties.

Here the Encyclopaedia is distancing the Church from the more extreme versions of ultramontanism. It also quotes a Catholic Professor as saying ultramontanists substitute the pope for the church, believe the power of the keys (the pope's authority) should  include temporal jurisdiction, that religious conviction can be imposed by  force and that the plain teaching of one's own conscience should be sacrificed to external authority. Again this is an extreme form, not one necessarily endorsed by the Church.

Opposition to the freedom exercised by some national or regional bishops conferences, by those who feel everyone should follow directly the pope's line on every issue may be called ultramontanist. (This would be an example of being more ultramontanist than the Pope, who of course authorises the conferences.)  Those siding with the Roman Catholic Church against the State, or in opposition to pluralist,  liberal, Protestant or other agendas,  in whatever place or time, may be called ultramontanist.

In OPs quote

  But now that Pope Francis has opened up new spaces, liberals, too, have to learn how to be critically obedient without giving in to the neo-Ultramontanist silencing of those who are disobedient...

the idea that people who disobey the Pope should be "silenced" is described as neo-Ultramontanist. This means either modern day Ultramontanist or extreme ultramontanist. An Ultramontanist might feel that nobody should be allowed to disagree with the pope, perhaps even if the pope has called for open discussion. The writer is alleging ultramontanism, and probably means it in a derogatory way, as implying excessive and undue submission.

Pope Boniface VIII is 1302 said

  We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

This is rather an ultramontanist  position to take.

The Latin word mundus means the world, mankind, the universe. Though it has no connection with the word ultramontanist it works as a pun in the sense that an extreme ultramontanist position would be that the pope should be over and above  the whole  world.

So, although in general we can define ultramontanism as a very high view of Papal authority, its meaning in any given case can only really be understood in context.


If we receive infinite grace through bread and wine as the Catholic theology say, why does a person still sin against God?
Answer
While it is true that all faithfuls or members of the Catholic Church can avail of the infinite graces through participation in the Holy Mass and by receiving the Holy Communion.
Catholic Church also teaches that one must received the Holy Communion in a "state of grace", meaning if one is aware that he/she had committed mortal sins or simply bothered by his/her conscience, the Church Sacraments of Confession must be availed first by the faithfuls before receiving Holy Communion.
Also, let us not forget that the "Holy Eucharist" is the means a faithful can be with intimate union with Christ by eating his "Flesh & Blood" as Jesus teaches in John Gospel.
John 6:50-58 New International Version (NIV)

"But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.  For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.  Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. (John6:50-58)

Catholics eventhough received plenty or as you said infinite graces through the Holy Eucharist still has to persevere in his daily Christian Life.As St.Paul teaches in his letter to the Hebrews;
Hebrews 12:1-3 New International Version (NIV)

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.(Hebrews12:1-3)

St.Paul teaches us that we must not grow weary & lose heart as our battle with the enemy of our salvation does not end until we expiate our last breathe.
And we also reminded by St.Peter with regards to the enemy of our salvation;
1 Peter 5:8-11 New International Version (NIV)

Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. 11 To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen.(!Peter5:8-11)

With Apostles Peter & Paul teaching Catholics who received the Holy Eucharist must therefore, always stay vigilant and sober because satan is just around the corner waiting for a perfect time for us to let down our guard.


Have Jehovah's Witnesses indicated the upper limit for "overlapping generations"?

No, Jehovah's Witnesses haven't assigned an upper limit.

This video, "David H. Splane: Close to the End of This System of Things" (last viewed in Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses in March 2018), is the most up to date explanation by Jehovah's Witnesses of "this generation". Concerning when the end of this time period is, we don't know, nor is it any of our concern, because Jesus said it won't come to an end. The video does, however, list some people which can be used as reference points for discerning that "this generation" hasn't yet passed away. All of those currently on the Governing Body are among the ones which were anointed contemporaries with anointed ones who saw the sign of Jesus' coming in 1914.

The main reason JWs care about this information is because it strengthens our faith such that we can continue to live our lives as Jesus said to do: "Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming."

Therefore, knowing that Jesus will come soon to restore the earth to a paradise gives us comfort and hope to continue enduring this system of things and to have added motivation to repent now and live our lives as Jesus commanded.


What Saints have given guided written meditations?

The first book which comes in my mind at reading your question is "The Practice of the Love of Jesus Christ" of St. Alphonse de Liguori, that I highly recommand. The thoughts St Alphonse provide really deeps the faith. Furthermore, St Alphonse de Liguori likes to quote St Therese D'Avila, a very great catholic mystic.
Meditations are not guided, but the structure of the text is a self-guidance.

For a really guided meditation (step 1, 2, etc.) I obvisously think to "The Imitation of the Christ" (De imitatione Christi) but you need to find one where text structure has been kept (Chapter X - Thinking)


Are any fundamental Protestant beliefs historically heretical?

Your point that “Protestants reject almost all the heresies identified by pre-Reformation creeds and councils” is highly significant. There is no difficulty with them using the same words but attaching different meanings because they do not. This is particularly true of the Creed of Nicaea, formulated in 325 A.D. It states,

  “We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, maker of all things
  visible and invisible;

  And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father,
  only-begotten, that is, from the substance (ousia) of the Father; God
  from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made,
  of one substance (homoousios, consubstantial) with the Father, through
  whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth; who for us men
  and for our salvation came down and was incarnate, was made man,
  suffered, and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and
  is coming to judge the living and the dead;

  And in the Holy Spirit.

  And those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not’, and: ‘Before he
  was begotten he was not’, and: ‘He came into being from nothing’, or
  those who pretend that the Son of God is ‘Of another substance
  (hypostasis), or essence (ousia) [than the Father] or ‘created’ or
  ‘alterable’ or ‘mutable’, the catholic and apostolic church places
  under a curse.”

According to that pre-Reformation Creed, Protestants cannot be called heretical. However, that ‘only’ deals with a particular heresy doing the rounds back then. It is one of the most significant, fundamental heresies, it needs to be said, but my point is that Protestants had no quarrel with the meaning of the words of that ancient Creed. They did not attribute different meanings to it, but wholly agreed with the orthodoxly Christian stance stated in that Creed.

We see what the Catholic church would call ‘heresy’ in other areas of belief. And Protestants make no bones about this either – they openly state why they disagree with Catholicism, not attempting subterfuge with cunningly different meanings attached to words. They called a spade a spade back in the day. Perhaps the best example of this lies in the realms of Church authority.

In 1302 Boniface VIII declared in the bull 'Unam Sanctam' that this church has

  "one head, Christ and his vicar Peter and the successor of Peter...
  For all men, it is absolutely necessary for salvation to submit to the
  Roman Pontiff. This we declare, affirm and proclaim." (DS 872; D 469)

Notice how the one head of the church, Christ, has to share this role with "the successor of Peter" - the Pope? And that there can be no salvation for anyone who does not submit to the Roman Pontiff? That was followed by Pope Clement VI (pope from May 7, 1342, to December 6, 1352):

  "No man outside obedience to the Pope of Rome can ultimately be saved.
  All who have raised themselves against the faith of the Roman Church,
  and died in final impenitence have been damned, and gone down to
  Hell." (Source: Pope Clement VI, "Super Quibusdam," as cited in
  "Apostolic Digest, Book V: The Book of Obedience")

Notice the progression from not obeying the pope to being against the Roman church, to impenitence and damnation?

Protestants protested that their salvation is not connected with bowing down to any man on earth – that you cannot hedge your bets and claim to have faith in Christ alone for salvation, PLUS faith in a Pope!  Catholicism claims that whoever does not accept the doctrine of the Roman Church and of the pontiff as the infallible rule of faith from which sacred Scripture derives strength and authority, is a heretic. Protestants put it the other way around. They claim that the infallible rule of faith from which all and any Christian derives strength and authority is sacred Scripture. This means that Protestants cannot bow before any Pope as the 'vicar of Christ' who is supposedly infallible in that role. But Catholics do. This is the main reason why Catholics called Protestants ‘heretics’ back then, and even now: their recognition of Scripture as the supreme source of authority, and not the statements/authority of any pope, also that salvation comes with faith that only what Christ did can save anyone, not with combining such faith with belonging to any organisation or obeying what the head of that organisation requires.


According to a Catholic interpretation of the Bible, was Jesus being glib in Matthew 6:34?

You might look at the commentary of St. John Chrysostom, who is a 4th century Saint and Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church.  He explains in his 22nd Homily on the the Gospel according to Matthew:

  By evil here He means, not wickedness, far from it, but affliction,
  and trouble, and calamities; much as in another place also He says, Is
  there evil in a city, which the Lord has not done? nor any thing like
  these, but the scourges which are borne from above. And again, I, says
  He, make peace, and create evils: [Isaiah 45:7] For neither in this
  place does He speak of wickedness, but of famines, and pestilences,
  things accounted evil by most men: the generality being wont to call
  these things evil. Thus, for example, the priests and prophets of
  those five lordships, when having yoked the cattle to the ark, they
  let them go without their calves, [1 Samuel 6:9] gave the name of evil
  to those heaven-sent plagues, and the dismay and anguish which thereby
  sprang up within them.

  This then is His meaning here also, when He says, sufficient unto the
  day is the evil thereof. For nothing so pains the soul, as carefulness
  and anxiety. Thus did Paul also, when urging to celibacy, give
  counsel, saying, I would have you without carefulness.

  But when He says, the morrow shall take thought for itself, He says it
  not, as though the day took thought for these things, but forasmuch as
  He had to speak to a people somewhat imperfect, willing to make what
  He says more expressive, He personifies the time, speaking unto them
  according to the custom of the generality.


I found an article that explains the meaning of the name Belial and the use of the expression "sons of Belial" in the Old Testament.

  Belial is a compound word, believed to have been taken from the Hebrew beliy, meaning “not,” and ya'al, meaning “profit” or “benefit.” It is used twenty-six times in the Old Testament, usually translated as “worthless” in the New American Standard Bible, but also as “base,” “destruction,” “rascally,” and “wicked.” In the earlier books of the Old Testament, when describing a wicked person, the King James sometimes uses “son of Belial” (or “daughter,” “man,” or “people” of Belial). Like many other uses of the term son of, the expression “son of Belial” doesn’t imply that Belial is a real person who fathers children; rather, it’s a description of people characterized by worthlessness or corruption.

The article goes on to explore the name as used in Jewish literature and, more recently, the suggestion Belial is a demon.  The article concludes:

  In Scripture, Belial was used to personify wickedness and worthlessness. The only time the word is used to identify a person is 2 Corinthians 6:15, where the name is applied to Satan. There is no indication from Scripture that Belial is the proper name of a specific demon.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/who-Belial.html

I hope this information is helpful to you.