Is there any evidence to support Matthew's gospel account of the curtain in the Jerusalem Temple being torn in two?

It is desirable in any important matter to have strong testimony to a fact.
As a Protestant, my primary source is always the scripture and it is scripture itself which advises that one should have strong testimony in all important matters viz :

At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. [Deuteronomy 19:15 KJV.]
In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. [II Corinthians 13:1 KJV.]

In the case of the veil of the temple being ripped from the top to the bottom there are three witnesses to the fact. They are competent witnesses as their published writing demonstrates : intelligent men capable of presenting data in exceptional clarity and reporting matters in highly structured form.

Matthew 27:51

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

Mark 15:38

And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.

Luke 23:46

And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

These are the facts of the case.
This is the three fold evidence and testimony.
And these are the very men who have 'turned the world upside down', Acts 17:6, whose words reverberate around the world to this very day.

One would not expect the Romans to document this fact since they were not permitted access to the inner precincts of the temple. Only priests could enter that part of the temple.
And one would not anticipate reliable testimony from the Jews (of the period) when one looks at the behaviour of the hierarchy - lying in order to murder Jesus of Nazareth, bribery in recruiting Judas to betray Jesus of Nazareth and coercion in forcing Pilate's hand to execute Jesus of Nazareth by Roman authority.
One would expect such people to hush this matter up and to secretly repair the damage and to carry on as if nothing had happened.
But the three faithful witnesses did testify honestly, and risked their lives to do so. Soon after the event, eleven men - Matthew among them - shut themselves indoors, for fear of the Jews, John 20:19. Mark was close to Peter, who was, himself, crucified. And both Mark and Luke were closely associated with Paul, who was executed by Nero.


What bible translation did the Unitarians use in 19th century America?

Emerson used the KJV. It looks like Channing probably also used the KJV.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

All Scriptural references in this study, unless it is specifically stated otherwise, are based on the King James Version, not because it is considered the best version, but because it was the one  used by Emerson.

Source: Emerson's Use of the Bible by Harriet Rodgers Zink, January 1935 (page 4)

William Ellery Channing
I will base my for Channing upon the idea that the Bible translation that an author quotes is sufficient proof of "using" it. Therefore I will dissect tiny differences in translations. However, it is possible that these discrepancies could be unintentionally introduced by the author, e.g. from quoting by memory. Thank you to Nigel J for the Channing sources.
Letter on Catholicism: To the Editor of the "Western Messenger," Louisville, Kentucky (source):

Has not Jesus said, "When thou prayest, go into thy closet, and shut thy door, and pray to thy Father, who seeth in secret?"

This quotation is from Matthew 6:6, and when I search it in Google in quotation marks, the only thing that comes up is the letter from Channing himself! Perhaps, again, he was quoting from memory.
Belsham's Unitarian New Testament:

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father that is in secret: and thy Father, that seeth in secret, shall reward thee [openly].

King James Bible (source includes many other translations):

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Translation: Inconclusive
Christianity: A Rational Religion

For example, the famous passage on which the Trinity mainly rests, "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one," — this text, I say, though found at present in John's Epistle, and read in our churches, has been pronounced by the ablest critics a forgery; and a vast majority of the educated ministers of this country are satisfied that it is not a part of Scripture. Suffer no man, then, to select texts for you as decisive of religious controversies. Read the whole record for yourselves, and possess yourselves of its general import.

(Given the quotation and being a Unitarian, I wanted to give a bit of context!)
This quotation is from 1 John 5:7. I'll include verse 8 because the Belsham goes a bit off the goop on this one.
King James Bible (source includes many other translations):

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

In particular, that "bear record in heaven" distinguishes the KJV (though perhaps not completely uniquely).
Belsham's Unitarian New Testament:

And it is the spirit which beareth testimony; for the spirit is truth*. For there are three who bear testimony, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
* The received text reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth."

The footnote in the Belsham then has 9 notes about why they believe that text to be illegitimate.
Translation: KJV for use of "Holy Ghost"?
But not a great example given the Unitarian slant.
Preaching Christ: Discourse at the Ordination of the Rev. John Emory Abbot, Salem, 1815 (excerpt):

"Christ, the hope of glory to the Gentiles," was the theme on which Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, delighted to expatiate.
Having spoken of Jesus in this character, he immediately adds, "Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." [...]

The first quotation is actually a paraphrase of Colossians 1:27, but the second quotation is from Colossians 1:28.
Belsham's Unitarian New Testament:

whom we preach, admonishing every man, and teaching [every man,] with all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ

King James Bible (source includes many other translations):

Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

Translation: KJV


Do any Protestant denominations recognize Latter Day Saints as Christians?

Multiple definitions of Christian

Despite meaning "those who belong to Christ" word Christian is often regarded to mean "Christ-like". On some level, this means that any religious movement or group which seeks to be "like Christ" and claims to follow Christ can make a case for being "Christian".

While mainstream Protestantism often defines "Christian" in this manner, it often uses the word very differently. For example, most denominations will provide adherents and congregants with instructions on how to "become a Christian." This then implies that there are specific criteria which are required to be Christian, and it is not merely being "Christ-like".

Further clouding this issue however is the common belief that in order to be "saved" one must only believe that Christ died for your sins and rose again.

Because this belief is professed by Latter Day Saint (LDS) doctrine, many Protestants often believe that followers of the LDS church are saved.

Significance of the the Trinity in Protestantism

Within Protestantism, the trinity is nearly universally professed. For example, This doctrine was extremely important in the theology of Martin Luther, the initator of the Protestant movement. In his dissertation, "The doctrine of the Trinity in the hymns of Martin Luther" Dr. Paul John Grime explores Martin Luther's views on the Trinity vis-a-vis his hymns. From the Abstract:

  While the doctrine of the Trinity was central to Luther's whole theological system, little attention has been paid to it. Most significantly, much of the research on Luther's theology has failed to note that Luther's well-known teaching on justification by faith was firmly grounded in his trinitarian thought. In order to investigate this matter, I chose to examine Luther's Trinity doctrine as it is presented in his hymns.

  ...

  My examination of Luther's Trinity doctrine revealed a teaching that had much in common with the early church's dogma, especially its strong soteriological slant. Luther had a strong desire, however, to present the reformation teachings in a simplified form that could be grasped by the common person. This was clearly evident in his hymns, where Luther used simple language to convey a rich and vibrant teaching on the doctrine of the Trinity.

  ...

  My conclusion affirmed my thesis, namely, that Luther's hymns do contain a doctrine of the Trinity that faithfully reflects that doctrine as presented in his other writings. Furthermore, I concluded that the hymns served well as a vehicle for proclaiming the reformation teachings, including the doctrine of the Trinity.

As such, Article I of the Augsburg Confession of the Lutheran Church states

  Our Churches, with common consent, do teach that the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the Unity of the Divine Essence and concerning the Three Persons, is true and to be believed without any doubting; that is to say, there is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and Preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and yet there are three Persons, of the same essence and power, who also are coeternal, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And the term "person" they use as the Fathers have used it, to signify, not a part or quality in another, but that which subsists of itself.

Similarly, the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith states in Chapter 2.

  In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and the Holy Spirit. All are one in substance, power, and eternity; each having the whole divine essence, yet this essence being undivided. The Father was not derived from any other being; He was neither brought into being by, nor did He issue from any other being. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. All three are infinite, without beginning, and are therefore only one God, Who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties, and also their personal relations. This doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and our comfortable dependence on Him.

Furthermore, the Westminster Confession of Faith states in Chapter 2.

  In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

In Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity Dr. Kevin Giles makes clear the importance the Trinity in Evangelicalism:

  In the past thirty years there has been an amazing resurgence of interest in the doctrine of the Trinity. Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox theologians have published numerous studies and books on the Trinity, and they are continuing to appear. Evangelicals at first were not involved, but a change is under way, as this book and otherw written recently by evangelicals indicate.1 After a long period of neglect, this doctrine is now on center stage as it should be, because it is nothing less than our distinctive Christian doctrine of God.

  1 For example, Millard Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemprary Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, Mich. Baker, 1995); Roger E. Olson and Christopher A. Hall, The Trinity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002); Stanley J. Grenz, Rediscovering the Triune God: The Trinity in Contemporary Theology (MinneapolisL Fortress, 2004); Brian Edgar, The Holy Trinity in Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship (Oillipsburgm N.J.: P&R, 2004).

And in The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys Dr. Mark A. Noll tells his readers:

  In the context of the eighteenth century, Evangelicals stood with Arians, proto-liberals and anti-confessionalists in championing the Bible against tradition, but they stood with Christian traditionalists in affirming the Bible against reduced views of God, Christ and the Trinity.

  As it was with the Bible, so it was also with the other doctrines of classical Christianity. Evangelicalism colored and often invigorated and often invigorated doctrines like the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, the sinfulness of humanity and the human need for divine salvation.

In short, this doctrine is of extreme importance to Protestants and nearly every Protestant Denomination affirms the Trinity, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.

Centrality of the Trinity to Salvation

The reason Protestants often adopt the benchmark of salvation as the determining factor as to the Christianity of an individual or group indicates the fact that there are in fact several criteria for salvation. Let us examine one such criteria.

Acts 16:31 states

  They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.”

This statement then makes it extremely important what you believe about who Christ said he was. In Knowledge of the Holy, A.W. Tozer frames it this way, (pg 5)

  Among the sins to which the human heart is prone, hardly any other is more hateful to God than idolatry, for idolatry is at bottom a libel on His character. The idolatrous heart assumes that God is other than He is - in itself a monstrous sin - and substitutes for the true God one made after its own likeness. Always this God will conform to the image of the one who created it...

  Not all who called themselves Christians through the centuries were Trinitarians, but as the presence of God in the fiery pillar glowed above the camp of Israel throughout the wilderness journey, saying to all the world, “These are My people,” so belief in the Trinity has since the days of the apostles shone above the Church of the Firstborn as she journeyed down the years. Purity and power have followed this faith. Under this banner have gone forth apostles, fathers, martyrs, mystics, hymnists, reformers, revivalists, and the seal of divine approval has rested on their lives and their labors. However they may
  have differed on minor matters, the doctrine of the Trinity bound them together.

  This, however, is the real Christian faith, that we honor one
  single God in three Persons and three Persons in one single Godhead..

  this tenet of the ancient creed has been held by the Eastern and
  Western branches of the Church and by all but a tiny minority of Christians.

And for this reason, belief in the Trinity is not just important, but is required for salvation. If one does not believe that Jesus was a member of the trinity, a part of the triune Godhead, then one does not actually believe in Jesus. Instead they believe in an idol of their own making, for it is clear in scripture and it has been clear throughout history to so many theologians that Jesus claimed to be God. As St. Thomas Aquinas said in Nature and Grace,

  Explicit belief in the Trinity has therefore been necessary for salvation from the very beginning. ...it is impossible to believe explicitly in the mystery of the incarnation of Christ without faith in the Trinity. For the mystery of the incarnation of Christ includes that the Son of God took flesh, that he made the world new through the grace of the Holy Spirit, and that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost.

Comparing doctrines of the Trinity

This then begs the question, "Do Latter-Day Saints believe in the Trinity?". Upon first glance it may seem so. If you were to ask any LDS missionary this question, they would state yes. They will frequently state that they believe that God is three persons with one purpose. For example,

  Each member of this trinity is called God, and together they constitute the Godhead. As indicated, they are three separate beings, but they are one in purpose, and Jesus repeatedly testified of the unity existing among the three.

During the October 1978 General Conference, First Counselor to the Presidency, Nathon Eldon Tanner stated:

  Each member of this trinity is called God, and together they constitute the Godhead. As indicated, they are three separate beings, but they are one in purpose, and Jesus repeatedly testified of the unity existing among the three.

And according to an FAQ on the LDS web site regarding LDS beliefs,

  What do Mormons believe about God ?

  God is often referred to in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as our Heavenly Father because He is the Father of all human spirits and they are created in His image (see Genesis 1:27). It is an appropriate term for God who is kind and just, all wise and all powerful. God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead or Trinity for Mormons. Latter-day Saints believe God is embodied, though His body is perfect and glorified.

  Do Mormons believe in the Trinity?

  Mormons most commonly use the term “Godhead” to refer to the Trinity. The first article of faith for the Latter-day Saints reads: “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” Latter-day Saints believe God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one in will and purpose...

Often the explanation will end there, however in this FAQ, the author continues

  Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one in will and purpose but are not literally the same being or substance, as conceptions of the Holy Trinity commonly imply.

And this distinction is important because the Nicene Creed states:

  We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made human. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried. The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will never end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life. He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and with the Father and the Son is worshiped...

And the original creed ended:

  But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

The LDS Church however teaches this doctrine arose from the Great Apostasy

Conclusion

Because of this divergence in definition and understanding of the Trinity, Protestants do not believe that Latter-Day Saints are Christian. This is even acknowledged by the Latter Day Saint Church in the March 1988 issue of Ensign magazine in an article titled "Comparing LDS Beliefs with First-Century Christianity" By Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks:

  Since the inception of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, many critics have denied that it is Christian. Surprisingly, the basis for the claim has little to do with the standard definition of Christian: anyone or any group that believes in Jesus Christ as the Savior and Son of God. Rather, it has to do with Latter-day Saint doctrines that some feel are alien to “traditional Christianity,” where “traditional Christianity” means that body of beliefs held by most present-day Christian churches. The argument essentially goes that if the LDS church believes in certain doctrines not believed in by most present-day Christian churches, then the LDS church cannot be Christian.

  ...Latter-day Saints do reject the doctrines of the Trinity as taught by most Christian churches today. For the most part, these creeds—the most famous of which is the Nicene Creed—were canonized in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. following centuries of debate about the nature of the Godhead.

Similarly in Lesson 136 of the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary  Teacher Manual, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles staes

  I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true.

  Indeed no less a source than the stalwart Harper’s Bible Dictionary records that ‘the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament]’ [Paul F. Achtemeier, ed. (1985), 1099; emphasis added].

  So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history...

So in summary, both Protestant and Latter Day Saint Churches agree that Protestants to not regard Latter-Day Saints to be Christian, the disagreement is merely over whether that assessment is fair and accurate.

Thus the only Protestant groups that would agree would be any denomination which does not profess the Doctrine of the Trinity. To my Knowledge, the only "mainstream" protestant group are Unitarian Universalists.


Is there a name for someone who believes in Jesus as God and Savior, yet follows no sect?

I believe the word you are looking for is 'nondenominational', as in 'nondenominational Christian'. It refers to people who don't adhere to any of the subdivisions of Christianity, such as Lutheran, Catholic, Reformed etc.

The answer is made slightly confusing because there are now churches that refer to themselves as 'nondenominational', since they do not adhere to any of the larger groupings. However some of those churches are now grouping together, thus effectively creating a 'nondenominational' denomination. But in principle 'nondenominational' is a good description.


No traditions, East or West, suggest that Lazarus of Bethany was married. The simple fact that there are no legends, traditions or other pious stories to indicate that that Lazarus ever had a wife.

  According to a tradition, or rather a series of traditions combined at different epochs, the members of the family at Bethany, the friends of Christ, together with some holy women and others of His disciples, were put out to sea by the Jews hostile to Christianity in a vessel without sails, oars, or helm, and after a miraculous voyage landed in Provence at a place called today the Saintes-Maries. It is related that they separated there to go and preach the Gospel in different parts of the southeast of Gaul. Lazarus, of whom alone we have to treat here, went to Marseilles, and, having converted a number of its inhabitants to Christianity, became their first pastor.

  According to a tradition of the Greek Church, the body of St. Lazarus had been brought to Constantinople, just as all the other saints of the Palestinian group were said to have died in the Orient, and to have been buried, translated, and honoured there. It is only in the thirteenth century that the belief that Lazarus had come to Gaul with his two sisters and had been Bishop of Marseilles spread in Provence. It is true that a letter is cited (its origin is uncertain), written in 1040 by Pope Benedict IX on the occasion of the consecration of the new church of St.-Victor in which Lazarus is mentioned. But in this text the pope speaks only of relics of St. Lazarus, merely calling him the saint who was raised again to life. He does not speak of him as having lived in Provence, or as having been Bishop of Marseilles. The Catholic Encyclopedia

Whatever the truth of the actual life of Lazarus, there is still a strong Catholic tradition that Lazarus sailed from Palestine in 53 AD and fixed his residence near Marseilles. Again no mention is ever made of Lazarus having a wife, but that he did become the first bishop of Marseilles. Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich also mentions Lazarus' voyage to Gaul in her revelations.

  According to legend, Mary Magdalene and Lazarus left the Holy Land around 53 A and arrived in Massilia – Marseilles. There, each year on February 2, the local people celebrate the arrival of Lazarus and Mary Magdalene. It is said that they installed themselves in a necropolis, on the south side of the Lacydon river, taking care of the ill and preaching the new faith. After about a decade, Mary Magdalene headed for nearby Sainte Baume, where she invoked St Michael to chase out a monster, the Tarasco, from the cave where she supposedly spent the remaining days of her life.

  Less known is the legend that her sister Martha also came to France. Saint Martha went to Avignon, though she was asked by the people of Tarascon, just south of the city, to appease the Tarasco, which had fled there. By showing the sign of the cross and using Holy Water, she appeased the monster that used to rise out of the waters of the Rhone to devour children and livestock.

  In short, there are several legends which say that the Christianization of France was said to have occurred by those who had witnessed the miracles of Jesus and the Passion themselves. - In the footsteps of the Marys in France

The Golden Legend also recounts the arrival of Lazarus and his companions to Southern France (Gaul).

  According to the thirteenth century Italian chronicler Jacob Voragini, author of The Golden Legend, a handful took to the sea in a rudderless raft later translated as a “radeau.” The passengers included Mary Magdalen, her servant Martilla, Mary Salome, Mary the mother of James, Lazarus (who Jesus had brought back from the dead), Martha (the sister of Lazarus) and Sara, described as a dark Egyptian servant. Without rudder or oars they were guided by the hand of God through the perilous seas if The Golden Legend is correct. They landed at a place named Ratis near Marseilles in France. They took refuge under a “porch” of a temple of the “people of that country.” What Voragini does not say is that it was a temple to three goddesses. He was writing in an era where pagans and their goddesses were forced to assimilate into Christianity. - Legend of the Three Marys


How could the Egyptian magicians do what God did through Moses?

I don't have my notes on hand but the bible contains multiple examples of Satan performing God like signs to fool Gods people. The book of Revelations is the obvious example this, but there's more.

As far as men performing magic, you also had Bar Jesus.

Long story short, although it's not exactly a popular opinion, Satan is illustrated as a being with similar (although lesser) powers as God, and it has been written that he has and will use these powers through mankind to gather people to him.

Satan is illustrated as having powers on a similar level as the Angel Michael which makes sense as he was a great angel (even though Satan was/is  dark on the whole), but in regards to the first answer these powers are not of earthly origins, nor can they be assumed to he bound by earthly restrictions (physics, etc).


How is spiritual progress described in eastern monastic traditions?

Hesychasm, one of the monastic traditions this question is about, is still practiced on the Greek peninsula, Mount Athos.  For over a thousand years, monks have practiced the discipline of continual prayer and worship, which goes back at least as far as the 4th century Desert Fathers.  And of course, the concept of praying continually goes back at least to Paul:

  Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.—1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 (NIV)

The idea of going to a private place to pray (becoming a hermit in extreme practice), goes back to Jesus himself:

  But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.—Matthew 6:6 (NIV)

From the outside, there does not seem to be too many differences between Western and Eastern Monasticism.  But since the Great Schism (and obviously even before), the two great branches of Christendom have diverged in doctrine and praxis.  To take a small instance, opponents of Hesychists accused them of practicing Omphaloskepsis (literally "navel gazing") because of one of their prayer postures.

More seriously, Eastern traditions place a greater emphasis on icons than Western traditions.  (Some Protestants go as far as to abolish all images in their places of worship.)  Due in part to Saint Basil the Great, the Eastern Orthodox traditions place much greater importance on images to help focus worship and prayer.  Perhaps the greatest treasure of Mt. Athos is their extensive collection of Byzantine painting.

On the other hand, Mt. Athos was not the center of scholarship that many Western monastic centers were (and are).  Gregory Palamas famously defended Hesychasm against the scholastic Barlaam of Seminara.  By this point, Eastern Monastics had largely rejected secular teaching as unprofitable for drawing closer to God.  In later years, the Eastern monastic tradition has grown more separate from the secular world, while Western monastics have maintained contact.  As an example, females (both human and animal!) have been forbidden to travel to Mt. Athos.

Even so, Hesychasm continues to have a large influence in Eastern Orthodoxy.  Devout believers still travel to Mt. Athos to observe and be a part of the continual prayers and worship going on day and night in the various monasteries.  It is held that these men have a holy connection to God and stand on the spiritual front-lines against evil.  Novices take on vows to remain on the peninsula for the rest of their lives in order to draw closer to God.

Sources for this answer include Sailing from Byzantium: How a Lost Empire Shaped the World by Colin Wells and an episode of 60 Minutes.  Wikipedia has good articles on specific people and belief systems, which greatly helped me recall details.  Not directly part of the answer, but fascinating to me, is an article in Vanity Fair by Michael Lewis on the monks' role in the Greek financial crisis.


When Jesus was nailed to the cross, did the nails go through his hands or through his wrists?

The word used in the Bible can mean any part of the hand or arm. People who study crucifixion in general found that the nails most often went through the wrist and that the weight of the body would cause the nail to tear through the flesh of the hand as is most commonly depicted in Christian art. Thus, a fairly common view is that the nails actually went through the wrist.

Crucifixion


Frank K. Flinn's Encyclopedia of Catholicism defines an antipope as "a person who lays claim to the office of bishop of Rome and tries to act as head of the Roman Catholic Church, in opposition to the person duly holding that ecclesiastical office in the eyes of the church as a whole."  Flinn points out that there have been 39 antipopes in the history of the Catholic Church and that the criteria for papal validity as well as the correct electoral body for the popes has evolved over time.

The first person declared an antipope was St. Hippolytus of Rome (r. 217-35) for his challenging of Pope Callistus (r. 217-222).  The best known antipopes are those from the Babylonian Captivity when the seat of the papacy was moved in 1309 from Rome to Avignon, France where it remained until 1377--these popes were known as antipopes by the Holy See in Rome and a valid pope was elected by that body.

For further reading, you can refer to:
Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 2000)
Daniel MacCarron, The Great Schism: Antipopes Who Split The Church (Dublin: D.M.C. Universal, 1982).

I hope that helps answer your question some!

All information in this reply came from:
Encyclopedia of Catholicism. Frank K. Flinn. New York: Facts on File, 2007. 33-34.

Full Disclosure:  I am an MSIS student at the University of Texas' School of Information and am answering this for a class on reference.  I found this source through the Gale Virtual Reference Library.


How does God reconstruct your brain if it has been destroyed in the afterlife

This is a question about what happens during the "resurrection of the dead". That term is used in both the Bible and the Apostles' Creed (which the vast majority of Christians accept) and discusses how people will be brought back to life when Christ comes again.

The Bible does not go into a great deal about human anatomy (the word "brain" never appears), so we don't have a verse specifically answering your question. The most detailed description of the resurrection of the dead is Paul's explanation in 1 Corinthians 15:35-54. Of note is verses 42-44 (NIV):

  So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

There are two main interpretations of this and other Bible passages that deal with it:

We will be given completely new "spiritual bodies" (with no connection to our earthly bodies) at the resurrection of the dead. This interpretation assumes "dualism": the belief that that our spirit/soul is completely independent of our earthly body and will survive intact no matter how damaged our bodies become.
Our earthly bodies will be put back together and become improved "spiritual bodies". This may or may not include a belief in dualism.

In both cases, it doesn't matter whether or not your brain and the rest of your body was destroyed in a car accident. Either you will be given a replacement body or your original body will be reformed. If you were impaired due to an ailment such as Alzheimer's disease, then your improved body would presumably not have that and you would be unhindered.

(Wikipedia has an excellent summary of differing views between different denominations and theologians over time, including several points about the resurrection of the dead that are beyond the scope of this question such as whether we immediately gain spiritual bodies in heaven or whether that will happen to everyone at once in the future).


What was the earliest Papal condemnation of slavery?

Condemnation of 'unjust' slavery came somewhat earlier than papal condemnation of 'just' slavery. The legitimacy of slavery was recognised in the Corpus Iuris Canonici, promulgated by Pope Gregory IX, and this implicit acceptance of slavery was not removed until 1913. Jean Allain (The Legal Understanding of Slavery, page 20) says the Corpus Iuris Canonici was not as explicit in its treatment of the issue as were the civil laws, but that students of the canon law would have found no contradiction.

According to Wikipedia, Cardinal Avery Dulles makes the observations that no Father or Doctor of the Church was an unqualified abolitionist, and that no pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such, but that they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.

Nevertheless, there were some papal pronouncements that provided qualified condemnation of slavery. Pope Eugene IV issued a Papal bull, Creator Omnium on 17 December 1434, excommunicating anyone on the Canary Islands who enslaved newly-converted Christians, but offering no protection to those who declined to become Christians.

Further on, Wikipedia tells us that in 1888, Pope Leo XIII issued a letter to the Bishops of Brazil and another in 1890, Catholicae Ecclesiae (On Slavery In The Missions). In both these letters the Pope singled out for praise twelve previous Popes who had made determined efforts to abolish slavery. Five of the Popes praised by Leo issued documents that authorized enslavement as an institution, as a penalty for ecclesiastical offences, or when arising through war, but Leo's letters make no distinction between "just" and "unjust" forms of slavery and have therefore been interpreted as a condemnation of slavery as an institution.

The Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes ('Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World', 1965) stated:

  The varieties of crime are numerous: all offenses against life itself, such as murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offenses against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where people are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons: all these and the like are criminal: they poison civilization; and they debase the perpetrators more than the victims and militate against the honor of the creator.

Pope John Paul II said, in Fidei Depositum, "May the light of the true faith free humanity from ignorance and slavery to sin in order to lead it to the only freedom worthy of the name ..."  In 1993, he apologised for Catholics' involvement with the African slave trade.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church published in 1994 sets out the official position of the modern Church:

  CCC 2414 The Seventh Commandment forbids acts or enterprises that ... lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit ..."


The differences between the NKJV and KJV Bible translations

The two translations are probably similar enough that you don’t need to get both.

I would recommend getting the KJV because of its historical importance. In your studies, it will be useful to get a historical perspective on passages, as well as a taste of truly traditional language.

I wouldn’t advise getting the NKJV in your particular case: anything it has that the KJV doesn’t will probably be in another modern translation. Those other modern translations will have other advantages in scholarship and readability; the NKJV won’t have these because it was intended as a touch-up of the KJV.

This isn’t to put down the NKJV; it’s perfectly adequate as a single translation. However, given that you’re using others as well, it doesn’t have anything that makes it stand out as excellent in a particular way, as the KJV does because of its historical and literary value. The purpose of the NKJV was to make the KJV slightly more readable and correct a few possible errors in translation; some users may find that helpful. The KJV, on the other hand, was the most-used translation for centuries and occupies an important place in the history of the Bible in English—and indeed, the English language.

For example, excerpting from Bible Researcher: Though the NKJV “followed the essentially literal method of translation”, it “is less literal than the NASB […] because of renderings carried over from the KJV”. In other words, where literalness might be a plus, it isn’t because of its heritage. On the other hand, it doesn’t have the literary weight of the original KJV. Quoting John Richard Green, another page on the same website says, “As a mere literary monument the [KJV] remains the noblest language of the English tongue, while its perpetual use made of it from the instant of its appearance the standard of our language.”

Disclaimer: In linking to any site, I do not necessarily subscribe to any or all of the author’s opinions.


When Christians say "the Lord" in everyday speech, do they mean Jesus or the Father?

For most Christians "The Lord" or "Lord" will usually mean either God the Father or Jesus. Sometimes they may mean the Holy Spirit or just "God", meaning (for Trinitarians) any or all three of the above.
There are many occasions in the Bible where Jesus is referred to as "Lord", and also God the Father is frequently referred to in that way. (I have not specifically found one where the Spirit is referred to as Lord, but "Spirit of the Lord" is found frequently.) For groups that hold to the Athanasian Creed the equivalence is defined there. " So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. "