How do Catholics respond to claims that Christianity was paganised by the Roman Empire?

Let's set the stage by reviewing how Catholic Answers (a popular Catholic apologist website) answers the claim: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/how-to-answer-the-charge-catholicism-is-pagan .  In the article Mr. Karl Keating (founder and senior fellow of Catholic Answer) proposes that the presence of what used to be heathen / pagan elements were introduced to the church as inculturation, a strategy defended by many popes as late as Pope St. John Paul II.  Probably aware of where the criticism came from, Mr. Keating also pointed out how the same inculturation process is happening within the Protestant churches as well.  In both cases, the Christian faith itself is not compromised.

What's uncontroversial was how local churches underground having no legal status within the Roman Empire until the Edict of Milan (313 AD) having to tolerate pagan worship with "state sponsored" rich festivals, sculptures, temples, rituals, etc.  Money simply poured in mostly from rich senatorial members as well as local town leaders.  But in the first centuries following Constantine (reigning 306-324) until the Justinian (reigning 527-565), the now legal Church started to win state protection and preferential treatment in the major cities until paganism became irrelevant and relegated to the countryside by the end of Justinian rule.  I recommend https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/fall-of-the-pagans-and-the-origins-of-medieval-christianity.html to learn about the details.

Imagine you are the Emperor, also having the title Pontifex Maximus, the chief high priest of the Roman religion, having power to distribute offices to all institutions related to religion.  Shortly after Constantine you'll have to treat both religions equal before the law and you have to manage powerful senators and city leaders across your empire politically so they keep giving you support.  Remember how your predecessors have used emperor sponsorship of temples as your political base throughout the empire.  At the same time, you want to promote Christianity by directing money to the building of churches, most notably the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.  When there are communities where the Christians slowly had the upper hand over the pagans you would support breaking down the temples and literally use the marbles and stones to construct a church, or you support architectural renovation to convert the structure into a church.

Now imagine you are a typical bishop between 306-565 leading your local diocese, given more funding and legal rights to do more in winning converts to Christianity.  Most of your target audience would be pagans.  How would you win them over?  You basically have to fuse Judeo + Early Christian approach to God (heavy in morality but very few sanctioned rituals like baptism, communion, marriage) with Pagan approach (no morality but heavy in rituals).  Two completely different spiritualities: one is expressed through justice, works of mercy, and legal standing before God, the other is expressed through doing the right rituals so NOT to offend the gods (otherwise calamities will fall on you, which is why Christians were persecuted in the first place, because of FEAR that enemies will destroy Rome, which is why the early Christian apologists were busy defending the Christians in not worshiping those idols).  But in morals you are free to do whatever you like otherwise; you have your option of Stoic, Epicurean, Platonic philosophies for your moral code.  As bishop you have to transition your pagan audience to be faithful morally and spiritually to the one God Jesus.

Then imagine you are a missionary TODAY being sent to Korea / Japan where there are STILL entrenched shaman practices and their shrines.  I was told how Samsung executives TODAY have to participate in company sponsored sea-side rituals led by shaman to offer sacrifices and prayers to some gods for blessing for Samsung, with some minority Christians having to either excuse themselves or participate with their fingers crossed offering prayer to the Christian God for forgiveness for participating because they cannot afford to be fired from the job.

So as bishop how would you wean both the Roman pagans of the 4-6th centuries and the Korean+Japanese "heathens" of today from their emotional, intellectual, and superstitious attachments to elements of their paganism, so entrenched in their survival and existential instincts so you could achieve enduring non-disruptive conversion to the Christian faith?  That would be the proper context to evaluate the inculturation strategy which of course in the modern West today is completely irrelevant (but WARNING: there is a rise of those old elements coming back under different names: interest in magic like Harry Potter, new age, etc.)   So why not CO-OPT the popular festivals into celebrating Jesus instead?

For more details, I suggest reviewing the work of a Roman Catholic priest, later appointed as history professor at St. Thomas College in Minnesota, offered a post as professor of reformation history at the University of Notre Dame, and awarded the title of monsignor, Mgr. Philip Hughes, who wrote the popular and very readable "A History of the Church to the Eve of the Reformation (first published in 1936, revised 1976) in 3 Volumes.  The first volume (-711) is the most relevant, with these chapters heavily address paganism:

Chapter 1. The World in which the Church was Founded.  Chapter Sections: The Roman Imperial Unity, The Pagan Religions of the Romano-Hellenistic Culture, The Religion of the Jews, Tendencies in the Religious World of the First Century A.D.
Chapter 3. The First Contacts with the Pagan Religious World.  Chapter Sections: The Religious World of the Second Century, The First Apologists, The Gnostics and the Church, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Marcion -- Montanism
Chapter 6. The Church and the Pagan Roman Empire.  Chapter Sections: The State -- Hostile and Tolerant, The State -- De-Paganised

I hope the Catholic references above will show that it's not that Christianity was paganised by the Roman empire, but instead it's a top down inculturation strategy implemented over a few centuries to win over converts and eventually knocking out the underlying pagan referents from the festivals, rituals and symbols.  It's like baptism and incarnation: the old is still there, but the core killed and replaced by a new life nurtured by the Holy Spirit in the service of the true God.

St. Thomas Aquinas of the 13th century will do the same in the intellectual sphere, baptizing the newly rediscovered Aristotle into the service of Catholic theology for many centuries to come.  Many Protestants would similarly protest (until today!) that there are too much Greek philosophical elements smuggled into Catholic theology, but in the end, is it really damaging to the spiritual Christian core?  How about enlightenment ideas smuggled into Protestant theologies and increasingly secular Western nations today?


Can protestant churches join the Eastern Orthodox Church?

This has only happened on one occasion.   If you read the Book "Becoming Orthodox" It tells the story of a group of Campus Crusade for Christ ministers who formed their own denomination after graduating college, eventually calling themselves the Evangelical Orthodox Church.   That group went on a quest "to discover the doctrine of the Early church", which eventually led them to investigate Eastern Orthodoxy.   Most of the churches in their group converted but a few did not and remained independent.     This sort of thing has happened in a few other cases to individual churches, I can cite stories where a Vineyard (Charismatic) church and a Four-Square Church have converted to become EO parishes.

While this is unlikely to happen (due to the vast differences between most Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox) it is possible.   All that is needed is for the church group to show an interest in learning and adopting the Holy Tradition (of the EO) and a Metropolitan, Patriarch or Bishop that is willing to shepherd them into joining his jurisdiction.  I recommend the following link on the conversion of the Evangelical Orthodox Church.

Retrospective on the EOC Reception into the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese

"We arrived at the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese headquarters in Englewood, New Jersey, and the moment the door opened I knew my life would change forever. “Welcome home,” burst from Sayedna’s lips after we, the delegation representing the Evangelical Orthodox Church, accepted his gracious offer to receive our parishes — about 2,000 Evangelical Protestants across North America — en masse into the Orthodox Church. Metropolitan PHILIP’s two beautiful words still reverberate in my mind and heart 20 years later, and surely will for the rest of my life.
His Eminence put a lot on the line in receiving the Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC). But he took that risk believing it was the right thing to do, and expecting that God would use this move to bless the members of the former EOC as well as all the Orthodox Christians of North America, and through them eventually all the people of our continent. God has been gracious, abundantly pouring out His blessings since Sayedna received the EOC into the Antiochian Archdiocese in 1987. I would like to review four prominent areas in which God has worked: the Orthodox Study Bible, the Orthodox Conference on Missions and Evangelism, the planting of over 100 new missions, and the revival of Orthodox campus ministry."

http://ww1.antiochian.org/node/17077

Here also are two articles of churches from a Pentecostal and Charismatic background that became Eastern Orthodox.

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2010/06/o-lord-establish-this-vineyard/

http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/2010/05/recovering-the-ancient-paths-dennis-corrigan/


Is it true that the Southern Baptist denomination marks no distinction between member and non-member?

No (though it does vary by church)

One very influential Southern Baptist church is Capitol Hill Baptist Church, where Mark Dever is the Senior Pastor. Dever is well known as the author of Nine Marks of a Healthy Church (and founder of the associated ministry). One of the nine marks is church membership, in a much more prominent way than I've heard of in any other church. Read more here: http://www.9marks.org/what-are-the-9marks/membership

Membership in churches that take the approach of 9Marks is about members committing themselves to the church and the authority of its leaders - they are saying that they desire and are willing to submit themselves to church discipline, if that unfortunately is needed in the future. Voting is probably also linked with membership, but the main purpose of membership is discipline, not voting.

Membership would never be required to attend those churches, nor to participate in most of its activities. Membership may be required for positions of leadership, but that's common in many churches, not just baptist ones. But if you regularly attended the church and participated in a bible study or something else but hadn't yet been a member you would probably feel a lot of pressure to to do, because refusing to become a member would be seen as defying the church leadership, which the Bible says we must not do, such as in Hebrews 13:17, among other places.


Do the Eastern Orthodox think the state of virginity is more meritorious than marriage?

I'm not EO but I read lots of their stuff (I am lapsed Coptic Orthodox).

A few points however to be made.

1) The terminology you use "meritorious" is Roman Catholic.   The EO has a different outlook than the Latin Church in regards to "the saints", Ecclesiology etc.

2) The easy answer however is to say "yes" or "sort of".    Such an argument can be made by actually looking at what saint Paul says in 1 Cor. 7: "32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord."

That being said the EO like the Catholics believe that marriage is a special vocation from God and honorable (just as saint Paul did).   But like saint Paul says, the single life of virginity does allow someone to focus solely on serving the Lord.    It is interesting that many Protestants believe we are "living in the Last Days", but have a very different outlook on this subject than saint Paul!


How and when do I take God's word literally?

Basically if you are talking to a non-believer that is not a Jew - He is not under the Law of Moses before of after Christ Jesus. He could turn xtian and start to LITERALLY uphold the Law of Moses but that would curse him. Xtians are not under the Law of Moses.

Romans 3 and Galatians 3 explains that xtians are not under the law of Moses anymore:
1) everyone sinned under the Law of Moses
2) there is not even ONE righteous person

Usually God would count on that one righteous person to save mankind and avoid God's wrath. Thus Christ Jesus, to save mankind AND show how to UPHOLD the Law of Moses thru faith.

Romans 3:30 NET

  Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised by faith and the
  uncircumcised through faith

This is where your denomination or nondenominational of choice comes in: To show you how to UPHOLD the Law of Moses through FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS.

Titus 3:4 NET

  But “when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind
  appeared, he saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done
  but on the basis of his mercy

thanks for reading


Do Mormons celebrate Christmas on/or around the 25th of December?

Yes, Mormons generally celebrate the birth of Christ on the traditional day of Christmas, December 25. They never said there was scriptural basis for this date; the specific day of the year is not important to them.


Percentage of Christians to hold pre- or post-tribulation view of rapture

Many Evangelicals have long suspected that the largest percentage of Christians overall would support a pre-Tribulation view, an idea that was corroborated by the data, as the largest share of pastors—36 percent—reported believing in that Rapture paradigm. The second largest proportion was the 25 percent who agreed that “the concept of the Rapture is not to be taken literally.” Furthermore, 18 percent selected a post-Tribulation paradigm, with smaller proportions for mid-Tribulation (4 percent), pre-wrath (4 percent), preterist ideals (1 percent), and none of the options presented (8 percent).

From the book, The Armageddon Code: One Journalist's Quest for End-Times Answers
by Billy Hallowell, page 171 (2016). A poll was commissioned through LifeWay Research, asking one thousand senior pastors, ministers, and priests—all Protestants who self-identified as either Evangelical, mainline, or “neither”—across America to tell us what they believe.


According to Wesleyan-Arminianism, does God fail?

One of the best illustrations I have seen in support of the Arminian concept is a "Dennis the Menace" cartoon in which Dennis has a boy on the ground and is sitting on him with his fist poised to punch him in the face.  The caption is, "Alright Dennis, I'll be you're best friend."  Anybody who knows anything about love knows it cannot be taken, it can only be given.  God whose nature is love knows this most of all.  He created man with free will and the ability to love whom we choose.  If we look at His creation, including ourselves, we see the evidence of this everywhere.

That is from me.  Officially, Wesleyan Arminians believe that for God to overcome man's choice to resist His grace would be an infringement on man's libertarian free will and that free will is tantamount to God truly being loved.  To consider this a failure on God's part would indicate a lack of understanding of God and His nature.  The only limitations on God are the ones He places on Himself.


How does the Orthodox Church view the Roman Catholic Church?

Yes and no. The Catholic Church was initially considered by the Orthodox Church to be heretical, but as time passed and the term began to have strong negative connotations, the term was changed to heterodox, at least in official discourses. However, hardliners are still using the term heretic. In what matters? Well, the first one would be the filioque controversy. Search for it on this site, it's discussed in numerous threads. Other issues like the Easter date, celibacy of priests, unleavened bread used for the eucharist, withholding the Holy Blood (eucharistical wine) from the laity, using the organ in church music, papal primacy, papal infallibility etc. are considered by the Orthodox Church to have no basis in the Holy Scripture or the Holy Tradition (teachings of the Church Fathers) and thus they are not orthodox, but heterodox.
I come from a catholic family so I was baptized catholic. I converted to orthodox christianity a few years ago, and the conversion did not include a baptism. This is because the catholic baptism is considered valid by the Orthodox Church. Both Churches have apostolic succession (by laying on of hands) so both orthodox and catholic priests received the Gifts of the Holy Spirit on ordination. Baptisms performed by other denominations are not considered valid (especially the ones from the non-trinitarian denominations, because a person has to be baptized in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit). Eucharisty on the other hand is not considered valid. Furthermore, it is strictly prohibited to give the Holy Communion to non-orthodox people. I'm not 100% sure, but this should be the same in the Catholic Church also.
Attending Mass in other churches is not prohibited. In both Orthodox and Catholic Christianity the reason one calls a priest father is because he is one's spiritual parent, guiding him in his spiritual endeavours. Penance should not be just an enumeration of your sins, but also a desire to not repeat them and asking the priest for guidance, which he provides based on the teachings of the Church. It would be a kind of nonsense to be orthodox and seek guidance from a catholic priest (offering advice based on catholic teachings) or viceversa. If one feels like doing so, for whatever reason, then why not convert?

I'm romanian, and most of the information in this answer I learned from the writings of romanian orthodox monks, priests and theologians (also some greek, russian and Church Fathers writings).


What doctrine does Family Radio have of the End of the World?

The claim
Well, the underlying doctrine behind this is the idea of the rapture.  That idea comes out of dispensation premillennialism.  This doctrine states that Jesus will have all the Christians pulled out of the world before the tribulation occurs.
This particular prediction was made by Harold Camping.  He claims that the Bible was his source for this.  However, he also claims to have used a set of cycles to determine this including the Jewish feast days, the lunar calendar, and a close approximation to the Gregorian calendar.
There is no support for this claim outside of his own predictions.  The claim has been spread widely due to him being the president for the radio company that is spreading these claims.  Furthermore, it should be noted that his background is in radio ministry and not as a pastor, priest, or other doctrinal/biblical expert.
Validity
Regarding the validity of this claim,
2 Peter 3:10 says that Jesus will return like a thief in the night.  This indicates that there won't be people predicting his return and attempting to prepare others for it.  Furthermore, Jesus said in Matthew 24:36 that no one knows the day or the hour that these events will occur.
Given the strong biblical argument against someone predicting his return, I strongly discourage anyone from believing his methods and following this prediction.
More information here


What is the distinction between Justification and Salvation? (Roman Catholic view)

Justification
In the Catholic Church, justification (from the Latin iustus, righteous; and facio, to make) means what God does in order to render people righteous. (In theological lingo, justice means righteousness; a just person is right with God.) As the Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] puts it,

The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ” and through Baptism (No. 1987).

Justification, therefore, is entirely the work of God (see also the Decree concerning Justification of the Council of Trent, Canon 1), although, of course, it requires a free acceptance on the part of the person:

Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us (CCC 1991; see also the Decree concerning Justification Canon 4).

Justification is the work of grace:

Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life (CCC 1996).

Salvation
For most Catholic theologians, salvation refers to eternal salvation, that is, people’s full and definitive union with God. For example, that is the use given in the Decree concerning Justification.
Salvation does not, therefore, coincide perfectly with justification. Justification is absolutely necessary for (eternal) salvation; therefore, justification could be viewed as the beginning of salvation. (See CCC 1992.)
Justification, however, at least while people are here on earth, can never be considered definitive, since people can always lose their righteousness by deliberately committing grave sins. (See Canon 23 of the Decree concerning Justification.)
TL;DR
To sum up the difference: justification means what God does to make people righteous and right with Him; salvation means the full realization of that justification, when people reach their definitive union with Him.


Was St. Joseph always a righteous man?
According to Catholic tradition, St. Joseph had always been a righteous man.

When asked by a questioner about the dignity of St. Joseph in Christian tradition, the late Father Francis L. Filas, S.J., the U.S.A.'s leading authority on the subject, responded simply, "Like wife, like husband." The man closest to Jesus and Mary rightly deserves all honor and praise.
The theology of his vocation, dignity, holiness, and intercession began to flower only in medieval times, and the seventeenth century was the golden age. The enthusiasm of St. Teresa of Avila for St. Joseph was remarkable, vividly expressed in her writings, and perpetrated in the twelve new convents given his name.
The ground swell of attention began with the popes of the late nineteenth century. All the popes of modern times, from Pope Pius IX until our present Holy Father, have issued substantial teaching about Joseph on their official documents. Since 1870 the Church officially gave impetus to this new trend when Pope Pius IX declared St. Joseph Patron of the Universal Church. The next pope, Leo XIII, set St. Joseph before us with a rank and place best described in his encyclical about Joseph, Quamquam Pluries, 1889: "There can be no doubt that, more than any other person, he approached that super-eminent dignity by which the Mother of God was raised far above all created natures."
Such an exalted understanding and appreciation of St. Joseph's dignity do not blossom all at once. Sustained study and meditation on his twofold vocation are required. The extremes of too much or too little must be sedulously avoided. A typical reaction often encountered is that the Gospel says Joseph was a just man. What more can be said?
Plenty! In 1989 Pope John Paul II offered us a masterful explanation and reflection on the unique vocation of St. Joseph in God's plan of salvation with Redemptoris Custos (Guardian of the Redeemer). This inspirational pastoral letter, marking the centenary of Leo XIII's landmark encyclical, treats the person and mission of St. Joseph in the life of Christ and of the Church. It recalls what makes him special, not only for us personally, but also for the universal Church.
Some muse that Joseph's role is not treated in any detail in Holy Scripture. But neither is the vocation of Mary. However, what little is said is highly significant. Theologians have reasoned to many of the functions and privileges granted Mary. The same process is followed in regard to Joseph. Once the divinity of Jesus and the divine virginal motherhood of Mary were firmly established in Catholic doctrine and in popular understanding, Joseph began to emerge without concern that his unique position as virgin father of Jesus and virginal husband of Mary would be misunderstood.
The evolution of devotion to St. Joseph is in reality another facet of devotion to Mary. Probing more deeply Joseph's mission leads us to knowing more deeply the greatness of Mary. St. Joseph's position in relation to Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, stems from his position with regard to Mary, Mother of the Redeemer. The parallel holds true also for Mary and Jesus. The better we know Mary, the better we will know her Son, from whom she derives all her dignity and whom she reflects so faithfully. Pope Benedict XV clearly expressed this idea: "By St. Joseph we are led directly to Mary, and by Mary to the fountain of all holiness, Jesus Christ, who sanctified the domestic virtues by His obedience to St. Joseph and Mary."
Absolutely certain is the fact that God did not choose an unworthy man to be the husband of Mary, who was to be the Virgin Mother of God. Even if St. Joseph had been merely Mary's protector and not her husband, he would still have occupied a position far surpassing that of any other human being. But Joseph is her husband, related to the Mother of God in a marriage that was no less genuine because it was virginal. The marriage was brought into existence by God for the express purpose of serving the Incarnation, so that the Son of God might be received and reared within that holy conjugal union. Since, in all creation God could find none more worthy than Mary to be the Mother of Jesus, God could find none more worthy than Joseph to be the husband of Mary, and to be related to Jesus by the spiritual ties of a true fatherhood.
In the words of Leo XIII, "If God gave Joseph as a spouse to the Virgin, He assuredly gave him not only as a companion in life, a witness of her virginity, and the guardian of her honor, but also as a sharer in her exalted dignity by reason of the conjugal tie itself." - Reflection on Saint Joseph

The circumstances of Joseph's death are not known, but it is likely that he died before Jesus's ministry began, and it is implied that he was dead before the Crucifixion (John 19:26-27). Already a patron saint of Mexico, Canada and Belgium, in 1870, Joseph was declared patron of the universal church by Pope Pius IX, and in 1955 Pope Pius XII established May 1 as the "Feast of Saint Joseph the Worker" to counter the Communists' May Day.
As for stories and/or books about st. Joseph to substantiate this,the following may be of some interest:

Apparition de saint Joseph à Cotignac
The History of Joseph the Carpenter An “Apocryphal History of Joseph the Carpenter” (ca AD 400) It’s an apocryphal retelling of the life of Saint Joseph from the perspective of Christ. Again, it is apocryphal, but interesting and edifying all the same.
The Life and Glories of St. Joseph

Addendum:
While not a solemnly defined dogma of the Catholic Faith as is the case with the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, it is a piously-held belief by some Catholics that St. Joseph, as a reward for the faithful fulfillment of his duties as the guardian and protector of the Holy Family, did not have to wait until the Second Coming of Christ to have his soul reunited to his body.
Since the beginning of the Church, Christians have venerated the relics of deceased saints and built churches over the tombs holding their bones. We have first-class relics of the Apostles and many other prominent figures of the early Church; however, first-class relics ascribed to the earthly father of Jesus are conspicuously non-existent. Just as the lack of bones belonging to the Mother of God points to the truth of her bodily Assumption, it likewise lends credibility to the belief in the assumption of St. Joseph.

St. Joseph in the Sky at Fatima: The Pious Belief in the Assumption of St. Joseph


Do any Theistic Evolutionists deny the possibility of (intelligent) life on other planets for Biblical reasons?

Intriguing question, although I do not subscribe to theistic evolution, nor have I ever given a second thought to the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.  Curious, I went searching for information.  I found one published paper about the implications of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life for religion, which I partially quote below.  However, it said nothing about theistic evolutionists.

The implications of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life for religion

Abstract: This paper asks about the future of religion: (i) Will confirmation of extra-terrestrial intelligence (ETI) cause terrestrial religion to collapse? ‘No’ is the answer based upon a summary of the ‘Peters ETI Religious Crisis Survey’. Then the paper examines four specific challenges to traditional doctrinal belief likely to be raised at the detection of ETI: (ii) What is the scope of God’s creation? (iii) What can we expect regarding the moral character of ETI? (iv) Is one earthly incarnation in Jesus Christ enough for the entire cosmos, or should we expect multiple incarnations on multiple planets? (v) Will contact with more advanced ETI diminish human dignity? More than probable contact with extra-terrestrial intelligence will expand the Bible’s vision so that all of creation—including the 13.7 billion year history of the universe replete with all of God’s creatures—will be seen as the gift of a loving and gracious God.

Conclusion: Despite the conventional wisdom, it is not reasonable to forecast that any of Earth’s major religious traditions will confront a crisis let alone a collapse should we confirm an encounter with extra-terrestrial intelligence. Theologians will not find themselves out of a job. In fact, theologians might relish the new challenges to reformulate classical religious commitments in light of the new and wider vision of God’s creation. Traditional theologians must then become astro-theologians. Perhaps in preparation of this eventuality, the time now is ripe for some speculation. What I forecast is this: contact with extra-terrestrial intelligence will expand the existing religious vision that all of creation—including the 13.7 billion year history of the universe replete with all of God’s creatures—is the gift of a loving and gracious God.

(Ted Peters Published: 13 February 2011)  https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2010.0234
My search unearthed a Wikipedia article on “Cosmic Pluralism” which has to do with speculation on extra-terrestrial life.  Here is a brief extract:

In the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries the term "cosmic pluralism" became largely archaic as knowledge diversified and the speculation on extra-terrestrial life focused on particular bodies and observations. The historic debate continues to have modern parallels, however. Carl Sagan and Frank Drake, for instance, could well be considered "pluralists" while proponents of the Rare Earth hypothesis are modern skeptics.

What I found fascinating was a reference to the Qur’an and a suggestion that Allah may have created life forms on other planets:

Modern Islamic scholars like Abdullah Yusuf Ali point to the Qur'an (42:29) to argue for life on other planets: "And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the living creatures that He has scattered through them". The verses uses the word da’bbah, which denotes living creatures on the surface of a planet.  Two Qur'anic verses support the idea of God being Lord of multiple worlds: 1:2 and 41:09. Qur'an 16:8 says "He has created other things of which ye have no knowledge."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_pluralism

I have no reason to think that Muslims agree with theistic evolution, but it is interesting to note that the Qur’an could be used in support of extra-terrestrial life on other planets.
Whilst I have been unable to find any published paper that suggests theistic evolutionist deny the possibility of intelligent life on other plants for biblical reasons, that does not mean to say that no such paper has ever been published.   Personally, my view is that since the Bible has nothing to say about life-forms on other planets, then I conclude it is not necessary for me to know.  If God thought we needed to know, He would have mentioned it.  Indeed, we have more than enough problems of our own making here on Earth right now to spend time speculating on “what if’s”.
As you said in answer to a question asked in September 2011:

“God does not lie, and that creation reveals Him. Therefore, whatever good science says about the Universe must, IMO, be true, as a true reflection of God through his creation.”

As the Psalmist said:
<The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the works of his hands (Psalm 19:1)


Why are there different divisions of the Ten Commandments?

The reason why different groups view the Ten Commandments differently is because each group assumes different priorities from the text. Some of the commandments are long because they include a justification or explanation, so it's natural to shorten those to a single phrase when compiling the list. It is these expanded commandments that leave room for different number orders.

A lot of Protestants say that Catholics lumped "Thou shalt not make unto thyself graven images" in with the first commandment in order to avoid the issue of venerating icons. This shouldn't be the case, since Jews have put "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" with "graven images" since antiquity. During the time of Exodus, the Jewish worldview at the time stands out among it's Middle East peers. The first commandment in their version lays the basis for monotheism. It is the foundation of all the commandments.

Christians see the Jewish first command as a preface. For a long time, Jewish understanding of the Scriptures was lost to the Christian world, whether by lack of contact or simple ignoring. Therefore, in Protestant and Catholic minds, there is no need to establish monotheism, and the division of ten can only be in the rest of the list. At the same time, there is a different wording near the end of the list in the Exodus/Deuteronomy versions: Catholic tradition emphasizes the latter, where coveting your neighbor's wife comes before coveting your neighbor's house, so from a Protestant perspective, which emphasises the earlier decalogue, it doesn't even enter the mind to split them, so they go to the most natural section. Furthermore, Protestants are protesting, among other things, the veneration of icons, so they emphasize the commandment against graven images.

Even if making carved idols is a sub-unit of the first commandment, then it still would seem apparent that the rest of the explanation and justification for that commandment is concerned primarily with making idols. For ancient Jewry this is understandable since false worship always included idols in the world around them. Catholics also know that they only worship one God, so they don't see the reason to separate two ideas that are so connected. Protestants are critical of Catholic practices after the Reformation period, and they don't have the option of making two different covets because of the way the text they use is worded. Protestants feel like this commandment of God (even as a sub-unit of one of the ten, it still is a command) has been understated, and they elevate its status.

The divisions are competing merely because of historical reasons. They don't actually contradict each other. The Law is summed up in "Love the LORD your God" and "Love your neighbor.".


Historical evidence for a separate Jewish branch of Christianity?

After Paul's death, Christianity emerged as a separate religion, and Pauline Christianity emerged as the dominant form of Christianity, especially after Paul, James and the other apostles agreed on a compromise set of requirements.[Acts 15] Some Christians continued to adhere to aspects of Jewish law, but they were few in number and often considered heretics by the Church. One example is the Ebionites, who seem to have denied the virgin birth of Jesus, the physical Resurrection of Jesus, and most of the books that were later canonized as the New Testament. For example, the Ethiopian Orthodox still continue Old Testament practices such as the Sabbath. As late as the 4th century Church Father John Chrysostom complained that some Christians were still attending Jewish synagogues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism

I also remember reading a work of Augustine which mentioned that Christians were still meeting in the synagogue with Jews on the Sabbath. There would be groups like the Ebionites (which may have been heretical) or Nazarenes/Netzrim which were Jewish converts who still kept the law. I would say this separation didn't become definitive until Judaism enacted a curse against them in the liturgy.

Eusebius relates a tradition, probably based on Aristo of Pella, that the early Christians left Jerusalem just prior to the war and fled to Pella beyond the Jordan River, but does not connect this with Ebionites.[11][13] They were led by Simeon of Jerusalem (d. 107) and during the Second Jewish-Roman War of 115–117, they were persecuted by the Jewish followers of Bar Kochba for refusing to recognize his messianic claims.[28]

The 12th-century Muslim historian Muhammad al-Shahrastani mentions Jews living in nearby Medina and Hejaz who accepted Jesus as a prophetic figure and followed traditional Judaism, rejecting mainstream Christian views.[34] Some scholars argue that they contributed to the development of the Islamic view of Jesus due to exchanges of Ebionite remnants with the first Muslims.[13][35]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites


How have Churches interpreted handing people over to Satan?

In general the phrase "Deliver this man to Satan" seems to imply some form of excommunication or another. The severity of excommunication varies widely among religions. In some religions, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, excommunication carries with it a complete severance from the group. In others, like the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, it merely means that an excommunicant may still attend church but may not partake of the Eucharist.

  THE RESULT OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE: EXCOMMUNICATION

  "Deliver this man to Satan" (v. 5). I have translated the Greek aorist infinitive paradonai (paradounai, "to deliver") as an imperative. Handing someone over to Satan is akin to the prescription Jesus gave His disciples: treat an unrepentant sinner as a pagan or a tax collector (Matt 18:17). The command to deliver someone to Satan has a parallel in another epistle where Paul writes about some people shipwrecking their faith. "Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme" (1 Tim 1:20, NIV).

  Paul's command to hand over a person to Satan is the act of excommunication and is equivalent to purging the evil from the church (cf. v. 13). Believers are safe in the hand of God from which no one, not even Satan, can snatch them (John 10:28-29). But if a sinner is delivered to the prince of this world, he faces destruction. He no longer enjoys the protection that a caring Christian community provides. John C. Hurd puts it graphically: "The Church [is] an island of life in Christ surrounded by a sea of death ruled by Satan."[16]

  When adrift and deprived of spiritual support, the possibility is not remote that the outcast will come to his senses and subsequently repent. Here are two examples from the OT and the NT, respectively, of individuals who repented and returned to fellowship. Gomer, who as Hosea's sexually immoral wife personifies Israel, exclaims, "I will go back to my husband as at first, for then I was better off than now" (Hos 2:7, NIV). And the prodigal son repented by confessing that he had sinned against God and against his father. Of his own volition, the son went to his parental home. This Jewish son came to his senses when he worked seven days a week herding pigs for a Gentile and was physically starving. He had broken God's commands, but confessed his sin before God. In the words of the father, the wayward son was dead; but when he returned home, he was alive again (Luke 15:24, 32).

In the Rule of St. Benedict are a few chapters that deal with the subject of correction, (in particular chapters 23 - 30). This rule is still followed by thousands of Catholic Benedictine monks. In fact the Rule of St. Benedict is read aloud each day in their monasteries so that no one may claim ignorance of the Holy Rule.

Although modern interpretations may exist for the Holy Rule, it is clear that for St. Benedict a monk (nun) that is guilty of serious faults must do serious penance. "Such a one is delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord."

The main point is that the monk must do all his work and take his meals in solitude until he has amended his life and truly repented of his sins, in particular the fault that caused the abbot to take these measures. He is also not permitted to be in choir until the abbot gives leave to do so.

St. Benedict of Nursia is commemorated as a saint in the Catholic Church on March 21, the Eastern Orthodox Churches on March 14 and in the Anglican Communion on July 11!

  Chapter 25

  Of more serious faults

  That brother who is found guilty of a more serious fault shall be excluded both from the table and from the oratory. None of the brethren shall associate with him or speak to him. Let him be alone at the work enjoined him, and continue in the sorrow of his penance, remembering that dreadful sentence of the Apostle: "Such a one is delivered to Satan for the destruction of the flesh that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." He shall take his food alone in the measure and at the time that the Abbot shall think best for him. He is not to receive a blessing from those who pass by him, neither is his food to receive the usual blessing.

For the Eastern Orthodox Churches, excommunication is actually quite rare:

  In the Eastern Orthodox churches, excommunication is the exclusion of a member from the Eucharist. It is not expulsion from the churches. This can happen for such reasons as not having confessed within that year; excommunication can also be imposed as part of a penitential period. It is generally done with the goal of restoring the member to full communion. Before an excommunication of significant duration is imposed, the bishop is usually consulted. The Orthodox churches do have a means of expulsion, by pronouncing anathema, but this is reserved only for acts of serious and unrepentant heresy. As an example of this, the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, in its eleventh capitula, declared: "If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema."

The Jehovah's Witnesses have a version of excommunication as follows:

  Yes, disfellowshipping or shunning incorrigible sinners is a clear and explicit teaching in the Bible.

  In fact, Jesus Christ established it as a requirement for the Christian congregation. Anyone who believes otherwise simply does not know the Bible nor Christ.

  Jesus said: "If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector" (Mt. 18:17).

  Smith's Bible Dictionary:

  "Excommunication, as exercised by the Christian Church, is not merely founded on the natural right, possessed by all societies, nor merely on the example of the Jewish Church and nation. It was instituted by our Lord (Matt. xviii. 15, 18), and it was practiced and commanded by St. Paul (1 Tim. i. 20; 1 Cor. v. 11; Tit. iii.10).”

  Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible says:

  "Excommunication. The permanent or temporary exclusion of a church member from fellowship within the community. This practice, specifically mentioned in Matthew's Gospel (Mt.18:15-17) and the Corinthian correspondence (1 Cor.5:5; 2 Cor. 2:6), served 2 purposes. First, it protects the community from the harmful influence of the sinner (1 Cor.5:6-7). Second, it reminds the sinner of the sin (2 Cor.2:7) in the hope that repentance (7:9) and redemption occur...Although the term excommunication' does not appear in Scripture, the concept is clearly present. Matthew instructs the Church to treat unrepentant members likea Gentile and a tax collector' (Mt.18:17), and Paul wants the guilty party delivered "over to Satan" (1 Cor.5:5), i.e., delivered over to the realm of Satan, the world outside the Church. Church discipline, ending in excommunication, should only be used for serious matters such as blatant sexual sins (1 Cor.5:1), unrepentance (Mt.18:15-17), facetiousness (Tit.3:10-11), and the propagation of heresy (Rm.16:17). Sinners should be dealt with quickly and seriously for both the health of the community and the spiritual health of the offender."

  The NASB Study Bible says in a footnote at 1 Cor. 5:11-13: “Calling oneself a Christian who continues to live an immoral life is reprehensible and degrading, and gives a false testimony to Christ. If the true Christian has intimate association with someone who does this, the non-Christian world may assume that the church approves such immoral, ungodly living and thus the name of Christ would be dishonored. Questions would arise concerning of the Christian’s own testimony, …judge those who are within, The church is to exercise spiritual discipline over the professing believers in the church.”

  Any Christian who got involved in immoral practices would be lovingly helped to change his way (Gal 6:1; Js. 5: 19,20). If he repents “it will be forgiven him” (Jas. 5:14-16; Acts 17:30; Pro. 28:13). If they are unrepentant the true Christian congregation would keep itself "without spot from the world" by “reproving before all onlookers” “stop mixing in company” with the individual by “removing the wicked man from among ourselves" (Jas. 1:27; 1 Tim. 5:20; 1 Cor. 5:11-13).

  The true Christian religion would follow Christ’s lead and God's commands and remove willful sinners from their midst. Any religion which does not follow this mandate cannot be truly Christian. - Is Excommunication, or Disfellowshipping, a Teaching Found in the Bible?

So too the Amish practice shunninig that the wayward may come back:

  When someone leaves the Amish they think they are heading down the wrong path and to serve as a warning to the members of the church and hoping that by doing this it will make those that have left reconsider their ways. They have a members meeting after church services where they excommunicate them by practicing 1 Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. The thought of being handed over to Satan is terrifying especially since we used to believe that if a person died before they were accepted back into the church there was no hope for them.

  Any person that is excommunicated is shunned 1 Corinthians 5:11. We can still go see my parents, though they are happy to see us there is kind of a cloud of sorrow there as well. When my Grandma passed away we stayed at my parents house overnight. They gave us a bed, plenty of food, we visited, but we couldn't sit at the same table to eat, and we weren't allowed to help them work. They won't accept gifts from us, but birthdays and Christmas always brings packages in the mail from them.  Our relationship has changed. We don't call and talk with each other every week like we used to, they don't come to visit us, but there is no doubt in my mind that they still love us. - Mine is a simple question. I realize tradition is a huge part of Amish life. But I cannot understand the shunning of one who has left the order.


According to Preterism is the land mentioned in Ezekiel 37:25 "Heaven"?

Preterist often see a spiritual fulfillment of Ezekiel 37. Preterist Don Preston writes;

  Paul, who preached nothing but the hope of Israel, wrote to the church at Corinth (comprised of members of the remnant of Israel) and he said, “you are the temple of God, as it is written” (my emphasis). He then quoted– verbatim!!– from Ezekiel 37:26! So, for Paul, Ezekiel 37 was being fulfilled in the body of Christ in the first century. It is prima facie false therefore, to claim that Ezekiel did not begin to be fulfilled until 1948.

https://donkpreston.com/was-the-restoration-of-israel-in-1948-prophetically-significant/


Did Mary, sister of Martha, anoint Jesus's feet on two different occasions, John 11:1-2 and John 12:2-5?

Imagine a biography in which a woman writes:

  That summer I stayed a week with June Armstrong.  Her two brothers, Dean and Neil were there too, but we managed to ignore them.  Neil was the one that walked on the moon.

And a few chapters later:

  I sat with June as she stared at the TV, watching her brother Neil as he proclaimed "That's one small step f'ra man, one giant leap for mankind.".

There's nothing confusing about that is there?  There's nothing to make anyone think that Neil walked on the moon when he was a child.

It's no different from what John wrote, so why should the Catholic Church (or anyone else) think there is a problem that needs explaining?


Mainstream Christianity - Catholicism, Orthodox, and the various Protestant denominations, God doesn't have a form. He is spirit, omnipresent, and not confined to a single place.  He doesn't have a form. (Although He could manifest one and speak through it, such as a burning bush...)

Of course, when He came to earth as Christ (as mainstream Christianity believes) He had a body of flesh.

The above is true of most denominations and traditions within Christianity.

A few denominations do, however, believe that God has a physical body. (One such example, the LDS Church teaches that He has a perfected physical body of flesh and bone).

  God is the Father of our spirits.3 He has a glorified, perfected body
  of flesh and bone.4 We lived with Him in heaven before we were born.5
  And when He created us physically, we were created in the image of
  God, each with a personal body.6


How do proponents of Original Sin support a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis

We are only as good as our nature
The reason we have sinful inclinations, suffering etc. to begin with is due to our nature as fallen human beings. We are fallen and not 'perfect' human beings because Adam was created specially; but we are born from him, and are therefore according to his nature as we recieve it. Since the Fall corrupted human nature, it was passed onto us as it was in Adam.
We read about this in Genesis 3. Close attention must be paid to gather all that is being conveyed in this narrative. No matter how much of it you interpret as allegorical. (I don't take it to be allegorical at all).

6 And the woman saw that the tree was good to eat, and fair to the eyes, and delightful to behold: and she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave to her husband who did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons. 8 And when they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in paradise at the afternoon air, Adam and his wife hid themselves from the face of the Lord God, amidst the trees of paradise. 9 And the Lord God called Adam, and said to him: Where art thou? 10 And he said: I heard thy voice in paradise; and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself. 11 And he said to him: And who hath told thee that thou wast naked, but that thou hast eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?
...
To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee. 17 And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. 18 Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return. 20 And Adam called the name of his wife Eve: because she was the mother of all the living. 21 And the Lord God made for Adam and his wife, garments of skins, and clothed them.

In defying God and doing what it was they were commanded not to do (however much of an allegory the forbidden fruit is), several things happen:

Their nature, clearly, is changed, inasmuch as they now recognize their being naked is shameful and feel the need to cover up and hide from God. This is both real, and yet symbolic of yet a further inner shame and realization of the gravity of sin and evil, in which they've just now taken part.

Women and men in mankind now recieve the punishment of toiling and being in pain. Examples relevant to the sexes are given (giving birth; working the field), but are not exclusive, due to their obviously summary nature.

This kind of change in nature is not something which will not be proper to their children. It is an intrinsic change in what seems to be more detectable or manifest in the corporeal component of their nature as a body-soul composite (Genesis 2:7 cf. Ecclesiastes 12:7).

You can't have taken from you what you never had
Actually, it is fair. We recieve a nature different to that which Adam and Eve originally had. A fallen human nature, to be precise. As such, we were never entitled to—just as they weren't after they sinned (or technically even when they had it: Romans 11:35; Job 41:11)—to the life of grace in which they had originally been constituted: amity with God, enjoyment thereof in general, and all its benefits.
This is the great loss of the Fall—loss for Adam and Eve, but not for us! You see, we never had it. Nor are we entitled to anything, let alone paradise. We are expected to obey the inner voice of God, in our conscience, calling us back to Him, ultimately, through Christ, who can restore us to that grace in baptism; the Church teaching that Mary was the firstfruits of that Redemption, being not freed from original sin, but consituted as a new Eve to the new Adam, Christ (1 Corinthians 15:22,45), without ever having had it—an Eve for a new creation, in which the devil doesn't decieve the woman, but is conquered through one (Genesis 3:15).
The only unfairness would be if we were entitled to and originally possessed some greater happiness, and then had it taken by violence. Except we have only been what we are: fallen human beings. Since it is not impossible to make it back to God and recieve divine life, grace, again, it is not unfair at all.
In addition, we also partake in Adam's sin in a real sense, each time we sin. To sin is to tread on the same forbidden ground that Adam did. Because any sin by definition is willful disobeying God, we commit the same kind of offense as Adam, to varying degrees, with every sin. You could say Adam's sin was to will to sin period.

Romans 5:12
Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

When Adam sinned, as it were, we were all there, sinning with him. Because our having sinned is known with God from the beginning, and ourhaving sinned is to partake in the same sin of Adam. But our personal sins are not our original sin. Original sin is our situation, of which we are nonetheless deserving. We are only held responsible for our personal sins. But original sin, of a different nature than other sin, is a deprivation of something we are not entitled to, and in which fallen nature we are expected to follow the dictates of our conscience as guided by God, to seek restoration in Christ. It's called sin because it offends God, as He wants us to be fappy and fulfilled, and because it obstructs us somewhat from pleasing Him,and because it is properly called evil: an absence of some good.

Wisdom 2:23-24
For God created man [to be] incorruptible, and to the image of his own likeness he made him. But by the envy of the devil, death came into the world: And they follow him that are of his side.

Death and original sin are in the world regardless of whether we side with the devil/Adam in disobeying God. But we are shown that there is a choice, where we can yet follow God and recieve another fate than his.
TL;DR
We are not Adam. We are not Eve. We are not owed a nature the same as, or even similar to Adam's or Eve's. God's divine and ineffable justice is such that Adam's children recieve the same nature he had after the Fall. Their sin is still their own. Our sins is still our own. But Adam's original sin is of a different kind, and affects the very nature, because it was so fundamental: the first sin, the first privation and shutting-out of God from our lives, which are wholly dependant on Him.


Do I get a second chance to believe in Jesus after I die?

John's revelation that he received while on the Isle of Patmos tells us that one day all of the dead that did not receive God while on earth must be judged according to their works.

  REVELATION 20:11-15, KJV 11And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was  opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their
  works. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

So what about the dead that did receive God while on earth? Jump back up to verse 4 to read that they will not be judged (Christ having already been judged in their stead), but judgment will be given to them.

  REVELATION 20:4, KJV And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and
  judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were
  beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which
  had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received
  his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and
  reigned with Christ a thousand years.

So to answer your question by scripture, no, there are no second chances to believe God. You have one chance to accept grace, and if rejected you must be judged by your works, and not by grace.


How is the view of guaranteed salvation for infants justified?

Firstly, we need to know that God is just and fair.

  God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you. (2 Thessalonians 1:6,
  NIV)

  But you are stubborn and refuse to turn to God. So you are making
  things even worse for yourselves on that day when he will show how
  angry he is and will judge the world with fairness. (Romans 2:5,
  CEV)

Secondly, we must also believe that just as Heaven is real and eternal, Hell is also real and eternal. Though there are some who believe in Annihilationism, they are minority.

  "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to
  eternal life." (Matthew 25:46, NIV)

Is the view of guaranteed salvation for infants unjust? Not entirely.

The Catholic Church believes that unbaptized infants go to Heaven.

The Bible never tells us that innocent children will go to Hell or not. But we know for sure that Jesus said that the Kingdom of God belongs to children.

  Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder
  them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." (Matthew
  19:14, NIV)

  And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like
  little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew
  18:3, NIV)

This seems like a contradiction to the teaching of Saint Paul that all have sinned.

  for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23,
  NIV)

  Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived
  me. (Psalm 51:5, NIV)

However, the Bible tells us that we are going to be judged according to what we have done, not what we haven't commit.

  For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden
  thing, whether it is good or evil. (Ecclesiastes 12:14, NIV)

  God "will repay each person according to what they have done."
  (Romans 2:6, NIV)

Some adults might say that they have not done any serious crime but in God's standard all sins are big, for Jesus said,

  "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already
  committed adultery with her in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)

Therefore, it is fair and just to assert that children who died young before committing any sin will go to Heaven but adults can go to Heaven only by believing in Jesus Christ.

There are many interesting testimonies around the world - people who claimed to have visited Heaven. Out of them, I find these two very interesting as they deal with one of the toughest questions which Christianity cannot answer objectively.

In the book Heaven Is for Real, Colton, a pastor's 4 years old son went to Heaven and said that he met a little girl in Heaven who said she was his sister who died in his mother’s “tummy”.
In his interview video "An insight into heaven"(please search on YouTube), D. G. S. Dhinakaran, the founder of Jesus Calls Ministries also said that he saw infants in Heaven and they are taken care of until they reach 30 years and they become angels. He said that children who died young are not given the saved status and do not enjoy the privileges like the saved, they are simply given a basic entry to Heaven.


What have Christians taught during past plagues and pandemics?

Martin Luther writing to Johann Hass:

  Use medicine;
  take potions which can help you; fumigate house, yard, and
  street; shun persons and places wherever your neighbor does
  not need your presence or has recovered, and act like a man
  who wants to help put out the burning city. What else is the
  epidemic but a fire which instead of consuming wood and
  straw devours life and body? You ought to think this way:

  “Very well, by God’s decree the enemy has sent us poison
  and deadly offal. Therefore I shall ask God mercifully to protect us. Then I shall fumigate, help purify the air, administer medicine, and take it. I shall avoid places and persons where my presence is not needed in order not to become contaminated and thus perchance infect and pollute others, and so cause their death as a result of my negligence. If God should wish to take me, he will surely find me and I have done what
  he has expected of me and so I am not responsible for either
  my own death or the death of others. If my neighbor needs
  me, however, I shall not avoid place or person but will go
  freely, as stated above. See, this is such a God-fearing faith because it is neither brash nor foolhardy and does not tempt God.

The whole letter is available online and is worth reading.


What is the biblical basis that people who are attracted to the same sex were not created by God that way?

One of the best Biblical bases is the Law of God itself.  Is God unjust?

But, while some would certainly object, consider,

  Surely I was sinful at birth,
  sinful from the time my mother
  conceived me.

  Psalm 51:5

The issue is sin, and whether or not someone was born in sin, conceived even in it, is not the issue.

Whether one is born in sin is not the issue of righteousness, being born again is, and the removal of it.

As for same sex attraction, the argument actually fails for the above description.  Generally, sexual attraction is something that develops in puberty.  With those who claim to be "born that way", they actually exhibit SSA often much earlier, indicating something else entirely.  It is not normal, but sometimes is an indicator of abuse or some other issue.

They may have been indeed born and formed in iniquity, but that's just all the more reason for the cross, and getting rid of it.  God did not create them that way, but they are merely receiving the consequences of sin in their souls.

The other corollary is Exodus 34:6-7 where God said He revisits the sins of the Father's to the children to the third and fourth generation.

Again, the issue that one is born in sin can more than account for the subjective testimony that one is born a certain way.

We were all born rebellious and evil, and no believer makes the case that therefore it is "Ok".


Where can I find Patristic Commentary on the Golden Calf incident?

The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) volumes are all freely available online, along with many other Patristics. I got over 300 hits with a search for "golden calf." and found several notable quotes. Keep in mind that the Fathers often allegorized/spiritualized scripture while discussing living for/in Christ. You can also study the passage and select works that reference it.

  During the Roman period and long after, the golden calf episode was a source of embarrassment to the Jews in their relations with the increasingly aggressive Church, which fully exploited the story in its polemics with the Synagogue. Even Josephus, who was concerned only with pagan antisemitism, was evidently afraid that the biblical account might be employed by Alexandrian antisemites to lend credence to their allegation that the Jews worshiped an ass's head in the Temple (cf. Apion 2:80, 114, 120; Tacitus, Histories 5:4). Josephus accordingly omits the entire golden calf episode from his account of the Israelite migrations in the desert. Instead, he graphically depicts the deep anxiety of the Israelites concerning Moses and their joy when at last he came down from Mount Sinai (Ant. 3:95–99). Not only did Moses not break the tablets, but he actually displayed them to the rejoicing people (3:101–2). Josephus also omits any reference to Aaron, and the same is true of Philo who does not, however, completely suppress the golden calf narrative (Mos. 2:161–74, 271).

  As early as the immediate post-crucifixion era, Stephen, the first Christian martyr, sharply denounced the Jews (but not Aaron who was held in veneration by the Church) for having made the golden calf, which became the fountain-head of Jewish crimes throughout their history, culminating in the crucifixion of Jesus (Acts 7:41–52). For the Church the golden calf episode served as proof that the divine covenant with Israel had never been consummated, so that the Jewish claim to a special relationship with the Almighty was unacceptable (see Smolar in bibl., p. 91). By worshiping the golden calf, the Jews had revealed their foolish, stubborn, unrepentant, and immoral character (ibid., 100). Augustine also associated the calf cult with the worship of the devil, and the Jews who had drunk the water into which the powder of the golden calf had been cast with the body of the devil (ibid., 100–1). The medieval identification of the Jew with the devil was no doubt influenced by this extreme patristic interpretation (ibid., 101, n. 12). Source

You might also find this article interesting. I apologize for the hurried and scattered response, I am very busy this evening but wanted to point you in the right direction.


Did the Second Council of Orange deny the "certain efficacy" of grace?

Resistible grace in the Council of Orange

The conclusion to the council's canons says:

  After grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul.

This was the wording that I missed earlier. In other words, while God provides the initial impetus for salvation through grace, man is only saved thereafter "if they desire." This is clearly not consistent with "irresistible grace," or what Warfield terms "certain efficacy" of grace. Dialogist's answer is therefore more or less correct to say that what "troubled Warfield was that the Council of Orange ascribed any importance at all to man's free will," though Warfield, as a Calvinist, would affirm "free will" in a certain compatibilist sense.

Reformed objections to the Council of Orange

John Leith says in Creeds of the Churches, page 37:

  At the Council of Orange ... double predestination is repudiated and irresistible grace is omitted.

Similarly, Charles R. Biggs says in an article that the council "failed to articulate Augustine's teaching on predestination and irresistible grace." Biggs says in another article that "problems with the Synod of Orange" are the following:

  (1) The irresistibility of grace is not affirmed. (2) Predestination to evil is condemned. (3) The reception of grace is so bound to baptism that the sacramental quality of grace and the merit of good works are put in the foreground.

Herman Bavinck says in Reformed Dogmatics: Vol 1:

  The Synod of Orange ... accepted prevenient grace but did not decisively adopt irresistible grace and particular predestination. In the years following, not much Augustinianism was left intact."

So we can summarize the reformed objections to the council as follows:

Irresistible grace is omitted or denied (this is what the question was about)
Double predestination, which goes hand in hand with irresistible grace, is denied
Augustinian soteriology was weakened as a result and later diminished within the church until it was restored in the Reformation


Can different levels of the Church hierarchy provide different types of blessings?

The Pope can bless objects and people implicitly during his audiences - any prayer and speech of the Pope gives Apostolic or Papal blessing to those listening and seeing the pope and to their loved ones unable to participate but connected through prayer. Any "holy symbol" the blessed people have with intention to have it blessed is blessed too (I guess that this doesn't apply to the loved ones who are not present, but I'm not sure). This is sort of a special rule, mostly designed to save time during audiences, when everyone wants to have something blessed.

And now let's return tu the "hierarchy of blessings": something like this is coined in Canon Law, canon 1169:

  §1 Consecrations and dedications can be validly carried out by those
  who are invested with the episcopal character, and by priests who are
  permitted to do so by law or by legitimate grant.

  §2 Any priest can impart blessings, except for those reserved to the
  Roman Pontiff or to Bishops.

  §3 A deacon can impart only those blessings which are expressly
  permitted to him by law.

There are blessings (as sacramentals; anyone can pray for blessing, but it's not this kind of blessing - see an answer for a related question for differences between priestly and lay blessings) reserved to the Pope, to bishops, to priests and to deacons - their hierarchy roughly copies hierarchy of Holy Orders or priestly ordination. I don't know if they are meant to be "stronger" and "weaker" - I think it's more a matter of personal faith and "collectors' sport" and in fact all the blessing are of equivalent "strength", but I might be wrong in this assumption.


Did Mary know she was sinless, according to Roman Catholic teaching?

Did Mary realize that she was sinless before the Annunciation?

No. If I cannot remember my sins, the only reasonable conclusion is that I forgot my sins, or that I was ignorant of having sinned, not that I was without sin. The same is true of Mary. She could not have known that her life so far had been free of sin, even if she could not remember any sins. (Furthermore, the doctrine that Mary was without sin applies to Mary's entire life, including the unknown future.)

So it would certainly not have been obvious that she was free of sin, and she would not have expected that God had selected her for the purpose in question. That was the very point of the greeting and the Annunciation: to inform Mary of something that she could not have known without revelation.

Did others realize that Mary was sinless?

It is impossible for others to realize this based on a person's actions. To have never sinned is something far beyond having lived a righteous life. Many sins are internal and therefore hidden, and many actions that seem sinful might be good. Those who knew Mary would have thought very well of her, but without divine revelation they could not have considered her to be without sin.

Why did Mary react as she did to the greeting?

The greeting was spoken by Gabriel, an angel. Clearly, it was very serious.
Gabriel calls her by the name "kecharitoméne", which means "full of grace" (Redemptoris Mater 8), and not by her proper earthly name, "Mary". Naming a person in this way is common even today (Smith, Baker, Sawyer...), and it was certainly common in the Bible (Abram, Abraham, Sarah, Jacob...). However, Mary is troubled by this particular name. She understands the language, so she knows what was meant. She did not ask for clarification of why she was being called by this name (as she did when the Angel revealed that she would conceive, though she was and planned to remain a virgin). Still, the name did weigh very heavily upon her.
Mary had great humility. When Catholics say the Rosary with the Joyful Mysteries in mind, when the Annunciation is remembered, the prayer is "for the love of humility"). When a humble person is told that she is favored, she typically reacts with genuine surprise and perhaps confusion, because she has not until that point been imagining herself as favored. Most people might be very happy to be told that they are favored by anyone, but Mary just begins to think deeply about what God's message means.

Did it never occur to Mary, at any point in her life, that she was free of sin?

She could only come to have such a belief as a direct result of divinely-revealed knowledge, which may have included the revelation that she was the Mother of God (she was very much aware of this). Even then, she would have been aware of such knowledge only after the Annunciation (see the first question). Furthermore, there is no Church teaching (that I have been able to find) that suggests that the thought "I am sinless" had occurred to Mary. She does not dwell on attempting to recall past sins, and instead seems to spend much of her time contemplating what God is telling her.


The Textus Receptus, the 'Received Text' is the Greek text of scripture that is represented in several published editions, principally Erasmus 1514 and following editions up to 1527, Stephens ('Stephanus') 1550, Beza 1598, Elzevir 1624 and Scrivener 1894. See Textus Receptus Bibles.

The Authorised Version can be considered to be an edition of the Received Text in English for the translators did not publish their Greek text in 1611. Scrivener published what he understood to be their source material in 1894.

The oldest known edition of the Received Text - in English - that I know of is the Wessex Gospels produced in about 990 AD in Middle English, which edition, notably, contains both the long ending of Mark 16 and also the account of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53 - 8:11 the so-called Pericope de Adultera.  It is translated from the Greek and consists only of the four gospel accounts.

There is a division of thought regarding the ancient, original Greek scriptures. Up until 1881, the King James Authorised Version was 'the bible' as far as the vast majority of English speaking people were concerned.

Then, it was decided to improve the translation and certain chosen people were gathered to carry out that necessary task, for there were corrections and improvements necessary. However, two of the appointed persons privately approached every other member of the committee and introduced the individual participators to their own, new Greek text. Westcott and Hort are their names.

The outcome of this was that the Revised Version of the bible was not an improvement of the Authorised Version but was a translation of a new Greek text. The text of the AV is close to what is called the Received Text or the Textus Receptus. The Greek original manuscripts - there are thousands of them - on which this text is based, are from the 4th, 5th, 6th centuries and following centuries.

Westcott and Hort argue that a few manuscripts which are older than that are of massive importance and they argue that those few manuscripts should be allowed to predominate over the huge majority of later writings. They made particular reference to a manuscript discovered by Tischendorf in about 1860 and to one in the Vatican which became available to scholars at about the same time. These are the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus.

The opposite argument is that these ancient copies - from the 2nd century or so - are deeply flawed and that is why they survived. They were little used because they were not highly regarded. The good copies were read and re-read and used so much that they deteriorated and had to be replaced.

This side of the divide also queries whether Divine Providence would permit thousands of manuscripts, and quotations of scripture in other books, to be available for many centuries, yet suffer the 'most important' evidence to be unavailable to the Christian Church until the 19th century.

The differences in the subsequent Westcott and Hort text, caused by alterations, omissions and additions to the Received Text amount to 7% of the text as can be seen in Scrivener's comparative text of 1894 in which he highlights the differences.

All of the above can be read in various Wikipedia articles but this is a controversial subject and opinions are being propagated within what ought to be unbiased expressions of truth. I have tried my best not to take one side or the other in what I have expressed here. But I have personally followed one side of this divide for the past fifty years, ever since I was a teenager.

Wikipedia, and other sources, will refer to 'uncials' which are ancient manuscripts written in capital letters and 'miniscules', which are manuscripts written in smaller writing which is 'cursive', that is, ordinary handwriting; they will refer to 'versions' which are the translation of the Greek scriptures into other languages, such as Syriac; they will refer to 'Patristic Citations' which are the quotations of the fathers of the Christian Church (such as Augustine, Jerome, Eusebius) in the books which they wrote; and they will refer to 'Lectionary Quotations' which are bible texts preserved in ancient books of church service, similar to the Common Prayer Book of more modern times.

Then there is the 'Septuagint' the Greek translation of the Hebrew scripture, which may, or may not, have been quoted by apostolic writers; and there is the 'Vulgate' which is the Latin translation of the Greek scripture, written, largely by Jerome, in the 4th century.

All of this evidence is used in collation, such that errors in copying can be eliminated by comparisons made across the whole spectrum of evidence until agreement is reached as to what were the original 'autographs' - the actual written words of the apostolic writers who wrote in the first century after the resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ.


How does a literal teaching of the Great Flood explain the spread of ethnicities?

To account for ethnic diversity on the planet, people who hold to a 'literal' view of The Flood and also ascribe to a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) view (Earth is several thousand years old) have to move the creation of the diverse genotypes which underlies the diverse phenotypes that make up contemporary humanity into a very compressed period.
This site, which has a YEC point of view, claims "The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC ± 11 years." That would be 2304 + 2021 = 4324 years ago for the genotypic diversity to occur.
Yet, it would have had to happen even quicker than that, as we know there was significant genotypic diversity well before the present day, due to various historical accounts. So we're probably talking at most a couple thousand years to create at least a significant part of the genotypic diversity we see in the world.
At 20 years per generation, that only allows 100 generations for specific genotypes to emerge from the genetic bottle-neck of the Flood. (Note that it is not clear how long various generations would be, given the age of humans is longer at the time of Noah per the Bible, and so there might be significantly fewer generations than this.)
This answer is perhaps the typical answer to the question: "The physical characteristics of various ethnic groups developed in these isolated groups due to the sorting and isolation of genetic information already present in man’s DNA. The information in that DNA had originally been present in Adam’s DNA and has just been shuffled and sorted. Therefore, the development of so-called races has nothing to do with molecules-to-man evolution. All people groups are still humans, descended from one original human."
In other words, the development of ethnic differences would be similar to the process used in the development of dog breeds, where the emphasis isn't on novel genetic mutations (say) but selective breeding based on an existing genetic repertoire. Of course, humans exert extremely strong selective pressures to create new dog breeds, and it's not clear how analogous natural selective pressures would be in this regard.


Can a Mormon wife be unsealed from her husband, and what is required for it?

The short answer to this question is, "Yes", but the process is much more complicated than civil divorce. Breaking seals on marriages are considered exceptions to the rule, and are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Before a woman can be sealed to another man, the sealing to her fist husband must be broken. For this to be accomplished, the woman must begin the process by meeting with her bishop and explaining to him the circumstances for why she wishes to have her sealing broken. The bishop does not have authority to break a sealing, but can direct the woman and help her through the process. After a series of interviews these sorts of things eventually go all the way up to the first presidency of the church for review and approval. They determine whether or not the woman is justified in having her sealing to her first husband broken. One of the only circumstances for which a woman may have her sealing broken to a deceased husband is if she wishes to be sealed to a new husband.

For clarity: civil marriage, and temple marriage (being sealed) are
    distinct in that a civil marriage is "Until death do they part" (for
    time), whereas a temple marriage is "For time and all eternity"
    (for eternity). A woman who is sealed to her husband--but later
    remarries due to death or civil divorce--retains her sealing to her
    first husband. If the sealing is left intact, then after death she
    is parted from her second husband and rejoined with her first.

Again, with such matters, there are no firm answers. They are dealt with on a case-by-case basis and will likely have to go to the first presidency for review.


The Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures (The Old Testament).  It is often referred to, in shorthand, as the LXX.  The name means "Seventy" (hence LXX).  It is named after the 70 scholars who wrote it.

After Israel was hellenized, it became popular, in Israel, as the everyday-man's scripture since Greek was spoken more often than Hebrew.  It is commonly referenced in Christian circles because it is the translation that was used by Jesus and the writers of the New Testament when they were quoting the Old Testament.  That is one of the reasons why the New Testament quotes of Old Testament scripture don't line up, word-for-word, with what you find in the Old Testament.  It was a somewhat loose translation of the Hebrew, roughly akin to the looseness of the modern NIV.

It has been immensely useful to those studying ancient Hebrew because it is a sort-of Rosetta Stone, providing slightly-more-modern Greek translations of ancient Hebrew words.  It is also important because, even though it is only a translation, it is older than many of the Hebrew manuscripts for the books in the Old Testament.

No one knows specifically who the 70 scholars were who wrote the Septuagint, but the traditional story is that Ptolemy II, a King in Egypt from 283-246 B.C., commissioned it so that it could be used by the Greek-speaking Jews who were living Egypt at the time.


Is there any difference in meaning between "Holy Spirit" and "Holy Ghost"?

Holy Ghost is from the KJV, Holy Spirit is more modern.

It's actually a little more complicated than that. In the New Testament, the KJV uses the term Holy Ghost 89 times, and the term Holy Spirit 4 times. So it actually uses both. But modern translations use Holy Spirit exclusively.

The wikipedia article is not saying that Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit are understood differently.  Its trying to say that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam view the Holy Spirit differently.

Nonetheless, some people might argue that Holy Ghost gives a more personal character to the Holy Spirit than Holy Spirit, assuming that Ghost sounds more like a person than Spirit.  But that's probably a pretty iffy argument.


This is tricky questions because there are some outliers, but I'll describe the broadly accepted tradition, excluding some smaller Christian groups.

As far as the New Testament, the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (AD 367) is the first complete list of the books broadly accepted in the New Testament by Christians (there are a few smaller groups who have slightly different lists). But there was wide agreement on most books well before this.

The Four Gospels were settled and virtually unquestioned very early on (see C. E. Hill Who Chose the Gospels?), and the main corpus of Paul, quite possibly selected by Paul himself, was also widely accepted early on. There were some stragglers like Hebrews, Revelation, and 2 Peter that didn't receive wide acceptance until later and a few that were on the edges of acceptance like 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, but the list had settled down by the time of Athanasius's letter.

Thus, conservative scholar Michael Kruger suggests there are three senses of "canonical":

Exclusive - books are explicitly agreed upon by all. A looser form of this would be "received by some important authority, whether an important bishop like Athanasius or a council"
Functional - books are functioning as canon for a group with or without reception by some authority
Ontological - books are in themselves canonical (normative for the life of the church), whether or not they are officially received

Most of the NT books were functioning as canon well before they were officially received. Kruger argues that there never was and still isn't an exclusive canon, but received, functional, and ontological are three useful lenses.

The generally received Old Testament canon has a little bit of extra flux concerning the Apocrypha, going back to the ancient Jews in Alexandria using it, having those books being appended to the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT), Jerome giving them the name Apocrypha in his preface to the books of Samuel and Kings, and the Council of Trent during the Reformation period declaring the books to be deuterocanonical (second canon) and the opposing Reformers saying the Apocrypha are useful to be read but not infallible or inspired. But otherwise, the OT is already set by the time of Jesus.


KJV 1 Peter 4:1-6, but especially verse 6, might have a bit of an answer about this idea in the decades after Christ left the earth.

  6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but
  live according to God in the spirit.

To me that means that the basic doctrinal text of Christianity doesn't entirely preclude the notion. The prime example of teaching this doctrine would actually be Peter.

Whether or not pre-500 orthodox clergymen actually taught it as Peter said it is obviously going to be less common. I don't know any specifics.

I would count being able to come to Christ and learn of Him postmortem to be about as good as baptism as you can get when you're dead, since most Christians' definition of the afterlife and what we can do in it are really fuzzy.

However, the only specific denomination of Christianity I know of that practices any sort of proxy ordinance for the dead (baptism being the first) is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Cit: I'm a member.


What does the Bible teach/say about luck?

I'll give you one perpective. According to the following verse:

Romans 8:28 (ESV)

  And we know that for those who love God all things work together for
  good,fn for those who are called according to his purpose.

In other words, to the Christian who has grown to love and trust God implicitly, God's hand is in everything in his life, in both good and "bad" events. Even the negative circumstances are taken as though from God, allowed by God to shape the believer's character, as it states in Romans 5:3-4,

  Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that
  suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and
  character produces hope,

You may be confusing luck and shaping our own destinies. They are not mutually exclusive. If I want to lose 10 lbs, I can trust to chance or make my own luck by eating fewer calories than I burn until I get the weight I want. But when I act on it, then, according to the dictionary of English words, the event is no longer luck, but a planned event. If you plan something to happen, then it is no longer luck. (This is not always correct though: you can intentionally make your way to a red-carpet gala to get a movie star's autograph (not luck) and either the star doesn't show up, or you're too far to get to him (bad luck.)


How is the ‘Resurrection of the Holy Ones’ in Mt.27:51-53 understood by those who do NOT consider it a literal, historical event?

If Mark and/or Luke used Matthew as a source, then it seems most plausible to me to explain their omission as disagreement with Matthew---i.e., they thought it did not actually happen.  If instead they did not use Matthew as a source, then they may simply have been unaware of the tradition.  In this case, it was either an invention of Matthew, or comes from an earlier source independent of Mark and Luke.

Note that Mt 27:53 refers to a time after Jesus' resurrection.  A minority of scholars believe this should be placed, furthermore, after Jesus' second coming, or some other significantly later date than the resurrection.  However, this is a minority view and seems more speculation than anything supported by the text itself.

In the end, we just don't know the origin of this tradition, why Matthew's description is so brief and stingy on details, nor why other early Christian authors failed to mention it.  Even the best answers I've seen, in my opinion, are little more than speculation.


What is the Catholic stance against In Vitro Fertilization?

Read article 4 of Humane Vitae for the biblical basis for the Catholic Church interpreting the moral law.

Then Evangelium Vitae may begin to make sense.

  This moral condemnation also regards procedures that exploit living human embryos and fetuses-sometimes specifically "produced" for this purpose by in vitro fertilization-either to be used as "biological material" or as providers of organs or tissue for transplants in the treatment of certain diseases. The killing of innocent human creatures, even if carried out to help others, constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act.

Given the sanctity of every human person, known before they were formed in their mother's womb, the secondary effects of in vitro fertilization certainly fall under "Thou Shall not Kill".

The rest of course falls under the natural moral law as gmoothart says, which is, you ask "where ought a person be conceived" and the answer is "whereever the egg is hanging out during the marital act".