source
stringlengths 620
29.3k
| target
stringlengths 12
1.24k
|
|---|---|
How do I develop a healthier relationship with images? I doubt that anybody has asked this question before, which is why I thought to write it down. Since I was thirteen-years-old, I have saved a lot of photographs from the internet on the cloud (i.e., like how someone would save 'likes' to their Twitter profile). The reason at the time was that I was trying to find myself as a person. Now, I have spent four years doing this and I know myself better. I have been trying to remove everything unnecessary from my life. I downsized my room and finished writing a manuscript that I began four years ago. Now, I have to go through all of my photos and see which ones are important because a few of the photos do help me to better visualise a healthier lifestyle sort of like iconography. The issue is that, unlike fixing my room or manuscript, I have realised that visual images are a very complex category, both in genre and subject. I feel like this is the last part of my old life that I need to put in check, but I have been trying on and off for 2 months now in quarantine. How do I make sure that I am only saving things that will help my spiritual practice and how do I get rid of unhelpful or unnecessary images that perhaps look nice or so on? I am new and I apologise if I have misunderstood anything, but this seems a bit like a desire and I am wondering about the middle way. Please, do not be shy. Any and all answers would be helpful. <Q> Just drop it all and move on. <S> Don't be nostalgic, don't regret - <S> that is petty thinking. <S> You had it, you got it <S> , you done it - drop it and walk into your next life. <S> It may seem like it's important <S> and it was at some point, but you'll make plenty of new and more important stuff as you go forward. <S> It's "you-the-emptiness <S> " is what really matters, "you-the-fresh-look", "you-the-not-knowing". <S> You have basic sanity - which means you don't have to carry anything along. <S> Wherever you go you will create everything anew, from scratch, and meet everything you need to meet, there will be a plenty. <S> Have no fear. <S> Drop and let go. <A> I have realised that visual images are a very complex category, both in genre and subject. <S> I feel like this is the last part of my old life that I need to put in check, but I have been trying on and off for 2 months now in quarantine. <S> If by "put in check" you mean controlling your view of yourself in the past, then that may be a form of unwholesome clinging (attavadupadana). <S> From a buddhist perspective this may create suffering based on the false assumptions (vipallasa) of: the notion that these photos and their representation of the views you wish to sustain are necessary for your wellbeing, and conversely the notion that getting rid of them would cause you emotional harm. <S> "These four, O Monks, are distortions of perception, distortions of thought distortions of view... <S> Sensing no change in the changing, Sensing pleasure in suffering, Assuming "self" where there's no self, Sensing the un-lovely as lovely " https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.049.olen.html <S> How do I make sure that I am only saving things that will help my spiritual practice and how do I get rid of unhelpful or unnecessary images that perhaps look nice or so on? <S> To put it blunt, the quick and dirty answer is that saving things like photos will not help your spiritual practice at all. <S> As an ideal, all tendencies of upadana should cease as quickly as possible (nekkhamma). <S> To nuance things a bit, i think it would be more compassionate to acknowledge that upadana (clinging) has a particular emotional meaning and that one is allowed some time to process the renunciation of said clinging. <S> It would be cruel - however effective it may be - to instantly jettison all and every attachment we might have, and i doubt it would be beneficial for one's practice to push forward in such brutal manner. <S> Nevertheless renunciation is the recommended way to establish middle way equanimity (upeksha). <A> The introspection re the items is good: maybe don't need to do Anything with them; might even be occasionally useful for reference etc. <S> As long as the machine space isn't needed for something else, then seems ok. <S> Actually clinging to whether its ok or isnt might be fettersome. <S> And if they dont matter so much, then they dont matter so much. <S> Leaving them there seems relatively ok. <S> Maybe its a good example of actual nonattachment: isnt necessary to declare an illusion is gone, and that in fact might imply some clinging was still there! <S> In a few dozen centuries they'll probably be gone anyway, and if they aren't gone, finding them might make some archaeologist very happy! <S> And it doesn't as though they're awful or anything. <S> An to an extent, neatness is in the 'mind', and removing things rather than simply disregarding them to some extent might make for more clingyness. <S> So maybe there's no rush to erase them. <S> And maybe look through a couple introductory texts re The Middle Way, & <S> The Four Noble Truths, & The Noble Eightfold Path, as they may tell useful detail re those things! <S> Interesting question.
|
Never hesitate to let go of old stuff that has done its job.
|
Is it true that enlightenment is equivalent with perfect knowledge? It seems to me that there is a popular and strong belief that if you reach enlightenment, and thus have four immeasurables , you can help a person without making them feel extra suffering or fighting back. This can be illustrated by the sutta Aṅgulimāla . The Buddha can stop him easily and effortlessly. The premise here is that enlightenment = perfect knowledge , and/or four immeasurables = you and the others are truly the same, so that you can understand that person inside out . The equal sign = is more like implies that rather exactly means . However, realistically, I think this is impossible. There are situations that achieving enlightenment does not mean perfect knowledge. For example, you can reach enlightenment in a radioactive region. This is not loving-kindness yourself. Likewise, one can never claim to perfectly understand the inner state of the other person, especially without face-to-face conversation. What it seems to be true is that enlightenment = having no distortion , and/or four immeasurables = being able to vision a way to help the others getting out of their suffering . Perhaps this is just a matter of defining what enlightenment is. This is fine. But in this case, its necessary consequence is that no human can achieve this state (though can absolutely achieve mindfulness or practice eightfold path). Is this correct? <Q> In buddhism, Enlightenment is the "direct knowledge" about suffering, the origin, the cessation https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html <S> the four immeasurables is just how to get to Brahma world, like here https://suttacentral.net/mn99/en/sujato <S> so it is not Enlightenment. <S> When you claim that the four immeasurables is Enlightenment <S> you are a hindu <S> and that's totally wrong in buddhism. <S> So you are mixing hinduism and buddhism. <S> In hinduism the path to nibanna is to generate merits over and over, same thing with the jains. <S> They have to burn up past bad karma and create lots of good karma.. <S> But that's very wrong view. <S> In buddhism generating merit is useless to get enlightened. <S> Merit gets you a good birth and that's all. <S> In buddhism you need to know about suffering, the origin, the cessation and the path to the cessation of suffering. <S> So do not confuse the path of merit, the path of Enlightenment and Enlightenment itself. <A> This can be illustrated by the sutta Aṅgulimāla. <S> The Buddha can stop him easily. <S> For sutta support, see SN 12.70 . <S> Also see the discussion about different types of enlightened disciples in AN 4.87 <A> One of the things that's special about the Budda, specifically, compared with other enlightened people, is that the Buddha is especially good at teaching others -- for example : <S> How the Buddha is distinguished from other arahants <S> Now all these epithets are true for the Buddha as well, but the Buddha is not described in this way; for these terms emphasize the attainment of one's own liberation, and the Buddha is extolled, not primarily as the one who has attained his own liberation, but as the one who opens the doors of liberation for others. <S> That is, even in the archaic suttas of the Nikāyas, an "other-regarding" significance is already being subtly ascribed to the Buddha's status that is not ascribed to the arahant. <S> See also Pratyekabuddha : <S> According to the Theravada school, paccekabuddhas ("one who has attained to supreme and perfect insight, but who dies without proclaiming the truth to the world") are unable to teach the Dhamma, which requires the omniscience and supreme compassion of a sammāsambuddha, and even he hesitates to attempt to teach. <S> Paccekabuddhas give moral teachings but do not bring others to enlightenment. <S> They leave no sangha as a legacy to carry on the Dhamma. <S> I think that all arahants have a certain amount of knowledge or insight -- e.g. about the nature of suffering and the dhamma. <S> Some people, including the Buddha, and not all of them enlightened, also have "psychic powers" -- the ability to know what other people are thinking, what their mind-state is. <S> The Buddha used this power to help him teach people who were ready, when they were ready. <A> Yes. <S> Fully enlightened person has the perfect knowledge. <S> If you explore the reasons behind the knowledge gathering, eventually you will boil them down to a single reason. <S> That is the “self interest”. <S> And then the question comes to who or what is self? <S> The whole purpose of Buddhism is to discover this “self” or “me”. <S> Eventually you will discover that the “self” is just a delusion. <S> Then you will become an enlightened person.
|
If by perfect knowledge, you meant the Iddhis , then while it Can be developed once one's attained enlightenment, but it's not a Necessary condition.
|
Does/did Buddhism assert that everything that is/was important to know about the world is/was already known? Harari (2011) claims: Premodern traditions of knowledge such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Confucianism asserted that everything that is important to know about the world was already known. From my limited understanding of Buddhism, the above seems false of Buddhism. I was hoping an expert on Buddhism could give a more definite explanation as to whether the above statement has any truth. (Restrict attention to the bit about Buddhism.) <Q> The buddha said that some people found the truth before him, but <S> of coure most people didn't “ <S> In the same way, I had now arrived at the ancient way of the noble ones, the ancient path of the noble ones, the ancient way trodden by the noble ones, along which passed the noble ones of ancient times, and which I should now follow, namely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right aim, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right skilful means (effort), right mindfulness, right concentration. <S> https://suttacentral.net/sa287/en/choong <A> These are known as the three marks of existence ( tilakkhaṇa ): <S> sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent" sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — " <S> all saṅkhāras are suffering" sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self" <S> But outside of the context of suffering and freedom from suffering, Buddhism does not make the claim that everything that is important to know about the world was already known. <A> Premodern traditions of knowledge such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Confucianism asserted that everything that is important to know about the world was already known. <S> The above is missing an important context: known by whom? <S> Regarding worldly knowledge, this is what the Buddha said: Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa 1 forest. <S> Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?" <S> "The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. <S> Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous." <S> "In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. <S> And why haven't I taught them? <S> Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. <S> That is why I have not taught them. <S> ~~ <S> SN 56.31 <S> ~~ <A> Yes, everything IMPORTANT to know is discovered and realized by Buddha and Arahants. <S> It is like a skillful engineer or scientist have no secret in any type of machine from past present or future, he/she knows the basics philosophy behind it and how it works. <S> As an Arahant <S> you know what created everything <S> and you don’t need details of everything to understand it.
|
I would say that Buddhism asserts that everything that is important to know about the world (including the body and the mind), with regards to suffering and freedom from suffering , was already known.
|
Is the Buddha capable of making mistakes? There is a sutta where the Buddha teaches some disciples about loathsomeness of the body. He then goes on a retreat into the forest. On his return, he finds the disciples have committed suicide as they have grasped the teachings incorrectly. The Buddha than proceeded to teach Anapana Sati as it is much safer. Does this prove that even the Buddha was capable of making mistakes? In hindsight, should he have used the ability of omniscience to anticipate the result of his instructions. Or, was this event unavoidable fruition of the disciples' past Kamma. <Q> You have misunderstood the sutta SN 54.9 . <S> The Buddha taught the technique of loathsomeness of the body, which is to be used to remove feelings of sexual lust and attachment to the physical form. <S> This technique is useful to be practised by a monk or practitioner who is overwhelmed by sexual lust. <S> However, too much of this practice, especially when it is unnecessary, may lead to depression and suicidal tendencies. <S> To counteract depression and suicidal tendencies, the Buddha prescribed mindfulness of breathing, which can generate rapture and joy. <S> So, as you can see, every technique has a different purpose. <S> Any one single technique does not fit everyone at all times. <S> For example, a person who is momentarily overcome by one of the five hindrances would have to try some technique to overcome that particular hindrance. <S> Hence, the Buddha did not make a mistake in this case. <S> He merely prescribed different techniques for different conditions. <S> Please also see this answer . <S> Although the Buddha was known to have some psychic powers, he was not completely omniscient (i.e. knowing all things in the past, present and future), in the way people consider a Supreme God to be. <S> Buddhist enlightenment is about freedom from suffering. <S> It's not about becoming God-like. <A> Or, was this event unavoidable fruition of the disciples' past Kamma. <S> The Commentary seems to say it's due to past kamma. <S> From Ven. <S> Bodhi's note citing the Comy. <S> 's explanation to the strange case of SN 54.9 : <S> Spk: Why did he speak thus? <S> In the past, it is said, five hundred men earned their living together as hunters. <S> They were reborn in hell, but later, through some good kamma, they took rebirth as human beings and went forth as monks under the Blessed One. <S> However, a portion of their original bad kamma had gained the opportunity to ripen during this fortnight and was due to bring on their deaths both by suicide and homicide. <S> The Blessed One foresaw this and realized he could do nothing about it. <S> Among those monks, some were worldlings, some stream-enterers, some once-returners, some nonreturners, some arahants. <S> The arahants would not take rebirth, the other noble disciples were bound for a happy rebirth, but the worldlings were of uncertain destiny. <S> The Buddha spoke of foulness to remove their attachment to the body so that they would lose their fear of death and could thus be reborn in heaven. <S> Therefore he spoke on foulness in order to help them, not with the intention of extolling death. <S> Realizing he could not turn back the course of events, he went into seclusion to avoid being present when destiny took its toll. <A> @ <S> Luv plz read Padīpopama sutta <S> (SN 54.8) <S> I think one may find piece of answer in that sutta related to loathsomeness and anapana sati.
|
Sometimes, you have to change your technique depending on the circumstances. The Buddha will not make mistakes when it comes to the teachings and practice of Buddhism.
|
What is the correct definition for Mindfulness? I was reading a book where author defined Mindfulness (sati) using these three analogies from different suttas: The Buddha compares mindfulness to a gatekeeper for a frontier fortress. [Kimsuka Sutta] There’s another passage where the Buddha says that mindfulness is like a goad. Most of us have gotten away from animal husbandry and farming, and so we don’t even know what a goad is. It’s a long stick with a sharp point. You use it to poke your animals when they’re going the wrong direction, or if they’re standing still when they should be going. The implication here is that the ability to remember what’s skillful and what’s not, and to be able to give yourself a little push or a poke in the right direction: That’s what mindfulness does for you. And sometimes it’s more than just a little poke. (May be he is referring to Patoda Sutta . But I'm not very sure because Buddha didn't mentioned Mindfulness in this Sutta. Please provide me correct sutta if there is.) There’s another passage where the Buddha says that when you see that something unskillful has arisen in your mind, then you act as if your hair were on fire. You do everything you can, as quickly as you can, to put it out. You’re relentless and mindful in being focused on putting out the fire, and nothing else. And other definitions which is written in Wikipedia: Mindfulness is the psychological process of purposely bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment without judgment. (Authour refers it as equanimity) But as I understand, I will only call Gate-keeper analogy as Mindfulness.And other analogies falls in the category of Right Effort and Right Resolve. If we look at MN 117 : "One makes an effort for the abandoning of wrong resolve & for entering right resolve: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities — right view, right effort, & right mindfulness — run & circle around right resolve." Please correct me if I misunderstood this. <Q> Sati <S> That which is mindfulness, recollection, recall, mindfulness, remembrance, bearing (in mind), not losing, not confusing, mindfulness, the Faculty of Mindfulness, the Strength of Mindfulness, <S> Right Mindfulness: this is called ‘mindfulness.’ <S> Therein what is mindfulness-awakening-factor? <S> Herein a monk is mindful, furnished with excellent mindfulness-penetration, he remembers, remembers constantly, <S> what has long been done and long been said (concerning release). <S> This is called mindfulness-awakening-factor. <S> Unshakability by negligence as the meaning of the power [strength] of mindfulness <S> The mindfulness which on that occasion is recollecting, calling back to mind; the mindfulness which is remembering, bearing in mind, the opposite of superficiality and of obliviousness; mindfulness as faculty, mindfulness as power, right mindfulness—this is the faculty of mindfulness that there then is. <S> These are theravadin abhidhamma and patisambhidamagga excerpts <S> The Blessed One said, “Suppose, monks, that a large crowd of people comes thronging together, saying, ‘The beauty queen! <S> The beauty queen!’ <S> And suppose that the beauty queen is highly accomplished at singing & dancing, so that an even greater crowd comes thronging, saying, ‘The beauty queen is singing! <S> The beauty queen is dancing!’ <S> Then a man comes along, desiring life & shrinking from death, desiring pleasure & abhorring pain. <S> They say to him, ‘Now look here, mister. <S> You must take this bowl filled to the brim with oil and carry it on your head in between the great crowd & the beauty queen. <S> A man with a raised sword will follow right behind you, and wherever you spill even a drop of oil, right there will he cut off your head.’ <S> Now what do you think, monks: Will that man, not paying attention to the bowl of oil <S> , let himself get distracted outside?”“No, lord. <S> ”“I have given you this parable to convey a meaning. <S> The meaning is this: The bowl filled to the brim with oil stands for mindfulness immersed in the body. <S> Thus you should train yourselves: ‘We will develop mindfulness immersed in the body. <S> We will pursue it, hand it the reins and take it as a basis, give it a grounding, steady it, consolidate it, and undertake it well.’ <S> That is how you should train yourselves.” <S> https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn47/sn47.020.than.html <A> Conventionally, we understand that being mindful while driving is prudent and safe. <S> This conventional perspective of mindfulness is effective in that it allows us to approach the suttas and immersion itself: <S> MN118:24.5 : kāye kāyānupassī, bhikkhave, tasmiṃ samaye bhikkhu viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ. <S> MN118:24.5 : at that time they’re meditating by observing an aspect of the body—keen, aware, and mindful , rid of desire and aversion for the world. <S> As we meditate further, we start noticing subtleties. <S> For example, there is sampajāno and satimā (i.e., "aware and mindful"). <S> The implication is simple. <S> There can be awareness. <S> There can be mindfulness. <S> Investigating further, looking very closely, we find: <S> AN4.35:2.5 : Satimā <S> kho pana hoti cirakatampi cirabhāsitampi saritā anussaritā <S> AN4.35:2.5 : They are mindful , able to remember and recollect what was said and done long ago. <S> And from this rare quote, we can understand that mindfulness remembers . <S> Notably, mindfulness is almost always spoken of in conjunction with awareness. <S> Clearly, one must be mindful AND aware. <S> Total recall without awareness is incomplete. <A> Samma Sati (right mindfulness) is the practice of Satipathana. <A> There are two questions: <S> What is the English definition of 'mindfulness'? <S> or What is the correct definition of 'sati' <S> , the pali word often translated as 'mindfulness'? <S> The English definition of 'mindfulness' has been hijacked. <S> What was once based on the Buddha's definition of 'sati' <S> (and 'sampajano'), has been hijacked and transformed by two major forces in the modern world. <S> a) <S> Not properly differentiating between 'sati' and 'sampajano', and not understanding the core suttas, they've ended up with not only a watered down 'sati', but a dangerously wrong interpretation that misses some of the most important aspects of 'sati'. <S> a) <S> Modern psychotherapy reshapes the watered down Buddhist misinterpretation from (a) into a secular method of meditation for stress relief. <S> Certainly still a very useful tool, hence its popularity, but throws out some of the most important benefits of the real 'sati'. <S> The correct definition of 'sati', the pali word often translated as 'mindfulness'can only be determined from a careful comprehensive study of the early suttas. <S> My detailed analysis can be found here: 8☸ → 7 <S> Sammā Sati <S> There's a summary of the main points at the end of <S> this post -- <S> sati is "remembering"or "memory".
|
Buddhist teachers, even famous and intelligent ones, perhaps influenced by each other and modern psychotherapy's version of 'mindfulness', generally understand 'mindfulness' as a kind of choiceless bare awareness.
|
So what is left? It is the true realization of Śūnyatā, or Ultimate Truth, a realm in which “reason is used to destroy itself” The above is a quote from 'Humphreys, Christmas. Buddhism: An Introduction and Guide'p145. Is it true that the main aim of Buddhism (Mahayana) is for reason to destroy itself? That really sound too colorful and worst than nihilism itself <Q> Good question. <S> That's a rather crude statement, albeit a nice first approximation. <S> More precisely I would say, the aim is to clearly see the Value, the Limitations, and the Danger of having subjective experience entirely subsumed within a framework made of models and concepts (taken at their face values as being the reality itself, aka "reified"), to see how this mistake is universal, inevitable, and intrinsic part of sentient life, to see the mechanisms behind arising of said conceptually conditioned experience, and finally to master the practical means of manipulating <S> said mechanisms towards liberation from the confines of said framework to the reality of authentic suchness. <A> Reason is “killed” in a sense since reason is created and conditioned. <S> When one awakens, one reaches that point of “unborn”, which is the origin of reason within mind. <S> Reason is then no longer necessary and mind conforms to this new state. <S> As long as you hold on to the idea that you are this conditioned mind, you will not awaken to this understanding. <A> The main aim of Buddhism is to understand and be free of suffering. <S> SN56.11:7.2 <S> : ‘This noble truth of the cessation of suffering should be realized.’ <S> Such was the vision that arose in me … Reason is an aspect of consciousness devoted to inference and applied to resolving choices. <S> Choices informed by ignorance lead to suffering. <S> SN12.23:6.1 <S> : So ignorance is a vital condition for choices. <S> Choices are a vital condition for consciousness. <S> Reasonable people have noted that ignorance easily leads to the Tragedy of the Commons . <S> Specifically, reason concludes that the myopia of identity view leads to adverse outcome, suffering. <S> Understanding this, it is clearly reasonable to restrain identity view. <S> Indeed, one might wonder, "is identity view itself reasonable? <S> " <S> One might be inclined to explore this reasonable question: MN26:16.5 : This teaching is such that a sensible person can soon realize their own tradition with their own insight and live having achieved it.’ <S> At one point, one might reasonably conclude that identity view is unreasonable: MN64:6.1 : <S> But an educated noble disciple has seen the noble ones, and is skilled and trained in the teaching of the noble ones. <S> They’ve seen good persons, and are skilled and trained in the teaching of the good persons. <S> Their heart is not overcome and mired in identity view, and they truly understand the escape from identity view that has arisen. <S> That identity view, along with any underlying tendency to it, is given up in them. <S> And in that conclusion, one would have used reason and practice to extinguish the grasping aggregate of consciousness, that perceived and unreasoning urge to consider consciousness as self. <S> One would reasonably conclude that grasping and craving are unreasonable. <S> One would realize that what conventionally passes for "reason" is far too often simply self-justification and rationalization. <S> What is destroyed is not reason itself. <S> What is destroyed is the unreasonable urge to use reason (i.e., inference) in sole service of (it-)self. <S> The assumed axiom of the imperative of identity view fails. <S> It is not reason that is killed. <S> It is the reliance on an improper basis for reason.
|
So the quote that "reason is used to destroy itself" is a bit of hyperbole with a ring of truth.
|
Freely available translations of the Dhammapada I'm looking for translations of the Dhammapada that are freely available to quote in part or in full. I would like a variety of alternative translation so can anyone give a comprehensive list - online and/or printed publications. Many Thanks <Q> Here's a list: <S> AccessToInsight's Dhammapada - various translations (Buddharakkhita, Thanissaro, and a few others) - web-based Suttacentral's Dhammapada - various translations (Anandajoti, Buddharakkhita) - web-based Ven. <S> Thanissaro's translation of Dhammapada - in PDF Ven. <S> Thanissaro's translation of Dhammapada - web-based Acharya Buddharakkhita's translation of Dhammapada - in PDF Ven. <S> Anandajoti's translation of Dhammapada - in PDF, includes Pali text Ven. <S> Narada's translation of Dhammapada - in PDF, epub and MOBI <S> Bhikkhu Pesala's version of Ven. <S> Narada's Dhammapada - web-based, enhanced with commentary Ven. <S> Weragoda Sarada Thero's translation of Dhammapada - in PDF, includes commentary and Pali text Ven. <S> Weragoda Sarada Thero's translation of Dhammapada - web-based, illustrated P. Lal's translation of Dhammapada - in PDF Buddhist Legends, translated by E. W. Burlingame - in epub, MOBI - complete stories of the Dhammapada Thomas Byrom's translation of Dhammapada - in PDF, rendered into English poetry <S> You can find many more Dhammapada PDF versions here . <A> https://nanda.online-dhamma.net/tipitaka/sutta/khuddaka/dhammapada/dhp-contrast-reading/dhp-contrast-reading-en/ <S> Eight translations side by side <S> Pāḷi Tipiṭaka (PTS) <S> [1] Pāḷi Tipiṭaka (CSCD) <S> [2] Translated from the Pali by Ven Nārada Thera ) <S> [3] Translated from the Pali by Ven. <S> Ācharya Buddharakkhita ) <S> [4] Translated from the Pali by Ven. <S> Thanissaro Bhikkhu ) <S> [5] Translated from the Pali by Ven. <S> Varado Bhikkhu ) [6] Translated from the Pali by Friedrich Max Müller) <S> [7] Cited from DLMBS [8] <A> The Dhammapada: Verses and Stories Dhammapada is one of the best known books of the Pitaka. <S> It is a collection of the teachings of the Buddha expressed in clear, pithy verses. <S> These verses were culled from various discourses given by the Buddha in the course of forty-five years of his teaching, as he travelled in the valley of the Ganges (Ganga) and the sub-mountain tract of the Himalayas. <S> These verses are often terse, witty and convincing. <S> Whenever similes are used, they are those that are easily understood even by a child, e.g., the cart's wheel, a man's shadow, a deep pool, flowers. <S> Through these verses, the Buddha exhorts one to achieve that greatest of all conquests, the conquest of self; to escape from the evils of passion, hatred and ignorance; and to strive hard to attain freedom from craving and freedom from the round of rebirths. <S> Each verse contains a truth (dhamma), an exhortation, a piece of advice. <S> https://www.tipitaka.net/tipitaka/dhp/
|
Anandajoti's translation of Dhammapada - web-based, PDF, epub and MOBI, includes Pali text Ven.
|
Is it correct to refer to "Buddha" without "the" Wikipedia uses "the Buddha" to refer to the founder while a book uses "Buddha" without the definite article. from "Meetings with Remarkable People By Osho" Is it correct to refer to "Buddha" without "the"? If yes, when should I use which? <Q> I think "the" Buddha is more normal and more formal. <S> Without "the" sounds to me more <S> casual -- or possibly slightly English-as-a-second-language, as several languages don't use articles. <S> If you think of the word "Buddha" as being a title like "Teacher", well in formal English you'd usually include the article and say something like, "The Teacher said, ...". <S> It's not incorrect, perhaps a bit familiar, to say something like, "Teacher said, ...". <S> Also "Buddha" without an article would be right if "Buddha" were a proper noun , i.e. a name -- <S> but I think it's more like a title or a common noun (the specific Buddha who we usually talk about <S> is Gautama Buddha). <A> This answer is more or less the same as ChrisW's. <S> The term Buddha means "awakened one" or "enlightened one". <S> It's a title or description, and not a name, just like King. <S> So, you would say "the King" or "a King" but not "King". <S> Similarly, we say "the Buddha" to refer to a specific person, or "a Buddha" to refer to any generic person who fits the description. <S> But if you say "King George" then it becomes a name with a title. <S> Similarly with "Gautama Buddha", "Kassapa Buddha", "Kakusandha Buddha" etc. <S> This is related to the use of definite articles in the English language. <S> If you consider another language like German, then the definite article becomes more complex with gender, and declension such as nominative, genitive, dative and accusative. <S> From my understanding, there is no definite article in Pali or Sanskrit. <S> In the Pali suttas, the Buddha is usually referred to, in the third person, as "bhagavā", meaning "blessed one" which is usually rendered in English as "the Blessed One". <S> For e.g. from SN 44.10 <S> : <S> But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent. <S> (Sujato translation) <S> When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. <S> (Bodhi translation) Evaṃ vutte, bhagavā tuṇhī ahosi. <S> bhagavā = <S> Blessed One <S> , tuṇhī = silent, ahosi = <S> was <S> There is also no uppercase or lowercase in Pali and Sanskrit. <A> Buddha <S> The name given to one who rediscovers for him/herself the liberating path of Dhamma, after a long period of time of its having been forgotten bu the world. <S> Buddha (the title) comes from the pali term 'buddha' meaning awake, hence using 'The' is semantically analogous to saying 'The Awakened One'. <A> Interesting question; in standard English usage, all (three) namings can be seen in reasonable text: rather technically perhaps: when noncapitalized article the, it would be used more in a context re a specific but nonparticularly named Buddha; for the name Buddha without a particle, it could be more of a friendly conversational type name, sort of like Bob or Jim, & perhaps somewhat less formal; with capitalised The, The Buddha would often respectfully refer to (The) Buddha Gautama
|
In the entirety of the Pali Canon, the oldest known collection of the Buddha's teachings, "the Buddha" is used as opposed to "Buddha".
|
Buddhism Supernatural feats and abilities Recently i experiencing the psychic abilities, telepathy and seeing other dimension sentiment when i having this so call 3rd eye syndrome (All of it) https://www.holycitysinner.com/2020/01/22/signs-your-third-eye-is-starting-to-see/ My psychic ability became more accurate and it's like Deja Vu then things really happened after 1-2 months. It's applicable to the stock market prices speculation price, date and how exactly it is speculated predicted 100% by mostly instinct. Sometimes when i am fully focused then i feel reading other people's mind and i will be winning throughout the night like a poker game, it's up to 90% accuracy. I am just a beginner poker player and winning all the senior players. I dont gamble much also. I felt so scared. I used to be a Buddhism and Shaolin Kung Fu practitioner. I used to meditate in a martial arts way where there is a study that this can unlock the 7 chakra. The more I practice, the more I sense this ability. Sometime If i fully focus especially during critical time, i can think much faster, accurate even i sense future things. I visited some doctors and my Buddhism senior. Some said use it for good, some said stop meditating. My Buddhism senior commented that if it is so happening then it's devil abilities because I ' m really far far away from enlightenment requirement. Out of the 10 good deeds. I guess I only achieved 4 good merits, the rest just so so. Question: Does it happen to someone just a 5-6 years Buddhism or junior practitioner ? Why such a things happening according to Buddhism? I just want to be a normal people and i dont require such abilities at the moment because my "good deed" is not good enough, perhaps i will use this for gambling or stock market or into devil's direction. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Gautama_Buddha#:~:text=Psychic%20Abilities,-See%20also%3A%20Abhijñā&text=Following%20his%20enlightenment%2C%20the%20Buddha,and%20making%20copies%20of%20himself <Q> Even a person without having those powers would have enlightened instantly. <A> Psychic powers are not necessary to end suffering: <S> DN24:1.4.13 : What do you think, Sunakkhatta? <S> DN24:1.4.14 : <S> Whether or not there is a demonstration of psychic power, does my teaching lead someone who practices it to the goal of the complete ending of suffering?’ <S> DN24:1.4.15 : ‘It does, sir.’ <S> Phenomena, including psychic powers, appear and disappear on their own without our grasping at them: <S> AN9.36:2.3 : Take a mendicant who, quite secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters and remains in the first absorption. <S> They contemplate the phenomena there—included in form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness—as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as an abscess, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as falling apart, as empty, as not-self. <S> Focus on the Noble Eightfold Path instead of the phenomena. <S> AN9.36 continues further, instructing us to experience and relinquish such phenomena with deeper practice--eventually, perception of those phenomena will fade with greater skill in immersion: <S> AN9.36:9.4 : They turn their mind away from those things,... AN9.36:10.2 : But the two dimensions that depend on these—the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, and the cessation of perception and feeling—are properly explained by mendicants who are skilled in these attainments and skilled in emerging from them, after they’ve entered them and emerged from them.” <A> I agree with Oya Mist that psychic powers are not necessary for enlightenment. <S> Additionally, the powers can become a major distraction. <S> If you become interested in developing them, then you should wait until after you have reached enlightenment. <S> The powers are a normal addition to an enlightened one. <S> In fact, after awakening, the powers seem to appear as needed, on the spur of the moment.
|
Supernatural natural feats and abilities are not considered as a special part of the enlightenment.
|
There is a conventional self, so is anything conventionally permanent? There is a conventional self, so is anything conventionally permanent? Answer from any reputable tradition. <Q> Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — <S> this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. <A> The Buddha mentions three eternalist doctrines that exemplify conventional permanence. <S> Let's skip the first two since they are weaker variations of this third one: <S> DN28:15.18 : <S> Furthermore, some ascetic or brahmin—by dint of keen, resolute, committed, and diligent effort, and right focus—experiences an immersion of the heart of such a kind that they recollect their past lives for as many as forty eons of the expansion and contraction of the cosmos, with features and details. <S> They say, ‘I know that in the past the cosmos expanded or contracted. <S> I don’t know whether in the future the cosmos will expand or contract. <S> This third conventional doctrine leaps to the following conclusion: <S> DN28:15.25 : <S> The self and the cosmos are eternal, barren, steady as a mountain peak, standing firm like a pillar. <S> They remain the same for all eternity, while these sentient beings wander and transmigrate and pass away and rearise.’ <S> This is the third eternalist doctrine. <S> This is unsurpassable when it comes to eternalist doctrines. <S> In DN1, the Buddha explains the limitations of these very impressive conventional views: <S> DN1:1.36.1 : <S> The Realized One understands this: ‘If you hold on to and attach to these grounds for views it leads to such and such a destiny in the next life.’ <S> And then the Buddha turns away from convention and goes beyond: DN1:1.36.3 : He understands this, and what goes beyond this. <S> Yet since he does not misapprehend that understanding, he has realized extinguishment within himself. <S> Having truly understood the origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape from feelings, the Realized One is freed through not grasping. <S> To paraphrase, "you can come back as much as you like, but why?" <S> Arahants and non-returners do not return and are not seen by humans or devas after their body breaks up. <S> Conventional permanence seeks return. <S> That is why it is bound to suffering. <S> Because a vital condition for suffering is rebirth. <S> SN12.23:4.3 : <S> I say that suffering has a vital condition. <S> And what is it? <S> You should say: ‘Rebirth.’ <A> The manifestation of illusory appearances. <A> There is nothing one should take as self as whatever you take as a self it will case unsatisfactoriness and is not permanent and not in one's control. <S> A normal worldling will consider conventionally that here is a self <S> and it is permanent <S> and it is satisfactory <S> and it is in one's control. <S> But it is not permanent and not in one's control and is not satisfactory. <A> Suffering or unsatisfactoriness is conventionally permanent for the conventional self.
|
Impermanence is conventionally permanent for the conventional self.
|
In Buddhism, is the effect ontologically independent of the cause? In Buddhism, is the effect ontologically independent of the cause? I'm not asking if the effect makes the cause, which I think would amount to "ontic" dependence; but if the effect can exist without the cause. I can't remember the word for this, but take smoking. It causes cancer, and some people's cancer is caused by smoking: but not all cancers are from smoking. And what has that got to do with 'emptiness', in any Mahayana tradition? <Q> No effects can arise without multiple causes. <S> The causes can still be in state just possible to arise or may vanished long time ago. <S> The causes can be unreality as well, knowing person, car, etc. <S> Although the aggregates, which called cancer, can arise without smoking, but that aggregates must cause by other various origins definitely. <S> The doctor, practitioner, should find the other else instead. <S> That's why aggregates is called "sankhata (being caused by causes)". <A> in Madhyamika,the effect depends on the cause,wich one can say IS the effect because arising and Cessation do not occur.in Theravadan Kshanabhanga however,the effect is independant of the cause and the effect arises only when the cause has ceased. <A> Cause and effect are not independent but are meditated by mind. <A> Good householder, As for Unbound, Nibbana, yes, it's independent from cause, all else, no, <S> no single phenomena can be found in the world, not depending on cause. <S> Suññata, how ever, is conditioned, required nourishment. <S> [Not given for stacks, exchange, world-binding trades of other kind but to be used torward the Unconditioned]
|
But it is impossible for every effect to arise without causes.
|
Finding a Vipassana Teacher in a pandemic I have been having questions from time to time about my practise. I do the cushion practise once a day in the morning for half an hour and try to follow the five precepts through the day. A lot of times through the day I have questions that make me feel like I need to discuss this with someone who is more experienced than I am. How does one "find a teacher" that can help me customise path & methods for a better practise? I live in a city called Bombay, in India. Any help and/or insight appreciated. PS: I have had the privilege of learning through a 10-day SN Goenka Vipassana Retreat once. :) -With Love & Chai. <Q> Ven. <S> Yuttadhammo , who was formerly a moderator of Buddhism. <S> SE, heads the Sirimangalo International Meditation Centre in Ontario, Canada. <S> He was a student of Ven. <S> Ajaan Tong Sirimangalo . <S> He teaches vipassana meditation , which is very beneficial . <S> You can find his meditation e-books online: <S> How to Meditate <S> How to Meditate II <S> The " How to Meditate " e-book is based on meditation lessons taught by Ven. <S> Yuttadhammo, which can be found in this YouTube video playlist . <S> Sirimangalo International Meditation Centre has an online at-home meditation course : <S> At-Home Meditation Course <S> For those seeking to undertake a Meditation course at home, pleasevisit this link <S> https://meditation.sirimangalo.org/course <S> (you mayneed to sign up and log in). <S> You will need access to headphones and a microphone. <S> Furtherinstructions on how to book an appointment and connect for yoursession/appointment are given on the page with the link above. <S> Ourat-home meditation students meet weekly with a teacher. <S> Completiontime for the course varies. <S> We recommend to read the booklet by Venerable Yuttadhammo on which ourmeditation practice is based. <S> It can be found here http://htm.sirimangalo.org . <S> And it also has the online Meditation+ <S> program - through which you can ask questions directly to Ven. <S> Yuttadhammo himself : <S> Meditation+ <S> We call our online meditation group <S> Meditation+ <S> and it is located at http://meditation.sirimangalo.org . <S> Here you can join together with other meditators in our tradition tolog in your meditation time and help yourself to establish a regularpractice . <S> You can also communicate with fellow meditators through alive chat function. <S> Meditation+ can be used on any computer or deviceas it is a mobile friendly site. <S> The site feature the following: a list of all meditation sessions in progress a live chat with emoticons <S> a log of total minutes of the site’s meditation by hour of day for the past month a list of commitments that can be undertaken by members and tracked for fulfillment a page to submit questions which Venerable Yuttadhammo answers on the Wednesday night Q & A session on YouTube <S> For especially dedicated meditators, there is even the opportunity tomeet weekly with Venerable Yuttadhammo via Google Hangouts for privatemeditation instruction. <S> (See Schedule tab at Meditation+.) <S> Pleasenote, booking a weekly appointment must be done from a computer orother large screen device to display properly. <S> We invite you to join us. <A> For students who have already done a course one can use the mobile app: Dhamma.org Mobile App . <A> Young householder, The Power of Judgment and Association with People of Integrity are useful helps, following the Buddhas advices, to find a good teacher. <S> Sure good to do such search in monasteries or other places away from worldly interests, of course, since importand to access a borderland . <S> And at least, not to forget!, the most raw Vipassana training starts with basics, such as performing basic merits, generosity, service. <S> Where ever such can be done for virtuous, there one may find his teacher toward right path soon. <S> [note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, trade... but to get out of this wheel]
|
Also, some centres have organised online group sittings for old students: https://pamoda.dhamma.org/en/os-vipassana/online-group-sits/
|
How to deal with distractions during meditation? When meditating on the breath, after a while the sensation of my eyes not being closed properly appeared. This then turns into vibrating, and my eyes feel like they are literally moving. I tried refocusing on the breath but this is a very difficult sensation to ignore. Does anyone have advice? Other sensations I feel are the opening of my eyes, if I do not pay attention to them. This sometimes happens, but mostly doesn't. This is also extremely distracting, as I feel like I should focus on keeping my eyes closed. Many thanks. <Q> Close the eyes properly? <S> Usually there appear various sensations like ie; <S> posture not being straight legs not being very comfortable odd sensations in the face or body itching, numbing etc wanting to adjust posture etc <S> Usually when some odd sensation appears, it distracts you from the breath <S> but if you were to switch your focus to the sensation the perception of breath would distract you from the sensation. <S> So there is not that much you can do as you will get distracted either way <S> , so i try to do as little as possible. <S> Eventually the distracting sensations will change & subside, so you can just observe that arising, persisting and cessation in that. <S> What i do is aknowledging that ie 'a painful bodily feeling has arisen' and just observe it distracting me whilst maintaining focus on the breath and whatever else is going on. <S> Keep observing the arising, persistence and cessation of both perceptions (breath + distraction) whilst reapplying the focus and keeping it connected to breathing. <S> One can't really do anything about various thoughts, feelings & perceptions claiming focus so one just aknowledges their arising, persistence and the cessation. <S> I don't necessarily take note as in verbalizing thoughts as is taught by ie Yuttadhammo Bhikkhu <S> but i do it occasionally. <S> I don't think it's a mistake to do it <S> but i think it is eventually somewhat distracting and is not something you do in the 2nd jhana <S> but it's ok up until that point if one finds it useful to keep focused. <S> I tend to be less "hands on" in general and tend to stay mindful of the arising, persisting & cessation of thoughts feelings & perceptions by applying mind to something and keeping it applied without intentionally giving rise to thoughts. <S> If i notice particular hindrances then i drop the perception of breathing to counter the hindrance lest it can be well countered by the perception of breath (ie general restlessness). <A> Instead of being reactive to the sensation merely observe it. <S> Generally it will arise then depart. <S> Then return to your breath. <S> There are a lot of various kriyas that occur with meditation. <S> Often it is different for everyone as energy channels are cleared. <S> Once you start either being attracted to or adverse to the sensations, they persist until you let go. <S> In general they are benign. <S> If they become intolerable, stop meditating and go get some exercise. <S> Find a teacher who can look at your entire constitution and advise you. <A> When meditating on the breath, ... <S> I think you're practicing mindfulness of breathing? <S> maybe. <S> And you're getting distracted by sensations of eye opening or vibrating... <S> I also read your comments where you mentioned ' <S> Occasionally I will see a small light, but then realise my eyes are starting to open. <S> Is this a distraction or my own fault? <S> Seeing small lights etc are called Nimitta , (see this) <S> Nimitta is different practice if your doing mindfulness of breathing, so you need to ignore that and also nimitta takes practice to see lights constantly otherwise your eye will start vibrating or get opened if you do it forcefully (especially if you're beginner). <S> Now coming to your main question, How to deal with distractions while meditating. <S> I had this problem and I will answer in points, <S> If your feeling some sensation like itching then itch it before meditating. <S> Avoid using computer and smartphones, <S> half hour earlier (minimum) because eye-strain also creates problem. <S> If you're beginner then try doing meditation in low-light and safe places with less distractions. <S> Now comes the main point, <S> Do concentration meditation for at least 7min. <S> (I do this in morning) <S> When I say concentration meditation it's not like focusing on breath <S> then some thoughts will come and you notice them and let them go etc. <S> No, I mean complete concentration , of course at beginning there will some distraction but remember to be fully concentrate on breath. <S> I remember a user in different platfrom saying this, 15min concentration meditation is equivalent to 30min less concentrated meditation. <S> Last point, when you breath in enjoy your breathing in and when you breath out enjoy your breathing out. <S> :) <S> When you breath in be aware that you're breathing in and when you breath out be aware you're breathing out. <S> It'll be better if you focus on natural breathing <S> it will increase your concentration and also mindfulness. <S> And maybe later meditating becomes your habit <S> and you don't need to remember most of the points which I mentioned. <S> Hope this helps ! <A> Bhante Vimalaramsi’s <S> 6Rs seems to be a better way to deal with physical and mental distractions. <S> https://youtu.be/lY77In3ZYGI <A> There are many ways to tackle these kind of distraction while occur when u start meditating.its a normal situation <S> everyone of us experience when doing the 'anapana sati bawana' or the meditation on breathing. <S> I suggest u to do some research or get some advice from a proper meditation teacher. <S> There are many type of meditation methods in Buddhism not every method is work for everyone perfectly. <S> Remember practice is the most important thing...only through continuous practice u can overcome those diverticulitis. <S> may u will overcome ur problem
|
When distracted just acknowledge that a distracting feeling, thought or perception (however it appears to you) has arisen and go back to breath. Do more research on the type of meditation ur going to practice... seek help and advice from proper teachers...
|
Confusion about the word 'dhamma'? What does the word ' dhamma ' mean when the Buddha said ' sabbe dhamma annatta'. I am being confused here. I looked through the translation. It reads ' all conditioned/unconditioned things are not-self '. Isn't the word sankara used for conditioned things. The word dhamma in my native language literally means ' religion '. Also I checked Wikipedia for the word dhamma . The Wiki gives similar meaning as ' religion ' in context of Hinduism but not clear on Buddhist use of the word. My question is whats translation of word ' dhamma ' and in what context is it used in line ' sabbe dhamma annatta' ? <Q> Dhamma encompasses sankhara[created] <S> but it also encompases the cessation principle which is not included in sankhara as it is asankhata [not-created]. <S> Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress. <S> " sn22.86 <S> There are these famous lines; <S> Sabbe sankhara anicca Sabbe sankhara dukkha Sabbe dhamma anatta Translated; <S> All formations are impermanent All formations are suffering All Dhamma [teachings] <S> are not-self Then reconciled with; <S> Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." <S> It makes sense because; Stress is part of the teaching [things that are taught] <S> Cessation of stress is part of the teaching [things that are taught] <S> The semantic referent of #2 is the unconditioned; is neither impermanent[anicca] nor suffering[dukkha]; but it is likewise not-self[anatta]. <A> Like sankhara, the term dhamma is very broad and means different things per different context. <S> Nibbana. <S> See the Pali defitions for Dhamma and Sankhara further details. <A> In the context of your description: sankhara means conditioned things / phenomena. <S> dhamma means all things / phenomena i.e. both conditioned and unconditioned things / phenomena <S> What is unconditioned? <S> Only Nibbana - it is that which is experienced by the mind, when it is completely free of all fetters and defilements. <S> What is conditioned? <S> Everything else, including mental and physical phenomena / things. <S> " sabbe sankhara dukkha " means "all conditioned things/ phenomena are suffering / unsatisfactoriness". <S> This does not include Nibbana . <S> " sabbe sankhara anicca " means "all conditioned things/ phenomena are impermanent". <S> This does not include Nibbana . <S> " sabbe dhamma anatta " means "all things/ phenomena are not self". <S> This includes Nibbana . <S> From AccessToInsight's Glossary of Pali and Buddhist Terms : <S> dhamma <S> [Skt. <S> dharma ]: (1) Event; a phenomenon in and of itself;(2) mental quality; <S> (3) doctrine, teaching; (4) nibbāna . <S> Also,principles of behavior that human beings ought to follow so as to fitin with the right natural order of things; qualities of mind theyshould develop so as to realize the inherent quality of the mind inand of itself. <S> By extension, " Dhamma " (usu. capitalized) is used alsoto denote any doctrine that teaches such things. <S> Thus the Dhamma ofthe Buddha denotes both his teachings and the direct experience of nibbāna , the quality at which those teachings are aimed. <S> saṅkhāra : <S> Formation, compound, fashioning, fabrication — theforces and factors that fashion things (physical or mental), theprocess of fashioning, and the fashioned things that result. <S> Saṅkhāra can refer to anything formed or fashioned by conditions, or, morespecifically, (as one of the five khandhas ) thought-formations withinthe mind. <S> Please see this answer for details.
|
In the broadest sense, sankhara is a subset of dhamma, for dhamma includes not only conditioned phenomena/sankhara, but also unconditioned element/ASankhataDhatu, ie.
|
Why did Buddha need a personal physician? Buddha was omniscient and had knowledge over all materialistic things,then why did he need a personal physician?Also there are suttas which are to be recited for recovery from diseases which highlight the praises of Buddha,then why couldn't the Buddha and the Arahant Bhikkus protect themselves from the clutches of diseases? <Q> Buddha was omniscient and had knowledge over all materialistic things,then why did he need a personal physician?Also <S> there are suttas which are to be recited for recovery from diseases which highlight the praises of Buddha,then why couldn't the Buddha and the Arahant Bhikkus protect themselves from the clutches of diseases? <S> Nowhere in the suttas did they say the Buddha "needed" a personal physician. <S> People volunteered their services to Him and He accepted it in the spirit of good will and possibly allowing good opportunity for the donors to practice generosity and attaining great merits at the same time. <A> Every Arahanta is not God. <S> Every Buddha is not God. <S> They never act like "I can control everything. <S> I can do everything. <S> I will never die. <S> I can live forever." which is impossible, imagination. <S> And what you ask is impossible, imagination. <S> The Buddha and followers are genius, not daydreamers. <S> They know the real causes and effects and get "how we can use life for discontinuing suffering forever" in real life. <S> Buddha was omniscient and had knowledge over all materialistic things,then why did he need a personal physician? <S> Our Buddha has only 45 years to help people which he has trained them for 4 Asaṅkhaya 100 thousand MahāKappa, and most of his noble one followers have not more than 100 years to help people in 5,000 years. <S> If they are genius, they must be experts in how to manage seven qualities of a good man . <S> So, they chose to teach only importance for enlightenment. <S> Every teaching and learning have a learning curve which is easy for the Buddha and Arahanta, but hard for the ordinary. <S> More time more chance. <S> Keep focusing on the Samatha&Vipassanā meditations for speeding the enlightenment. <S> Don't waste focusing on mathematics or physics too much because most people have only 100 years to life. <S> Get the most out of 100 years of life. <S> But if the Buddhism will stay forever, he will teach materialistic and physic as well. <S> Also there are suttas which are to be recited for recovery from diseases which highlight the praises of Buddha,then why couldn't the Buddha and the Arahant Bhikkus protect themselves from the clutches of diseases? <S> There are eight causes of diseases <S> which no one can't protect some of them, especially uncountable karma causes from past-life. <A> You must imagine that after enlightenment, the Buddha became omniscient and had become a god or superman of sorts. <S> I believe this is an exaggeration. <S> Enlightenment made him fully understand and realize the four noble truths, but if he was here today, he won't be able to tell you how to make a vaccine for Covid-19. <S> On the other hand, the Buddha and Ven. <S> Moggallāna had some psychic powers, that may have given them some supernatural abilities, but this does not make them fully omniscient or omnipotent. <S> They can use whatever means available to ordinary people including the use of physicians and commonly available medicine. <S> The Buddha and the arahats may feel the physical pain but not the mental pain, as mentioned in SN 36.6 : <S> “Bhikkhus, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by apainful feeling, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament; he does notweep beating his breast and become distraught. <S> He feels one feeling—abodily one, not a mental one. <S> Suppose they were to strike a man with adart, but they would not strike him immediately afterwards with asecond dart, so that the man would feel a feeling caused by one dartonly. <S> So too, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by apainful feeling … he feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental one. <S> “Being contacted by that same painful feeling, he harbours no aversiontowards it. <S> Since he harbours no aversion towards painful feeling, theunderlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling does not liebehind this. <S> Being contacted by painful feeling, he does not seekdelight in sensual pleasure. <S> For what reason? <S> Because the instructednoble disciple knows of an escape from painful feeling other thansensual pleasure. <S> Since he does not seek delight in sensual pleasure,the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling does not liebehind this. <S> He understands as it really is the origin and the passingaway, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case ofthese feelings. <S> Since he understands these things, the underlyingtendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasantfeeling does not lie behind this. <A> Even enlightenment does not make you free from Karma. <S> Once someone becomes an arahat <S> he/ <S> she does not have any need to live but until the past Karma is expended an arahat lives. <S> So in the same way Buddha has told why he got certain diseases and injuries. <S> Eg: <S> A recurring headache because in a previous life as Bodhisattva, he became happy at the sight of a big catch. <S> Having to practice strict acsetism due to the insults Bodhisattva (Jothipala) said to Kassapa Buddha. <S> Devadatta pushing a huge rock at Buddha, and Buddha getting His foot injured, this was due to a previous incarnation when Bodhisattva had pushed his brother from a cliff due to greed for the inheritance etc... <S> So many other effects of previous Kamma had to be borne by even the Great Buddha. <S> If a Bodhisattva has done this many bad things in previous incarnations, imagine how much more evil we might have done. <A> I can only assume that some things must happen, as Maha Moggalanna couldn't escape his assasins so maybe the Buddha also had to endure some disease.
|
Having fully understood and realized the four noble truths, the Buddha and the arahats have no reason to find supernatural means to avoid or alleviate physical pain and diseases.
|
Why is Vipassana centred around the breath, when it's meant to be a state of observing sensations? I can't seem to reconcile the two ideas that Vipassana meditation involves both concentrating completely on the breath while at the same time observing bodily sensations. Aren't these two mutually exclusive? How can one concentrate on the breath while being open to new sensations? <Q> When you watch your breath, seeing the quality or character of each in-breath and out-breath allows you to really see your feelings (not sensations, that's a bad translation). <S> Breath is the best pointer at your emotional state. <A> Vipassana does not involve concentrating solely on the breath. <S> Instead (one form of) it involves resting your attention on the breath. <S> While keeping your attention on your breath your awareness naturally has to be open to unconsciously "decide" whether or not the attention should change to something else, so already it is naturally open in this situation. <S> By placing your attention on your chosen object of meditation you are implicitly opening your awareness. <S> At first it's not obvious: you may feel that you are really forcing your attention onto your breath at the expense of other sensations, but as you relax and open further you will begin to perceive your awareness with much more clarity. <S> Source: <S> The Mind Illuminated <A> Aren't these two mutually exclusive? <S> No. <S> Also, the impermanence of the breath will be experienced. <A> If you simply observe everything, eventually, the mind starts wandering. <S> So, observation of the breath in vipassana serves a few functions: <S> It anchors the mind into the task of observing the breath and you need mindfulness to keep returning to this task, to prevent the mind from wandering. <S> It calms the mind down. <S> With the breath, there comes other physical sensations that are observable, like the movement of the abdomen, movement of air through the nasal passage etc. <S> With the breath, there are related mental states that can be observed like calming down, agitated, unhappy, happy etc. <S> because negative mental states tend to cause heavy agitated breath and positive mental states have lighter breath. <S> The relationship or mutual influence between mind and body can be observed.
|
When the breath is known within the body, simultaneously sensations within the body will be felt.
|
Does each Buddha find a new path? I have a question that I find kind of interesting, and can't find an answer anywhere. Will the next Buddha find a new path, different from the middle way? Or will he rediscover the middle way once it's been forgotten. I think both are possible, but I'm not too sure. <Q> You can find this narrated in the Pali Canon for Vipassi Buddha ( SN 12.4 ), Sikhi Buddha ( SN 12.5 ), Vessabhu Buddha ( SN 12.6 ), Kakusandha Buddha ( SN 12.7 ), Konagamana Buddha ( SN 12.8 ), Kassapa Buddha ( SN 12.9 ) <S> and of course, Gotama Buddha ( SN 12.10 ). <S> Furthermore, the Buddha foretold the coming of the future Buddha, Metteyya Buddha or Maitreya Buddha in DN 26 - to do the same. <A> When someone awakens (Buddh) he or she awakens to the Key Principle. <S> This Principle is at the root of everything. <S> This Principle is the Law of Nature. <S> From this Principle everything else follows, good and bad. <S> If you know the Principle, you can act accordingly and fare well. <S> If you act otherwise, you create trouble. <S> When the Awakened awakens, he or she teaches the aspects of the Principle as well as the implications of the Principle. <S> He or she teaches the different outcomes of Acting in accordance with -- or against -- the Principle. <S> To those who want to fare well, he or she teaches the practical means of mastering the Principle. <S> Sentient beings of extremely high capacity only need the Principle itself explained - then they can see and do the rest by themselves. <S> To sentient beings of low capacity he or she teaches basic Action in accordance with the Principle without trying to get them to understand the Principle itself. <S> Sentient beings of intermediate capacity need detailed step by step instructions on mastering the Principle. <S> These step by step instructions can take many forms. <S> In case of the previous Buddha they took the form of the Middle Way. <S> Regardless of the exact form they take they are a gradual approach to mastering the Principle. <S> They come out of the Principle, their essence is the Principle. <S> These gradual instructions can use an entirely different set of concepts, and their practical side may look vastly different because of a different lifestyle of the sentient beings at the time. <S> They may not resemble the Middle Way at all, but their essence will be the same nevertheless. <S> It will always have: <S> this is right <S> , this is not right, this will get you in trouble, this will get you out of trouble, this is what you need to know <S> , this is what you need to do, this is the coarse approximation of The Principle, this is the more refined, this is extremely refined, this is sublime, these are the pointers to the ultimate. <A> Walking towards emptiness we walk separately simply because there are different bodies, but: <S> MN121:13.1 : Whatever ascetics and brahmins enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness—whether in the past, future, or present—all of them enter and remain in this same pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness. <S> MN121:13.4 : <S> So, Ānanda, you should train like this: ‘We will enter and remain in the pure, ultimate, supreme emptiness.’ <S> MN121:13.5 : <S> That’s how you should train.” <S> Also, in MN81, the Buddha discusses his own experience with a previous Buddha. <S> MN81:5.1 : “Once upon a time, Ānanda, there was a market town in this spot named Vebhaliṅga. <S> It was successfuland prosperous and full of people. <S> And Kassapa, a blessed one, a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha, lived supported by Vebhaliṅga. <S> All Noble Paths converge. <A> New Buddha will bring understanding to what has already been said. <S> Majority of people are not interested in Dhamma because they fail to understand it and get lost in the myriad of books and ideas. <S> Grasping the Dhamma is the most difficult thing to do and even more difficult is applying it in your daily life. <S> New Buddha will do all that as the previous Buddhas did. <S> Buddha brings understanding like a master teacher. <S> Buddha is the teacher of Gods.
|
Each Buddha rediscovers the same path and the same truth all over again, on his own.
|
Lord Buddha advice on contemplation of man-made things Hundred years ago there were many natural beautiful things to observe and it was also easy to cultivate happiness. But in today's city life, we are surrounded by long buildings, roads, and traffics. We rarely spend our time with nature and are mostly surrounded by man-made things. Although breathing meditation can be done anywhere and this cultivates a lot of relief from our suffering, I was just wondering whether Lord Buddha had given any suggestion on the contemplation of manmade things to cultivate happiness/peace? Is it possible to become peaceful by just contemplating on any man-made things and if yes then how? <Q> OP: Is it possible to become peaceful by just contemplating on any man-made things and if yes <S> then how? <S> You can meditate on kasinas . <S> Please see the wikipedia page on kasina . <S> Technically, this is concentration on a man-made mental object. <S> I quote from it below. <S> Kasiṇa meditation is one of the most common types of samatha meditation, intended to settle the mind of the practitioner and createa foundation for further practices of meditation. <S> The meditation treatise the Visuddhimagga is centered aroundkasina-meditation. <S> According to American scholar monk ThanissaroBhikkhu, " <S> [t]he text then tries to fit all other meditation methodsinto the mold of kasina practice, so that they too give rise tocountersigns, but even by its own admission, breath meditation doesnot fit well into the mold." <S> He argues that by emphasizingkasina-meditation, the Visuddhimagga departs from the focus on dhyanain the Pali Canon. <S> Thanissaro Bhikkhu states this indicates that what"jhana means in the commentaries is something quite different fromwhat it means in the Canon." <S> There are ten kasiṇa described in the Visuddhimagga, which are alsomentioned in the Pali Tipitaka: earth पठवी <S> कसिण <S> (Pali: paṭhavī kasiṇa, Sanskrit: pṛthivī kṛtsna) water आपो कसिण <S> (āpo kasiṇa, ap kṛtsna) <S> fire तेजो कसिण (tejo kasiṇa, tejas kṛtsna) <S> air, wind वायो कसिण <S> (vāyo kasiṇa, vāyu kṛtsna) <S> blue, green नील कसिण <S> (nīla kasiṇa, nīla kṛtsna) <S> yellow पीत <S> कसिण <S> (pīta kasiṇa, pīta kṛtsna) <S> red लोहित कसिण <S> (lohita kasiṇa, lohita kṛtsna) white ओदात कसिण (odāta kasiṇa, avadāta kṛtsna) enclosed space, hole, aperture आकास कसिण <S> (ākāsa kasiṇa, ākāśa kṛtsna) <S> consciousness विञ्ञाण कसिण <S> (viññāṇa kasiṇa, vijñāna kṛtsna); in the Pali suttas and some other texts; bright light आलोक <S> कसिण ālokakasiṇa <S> according to later sources, such as Buddhaghosa'sVisuddhimagga. <S> The kasiṇa are typically described as a colored disk, with theparticular color, properties, dimensions and medium often specifiedaccording to the type of kasiṇa. <S> The earth kasiṇa, for instance, is adisk in a red-brown color formed by spreading earth or clay (oranother medium producing similar color and texture) on a screen ofcanvas or another backing material. <A> In today's city life, we are surrounded by material possessions. <S> How should we regard them? <S> DN15:9.1 <S> : So it is, Ānanda, that feeling is a cause of craving. <S> Craving is a cause of seeking. <S> Seeking is a cause of gaining material possessions. <S> Gaining material possessions is a cause of assessing. <S> Assessing is a cause of desire and lust. <S> Desire and lust is a cause of attachment. <S> Attachment is a cause of possessiveness. <S> Possessiveness is a cause of stinginess. <S> Stinginess is a cause of safeguarding. <S> We should regard material possessions as impermanent and unsatisfactory. <S> DN15:17.2 <S> : Suppose there were totally and utterly no seeking for anyone anywhere. <S> When there’s no seeking at all, with the cessation of seeking, would the gaining of material possessions still be found?” <S> DN15:17.3 : <S> “No, sir.” <S> If one can regard a tuk-tuk or a Ferrari with equanimity of transport, then one would be well on the way to living without wishes in this very life. <S> And that would require giving up assessment and attachment. <S> So in the city, see the city. <S> In the forest see the forest. <S> Let go of "me, myself and mine". <S> Just see. <A> I believe the OP is not asking about materialism. <S> For example, a member of the opposite sex is not artificial while a fancy car or phone is. <S> Lust can form for both. <S> Likewise, we can easily find examples of when the both natural and artificial objects can trigger aversion. <S> Regarding meditation, in reality, the objects of meditation are really only 6, the six sense doors. <S> Everything we know is known by the mind at these 6. <S> The kind of objects you are talking about are objects of these sense doors . <S> With some practice, they don't really matter. <S> What matters is the reactions on sense doors and the feeling tones generated in the mind as a result. <S> The seclusion that the Buddha talked about was really seclusion of the senses. <S> Yes, he did recommend going to an empty house, the root of a tree etc, but this was the aid seclusion of the senses. <S> Notice <S> that he did * not ask anyone to go to a place of natural beauty or look for beautiful natural things. <S> This is one of the most common misconceptions about meditation - that you need a quiet, beautiful place. <S> The path is for practice wherever we are. <S> There is some value to allowing somewhat favorable conditions, but this is not the first order endeavor.
|
In kasiṇameditation, a mental object (kasina) is used as the object ofmeditation, being used to keep the mind focused whenever attentiondrifts. Setting kasina aside and addressing the broader question: No, it doesn't matter whether the object of the senses is manmade or not.
|
Is nirvana a conceptual construction? Is nirvana a conceptual construction - empty in that way? For any / only some Buddhists. I'm just trying to figure out how extinction can avoid the extremes of eternalism and annihilation. If it is a conceptual construction in the sense of having no reality outside what it is in conventional designation (blissful etc.), that might be an answer. If some rock has no qualities that we cannot define, then maybe there is nothing to add to its existence, nothing to puzzle over and ask why or how. <Q> "I'm just trying to figure out how extinction can avoid the extremes of eternalism and annihilation." <S> And therein lies your problem. <S> If you are trying to figure it out, you are dealing in concepts, not nirvana. <S> Every word you speak answers itself. <S> It is a closed loop. <S> A closed system. <S> Step outside. <S> How would you define a word without using language? <S> See the following: Case 5 of the Mumonkan Kyogen's "Man Up a Tree" <S> The Case: <S> Kyõgen Oshõ said, "It is like a man up in a tree hanging from a branchwith his mouth; his hands grasp no bough, his feet rest on no limb. <S> Someone appears under the tree and asks him, 'What is the meaning ofBodhidharma's coming from the West?' <S> If he does not answer, he failsto respond to the question. <S> If he does answer, he will lose his life. <S> What would you do in such a situation?" <S> Mumon's Comment: <S> Even if your eloquence flows like a river, it is of no avail. <S> Thoughyou can expound the whole of Buddhist literature, it is of no use. <S> Ifyou solve this problem, you will give life to the way that has beendead until this moment and destroy the way that has been alive up tonow. <S> Otherwise you must wait for Maitreya Buddha and ask him. <S> Mumon's Verse: <S> Kyõgen is truly thoughtless; His vice and poison are endless. <S> He stopsup the mouths of the monks, <S> And devil's eyes sprout from theirbodies. <S> Instead of worrying about concepts, search for the word that has neither sound nor meaning. <A> Is nirvana a conceptual construction? <S> For any / only some Buddhists <S> Of course it'd depend on who you ask. <S> To a deep-sea fish, the fresh breeze of the open sky will remain a conceptual construction, but to a man on land, that's something possible to have first-hand experience of. <S> Similarly, Nibbana will remain a conceptual construction until one's attained awakening like the Buddha and His noble disciples. <A> When language is involved, everything becomes a conceptual construct. <S> That's the problem with language, you have to create a concept of something to explain something. <S> The question in itself is unclear, but Nirvana is a goal, or a state. <S> It's a state of freedom from suffering and rebirth. <S> When you reach nirvana, your mind is free from the 3 fires. <S> The fires of ignorance/delusion, attatchment/greed and aversion/hate. <S> You do not experience rebirth anymore, as you have removed the attachment to life. <A> Nirvana or Nibbana is not a thought or concept of the mind. <S> It is that which is experienced by the mind, when it is completely free of all fetters and defilements. <S> I quote from this answer below. <S> Please see that answer for a detailed analysis including sutta quotes. <S> So, Nibbana is not a thought of the mind, not a concept of the mind,not a state of the mind, not a state of consciousness and also not afeeling. <S> However, when the mind experiences this Nibbana , which is notconditioned, not compounded, not suffering, not impermanent, notarising, not ceasing and not changing, it experiences bliss. <S> The mindcan therefore experience Nibbana , but it cannot feel it or think aboutit. <S> Sukha or happiness for an unenlightened person is experienced whenencountering pleasant feelings (from the six senses) or whenencountering the cessation of painful feelings (from the six senses).But for an arahat , sukha or bliss (in this context) is experiencedwhen encountering neutral feelings, no feelings and Nibbana . <S> Also from that answer: From AN 9.34 (translated by Bhikkhu Sujato): Ven: <S> Sariputta: “Reverends, extinguishment (Nibbana) is bliss! <S> Ven. <S> Udayi: <S> “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, sincenothing is felt?” <S> Ven. <S> Sariputta: “ <A> Obviously people have conceptions about it (and those conceptions are conceptual constructions). <S> I think that nibbana itself is defined as unconstructed -- or unconditioned -- or more literally, "undefiled", "extinguished", <S> etc., are among its many attributes . <S> I think the idea is that because it isn't constructed, it is therefore not subject to decay and coming apart -- <S> according to the "three characteristics", it's "sankharas" (i.e. constructed things) which are impermanent ... and nibbana isn't a sankhara. <S> I'm using "conditioned" and "constructed" here as synonyms, which perhaps isn't quite right, but I think it's along the right lines -- see also this answer ( <S> which says that the non-construction of something may depend on some condition, but that what's unconstructed isn't itself impermanent). <A> This is a good question. <S> I have not experienced anything close to Nirvana. <S> But from what Buddha has said we can understand it as a natural state of unborn , uncreate and as a state of unbecoming. <S> It is a natural state of unborn existence... <A> Are you asking about the referent of the word "nirvana"? <S> The referent of the word nirvana is a concept of nirvana, and the referent of that concept is ... <S> WHAT? <S> The referent of that concept is the actual experiential liberation of the mind. <S> Liberation from what? <S> Liberation from the confines of concepts and therefore from the dukkha that comes from the clash between concepts, or between the concepts on one hand and the ontological reality on the other. <S> Now you tell me, is this Liberation a conceptual construct? <S> For you perhaps it is, because you are asking about it? <S> For me - not anymore, because I attained it in practice. <S> Once attained, the concept of nirvana has no referent. <S> One does not engage in semiotic games anymore. <S> No bullshit like "nirvana" and "liberation". <A> Some aspects of Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka-karika could suggest that, but that is not the “orthodox” Madhyamika stance, at least amongst Tibetans
|
It is grasped conceptually but once nirvana is achieved you don’t need to hold on to any concept. The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’sblissful about it.
|
Seeking a specific book on Buddhism Back in the late 1980s I was in San Francisco on business. My hotel room had, of course, a Gideon Bible but surprisingly to me, it also had a book on Buddhism, I think it was called "The Way of the Buddha" but I'm not sure. It was put out, I believe, by an organization called something like The Buddhist Society of San Francisco. I took and read it multiple time years later. It served as my really basic introduction to Buddhism and it led me down the path to discovering mindfulness meditation. Note, I don't consider myself a Buddhist now but I'm open to learning. I'd like to find that book again. I'm not sure it was a Dhammapada but some googling suggests that it may be. I may be wrong but a Dhammapada sounds fairly scholarly, this book had an easy reading feel to it. It did remind me some of a Christian Bible, containing stories about the Buddha. <Q> Did some googling. <S> The Buddha Wayby Harper San Francisco <S> https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-buddha-waya-folding-screen-book_harper-san-francisco/2596039/item/13174882/#isbn=0062511394&idiq=13174882 <S> Is this it? <A> My best guess: What the Buddha Taught , by Walpola Rahula. <S> It's early enough (published in '59, and revised in '74), and is widely respected as an introductory text. <S> If I were going to put something in a hotel drawer, that's what I'd choose. <S> It is (apparently) extremely common to find these texts in hotels in Japan , but I'm not much of a traveler, so I can't speak to that, or to how far that practice might have spread internationally. <S> But it is possible a translated edition made its way to San Francisco. <A> Wild guess: The Way of Zen, by Alan Watts. <S> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_of_Zen <A> I can't help you find that specific edition. <S> The Dhammapada can be an easy read. <S> It's a collection of verses, they're a kind of (a partial summary of) Buddhist doctrine. <S> There are several translations (on paper and online), including an example here . <S> The Preface starts ... <S> The Dhammapada is the best known and most widely esteemed text in the Pali Tipitaka, the sacred scriptures of Theravada Buddhism. <S> ... <S> and the Introduction ... <S> From ancient times to the present, the Dhammapada has been regarded as the most succinct expression of the Buddha's teaching found in the Pali canon and the chief spiritual testament of early Buddhism. <S> I like it as a summary. <S> It can be easy to understand at least superficially -- more difficult in detail as a first and only introduction, so it's often published with some introduction and explanatory commentary. <S> I once found a book too (as well as a Bible and a Koran): in a hotel room in Singapore. <S> Not about "mindfulness meditation", this one was structured as a "Life of the Buddha" -- a biography or hagiography -- including some of the most important lessons or doctrines (things he said). <S> I think there are several books (in English) like that. <S> In case you're interested there have had a lot of questions on this site, almost too many, asking for various book recommendations -- <S> see here .
|
Second guess: The Teaching of Buddha , a collection published by the Society for the Promotion of Buddhism.
|
Is optimism and positive attitude counterproductive? Many believe that it is important to avoid being negative and instead to see the good in bad situations. However, the Buddha said that good and bad are fabricated concepts that do not exist. An individual who has attained nirvana is neutral and does not experience emotions. Although a Bodhisattva is certainly not negative and pessimistic, they cannot be positive and optimistic either. Would seeing the bright side of things in life impede me from making spiritual progress? <Q> Good householder, optimism and positive attitude is counterproductive (in regard of long lasting happiness) if the objects are in the world, object of sense. <S> Joy, optimism, positive attitude toward awakening, skillful deeds... called " pasada " and arising after Saddha , which arises after Dukkha , are very needed tools to gain piti and the rest of releasing path till highest liberation, the Ariya-path . <S> In short, all optimism and positive attitude toward that of what is actually subject of decay isn't smart, nurishes causes for suffering. <S> Useful talk on things less known here: <S> Affirming the Truths of the Heart: <S> The Buddhist Teachings on Samvega & Pasada May good householder have enough optimism and positive attitude to investigate here deeper and trust that it will be for his long term happiness. <S> Getting a human existance, meeting the Tripple Gems, go after it, such is indeed a bright life <S> and it's actually cause, if meeting Dukkha together with the path for release, for highest happiness, Unbound. <S> So one needs to rejoice actually with such a life, such a gain, meeting such possibilities, hard ever to meet. <S> Therefore mudita has to start with oneself (= <S> anussati ) <S> [Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, worldbinding trades but toward release from it.] <A> Would seeing the bright side of things in life impede me from makingspiritual progress? <S> No it won't. <S> But what do you mean by bright side ? <S> If you mean to say that Buddha is the bright side then it wont impede you from making spiritual progress. <A> To be able to see good in bad and bad in good is called freedom from circumstances. <A> Optimism and positive attitude - is it counter productive in Buddhism? <S> It depends on what is its cause. <S> If it is caused by greed or lust, aversion and/or delusion, for e.g. you're happy because your craving for chocolate cake was fulfilled, or because the colleague you strongly dislike has resigned and will soon leave your workplace, then it is considered counter productive in Buddhism. <S> From the Dhammapada : <S> Happy <S> indeed we live, friendly amidst the hostile. <S> Amidst hostile men we dwell free from hatred. <S> Happy <S> indeed we live, friendly amidst the afflicted (by craving). <S> Amidst afflicted men we dwell free from affliction. <S> Happy <S> indeed we live, free from avarice amidst the avaricious. <S> Amidst the avaricious men we dwell free from avarice. <S> Happy <S> indeed we live, we who possess nothing. <S> Feeders on joy we shall be, like the Radiant Gods. <S> Dhammapada 200 refers to piti <S> (rapture) of jhana .
|
However, if you are optimistic and positive, due to reasons like the following, then it is considered skillful in Buddhism.
|
Whats happens after death? When a human being dies, his body dissolves into other bodies, i.e other humans, plants, air, water, rocks, sand etc. But what really happens to our Consciousness memory thoughts intelligence & Karma <Q> If good householder wouldn't not have desire for another becoming and certain inclination,, he wouldn't have come here, or? <S> So after dying off elsewhere, lack of satisfaction, breaking apart there, desire for not-becoming, he became another time, in this realm, not sure of what he will meet, but dying of another time here is for sure. <S> But if he gains awakening here, understanding the way it is, arises, decays, he will no more take birth, no more ignorance, not-knowing, no more craving for becoming anywhere another time. <S> Birth is taken, where ever possible and fit for once inclination, if not having gained full awakening, good householder. <S> Bhava (becoming)-mind arises for beings after the break up of the Body. <S> Why? <S> Because of Tanha (thirst, craving) <S> based on not-knowing, ignorance, Avija . <S> The sequence in detail, of the wheel of wandering , on is given generously by the Sublime Buddha in the secound Noble Truth . <S> What ever takes Birth is subject to decay, suffering . <S> May good householder had a good blessed, even last birth, here. <S> Some words might be of additional support for understanding: <S> Why beings take birth, even in most worse existences and circumstances? <S> [Note that this isn't given for wandering on, stacks, exchange, trades for it, but for release from this wheel] <A> When a human being dies, his body dissolves into other bodies, i.eother humans, plants, air, water, rocks, sand etc. <S> But what reallyhappens to our 1 <S> Consciousness <S> 2 <S> memory <S> 3 thoughts <S> 4 intelligence& 5 Karma. <S> Consciousness is impermanent... <S> It arises , is subject to changes and can vanish ... <S> Memory is impermanent too... <S> thoughts are impermanent... <S> intelligence is impermanent... <S> karma is impermanent... <S> it arises , is subject to change and can vanish .... <S> I am none of those ... none of those belong to me ... <S> none of those is myself ... <S> (Form or body is also impermanent) <A> Perhaps some understanding of Dependent Origination may some help. <S> ie:- <S> Vinnana Paccaya Namarupa Namarupa Paccaya Vinnana <A> You have to die while living to see, what happens after death. <S> Death while living is giving up everything that is one call his individuality. <S> Giving up everything that, which is not yours! <A> Your thoughts, memory, intelligence and karma continue to live on in the world after you, in some form or the other. <S> People still remember the Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman and other famous people in history and still read their writings or listen to to their speeches or admire their statues or portraits, or be inspired by their stories. <S> It is for this reason that the Buddha praised the setting up of the stupas of the Buddha, arahats, wheel-turning monarchs and other such great people, in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta, as memorials to continue inspiring the people. <A> Here is how one can think about it; What was before our being percepient in dependence on the physical body is unknown to us. <S> (What haøpened before birth) <S> What will be after the breakup of the body in dependence on which we are percepient is unknown to us <S> (what will happen after death) <S> Both unknowns are semantically equal. <S> What we know is that after an unknown percipience came to be. <S> So we know that the unknown sometimes preceed percipience. <S> Therefore it is reasonable to assume that it will happen again but in another body. <S> We don't here know the cause for the arising of our percipience <S> but we assume that it will likely come into play again.
|
In other words, even if your body is dissolved your vinnana (re-birth making consciousness or Patisandi Vinnana) is still there to create another body (Nama-rupa). After you are gone, your family members, friends and acquaintances continue to remember what you taught them or impressed upon them.
|
Listening to music while meditating I listen to a very low background score on a meditation app called Calm while meditating. It's mostly non-obstructive and really helps me get into the space of calm. Where I live, silence of the outer world is hard to come by and I mostly use the music just to combat that. Should I not be listening to music while meditating?Does the Buddha have any words in this regard? Metta & Chai to all,Kalpesh <Q> Listening to music, among other liminally conscious activities, like scribbling or tapping a pencil while listening to a lecture in class, are ways of distracting one’s attention from other more disturbing phenomena such as street noise, but the goal of meditation is to focus the mind, not distract it. <S> I suggest that buying some industrial grade earplugs (not the foam kind) would be more beneficial to your practice than listening to music. <A> The buddha said that sound is a thorn for mediation <S> https://suttacentral.net/an10.72/en/sujato <S> More generally, the idea that right meditation is the focus on object of the senses is from the commentators from their lack of yoniso manasikara, ie ''right thinking''. <S> and their ideas taken from the hindus that mantras, the sound Om and so on, can get you into right concentration. <S> When theyadmit that, they say that focusing on the objects of the senses is just the temporary training to get good at concentration , and then the next step is to get into meditation through non nimittas (ie images). <S> yoniso manasikara is the way to get into right samadhi, ie doing all the 7 things listed before right samadhi in the 8 fold path. <S> Puthujjanas crave sense objects too much for that <S> so they made up the idea they can get enlightened by focusing on them. <A> Meditating with music is inadvisable: <S> AN8.41:8.1 : ‘As long as they live, the perfected ones give up dancing, singing, music, and seeing shows; and beautifying and adorning themselves with garlands, fragrance, and makeup. <S> However, if the mind needs a focus, it may be helpful to consider the third opportunity for freedom: <S> AN5.26:4.1 : <S> Furthermore, it may be that neither the Teacher nor … the mendicant teaches Dhamma. <S> But the mendicant recites the teaching in detail as they learned and memorized it. <S> That mendicant feels inspired by the meaning and the teaching in that Dhamma, no matter how they recite it in detail as they learned and memorized it. <S> Feeling inspired, joy springs up. <S> Being joyful, rapture springs up. <S> When the mind is full of rapture, the body becomes tranquil. <S> When the body is tranquil, one feels bliss. <S> And when blissful, the mind becomes immersed in samādhi. <S> This is the third opportunity for freedom. … <S> And how does one recite the teaching? <S> Well, an easy way to do that is to simply listen to a sutta repeatedly until it flows off the tongue on its own. <S> Sutta recordings can be found on the internet. <S> For example, voice.suttacentral.net has 4000 suttas in various languages (Pali, English, etc.). <S> Ultimately, one should ideally be content simply focusing on the breath. <S> MN10:4.2 <S> : It’s when a mendicant—gone to a wilderness, or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut—sits down cross-legged, with their body straight, and focuses their mindfulness right there. <S> Just mindful, they breathe in. <S> Mindful, they breathe out. <S> In the above, "right there" is an instruction to be aware of what is happening at that moment without any grasping attachment. <S> The breath is observed right there in the moment, in the body as it enters and exits. <S> More detailed instruction is found in studying MN10. <S> However, in general, using music to mask agitation is inadvisable. <S> Rather, attend to the breath and the mind will necessarily relax from agitation. <S> The "music" of the breath itself should suffice. <A> From what I have learned , I think you should meditate alone at secluded places. <S> Buddha has repeatedly said employ “empty” huts to meditate ... <A> I’d suggest you to meditate in a quiet environment. <S> It’s more relaxing for the ears, and then the mind. <S> It also enables you to face yourself in silence and might help you realize the emptiness of things... <S> If you really want to have some chilling music in the background to help you relax at the beginning of your meditation it’s not bad per se but don’t become dependent on that and remember that doing it in silence might prove more effective and train you to be more comfortable in your ability to face the daily grind on your own... <S> After all, learning to be in tune with oneself also takes time and practice:) <A> - Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa - A monk endowed with these five qualities is incapable of entering & remaining in right concentration. <S> Which five? <S> He cannot withstand (the impact of) sights, he cannot withstand sounds... <S> aromas... tastes... tactile sensations. <S> A monk endowed with these five qualities is not capable of entering & remaining in right concentration. <S> A monk endowed with these five qualities is capable of entering & remaining in right concentration. <S> Which five? <S> He can withstand (the impact of) sights... <S> sounds... <S> aromas... tastes... tactile sensations. <S> A monk endowed with these five qualities is capable of entering & remaining in right concentration . <S> — AN 5.113 <S> [Not given for stacks, exchange, other worldbinding trades, but for release from this wheel]
|
you should avoid the noise of city and music for better meditation.
|
Praying to people outside the Trinity I understand that the Roman Catholic church direct some prayers to Mary, the mother of Jesus. For me it would be strange to address my prayers to anyone outside the Holy Trinity. Do Catholics pray to any other individuals other than God? Is praying 'to' individuals other than God widely practiced in any other denomination? If so, who do they pray to and why? <Q> The phrase "pray to" confuses most people as it gives the impression that anyone who asks a saint to "pray for" them is actually praying to the saint as if he/she was God. <S> This isn't true and is probably an artifact of language. <S> The word "pray" also has the meaning to " make an earnest petition " so Catholics, and, I think, other Christians, call upon any saint, past or present, to pray for us. <S> Just as I might ask my friends to pray for me I might also ask a saint in Heaven to pray for me. <A> First, it's necessary to understand that Catholics (whether Roman or Eastern Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox) do not pray to the saints; rather, they ask the faithful departed to pray for them to God. <S> (1) <S> The idea has its basis in the "communion of saints," which may be derived from Heb. <S> 12:1 (as well as other scriptures): <S> Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us and persevere in running the race that lies before us (NABRE) Continuing from Heb. 11, the "cloud of witnesses" referred to is the faithful who have already died in Christ (those of the Old Covenant looking forward to Christ and the cross, those of the New Covenant looking back). <S> Since those who have died in Christ are now alive in him, the Catholic understanding is that we can converse with them just as with any believer still alive in this realm. <S> Since they are alive we can asked them to pray for us just as we would approach a fellow believer who is living in this realm to pray for us: "Bob, I am really struggling with X right now. <S> Would you please pray for me to find victory in this area?" <S> Coupled with the idea that "The fervent prayer of a righteous person is very powerful" ( Jam. 5:16, NABRE ), it then seems to make sense to ask those who have been recognized by church authority as being righteous and exemplary to pray for you. <S> The logic is, then, that if (a) you accept that asking another believer to pray for you is okay, and (b) you believe that those who have died with Christ are alive with him, then it follows that you can ask those who have died in Christ to pray for you. <S> Footnotes <S> (1) It's not uncommon for individuals to actually, and wrongly, pray to the saint; <S> but if you pay attention to the liturgy the words are of the form "St. Peter, pray for us; St. Paul, pray for us..." <A> It's more than just the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (what most people refer to as Roman Catholic) <S> it's the entire Church in communion with the pope, as well as the Eastern Orthodox Church who prays fervently to the saint. <S> According to Catholic doctrine Angels are also saints (St. Raphael, St. Michael) and anyone who believes in angels must believe they can intercede for them (what else would they do). <S> I don't know whether it is common for other Christian denominations to pray to their guardian angels, but the belief in their intercessory powers is certainly there, at least in popular culture and literature. <A> As stated above by others no Catholic or Orthodox prays to a saint in the same way that he or she prays to the Blessed Trinity. <S> In Latin for instance two entirely different words are used for the two actions. <S> On Earth I would ask my brothers and sisters to pray for me in my hour of need. <S> We simply believe that those in Heaven can still pray for us <S> so we ask for their prayers. <S> We understand that they have no power, they are just fellow Christian who have entered into glory. <S> If we did pray to saints as we pray to God then we would not be Christians but polytheists. <S> It is Christ and Christ alone in whom we place our trust. <A> Some Christians do not agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church on when the judgement occurs. <S> Where Catholics believe that some who have died have already received final judgement, and been accepted into heaven, and thus are risen from the dead, and alive, some Christians believe that judgement has not occurred, and that departed persons have not yet been judged, and are not yet in heaven, and thus cannot hear or act on requests for intercession. <S> On the other hand, some Lutherans, and most Anglicans accept that at least some Christians who have died have already been judged worthy, are risen from the dead, and that the intercessions of these persons, may be asked by those living on earth. <S> So one might ask the Mother of God, or St. Luke, or even Great Grandma Smith, to pray for us, and they will do so, just as one might ask the next door neighbor to pray for us in time of sickness. <A> A general rule of thumb would be that those Christian bodies that claim apostolic succession (think Orthodox, Coptic, Jacobite, Ethiopian Orthodox, Roman Catholic) and can demonstrate that succession with a distinct lineage BY NAME from apostle to bishop to bishop (and so on) generally ask for the intercessions of those who are alive in Christ (He is the God of the living, not of the dead). <S> Note that these Christian bodies are also the oldest in the world. <S> Those denominations that have a much shorter history (usually dating from the 16th century at the earliest) and can in general demonstrate no apostolic succession (and generally do not believe it to be important) tend to pray to God alone. <S> Note that these denominations are the newest in the world.
|
Catholics pray for the entire communion of saints to intercede on their behalf.
|
Does being a Christian mean being a Bible literalist? Where are the lines for Bible literalism in the Christian faith? Are all aspects of the Bible treated with the same level of literal belief (as actual history), or are some parts considered to be stories that are simply provided to illustrate a principle (parables). It would seem that as a Christian it would imply belief that Jesus is the Christ. Does that also imply belief in the story of Noah's Ark as literal history? <Q> In the strictest sense, I would doubt anyone is truly a literalist. <S> For example, when Jesus says that he is the door, it would be a difficult position to hold that Jesus literally is made of wood and swings on hinges. <S> What most people mean, on the other hand, when they speak of belief that the Bible is "literally true", is merely that what is claimed in the Bible is true, with an allowance for figurative language. <S> I am not aware of a direct claim or command in scripture that belief in its truth is requisite for salvation. <S> On the other hand, as God is a talking god, to love the Lord is no less than to love his words, so if someone establishes a pattern of rejecting God's word without repentance or movement toward it, I would begin question his or her grounds for assurance of salvation. <A> The simple answer is "sometimes". <S> Some of the bible is literal and some of it is metaphoric. <S> The key to discerning what is and is not literal is context. <S> Most of the Old Testament is written as a historical narrative. <S> This context indicates that it is a literal record of history. <S> Revelation on the other hand is written in a prophetic context, indicating many metaphors and analogies. <A> Nobody takes the Bible 100% literally. <S> Nobody should, because the Bible is not intended to be taken 100% literally. <S> Even the most cursory examination will reveal parts of it that are clearly metaphors. <S> I once saw picture drawn of a woman in which all the metaphors used for a woman in the Song of Songs (e.g. "your breasts are like two fawns") were taken literally. <S> Believe me, that's one strange and ugly woman. <S> The task of identifying which parts of the Bible are literal and which parts are metaphorical is not an easy one, and Christians have come down in many different places. <S> At one extreme a very few have considered almost everything to be metaphorical, and all the Bible to be simply uplifting and helpful stories. <S> Some take the vast majority to be historical, and most fall somewhere in between. <S> Virtually all will take the Gospels as non-negotiably historical, and almost all take the vast majority of the Old Testament as historical. <S> But I've answered your question. <S> A more detailed treatment of 'which parts are metaphorical" is worth of years of careful research, and can't be answered here. <A> Being a Christian means that you follow Christ. <S> Not just accepting Christ as a savior, but first accepting Him as YOUR GOD and your LORD. <S> Meaning that you accept and submit to his every word as Lord over your life. <S> When a bible character makes a statement, understand that the character making the statement is the Truth, the person "DID" make the statement. <S> However, what that person stated may not be true. <S> When God makes a statement, that is always the Truth. <S> When Jesus gives a parable, the parable is a description of truth. <A> The answer depends on who is interpreting it. <S> A few points: <S> The text cannot be entirely literal <S> The text does not interpret itself <S> The text contains a variety of genres with different interpretation styles A given verse is not traditionally limited to one interpretation <S> Sometimes the text will say something that seems like it must be taken literally, but even then context is important. <S> For instance, when an Epistle says that 'all scripture is good for teaching... (etc)' this refers to not all of our scripture, but to whatever collection of scripture the writer was referring to, most likely a collection of Old Testament texts (the Septuagint.) <S> This then does not even begin to address the different 'Bibles' that exist, and how the addition of certain books (or their removal) could affect the context of the whole and therefore the interpretation of some verses.
|
I would suggest that the subtleties of this question are too complex to be answered directly, as different traditions exist on how to interpret the text, and variation exists within those traditions as to whether you can, if you wish, interpret something literally. In general the answer is 'Absolutely Not.' When the bible states that it is the infallible, inspired word of God, then you must take that literally.
|
Does the Bible give us a purpose to life? I'm not sure that I know of any place in the Bible that directly states, "this is the purpose to life." But does it give us any idea as the exact purpose as to why we were created. If God is truly Sovereign then he did not Need us for any reason, so why did He create us? Please provide scripture in your answer. <Q> The Westminster Shorter Catechism has as its first question: <S> What is the chief end of man? <S> and the answer provided (with references): <S> Man's chief end is to glorify God, [a] and to enjoy him for ever. <S> [b] [a]. <S> Ps. <S> 86:9 ; Isa. <S> 60:21 ; Rom. <S> 11:36 ; <S> I Cor. <S> 6:20; 10:31 ; Rev. 4:11 [b]. <S> Ps. <S> 16:5-11 ; 144:15 ; Isa. <S> 12:2 ; Luke 2:10 ; Phil. <S> 4:4 ; Rev. 21:3-4 <A> I believe that the "chief end of man", or "why man was created" can be summed up in what Jesus said when a lawyer asked him a question. <S> Matthew 20:36ff <S> "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" <S> And He said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' <S> This is the great and foremost commandment. <S> How do you love the Lord? <S> You love His kids! <S> Matthew 20:39 <S> "The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' <S> On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." <S> Love God and love others. <S> This is the "chief end" of man; in doing these two things you bring glory to His name. <A> The ultimate purpose of man must not, it seems, be tied to that which is not ultimate. <S> It is true that God does give mankind commands such as "Be fruitful and increase in number". <S> However, it is important to note that mankind's fulfillment of this command did not prompt God's greatest act. <S> It was rather the separation of mankind from God through sin that prompted God to become incarnate, die and rise again. <S> The entire Bible focuses on the redemption of mankind through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. <S> So, it is instructive to note what this accomplished. <S> The key thing, it seems, is the restored relationship. <S> God wanted mankind to be in fellowship/union/relationship with Him. <S> And this is eternal life <S> , that they know you <S> the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. <S> John 17:3 ESV Father <S> , I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. <S> John 17:24 ESV <S> But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God ... <S> John 1:12 ESV <S> Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord . <S> 1 Thessalonians 4:17 ESV <S> In my Father’s house are many rooms. <S> If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you ? <S> And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also . <S> John 14:2-3 ESV <S> So, if we look at the greatest act of God in all time--the atonement through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ--it becomes apparent that all of this was done to restore a relationship between God and mankind. <S> So, we were created to know Him, to abide in Him, and to be with Him forever. <A> I am quite a fan of Bible.org and have read many of their articles. <S> J. Hampton Keathley III has an excellent article titled “ What God is Doing ” with a section that, I believe, provides a really good answer. <S> I have included the section title and content below (though the entire article would be a good read!). <S> The Purpose of God’s Sovereign Plan <S> The ultimate purpose of God’s plan is the praise and manifestation of the glory of God ( Eph. 1:6 , 11 , 12 , 14 ; 3:21 ; Rom. <S> 11:36 ; 16:27 ; Rev. 4:11 ; 5:13 ). <S> It is essential to the very Being of God and by the very nature of God that His glory be manifested and appreciated because of what God’s glory is and does within the universe. <S> This is not the action of some pompous person who wants to be seen to feel good about himself. <S> Not for a moment. <S> Rather, this is more like the blessing, the joy, and the awe we may experience when we see some highly-skilled acrobat, athlete, actor, musician, or some majestic part of creation. <S> Because of the beauty, grace and skill, it needs to be seen and appreciated by others. <S> When we view a glorious mountain in its beautiful setting or see an athlete perform in an outstanding way, we often think, how awful it would be if such talent or beauty were never seen and appreciated, not for the ego of the person, but for the joy and thrill it gives to the viewers. <S> So God’s plan is designed to manifest the various facets of His glory or perfections. <S> How? <S> By allowing sin through the creature, God’s plan brought out all aspects of God’s glory much like sparkling diamonds against the backdrop of black velvet. <S> The presence of sin and rebellion manifests God’s love, patience, holiness, mercy, and grace to a magnificent degree. <S> Does the Bible give us a purpose to life? <S> And thinking about it, as a witness to such glory, isn't it reasonable to expect a time will come when I also live a sin free life? <S> To Him, alone, I bow.
|
Absolutely - to stand in awe and worship of a Creator who is willing to go to such great lengths that we might live with Him and be witnesses of His glory throughout eternity.
|
1 John Chapter 1 & 3 - Is there an apparent contradiction? I have often wondered why the author of 1 John, in the beginning of his letter, seems to claim that even though people have accepted Christ they will continue to sin, but two chapters later he seems to be making the opposite claim? I've never found an adequate explanation to this. Why is this? 1 John 1:8, 10 : "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives." 1 John 3:9 : "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God." <Q> In a case like this, it's best to go back to the original Greek. <S> As jrista pointed out , the key verb in 3:9 is the one your version translates as "continue to", in the greek "ποιέω". <S> This Greek Lexicon gives a lot of translations for this verb, including: to make; with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.; to be the authors of, the cause <S> This same verb is used in the immediately preceding verses, 3:7-8 , which the NIV translates: <S> Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. <S> He who does what is <S> right is righteous, just as he is righteous. <S> He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. <S> The emphasis here seems to be on what you produce, cause or make. <S> As such, I would interpret it similarly to Jesus' statement in Matthew 7:18,20 <S> : <S> A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit... <S> Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. <S> The point of both passages does not seem to be saying that any who are "born of God" will never sin, but that the product of their lives will be to "produce fruit in keeping with repentance." <S> ( Matthew 3:8 ) They may sin, but they are saved by genuine repentance such that their lives are characterized by righteousness and good fruit, not sin. <A> This might be a case where detail is lost in translation? <S> According to one of my bibles, the English Standard Version, the verse 1 John 3:9 is this: No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. <S> The word practice there seems to give deeper meaning, and as I understand it, indicates that someone who has repented and is born of God does not willfully and intent fully practice sin. <S> Rather they simply sin because of the fallen nature of man, and with a repentant heart ask for forgiveness under the weight of God's presence (under the weight of guilt?) <S> The next verse, 1 John 3:10 , states: <S> By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. <S> I think the intent of the passage is to indicate there is a visible difference between those who have repented and have been saved by God, and those who are willfully unrepentant and choose to remain "sinners". <S> A repentant believer who has salvation will not make it a practice to be sinful, which is in contrast with one who lacks salvation, and will by choice and nature indeed make it a practice to be sinful. <A> Hershel Shanks says, in Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: <S> A Parallel History of Their Origins and Early Development , page 172, that continuing friction among early Christians over the nature of Jesus is evident in the Johannine epistles. <S> He points out that 1 John criticises ‘secessionists’ who departed in a dispute over the reality of sin (1 John 1:8-10) and the fleshly (human) character of Jesus (1 John 4:1-3). <S> Burton L. Mack recognises this friction and says, in Who Wrote the New Testament , page 215, he believes that a split took place in the Johannine community shortly after the turn of the second century. <S> One faction thought it best to merge with other Christian groups of a more centrist leaning. <S> Another party refused, holding to the enlightenment tradition of the community and developed in the direction of a Christian gnosticism. <S> First John is to a large extent a polemic which Mack describes as vicious, and the author's arguments against members of the other faction as ridiculous. <S> Mack says he confronted his opponents by labelling them liars (1 John 1:6-10; 2:4; 4:20) or consigning them to demonic, cosmic, or divine destruction (1 John 3:4,10). <S> The author of 1 John charges his opponents with being sinners (1 John 1:8-10) who, by saying they are not sinners, have removed themselves from God's grace. <S> He did not want to offer his opponents the promise of forgiveness, but since his new soteriology was about sin and forgiveness, the topic could backfire. <S> Mack says (page 218), this made it necessary to engage in a bit of logical casuistry with regard to sins for which forgiveness was possible rather than those for which it was not, with 1 John 3:4-10 one example of this. <S> Because those who had chosen a more gnostic path were not "born of God", verse 3:9 does not apply to them and they will continue to sin. <S> Raymond E. Brown also notes in An Introduction to the New Testament , page 393, some find almost a contradiction in 1 John's insistence on love ("God is love") and the refusal to pray for those who commit a deadly sin ( 1 John 5:16c ), whatever a "deadly sin" should mean. <A> Especially note vv. 1-5... <S> these are things believers would already know. <S> A self-righteous Jew, however, would not believe that but would think exactly what John describes in v. 6. <S> In chapter 3, John is addressing the saved and states a fact about the identity believers have in Christ, one which is in harmony with what Paul said as well. <S> In short, two separate audiences in one letter. <S> Test it for yourself and see what you think: read ch. 1 with the idea "he's addressing lost Jews." <S> Then when you get to ch. <S> 2 and John starts with " <S> My little children..." <S> he's clearly speaking to those in Christ.
|
Another possibility: In chapter 1, John is making an evangelistic appeal to his fellow unsaved Jews (hence his use of "we" and "us") who would claim on God but, without Christ, would be at enmity with Him.
|
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego - who is understood as the fourth person in the fire? Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who is understood as the fourth person in the fire? In the third chapter of book of Daniel after King Nebicanesor throws Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego into the furnace he sees four people in the furnace instead of three, who are talking with each other. What is understand of who this person is? An angel, a Christophany ? What is the current Christian understanding of this? How would a Jewish person in ancient times have understood this? Is there any extra biblical Jewish sources/tradition naming the fourth person (such as a specific angel, etc)? <Q> The King said that the fourth person looked like "a son of the Gods." <S> This is translated as "the son of God" in the King James Version, which has led some people to conflate the fourth figure with Christ, but it's important to remember that the concept of "the son of God (singular)" makes no sense to the King, who was a polytheist. <S> He calls out to Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and calls them servants of "the Most High God," which is to be understood literally. <S> He saw that their God was higher (more powerful) than the Gods he worshipped, none of whom had ever been known to protect someone from incineration in a furnace. <A> It is uncertain whether the person in question was an angel or was Christ. <S> It is my understanding that it is fairly widely held among theologians that this passage is an example of a Christophany , but I cannot quickly cite any references for that view. <S> That the 4th person was a heavenly being seems quite clear from the context. <A> It is not explicitly stated whether or not this was a Christophany. <S> Nebuchadnezzar's description that the Fourth was like "a son of the gods" without any commentary by the writer himself is circumstantial evidence that this was a legitimate conclusion. <S> God does promise to be with us in the fires as He said through the prophet Isaiah: <S> But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: "Fear not <S> , for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine. <S> When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; when you walk through fire you shall not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you . <S> For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. <S> I give Egypt as your ransom, Cush and Seba in exchange for you. <S> Isaiah 43:1-3 ESV <S> There doesn't appear to be any problems with believing that it was, indeed, a Christophany. <S> I do hold to this view, though not all that strongly. <S> I like the idea, but if it's not, it's no big deal. <S> Fortunately, if it were critical for us to know whether or not it was, the Bible would have made it clear. <S> Since it doesn't, we can enjoy the consideration and probing without being too worried about falling into heresy.
|
It's most likely that the fourth figure was an angel, much like the one sent to Daniel to pacify the lions just a few chapters away from this story.
|
Is murder allowed if God tells you to do it? The Bible pretty clearly says not to murder ( Exodus 20:13 ). But if we examine Numbers 25 or 1Kings 18:40 , we see God (or more accurately, his prophets) telling us to kill people. Indeed, entire groups of people were murdered because of their mistaken beliefs. So, is it alright to murder if God or one of his prophets tells you to? I would think that this concept against murdering would be against all Christian doctrine. However, how does the mainstream Protestant groups (Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) reconcile these two concepts? <Q> Murder and killing are not necessarily the same thing. <S> The King James Bible adds confusion to this debate by translating Exodus 20:13 as: <S> Thou shalt not kill. <S> Which historically has been interpreted to mean a commandment against all forms of killing, including capital punishment, war, and in some cases, even against killing animals. <S> In the context of the rest of the Law, this is clearly not what was meant. <S> (See especially Leviticus 20 ). <S> The same holds for your examples--they are examples of killing, but that does not mean they are examples of God-ordained murder. <S> EDIT <S> In response to Richard's comment below: According to dictionary.com , the relevant definition of murder is: Law . <S> the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. <S> In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder). <S> So here, legal killing is differentiated from illegal killing, and it is only illegal killing that is "murder." <S> In ancient Israel, since God was the giver of all laws, then any God-ordained killing (whether in the form of the Law, as I mentioned previously in Leviticus, for example), or by way of his prophets, would be "legal", and therefore not murder. <S> " It can probably be boiled down to a question of "Where does morality come from?" <S> But that's obviously not the specific intent of this question. <S> :) <S> Numbers 35:16 , 35:18 , and 35:21 also provide Biblical examples or definitions of a "murderer". <A> If you know for sure it's God's will, then killing (not murder; others have addressed the difference) is OK. <S> But how can you be sure that it's God's will <S> (this is not aiming at anyone specifically, just oratory questions)? <S> Did you hear voices ordering you <S> so? <S> Then it's not Him (see answers for this question ). <S> Your pastor/priests tells you so? <S> He probably gone mad. <S> Have you interpreted something in Bible as an order to kill someone? <S> You can ask here and we will tell you WHY you're wrong. <S> There are situation when killing someone is not a sin (executing a criminal, probably a righteous war too, and few other ocasions), but this is not the God's will (God doesn't want the sinner to die in his sins, but to live and do penance), it's a tolerated (not wanted) exception for the law of universal love. <S> In Old Testament times the situation was different. <S> The Law given to Moses was issued for the people of Izrael (and those living among them) only and valued orthodoxy more than a life of an enemy (love for enemies was introduced as a rule by Jesus, and the culture of Izrael was definitelly not ready for such an idea in times of Joshua). <S> In this context God didn't contradict Himself when he ordered what appears as a genocide from today's perspective. <A> God is executing His judgment through His people instead of through the floods or any other means like during Noah's time. <S> So it is allowed in a sense that we should accept it as His just judgment, because God judges them, commands it and allows it to happen. <S> This is different from using the Bible to justify an act of killing a group of people, because none of us are capable of judging others and to have equal authority with God. <S> In Joshua 5:13-15: <S> 13 <S> Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. <S> Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” <S> 14 <S> “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” <S> Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord[e] have for his servant?” <S> 15 <S> The commander of the LORD’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” <S> And Joshua did so. <S> It is clear that the supreme commander making the command is not Joshua, but that it is the Lord who is the commander of the army. <S> So it's Joshua for God, and not God for Joshua. <A> The difference as to do with God's commandments for individuals and God's commandments for the governing of His covenant people. <S> God commands individuals not to murder, but the penalty for murder, prescribed for God's covenant people while that covenant was in effect, was capital punishment. <S> So, "murder" is distinguished from "capital punishment" by God Himself. <S> Do both result in a person's death? <S> Yes, yet one is sin and one is mandated by God as the punishment in this life for that crime, again for God's covenant people while the covenant was in effect. <S> Capital punishment actually preceded the Law of Moses, as it was first instituted in the time of Noah. <S> Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. <S> Genesis 9:6 ESV
|
It may sound a bit like a cop-out, but in a nut shell, "If God says to do it, it's not murder.
|
Is there a difference between Liberal, Progressive, and Emergent Christianity? In many evangelical circles I hear people use the terms liberal, progressive and emergent quite a bit, especially recently. Do these all refer to the same categorization of groups or of thought? Or do these have a more precise meaning? <Q> "Liberal" Christians generally follow some of the traditional practices and morals of Christianity, but generally reject the notion of the inerrancy of Scripture. <S> As a result, their beliefs can be very diverse. <S> Their emphasis on doctrine is sometimes light, but sometimes very academic. <S> Generally, they believe that God is bringing all people and indeed the universe to himself, and that people need to join that effort however they can. <S> The emergent/emerging church is in some ways a reaction against the lack of the supernatural in Liberal theology, and in some ways a reaction against the alleged reliance on human logic in conservative evangelicalism. <S> "Progressive" Christians may also be "liberal" or "emergent", and they seek to overcome what they think are bad or sub-optimal traditions or practices. <S> The liberal Christian's main concern is to live for God by participating in a moral church community, without an urgent need to understand the somewhat flawed but good Bible. <S> The emergent Christian's main goal is to live for God by joining God's kingdom wherever they can find it, aside from the supposed futile task of exegeting the Bible. <S> There are many variations and differences within these, and many of those who would identify as part of one of these might reject my broad strokes above. <S> Nevertheless, they are useful distinctions, and I think the most important difference is in how they regard the Bible. <S> If you have further questions about a specific area, practice, or belief, I could give my thoughts. <A> Emerging Christianity is the postmodern influenced evolution of evangelical Christianity. <S> It invites people to deconstruct and re-examine and reinterpret various doctrines and teachings of the church. <S> It is similar to progressive Christianity which is the postmodern influenced evolution of historic mainline liberal Protestant Christianity. <S> However it is also different in that it has a different starting point and lineage. <S> See https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/892727 <S> Emergent Christianity is a subset of Emerging Christianity that was an intentional movement involving certain people within that movement. <S> Persons such as Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt and the late Dr. Phyllis Tickle... http://westsidechristianfellowship.org/articles/1232012-emerging-vs-emergent-churches-clearing-up-the-confusion/ <A> It's really just a way of separating their church and their beliefs from pre-existing churchs and beliefs. <S> The same way political parties do it. <S> In Australia, we have a political party called "The Liberal Party", but when you compare their policies to their name, they're not really Liberal at all, they're quite conservative. <S> To get an exact understanding of what people mean when they use these names, you really need to ask them what they believe it means. <S> Just because they call themselves "progressive", that's their interpretation of progressive, and you might actually believe they're being conservative, or gone all the way to the other side where their beliefs might not satisfy your definition of a Christian.
|
"Emergent" Christians have adopted a "postmodern" mindset, seeking to synthesize what others regard as contradictory views.
|
Does God hate Sinners like he hates Sin? I've heard it a thousand times, God loves the sinner but hates the sin. Recently I came across a verse in Psalms 5:5 Psalm 5:5 (KJV) The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Is this a proper translation? <Q> Great question. <S> I think where people often struggle with this is the imposition of the assumption that hate and love are mutually exclusive. <S> This often tends to be the case with us, but it is a result of our sinful nature. <S> God can both hate the sinner for what he does, and still love him in many ways. <S> Donald Carson has a great little book ( free PDF ) called the Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God, in which he argues that God's love is not spoken of univocally throughout scripture, but instead that there are multiple perspectives that scripture gives to show us a broader lover than we can see from only one angle. <S> I've reproduced the author's breakdown below. <S> The peculiar love of the Father for the Son, and of the Son forthe Father. <S> God’s providential love over all that he has made. <S> God’s salvific stance toward his fallen world. <S> God’s particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect. <S> Finally, God’s love is sometimes said to be directed toward hisown people in a provisional or conditional way—conditioned, that is,on obedience. <S> Allowing for a multiperspectival approach to understanding God's Love helps us to see God as simultaneously loving and full of wrath. <A> I know that the Bible is the Word of God, but it may be important to remember that that particular verse was written by David; "To the Chief Musician". <S> David did not say that he was writing a prophetic word from the Father. <S> It was meant as a song of worship and it was written by man. <S> I think the most outstanding proof that our Father loves us, sinners all, was shown by his amazing sacrifice through His Son. <A> Here is a few beautiful bible verses I think pertinent Romans 5:6-8 <S> (NKJV) <S> 6 <S> For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. <S> 7 <S> For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. <S> 8 <S> But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. <S> John 3:16-18 (NKJV) <S> 16 <S> For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. <S> 17 <S> For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. <S> 18 <S> “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. <S> 2 Corinthians 5:17-21 (NKJV) <S> 17 <S> Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. <S> 18 <S> Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 <S> that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. <S> 20 <S> Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore <S> you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. <S> 21 <S> For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. <S> We are all sinners by our nature and he definitely does not hate us all. <S> The verse in the OP seems to be a bit out of context me thinks <A> If you accept the Book of Wisdom as canonical, you might consider this verse especially relevant. <S> Wis 14:9-10 (NABRE) <S> Equally odious to God are the evildoer and the evil deed; and the thing made will be punished with its maker. <A> Proverbs 7:16-19 says: These six things doth the Lord <S> hate : yes, seven are an abomination unto him;A <S> proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief. <S> A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. <S> So, at least from this scripture (albeit from the Old Testament), we can see that God does not HATE sinners. <S> He definitely hates the sin itself, it can be ascertained. <S> Although it does say that he "hates" a false witness, it is clearly the sin of deceit that is what is hated by the Lord. <S> So, no to answer the OP's question, God definitely does NOT hate sinners. <S> As has been said before, he sacrificed his only son in order to save an entire RACE of sinners (us) from damnation.
|
God does not hate the sinners.
|
Should a Protestant read the apocryphal books of the Bible? The Protestant Bible has 66 books. Should we read apocryphal books (e.g. 1&2 Maccabees and Gospel of Thomas)? <Q> Don't allow them any special authority <S> if they're not in your Bible; use common sense. <S> Apocryphal books and other writings of the time might be interesting in many ways, e.g. historically. <S> There's an important distinction to be made between 1&2 Maccabees and the Gospel of Thomas. <S> This distinction also tells you a lot about how useful a certain book would probably be to read. <S> Old Testament apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books <S> 1&2 Maccabees aren't included in the Protestant Old Testament, but Roman Catholics and most Orthodox Christians consider them canonical . <S> They weren't in the Hebrew Bible, thus they're called deuterocanonical as opposed to protocanonical . <S> As Raphink points out in his answer , these books were written later than the protocanonical books and thus couldn't be included in the Hebrew Bible. <S> Protestants consider deuterocanonical books Old Testament apocrypha, i.e. books that don't have divine authority but are relevant with regard to pre-New Testament history. <S> Martin Luther said about them : <S> Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read. <S> Useful and good to read -- but not divinely inspired, according to Protestants. <S> New Testament apocrypha <S> In fact, there's practically no disagreement here. <S> Luther was probably the most vocal questioner of the authority of James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, but even he didn't exclude them from canon. <S> Neither does any major denomination nowadays consider any extra books to be part of New Testament. <S> The Gospel of Thomas is one of the better known writings belonging to New Testament apocrypha. <S> It might also be one of the more interesting ones. <S> However, keep in mind that no one notable considers it part of the Bible . <S> Neither is there any church-father, reformer, founder of a major denomination or such saying that it's "useful and good to read". <S> There are many other books considered New Testament apocrypha. <S> I'll say from personal experience that not all of them are worth reading. <S> Summary Old Testament apocrypha are considered part of the Bible by some and "useful and good to read" by some. <S> New Testament apocrypha are considered neither. <A> Treat them as you would any other work by an author who claims to be Christian. <S> Weigh <S> what is said carefully against scripture and evaluate it for what value it has. <S> Knowing why it was rejected (was it heretical or known to be falsified or simply not surely inspired) might help in such an evaluation. <S> Personally I have found the extra-biblical works quite interesting in their own right. <S> Quite like the writings of the early church fathers, which are really very informative. <A> As has been said already, you can read (and it can be interesting) <S> the apocrypha. <S> Just don't consider them as authoritative. <S> I'd like to complete the other answers by stating a difference between the Old Testament apocrypha and the New Testament apocrypha. <S> The Old Testament apocrypha, such as the Maccabees, are not included in the Jewish Canon (and thus not in the Protestant Bibles either) mostly because they were too recent (or even not written yet, <S> depending on when you consider the Jewish Canon was fixed) to be included. <S> For that reason, Old Testament apocrypha is very interesting historically since it tells you about what happened between the end of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament. <S> For example, it explains about the origin of Hanukkah, a day that was already celebrated at the time of Jesus. <S> You can think of Old Testament apocrypha as an interesting part of history. <S> On the other hand, most of the New Testament apocrypha are books that were considered non interesting, not God-breathed or even heretic by the early Christian church. <S> You're more likely to find ungodly ideas or twisted scriptures in New Testament apocrypha (such as the Gospel of Thomas or of the Women) than in Old Testament apocrypha. <S> You can think of New Testament apocrypha as alternative accounts of Jesus' life and possibly heretic theology. <A> The current Jewish canon did not arise until after the time of Christ. <S> The Old Testament apocrypha were in the Greek translation of the Bible known as the Septuagint, which is older than any existing version of the Bible except for books found relatively recently among the Dead Sea Scrolls. <S> The standard Hebrew version of the Bible that exists is much newer than the Greek version. <S> The early church, like most Jews at the time, accepted the extra books as scripture, and so should Protestants. <S> In fact, the Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament that was read by New Testament authors. <S> Rejecting the books written in Greek is just a current Protestant tradition.
|
You don't need to (as in should ), but you can if you want to. There's a very broad consensus between Christians of different denominations on what books are included in New Testament .
|
What is the Rule of Prayer? I often hear people thank God about how their prayer being answered such as in competition. But what I'm thinking is, the winner is not absolutely the only one that prayed. I believe everybody in the competition pray and hope to win too. So, in this condition, only one person's prayer will be answered. So, how does God decide which person's prayer to answer? Is it based on how hard s/he prayed, or how much s/he deserved it? or is it according to His will only? If none of them pray, will the result be the same? <Q> As a frequent competitor, I understand prayer as such following. <S> When I pray, I know that in whatever I do during the competition, God will be with me. <S> As such, mishaps or any other unwanted disadvantages that may happen to me are voided. <S> And thus I compete fairly with others with no disadvantages (such as sickness). <S> However God may not answer my prayer as it may be a lesson for me to learn. <S> God helps me with that, but as for the rest of the competition, it is up to me to accomplish it. <S> God wouldn't want to intervene in order to help me win, because He wants to see me working hard and winning the competition in His will. <S> Competitions cannot be win by greed, as greed is sin. <S> I pray to do my best of my abilities for all competitions. <A> As soon as you start to think about prayer as a set of rules, you have missed the point. <S> God listens to prayers, but doesn't necessarily grant them. <S> You may be asking for something that will be bad for you, or bad for someone else. <S> God may have other, probably better, plans for you. <S> Trying to work out the "magic formula" for getting your prayers granted is approaching it a whole wrong way <S> - like a toddler trying to work out what way of asking her parents for a pony will actually get her one. <S> There are some guidelines given: James chapter 5 is often quoted in this context. <S> But there are also many, many books on the subject. <A> There are no rules. <S> Prayer is a personal relationship between you and God. <S> It is also not always easy to identify answers as answer to a particular prayer. <S> It is also not given that the prayer will be answered within a short period of time. <S> God works in mysterious ways. <S> Answers to prayer is never a result of the "quality" of your prayer. <S> When you pray before a competition, the answer from God may not be in you winning, but maybe in helping you enjoy the competition and even if you don't win you will appreciate the result and see the positive in your experience. <A> I think this is a misunderstanding of the purpose of prayer, and as such, no such prayer will be answered, in general. <S> However, we must bear in mind that Christianity is not about rules so much as it is about your relationship with God. <S> Someone who has spend a lot of time building his relationship with God and learning to be obedient to God so as to grow close to Him will have easier access to God in prayer. <S> This is why the Virgin Mary is considered the chief intercessor for Christians, having been the one who bore God and mothered Him, she has perhaps the closest relationship with God. <S> This is seen when even though Christ said 'it is not yet my time', he still chose to supply wine for the wedding at Cana (via the conversion of water into wine). <S> We should avoid thinking of the spiritual life in formulaic terms, as it is much more about your relationship with God and the Saints. <S> Now, with that disclaimer given, God's primary concern is for your salvation. <S> In fact, this life is given to you for repentance and salvation. <S> As such, a prayer for individual glory may go unanswered simply because you are really asking the wrong thing. <S> But a prayer for spiritual growth and knowledge through <S> some endeavor you undertake (such as a sport) <S> I believe would be answered. <S> I hope this helps. <S> The main takeaway is that God is primarily concerned about the salvation of His people, and will answer prayers within that context. <A> The One Main advantage of praying is that you get to connect to the supernatural GOD.We don't need to take any appointment to reach the almighty. <S> He is just a prayer away. <S> We need to think how privileged we are to be born as Christians as we get the chance to closely intimate with GOD and move closer to him and also know what his will is for us in this Life. <S> Once we get this straight in our minds we see the things changing outside. <S> We happen to see a sudden change in ourselves facing every problem with boldness and resolving every difficult situation. <S> We gather the strength and the courage to come out victoriously. <S> Make Jesus your close friend today and see his mighty hand moving in your lives and making a big difference.
|
If your prayer expresses your desire for communion with God, such a prayer is honored, but a prayer which expresses selfishness and an incorrect outlook on life would go either unanswered or result in a, maybe, unexpected answer (for example, asking for personal victory and glory may result instead in being disqualified, for instance, in an attempt by God to point you away from seeking earthly glory, for such desire corrupts the soul and endangers you to realizing eternal torment as your reward after your earthly life).
|
Does taking communion break the fast? Is there a Scriptural or Traditional case to be made either way? Now, once, I was fasting. I was destined to fast for three weeks. Now the church that I went to had Communion once every month, and it happened that my second last Sunday of fasting was my church's Communion. Does taking the communion break my fast? If so, should I leave from taking the Communion? Is fasting a "good enough" reason? <Q> Per @awe and @Jamess, there are really two sides of this. <S> It can go either way. <S> Are you breaking your fast? <S> Yes. <S> You truly are. <S> But you have to question: Why am I fasting? <S> If you are fasting in order to grow closer to God and find reliance only on him, then taking communion would not necessarily be bad. <S> Since communion is meant to draw us to God, then the two acts (fasting and communion) are moving towards the same purpose: moving us closer to God. <S> If you are fasting, however, in prayer over a specific thing (such as the salvation of a person or deliverance from a trial), then you should avoid the fast. <S> The purposes of the two acts (fasting and communion) are at odds. <S> Having said all of this, I believe this verse is appropriate to the subject: <S> 1 cor. <S> 10:31 <S> 31 <S> Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. <S> If you chose to break fast for communion, make sure you do it for God's glory. <S> If you chose to skip communion for the fast, make sure it's for God's glory. <S> If you follow that advice, you won't go wrong. <A> The discipline of fasting is a time of introspection on God by forsaking some of the human need (here food) for a period. <S> Communion is a time of fellowship with God in community. <S> I believe we should follow the spirit of Bible, which is expressed in 2 Corinthians 3:6 last part ( for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. <S> quoted from NIV). <S> Jesus always wanted His followers to uphold the this principle when He healed people on a sabbath day. <A> For believers in constubstantiation, there is a biblical precedent for prioritizing the Eucharist over the fast. <S> Since Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Christ is in fact, present. <S> And, if he is present, Mark 2:18-20 comes into play: <S> Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. <S> Some people came and asked Jesus, “How is it that John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?” <S> Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? <S> They cannot, so long as they have him with them. <S> But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast. <S> The Eucharist often goes by the term feast for a reason - it is a joyous occasion that is properly celebrated in the presence of the Christ. <S> During Lent, Sundays are specifically called out as feast days when the fast is supposed to be broken . <S> For this reason, there is good biblical sanction not to continue a fast when, in deed, the bride groom is here!
|
So I would this taking communion will not breach the fasting, since here fasting is taken from food to have closer fellowship with God during that time and communion encourages that fellowship.
|
Biblical basis for the separation of church and state I know there are a lot of non-biblical arguments for the separation of church and state . Some Christians also support it on biblical grounds, but I've never looked into the matter myself. Which passages of the Bible support the idea? <Q> Some people use Mark 12:17 towards this goal. <S> 17 <S> And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things <S> that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. <S> " <S> And they marvelled at him. <S> The argument goes something like this: The government is here to govern the society here on Earth. <S> God has been given to us to govern our hearts, minds, and souls. <S> So, we should allow the government to do what it does best and allow God to be in control of all the other things. <S> The argument is generally followed with the idea that we need to elect Christians into government and pray for our government officials, but that religion should be separate from the state. <S> Personally, I think this is a bit of a stretch. <S> The more solid arguments are the non-biblical ones (prevention of the majority overriding the minority, insuring freedom of religion, etc.) <A> I think this article should help: <S> The Bible does not articulate a full-blown doctrine of the separation of church and state. <S> Yet, its seeds are clearly present. <S> Jesus at least foreshadowed the concept when he said “[g]ive therefore to the emperor things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” <S> (Matthew 22:21) Jesus’ behavior was consistent with his words. <S> He never took a coin from Caesar or sought the help of Herod in his ministry and mission. <S> In many places, the New Testament outlines the contours of the separate realms of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Caesar. <S> The church is given the tasks of spreading the gospel (Acts 1:8), teaching doctrine (Matthew 28:20), and discipling believers (Ephesians 4:11-13). <S> The state is divinely ordained to resist evil (Romans 13:3) and keep order (I Peter 2:13-15). <S> Although these realms sometimes overlap and do not necessarily clash, the New Testament bears witness to a two-kingdom world — each with separate duties and each engendering different loyalties. <A> Instead, it tells them to disassociate themselves with those WITHIN THE CHURCH who behave immorally, and to leave those outside the church to God's judgment. <S> 1 <S> Corinthians 5:9-13 <S> King James Version (KJV) <S> 9 <S> I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: 10 <S> Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs <S> go out of the world. <S> 11 <S> But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. <S> 12 <S> For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? <S> do not ye judge them that are within? <S> 13 <S> But them that are without God judgeth. <S> Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. <S> This is, to my knowledge, the Bible's strongest statement relevant to the idea of church and state separation.
|
1 Corinthians 5:9-13 seems to tell Christians not to use man-made laws to force non-believers to live or behave according to Christian beliefs.
|
Why do Protestants allow contraception? The Catholic Church is strongly against contraception. Most Protestants nowadays accept it; I gather it was less common in the past. Of course it's possible that Protestants have just given in to worldly things here, but I don't buy that. However, I'm not quite sure that contraception can be seen as allowed by default, either. There should be either biblical or rational reasons for allowing contraception; I expect there to be both. What are they? <Q> This is all about sex, of course -- in particular, the question of purpose: what it's for. <S> I will preface my answer by saying that contraception is not directly addressed in the Bible, so <S> my answer is going to be primarily theological rather than biblical. <S> Catholicism says that sexual acts, to be moral, must have two purposes: that of expressing and confirming the love between the couple and that of procreation -- conceiving children. <S> Contraception prevents the procreative purpose, so the sexual act exists solely for the former purpose. <S> According to the Catholic understanding of the purpose of sex, therefore, it is immoral. <S> Similar arguments can be made about homosexuality, masturbation, oral sex, etc etc. <S> Note that before the publication of Humanae Vitae (the encyclical that effectively bans artificial contraception) <S> the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control actually had a majority report in favour of revoking the ban. <S> As for Protestants, the case is (inevitably) rather complicated. <S> Some Protestants do indeed see contraception as inherently sinful. <S> Many Protestants, however, believe it possible to separate the two purposes of sex (love and reproduction) -- so it is possible to have a non-sinful sexual relationship without the prospect of children. <S> For instance, the 1662 Anglican Book of Common Prayer has specific provision for couples who are beyond child-bearing age. <S> If a sexual relationship can exist without the possibility of reproduction, and if you believe that God's will can be exercised through the working of human free will, it's not hard to believe that contraception can be non-sinful. <A> The Anglican church, in 1930, was the first protestant church to officially condone birth control, and the others followed quickly thereafter. <S> Probably that is due to the lack of any explicit Biblical condemnation. <S> The Catholic argument against birth control is based on natural law, which tends to be much less persuasive to protestants. <S> Nevertheless, Protestants do have a long pre-modern history of opposing attempts to avoid the procreative aspect of sex. <S> The primary biblical example that is used to support the view that contraception is sinful is the sin of Onan: Genesis 38:8-10 (NIV) <S> Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.” <S> But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. <S> What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also. <S> Most modern protestants question whether Onan's sin was birth control per se , or his refusal to fulfill his obligation to his brother's wife. <S> But here are Luther, Calvin, and Wesley on Onan: Luther : <S> Onan... must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. <S> This is a most disgraceful sin. <S> It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. <S> We call it unchastity, yes a Sodomitic sin. <S> For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. <S> Calvin : <S> The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. <S> Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. <S> For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring. <S> Wesley : <S> Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. <S> Observe, the thing which he [Onan] <S> did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls. <A> There is a debate going around some Protestant circles on whether certain types of birth control are within God's will. <S> The argument is that some types of birth prevention measures (primarily "the pill") are abortifacients <S> --that is, they cause an embryo to be aborted if it becomes implanted. <S> These abortifacients are causing embryo's--human life that has been implanted and is, up to that point, a viable pregnancy--to be aborted. <S> Psalms 139:13 (NIV) <S> For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. <S> Because of this verse above, we know that God is an intricate part of life from the very beginning, embryonic stages. <S> It's because of this, that many (most? <S> all? <S> some?) <S> Protestants believe that abortion is killing a living human and going against God's will. <S> However, with this belief in hand, when people learn that chemical birth control ("the pill") is actually an abortifacient, they begin to see that even this form of controlling pregnancy is abortion . <S> Therefore, there is an debate going around Protestant groups that taking "the pill" is wrong because it causes abortion whereas other forms of contraceptives are not wrong. <S> (Primarily, barrier methods such as condoms.)
|
They say that planning families is for God to do, so contraception is obstructing God's purpose, and often also echo the Catholic position about the purpose of sex.
|
The anointing of Jesus - one event or multiple events? The Anointing of Jesus is recorded in all four Gospels. A woman anoints Jesus' feet with expensive perfume and wipes the perfume with her hair. Was this one event, or multiple events? (I tend to think the former, since Jesus said that this story will be told wherever the gospel is preached ( Mark 14:9 ). It may be a stretch, but I thought that would also apply to the four Biblical gospels.) <Q> The four gospels record the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. <S> There are multiple events that are shared and reported among the four gospels. <S> This is one of those events. <S> Note that Wikipedia mentions that this could be two separate events, but it is commonly accepted to be one event, shared among the gospels. <S> Justification? <S> If we look at the four gospels, we see Jesus crucified, buried, and resurrected four separate times. <S> The events leading up to his death are similar including four last suppers, four records of trial, etc. <S> Now, we can presume that he did all of these events multiple times, or we can (rightly) move forward with the understanding that these records are four viewpoints of the same events. <S> In all four books, Jesus was anointed with expensive oil. <S> Two books show he was anointed on his head, two show he was anointed on his feet. <S> More than likely, he was anointed on once on both his head and his feet. <S> Mark records the estimate of the oil at 300 denarii. <S> A denarius is valued at 10 asses. <S> A donkey, in modern currency, is worth around US$1000-$2500 . <S> This makes the oil worth 3,000 asses, which is, in today's money, $3,000,000 - $7,500,000. <S> I don't know about you, but I rarely come across any single item that's worth multiple millions of dollars. <S> But if we use just the tiniest amount of common sense, it seems pretty obvious that being anointed with a $3million oil was not a common event. <S> Therefore, it's extremely safe to assume that this was really simply one event. <A> The account in Luke is vastly different than the other accounts. <S> John tells that Martha was serving and Mary was at Jesus' feet, with Lazarus sitting nearby. <S> Luke says that after Jesus rebuked Simon the Pharisee, he told the woman that her faith had saved her, and to go in peace. <S> Why would he say that to Mary? <S> Mary and Martha had hosted Jesus before, and Jesus brought their beloved brother back to life. <S> Jesus and Mary are close friends. <S> So why would He tell her to leave the banquet? <S> No, Mary being a devoted disciple, would have known about what the other woman did - and may have even seen it, or at least smelled it! <S> The story of the other woman was at the end of Luke 7, and Luke 8:1-2 tells us that as Jesus was soon after (the first anointing) going from town to town, with Mary was one of the women following Him and supporting His ministry. <S> I think the evidence points to Mary copying what the other woman did to express her thankfulness and love for Jesus. <S> After all, she had had 7 demons cast out of her, and Jesus had healed her brother of death. <S> She had much to be thankful for. <A> Just read John 11:2, which states that Mary was the one who anointed Jesus' feet and wiped them with her hair...and at this time, Lazarus was sick . <S> I think I found confirmation of my theory that Mary did this to Jesus twice!
|
Yes, Jesus might have been anointed twice or four times.
|
Can people speak in tongues today? The Bible refers to people speaking in tongues--most notably at Pentecost. Is this something that legitimately happens today? I've been in church services where speaking in tongues has happened, but it always seems weird and creepy, and those doing it seem like kooks. How can I know if this is legitimate, or if I'm right in thinking it's strange? <Q> Random babbling isn't "speaking in tongues" as the Apostles did on the Day of Pentecost. <S> The Apostles preached, and everyone present heard the message in their native language. <S> This is the purpose of speaking in tongues: to facilitate communication. <S> In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul warns very strongly about speaking in tongues simply for its own sake, since it doesn't accomplish any useful purpose. <S> As for modern occurrences, I've heard plenty of stories of missionaries and other preachers in situations where they did not possess sufficient language skills in the language of the people being taught gaining the temporary ability to express themselves clearly when it was necessary. <S> I don't have any references to cite right at the moment, but <A> The accounts of speaking in tongues in the Bible were always in the context of speaking in a language otherwise unknown to the speaker, but to which there are hearers who understand (on the Day of Pentecost , each member of the crowd heard Peter is his/her own language). <S> Likewise, when Paul instructs the church in Corinth ( 1 Cor 14:26 ), he says to make sure there is an interpreter if one is to speak in a tongue. <S> Can/does it happen today? <S> I see no reason why it cannot/does not. <S> However, absent the interpreter caveat above, it should have no place in a worship service. <S> For further note, I cannot find an instance of " tongues " being used in the bible, and not being used in the same way as on the Day of Pentecost. <S> See Mark 16:17 , <S> Acts 10:44-46 , 1 Corinthians 12:10 , 1 Corinthians 12:30 , 1 Corinthians 13:1 , 1 Corinthians 14:21-23 (itself referencing Isaiah 28:11 ). <A> Yes, the gift of speaking in tongues still exists today. <S> Paul speaks about gifts of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12 , and in the next chapter writes the following: 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 (ESV) <S> [emphases mine] 8 Love never ends. <S> As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease ; as for knowledge, it will pass away. <S> 9 <S> For we know in part <S> and we prophesy in part, 10 <S> but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away . <S> The gifts of prophesying and speaking in tongues and knowledge will eventually pass away. <S> When does that happen? <S> When the perfect comes <S> (the gifts are an instance of the partial ). <S> I think this is referring to the second coming of Christ. <S> We can be quite sure that the perfect has not yet come. <S> Therefore, tongues have not yet ceased. <S> As for whether speaking in tongues that you hear is legitimate, As noted by others, Paul requires interpreting if someone speaks in tongues in a gathering ( 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 ). <S> But this doesn't mean the speaking in tongues is fake; it might just be that the person is misusing the gift. <S> Speaking in tongues, or glossolalia happens outside Christianity , too. <S> A person can willfully speak with nonsense syllables. <S> It's difficult for an outsider to know whether speaking in tongues is genuine, then. <A> There are two competing views. <S> This is why "charismatic" denominations are seen as in contrast to "traditional" denominations (called "cessationist" by others). <S> The charismatic view has been described in other answers and refers to scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Corinthians 12 as directed at all believers and exhorting them to desire and exercise spritual gifts, one of which is tongues. <S> One notable thing which was missed from other answers was that the "re-discovery" of the gift of tongues was during the event known as the " Azusa Street Revival " which is well documented, and considered by some to be the meaning of the phrase "latter rain" in James 5:7 (omitted in some translations). <S> The cessationist view is that tongues have now stopped and did not continue after the apostolic age. <S> This is the view of most of the modern church. <S> Many justify it via 1 Corinthians 13:8 which states that "tongues will cease". <S> Charismatics view this verse in the context of a comparison of the eternal nature of love with the mortal nature of tongues, and not in a literal sense of tongues ending for good. <S> Personally I am a charismatic believer and often practice the gift of tongues, but I think it is useful to know both perspectives.
|
yes, it does still happen today. If the person speaks in a real language that they don't know, they obviously really have the gift.
|
What does "predestination" mean? What is the concept of predestination? Are there different denominations that believe in predestination but have differences in what they believe about it? If so, what are the differences? <Q> Single Predestination or Double Predestination? <S> Now before you start thinking "Aw, man! <S> There are two of them?!? <S> " <S> Let me explain the difference: <S> Single Predestination: <S> God chooses us, solely by his grace, to go to Heaven. <S> God does <S> not choose people for Hell. <S> If we go to Hell it is because of our own sinfullness. <S> Double Predestination: <S> God has chosen some people to go to Heaven, and some people to go to Hell. <S> Now that we know what they are, what does the Bible teach? <S> John 5:21 (ESV) 21 <S> For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. <S> John 10:28 (ESV) 28 <S> I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. <S> Romans 8:29-30 <S> (ESV) 29 <S> For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. <S> 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. <S> Ok, that seems to indicate that we are Predestined to Heaven, now what about Hell? <S> Ezekial 33:11 (ESV) <S> 11 <S> Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, <S> for why will you die, O house of Israel? <S> Matthew 18:14 (ESV) 14 <S> So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish. <S> 1 <S> Timothy 2:3-4 <S> (ESV) <S> 3 <S> This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. <S> The Verdict: <S> Based off these verses, it seems clear to me that the Bible teaches Single Predestination and not Double Predestination. <A> The concept of Predestination in so much as it speaks to the concept of Election is rooted in a couple of different passages in scripture. <S> Romans 8:29-30 being the foremost. <S> It basically says that he knew from the beginning who he was going to choose and he "Predestined" or choose them. <S> There are many other passages that support this concept, outlined in this answer. <S> The question of whether he has predestined every event that will happen in the world is a slightly more contentious one. <S> However, I believe quite strongly that he has indeed predestined every event that will happen. <S> This does not mean that our actions are meaningless or that we should simply drift through life. <S> Romans 8:28 (NIV) gets to the heart of this <S> And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. <S> As for denominations that believe in predestination to one degree or another. <S> I know that Reformed traditions (Presbyterian, URC, CRC, Reformed Baptists and countless other "reformed churches") ascribe to some tenet of this belief. <S> I cannot speak to other traditions right off hand, but those who know of them are welcome to add them. <A> I saw that one answer on here accurately described the difference between single predestination and double predestination. <S> An alternative would come from what you can call the Arminian perspective (rooted from the ideas of Jacobus Arminius who had a different perspective on how salvation works than John Calvin did). <S> If you believe that God is all-knowing, then you accept the fact that God knows our decisions before we do. <S> If because God is all-knowing, does that mean He put a series of events into motion that eventually caused us to make one decision over another? <S> That is a difficult question to answer because Calvinism and Arminianism both have their problems. <S> It is not necessarily true that because God knows something will happen, He must have caused it. <S> Adam and Eve chose to sin in the garden, but God knew that they would <S> and He created them anyway. <S> The problem that Calvinists face is whether God created sin. <S> How can a perfect and holy God also be the author of sin? <S> On the other hand, those of Arminius' persuasion can lessen God's sovereignty, His all-powerfulness by overemphasizing the human's role in the plan of salvation. <S> God predestined the way in which humans could come back to Him. <S> Therefore, those that accept Him are "predestined" to be saved. <S> In other words, God chose which people would be saved, those that responded by confessing their sins and believing that Jesus died on the cross for their sins. <S> A basic page to highlight a few of the differences between the two views can be found here: http://www.gotquestions.org/Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.html
|
Predestination means different things to different people.
|
Is there any significance to naming Lazarus in this parable? The parable I'm referring to is 'The Rich Man and Lazarus': 19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ 25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ 27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ 30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” Luke 16:19–31 (NIV) It seems, unless I'm mistaken, that in every other parable that Jesus taught the characters or actors were always just a generic description of the person (the widow, the land owner, the manager, the rich man, etc...) In this parable, however, Jesus does actually refer to the beggar as Lazarus. Is there any significance behind this? <Q> It clearly shows that he knew who the man was and had been aware in life of his condition and done nothing about it -- in the same way he did not heed the teachings of Moses and the prophets. <S> Leon Morris also suggests in his commentary on Luke that the name Lazarus (i.e Eleazar) may be significant because it means God has helped , thus adding more weight to the part of story where the poor man received no comfort from men in life. <S> In contrast is the poor man, called Lazarus (i.e. Eleazar; the name means 'God has helped' and may be significant; certainly man did not help this unfortunate). <S> He is the only character given a name in Jesus' parables. <S> -- <S> Leon Morris; Pg. <S> 276, V. 3, <S> Tyndale NT Commentaries <A> Additional information. <S> There is the possibility that this was a cultural "stock" parable that Jesus used for his own purposes. <S> Think along the lines of Hansel and Gretel or something along those lines. <S> As such, this common lore would be used by teachers to develop a lesson that suited the particular teaching situation. <S> Sources: Interpreting the Parables (Craig L. Blomberg) <S> p. 86 <S> An Afro-Sociological Application of the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) in Black Theology: <S> An International Journal, Vol 4, <S> No 1 (2006) by Olubiyi Adeniyi Adewale <A> It is unclear whether this story is parable or not. <S> The fact that Lazarus is named causes some to suggest this isn't a parable at all, but rather an actual account. <S> The fact that this text follows the Parable of the Dishonest Manager leads some to believe that it is in fact a parable, but that analysis is by no means universal.
|
I think it is significant that the rich man knows and uses Lazarus's name for the same reason that it's significant that he knows Moses name.
|
Where did Baptists get their name and what do they believe? Where and when did the Baptists get their name and what do they believe that sets them apart from the rest of Protestant denominations? I realize there are different divisions among Baptists as well, so let's keep this limited to the issues that were relevant when the term Baptist first became used and that generally cover most Baptist denominations today but still specific enough to uniquely identify what makes Baptists different from the members of other denominations Protestant denominations. <Q> The key difference is that in most other denominations (Anglicanism, Methodism, the United Reformed Church, etc) infant baptism is practised. <S> Most new churches (emergent, or whichever word you prefer - churches that were established in the last few decades) profess to be non-denominational but tend to accord with Baptist theology, at least in the respect of baptism. <A> The term "baptists" came from the fact that Baptists strongly believed that: Baptism is for believers only. <S> (excluding infant baptism) Baptism must be by immersion, as opposed to sprinkling and effusion. <S> Because of their strong beliefs regarding baptism, they were given the name "Baptists". <S> Baptists generally believe: Biblical authority (Mat 24:35; 1Pet 1:23; 2Tim 3:16-17) Autonomy of the local church (Mat 18:15-17; 1Cor 6:1-3) <S> Priesthood of all believers (1Pet 2:5-9; <S> 1Tim 5) <S> Two ordinances (believer's baptism and the Lord's Supper) (Acts 2:41-47; 1Cor 11:23-32) <S> Individual soul liberty (Rom 14:5-12) Separation of Church and State <S> (Mat 22:15-22) <S> Two offices of the church (pastor and deacon) <S> (1Tim 3:1-13; Tit 1-2) Most Baptist traditions believe in the "Four Freedoms" articulated by Baptist historian Walter B. Shurden: <S> Soul freedom: <S> the soul is competent before God, and capable of making decisions in matters of faith without coercion or compulsion by any larger religious or civil body Church freedom: freedom of the local church from outside interference, whether government or civilian (subject only to the law where it does not interfere with the religious teachings and practices of the church) <S> Bible freedom: <S> the individual is free to interpret the Bible for himself or herself, using the best tools of scholarship and biblical study available to the individual <S> Religious freedom: the individual is free to choose whether to practice their religion, another religion, or no religion; Separation of church and state is often called the "civil corollary" of religious freedom <S> There are a lot of other Christian Denominations that hold these beliefs as well, but what makes a Baptist distinctive, is the fact that they observe all of these, whereas other denominations may only observe some of these points. <S> Another distinctive point, is Christian Education, which a lot of Baptists uphold. <A> The historic roots of Baptists go back to the Reformation. <S> A key belief was that baptism of infants was invalid. <S> Since infant baptism was almost universal at the time, the new churches required that converts to it be re-baptised. <S> This came to be a distinctive mark of Baptists churches, although other Reformation sects such as the Mennonites also practiced it, without adopoting the Baptist name. <S> The complex history of Protestant denominations means that many denominations divided from the Baptist churches, and from the other Reformation churches that practiced adult baptism, many of which retained adult Baptism. <S> The result is that while Baptist churches universally practice adult baptism, all churches that practice adult baptism are not necessarily Baptist churches. <S> See Wikipedia for a more detailed history. <A> They were originally refered to ad Ana-Baptist. <S> Which meant for Baptism. <S> Depending on which Baptist you ask and from what view they hold on church history some claim to be protestant and sone do not. <S> Along with rejecting infant and non-submersion baptism. <S> Baptist have no controlling hi-archy. <S> County, state and national Baptist groups exist for the joint effort of funding evangelism and bible schools. <S> Every Baptist church is independent and self governing with the exception of churches started with Baptist money are required to keep a statement of faith in line with the funding group as long as funding is supplied.
|
Baptists believe that baptism is a public profession of personal faith - in other words, a public display of a decision someone has made themselves - and the notion of infant baptism is at odds with this.
|
Can Satan read our minds? I come from the assumption that God can read our minds. That we can pray silently and that God will hear our prayers. However, can Satan hear our prayers as well? Can he hear our other thoughts? I ask because if Satan can hear our thoughts, then he may learn ways to tempt us by listening to our prayers to God. A very related question is, can he give us thoughts of evil? Whether or not he can read our minds, can he implant ideas into our minds? <Q> I don't think there is any Biblical evidence of this. <S> However, if we assume he can't, directly (which I suspect) then I'm sure he can indirectly, through a combination of body language, experience of humans and knowledge of specific individuals. <S> Say for example you look twice at an attractive member of the opposite sex - you don't need to read minds to have an educated guess what that person might be thinking. <S> Btw, I assume the question is referring to demonic entities in general. <S> The likelihood that Satan, who is not all knowing nor all present, is trying to figure out what you are thinking must be pretty low. <A> A Lutheran pastor I know addressed this question for me years ago. <S> He said that Satan cannot read or control the thoughts of Christians. <S> He further said that Satan can implant thoughts into our mind, but it is up to us whether we allow our minds to linger upon the thought. <S> I believe he cited demon possession as an exception to this, but Christians are protected from demon possession by the presence of the Holy Spirit. <S> I believe Satan cannot read or control the thoughts of anyone without demon possession. <S> @Wikis brings up a crucial point that Satan can gain considerable clues as to our thoughts based on our actions, expressions, etc. <A> Reading minds to my knowledge is solely something for God to do, as it is He who discerns the thoughts and the heart. <S> However, that doesn't mean that satan doesn't do a good job of inference. <S> he is also said to send fiery darts, which would of course be in various forms spiritually, including thoughts and temptations. <S> That covers implanting thoughts, but not reading them, so I don't believe he can read thoughts. <A> Even the saints and the Virgin Mary cannot know what's going inside our inner thoughts if we don't let them know (in our prayers). <S> The same rule applies to our guardian angel. <S> So the devil cannot know what goes in our minds. <S> But we should consider Satan is very intelligent <S> and he can read clues, as we can read in other people corporal language, and infer something about what are we thinking.
|
Only God can know what is in our minds.
|
Are pride and boasting ever okay? We are proud of our son for being able to write his name, and my wife was boasting that she helped him learn to write it. Ultimately, we both know it's from God that he is able to learn this skill and my wife has the ability to teach him. I know that pride and boasting in ourselves is not good (see verses below), but as long as we ultimately acknowledge God in our pride and boasting, is it acceptable to do this? Jeremiah 9:23–24 (NIV) 23 This is what the LORD says: “Let not the wise boast of their wisdom or the strong boast of their strength or the rich boast of their riches, 24 but let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the LORD. James 4:6 (NIV) 6 But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.” <Q> To supplement your verses on proper/inproper boasting, see Phil 3:4,7-8 and Gal 6:13,14.To answer your question, I first quote <S> In all your ways acknowledge Him, and he shall direct thy paths Prov. <S> 3:6 <S> We mustn't, however honor God with our lips while our heart is far from Him. <S> (Isaiah 29:13) <S> When the Lord saw what He had created and called it good. <S> He was proud of His creation. <S> He called it good. <S> Even to Satan, God says, "Have you seen my servant Job?" <S> and in Zeph 3:17 <S> He rejoices over His people with singing. <S> If you read the words of many righteous men in scriptures, they acknowledge what they have done with the Lord's help. <S> David did no wrong in 1 <S> Samuel 17:34-37 when he said to Saul <S> Thy servant kept his father's sheep, and there came a lion, and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock: And I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: <S> and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him. <S> Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear: and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies of the living God. <S> David said moreover , The LORD that delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. <S> And Saul said unto David, Go, and the LORD be with thee. <S> (emphasis added) <S> So, your wife can be proud to say with full assurance that she is teaching your son to read. <S> I praise God with you that she has that ability! <A> Much like "love," the word "pride" has more than one meaning which are very different from each other. <S> There are two (possibly more but two principal ones) in common use: Pride <S> the Deadly Sin is rooted in enmity, competition and self-centeredness. <S> Its mindset is always some variation on "I am better than you." <S> It should not be necessary to go into detail as to why this attitude is directly opposed to Christian principles. <S> "Good pride," on the other hand, is a completely different thing, based on achievement and self-improvement. <S> It's mindset is "I am better than I was yesterday." <S> It's a noble emotion, one that inspires us onward towards the loftiest of all the Gospel principles: <S> "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." <S> Boasting is generally inspired by the evil pride, and ought to be avoided. <S> However, it has a nobler counterpart, whose attitude, instead of "look how awesome I am!" is "rejoice with me!" <S> One attempts to place oneself above others; the other brings people together as equals. <A> There are different kinds of boasting. <S> If you are boasting on a matter which you have achieved and have great pride about, I guess it's ok to boast. <S> However, there are some boasts that is dangerous to have. <S> Like "I am more holy and good than others" kind of boasting, or even going as far as saying that one does not need God. <S> Those are kinds of boasting that God dislikes. <A> 2 Corinthians 10:13-18 13 <S> But we will not boast beyond our measure, but within the measure of the sphere which God apportioned to us as a measure, to reach even as far as you. <S> 14 <S> For we are not overextending ourselves, as if we did not reach to you, for we were the first to come even as far as you in the gospel of Christ; 15 not boasting beyond our measure, that is, in other men’s labors, but with the hope that as your faith grows, we will be, within our sphere, enlarged even more by you, 16 so as to preach the gospel even to the regions beyond you, and not to boast in what has been accomplished in the sphere of another. <S> 17 <S> But he who boasts is to boast in the Lord. <S> 18 <S> For it is not he who commends himself that is approved, but he whom the Lord commends. <S> Paul's conclusion and your answer is summed up in 17, derived from 13, where he reveals the boast is only valid because God is the one who opened the door for him to step through. <S> The success he attributes to his work is also made exclusive, as to make sure that it is not a boast that can be credited to him off the backs of others. <S> 18 appears to disapprove of such boasts originating within ones own self accomplishment. <S> The commendation of oneself is valid when it is fulfilling a task in which God has initiated or approved of. <S> A simple example would be in giving, where the false boast comes from someone who believed the giving to another originated from within their own moral proclivities, because they are a "good person". <S> A positive boast would be in recognition of the ability to be a joyful giver because God's Spirit has empowered you to give freely devoid of any selfish ambition. <S> The latter action would be boasting in the Lord, in which the Lord commends, the former would be a boast in one's own ability, where commendation can only come from you. <S> To me it seems any valid boast is really just a deep recognition and thanks to the Lord, that it couldn't have been done without Him, but it still can connect to a "wow, I can't believe I just did that," sort of thing.
|
Especially if you honor God, (as you say "as long as we ultimately acknowledge God") it is good to praise others, or to be satisfied in someone or something, even your own accomplishments.
|
Reading the scripture in common worship Do all Christian Churches/Denominations have a common set of readings they read throughout the year and repeat on a 2-3 year cycle? If not, how do pastors in churches without a common set of readings decide what they're going to talk about in any given week? <Q> No, certainly not. <S> There are lots of available resources. <S> Some denominations have guidelines and some reference materials exist for those who do not (such as the Revised Common Lectionary ), but by no means do all traditions have set or repeated liturgies. <S> When it falls to me, I build each weeks liturgy based on passages that have some bearing on the sermon topic. <S> Often these are passages that have a history of being used in liturgies, but that isn't a requirement. <S> Each week takes time in research and prayer to decide what these will be. <S> As church elders we settled on a general format of for the liturgy and the kind of readings to include, but each week varies some to accommodate the main passage. <S> The sermon material follows an exegetical path through whatever book we happen to be working through. <S> We do use fixed readings for confessions and Lord Supper, but improvise to work those readings into the overall flow of the service. <A> @Caleb pointed out that many church traditions use the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL) as a guide. <S> It's a three year cycle of readings. <S> In the time between Easter and Pentecost (seven weeks later) the Revised Common Lectionary offers a reading from the New Testament in place of the Hebrew Bible reading. <S> This follows a Jewish tradition of reading through the entire Torah (Gen, Ex, Lev, Num, Deut) on either a one-year or three year cycle. <S> But the Jews read the whole Torah in that time, whereas the RCL chooses (dare I say "cherrypicks?") the passages. <S> The Roman Catholic Church has an appointed set of readings very similar to the RCL. <S> Many Reformation-heritage churches also use it, as do Orthodox churches. <S> In fact, there's a (fading) tradition of naming Sundays after the Gospel reading, such as Good Shepherd Sunday and Prodigal Son Sunday. <S> The RCL is not mandatory in the Lutheran and Episcopal traditions <S> I am familiar with; the preacher may choose other scripture to read, usually when the preaching is following a multi-week theme. <S> But most Episcopal and Lutheran preachers follow the RCL. <S> Somebody else will need to answer for other traditions. <A> Baptist churches do not generally follow an appointed set of readings. <S> In small churches with only one pastor, it is most common for the pastor to decide the topic of each week's sermon. <S> Many pastors will structure a series of sermons on a given topic or from a specific book of the Bible, though some are more... ummm... <S> haphazard than that. <S> In larger churches with multiple pastors the topic and structure of a sermon series can be determined by the pastors working together. <S> There is no repetition cycle except for Easter and Christmas sermons being somewhat predictable. <S> The length of a sermon series can be anywhere from a couple of weeks to multiple years. <S> A non-Baptist example is Pastor Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill Church in Seattle series on Luke that is over 2 years long.
|
In most seasons of the church year, there's a reading from the Hebrew Bible, a Psalm, a reading from the epistles of the New Testament, and a Gospel reading appointed for each week.
|
What are the differences between Roman Catholic and Irish Catholic? I've heard the terms Roman Catholic and Irish Catholic since I was little, but I have never understood what, if any, are the differences between the two. Why the differentiation of the two? What makes them seperate? How did they come to be seperate? <Q> Irish Catholic is just a cultural distinction. <S> There is an Anglican Church of Ireland which might consider itself truly Irish-Catholic in the sense that on England they'd call themselves Anglo-Catholic. <S> But, that's not what people mean when they say Irish Catholic, they mean Roman Catholic or as Catholics prefer to say , Catholic. <S> There are other countries/regions where having Catholic after the name is actually indicative of being another Rite of the church. <S> Assyrian Catholic, Ethiopian Catholic etc... <S> They are still in communion (subscribing to the same teachings) with the Church in Rome. <S> American Catholic, on the other hand, is a schismatic group that is not in communion with the Church in Rome. <A> Moreover, the Irish are known for being Catholic (you've heard Ireland called "The Isle of Saints and Scholars", no?). <S> The Irish also produced an abundance of religious vocations, including many, many missionary priests: in many parts of the world the first contact one might have had with an Irishman would have had a distinctly Catholic experience. <S> That isn't to say that there aren't other Catholic micro-cultures (Sicilian-Catholic, Bavarian-Catholic, <S> Hungarian-Catholic... <S> with all of the very unique cultural influences they have) <S> but the Irish are somewhat unique in that it's uncommon to find an element of Irish culture that isn't Catholic. <A> There is no difference between Roman and Irish catholic. <S> They are all the same. <S> they both belong to the same catholic <S> CHURCH.Actually there is no Roman catholic church <S> , it's just the catholic church . <S> the roman catholic is a RITE in the The catholic church which is composed of 23 rites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_rites_and_churches <S> I am for example <S> Maronite catholic <S> and I still belong to the catholic church. <S> All the rites have their culture and heritage, but in the end we all follow the pope. <S> That's all!!! <S> WE ARE ALL CATHOLIC <S> God Bless you. <A> I was not raised Catholic, even though my father was raised Roman Catholic, since my home town is prominently a Roman Catholic town. <S> He decided to let us decide for our own what faith or path to follow, most likely because of the abuse he and his class mates got from their priest, and before you stop reading, no it wasn't sexual abuse--it was violent, violent altercations between the Father and his students. <S> Any way, I thought that would be relevant to know... <S> I've traveled a good deal and met some great people, especially from Ireland, and they helped me in a way I can't express enough. <S> See, I was without faith for a long time and the Roman Catholic way just didn't make sense to me--it's ok to do whatever you will and as long as you confess you're forgiven?!? <S> That didn't work for me, so I searched and searched. <S> There is a huge difference between Roman and Irish Catholicism. <S> A true Irish Catholic must not just confess, but earn his way back into God's graces, not by prayer or fasting, but through his actions. <S> That is how a real Irish Catholic repents. <S> But first and foremost, don't commit the sin to begin with, and <S> I know that's not how things are in an imperfect world, but I've witnessed Roman Catholics actually state " <S> It's ok if we do this--as long as we ask for forgiveness we will be forgiven"!! <S> The Irish Men I know would be appalled at that statement as am I. Karma is for real, and the Lord pays attention!!
|
The biggest difference is that Irish Culture, since the time of Saint Patrick, is so profoundly Catholic that almost everything in Irish Culture is colored by a Catholic influence.
|
Is abortion okay if it is medically necessary? I'm sure that most of us agree that abortion is sinful and certainly not okay... most of the time . However, I'm thinking of two rare circumstances that may be exceptions. The mother would die but the baby would (probably) live if an abortion is not performed. The mother AND the (still-living) baby would die if an abortion is not performed. Does the Bible (or some other significant work) provide any perspective on these questions? <Q> This is a difficult topic. <S> Some biblical references would help to understand how God views an unborn child: <S> God views the life of a child as precious even during the very early stages of development after conception: Psalms 139:13-16 <S> For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb . <S> 14 <S> I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; <S> your works are wonderful, <S> I know that <S> full well. <S> 15 <S> My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth. <S> 16 <S> Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. <S> God stated that a person would be called to account for injury to an unborn child: Exodus 21:22,23 <S> If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. <S> It's a very serious sin to willfully take a human life for any reason not authorized by God: Genesis 9:6 <S> Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind. <S> Exodus 20:13 <S> “You must not murder.” <S> So the life of a child is very valuable in God's eyes. <S> If a medical decision must be taken between mother's or child's life, this is up to the couple. <A> No, and this isn't surprising considering the state of medical knowledge in Old Testament times. <S> (And it really hadn't advanced all that much by NT times.) <S> There was no way to diagnose that <S> carrying a pregnancy to term would put the mother's life in danger, the way we can today with electric-powered technologies such as ultrasound imaging. <A> Both situations described illustrate a lack of faith in God. <S> I would imagine that a Christian pondering the situation would either (please pardon the generalizations) not believe that God knows or is able to save their lives or, not believe that the outcome of carrying the baby to term would ultimately be the best outcome for for both the baby and mother. <S> Romans 8:28 <S> (NIV) <S> And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
|
If the doctors inform the parents that the child will be born with medical problems, this is no reason to murder the child.
|
Why does the (N)KJV put Jesus' name in all caps in Matthew 1:21 and Luke 1:31? It's only in the King James and the New King James, but why is Jesus' name in all caps? And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Matthew 1:21 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. Luke 1:31 It isn't like this anywhere else in the Bible. The word in the Greek is the same as in other instances of the name. Why? And why only in the KJV? <Q> For example, when the Gospels say what was written on the sign above Jesus' cross, they tend to typeset the message in all caps: <S> And the superscription of His accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. <S> Mk 15:26 <S> And a superscription also was written over Him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. <S> - Lk 23:38 And set up over His head <S> His accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS - <S> Mt 27:37 <S> And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. <S> And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH <S> THE KING OF THE JEWS. <S> -Jn <S> 19:19-20 <S> On the other hand, an identical construction occurs only a few verses before the Lk passage for John: <S> But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. <S> - Lk 1:13 <S> One other thing to consider, since Jesus' name is Semitic---and in Mark's case its meaning has bearing on the story ("for he will save his people from their sins")---it may be because it was in a different language (though of course, still written in the Greek script). <S> The difficulty here is that the KJV doesn't capitalize transliteration elsewhere. <A> Having a closer look at the Greek lexicon and interlinear Bible shows that Iesous is translated to JESUS and to Jesus. <S> What I have found is that Mathew puts more of an emphasis on Christ the child instead of the event of the birth itself. <S> It could also very well be that the authors/translators are trying to convey importance by using uppercase letters. <S> Here's a study done by a woman by the name of Suzanne McCarthy. <S> website . <A> It seems to be the choice of the publisher of your particular translation of the Bible. <S> The original 1611 edition of the King James Version/ Authorized Version had the word "Jesus" with a majuscular "J" followed by miniscular "esus." <S> See this link: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-Chapter-1_Original-1611-KJV/ <A> First some background <S> In many places in the bible you will see LORD used to refer to God. <S> This is actually referring Jehovah. <S> The KJV authors didn't want to write it all out <S> so they just used LORD instead . <S> However, I cannot seem to find any indication that this is the case in this passage. <S> It seems to be a typesetting curiosity and nothing more. <S> Its also not repeated in other English translations so its significance is relegated only to the KJV.
|
I'm pretty sure this is just a typesetting decision---more akin to using quotation marks.
|
Is Christianity continuing to grow worldwide? Is there continuing growth in Christianity around the world or has it stalled/declined? I'm interested in worldwide stats rather than for individual countries. <Q> The numbers appear to be inconclusive, at least according to this site . <S> Of course the various studies are over different time periods, so it's impossible, with the given data, to draw any conclusive results. <S> Wikipedia estimates the 2007 growth rate of Christianity at 1.38%, which appears to be within the range of the various studies cited above. <A> The answer to this question really depends on how you measure the growth. <S> One way to do so would be to measure the languages to which Christianity is becoming available. <S> Bible translation is probably a lagging indicator, as missionaries often precede the work of translation. <S> According to Wycliffe Translation Statistics , the number of people win the world who speak languages where no translation work has been either begun or completed is 340 million (slightly more than the population of the United States). <S> This is 5% of the World's population. <S> So, Christianity is, indeed, continuing to spread across more and more language groups. <S> This is a fulfillment of the prophecies in the book of Revelation that spoke of people from every nation, tribe, and tongue. <S> I can't find where I saw estimates of when the last language would get a Bible translation, but it's quite feasible to reach that goal in the next hundred years, maybe even 50. <A> This is directly copied from a Pew Forum Survey under the title "Religious Affiliation": <S> Compared with their elders today, young people are much less likely to affiliate with any religious tradition or to identify themselves as part of a Christian denomination. <S> Fully one-in-four adults under age 30 (25%) are unaffiliated, describing their religion as "atheist," "agnostic" or "nothing in particular. <S> " <S> This compares with less than one-fifth of people in their 30s (19%), 15% of those in their 40s, 14% of those in their 50s and 10% or less among those 60 and older. <S> About two-thirds of young people (68%) say they are members of a Christian denomination and 43% describe themselves as Protestants, compared with 81% of adults ages 30 and older who associate with Christian faiths and 53% who are Protestants. <S> Based on this information, as well as the other graphs and questions in that survey, I would venture to say that Christianity is not growing, but rather declining. <S> Of course, for every survey that says it's declining, there is probably one that says it's growing...
|
It appears the number of Christians is growing, but in terms of percentage of population, some studies show a slight growth, while others show a slight decline.
|
Is it wrong to consume alcohol? Possible Duplicate: How far is too far when it comes to drinking alcohol? Most Christians agree that getting drunk is wrong, and there's even a question about getting tipsy . But is it okay for Christians to consume alcohol at all? I realize there are many views, and different (Christian) traditions and cultures have different takes on this question, so please provide Biblical (or other authoritative) evidence for your view. <Q> Instead, be filled with the Spirit ( Eph 5:17-19 ). <S> Then, one needs to define "excess". <S> Which is likely to more personal and will vary from believer to believer; one might draw the line at the legal limit for driving as a useful guideline. <S> It's widely recognized that a glass of red wine a day is healthful and beneficial. <S> Then there's the case of the wedding feast an Cana where Jesus made 120-180 gallons (455-680 liters) of wine - and not just any wine, but wine of superlative quality. <S> I find the argument that Jesus created non-alcoholic wine to be tortuous, at best. <S> Then, too, there's the comment about the normal practice of serving the best wine first and the worst last - <S> because after drinking the better wine people are too inebriated to notice the poorer quality of the latter wine; that's a clear indication the that what they were referring to as the "best wine" contained alcohol. <S> There was wine at the Last Supper, and every Passover Jesus celebrated in his life. <S> And Paul instructs Timothy to "Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses" ( 1 Timothy 5:22-24 ), probably because the alcohol in wine and the process of fermentation kills germs, where clean drinking water was harder to obtain. <A> No it is not wrong to consume alcohol. <S> You know that Christ would never convince or encourage a person to sin, let alone give them MORE of something to sin with. <S> Let's dissect Jesus' first miracle. <S> Understand that these wedding goers drank all of the wine at the wedding. <S> These people are drunk, some are probably tanked and yet Jesus turns water into wine so that they can continue to drink. <S> Was he just testing them? <S> I think not. <S> Now, the Bible is very clear that you should stay sober in all things and not drink to the point that you become a fool. <S> It also tells us that we should add wine to our diets for health reasons. <S> I will provide verses later today. <S> Finally, it is said that it is not what goes into our bodies that makes us unclean, but what comes out of our mouths that does. <S> This relates back to Gods command for us to love each other. <A> I say yes, but each is entitled to his/her own opinion. <S> For example, from Romans 14 (vs 19-21 specifically): 19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. <S> 20 <S> For meat destroy not the work of God. <S> All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. <S> 21 <S> It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. <S> I take this to mean that if another will be offended by our partaking (whether that be alcohol or whatever), then we shouldn't do it. <S> Many people take 1 Corinthians (vs 19-20) more literally than others: 19 <S> What? <S> know <S> ye <S> not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? <S> 20 <S> For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. <S> This means that our bodies are sacred. <S> There are different interpretations of this, but I think nearly everyone can agree on that. <S> If are bodies are sacred (and compared to God's holy temple), then we should take care of it. <S> This means that we should put good things in and don't put bad things in. <S> I take this to mean that anything that has a negative affect on my body (alcohol, tobacco, excessive caffeine/sugar) should be avoided. <S> As such, I don't drink any alcohol <S> and I don't smoke. <S> I also don't drink soda very much in favor of juice (which I think tastes better anyway). <S> But this can be taken to extremes. <S> Sure, a little sugar is fine, and to some alcohol may be fine. <S> My family happens to have a history of alcoholics (and other addictions), so that's even more reason for me personally to avoid these things. <S> But always remember Romans 14 (vs 17): <S> 17 <S> For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. <A> As you said we are in agreement that getting drunk is wrong. <S> My point of view is you can never get drunk if you never have a first drink. <S> Alcohol is an addictive and habit forming substance. <S> To take one drink is to begin the path of giving up free will to the possibility of addiction, drunkenness and sin. <S> I am not saying that one drink leads to damnation, but one drink can lead to another. <S> Why start down a road you don't want to follow? <S> As Software Monkey pointed out, the alcohol in wine and the process of fermentation killed germs during Jesus' time, when clean drinking water was hard to obtain. <S> Today I believe the risks of drinking wine outweighs the benefits when I can easily get clean drinking water. <S> While I abstain from drinking alcohol recreationally , it is occasionally present in my cough syrup. <S> Summary : <S> Yes, I believe drinking alcohol to be a sin. <S> It should be avoided when possible. <S> I would advocate that others avoid it as well, but understand if they have beliefs to the contrary.
|
No, it's drinking to excess that is wrong - Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery.
|
Does God have free will? To clarify the question - when I mention God here I am referring to God the Father and by free will, the best non-contradictory definition according to the Bible I have heard is "the ability to act apart from one's nature". When I first came across this question it sounds almost absurd. Of course God has free will, He willed us into being. But maybe willing something and free will are two different things. And maybe we have a hard time thinking about this because we personify God to have human traits and the ability to act apart from our nature is a human only trait. <Q> I would argue that the premise that free will is "the ability to act apart from one's nature" is essentially flawed. <S> Free will is the ability to act within your power according to your nature. <S> However, regardless of your definition of free will, the question is also influenced by a finite viewpoint. <S> God is both infinite and perfect. <S> He has free will, and his will is perfect and his nature is infinite such that his will is perfectly executed. <S> Being both infinite and perfect in nature, it is not possible for any of the three persons of the Trinity to ever act contrary to their perfect nature - that's one of the reasons it's possible for God to be three persons without inter-relational conflict. <S> We tend to over anthropomorphize God, and we must be very careful not to reconstruct God in our image, instead of the other way around. <S> We image God but imperfectly; we are like him, but we are not identical to him (as if that needs to be said). <S> In a mysterious way, within this creation, God has created us sufficiently in his image such that we have free will; and we will according to our nature, which is fallen and corrupted. <S> Somehow, God has organized things in this dimension (or these 4 dimensions, if you like), such that we can exercise our free will without contravening his. <S> It's as if he has deliberately chosen to limit himself for the sake of our creation - how this resonates with his will I cannot explain... as I said, it's a mystery. <A> If you want to find Biblical doctrine on this point, you might want to start at Matthew 5:48. <S> Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. <S> This comes as part of the Sermon on the Mount, at the end of a long section of commandments about choices to make in order to live righteously. <S> After laying all of these on us, Jesus commands us to be "therefore" (related to this) perfect even as our Father in Heaven is. <S> From this, we can conclude that God does have free will, but, being perfect as we are told to be, He never chooses to abuse it by doing anything which would be sinful. <A> I agree with @Software Monkey that the question's premise is flawed. <S> The definition in your answer is too narrow. <S> To properly define "free will," I think we have to consider what the will is free from . <S> Since the term, as used, is in a vacuum, we have no context, so we don't know what it is free from, without additional information. <S> I would suggest that a better definition would be: <S> The ability to choose and/or act apart from some external constraint. <S> If we accept this definition, then the definition you provide would be just a contextual version of this--in the context of "nature." <S> In other words "will free from one's nature." <S> Likewise, we could ask the question "Do humans have free will?" and the answer may depend on context--Humans have "will free from the influence of other humans." <S> Do humans have "will free from the influence of predestination? <S> " I'll leave that for another question. <S> But I hope my point is clear... <S> The term "free will" doesn't work in a vacuum. <S> Now, does God have "free will?" <S> And since God is the supernatural means, and there is no means greater than Him, nothing can enable Him to act apart from His nature . <S> I think this is like asking "Can God make a stone so large He can't move it?" <A> Philosophically, there is a theorem called " The Law of Non-Contradiction " that has gained wide traction in Christian Apologetics circles. <S> (See especially Ravi Zacharias.) <S> The "law of non-contradiction" is a simple premise - a thing cannot be both A and not A. <S> Anything less is nonsensical. <S> The theological extension of this is that God cannot violate his own nature. <S> God is incapable of lying, for example, not because he could not, but because he would not. <S> To lie would be to vioilate his nature to do so. <S> Likewise, because God's will is perfect, he cannot do that which is outside his nature, because he is, by definition perfect. <S> To act outside of what is perfect is, by definition, less than perfect. <S> Ergo, God does not do it. <S> To say he "cannot" act outside of his own will is thus technically accurate, but missing the point. <S> Whether or not he "could" is irrevelant. <S> He simply won't.
|
Well, according to your definition, I would have to say no, since nothing has "will free from its own nature," apart from the possible exception of things that are able to escape this limitation by some supernatural means.
|
How does entertainment glorify God at all? In the modern context, we have many things to keep ourselves entertained and motivated to do work - music, videos, movies, games, magazines etc. According to 1 Corinthians 10:31 KJV Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. It is clear that in whatever we do we will do it for the glory of God. However I really wonder how does gaming, watching video and having self-entertainment would do to glorify God. <Q> Entertainment is one way we relax, and the Bible does tell us to rest, in many places, including Exodus 20:8: "Remember the Sabbath." <S> Entertainment can also be a community-building event, although not as much so in the context of "self-entertainment," that you mentioned. <S> I would also say that many things are not purely entertaining, but also educational or enlightening. <S> Having said all of that, I think many of us take entertainment to extremes, to the point that it is no longer glorifying to God. <S> I know I'm guilty of this at times. <A> While most entertainment may not glorify God in itself, you can use that entertainment to glorify God. <S> I am reminded a story of someone who had a teenage daughter when 90210 was on. <S> Instead of her watching it on her own or just with her friends, he would watch it with them and interject comments throughout instilling his Christian values. <S> (Apparently he had a knack for doing this comically without teenage eye-rolling. <S> :P) <S> John Eldredge's books and talks have a lot of references to popular culture including The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, and Braveheart, but usually in light of the biblical battle between good and evil. <S> I think it's possible to keep a spiritual eye when viewing or playing non-spiritual material. <S> My wife is watching Love's Long Journey right now. <S> We watched <S> What If... <S> last night. <S> I also spend a lot of time listening and playing music in a Christian room on turntable.fm . <S> I would classify all of these as entertainment, but they are all Christian entertainment. <A> John Piper, the leading proponent of Christian Hedonism, often uses a slogan based on The Westminster Catchecism. <S> He modifies the catcehism's stock answer that the chief end of man "is to glorify God" by restating it as: <S> God is most glorified, when we are most satisfied, in Him Put another way, because God designed us to glorify Him, and because he is love, he designed us for joy. <S> We are most satisfied when we are in that joy, because God made us for that. <S> He gave us desires that reflect what he has in store for us. <S> As one example, and this may come as a shock, but God made sex enjoyable. <S> Why is it pleasurable? <S> Because it is a foretaste of the oneness we will have in heaven, where "we will know even as we are known.". <S> Why then do many Christians see sex as evil? <S> Because, used inappropriately, it can cause the exact opposite of that oneness. <S> It can rob us of joy, because we seek after the momentary pleasure rather than true joy. <S> As C.S. Lewis puts in his the definitive short essay on the subject, " The Weight of Glory, " It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. <S> We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. <S> We are far too easily pleased. <S> Simply put, entertainment is entertaining, precisely because it is a foretaste of that infinite joy offered us, if only we are strong enough to truly seize it. <A> You glorify God through love for other people. <S> When washing the dishes, show love for your family by washing them in joy and you will show glory for your father. <S> When listening to music glorify your father by listening to music that is good and pure. <S> When watching tv, show love and respect to your family by bringing them closer through communion and peace. <S> Do not watch things that will defile you and your family, but things that will bring forth the fruit of love. <S> Glorify your father in all things by doing all things in joy, love and peace for your brothers and sisters. <S> For these qualities of love are what bring glory to God.
|
There is also plenty of entertainment that glorifies God.
|
What exactly is a "Hail Mary"? The practice of a saying a "Hail Mary" is often referred to in colloquial speech, sometimes as a way to caricaturize Catholics. References to the practice instantly conjure up images of Catholicism, priests, and confessionals. However, beyond these references with my Protestant background I don't actually know much about the practice. I don't even have the vocabulary to properly ask this question. What should a non-Catholic like myself understand about the practice? Where did it originate and what is the purpose? Do other traditions employ such a ritual? Is it fair to call them a ritual? Edit: If it's simply a prayer, what is the purpose of repeating it more than once? At least the pop-culture references often involve saying "so-many" Hail Mary's in the sense of more being somehow better. <Q> It happens to be recited 53 times during the course of praying the rosary . <S> It is said in place of the psalms for the illiterate. <S> Since there are 150 or so psalms and traditionally the Rosary is split up into 15 decades to mediate on different events in the lives or Jesus and Mary, each decade consists of 10 Hail Mary prayers. <S> Because the purpose is contemplating the life of Jesus and the original purpose was about as far as illiterate medieval's could grasp. <S> It was certainly a good prayer, shouldn't be construed with any biblical injunction on vain repetition - so long as there is no vanity involved. <S> Numbers of prayers are also often assigned by priests as penance during confession. <S> As far as I know, this is a relatively modern practice (1900's and later). <S> Easy (and private) penances might bring more people into confession while still conferring the same grace. <S> Personally, I pray the Rosary every day. <S> Sometimes it's not done very well <S> , most of the time it is done in a distracted way - but that's my problem, not a problem with the prayer. <S> Another thing I do is pray <S> 3 Hail Mary's (This is also known as the "Little Office of Our Lady") before bed, asking for the grace of purity while remembering her as a model of purity. <S> As far as extra-biblical prayers are concerned, the Our Father is straight out the didache (teaching of the 12 apostles). <S> So even though that's ancient and the Hail Mary is comparatively modern. <S> Catholics continually pray new prayers and invoke the communion of Saints for intercession. <S> We don't ask Mary to forgive our sins, but we do ask her for protection. <S> The Hail Mary is one in a collection of Marian Antiphons found in the liturgy of the Hours <S> (Book of Christian Prayer). <S> It is also prayed as part of the Angelus (a prayer traditionally prayed at 6:00 AM, Noon, and 6:00 PM). <A> Actually, the Hail Mary comes from Luke 1:39-45 (NIV) . <S> This is when Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth when both are pregnant. <S> You will notice that half of the prayer comes from here (the first half). <S> The second half adds on a supplication ("pray for us sinners") and is further development of the prayer as opposed to direct Biblical reference <A> Since demongolem , a_hardin , and Peter Turner did a good job explaining what a Hail Mary is, I won't try and answer that question. <S> Instead, I can give you my understanding of the use of repetitive prayer. <S> This answer is based on a blog post <S> I found quite informative. <S> One reason for repetitive prayer is it is meditative. <S> It can be used to clear the mind of worldly things and focus on the Divine. <S> It is an aid towards arriving at a communion with God rather than just "talking at" Him. <S> A second reason for repetitive prayer is that it is all we can muster. <S> In times of trial, a simple repetitive prayer is often the deepest cries of our heart. <S> Take for instance when Jesus was in the garden of Gethsemane. <S> Three times he prayed the same thing . <S> Matthew 26:39-45 <S> (Emphasis Added) 39 <S> Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. <S> Yet not as I will, but as you will.” <S> 40 <S> Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. <S> “Couldn’t you men keep watch with me for one hour?” <S> he asked Peter. <S> 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. <S> The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” <S> 42 <S> He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.” <S> 43 <S> When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. <S> 44 <S> So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. <A> The Hail Mary is simply a prayer. <S> The prayer as I learned <S> it is: <S> Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. <S> Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. <S> Amen <S> It is common at our (Catholic) family gatherings for this to be said by everyone together as a part of the blessing over the meal.
|
The Hail Mary is simply a prayer.
|
What exactly IS Hell? I'm not disputing that Hell exists, what I want to know is WHAT IS HELL? In my opinion there are only two possible answers, but you might inform me of something else. Many people have argued that evil is the absence of God, hell must be evil, thus hell is the separation of us from God. As poetic as this sounds, I've never found the scripture to back this up. Maybe you have some that I haven't read yet. The second option in my understanding is that hell is the wrath of God against the disobedient. I have found one piece of scripture that debatable states that God is in Hell, but not what He is doing down there. Can you set me straight with the scripture that I need to understand the lake of fire? <Q> This is what we know of "Hell". <S> It's a place of darkness Jude 1:13 <S> (NIV) <S> They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever. <S> It's a place of torment Luke 16:28 (NIV) <S> for I have five brothers. <S> Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment .’ <S> It's a place of fire <S> Jesus says in Matthew 13:42 (NIV) <S> They will throw them into the blazing furnace , where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. <S> It is eternal Mark 9:48 <S> (NIV) where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’ <S> It is separation for God Matthew 25:41 (NIV) <S> “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. <S> God does not want you to go to Hell John 3:17 (NIV) <S> For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. <S> Those are the highlights. <S> There are many other places that support each one of those facts. <S> I just picked a nice representative of each verse. <A> Both Pope John Paul II and Billy Graham have defined Hell in this way, so its is safe to say that this represents the mainstream view of Hell in Christianity. <S> However this definition does not give any details of what Hell is like. <S> Few Christians would consider the ancient view, of a place with devils and pitchforks, to be anywhere near accurate. <S> While some might agree that there is explicit punishment, for the most part it is considered that eternal separation from God is punishment enough. <S> (An atheist would of course disagree). <S> Most Christians again agree that the Biblical descriptions of Hell are largely picture-language - that (for example) the fire, brimstone and darkness indicate the quantity and quality of suffering caused by separation from God, rather than actual physical pain; Biblical literalists would be the main dissenters from that view. <S> There are plenty of online references giving treatises about Hell. <S> My own recommendation for a starter is C.S. Lewis <S> The Great Divorce - though again I would caution that it is intended as allegory and not theology. <A> I'm not disputing that Hell exists, what I want to know is WHAT IS HELL? <S> Hell is an Old English term translated from the Hebrew word for the grave "Sheol" and the Greek translation of Sheol "Hades". <S> Hell means the "Grave" or a "Crematory". <S> In my opinion there are only two possible answers, but you might inform me of something else. <S> Many people have argued that evil is the absence of God, hell must be evil, thus hell is the separation of us from God. <S> As poetic as this sounds, I've never found the scripture to back this up. <S> Maybe you have some that I haven't read yet. <S> God is Life (John 14:6), the absence of Life is Death (Genesis 2:17). <S> Evil separates life from the body (Isaiah 59:2). <S> The second option in my understanding is that hell is the wrath of God against the disobedient <S> Yes, the wages of Sin is Death (Romans 6:23). <S> I have found one piece of scripture that debatable states that God is in Hell, <S> Yes, Jesus was placed in a grave (John 19:42). <S> (aka: went to Hell) <S> But not what He is doing down there. <S> He was fulfilling his prophecy (Matt 12:38-40). <S> Can you set me straight with the scripture that I need to understand the lake of fire? <S> First let us replace Hell with the correct usage as grave. " <S> Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. <S> The lake of fire is the second death. <S> "(Revelation 20:14). <S> Think of the usage of the phrase "Sea of forgetfulness." <S> By understanding the First Death, we can understand the Second Death. <S> If the First Death is Separation from God, we can assume that the Second Death also is a separation from God. <S> Now if Death (a separation from God) is separated from God. <S> That is a fancy way of saying that nothing else gets separated from God by use as a double negative. <S> Therefore using replacement ideology for Revelation 20:15 <S> "Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was never thought of by God again." <A> The ancients believed in Elysium for the good, the Asphodel Meadows for those neither good nor evil, and Tartarus for the wicked. <S> Throughout history it's been fairly common for Christian proselytizers to subvert ideas already in place and bend them over to a Christian interpretation, a good example being the winter solstice's rebranding to Christmas. <S> So the early Church came up with Heaven, Purgatory/Limbo and Hell to make conversion more palatable for the pagans. <S> These became ingrained within our culture, but are really pagan ideas and have no basis in Christianity. <S> Artistic depictions of Hell in the middle ages really strengthened this mistaken view of Hell as a physical, burning place of torment underground. <S> The New Testament speaks only of the resurrection, and when it refers to Heaven and Hell is in fact talking about inward states of mind. <S> Hell is sometimes connected with fire in the New Testament because fire is used there as a symbol of bodily desire (e.g. greed - <S> the more you feed your greed, the greedier you become, and the more you feed a fire, the stronger it burns). <S> So Hell is the state of mind where you are a slave to your bodily passions of lust, power, greed, revenge, and hatred, and so are separated from God and from peace.
|
The conventional definition of Hell is that it is 'separation from God'.
|
What does the bible say about interracial marriages? This has been a popular topic of debate, at least where I live. As Armenians, we like to... discourage marriages with spouses of a different ethnicity or nationality, simply in order to carry the culture and Armenian name for as many generations as possible. Were there any mentions of interracial marriages or relationships in the bible, like whether it is condoned or not? <Q> In the Old Testament the Jews are forbidden from marriage with non-Jews. <S> See, for example, Deuteronomy 7:3-4 . <S> However that was on the basis of religious rather than racial purity, as it was clearly stated that the reason was to prevent the Jews from "following other Gods". <S> It is also notable that in the Book of Ruth, Ruth is a non-Jew married to a Jew, and the Bible contains no commentary saying that this was a bad thing, although she clearly also becomes a follower of God. <S> She is the ancestor of King David. <S> In the New Testament there is no equivalent restriction, since Christians are intended to be of every race: "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile" and "make disciples of all nations". <S> In the past some Christians have claimed a prohibition on interracial marriage, based on either the Old Testament prohibition or a false understanding of Acts 17:24-26: ( "God ... hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation ... <S> "). <S> Recently there has been a strong movement away from such a prohibition. <S> Even ultra-conservative Bob Jones university removed its prohibition on inter-racial dating in 2000. <S> This article gives more information on the history. <S> EDIT:I originally said that Bob Jones University continued its ban on inter-racial dating until 2005. <S> In fact it stopped in 2000, and apologized for it in 2005. <A> Moses married an Ethiopian (descendant of Ham), and Miriam and Aaron didn't approve. <S> The story is found in Numbers 12:1, and we don't find anything to say whether it was ok for him to have done so or not, only that he did it and some people didn't like it. <S> To be honest, I used to have a problem with interracial marriage, and I made quite a lot of excuses as to why that was. <S> Frankly, people of every nationality are God's creations. <S> He loves each and every one of them in a way that we cannot even begin to imagine or comprehend. <S> I would think that it would please God very much for two of His beloved creations to find happiness and joy in the company of one another, despite race, or anything else. <A> When Miriam and Aaron began to talk against the marriage, God brought leprosy upon Miriam...... <S> Numbers 12:1 "And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman." <S> 9 <S> And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed. <S> 10 <S> And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, as white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold <S> , she was leprous. <S> 11 <S> And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my lord, I beseech you, lay not the sin upon us, in which we have done foolishly, and in which we have sinned. <S> 12 Let her not be as one dead, whose flesh is half consumed when he comes out of his mother's womb. <S> 13 <S> And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech you. <S> 14 <S> And the LORD said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? <S> let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again.
|
Yes Moses did marry an Ethiopian woman, and if you study the text then you'll see that God sanctified interracial marriages.
|
Is the Golden Rule really the Gold Standard? Does the Golden Rule, often stated as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" originate from the Bible and the teachings of Jesus? If not where does it come from? If so how was it originally used? How it is supposed to be applied today? Consider a case where the thing somebody would want you to do for them is to sin. As a simple example, many people will lie to keep their friends out of trouble. They expect their friends to do the same for them. If the Golden Rule was the only rule employed between them, their sin would just continue to multiply. What's to prevent this? <Q> Matthew 7:12 (NIV) sounds a lot like the Golden rule: <S> So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. <S> But it also says it's only a summary of the Law and Prophets, not that it's actually a hard-and-fast rule. <S> The problem with your example is it puts "others" at odds with each other... <S> There are two "theys"--your friends, and those you would lie to. <S> The Golden Rule is not far-reaching enough to address these sorts of ethical situations. <S> I think the true "Gold Standard" is to love God and people ( Luke 10:27 ). <S> The Golden Rule is intended to provide a sort of definition of what it means to love others. <S> That doesn't mean it's air-tight in a logical sense. <S> But even so, if we all practiced the Golden Rule to the letter (even lying for our friends, as in your example), I suspect the world would be a much better place than it is now. <A> Matthew 7:12: <S> So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. <S> The Wikipedia article claims that there are earlier antecedents for it, but they do not appear to be the same exact formulation; in particular they are all the 'negative' of it ("don't do bad" rather than "do good"). <A> The Golden Rule in its current form probably originated with Jesus. <S> A similar saying is attributed to Rabbi Hillel, who lived in Jerusalem about a century before Jesus: A Gentile came to Rabbi Hillel and said, "I will convert to Judaism if you can teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot. <S> " <S> Hillel replied, "That which is distasteful to you do not do unto another. <S> This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. <S> Go and learn it." <S> Jesus' version goes much further than Hillel's does, in requiring action from us. <A> Filmzy has identified where the Golden Rule is found in the Bible. <S> As for the 2nd part of your question, I would like to bring out this verse: <S> 1 Corinthians 14:33 KJV <S> For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. <S> Yes of course if following only the Golden rule sin may creep in. <S> However if we do things in glory of God and following Golden rule, the scenario would probably be something like this: A group of friends are together. <S> One sinned. <S> The others advised him and brought him back to righteousness, for each of the others too want their friends to bring them back if they make mistakes.
|
The Golden Rule can indeed be found in the teachings of Jesus:
|
What do Orthodox Christians mean when they talk about the Real Presence in the Eucharist? The Orthodox Church is one of several denominations that teach the Real Presence, but they don't all have the same understanding of this doctrine. What is the Orthodox understanding? <Q> Indeed this is a hard saying---who can accept it? <S> In my limited understanding as a babe in Orthodoxy (I entered the Orthodox Church but a year ago), we just accept it as a holy Mystery and try not to qualify it in philosophical terms. <S> From my limited understanding and knowledge of Roman Catholic doctrine, this distinguishes our dogmatic approach towards the Holy Mysteries from theirs. <S> However, I think the Eucharist is a mystical experience for both of us. <S> First and foremost, the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus are not objects to be understood cataphatically or apophatically, but instead they are our food, and God Himself in us. <S> They are primarily to be experienced (insofar as one experiences food), and only secondarily to be understood. <A> Real Presence in regards to Catholic and Orthodox views is, essentially, transubstantiation . <S> The idea behind this is that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ after it has been consecrated. <S> This is quit different from the Lutheran view of "Real Presence". <A> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist_(Catholic_Church )
|
We Eastern Orthodox take Christ at His word that "if you do not eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, you have no life in you." Orthodox and Catholics believe that in the Eucharist the bread and wine are objectively transformed and become in a real sense the Body and Blood of Christ; and that after consecration they are no longer bread and wine: the consecrated elements retain the appearance and attributes of bread and wine but are in reality the body and blood of Christ.
|
What was the problem at Babel? In the Genesis account of the tower of Babel a bunch of guys got together to build a really tall tower somewhere in the desert. God gets wind of the affair but it doesn't sit well: Genesis 11:5–6 (ESV) And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. So what does He do? He scrambles all their language as a punishment and their plans are foiled. What was the problem with building a tall tower? Are modern skyscrapers a problem for God? Should the guys in the Burj Khalifa be worried? <Q> The problem was not with the building , but with the intent of the builders, as shown in verse 4 : <S> They said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth." <S> This is in direct opposition to what God had just commanded Noah a few years before ( Genesis 9:7 ): <S> As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it. <S> The people in their journeyings found a place they liked, and decided to quit following God, and rather settle where they were comfortable. <S> On top of this, they displayed the hubris to build a tower to "reach heaven" - ie, to find God on their own, rather than through His intended means. <S> God's judgement was not upon the tower , per se , but on the people . <S> Nowhere else in scripture can I think of a place where towers are forbidden or condemned (indeed, almost all ancient city states had towers for protection - and Jesus references a tower that collapsed onto some people in Siloam in a neutral fashion). <S> The "problem at Babel" was pride, arrogance, and an unwillingness to follow God's command to replenish the earth after the flood. <A> The issue was mankind's basic disobedience. <S> Soon after the flood God repeated to Noah and his sons a command he had given mankind in the past. <S> Genesis 9:1 <S> (ESV) <S> And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” <S> Instead of following that command, mankind decided to settle down. <S> Genesis 11:4 (ESV) <S> Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” <S> Instead of worshipping God and seeking his glory, they sought to make a name for themselves. <S> Instead of obeying God by filling the earth, they worked to ensure that they would all stay in one place. <S> Confusing their language helped ensure that mankind would obey the command to fill the earth. <S> This episode from the Bible really has nothing to say about modern sky scrapers per se. <A> I think they had the same problem as Satan: they wanted to elevate themselves to God's level. <S> Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens , so that we may make a name for ourselves ; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” <S> Genesis 11:4 <S> They wanted to make a name for themselves , i.e. become powerful in their own right, apart from God. <S> And they wanted to reach the heavens . <A> It was humanity united under man's terms as a platform of opposition against YHWH. <S> Shem, son of Noah was alive at that time and was most likely driven from the area west to Canaan. <S> He died during Jacob's lifetime. <S> Nimrod was most likely running the situation. <S> There is not much detail in the Genesis narrative. <S> However, Jewish literature has much to say about the details of the Babel event. <S> Humanity was united in communication and purpose and therefore unstoppable. <S> Shem may have been the only living witness of YHWH. <S> The Babel crowd may have been demonically impressed to search him out to kill him and sanitize the world of any knowledge of YHWH. <S> With the visual replacing the propositional today using social media and other tools to overcome language barriers, is it any different?
|
It was man's pride and arrogance, which started in Eden at Satan's prompting.
|
How long did it take to form the Biblical canon? How long did it take to collect all of the writings that eventually formed the first version of the Bible? In other words, starting with when the first writing was created (I'll say when it was completed rather than started) to when it was first printed/published/etc., how long did it take? <Q> Much of when the Old Testament was written is purely conjecture, but many modern scholars believe that it was written some time in the period when the Persians captured Babylon in 538 BC. <S> Others believe Moses authored the Pentateuch, which is Genesis - Deuteronomy, which would mean that these books were authored some time around 1300 - 1500 BC. <S> There is also some conjecture that Job is the earliest written account in the Bible, and would predate Moses' writings, although those who hold this theory do not believe that the actual writing of the Book of Job predates the writing of the Pentateuch by much, even though they believe that the actual account of Job happened long before, and many believe Job lived before the flood. <S> The last book of the New Testament is believed to have been Revelations, written in approximately 68 AD, but yet others believe that this book was written around 95 AD. <S> We don't know exactly when the books of the Bible were written, but we can, through cross-referencing external sources, determine when the historical figures in the Bible lived. <S> Either way, the common consensus is that the writing of the books of the Bible began some time after 1500 BC, and concluded prior to 100 AD. <S> This would be a period of about 1600 years. <S> The first known "canonization" of the Scripture was proposed by Marcion of Sinope around 140 AD. <S> Since then there have been multiple canons of Scripture proposed, with different ones accepted by various groups, containing anywhere from 66-81 books. <S> Currently, the typical Protestant Bible is a 66 book canon, from the 4th century synod which listed 39 books of the Old Testament. <S> The typical Catholic Bible has 73 or 74 books, from the 4th century synod which listed 46 books of the Old Testament (5 books were merged into other books in this list, making a total of 51 books), and some Catholic Bibles also contain 2 Esdras. <S> Both the Protestant and the Catholic New Testaments are the same 27 books. <S> This information is compiled from a huge variety of sources, including many different pages from Wikipedia , BibleResources.org , ichthys.com , etc. <A> The old testament and the new testament together were probably written and compiled over a span of 1600 years. <S> Sources: Torah , Tenakh , New Testament <A> The Bible I read (King James Version) Took about 3000 years from start to finish. <S> But you asked about: "... <S> the first version of the Bible" <S> The first version of which Bible? <S> The Roman Catholic Bible? <S> The Greek Orthodox Bible? <S> The Protestant Bible? <S> The word "Bible" is loosely translated "The Books. <S> " There have been many Bible translations and revisions to canon. <S> Some books—like the Apocrypha—have been added and removed from canon multiple times over the ages. <S> The first Christian Bible was the Catholic Vulgate, translated by St. Jerome from the best Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic codices available at the end of the fourth century including the Vetus Latina Codex and the Codex Gigas. <S> The Vulgate was "The Bible" for about 1000 years until the Protestant movement, when several English versions of the Vulgate were translated like the Douay-Rheims Bible, while others re-opened the original codex to make an English translation. <S> I think a proper answer would take too long, so <S> I'm instead going to leave you with a list of significant events that contributed to the evolution of the Bible Canon. <S> Hopefully this will give you a starting point to learn how the Bible canon changed and evolved over the centuries. <S> ~1600 <S> -1300BC: <S> Moses — Pentateuch <S> ~600BC: <S> Babylonian Captivity <S> ~450BC: <S> Ezra — The Great Assembly — Tanakh <S> ~200BC: <S> Ptolemy II Philadelphus — Septuagint <S> ~33AD: <S> The Ministry of Jesus Christ ~50-90AD: Pauline Epistles, General Epistles, The Gospels, Revelations ~320AD: <S> Constantine the Great — State Christianity <S> 325AD: <S> First ecumenical council — <S> The Council of Nicaea <S> 381AD: <S> Second ecumenical council — First Council of Constantinople <S> 382AD: <S> Saint Jerome — Vulgate <S> 431AD-1431AD: <S> Third-Seventeenth Ecumenical Councils <S> 1439AD: Johannes Gutenberg — Mazarin Bible <S> ~1522AD: William Tyndale — Tyndale Bible 1535AD: King Henry VIII — <S> The Great Bible <S> ~1545AD: Reformation — Council of Trent 1568AD: <S> Bishop's Bible 1582AD: <S> Douay-Rheims Bible <S> 1611AD: <S> King James Bible
|
The New Testament was fully written by 150 AD and after much discussion was fully compiled between 500 - 600 AD. The earliest Hebrew scripts (which were the written form of a long, long oral tradition) that eventually became the torah (the first five books of the bible) were written around 900BC, and the Tenakh (the earliest Hebrew bible) was compiled around 400BC.
|
Are Orthodox Christians all the same faith? I've noticed some churches in my area that are titled things like: "Greek" Orthodox "Russian" Orthodox "Serbian" Orthodox "Antiochian" Orthodox etc... Are these all the same type of Christian Church? <Q> This kinda falls into general reference territory. <S> There are two major groups of "Orthodox" churches. <S> It separated from the Catholic Church (or vice versa, depending on your POV) in 1054 AD. <S> Thus many Orthodox Churches adopt a national title (e.g. Albanian Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Macedonian Orthodox, Montenegrin Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox etc.) <S> and this title serves to distinguish which language, which bishops, and which of the typica is followed by that particular congregation. <S> In the Middle East, Orthodox Christians have also been often referred as Roman (or Rum) <S> Orthodox, because of their historical connection with the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. <S> They are the "same type" of church in that they share a theology, but they tend to be ethnically tied - if you go into a Greek Orthodox Church in Texas, you'll still need to speak you some Greek. <S> They don't have a pope, but the group of all their bishops are considered to be the ruling body of the church. <S> The Oriental Orthodox Church split off earlier (451 AD) over the Council of Chalcedon. <S> Despite the potentially confusing nomenclature (Oriental meaning Eastern), Oriental Orthodox churches are distinct from those that are collectively referred to as the Eastern Orthodox Church. <S> The Oriental Orthodox communion comprises six groups: <S> Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (India) and Armenian Apostolic churches. <S> 2 <S> These six churches, while being in communion with one another, are hierarchically independent. <S> This is a pretty small group however; most Orthodox churches you'll see in the West <S> tend to be of the Eastern Orthodox breed. <S> These churches are all the same faith in the sense that they recognize each other are Christian, but the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox branches are not in communion with each other (or anyone else, I believe) and consider other branches to be schismatic and more-or-less heretical. <S> There are a lot of churches with similar names and variants. <S> Of course they are mostly synonyms, a trivial canvas of local denomination names and sub-denominations indicates you have to be quite specific. <S> A commenter asked about "the Coptics;" there is a Coptic Catholic Church and a Coptic Orthodox Church, for example. <A> Officially all the Eastern Orthodox Churches share "one Lord, one faith, one baptism," and this is manifested by intercommunion among, say, the sees of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome (before the Schism, she received the highest honor among the sees at councils), Constantinople, Georgia, Kiev, Moscow, Athens, Washington DC, Paris, London, Tokyo, Bulgaria, and so on. <S> One of the recent blessings the Lord bestowed upon the Orthodox Church was a restoration of intercommunion between the estranged sees of Moscow and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which separated due to the Bolshevik Revolution. <S> We all believe (canonically/officially) the same thing, or rather, we all believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, in more or less the same way. <S> With regards to the answer of @mxyzplk: in America, due to the immigrant nature of our population, Orthodox parishes unfortunately can become ethnic enclaves rather than Eucharistic communities. <S> This is a heresy condemned by the church: it is called ethnophyletism. <S> This is not to say that ethnic communities dedicated to preserving a real culture in the midst of our consumerist <S> so-called culture are bad; but they must be distinguished from the work of the church. <S> I have never personally encountered this problem in my life in the Orthodox Church, thank God. <S> There are other churches with the name Orthodox, among them notably the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syriac Orthodox Church, and the Indian Orthodox Church. <S> The Coptics, Syriacs, and Ethiopians do not accept the council of Chalcedon, so they are not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox. <S> Confusingly, they are collectively called "Oriental" Orthodox, as opposed to the "Eastern" Orthodox. <S> There is nowadays an ongoing dialogue between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, in hopes that perhaps our separation is due merely to misunderstanding or language issues. <S> (Cf. <S> orthodoxwiki.org ) <A> The churches your speaking about are all the same in faith and are all Eastern Orthodox. <S> The reason they have different names is because of the ethnicity/culture of the Orthodox who attend that Church, but they are all united in one faith. <S> In my opinion the ethnic denominational churches will slowly change their name to Eastern Orthodox Church because once the immigrant population pass away, the next generations don't know Greek, Russian or Serbian anymore and will want their service in English. <S> As a Greek Orthodox Christian, I think that would be a great idea! <A> Actually, the Coptic Church is one of the Oriental Orthodox, there's also the Ethiopians, the Malankar (I think), and others who escape me at this point. <S> However, it is incorrect to argue that the Orthodox are split into two sects. <S> The so-called "Eastern" Orthodox (which I am), would simply say that the Oriental Orthodox is another break away group, like Rome, but which retains much more of their Orthodox roots. <A> Orthodox are all the same. <S> I am Antiochian Orthodox but we have Russians, Greeks, Romanians, and Serbs that also come to our church. <S> The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are not in communion but their beliefs and liturgy are nearly the same. <S> Nowadays, most Eastern and Oriental Orthodox believe there was a misunderstanding in language during the Chalcean Council. <S> Both Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy are different from Catholicism and Protestantism in their definitions of sin, hell, and heaven among several other things. <A> Eastern Orthodox churches all share the same religious dogma. <S> Where they vary is language and with regard to some rituals and customs. <S> For example, some churches are on the old calendar. <S> Young male Macedonians, Romanians, Bulgarians and Greeks dive into water to retrieve a cross to celebrate Epiphany. <S> Russians use gold crowns during weddings, Greeks use more simple ones. <S> They are all religiously the same however.
|
The Eastern Orthodox Church is one large group of churches that share a common theology.
|
What does the Bible say Christians should or should not do on the Sabbath? Most of the Christians I know do whatever they like on Sunday: working at home, paid employment etc. Is there any specific information in the New Testament that suggest what Christians should or should not do? Are we supposed to obey the Ten Commandments? What does that mean for Christians? The Ten Commandments (Deuteronomy 5 NIV) tells us to: 12 "Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. <Q> Mark 2:27 NIV <S> Then he [Jesus] said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. <S> The Sabbath was made for us to rest. <S> In Genesis it says that God rested on the seventh day, we should likewise also take a day to rest. <A> This is mostly answered in this question , but I will repost the relevant parts. <S> Acts 15:28-29 (NLT) 28 <S> “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay no greater burden on you than these few requirements: 29 You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. <S> If you do this, you will do well. <S> Farewell.” <S> This combined with a part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount makes it even clearer. <S> Matthew 5:17 <S> (NIV) 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. <S> [Emphasis mine.] <S> Thus, Christians are no longer required to keep the Sabbath holy. <S> But, it's still a VERY good idea. <A> The Old Testament day of rest was a prefigure for the rest we have in Christ. <S> As the author of Hebrews says, we "cease from our own works" every day <S> (see Galatians 5:19-21), not just on a particular day of the week. <S> Hebrews 4:8-10 <S> King James Version (KJV) <S> For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. <S> There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. <S> For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. <A> Christians have different views of the applicability of the sabbath. <S> Among those who think it is completely fulfilled and abrogated (e.g., Tom Schreiner , D. A. Carson , etc.), there are no restrictions. <S> Among those who think it is still in force , opinions vary. <S> John Frame says that the emphasis is on physical rest for you and those under your sway -- including family, employees, and workers at stores, though he suggests that food is a necessity <S> someone must prepare and therefore eating out is not verboten. <S> Hence, he suggests ordinary work (paid work, yard work, homework, etc.) and commerce/shopping should not be done (cf. <S> Neh. 13 ). <S> He believes the Bible permits non-commercial recreation, etc., though some stricter adherents to the Westminster Standards argue that it does not do so and that all of the sabbath should be given to study, prayer, and worship. <A> In Colossians 2:16–17 the apostle Paul declares: Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. <S> These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. <S> We are no longer commanded to cease working on the Sabbath. <A> What does the Bible say Christians should or should not do on the Sabbath? <S> There are two reasons that Christians are not required to observe the Sabbath. <S> The first is that it was given as a sign for Israel. <S> Exodus 31:13 <S> Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily <S> my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. <S> The second is that Christians are not under the law. <S> Galatians 5:18 <S> But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
|
The new Testament does not specify that there is anything we , as Christians, should do/not do on the Sabbath.
|
How does the New Testament define a Christian and a non-Christian, a brother in Christ and not a brother in Christ? How does the New Testament define a brother in Christ? According to the New Testament, what makes a human a brother in Christ? And also, according to the New Testament, which people are definitely not Christians, definitely not brothers in Christ? I would want to have a set of key critical conditions-prerequisites (elicited from the New Testament) that would be necessary conditions for a person to be considered a Christian or a brother in Christ (I mean, if a person lacks at least one of those conditions, he is definitely not a Christian and definitely not a brother in Christ) (I am not requesting here others' personal views. I really want to know how this very important matter is presented in the New Testament. This matter is in fact a fundamental matter pertaining to Christian faith. It's not like "Is smoking cigarettes good or bad according to the New Testament?" While smoking may not be an important issue in Christianity, the matter that I am concerned about here definitely is) <Q> Nowhere in the New Testanment is there a clear, condensed definition of a Christian or a Brother in Christ. <S> The definition is written throughout the new testament. <S> But there are a few things which are stated that make it fairly clear. <S> Accepts and follows the Bible, as it's the infallible Word of God. <S> Has faith and trusts God with all his heart. <S> Loves the Lord. <S> Bears fruit (produces positive results) <A> Matthew 16:24-25 (NRSV) <S> Then Jesus told his disciples, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. <S> For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. <S> The two imperatives are "take up your cross" and "follow me." <A> The New Testament gives us a very clear picture of the difference between Christian and a non-Christian in the story below. <S> Jesus here is being crucified and two criminals are being crucified at the same time, on either side of Him. <S> One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? <S> Save yourself and us!” <S> But the other criminal rebuked him. <S> “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? <S> We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. <S> But this man has done nothing wrong.” <S> Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” <S> Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” <S> Luke 23:39-43 <S> My reason for quoting this is that we read here the minimum requirement for becoming a Christian; and it is both necessary and sufficient . <S> It is repenting (being sorry for wrongdoing) and asking Jesus for His mercy. <S> Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. <S> Acts 2:21 <S> That's it: that is the distinction. <S> The other answers here describe the fruit that comes after the decision / change. <S> This is fundamental - we're saved by what He (Jesus) has done, not by what we can do for Him. <S> That's why the criminal here could turn to Jesus in his last moments of life and still enter the same paradise as the very best saint (The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, Matthew 20:1-16 ). <S> If you are interested, I have explained becoming a Christian in my answer to the question, How do you "Convert" somebody to Christianity? <A> The Apostle's Creed should be a basic guideline for what Christians believe, and just because a group chooses to disagree with part doesn't invalidate this, as there are many groups that claimed to be following Jesus but would disagree with some major teaching. <S> Here is an interesting page on the Apostle's Creed , as it shows it in different languages, and if the page is correct the earliest version of this was written before 300AD. <S> For an example of groups that differed from the accepted early teachings you can look at the Great Heresies . <S> On that page there is an explanation how people can differ from traditional teaching and not be a heresy: <S> A person must be baptized to commit heresy. <S> This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. <S> Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism. <S> So, to be Christian you must believe in the Apostle's Creed. <S> For an almost line by line discussion of the Apostle's Creed you can look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church as it will reference not just the Bible but writings of the Early Church Fathers. <S> People will disagree with each other on some teachings, but there are certain core beliefs all should have, but there are also areas that I think should be cut and dried, such as the non-violence teachings of Christ that many people seem to disagree with. <S> Bill Maher summed up this quite well pointing out how some will disagree with what Jesus taught, even though it isn't what I considered core beliefs to be Christian.
|
A Christian can be defined as someone who: Accepts Jesus Christ as the son of God and their Lord and Savior.
|
How do we get morals? The Bible often makes references to the law being written on our hearts, for example: The mouth of the righteous speaks wisdom, And his tongue talks of justice. The law of his God is in his heart; None of his steps shall slide. Psalm 37:30-31 (NKJV) I know it's not being literal when it says the law (morals) are written on our hearts. So how do we get morals? Are we born knowing (genetic?). Is it spiritual and morals aretransmitted to our brains from our spirits? Are they learned from reading the Bible? Are they passed down from generation to generation? Something else? Background (my justification for asking the question) I'm an agnostic atheist and an emotivist. I enjoy watching debates between atheists and theists. The theists frequently ask the atheists: If god isn't real, then how do you know what is right and wrong? Which is a good question, but I rarely hear the reverse asked: If god is real, then how do you know what is right and wrong? Thanks. <Q> If you are asking how is morality defined, or "who decides what is moral and immoral?" <S> then Christians believe that God decides that, and that He makes His will known to us through various means, like the Bible, tradition, revelation, prophets, etc. <S> Various Christian religions dissent on the exact details here. <S> If you are asking how people become moral, then a big, big part of morality comes from education, from family, society, etc. <S> Its also quite evident if you look at different Faiths. <S> Muslims truly consider immoral to eat pigs, whereas Christians wouldn't flinch. <S> If morals were innate we would all share the same morality, which we clearly don't. <A> God has given us a set of guidelines in the Old Testament and solidified them into morals in the New Testament. <S> In the OT we get things like "Do not commit adultery" . <S> But then along comes Jesus and he says something that completely throws the old rules on its head: <S> Matthew 5:27-28 27 <S> “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ <S> 28 <S> But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. <S> He completely topples the old regime and institutes a law of the heart: a law of morality. <S> God actually told Israel that this would happen in the Old Testament: <S> Hebrews 8:8-10 (NIV) 8 <S> But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. <S> 9 <S> It will not be like the covenant <S> I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, <S> and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. <S> 10 <S> This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. <S> I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. <S> I will be their God, and they will be my people. <S> Here, he's saying that his old covenant will pass away and that the new covenant will be one that is written on the hearts of man. <S> He is declaring that the day will come when his laws will not be ones of ink and stone, but ones of the heart: moral laws. <S> So, how does God give us the ability to know right from wrong? <S> He has written those laws on our hearts. <S> Without God, there would be no morality. <S> The bible is quite clear on this. <A> The Euthypro dilemma has bearing on this question. <S> Generally the Christian view has been that we should base our morality not on anything God has arbitrally commanded but rather on Gods character. <S> We should not lie because God cannot lie. <S> Titus 1:2 <S> > <S> > New American Standard Bible (©1995) <S> in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago... <S> He is the moral standard to which we all should strive. <A> This isn't a complete answer, but I think that because humans have free will, certain parts of what is moral and immoral are situational. <S> While we are provided guidelines from the old Law and then in the person of Christ, these guidelines do not form a complete moral law. <S> The rest, provided it does not go against the basis, must be built by the Christians according to their situation. <S> A few thoughts are Consequences of actions are important, and these include eternal consequences <S> We do not always know the full consequence of an action <S> Immoral acts are sometimes 'hand-waved' for the sake of mercy, but this does not make the act permissable <S> There is a hierarchy of values, the highest of which seems to be 'obedience to God' (see the conflict that happens in the Garden of Gethsemane.)
|
Morality is certainly taught and Christ is described as a teacher very clearly in the Gospels.
|
How does the Bible explain the existence of fossils that are millions of years old? People have been finding fossils for many years. Millions of fossils fill museums and storage vaults around the world, and we've yet to find a single one of a human. This suggests that the animals and plants that became fossilised are from a much earlier time than humans ever existed in. How does creationism (and the timeline and events of the bible) explain the existence of fossils? <Q> 2nd Peter 3:8 <S> KJV reads: But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. <S> This is Peter writing to address the questions saying "Where is the Lord? <S> He said he would return soon!" <S> Matthew 13:13 <S> KJV reads: <S> Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. <S> Genesis 1:5 <S> KJV reads (emphasis mine): <S> And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. <S> And the evening and the morning were the first day. <S> Every man understands what a day is. <S> It's possible God revealed this using these words so that even the unlearned (us) could understand the basic ideas of his word throughout the ages. <S> God speaks in parables and metaphors (thanks, Anthony !) <S> because as mortal beings, we are stuck in our own little frames of reference. <S> I don't know exactly what it takes to build a planet from nothing, but from what I've learned in my life it would take a lot of matter, a lot of pressure, and a lot of time. <S> It could very well have taken billions of years, we don't know. <S> As they say, God works in mysterious ways. <A> The Bible does not explain anything about fossils. <S> Fossils were unknown when the Bible was written. <S> Fossils only become an issue if you interpret the Bible to believe that the Earth is younger than the fossil record shows. <S> This is far from the only interpretation of the Bible. <S> The question should be: How do people who believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old explain the existence of fossils. <S> That is far too complicated a question to answer here. <A> OK, real answer for a real question. <S> God's revealed truth transcends time and space and doesn't have anything to do with the pursuit of scientific knowledge. <S> The account of the world's creation, the story of human creation, the details of our fall are told to drive a point about man's relationship with God. <S> Scriptures don't prove that dinosaurs exist. <S> But, God does say in His answer to Job that Job wouldn't want to tangle with any sea monsters. <S> There were creatures (nephilim) who were not quite human in Genesis (Gen 6:4). <S> So you can infer what you like, <S> I personally don't understand either of these passages. <S> God, exists outside of time <S> so we can't comprehend His mysterious ways. <S> The only scientific truth in the Bible is that it rains on the just and the unjust. <S> That is, the only scientific truth in the Bible are tautologies. <A> As for the existence of fossils that are "millions of years old", the dating methods implied are in question by the scientific Christian community. <S> You can find more information about why Christians believe this at creationism sites like http://www.answersingenesis.org/ or http://icr.org . <A> Wouldn't a better question be "how does anything other than the Bible explain the existence of the 'Millions of fossils'?" <S> In order to become fossilized, animals must die in a watery environment and become buried in the mud and silt. <S> A global flood would bury millions of animals in mud and silt, including large animals like dinosaurs. <S> Now as to fossils that are millions of years old, do they say that they are old because they have found evidence that they are(with no contradicting evidence) or because they expect the world to be that old in the first place(to support their other theories) and format their calculations to fit? <A> You say in your question that we are yet to find a single human. <S> This is not true. <S> "Neanderthal man" (men/women) are very human, despite what is often portrayed in popular culture, and for the large part, are fossils. <S> Not all fossils are stone, actually. <S> Many of them still contain tissue, genetic information etc. <S> It is actually just an assumption (intentionally) that they are millions of years old. <S> In reality, the evidence (continuous sedimentary rock layers spanning the entire earth, fossils of various species grouped in herding patterns yet apparently buried together, most fossils being disarticulated, and more) points toward the global flood described in Genesis, which in fact also mentions more than water (potential volcanic and tectonic activity is also inferred, because the fountains of the deep were broken up). <S> It is actually more of a stretch to think that the fossils appear because they are millions of years before us. <S> The very existence of "living fossils" which continue to be discovered over and over, helps to lend to the idea that the species are either contemporaries with mankind, or that we have gotten mixed up somewhere in our thinking to imagine them going extinct millions of years ago. <S> As to whether the Bible explains "millions of years" for fossils: no. <S> It does not indicate that the earth itself is yet that old, and the evidence we have before us actually fits that model <S> (but this is not the place to go into the full details of that). <S> Also, the Bible is a book of science. <S> Just to point out how much so; The original Hebrew scriptures contain not only prophetic codes, but also scientific information. <S> (The Bible codes, much disputed, but very accurate). <S> The Bible is also littered with scientific information: pathways in the sea, the store houses of snow and hail, etc. <S> To cover all, or even a few, would take more time than I have, but of course - the main point is, the Bible is a well rounded book covering all disciplines, because it is the Word of God, and He created all things, and all you need to do, is seek and you will find.
|
The existence of fossils is explained by the world-wide flood in Genesis.
|
Is Christianity an experiential practice? It has been stated to me that Christianity is "experiential" meaning it is experienced and not necessarily understood. Do I have that definition correct? Is this true? <Q> Yes, I think it is. <S> Though, with an emphasis on "necessarily". <S> Well, beyond the core tenants, anyway. <S> If you are a Christian but have never experienced God's love, then something is missing. <S> I'm not talking about charismatic or pentecostal "gifts of the Spirit" <S> , I'm just talking about... feeling that God loves you. <S> Miguel de Unamuno: <S> "Those who believe that they believe in God, but without passion in their hearts, without anguish in mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, without an element of despair even in their consolation, believe only in the God idea, not God Himself” Disclaimer: this is my understanding, and probably mine only. <S> I do not speak for any congregation, demonination, or any other -ation. <A> "Experiential" is inherent to all beliefs to some degree or other, not specific to Christianity. <S> Religion's certainly not empirical if that's what you mean. <S> Whether can be understood without being experienced is up to the individual I think. <S> In my view, in order to fully understand something we need to address its root cause. <S> When the root cause is the mind of God, then it is unknowable and can't be understood. <S> There is no "obviously it's just a given that God exists" axiom unless you approach it from inside the belief system, i.e. experience it. <S> Even science and philosophy have some a priori axioms that we assume because they are either indeterminate or as yet unproven. <S> So there is some degree of faith required for science to work as well, and when the axioms we accept fit with the rest of our experience <S> then it makes sense. <S> Take quantum mechanics or big bang cosmology as an example: <S> It's understood in the sense that there is a working theory that explains how the system behaves, and it fits our models and experiments. <S> It's not experiential because it's very counterintuitive to our experience at human scale. <S> For most people these can't be understood through theory or experienced in nature. <S> I think it's an interesting counterpoint. <A> As Blessed Mother Teresa is a good Christian soldier, I would have to say no. <S> She had faith, she loved and she hoped in her Redeemer, but for almost 50 years she did not 'feel' Christ's presence in her life . <S> As St. Paul says , there are many charisms , but one Lord. <S> Since not every Christian is given the grace of experiencing the Spirit. <S> If Christianity is indeed accessible to all , then it is not experiential.
|
Christianity is a journey, it is an encounter with our Creator and Redeemer , it is not primarily experiential, although there are charismatic movements within Christianity that focus on the experience and the gifts of the Holy Spirit which can be experienced.
|
Do angels have free will? I believe we have free will and that God has free will. It would seem Lucifer also had free will. Do all angels have free will as we do? <Q> Revelation 12 describes the fall of the angels: <S> Revelation 12 7 <S> Then war broke out in heaven. <S> Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. <S> 8 <S> But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. <S> 9 <S> The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. <S> He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. <S> It seems to my limited reasoning faculty, that it would not be possible for the "dragon" and his angels to make war on God and be cast out of heaven without them exercising their will independently of God's. <S> Furthermore, Isaiah describes self-will as the cause of the devil's fall: Isaiah 14:12 ff <S> 12 <S> How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of thedawn! <S> You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laidlow the nations! <S> 13 <S> You said in your heart, “I will ascend to theheavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; <S> I willsit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights ofMount Zaphon. <S> 14 <S> I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; Iwill make myself like the Most High.” <S> That's a lot of "I will" statements, for someone without one. <S> Why some of the angels rebelled and others did not (and do not), is a mystery. <S> But you must be careful not to conflate independent will with a natural inclination to sin - for example, God has perfectly independent will, but it's not within his perfect nature to sin (indeed, since sin is fundamentally asserting your will over God's it's not possible by very definition for him to sin). <A> Angels do, or at least did have free will. <S> Some have taken up a misconception that angels are like God's robots and do only what He wants them to. <S> However, if that was the case, Lucifer could not have rebelled against God, nor could 1/3 of the angels of Heaven rebel with him. <S> It was not God's desire for them to rebel anymore than it is His desire for us to rebel. <S> It was not God's desire for angels to mate with humans, but they did(Genesis 6:1-8). <S> Furthermore, what is commonly known as "the Lord's prayer" isn't a very good reference for God's will always being done in Heaven. <S> When Jesus gave that outline for prayer, sure. <S> Now, sure. <S> But always from the beginning? <S> No. <S> God is the same and changes not, but that doesn't mean Heaven doesn't change, nor does it mean His angels don't. <S> In fact, we know Heaven was created(Genesis 1:1), and we know it will pass away(Matthew 5:18), and will be re-created(2 <S> Peter 3:13). <S> While, this is an interesting topic, it is yet trivial compared to the importance of man's salvation. <S> Many times we get cought up on a subject like this, rather than focusing on the souls of men. <A> Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. <S> Thy kingdom come. <S> Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. <S> Give us this day our daily bread. <S> And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. <S> And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: <S> For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. <S> Amen. <S> I've quoted this from the King James Version, since that's the version most people know this passage from. <S> Jesus says in His prayer that God's will is done in Heaven. <S> This would imply to me that nothing outside God's will is done in Heaven, and that therefore the angels do not have free will. <S> This position stems a larger debate, though, because if it was God's will for Lucifer to rebel, which led to the fall of man, then ultimately the fall of man was by God's design. <S> I recognize that many disagree with that theory. <S> Ultimately, I believe that one can only reasonably state that man has free will if you agree that the angels also have free will, otherwise you must agree that neither have free will. <S> I do not see a meshing point where angels have free will and man does not, nor do I see a point where man has free will and angels <S> do not.
|
Lucifer and his angels do indeed appear to have independent will.
|
Was Jesus recorded on the census? I've heard before that Jesus was recorded on the census that is mentioned in Luke 2:1 , and that his name was the last name recorded. I've also heard that Herod would then use this census when he ordered the killing of the children ( Mat 2:16 .) Is there any proof that has survived on this, and if it did, are we able to see his name still recorded on the census? <Q> This is actually a curious question. <S> Wikipedia actually suggests the existence of the census is in doubt. <S> In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the birth of Jesus to a "worldwide census" in which individuals had to return to their ancestral cities. <S> Jesus' parents, Joseph and Mary, travel from their home in Nazareth, Galilee, to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born. <S> This explains how Jesus, a Galilean, could have been born in Bethlehem in Judea, the city of King David. <S> No other record of such a census exists, and the idea of everyone in the Roman Empire returning to an ancestral city for a census is questioned by scholars.[3][4] <S> The Gospel of Matthew has a different birth narrative, with Jesus' birth taking place during the life of Herod the Great, who died c. 4 BC. <S> Bible scholars have traditionally sought to reconcile these accounts; while most current scholars regard this as an error by the author of the Gospel of Luke,[5] thus casting doubt on the Historical reliability of the Gospels. <S> Thus there is obviously no physical record of the census documents. <S> Therefore it would be impossible to know if Jesus was counted among them, or was the last one mentioned. <A> Well, there's no record that Jesus (or Mary or Joseph) were actually counted in the census. <S> However, there is evidence that they fled the city: <S> Matthew 2:13-15 13 <S> When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. <S> “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. <S> Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” <S> 14 <S> So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. <S> And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son. <S> My guess is that they probably weren't part of the "head count", but fled the city instead. <A> There is no surviving Roman census document that lists Jesus. <S> But this isn't particularly surprising: most such ancient documents don't survive. <S> It's not like we have a copy of the census rolls <S> and they jump from "Jeremiah" to "Jethro" with Jesus glaringly omitted. <S> The rolls of that census no longer exist. <S> We do have surviving copies of a book by Tertullian, "An Answer to the Jews", written ca AD 197, in which he makes a brief mention, when describing Jesus's background, "As, among the Romans, Mary is described in the census, of whom is born Christ." <S> Similarly, in his book "Against Marcion", he mentions Jesus's "enrolment in the census of Augustus— that most faithful witness of the Lord's nativity, kept in the archives of Rome". <S> He makes these statements in a very straightforward and confidant way -- no weasle words like "these records are probably there" or "they were there at one time". <S> There's a pretty clear implication that anyone who wants to check up on his facts could do so. <S> If he was just making this up, he was a great bluffer. <S> He would have made an excellent poker player. <S> Tertullian was the son of a Roman centurion and there is some evidence that he himself was a lawyer, so he might well have seen the census documents himself or spoken to someone who had. <A> Jesus and his disciples were ‘idiotes’ (Private Persons) and ‘agrammatos’ (unregistered), not enrolled in civil contracts. <S> The reason why they paid the temple tax was because of Peter’s ‘affirmation’ that his master did. <S> Yet Jesus instructed him that they were exempted from it. <S> Nevertheless He paid due to Peter’s affirmation. <S> His kingdom was not OF this Kosmos (constitutional order) <S> therefore had the authority to establish another Kingdom appointing IT to his assigned Embassadors (apostolos) <S> "And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;" (Luk 22:29) If He or his apostles would have been enrolled or subject to The Roman Principate, he would have not the authority to establish another form of government. <S> (See Church in Black’s Law Dictionary )
|
While there is a recorded history of the census (in the Bible), there's no indication that Jesus or his parents were counted.
|
What is theistic evolution? Theistic evolution sounds similar to Old Earth Creationism . Both ideas start with the premise that God created. After this, I've heard tale of wars fought between the two camps. What is the gist of the differences between these two ideas? <Q> Theistic evolution (TE) is the belief that we should look to the Bible to learn about God, and rely on scientists to inform us about science. <S> As someone once put it, "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven; science tells us how the heavens go. <S> Science can give us the age of rocks; the Bible can give us the Rock of Ages." <S> This view holds that there is no conflict between faith and science regardless of the conclusions the scientists reach . <S> This viewpoint has been labeled "theistic evolution" because about 98% or 99% of all scientists in the life science fields accept evolution as the best theory to explain the variety of life forms found on our planet. <S> TE differs from old earth creationism (OEC) in <S> that OEC generally accepts modern geology and cosmology but not evolution. <S> TE differs from intelligent design (ID) in that ID proponents hold that science can uncover ways in which God is active in the creation process; TE proponents hold that God has been active, but can accept the "how" of God's involvement as a mystery. <A> There are a few ways in which Evolution might be understood "theistically": <S> God might have worked via guided evolution, ensuring that the appropriate mutations and/or environments arose to reach a particular end. <S> God might have created the first life, and then "set it loose", with random mutation doing the rest. <S> God's work might have simply been to create the world in such a way that life itself would arise (and evolve, adapt, etc.) <S> according to chance and the laws of nature. <S> I believe that most people who call themselves "Theistic Evolutionists" would go with #3 (Howard Van Till calls this " Fully gifted creation "), although I don't see any reason the term couldn't be applied to those who believe in #1 or #2. <A> My understanding is that strictly speaking, Old Earth Creationism is the idea of an instant creation, albeit as old as perhaps radiometric dating suggests, whereas Theistic Evolution posits that Evolution did occur (thus all life originated from a single cell, perhaps) and the individual kinds emerged over time, and that this process was either started by, or continually overseen and guided by, God. <A> To answer the title question, Theistic Evolution is the belief that God guides the evolutionary process, and that this guidance better explains weaknesses in current evolutionary theory. <S> Theistic Evolution presumes an Old Earth, but Old Earth Creationism does not presume Theistic Evolution, as OEC also allows both for traditional evolution <S> (that God is more of a watch-maker, and did not intervene in the natural selection process after creation) and for no evolution at all (that individual species were created by God at the appropriate times in history) depending on who you talk to.
|
Theistic Evolution is the belief that God created life via the evolutionary process as it is understood today by modern science.
|
What happens to marriage on the New Earth I think I can safely say that humans were designed not to operate as a single solitary person but as part of a unit of two -- both as referenced by Gen 3:16-17 (see mentions of husband and wife in said passages) and ingrained feelings that appear to be a part of every person I know of (near as I can tell anyway...). However, there also seems to be support for there being no marriage after we are resurrected in Matthew 22:30 . Can someone clear up my confusion on this topic? <Q> Putting the verse you just cited (Matthew 22:30) back into context will clear up a bit of your confusion. <S> First of all, the question was posed by the Jewish leaders about tedious Jewish customs in an attempt to catch Jesus off guard, as they frequently tried to do. <S> The chapter even goes as far as to specify that they were Sadducees, which did not even believe in the resurrection. <S> Furthermore, Christ's answer that they will not be married nor given in marriage refers to this contrived example (if you look at the KJV translation, it says " <S> they" rather than "people") and not to couples in general. <S> So this verse does not provide much support against marriage after the resurrection. <S> My experience is that most Christians agree that marriage between husband and wife is ordained by God...at least for this mortal life. <S> The Bible does not say much else about marriage after death, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus among the various denominations as to the state of marriage after death. <A> Another great question! <S> You're right in your assumptions that there is no marriage after we die. <S> On top of Matthew 22:30 (which personally I think is quite plain), there is 1 Cor. <S> 7:39: <S> " A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes.. " and also in Eph. <S> 5:31: <S> " For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh .". <S> The keyword here being flesh of course. <S> Not only does the Bible speak of sex here, but it talks about a covenant that is bound by the flesh. <S> Marriage is an earthly symbol that represents a heavenly perfection. <S> The marriage between God and man. <S> We-as the bride of Christ-are betrothed to Him forever. <S> That is the only marriage that will continue throughout eternity. <S> What would be the purpose of marriage in eternity? <S> If we read 1 Cor. <S> 7 <S> we realize that people are given in marriage because of the desires of the flesh (7:2, 7:9, 7:36). <S> In eternity we will a spiritual body much like our current body, but totally different at the same time. <S> Insead of a person that's ruled by our flesh we will be a people ruled by our spirits (by the Holy Spirit). <S> 1 Cor. <S> 15:44 says, " It (our bodies) is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. <S> There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. ". <S> In the book of Revelations John pains a beautiful picture of the Church as the Bride of Christ. <S> That marriage is finally consummated symbolically when Jesus returns. <S> There is even a marriage supper! <S> In the age to come we won't be serving ourselves in everyday life, but Jesus. <S> We will fully be given to Him. <S> If we think that spending eternity serving Jesus is going to be boring then we probably have some theology wrong. <S> The Creator of the universe in all His majesty comes and lives with us. <S> He makes His home here. <S> God with man- the ultimate act of humility and intimacy. <A> HI I don't know if the old marriage laws will hold true. <S> But I believe we will be able to make a better covenant with our spouses if we are truly soul mates and made for each other. <S> I don't beleive for one minute that the relationship we cultivated in marriage will simply disappear and not matter. <S> I can't imagine not being bonded to my spouse in eternity even in the event that one of us should die. <S> In my heart there is no better match for me out there <S> and I believe that will continue throughout eternity. <S> So I believe we will continue to have relationships with our loved ones, whether they be family, friends or spouses. <A> 1) <S> In the resurrection it is our flesh that is raised up out of the grave. <S> We don't get some other body to replace it so any covenant in our flesh <S> (ie: with our spouse) will likely still remain (One Flesh). <S> 2) <S> In Mat 22:29 when Jesus said "You are ignorant of the law" he may have been referring to Deut 24:4 which would clearly states that the others "may not take her again to be his wife". <S> So the last of the seven men would be her husband. <S> The the others "may not take her again to be his wife". <S> 3) <S> In 1 Cor 6:16-20 it is mentioned that in the resurrection we are "raised up by his own power" then it says that we should not fornicate because "he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. <S> What? <S> Know <S> yea <S> not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost". <S> My point is that once resurrected we are are still effected by our sexual union in our flesh, which brings me to point number 4. <S> 4) <S> Rev 14:4 <S> The 144,000 male virgins that will be set apart unto Christ after the first resurrection are said to be "not defiled with women", which makes little sense if our bodies are remade with no union with which to be defiled by. <S> These are the few scriptures that I hope answer this question.
|
Marriage is an earthly covenant set in place by God and is terminated when the flesh dies (death).
|
Why was Thomas More canonized? Thomas More was canonized in 1935 by the Catholic Church. During his chancellorship between 1525-1529 in the campaign against the reformation people were killed and tortured in his name, for example, for the crime of owning an English Bible, something that is quite normal nowadays. For what reasons do the Catholic Church justify his canonization? <Q> The closest I can find to an answer to this question is in the final paragraph of this article , which says: More was beatified by Pope Leo XIII in 1886, along with other English martyrs, and canonized in 1935. <S> Had he never met death for the faith <S> he still would have been a candidate for canonization as a confessor. <S> From first to last his life was singularly pure, lived in the spirit of his own prayer: "Give me, good Lord, a longing to be with Thee; not for the avoiding of the calamities of this wicked world, nor so much for the avoiding the pains of purgatory, nor the pains of Hell neither, nor so much for the attaining of the joys of Heaven in respect of mine own commodity, as even for a very love of Thee." <S> (Emphasis mine.) <S> The implication here is that he was canonized because of his martyrdom, but that even if he had not been a martyr, he may still have been canonized. <S> This source also supports the theory that he was canonized for his martyrdom: <S> St. Thomas <A> There are two additional reasons for More's canonization. <S> The first reason is that the Vatican wished to support English Roman Catholics over against the Church of England. <S> The second reason had to do with the times. <S> In 1935, when More was canonized, Hitler had been in power for two years. <S> More, in this context, was a great example of a layman standing up for his faith and resisting tyranny. <S> It was a way of encouraging German Catholics to do the same. <A> he steadfastly refused to take the oath of supremacy of the Crown in the relationship between the Kingdom and the Church in England. <S> Holding fast to the ancient teaching of Papal supremacy, More refused to take the oath and furthermore publicly refused to uphold Henry's annulment from Catherine. <S> John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, refused the oath along with More. <S> The oath reads: ... <S> By reason whereof the Bishop of Rome and See Apostolic, contrary to the great and inviolable grants of jurisdictions given by God immediately to emperors, kings and princes in succession to their heirs, hath presumed in times past to invest who should please them to inherit in other men's kingdoms and dominions, which thing we your most humble subjects, both spiritual and temporal, do most abhor and detest; Because of this, he was then charged with high treason, and was convicted, and consequently, decapitated. <S> I suppose, the Catholics believed this to be "martyrdom" as More stood for his beliefs rather than compromise, even on pain of death, and so, they canonized him. <S> That, is a possible reason. <S> Edit: This is not the sole reason he was canonized. <S> This, can be combined with the fact that he had great reputation: The steadfastness and courage with which More held on to his religious convictions in the face of ruin and death and the dignity with which he conducted himself during his imprisonment, trial, and execution, contributed much to More's posthumous reputation, particularly among Catholics. <A> Catholics argue that More was not guilty of the torture that he was accused of. <S> In this article, scroll down to the "Smear Campaign" section that speaks about it. <S> My understanding is that most of the surviving historical records of the time, were written by More's enemies (and executioners) who would have been very much slanted in their accounts, dubious at best. <S> And that the records that indicate that he killed and tortured in the name of the church were only recorded by a handful people. <S> With the entire political system being turned on it's head by Henry at that time, there would have been plenty of motive to falsely accuse someone seen as a martyr for the opposing side. <A> Quite simply, because he fulfilled the requirements of canonization, described here. <S> It appears that the main reason for them opening the canonization proceedings for More was his martyrdom: <S> More was beatified by Pope Leo XIII in 1886, along with other English martyrs, and canonized in 1935. <S> Had he never met death for the faith <S> he still would have been a candidate for canonization as a confessor. <S> From first to last his life was singularly pure, lived in the spirit of his own prayer: "Give me, good Lord, a longing to be with Thee; not for the avoiding of the calamities of this wicked world, nor so much for the avoiding the pains of purgatory, nor the pains of Hell neither, nor so much for the attaining of the joys of Heaven in respect of mine own commodity, as even for a very love of Thee." <S> Source: St. Thomas More.
|
More ... [was] canonized for his unfailing devotion. Anglican-RC relations at this time were very frosty; and because More had defended papal (as against royal) supremacy in the church, and died for his conviction, he qualified as a martyr. One reason could be because he was "martyred" :
|
What is the Biblical basis against inter-faith marriages? Setting aside marriages of couples from two different Christian denominations, what passages in the New Testament prohibit a Christian from marrying a non-Christian? I believe that the Old Testament prohibits Jews from marrying non-Jews, but I am interested in answers relating to Christians specifically. <Q> 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 is often understood to prohibit the marriage of Christians with non-Christians: <S> Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. <S> For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? <S> Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? <S> What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? <S> Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? <A> A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. <S> But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, <S> but he must belong to the Lord . <S> This verse talks for a woman who wish to get married again but the principle is the same for anyone. " <S> Belong to the Lord" means to be a Christian. <A> 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 is generally cited in such cases: <S> Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? <S> Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? <S> Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? <S> For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. " <S> Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. <S> "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you. " <S> And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me," Says the Lord Almighty. <S> And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. <S> For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. <S> Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. <S> For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? <S> Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
|
If one member of an "interfaith" marriage were to be saved after getting married, then it would be that spouse's duty to continue to witness to their unbelieving mate: 1 Corinthians 7:12b-16 : that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. A verse which is used widely is 1 Corinthians 7:39
|
Does the Bible give any reason as to why its content is sometimes difficult to interpret? As evidenced by this site, and the divisions between various Christian denominations, there seems to be a lot of different ways some passages in the bible can be interpreted. One example is Chronicles 16:30: "Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved." For hundreds of years (and still some today) some Christians interpreted this to mean the earth is the center universe and does not move. So is there anything in the Bible that clearly states why some passages are written in such a way as to potentiate interpretation? If not, is there anything in the Bible that may even suggest or hint at why this is, or perhaps a story alluding to this like someone navigating a task though directed by unclear instructions? <Q> Yes, absolutely First understand these premises, earthly wisdom and Godly wisdom. <S> James 3:14-15 <S> (NIV) <S> 14 <S> But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts,do not boast about it or deny the truth. <S> 15 Such “wisdom” does notcome down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. <S> James 3:17 <S> (NIV) <S> 17 <S> But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; thenpeace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit,impartial and sincere. <S> This is the answer to your question <S> Isaiah was commissioned by God to go and rebuke a wicked people and deliver this curse to them. <S> Isaiah 6:9-10 <S> NIV 9 <S> He said, “Go and tell this people: “‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, butnever perceiving.’ <S> 10 Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. <S> Otherwise theymight see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understandwith their hearts, and turn and be healed.” <S> Wicked people and the wisdom of this world <S> God has purposely shut off the understanding of His word to the common man. <S> Because of that mans wickedness he will never know the truth about God. <S> But if that man turns from his wickedness, repents, and has faith in Jesus Christ, then God will open the flood gates of wisdom so that you may understand His word. <S> Ephesians 4:18 <S> They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the lifeof God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardeningof their hearts. <S> Children of God <S> God promises a wealth of understanding when He gives you the Holy Spirit. <S> Ephesians 1:8 that he lavished on us. <S> With all wisdom and understanding, Isaiah 11:2 <S> The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and ofunderstanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of theknowledge and fear of the LORD <S> — Colossians 1:9 <S> ... <S> We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledgeof his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spiritgives, <A> This is different from claiming to be a "christian." <S> 1Co <S> 2:14 <S> But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. <S> Joh 16:13 Howbeit <S> when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but <S> whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and <S> he will shew you things to come. <S> If you are not willing to do God's will (give up sin and follow Christ), you cannot possibly know doctrine: <S> Joh <S> 7:17 <S> If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. <S> So, basically sin is at the root of most, if not all, misinterpretations. <A> Certainly the apostle Peter found Paul's letters hard to understand: He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. <S> His letters contain some things that are hard to understand , which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. <S> 2 <S> Peter 3:16 <A> A large part of it is that the Bible wasn't written for us. <S> The various books were written by people thousands of years ago, for their own contemporaries. <S> There are a few passages about preserving knowledge and laws for posterity, but in general it was written by, to and for people of ancient cultures. <S> A lot of it is still 100% valid, since it deals with basic human nature, which doesn't change with time. <S> But a lot of it deals with culture , which does change. <S> To give just one example, the Bible forbids the eating of blood in very specific and clear terms. <S> The council in Acts 15 makes it clear that this prohibition still applies to Christians. <S> But the Bible doesn't say anything about blood transfusions, for the very simple reason that the technology for it did not exist until recently. <S> So what to do about them? <S> Some Christian churches are silent on the matter. <S> Others, placing a high value on healing and the preservation and improvement of human life, actively support and help to organize blood drives. <S> Others, though, interpret the prohibition against eating blood more broadly than what is literally written, stating that it is wrong to take blood that is not your own into your body, even through other means than eating/drinking, and therefore blood transfusions are a violation of the law. <S> And with so much interpretation going on, some people try to squeeze in even more reinterpreting to get otherwise-clear passages to fit their agenda. <S> (See for example the various "is X a sin?" questions, and count how many of them actually mean "can I get away with doing X even though it's generally/frequently considered to be a sin?")
|
Probably the biggest thing is, you cannot rightly understand before you have been born of God. Anywhere where the words of the Bible are not perfectly clear and completely applicable to some modern concept, people will find a need to interpret them.
|
Will there be a second chance for salvation after the Rapture? Does the Bible say anything about there being a second chance for salvation after the time of rapture? I would assume that God is doing this rapture so that people would recognize Him and repent. But I don't have a Biblical basis for my assumptions. <Q> For starters, the Bible doesn't contain the word "rapture" nor does it clearly state that such an event will happen. <S> Different people have read between the lines to infer a rapture at different points in the book of Revelation, but it is not clearly stated anywhere. <A> However it does state that we will be caught up with Him and He will return (1 Thes. <S> 4:17). <S> Also if there was a second chance He would have to go back to the beginning of time and give everyone a second chance. <S> Now do you think that he will allow those who chose Hell for not believing in Christ to change their mind? <S> No <S> He won't you make your choice while you are here and when He does return it will be too late to make that choice <A> If the Rapture takes place in Revelation 7:9-17 according to the Pre-wrth Rapture viewpoint, then there will be no further salvation. <S> The Pre-wrath Rapture takes away the remaining saved; what's left is God's wrath in the trumpet and the bowl judgments. <S> (That's why it's called the "Pre-wrath" Rapture.) <S> During those judgments, it never tells us of people repenting. <S> Rather, they "will desire to die" ( 9:6 ); "they did not repent" ( 9:21 ); "blasphemed the name of God" ( 16:9 ); "blasphemed the God of heaven" ( 16:11 ); and gathered "them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty" ( 16:14 ). <S> So the Bible gives us a dim view of the possibility of salvation when He pours out His wrath. <S> What's left of humanity after the Rapture will receive His "true and righteous ... judgments" ( 16:7 ).
|
Since the Bible doesn't clearly state that there will be a Rapture and those who believe that it will happen disagree significantly on when it will happen, the only clear answer that can be given to your question is: "No, the Bible does not make a clear statement about there being a second chance for salvation after the time of rapture."
|
Do Christians regard speaking in tongues as necessary? I have heard that some Christians consider it the only sure sign of having received the Holy Spirit, which would seem quite important. If not generally, which groups hold to this belief, and in what way do they consider it necessary? And secondly, does Christian tradition back up this belief? What evidence is there? <Q> Also, I would question if someone is truly speaking in tongues when they claim to be. <S> Can people speak in tongues today? <S> I have seen people who would claim they were speaking in tongues, but there was no one there to interpret. <S> Paul lists speaking in tongues as one of the spiritual gifts, but he does say that they are distributed as God determines, not necessarily as we want them. <S> 1 <S> Corinthians 12:7-11 (NIV) 7 <S> Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for thecommon good. <S> 8 <S> To one there is given through the Spirit a message ofwisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing bythat one Spirit, 10 to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy,to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking indifferent kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretationof tongues. <S> 11 <S> All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and hedistributes them to each one, just as he determines. <S> 1 Corinthians 12:27-30 <S> (NASB) <S> 27 <S> Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. <S> 28 <S> AndGod has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets,third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps,administrations, various kinds of tongues. <S> 29 <S> All are not apostles,are they? <S> All are not prophets, are they? <S> All are not teachers, arethey? <S> All are not workers of miracles, are they? <S> 30 <S> All do not havegifts of healings, do they? <S> All do not speak with tongues, do they?All do not interpret, do they? <A> The sure sign of having the Holy Spirit is affirming the Lordship of Jesus. <S> 1Co <S> 12:3 NIV <S> Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. <S> As to the second part of your question regarding the justification for the belief that speaking in tongues is the sure sign of having the Holy Spirit, I can only speculate. <S> Paul has a long discourse regarding this gift, and perhaps his emphasis has led some to believe it is the most important of the spiritual gifts, and give it undue status. <S> I don't find any Scriptural basis for believing it is the definitive sign. <A> The only group I am aware of who see speaking in tongues as necessary to salvation are the United Pentecostal Churches, which teach some other doctrines most Christians would disagree with. <S> For example, they are deny the Trinity and teach that there is only one person in the Godhead who appears in different forms at different times, whereas the Trinity teaches there are three persons in one being known as God. <S> All other Pentecostals and Charismatics, to my knowledge, teach that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ alone. <S> The baptism of the Holy Spirit (in which one receives the speaking in tongues for the first time) is seen as a second event, unnecessary to salvation but important for Christian maturity. <S> This can be seen in the New Testament. <S> The disciples received the Holy Spirit in the book of John after the Resurrection. <S> They were not baptized with and filled with the Holy Spirit until Pentecost several weeks later in Acts 2. <S> Its the same today. <S> Every Christian receives the Holy Spirit at salvation (when the accept Christ's death and resurrection as atoning for their sins and adopting us as children of God), but are not filled with the Holy Spirit until the baptism of the Holy Spirit. <S> Whether one has been baptized with the Holy Spirit or not, though, does not determine if they are saved.
|
No, I do not believe that this is the only sure sign of the Holy Spirit.
|
Who bought the Field of Blood, Judas or the Priests? This is similar to another question "How did Judas Die" , but is specifically addressing another aspect of the story. In Matthew we have the priests purchasing the field: Matthew 27:5-7 (NASB) 5 And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6 The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, “It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood.” 7 And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers. And in Acts we have Judas purchasing it: Acts 1:16-18 (NASB) 16 “Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17 For he was counted among us and received his share in this ministry.” 18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. This seems a clear contradiction in the New Testament. What is going on here? <Q> They both did - it just depends on perspective for application of the word "bought". <S> It was Judas' money, and it was the priests who used the money he returned to them to buy the field. <S> They bought the field because they could not accept blood money and return it to the temple treasury. <S> In essence, the priests bought the field on behalf of Judas. <S> This is just like when my mother would give me money to go to the store to buy some groceries; we both bought the groceries - I did the physical act and she did through providing the financial resource (and, back in the day of single income families, so did my Dad in earning the income to begin with). <A> In many languages today there is the equivalent of the English word "acquire. <S> " In Russian "priobrel" means acquire - in contrast "buy" in Russian would be kupit . <S> In Azerbaijani language for "buy" we use a word "almaq" which has many meanings like buy, take, gain. <S> This word acquire in the original Greek does not necessarily mean that someone put down real money on the counter and got something in exchange for it. <S> Now what was Judas doing on that land? <S> He was angry with what happened, he understood how he was fooled by the Pharisees, and could not believe his foolishness. <S> It happens to all of us. <S> In the heat of our passions, envy or some other feelings we do something stupid, and then like in the Azeri saying -- <S> let the earth swallow me -- feelings rush in. <S> With that perspective, a very human reaction, Judas wanted to do two things on the land: 1. <S> to kill himself; 2. <S> to also disgrace the place Pharisees gave him, in an attempt to disgrace Pharisees too. <A> The ESV Study Bible includes this note about the purchase of the property in the Acts <S> account: <S> That is, the field was acquired indirectly by Judas, through the agency of the chief priests. <S> As Matt. <S> 27:3–7 records, Judas brought the 30 pieces of silver back to the chief priests and elders. <S> The chief priests then purchased the potter’s field with Judas’s money, with the same effect as if Judas had himself made the purchase. <S> The verse in Matthew uses the word ἀγοράζω <S> (transliterated agorazō , strongs #59) which is translated consistently as "buy" or "purchase" through 27 places in the NT. <S> 3 more instances in Revelation are translated "redeem" or "ransom" which certainly carries the same general idea. <S> A further examination of the verse in Acts shows that the Greek word used is κτάομαι (transliterated ktaomai , strongs #2932). <S> The other places it occurs in scripture are translated in the ESV as " acquire ", " get ", " gain ", " obtain ", " bought " and even " control ". <S> It seems quite likely that the word could be used for something acquired through a transaction in which you used your own money, but it quite often used for other ways of coming into possession or control. <S> It seems quite probably that the two verses can be indeed be reconciled as the note above suggests. <S> The Chief Priests did the buying but somehow Judas came to use the land. <S> Whether the Priests deeded it to him as part of the purchase or he was only squatting on it out of some morbid interest in seeing what happened to his money -- or some other explanation -- is not stated. <S> There does not appear to be a real conflict between these two statements.
|
To make the long story short, the Scriptures show that the Priests bought it, and so Judas gained or acquired it.
|
How old is the Old Testament? How old is the Old Testament and, like the New Testament, are there multiple versions (i.e. - according to Matthew, Mark, Luke & John)? <Q> There are not multiple versions of the new Testament. <S> There is one version. <S> The first four books happen to be four different accounts of the the same series of events but there are 27 books in total. <S> How were the books of the New Testament chosen? <S> When was the OT canon as used by Protestants finalized? <S> There are a few passages where the same story is told more than once for the purpose of recording it from a different perspective, such as in the books of Kings and Chronicals. <S> On another note, the Old Testament is devoted to foreshadowing Christ. <S> In that sense all the stories, all the crazy history of Israel and all the prophets are all telling the same story. <S> Really the best way to get your head around this is to read it through, then ask more questions about what it all means. <A> The Old Testament (or Old Covenant) <S> dates was written over a period of at least 1,000 years, beginning possibly around 1500 <S> B.C. Genesis may be the compilation of writings dating back much further, and that could increase the age to the time of Abraham (2000 B.C.), or even Noah (2500 B.C.) or even Adam (4,000 B.C.). <S> The last Old Testament writings occurred close to 500 B.C. <S> (This is excluding aprocryphal or inter-testamental works). <S> Are there multiple versions? <S> No. <S> I would say, though, that some retelling of stories does occur in 1 & 2 Chronicles of events that are recorded in 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. <S> Deuteronomy is a summary of the exodus of the Israelites throughout Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. <S> Psalm 78 retells a brief history of the Jewish people as well. <S> These "retellings" are all complementary and not contradictory. <S> Regarding Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it's necessary to mention that these are not four contradictory version, but four complementary accounts. <S> We need to ask the question of what it would be like if they were all identical. <S> In that case, there would be only one account and not four, so four identical accounts is of no value. <S> Four accounts that tell contradictory accounts of the life of Jesus <S> (i.e. one says He was stoned, another says He was beaten to death <S> , a third says He was crucified, and the fourth says He never died) would render at least three of the accounts false. <S> However, four complementary accounts give corroboratory evidence to the events recorded therein. <S> Again if four eyewitnesses in a court of law say precisely the same thing and remember everything each other does, we would conclude they got together to get their story straight. <S> If their stories recount contradictory facts, then they are lying. <S> Yet, if they include different details from each other, but all of their stories fit together, then this is strong evidence that the story is true. <S> So, the Old Testament is like this in its retelling, and the New Testament is like that as well. <A> First of all we must understand that there are no answer concerning the dating of OT texts that everybody agrees upon. <S> Second, there is a difference between the time of the events and the time of writing down those events in their final form . <S> Before the invention of the printing press societies relied more on oral traditions, which science has proven can convey messages verbatim across several generations with equal precision as hand-written manuscripts. <S> Third, the texts in themselves are quite silent about their authors. <S> It is never even stated that Moses wrote the complete texts of the Pentateuch, even if that tradition is strong. <S> I seriously doubt that Henok or Noah spoke biblical Hebrew or that even Abraham did. <S> Thus the exact words that speak about the occurrences in Genesis did probably not take shape until after the invention of the oldest form of the Hebrew alphabet. <S> Weighing all things together my estimation is that the earliest parts of the Bible probably were put down during the time of Moses, but most of it were written after the exile, probably by Esra and a few learned friends of his. <S> However, there is not a single piece of my faith that is shaken if evidence would appear that alters my tentative dating of the texts. <S> As for versions, some events are told twice or even more times. <S> The creation is described twice in the first 2 chapters of Genesis and then there are some texts describing creation in the Psalms. <S> Deuteronomy = " <S> the second (deuter) law (nomia)" retells the events in the desert. <S> Chronicles retells some of the events from Kings. <S> And yet a few events are depicted again in the Prophets. <S> However, the Christ event is unique and of far greater importance than anything told in the OT. <S> It is thus only natural that we get a description from more angles.
|
No, there is nothing equivalent to the four perspectives of the Gospel books in the Old testament, there is just one collection of books, accepted by both Christianity and Judaism , compiled in their present form in about 450BC then canonized in about 200BC but was written over a period of several thousand years before that and having gone through several redactions.
|
Is there a name for believing but not obeying? Although it is a theoretical question, it is still very interesting for me. Is there a system of beliefs or at least a name for people who believe in the existence of God and that events described in the Bible did take place, but refuse to obey God and his commandments? <Q> Deism <S> (i/ˈdiːɪzəm/ US dict: <S> dē′·ĭzm) in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is a creation and has a creator. <S> Furthermore, the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. <S> Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") does not alter the universe by (regularly or ever) intervening in the affairs of human life. <S> This idea is also known as the Clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. <S> Deists believe in the existence of a god without any reliance on revealed religion, religious authority or holy books . <S> Two main forms of deism currently exist: classical deism and modern deism. <S> What I think the OP is asking for is a scholarly term to describe someone who believes that God exists, but denies that God is actively involved with his creation in any meaningful way. <S> Such a disinterested God would not issue any "rules" for his created beings to obey. <S> Further, such a person would deny that the Bible (or any religious text) is in any way a communication from God and would feel, therefore, no obligation to it's moral, ethical or sociopolitical code. <S> The definition of Deist seems to fit that rather well. <A> Antinomian would be pretty close, I would think. <S> Basically, it's the belief that since grace is applied in spite of a person's obedience, then the person is no longer obliged to be obedient. <S> (Paul alludes to this attitude in Romans 6:15 as it does seem a logical conclusion of the Gospel, but he quickly dismisses it as a viable appreach with an unequivocal " <S> By no means!") <A> They're normally referred to as religious moderates. <S> They like to claim to be more "sophisticated" than religious fundamentalists (and atheists). <S> But how does one become a sophisticated believer? <S> By acknowledging just how dubious many of the claims of scripture are, and thereafter reading it selectively, bowdlerizing it if need be, and allowing its assertions about reality to be continually trumped by fresh insights? <S> Scientific: "You mean the earth isn't 6,000 years old? <S> Okay. <S> " Medical: "I should take my daughter to a neurologist and not to an exorcist? <S> Seems reasonable." <S> Moral: "I can't beat my slaves? <S> I can't even KEEP slaves? <S> Hmm..."There is a pattern here, and it is undeniable. <S> Religious moderation is the direct result of taking scripture less and less seriously. <S> So why not take it less seriously still? <S> Why not admit that the Bible is merely a collection of imperfect books written by highly fallible human beings?
|
I think the closest fit would appear to be Deism :
|
What's the origin of the Catholic object that is a staff with a crucifix on top? Like I asked in the title, what's the name and origin of a staff with a crucifix on top? Like the one depicted in the picture. <Q> That, in fact is the Papal Cross or Ferula . <S> It has been used since Pope Paul VI, designed by the Italian artist Lello Scorzelli. <S> It is used in the same manner as a crozier. <S> However, the cross bar is bent much like the paterissa. <A> " Many have become more ornate than just a simple shepherd's crook and have crosses or other stuff on them; check out the pictures on the wikipedia article on crosier . <S> Here, you can buy one yourself and smite some heathen. <S> The one in the picture is specifically the Papal Cross, which is, like, the Pope's one of those. <S> [Edit] <S> Actually, unless you really are rubbing shoulders with bishops a lot, it came to me as I lay in bed last night that you might mean the "cross on a staff" that Catholics and other high church denominations commonly use in church services. <S> This is a " processional cross " and are available from church supply stores everywhere. <S> They were used very early in the church's history to head up processions, it being the equivalent of a flag or banner (which similarly, you put on a big stick for visibility and because it's a pain to carry a big ol' cross or flag in your paws for long). <S> Here's the Catholic Encyclopedia article on them . <S> Today, they are regularly used to precede the priests and Bible down the aisle to the altar to kick off a church service, and similarly out during the recessional. <S> Episcopalians use them, Lutherans might too I believe. <S> I'm not Catholic but stick to the high church end of the spectrum and see them a lot. <A> The origins of Roman Pontiffs carrying a Papal ferula or Papal Cross <S> (Crucifix) during certain ceremonies may in fact go back to a particular popular belief involving the Prince of the Apostles himself. <S> According to legend St Peter gave his pastoral staff to St. Eucharius in order to raise the subdeacon Maternus from the dead! <S> According to an ancient legend, he was one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, and was sent to Gaul by St. Peter as bishop, together with the deacon Valerius and the subdeacon Maternus, to preach the Gospel. <S> They came to the Rhine and to Elegia (Ehl) in Alsace, where Maternus died. <S> His two companions hastened back to St. Peter and begged him to restore the dead man to life. <S> St. Peter gave his pastoral staff to Eucharius, and, upon being touched with it, Maternus, who had been in his grave for forty days, returned to life. <S> The Gentiles were then converted in large numbers. <S> After founding many churches the three companions went to Trier where the work of evangelization progressed so rapidly that Eucharius chose that city for his episcopal residence. <S> In the Middle Ages it was believed that the pope used no crozier , because St. Peter had sent his episcopal staff to St. Eucharius; Innocent III concurs in this opinion (De Sacrif. <S> Missæ, I, 62). <S> The same instance, however, is related of several other alleged disciples of St. Peter, and more recent criticism interprets the staff as the distinctive mark of an envoy, especially of a missionary. <S> - New Advent <S> Where is the staff of St Peter? <S> The staff of St. Peter, with which he had been raised to life, was preserved at Cologne till the end of the tenth century when the upper half was presented to Trier and was afterwards taken to Prague by Emperor Charles IV. <S> Wikipedia <S> This in part is the reason why Popes in modern times choose to carry a papal ferula instead of a bishop's crozier.
|
Those are crosiers, which have their origin in a shepherd's crook and are a symbol of a bishop being a "shepherd of men.
|
What is the significance of "seventy times seven"? Twice in the bible, God makes reference to "seventy times seven" (or "seventy-seven times"). Once in Genesis 4:24 (dealing with Cain's punishment for his murder of Abel), and the other in Matthew 18:22 (in an answer to Peter's question of how many times he should forgive a brother or sister that sins against him). Is there any significance to this phrase, and if so, what? <Q> In many ancient cultures, Hebrew included, <S> the number seven often signifies completeness and/or perfection (for more information see either Numerical Sayings in the OT , W. Roth or IVP New Bible Dictionary , ed. <S> Marshall, Miller, Packer, Wiseman, p834 ). <S> Therefore, it is often used in an emphatic sense. <S> This is seen in Peter's question: "should I forgive seven times?" <S> (possibly thinking he was being a good disciple in making the point that he should always forgive) - Jesus' reply is to be emphatically emphatic! <S> That is, seventy times seven ! <S> Jesus often uses hyperbole (overstatement to make a point) in his teaching style, such as the Camel and the eye of a needle in Matthew 19:24 . <S> Lamech's use, again, is to show he is being emphatic. <S> His use of seventy-seven is to make a point. <S> Hope this helps. <S> (Edit) <S> It's also interesting to note that Jesus' contemporary rabbis would teach that a man should forgive a sin 3 times. <S> (See Carson's commentary on Matthew, p.405). <S> This makes Peter's statement of "forgiving an infinite amount of times" even more impressive, though Jesus is not outdone, of course! <A> Your two examples are two different numbers. <S> Lamech speaks of seventy-seven times (77), while Jesus says seventy times seven (490). <S> It's hard to say exactly what Lamech meant, as his story is badly incomplete--it doesn't say who he killed or why, or what happened after that. <S> So it's difficult to draw any conclusions here. <S> As for Jesus's answer to Peter, let's read it in context. <S> Matthew 18:21-22 21 <S> Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? <S> till seven times? <S> 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: <S> but, Until seventy times seven. <S> I don't think the exact number matters as much as the principle. <S> Peter asked, should I forgive my brother some fixed, easily-countable number of times? <S> And Jesus said no, forgive him an arbitrarily large number of times, too high to easily keep track of. <A> Tyndale has seventy times seven, and this is, I believe, inspired by God. <S> Cain represents Israel, who killed his brother Abel (Jesus the Messiah) and was then cast out to wander the earth. <S> Yet God puts His seal of protection on both Cain and Israel; anyone who harms them will be avenged seven-fold by God, see also Ps 79. <S> Lamech, the sixth from Cain, also represents Israel; but this is the present humanistic, boastful, arrogant Israel who works out his own vengeance and thinks himself therefore greater than God. <S> This represents the present State which exists by its own might and is preparing a vengeance on the world for the events of the last two thousand years. <S> The 490 is a prophetic period of time representing the period of God's grace and forgiveness available to both Jew and Gentile... <S> this period will run out soon, around the year 2030. <S> It is derived from a 'generation' of 'jubilees' i.e. 40 x 49 = 1960 years from when 'Cain' and Israel were exiled to wander. <S> Simply factor 1960 differently <S> and you will find 4 x 7 x 70 = 4 x 490 <S> (see Leviticus 26 and Judah's first exile of 70 years). <S> He who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
|
The reason that both scriptures mention seventy times seven is that both are referring to the same event typologically.
|
Why is the number seven special? God seems to favor the number seven and I'm not sure why. Is there a reason, or is this just His favorite number? You'll notice that God not only uses the number seven, but multiplies other numbers by seven as well. Please provide scripture and let me know if there are other numbers that God uses. <Q> I think this answer from the Judaism site sums it up: <S> 7 is special because it was set down by God as the natural cycle in creation. <S> In the same question above is this answer about other numbers: <S> It mentions the numbers: 1, (2?), 4, (5?), (6?), 7, 8, 10, 12, 40, and 70 all have significance. <S> See that answer for full details of their importance. <S> Also important is the number 50 for Jubilee ( from this answer ): <S> Toward the end of the book of Leviticus the 7 day measure that is most familiarly the Sabbath is unrolled across years to be the sabbatical year, and across decades to be the Jubilee. <S> The Jubilee is the 50th year - the crown of the 7th 7. <A> The word "seven" occurs 461 times in 390 verses in the NKJV. <S> The number seven is used many times throughout the Bible. <S> It usually is significant of something being whole, complete or perfected. <S> There are other numbers that are prevalent in the Bible as well. <S> Someone above mentioned the number twelve, which usually signifies government (12 tribes, 12 apostles). <S> Six is said to be the number of man, and three sixes the number of the beast. <S> While it's all very interesting the truth of the matter is that Jesus died for our sins, ANYTHING else is insignificant in comparison. <A> The number 7 has religious meaning in diverse religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and ancient Near Eastern paganism. <S> Leon R. Kass says in The Beginning of Wisdom , page 52, the Mesopotamians (Babylonians and Assyrians), before the coming of the Bible, already reckoned seven-day cycles, connected with the phases of the moon. <S> They set aside the seventh, fourteenth, twenty first, and twenty eighth days of the lunar months; they had their own Sabbath, sabattu or sapattu, the day of the full moon. <S> It seems likely that the familiar Hebrew seven-day week is based on the Babylonian tradition , although going through certain adaptations. <S> By the second century BCE, seven was also associated with the number of known planets. <S> The concepts of a full week or the total number of planets can be associated with completeness. <S> Twenty and its multiples are other favoured numbers. <S> In Noah's Flood , it rained for forty days and forty nights. <S> In '“There Was No King in Israel”: The Era of the Judges' (published in The Oxford History of the Biblical World , pages 139-140), Jo Ann Hackett points out that the number of years of peace brought about by each of the major judges, or the number of years of their ruling, is a multiple of 20, with the sole exception of Jephthah who ruled Israel for 6 years. <S> Othniel's defeat of Cushan-rishathaim gave Israel 40 years of peace; after Ehud, 80 years of peace; after Deborah, 40 years; after Gideon, 40 years; then Samson is said to have judged Israel for 20 years. <S> These numbers were no doubt fortuitous, as they helped the early tradents when passing the stories down orally before they were finally written down. <S> The number 17 is important in the numerology behind the Book of Genesis, especially in the ages of the Patriarchs: <S> Genesis 25:7 <S> - Abraham lived to 175 (5 X 5 X 7) Genesis <S> 35:28 - Isaac lived to 180 (6 X 6 X 5) Genesis <S> 47:28 - Jacob lived to 147 (7 X 7 X 3) <S> Each lifespan involves a perfect square (5, 6, 7 in a numeric series) and the third factor also forms a series (7, 5, 3). <S> For each patriarch the sum of the factors is 17. <S> Furthering the above formulas, Genesis says Abraham’s wife Sarah lived to 127 years, which is the sum of these consecutive square numbers plus 17.
|
7 is the length of time for a natural cycle to transpire, often ending with holiness/sanctification of some sort (the pattern set by creation)
|
Why are thighs important? I know it sounds like a silly or weird question, but I'm serious. Genesis 24:2 One day Abraham said to his oldest servant, the man in charge of his household, “Take an oath by putting your hand under my thigh . Genesis 47:29 As the time of his death drew near, Jacob called for his son Joseph and said to him, “Please do me this favor. Put your hand under my thigh and swear that you will treat me with unfailing love by honoring this last request: Do not bury me in Egypt. Leviticus 7:33 The right thigh must always be given to the priest who offers the blood and the fat of the peace offering. Revelation 19:16 On his robe at his thigh was written this title: King of all kings and Lord of all >lords. Why is the thigh important? <Q> The usages you give here are varied and not necessarily related. <S> In today's English would could use the word hand as in to 'offer a helping hand' or to 'hand something over' or 'hand something out' or any number of other expressions. <S> In the same way not every instance of the word 'thigh' necessarily refers to the same thing. <S> The first two cases you give in Genesis have to do with oaths. <S> Placing a hand on the thigh of someone while you made a promise was a sign of submission and the seriousness of the oath. <S> Such an action could also be taken on ones self as a sign of remorse. <S> There several other examples of these two usages throughout the OT. <S> In your Leviticus passage the meaning is entirely different and you need look no farther than the prices of different cuts in your local butchers shop for an explanation. <S> Some cuts of meat are considered more valuable. <S> Breast and thighs were considered the best portions. <S> I don't know what the significance in Revelation is. <S> For this one the suggestion to ask on Judaism. <S> SE might be a good one because It think it has to do with a specific piece of clothing, the Tallit . <S> The tassels have significance and where on the garment the name is inscribed corresponds to something about the tassels. <A> In ancient Israel putting right your hand on your inner thigh while giving an oath was the equivalent of how people put their right hand on a bible in modern times. <A> In Jewish Mysticism the thighs represent two of the ten sefirot; they are named "Netzach" and "Hod." <S> In totality, the ten sefirot are said to be aspects of God; through them God manifests himself. <S> These sefirot are applied to parts of the body so to understand the significance of the thighs as human body parts within this teaching would have us explore what netzach and hod are said to represent. <S> Netzach represents victory and eternity (although depending on what you read you may find slight variations but those words capture the essence of netzach). <S> Hod represents glory and also prophecy. <S> It has been speculated that together, the archangels Raphael and Michael represent hod. <S> Using any combination of these understandings of Jewish mysticism as applied to the thigh would indicate that, let's say, placing your hand on another <S> 's thigh for an oath would bring victory in the promise that you are making ( <S> the Genesis examples above) and glory in instances involving priests or the Messiah in that glory is always for God and his kingdom.
|
The reason for the thigh was that there was a basic belief that the thigh equalized your walk and represented a well-balanced, just point of view.
|
Is incest a sin? If we all descended from one man and one woman then it's quite apparent that a third generation was not possible without the sexual union of close relatives. Does the Bible (or other Christian source) specifically address incest? Is it a sin? If it is not a sin then does it follow that it is not practiced in Christianity for purely secular reasons? If it is a sin should the children of Adam and Eve not have reproduced? <Q> The OT clearly condemns in Leviticus 18 and 20 (" If a man takes his sister [...] and sees her nakedness [...] <S> it is a disgrace [...] <S> and he shall bear his iniquity. <S> "). <S> This is reinforced at other later points, but we do not find record or such a prohibition earlier. <S> Clearly there is no way that the line from Adam and Eve continued for at least the first few generations without some in-marrying. <S> We know from science today that in-breeding makes for bad genes. <S> Perhaps in the early days when things were a little bit less degenerate physically (and people were living to their 900's) <S> God allowed such a practice, but as the gene pool grew and there was no need for it, he introduced a prohibition for our own good. <S> Clearly today it would be a sin of disobedience against God. <A> It is written in Leviticus 18:6 that it is a sin - <S> None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. <S> I am the LORD. <S> and in 1 Corinthians 5:1 <S> - It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. <S> The reason that it was not a sin for the children of Adam and Eve was at the time, the law had not yet been established. <A> As regards the children of Adam and Eve, the narrative of Cain suggests in at least three places that there were other people on Earth at his time: First, in Genesis 4:14-15, he worries that he will encounter people who will want to kill him, and God gives him a mark of protection. <S> Second, he then moves to Nod, at which point he has a wife (Gen. 4:16-17). <S> The wife is presumably not a child of Adam and Eve, as we do not hear of any other children being born after Abel until Seth, which is mentioned after six generations from Cain (Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech, and Lamech's sons, Gen. 4:17-25). <S> The birth of Seth comes when Adam is 130 years old, and daughters and other sons followed on after that (Gen. 5:3-4), while Cain is implied to be born very shortly after the Fall. <S> Third, Cain builds a city in Nod (Gen. 4:17), which assumes a community of some size already existing. <S> The only place in the creation narrative where it suggests only two humans were ever created is Genesis 3:20, "Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living"—and <S> this in itself does not look like a literal statement, as at that point she had not yet, in fact, given birth to anyone. <S> (Certainly it looks <S> like only two humans were put in Eden ; in the Elohist account, though, we have that male and female humans were created on the sixth day (Gen. 1:27) and their number is not specified, at least in the usual English translations.) <A> You are all over-complicating things. <S> Here's how it happened: God created Adam, and then Eve. <S> (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:22) God then told them to be fruitful and multiply (make love and have children) <S> (Genesis 1:28) <S> [Note that Genesis tends to jump around a little chronologically] <S> Now, the gene pool then was so pure (sin isn't here yet) that Adams offspring were able to interbreed and not have any defects at all. <S> Presumably to the point up until God outlawed it in Deuteronomy 27:22-23 and other passages. <S> Obviously the gene pool started to grow causing more and more defects with each inbred child. <S> It's clearly a sin because: God outlawed it in the OT <S> And it is apparently appalling to Paul when he learns of a man sleeping with his mom in 1 Corinthians 5:1, thus implying that the act is still outlawed and not acceptable in Gods eyes. <A> But incest was permitted from the creation of man until the giving out of the laws to Moses. <S> In the time before that, humanity was in its 'young age'. <S> It's like when a parent only imposes the first rules on his child when he is old enough to need and to understand them.
|
It is, indeed, a sin, as the ones who answered before me have pointed out it is said in the Scripture.
|
Did Jesus baptize or not in St. John's account? John 3:22 (KJV) 22 “After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.” John 4:1-2 (KJV) 1 “When therefore the LORD knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, 2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)” In John's account in chapter 3 we have Jesus baptizing whereas not long afterward John explicitly mentions that Jesus did not baptize. Why is this? <Q> The idea here is that the apostles were baptizing on his behalf. <S> Because they were baptizing in his name, it was, in essence, <S> Jesus baptizing. <S> We, today, have the power to do the same thing: Matthew 28:19 (NIV) <S> Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit <A> Jesus' disciples were taking converts into the water and baptizing them, but it was counted as though they were Jesus' converts (as opposed to John's). <S> It is probable that after Jesus preached for some time, many converts came forward to be baptized, and the disciples met them and took them to the water. <S> Even though Jesus did not physically baptize anyone, they were still counted to him when comparing with how many John had baptized. <A> This might not be a contradiction. <S> John 3:22 doesn't say who Jesus baptized at that time. <S> It might mean that he baptized his disciples at that time. <S> We also might consider that possibility that Jesus performed baptisms at first, until the number of people arriving for baptism became so great that he was required to delegate the baptism to his disciples. <A> What if Jesus Christ did baptize any one? <S> How would this act contradict the scripture? <S> This is what we have to analyze. <S> John 1:33 <S> And I knew him not: <S> but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. <S> KJV <S> So the question of Jesus baptizing people with water does not arise. <S> Who baptized the disciples of Jesus Christ? <S> John 1:35 <S> Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; John 1:36 <S> And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, <S> Behold the Lamb of God! <S> John 1:37 <S> And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. <S> The disciples of john who are baptized by John, not by Jesus Christ. <S> The true baptism of the disciples occurred on Pentecost. <S> Act 2:1 <S> And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. <S> Act 2:2 <S> And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. <S> Act 2:3 <S> And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. <S> Act 2:4 <S> And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. <S> The conclusion is True baptism actually is accepting Christ as Saviour and receiving the Holy Ghost to live a spiritual Life. <S> Dipping in water or stop committing sin, or doing good is not baptism.
|
It is obvious from the text of John 3:22 that Jesus was not the one actually performing the dipping, but his apostles.
|
Is the God of Christianity a just God? What does the Bible say about the justice of God? Is He just? <Q> YES <S> Basically what you're asking has been asked throughout history. <S> Job 8:3 <S> NIV <S> Does God pervert justice? <S> Does the Almighty pervert what is right? <S> The Saints defend God Throughout the ages of biblical times, the saints have declared with trumpets the Justice of God. <S> Job 34:12 NIV <S> It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, that the Almighty wouldpervert justice. <S> Deuteronomy 32:4 <S> He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. <S> Afaithful God who does no wrong, upright <S> and just is he. <S> 2 Thessalonians 1:6 <S> God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you Isaiah 30:18 <S> Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up toshow you compassion. <S> For the LORD is a God of justice. <S> Blessed are allwho wait for him! <S> Isaiah 5:16 <S> But the LORD Almighty will be exalted by his justice, and the holy Godwill be proved holy by his righteous acts. <S> Why isn't God doing anything about the evil? <S> You may then ask, why is there evil in this world? <S> Why are there murders and why are there evil people? <S> God declares that He will judge every deed. <S> Ecclesiastes 3:17 <S> I said to myself, “God will bring into judgment both the righteous andthe wicked, for there will be a time for every activity, a time tojudge every deed.” <S> Revelation 20:13 <S> The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and <S> death and Hades gave upthe dead that were in them, and each person was judged according towhat they had done. <S> How can God forgive us, if He is Just? <S> God has declared all people wicked, so how can He forgive anybody? <S> Romans <S> 3:23 (NIV) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God <S> Well.. isn't that what this entire story is about. <S> Romans 3:25-26 <S> (NIV) 25 <S> God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through theshedding of his blood—to be received by faith. <S> He did this todemonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had leftthe sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 <S> he did it to demonstratehis righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the onewho justifies those who have faith in Jesus. <A> He's most definitely just. <S> See the following: <S> Deut 32:4 <S> He is the Rock; his deeds are perfect. <S> He is a faithful God who does no wrong; how just and upright he is! <S> Revelation 19:2 <S> His judgments are true and just. <S> He has punished the great prostitute who corrupted the earth with her immorality. <S> He has avenged the murder of his servants. <A> From the New Testament: 2 Thess 1:6 (NIV) <S> God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you <A> Matt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. <S> If God is perfect, that means in every way possible. <S> In justice, in mercy, in love, in reward, in punishment, etc... <S> He is the ultimate example in everything! <S> So how could he be an unjust god, and yet maintain his perfection in all things? <A> Well, the answer is obvious, in logical term. <S> We Christians believe that God created everything. <S> So God is the ultimate reference and authority for everything. <S> He created the world with his standards. <S> He is justice himself. <S> In this perspective, God not being just is illogical, because it would require an higher authority under which God could be found "wrong". <S> God could only be felt "injust" by creatures standards, which are automatically inferior to God justice (and thus flawed). <S> A comparison would be when you (rightfully) punish a child <S> and he says "that's not just". <S> People who dealt with children know what I mean ;) <S> Addition : <S> a false representation of God could be found injust. <S> The true justice is said to be seeded in every man's soul by God. <S> Against this higher, truer sense of justice coming from God himself, a false representation of God could be rightfully found injust. <S> This should stimulate a real truth seeker to "clean" his representation of God. <A> Who is this God? <S> The LORD is known by the judgment He executes (Psalms 9:16) <S> Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. <S> (Exodus 20:5-6) From this attributes <S> , we see that God is very just.
|
Everything he does is just and fair.
|
Why is the Bible subject to a high level of interpretation? I realise there's always a level of interpretation neccesary when reading anything, but the level of interpretation needed to understand the Bible is very high when compared to everyday reading - some people spend their entire lives trying to understand what it means. Example If a friend says to me: I'm going to the shop, I will be back before 1PM. I don't have a reason to interpret this statement as meaning 1PM tomorrow, or 1PM next week. We could compare this to Luke 21:32: Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass awaytill all things take place This to me means that all the prophecies described in the bible would happen while the generation that Jesus spoke to was still alive. However it's often interpreted to mean something entirely different. Here is one Christian interpretation: (This refers) to a future generation that sees the events He spoke ofprophetically. Note: I'm not asking specifically about this interpretation it's just an example - I'm asking in general why it is subject to a high level of interpretation. Is it because the Bible was written in another language, and we can'tassume it has been translated properly? Is it because the Bible statesthat it's not always to be taken literally? Something else? <Q> The Bible is subject to several different types of interpretation and criticism. <S> This is for various reasons: It was originally written in languages that are no longer spoken. <S> The ancient Greek and Hebrew that it was written in are similar but dramatically different than the current forms of those languages ( <S> languages morph and change over time). <S> Translation from one language into another is not a lossless conversion process. <S> You can lose some of the meaning and significance in the translation from the source material. <S> You can also introduce noise into the new copy through lingual nuance. <S> This is why so many different English translations of the Bible exist; reading several translations will often give a clearer picture, but sometimes you just have to go back to the original language. <S> It was written for and by ancient cultures that we share very little cultural reference with. <S> It was written over a great deal of time by a variety of people in a variety of places on a changing cultural landscape. <S> Pages and volumes of ink has been spilled on Chaucer and Shakespeare, in more recent times, and Plato, Aristotle and Josephus in more ancient ones. <S> It is considered to be the word of God. <S> If God spoke it then it should be examined carefully to see what it says. <S> Finally, it is considered to be "living" meaning that it is constantly applicable to our daily lives, even though it was written ages ago. <S> To emphasize this Hebrews 4:12-13(NIV) 12 <S> For the word of God is alive and active. <S> Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. <S> 13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. <S> Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. <A> The Bible consists of many books from different times, in different languages. <S> Every one of these books is very old, and comes from a culture very different from ours. <S> Thus there are many reasons why the communication could fail -- i.e. we might misunderstand what a given passage was meant to communicate. <S> Compare to the U.S. legislation, written in plain English quite recently. <S> How many people make a living off of interpreting it? <S> What's more, Christians consider the Bible the Word of God. <S> That makes it very interesting and gives a strong motivation for trying to understand it. <S> That alone is enough for someone to commit their life to studying the Bible. <S> Moreover, like CiscoIPPhone's answer explains, those considering the Bible infallible don't believe there are any contradictions in the Bible -- so some will work really hard to explain any claimed contradictions. <A> Every text is subject to interpretation at some level. <S> The deeper the subject matter, the more this is true. <S> The Constitution of the United States has been interpreted many different ways, and people argue about its meaning even today. <S> The other answers regarding language, culture, and time all contribute to the problem. <S> The fact that the text is considered by many interpreters to be infallible adds another dynamic: an interpretation of one part of the Bible cannot contradict the meaning of another part. <S> Actually, I find this to be a help in interpretation. <S> A difficult passage may be explained by other parts of the Bible. <A> The most common Christian viewpoint is that the Bible is the infallible word of God. <S> If a particular part of it seems to contradict reality or another part of the Bible it must be the interpretation that is incorrect ergo there has to be an interpretation that makes sense (regardless of how obvious that interpretation is).
|
It's a piece of historical literature and thus subject to the same interpretation and criticism as all historical literature is subject to.
|
Why was it necessary for Mary to be a virgin? A lot of emphasis seems to be placed on the virginity of Mary. (For discussion on that, see this question ) Is there a theological reason why Jesus's birth had to be a virgin birth? Obviously God could have chosen a non-virgin to be the mother of Christ, so why did God choose a virgin? <Q> It fulfilled prophecy From the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 <S> (NIV) <S> Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. <S> It provided us a sign so that we will know the Messiah <S> The Isaiah verse above illustrates that God gave us this gift of a virgin birth as a sign that Jesus was the Messiah. <S> It illuminates his sinless nature <S> Jesus is pure without sin. <S> The virgin birth illuminates this sinless nature. <S> Had he been born of a man, he would have been born fallen, like the rest of humanity, therefore carrying sin. <S> It allows for the Trinity If Jesus had been born of a man, how could he be the "Son of God"? <S> He could be in the same sense that we all are "sons of God". <S> However, the virgin birth allows for the understanding that God himself came down to Earth to be the perfect sacrifice. <S> This opens up a whole realm of doctrine. <S> If he was just a man, how could his sacrifice been an atonement for everyone's sin? <A> It seems as if my answer on this post would also answer your question here. <S> Is Mary's virginity evidence that sex is always sinful? <S> Could you imagine what the Catholic church would have done with the Husband? " <S> Father of God" I'm sure that would have been completely chaotic. <S> Who's really the father of God? <S> Well, we know through the virgin birth that only God the Father is the Father of Jesus Christ. <A> Basically the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception Proclaimed infallibly by Pope Pius IX in 1854 sums up the theological reasoning. <S> "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." <S> Not only was it necessary for Mary to be a virgin, it was necessary for her to be free from the stain of original sin. <S> If she was not a virgin, she would have sinned in some way on account of the fact that she was espoused to Joseph, but had not yet known him. <S> She didn't 'know' him for a reason. <S> It's reasonable to suppose that they were in some sort of period of betrothal before an official marriage, when sexual relations would have been an occasion of sin. <S> This is why we know she was sinless: She is often referred to as the new Eve by the early church fathers. <S> Eve was made free from original sin and it was through her and Adam that sin entered the world. <S> Mary likewise would have to be free from original sin to be the Mother of God in order for redemption to enter the world. <S> She is a living tabernacle, the holy of holies, when Jesus was within her. <S> Nothing impure could contain Him and live. <S> She is told she is 'full of grace' by an angelic witness who would not lie or mince words before the Incarnation of Jesus. <S> More info
|
I believe that Mary's virgin Birth was a testification to the Truth of Christ.
|
Is it a sin to do "works" for the sake of "rewards" in heaven? I was reading up on an article that was talking about rewards in heavens. Then it struck me, is it a sin to do "works" for the sake of "rewards" in heaven ? What does the Bible have to say regarding doing works for the sake of rewards in heaven ? == Side question: What is the difference between "seeking personal gain" and "selfish ambition" ? <Q> I would have to say No . <S> Jesus said in Matthew 6:20 (NIV) : <S> But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. <S> Here, he indicates that you should work towards heavenly treasures. <S> Furthermore, he encouraged here, in Matthew 19:21 (NIV) <S> Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. <S> Then come, follow me.” <S> If you read the entire passage , the motivation for the rich man was to attain eternal life: <S> “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” <S> ( Matthew 19:16 ). <S> The motivation was clearly selfish and self motivated. <S> However, Jesus did not respond saying that the motivation was wrong, but merely that his acts needed to be changed in order to gain treasures in heaven. <S> It's pretty clear that Jesus wants us to work towards heavenly treasures. <S> As sidran32 pointed out, while works will get you treasures in heaven, they will not provide salvation. <S> Of course, that's not what you asked, though, is it? <A> No. <S> It would not be a sin, necessarily, but simply an incorrect assumption. <S> It may be a sin to teach this, however, because it is contrary to the teachings of Scripture, and you would be leading your brothers and sisters astray. <S> Consider what is said in Romans 3:27-28 : <S> 27 <S> Where, then, is boasting? <S> It is excluded. <S> Because of what law? <S> The law that requires works? <S> No, because of the law that requires faith. <S> 28 <S> For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. <S> If one has not faith, but only has works, it does not count for their salvation. <S> That isn't to say that works are not important, as you can look at James 2:26 : 26 <S> As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead. <S> If one has faith, works will naturally follow. <S> If one's faith does not produce works, then what is that faith? <S> Our faith should be fruitful and produce works. <S> This is actually analogous to the story of Jesus and the fig tree in Mark 11:12-14 : 12 <S> The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. <S> 13 <S> Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. <S> When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. <S> 14 <S> Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” <S> And his disciples heard him say it. <S> If we are the tree, and we have no faith, it will not produce fruit (works). <S> If we are a tree producing fruit, however, God will bless us and we will feed many (figuratively or literally, depending on the work) with the fruit of our works. <A> "It depends" . <S> If I decide to live for eternal things and "fix my eyes not on what is seen but on what is unseen", and I live my life for eternal rewards, then that is commendable. <S> Rewards are definitely an incentive. <S> However, I can also seek eternal rewards with a corrupt heart, seeking to be seen and known as a spiritual person. <S> In that case, my reward is received here on earth by the acclaim I receive. <S> Matthew 6 speaks of this. <S> Giving is wonderful. <S> If you do it for God in secret, God rewards that. <S> If you give to the work of Christ and secretly harbor the desire to receive acclaim here on earth for it, then that is not commendable and would be considered a sin for having a heart attitude of pride.
|
There is a reward in probably almost everything we choose to do in this life, and God certainly lets us know that He will give rewards for how we live here on earth (provided we trust Christ's atonement for our sins). I would say a definite,
|
Does Christianity allow Christians to celebrate other holidays? A quick search on Google will come up with several Christian holidays including: Valentine's Day Good Friday Thanksgiving Christmas However, in many multi-cultural countries, there are often holidays which are from other religions, other beliefs or even tradition itself. For example a Chinese Christian celebrating Mid-Autumn Festival . Is that allowed? PS: Today is Mid-Autumn Festival, the 15th day of the 8th Month on the Lunar Calendar. Chinese celebrate this day by bring out laterns, eating mooncakes, and reciting poems. It's kind of a tradition to me personally, but there are beliefs and myths behind the festival. <Q> Nature worship is considered grave matter (i.e. sinful) because of the first commandment <S> no gods before Me . <S> Barring that traditions, patriotism and culture are compatible with Christian living. <S> Christianity grew up out of tradition and takes its form in the various parts of the earth because of the local traditions. <S> That being said, follow your conscience, intemperate celebration is a good way to forget about God. <S> If you are required to attend Mass or your services on a holiday, put God first and attend. <S> We've always worked to Christianize pagan holidays in the past, there's no reason we can't continue to do it in the 'multi-cultural' world. <A> Thanksgiving is actually an American holiday, not a Christian one. <S> Valentine's Day is also American (but there is a Saint Valentine sometimes associated with the holiday, though I don't often see him associated with the day at Church very often). <S> In any case, Christianity certainly allows people to celebrate secular holidays, so long as it does not conflict with Christian teaching. <S> It also allows should allow nominal celebration of non-Christian, non-Secular (in origin) holidays so long as there is nothing in the celebration that conflicts with Christian beliefs. <S> We are allowed to do anything so long as it is for the glory of God, and we do it with clear conscience that it does not express devotion to anyone other than God and does not cause our brothers and sisters in Christ to stumble from being scandalized <S> (see 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 ). <A> The first Christians were Jewish. <S> In fact, Christianity is really "fulfilled" Judaism, in that the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies are found in Jesus. <S> So, Jewish Christians (or Messianic Jews) celebrate Jewish holidays today and always have--even from the time of Christ. <S> There is no prohibition to non-Jewish believers regarding the celebration of other holidays, and Christianity is not about prohibitions anyway, but about forgiveness and redemption through faith in Jesus. <S> Of course, the celebration of other deities would be prohibited whether or not it is done on a holiday or not. <S> This could be considered an area where it depends on individual conscience, like eating meat sacrificed to idols that Paul mentions. <S> As a footnote, Christmas and Easter can be celebrated in completely secular ways, which I would say is not wrong, but definitely not Christian. <S> If Christmas is focused on getting gifts and a fat man in a red suit, there's really nothing Christian about that. <S> And rabbits and eggs certainly do not qualify for a celebration of the single most important event in all Christendom. <S> So, even celebrating religious holidays does not mean that those are sacred observances, if they are done in a secular manner. <A> Pope Pius IX has condemned such activity if it is religious in nature. <S> Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 4), March 23, 1875: <S> “They [the faithful] should totally shun their religious celebrations, their buildings, and their chairs of pestilence which they have with impunity established to transmit the sacred teachings. <S> They should shun their writings and all contact with them. <S> They should not have any dealings or meetings with usurping priests and apostates from the faith who dare to exercise the duties of an ecclesiastical minister without possessing a legitimate mission or any jurisdiction.” <A> God is truth and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. <S> John 4:24. <S> Celebrating anything with roots outside of what God deemed as acceptable (Christmas, Easter, etc., as both have pagan roots) is detestable (Leviticus 18:30, Dueteronomy 7:25,26; Dueteronomy 18:9) in the sight of God. <S> Yes, Christ came to fulfill the law so we are no longer judged by it, but why would a christian want to commit an act that is detestable to God? <S> I challenge all christians to identify the real reasons we want to celebrate secular holidays and use them to "thank or glorify God. <S> " <S> If we are honest with ourselves we will realize it is not out of obediance to God, but a desire to fit with the secular world and our family, friends and memories attached to these holidays. <S> I urge all to read what happened to the sons of Aaron (Nadab and Abihu) when as chosen priests they offered to God as worship what God did not deem as acceptable in Leviticus 10:1,2. <S> God is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8) and <S> the truth is... <S> God accepts worship how He wants because He can. <S> For us to jusify attitudes, beliefs, and actions that are not scriptural is offensive to the one who created us if for nothing other than the sole reason we have elevated our views above His.
|
It is true that we are called to holy living, so as long as the celebration of holidays does not impede holiness, there really isn't any problem with that.
|
Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? The christian morality derives from God, and God is benevolent so whatever he commands is morally good. Does that mean that anything God does or commands is morally right? Or does God only act and command that which is morally good? If it is the former, would any act, no matter how despicable it would be to our current moral standards, be morally good, because God commands it? Or is there a moral standard independent from God, and God only commands what is morally good according to that independent standard? <Q> There is no moral standard apart from the person of God. <S> God is not Himself subjected to some outside standard of reference, He is the standard that we reference. <S> Since we also know that He is good, we can be certain that nothing He commands will ever bee morally despicable. <S> @Joel Coehoorn nailed in in a comment . <S> Yes, actions are morally good because God commands them and what God commands is morally good because it was Him that commanded it. <S> If something comes up that bothers our consciences we have several possibilities to consider. <S> Our own moral compases may be corrupt . <S> We are too limited in our experience to judge Him . <S> We mis-heard Him or were deceived; the thing that bothers us wasn't a command from God at all. <A> This is what is commonly known as the Euthyphro's dilemma I can show everyone to the excellent podcast on Dr. William Lane Craig's podcast on it on his website. <S> It is a common objection that atheist have against the moral argument for his existence. <S> Here is the link to the podcast http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/RF_podcast/Euthyphro_Argument_Revisited.mp3 <S> The dilemma in the end is not really a dilemma because the Christian can posit a third option that defeats the horn of the dilemma. <S> It is in the end a false dilemma <S> How can people say that philosophy is dead when people still talk about a 2500 year old philosophical problem? <S> In a nutshell. <S> The Euthyphro dilemma is actually a false dichotomy. <S> That is, it proposes only two options when another is possible. <S> The third option is that good is based on God’s nature. <S> God appeals to nothing other than his own character for the standard of what is good, and then reveals what is good to us. <S> It is wrong to lie because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), not because God had to discover lying was wrong or that he arbitrarily declared it to be wrong. <S> Therefore, for the Christian, there is no dilemma since neither position in Euthyphro’s <S> dilemma represents Christian theology. <A> This question is a false dilemma. <S> Moral law originates in God's mind, not in His will. <S> It is neither arbitrary nor independent of Him. <S> "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." <S> (Gen 3:22) <S> "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay no greater burden on you than these necessary things" (Acts 15:28) God has knowledge of what is valuable and is therefore obligated by the law of His own mind. <A> God certainly does what is morally right, but he certainly has the freedom to do what is not good. <S> Even a person with no ethical training has a notion of what is fair and what is not (moral standard of the conscience). <S> Hence I am of the opinion that God only acts and commands that which is morally good. <A> here is what I responded with when I was faced with this objection. <S> Good is whatever is in accordance with Gods Character. <S> good is not good in of itself, it must have an ultimate standard. <S> Do you believe that good is simply good because it is good or do you believe that good is good because humans say so? <S> if the first then moral laws exist independent of man. <S> if the second, then moral laws are nothing more than the opinions of man according to your worldview." <S> Don't just answer the objection, rather do what i did and turn it around on the one who is attacking the faith and try to steer the conversation toward the biblical Gospel. <S> That we are sinners who only deserve hell, that god in his mercy and grace has decreed to only save some and died for those who he has set apart for salvation (the church aka the elect) in love. <S> That the sins of the elect were imputed to christ on the cross and he bore the wrath of God against their sins by dying in their place and when one believes and trust in that gospel for salvation (which is how you know your elect, only the elect will understand, believe, and trust in the gospel) <S> the righteousness of christ is imputed to that persons account immediately and he is declared justified by God. <S> All that must be done by the individual to be saved <S> is to believe and trust in the biblical gospel for salvation, not commitment to good works <S> , good works is simply about being thankful and loving god for who he is and what he has done. <S> never will a saved individual have to prove to anyone that he is good enough for god or good enough to be considered saved. <S> its all grace. <A> Is it possible that The Moral Right as we call it is Gods nature. <S> Therefor his commands would reflect his nature and be Morally Right <S> he wrote the Moral Law on our Hearts so when we follow his commands and it brings us closer to him. <S> Us with our free will can choose not to obey this law but it would separates us from god causing us to feel guilt and shame and thus creates the moral evil, <S> This does not imply that god could not command a moral wrong but that he wouldn't because of his nature and would work against his plan for us which is to have a close personnel relationship with god
|
"God himself is the standard for what is good.
|
What does it mean for a society to be moral? Inspired by Is a moral society more open to the gospel than an immoral one? There have been many debates going around regarding what constitutes moral or immoral actions; moral or immoral society; etc. This set of questions is in regards to society and how morality can be measured. First and foremost, is it possible for a society to be moral or immoral? If so, what does morality mean in regards to a society? Meaning, what's the difference between a moral society and an immoral one? As a Christian, I tend to define morality based on the Bible. Can this same gauge be used for societies? How can I apply this metric to societies that are undeniably non-Christian? Ultimately: What does morality mean in the context of a society? <Q> Many religions and societies have a shared core of moral precepts. <S> For example, the Dalai Lama writes on this topic : <S> All religions teach moral precepts for perfecting the functions of mind, body, and speech. <S> All teach us not to lie or steal or take others' lives, and so on. <S> The common goal of all moral precepts laid down by the great teachers of humanity is unselfishness. <S> The great teachers wanted to lead their followers away from the paths of negative deeds caused by ignorance and to introduce them to paths of goodness. <S> A common moral intuition has been posited (with some decent evidence) by some researchers; see Marc Hauser's Moral Minds for an example. <S> You may not agree with his interpretation of his data, but it is at least clear that a certain subset of morality is widespread (hereafter "common-morality") even among people who profess different beliefs. <S> Because of this commonality, there is a sense in which we can judge societies as moral or immoral without having to adopt any particular religion (which will unsurprisingly judge societies where different religions are prevalent as relatively less moral). <S> You can ask--at least vaguely--whether a society promotes as a matter of course and achieves in practice broad adherence to common-morality. <S> Furthermore, one can ask whether the society (including government institutions) treats its members as if it were an entity that followed common-morality. <S> For example, one can make a pretty strong case that the sub-societies of Somali pirates or Mexican drug gangs are not particularly moral (obviously: they induce people to kill and steal). <S> Fine distinctions are probably difficult (is Japanese society more or less moral than Finnish society?). <A> In most modern day societies, morals are basically the same as in the Bible. <S> Thou shalt not kill and steal are just two examples. <S> But without a true basic morality structure such as the Bible, then no one can truly say one thing or the other if something is moral or not. <S> Basically, if one society has a different set of morals than another one, each society will always believe the other society is immoral. <S> From the comments below ~Richard <S> Essentially, only members of the society can actually declare a society as moral or immoral, since people who are not part of that society do not have enough perspective to determine the morals of the given society. <S> Even minor differences in geography or religious separation can lead to huge moral gaps. <S> Therefore, no one can validly judge the morality of a society unless one is a member of that society. <A> As a Christian, I tend to define morality based on the Bible. <S> Can this same gauge be used for societies? <S> How can I apply this metric to societies that are undeniably non-Christian? <S> In almost all societies, it can't. <S> Perhaps the only societies where this can be used is those where by definition <S> those societies <S> genuinely use the Bible as their moral compass, for example in a monastery. <S> In most other scenarios, perhaps it is more meaningful to look at the law (in comparison to international / humane law), and how that law is applied (for example: is the application of the law itself horribly corrupt). <S> Now, law (and it's application) vs morality are slightly different topics, but it is perhaps the best indicator we have. <S> You can of course look beyond that into the zeitgeist of the population, but that is much harder to measure accurately. <S> Coming back to the Bible in the context of morality; the point I would make here is that in many cases, a significant portion of both the in-group and out-group do not accept the morality of the Bible; the most obvious glaring holes here would be things like the Bible's aggressive stance on homosexuality and gender issues (I know that record is old, but they are important). <S> I know very many Christians who have absolutely <S> no issue with homosexuality, and know of others that are fire-brand against homosexuality. <S> To me this simply proves: if different people in the in-group can't agree which way that moral-compass points, then that moral-compass is broken. <S> To borrow from another answer: <S> In most modern day societies, morals are basically the same as in the Bible. <S> Again, I would turn this around: <S> In most modern day societies, the Bible happens to be (give-or-take) basically the same as those in the society. <S> One does not need the Bible to know that stealing and murder is a bad thing , for example.
|
Without morals being somehow based on a common rule of law, such as the Bible, then there can be no true rule for morality unless leaders of a society set the guidelines for morality.
|
What is the biblical basis against the idea of luck? I'm curious what the Bible says about Luck. Is this something that is a real occurrence or is every little detail ordained and controlled by God (fate)? I searched biblegateway and did not find "luck" under NIV. Then I tried NASB. The closest thing I've found comes out the of Good News Translation (which I don't trust at all) and out of the book of Sirach (which I've never heard of). Sirach 20:9 (GNT) Bad luck can sometimes lead to success, and a stroke of good luck can sometimes lead to loss There are more sayings in that book and translation, however, this really doesn't satisfy me, since I've never heard of the book of Sirach (and I really don't trust the Good News translation). What is the biblical case against the concept of Luck? Just to be clear, I'm referring to Luck as the random chance—coincidence—that brings good or bad fortune. I'm not referring to an external force that influences the good or bad that happens in our lives. Clearly, if there is an external force that brings us good or bad fortune, that could be directly attributed to God, Satan, demons, or angels from a biblical/Christian stance. Scope: Just to be clear, I'm interested primarily in the Protestant Bible, but I'm willing to accept Catholic translations and Deuterocanonical books. <Q> Proverbs 16:33 (New Living Translation) <S> We may throw the dice, but the Lord determines how they fall. <S> Another translation: <S> NIV : <S> The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD. <S> Apparently, therefore, luck as such does not exist but providence does. <A> In both the Old and the New Testaments, drawing of lots is used as a means of discerning the will of God - he controls events that appear random to us. <S> The Urim and Thummim were (probably) two objects kept inside the clothing of the high priest, who would draw one out "at random" to get a yes-or-no answer to some question. <S> This happens, for example, in 1 Samuel 14 to see who had broken Saul's order not to eat any food on a particular day; here are verses 40-42 in the NIV: Saul then said to all the Israelites, "You stand over there; I and Jonathan my son will stand over here." <S> "Do what seems best to you," they replied. <S> Then Saul prayed to the LORD, the God of Israel, " Why have you not answered your servant today? <S> If the fault is in me or my son Jonathan, respond with Urim, but if the men of Israel are at fault, respond with Thummim. <S> " <S> Jonathan and Saul were taken by lot, and the men were cleared. <S> Saul said, "Cast the lot between me and Jonathan my son." <S> And Jonathan was taken. <S> The part I have put in italics above is in the Greek version (the Septuagint) but not in the Hebrew. <S> In the New Testament, the disciples draw lots to determine who is to succeed Judas. <S> This happens in Acts 1:23-26: <S> So they nominated two men: <S> Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. <S> Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone’s heart. <S> Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs. <S> " Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles. <A> You may be surprised but there is no such thing as "luck" for Christians. <S> As the other nations believe that if one has a good luck, whatever one does, he always wins, or if one has a bad luck, whatever one strives to make good, he always fails, but sadly this is the world view or pagan view which leaves no choice to anybody whereas the Bible clearly states in Deuteronomy 11:27-29 about how to receive BLESSING OR CURSE. <S> The choice is ours. <S> If we start accepting the pagan view, it leaves no choice to luck believers. <S> For us the commandment is not to indulge or adopt the teachings of any other nation. <A> James says If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” <S> but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? <S> James 2:15-16 <S> NABRE <S> which I thought I recalled being translated, "good luck, see ya later, hope you don't starve to death and die of exposure!" <S> But still has the same connotation as wishing someone luck while not providing for their needs. <S> Clearly depending on luck is a bad idea and having an expectation of good fortune for others when you could be providing form them rather than merely wishing them good luck is useless, and is not true faith. <A> To the committed believer who rests upon God's love, there is no such thing as luck. <S> As the passage says, "And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose" (Romans 8:28). <S> From the carnal standpoint, we would see unlucky happenings as undesireable things happening to us, but for the one who is convinced that God loves him, those event are allowed by God for some reason, such as to train him up in character, like teaching him patience. <S> They are neither lucky nor unlucky incidents, but guided by God for good. <S> So the idea of luck, whether good or bad, depends on the perspective of the person's relationship with a loving God, according to Romans 8:28.
|
To the one who has finally believed that God really takes care of him or her, there is no such thing as luck; God uses both the good and bad for the good of the individual.
|
Are scientific findings a test to Christians' Faith? Science suggests that the earth is millions of years old, and many Christians accept this premise. Instead of accepting that God created everything in six days, they accept the finding of scientists based on "scientific evidence". I am a literal interpretation Christian, and I have strong faith that God created the world in six days, less than ten thousand years ago. I believe that when Christians accept science, they do not trust God's Word as much as they trust Man's word. Is it fair to make the statement that scientific findings are a test of faith? <Q> I don't think the world was created in such a complex way that there are always new discoveries to be made just to test our faith. <S> I would say that God can use scientific discoveries to help us test and fortify our own faith. <S> I think Proverbs 25:2 can be applied here. <S> I believe scientific discoveries are really just discovering what God has hidden. <S> Is it really a surprise that God would create the universe with order in a way that it can be discovered? <S> While the scientists are undeniably intelligent, God is infinitely more intelligent. <S> I believe as long as we have this universe there will also be something new to discover, either smaller than the smallest or greater than the greatest. <S> I'm sure God can create the universe to operate beyond our comprehension. <S> Proverbs 25:2 NIV <S> 2 <S> It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings. <A> One should be mindful of 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 (ESV) : 20 <S> Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. <S> and of Proverbs 14:15 (ESV) : <S> The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps. <S> and of <S> Proverbs 4:5-7 (ESV) : 5 <S> Get wisdom; get insight; do not forget, and do not turn away from the words of my mouth. <S> 6 <S> Do not forsake her, and she will keep you; love her, and she will guard you. <S> 7 <S> The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom, and whatever you get, get insight. <S> These provides some support for the idea that faith is not meant to replace evidence or common sense entirely. <S> Thus, if you read Deuteronomy 14:7, ESV : <S> Yet of those that chew the cud or have the hoof cloven you shall not eat these: the camel, the hare, and the rock badger, because they chew the cud but do not part the hoof, are unclean for you. <S> and you go find that hares neither chew cud <S> nor do they have cloven hooves <S> , you don't assert that hares do actually chew cud but don't when anyone is looking in order to test us, but instead decide that you were perhaps interpreting the passage wrong; maybe "chew cud" was intended just to mean "eat grass", or was a more poetic way of getting the point across: don't eat hares, even if you think they fall under the earlier rule of allowed animals. <S> So do not be too sure that the test, if there is one, is to believe one interpretation of, say, Genesis 1, in the face of massive, overwhelming evidence. <S> Maybe instead the test, to the extent that there is one, is to pay attention to the overwhelming evidence and think more deeply about why Genesis 1 is written the way it is. <A> That's a good question but one you already know the answer to. <S> The LORD then answered Job and said: Will one who argues with the Almighty be corrected? <S> Job 40 (NABRE) <S> There is no sense arguing with God and His Creation. <S> Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said: Gird up your loins now, like a man. <S> I will question you, and you tell me the answers! <S> Would you refuse to acknowledge my right? <S> Would you condemn me that you may be justified? <S> Furthermore man has no right or justification for questioning God's creation. <S> Let creation be a mystery and leave it at that, it should still be compatible with your faith to say to say, "I don't fully understand the biblical account of creation". <S> Scientists plumbing the depths of what it is possible to know seem to be consistently finding that there is more stuff that they didn't even know that it was possible to know even while they prove that they now know things they previously said were impossible to know in the first place. <A> I take the general approach that, "The honest pursuit of truth will always lead you to God". <S> We are living in the creation of God, after all. <S> The problem is, we are not smart enough to understand and interpret what we find, and we fill in the blanks with our own agenda. <S> Old earth, young earth, or somewhere in between... <S> I don't know, but as our understanding of HONEST science increases, I believe it will undoubtedly point to the God we have faith in. <S> In the meantime, this is a hard question to answer and not offend someone's belief. <S> I have a scientific mind, and tend to think that our Earth is probably older than the "young" earth theory holds. <S> I don't believe we have all the evidence to conclude one way or the other. <S> Perhaps the nature of time has changed since the creation; things were happening very fast in the beginning, and it's plausible that a human perception/understanding of time has changed. <S> Perhaps there are nuances in the language in the Old Testament regarding figurative or concrete interpretations that may have some relevance. <S> I do know that God is not afraid of our questions, and it is not a sign of weak faith to ask God for answers. <S> You may even argue that asking God for answers is a sign of strong faith. <S> It could possibly be there are answers and hints in the world He created.
|
I do not believe that science as a rule should be disregarded whenever it challenges our faith.
|
How literally is Romans 10:14 supposed to be taken? I recently learned that St. Augustine held an extremely literal view of a particular verse in Romans... Romans 10:14 (NLT) 14 But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them? Apparently, Augustine taught that deaf people (without today's cochlear implants) wouldn't be able to be saved merely because they wouldn't be able to hear people telling them about the Gospel. This raises the following question: How literally should this verse be interpreted? <Q> The letters to the seven churches in Revelation have a recurring theme, "he who has ears, let him hear" - <S> and yet they were written letters ! <S> Literally believing a deaf person cannot be saved, I believe with the larger context of scripture, is wrong. <S> The bible was written - yes, if you had been born deaf, you may have only been minimally literate 2000 years ago. <S> However, there were also many cases of folks becoming deaf with age, who earlier were not, and who were still at least somewhat literate. <S> Likewise, in the introduction of Revelation a blessing is pronounced upon the reader and the hearer. <S> The message of the gospel does not require hearing, it requires being delivered, processed, understood, affirmed, and believed-in. <A> Matthew 11:13-15 (NIV) <S> For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. <S> And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. <S> Whoever has ears, let them hear. <S> Here's the trick with reading the bible and considering things in context: <S> You have to keep in mind the time that the bible was written! <S> Two thousand years ago if a person was deaf, they were deaf. <S> There was nothing that could be done about it: no sign language, no cochlear implants, minimal literacy . <S> Being deaf back then was a completely debilitating state. <S> However with "modern" innovations like literacy and sign language, we can actually communicate with people who may not be able to actually hear . <S> So when we read verses like the one in the question or the one at the top of this answer, they are very literal--for that day and age. <S> However, today we are able to communicate with deaf people as easily as I'm communicating with you right now. <S> Should we take it literally? <S> Yes <S> and No <S> The concept is "if someone can hear, they should listen and learn". <S> In today's modern age (ya know, the past few hundred years), there is no reason that deafness excludes someone from salvation. <S> Just as you, right now, are not hearing my voice (I'm not even speaking!) <S> , so you do not need to "hear" literally to be saved. <A> Claim: <S> Augustine taught that deaf people (without today's cochlear implants) wouldn't be able to be saved merely because they wouldn't be able to hear people telling them about the Gospel. <S> The claim is just false. <S> Granted, Augustine did call deafness a "hindrance to faith" -- but in the sense of making faith difficult, but not entirely preventing it. <S> Remarkably Augustine saw the potential of deaf people to learn and thus receive faith. <S> In De quantitate animae liber unus , chapter 18, he notes the ability of deaf people to communicate by signs, and indicates that the signs pertain to the soul just as speech. <S> Source: Van Cleve, J.V., Crouch, B.A. <S> A place of their own: creating the deaf community in America. <S> p. 4-6. <S> As for the verse, common sense is a good guideline for interpretation, unless someone can show a new reason to take it ultra-literally. <S> You can "hear" about someone by reading their letter, right? <A> I believe that the key to it all is " unless someone tells them? " <S> Tell by definition means to: give a full account of; to narrate; to make know; to communicate; to give instructions. <S> So if you can do that to a deaf person, then Scripture stands firm. <S> You must always understand the Scripture and not always use it for quote mining.
|
You can take that verse as literally as you want, so long as you understand what all of the words mean.
|
What is the significance of "Zealot" in Acts 1:13? When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. ( Acts 1:13 NIV ) What is the significance of calling Simon "the Zealot?" Is this some proper Jewish title, or what? <Q> From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealotry <S> I'll quote an interesting part here. <S> The Zealots objected to Roman rule and violently sought to eradicate it by generally targeting Romans and Greeks. <S> Zealots engaged in violence against other Jews were called the Sicarii.[9] <S> They raided Jewish habitations and killed Jews they considered apostate and collaborators, while also urging Jews to fight Romans and other Jews for the cause. <S> Josephus paints a very bleak picture of their activities as they instituted what he characterized as a murderous "reign of terror" prior to the Jewish Temple's destruction. <S> This says A LOT about what Jesus was able to accomplish in assembling his 12. <S> Considering he had a tax collector, and a Zealot, who under other circumstances would target such a tax collector as a "collaborator". <S> Consider the teachings of Jesus, and imagine how much of a life change that this Simon had undergone. <S> Things like "Love your enemy", and "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's". <S> It doesn't say that Simon was a Sicarii, but there were probably some shared core beliefs. <S> I am not a Bible scholar, but I think Zealot means more then just being zealous for Jesus. <S> It is capitalized in the passage you shared. <A> According to Strong's Concordance , the definition of the greek used here is "one who is eagerly devoted to a person or a thing, a zealot." <S> (Here "boils over" is the literal translation of zeó , which figuratively means "to be earnest, to set one's heart on, to be completely intent upon".) <S> (aside: I'd like to be called a zealot for Jesus) <A> He was another one of the apostles: Luke 6:14-16 (NIV) <S> Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor. <S> There were two apostles named "Simon", one is "Simon Peter" and the other is "Simon the Zealot". <S> The name was a way to distinguish him from the "other" Simon and possibly referred to a character trait. <S> There's not much else known about him other than his name. <S> ( source ) <A> in the original Greek language, Simon is called the ' Kananaios ' in Mark 3:18 and Matthew 10:4 and, being similar to the Greek word Kananaia (Canaanite), this is generally assumed to mean the 'Canaanite', as we read in most English translations. <S> However, in copying from Mark , the author of Luke and Acts noticed the similarity of this Greek word to the Aramaic word for Zealot, qan’ana . <S> The Zealots were a fanatical political movement that took part in the First Roman-Jewish War of 66-70 CE. <S> Since this seems to make more sense in the context of Jesus' mission, he substituted the Greek word ' Zēlōtēn ' (Zealot) in the parallel passage at Luke 6:15 and again in Acts 1:13. <S> The significance of Luke calling Simon 'the Zealot' is simply that the author realised that Kananaios was not at that time a known Greek word, and that 'Zealot' seemed better suited to the context than 'Canaanite'.
|
I would say in addition to distinguish him from Simon Peter (as Richard said), it signifies that he was extremely passionate about following Jesus. The Helps Word-studies says a zealot is one "who (literally) 'boils over with passion'".
|
Were the Jews expecting God Incarnate? Christians believe Jesus is Emmanuel, God with us. ( Isaiah 7:14 ) Furthermore Christians believe that the only Son of God is Our Lord Jesus Christ. (Apostles Creed) And since Christ = Messiah and Lord = Elohim, Christians believe the Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity with two natures, fully man and fully divine. Did the Jews, who are still in expectation of a Messiah, expect that when He came that the Messiah would also be God, or were they expecting someone less magnificent? <Q> Yes they were, in fact the problem was not that they were expecting something less than God in the flesh <S> , the problem was they were not expecting a lowly appearance. <S> They expected his return in glory and judgment when he establishes peace forever -- what we now understand will happen at his second coming. <S> It was his humanity, not his divinity, that tripped them up. <A> Yes and No There were some spiritually aware individuals among the Jews who were expecting the Messiah: Simeon and Anna . <S> However, most Jews were almost certainly anticipating what Christians call the second coming: what is mentioned in Isaiah 2:1-4 <S> , The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. <S> And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. <S> And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. <S> And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. <A> Extra-biblical sources give us a better perspective on the matter. <S> I just ran across this while researching something unrelated: <S> It is now certain--and this is one of the most important revelations of the Dead Sea discoveries--that Judaism in the first century B.C. saw a whole theology of the suffering Messiah, of a Messiah who should be the redeemer of the world. <S> -- Andre Dupont-Sommner, The Dead Sea Scrolls , 96 <S> The Dead Sea Scrolls, and various other similar documents that have come to light since the 1940s, reveal the surprising truth that many concepts and teachings that are today thought of as uniquely Christian were taught among late BC-era Jews. <S> As user8077 pointed out, there were some spiritually aware individuals among the Jews who were expecting the Messiah, but they were in the minority. <S> This is consistent with the story told by the Dead Sea Scrolls, which describe their authors as members of a community of exiles who left mainstream Jewish society after a religious schism. <S> If so, it's possible <S> that the reason there were so few among the mainstream Jews who understood what Jesus was there for was because most of the ones who "got it" had already left or been driven out. <S> (It's also worth noting that many scholars equate the Qumran <S> (Dead Sea Scrolls) community with the Essenes, which tradition tells us was the sect of Jews that John the Baptist came from. <S> Very interesting, if it's true...) <A> Here's my brief survery: 1) <S> The Essenes were expecting two human messiahs (see my comment under Mason Wheeler's answer) <S> 2) <S> OT sources like Daniel seem to expect some sort of divine figure to come and destroy Israel's enemies and restore Israel (look for the Daniel "Son of Man" passages). <S> Look at the passage where Jesus tells his disciples for the first time that he is the messiah (Lk 9:20-26). <S> He tells them he's the messiah but immediately explains that means he's to suffer rather than destroy Israel's enemies. <S> Elsewhere in one of the gospels, someone asks Jesus if its time to destroy Israel's enemies or rise to arms (I don't remember where... <S> or maybe I'm imagining it...) <S> and Jesus rebukes them. <S> 3) <S> A second strand of biblical sources expect Elijah to come again. <S> We see the roots of this in that Elijiah didn't "die" but was taken up to heaven in a chariot <S> (Somewhere in 2 Kings?). <S> We see this expectation in Mt 11:14, Mt 17:10, Jn 1:21--repeatedly <S> Jesus is taken to be Elijah come again. <A> Not everything was understood by everyone. <S> We have the perspective of hindsight, but they did not have such a luxury. <S> In Matt. <S> 22:41-46 <S> (cp. <S> Mark 12:35-37 ; Luke 20:41-44 ), the Lord Jesus Christ asked the Pharisees, <S> Saying, "What do you think of the Messiah? <S> Whose son is he? <S> They say to him, "The son of David." <S> He says to them, "Then, how does David in the Spirit call him, 'lord,' saying, 'Yahveh said to my lord, 'Sit on My right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.''? <S> So, if David calls him 'lord,' how is he his son?" <S> And no man was able to answer him a word, nor did anyone from that day forward ask him any more questions. <S> According to that conversation, the Pharisees could not understand how the Messiah is David's lord, which is of course because the Messiah is God.
|
The Jews were a bit conflicted about what sort of messiah was to come, but they most likely did not expect Jesus having the certain Christology that we now know about.
|
When did the split in crufix/empty-cross sybolism occur and why did it happen? Today, we have Catholic and Orthodox churches (and a few others) using the crucifix, whereas most Protestant denominations use an empty cross in their symbolism. Did this difference in symbolism arise around the time Martin Luther "created" the Protestant church, or did it happen at a different time? Also, what caused the change of symbol? <Q> In history there have always been reasons to show a crucifix without a corpus. <S> 1 <S> Especially in the first four centuries of Christianity <S> it was – because of theological reservations – not possible to illustrate the suffering servant figure of Jesus Christ <S> : They thought that it was not beneficial for the majesty of Christ's divinity. <S> 2 <S> Another trail leads us to Calvinism: Also there led a sovereign, bordering to the abstract image of God to a sober view of the cross without a corpus. <S> 3 1: <S> Burkard Porzelt, Empirische Religionspädagogik , 175 <S> 2: Baudler, 1997, 289 3: Baudler, 1997, 57 <A> According to the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 , whilst the cross was already a symbol of Christianity in the second century (Tertullian says: "We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross" [De Cor. <S> mil. <S> iii]), the cross was seen as a punishment and hence a humiliation: <S> Seeing that the cross was the symbol of an ignominious death, the repugnance of the early Christians to any representation of Christ's torments and ignominy is easily understood. <S> Yet, crucifixion as a punishment method was latter dropped, not the least because of the Christianisation of the Roman empire: <S> The punishment of the cross remained in force throughout the Roman Empire until the first half of the fourth century. <S> ... <S> Later on he [Constantine] abolished this infamous punishment, in memory and in honour of the Passion of Jesus Christ (Eusebius, Church History I.8; Schol. <S> Juvenal. <S> , XIV, 78; Niceph., VII, 46; <S> Cassiod., "Hist. <S> Trip.", I, 9; Codex Theod. <S> , IX, 5, 18). <S> Thereafter, this punishment was very rarely inflicted (Eusebius, Church History IV.35; Pacat., "Paneg.", xliv). <S> Thus, after a while, it is unsurprising that the crucifixion lost its worst negative connotation, slowly enabling the introduction of crucifixes into private and public spheres: <S> The crucifix and representations of the Crucifixion became general after the sixth century, on manuscripts, then on private monuments, and finally even on public monuments. ... <S> The earliest manuscript bearing a representation of Christ crucified is in a miniature of a Syriac codex of the Gospels dating from A.D. 586 <S> (Codex Syriacus, 56), written by the scribe Rabula, and which is in the Laurentian Library at Florence. ... <S> Gregory of Tours, in his work <S> "De Gloriâ Martyrum", I, xxv, speaks of a crucifix robed in a colobium, or tunic, which in his day was publicly venerated at Narbonne in the church of St. Genesius, and which he considered a profanation — so far was the public cult of the crucifix from having become general up to that time. <S> There were still some customary restrictions on representation though (e.g. regarding nudity). <S> Yet, freedom soon emerged: <S> The last objections and obstacles to the realistic reproduction of the Crucifixion disappeared in the beginning of the eighth century. <A> As an Eastern rite Catholic, we have our priest holding crucifix to bless us during each divine liturgy. <S> Because Roman rite Catholic, Eastern rite Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian), and Assyrian Church (non-Ephesian) use crucifix <S> we can safely estimate that this practice date from the early church before schism happened for the first time at 431 in Ephesus. <S> How and when did Christians start to depict images of Jesus on the cross? <S> Some believe the early church avoided images of Jesus on the cross until the fourth or fifth century. <S> In “The Staurogram: Earliest Depiction of Jesus’ Crucifixion” the March/April 2013 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Larry Hurtado highlights an early Christian crucifixion symbol that sets the date back by 150–200 years. <S> The Staurogram: The earliest images of Jesus on the cross. <S> The depiction of Christ on the cross exist along with iconography in the early church. <S> Assyrian Church to this day rarely use iconography due to heavy persecution during the Sassanids. <S> Prior to that Assyrians were known to practice iconography openly. <S> It is highly debated among Christians when iconography was introduced. <S> Some argue iconography at Roman catacombs merely depicting an early corruption of Paganism into Christianity while others argue that it's a direct evidence of an early apostolic practice. <S> Due to its argumentative nature of this debate I try to be neutral and address both viewpoint as neutral as possible. <S> So it's difficult to argue when the empty crucifix symbol occur.
|
Due to the existing crucifix symbol prior to Reformation it can be safely argue that such reform might took place during iconoclastic reformation in the late 16th century Europe.
|
What qualifies as work on Sunday? I have a lecturer who wanted me to attend a seminar. However, the seminar is on Sunday. I don't study on Sundays so I declined this offer. My lecturer is, however, a Jew and he understands the Sabbath as well as the Lord's Day. He says that Jews have been considering this problem for many years and that study is not considered work . I understand there is a difference between the Sabbath and the Lord's Day. What is the difference, what constitutes as work, and what should/shouldn't I do on Sunday? <Q> Christians are no longer held to the strict laws of Sabbath (an argument can actually be made that Jews were never held to this strict law, either, but that they made it stricter than necessary--but that's beside the point). <S> I have had jobs in the past where I was required to work on Sunday. <S> To ensure that I still had a "Sabbath day" (day of rest), I chose some other day of the week as my rest day. <S> I think this practice is well within the intention of Sabbath rest, as outlined in the Bible. <S> But you're asking specifically about a certain task, whether it is work or not. <S> I think Jesus demonstrated that the standard for Sabbath day activity should not be "work,"--as <S> he did several acts of "work" (including harvesting grain, and healing) on the Sabbath. <S> Rather, I think the more important principle is "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it Holy"--that is, use the day for God's glory. <S> If, for you, that means no studying, then don't study. <S> If for you, studying includes attending a lecture, then don't attend that lecture. <S> For many people, studying is very stressful, and distracting ... for those people, I would think choosing to avoid study as part of their Sabbath ritual is a good idea. <S> For others, studying may be a relaxing thing. <S> I'm not in school, but I find it relaxing to read--and I rarely ever read fiction. <S> That means that almost all of my reading is "study" of some form. <S> If I therefore never "studied" on Sabbath, I would be avoiding one of the most relaxing activities I know. <S> What it boils down to, I think, is your own personal conviction. <S> You did the right thing to refuse the lecture, which would have gone against your convictions. <S> If you decide that your convictions should change, I'd say you're also doing the right thing, as there is no "right" answer in this case. <A> When I was a member of conservative Baptist churches, the emphasis was on what was allowed, rather than on what wasn't. <S> The mindset was that the Sabbath was obsolete, Sunday was the Lord's Day, and everything done in it should primarily focus on him. <S> Teaching and preaching Church related work by staff and volunteers was okay, including (but not limited to): Opening the building Driving a bus/van Policing the parking lots Greeting regulars and visitors <S> Cleaning the building between services Running the sound system <S> Providing child care/nursery services Basic activities such as eating were okay, including: Preparing your own food Preparing food for others "Eating out" or visiting a restaurant, which necessarily requires someone else to work <S> Attending church-related functions was okay, including: Social events Seminars Choir practice <S> Prayer meetings <S> Bible studies <S> In other words, a lot of work could be performed. <S> The only things that were really frowned upon were secular jobs, and even those were often considered okay as long as: <S> The worker had a family to feed. <S> The preacher was in a good mood, or hadn't prepared a message specifically about that person. <S> The one thing that did not happen (at least among committed church members) was rest . <S> Physical rest apparently became obsolete with the Sabbath, and was replaced with concepts such as "rest in the Lord" or "rest from the world." <A> I think what's important for us to understand is that God meant that rest is mandatory. <S> To be honest which day is the Sabbath? <S> That itself is confusing. <S> In some countries the week begins on a Monday and some on a Sunday. <S> I think that God is trying to say that rest is something he invented so that we don't get burned out. <S> I don't think the day and whether we work on that particular day matters. <S> I believe that the point is that rest is necessary and its always good to set apart a day for the lord. <S> We get so caught up in our work, we should set apart one day and focus on him and that's what he meant by keep it holy <S> I guess. <S> I could be wrong. <A> This answer is additional information to help you with determining conviction: <S> Our bible study is walking through the Torah at this time, and a helpful portion in determining the heart behind Sabbath for us were these verses in Numbers: 25 <S> And on the seventh day you shall have a holy convocation. <S> You shall not do any ordinary work. <S> 26 <S> "On the day of the firstfruits, when you offer a grain offering of new grain to the LORD at your Feast of Weeks, you shall have a holy convocation. <S> You shall not do any ordinary work... <S> Numbers 28 ESV (italics mine) <S> The AMP uses the word "servile" instead, which points more to physical labor.
|
Attending church was okay, including all the work involved in that activity: Bathing, dressing, and transporting yourself Bathing, dressing, and transporting dependent children Preparing lessons (for teachers/preachers)
|
Should praying the Liturgy of the Hours in private be out loud or silent? For the laity, when praying the Liturgy of the Hours in private, is it more in keeping with tradition to you pray out loud or silently or does it matter? Also, do you change the way you repeat antiphons and responses when praying in private or praying silently as opposed to praying out loud or singing/chanting it? <Q> Liturgy in the strict sense is a public activity, so as such it should be prayed out loud, either recited in less formal settings or chanted with a melody, as monastic communities still do, or somewhere in between. <S> When you are praying the hours privately it's enough to just read the prayers, psalms and collects to yourself, though of course you are free to do whatever helps you to pray more devoutly, so if that means whispering the words outwardly then so be it. <A> The liturgy of hours, as I understand it, was traditionally a form of public prayer. <S> The religious communities would pray this together. <S> Thus I'm not sure if there is a "traditional" way to pray it privately. <S> If pressed, I would say it's to sing/ <S> chant it as the religious communities did. <A> Should praying the Liturgy of the Hours in private be out loud or silent? <S> One could if one wanted to pray the Liturgy of the Hours out loud if done in private. <S> However if one is praying the Divine Office while one is waiting in a doctor’s office for example, it would for obvious reasons be best to be recited silently. <S> This goes as well as for reciting the Holy Rosary when in public. <S> Simply pray it silently. <S> No one has to know what you are doing.
|
When I was in a monastery, we generally prayed the Divine Office silently when recited in private.
|
Does God want things? What are some of the things He wants, and how did we find out? This question may appear brief, but I think it is simple enough to not need much background. Basically, I'm curious about the nature of God and His desires. Does He want things? What are some of the things He wants, and how did we find out about these things? Citations from specific literature (Bible or otherwise) where you have evidence of His wants would be particularly helpful. :-) <Q> God wants us to be humble, follow his rules, act right, love mercy, and have faith in him. <S> That is what pleases God. <S> Micah 6:8 (NIV) <S> He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. <S> And what does the LORD require of you? <S> To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. <S> Hebrews 11:6 NIV <S> And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. <S> John 14:21 (NIV) <S> Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. <S> The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them. <A> Here is a passage that answers the question even if it also perplexes me: James 4:5 <S> (ESV) <S> Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, "He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us"? <S> Looks like <S> I don't understand why it's said this way, nor do I know what scripture James is referring to <S> but it does seem clear that one thing he wants from us is that we abide in Him! <A> What does God want? <S> Certainly not things since, <S> The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it <S> Psalm 24:1 <S> So what does He want? <S> For me, Bill Hybels said it best: <S> "If you think about it, you realize God has only one kind of treasure. <S> It's people." <S> Bill Hybels, pastor of Willow Creek Community Church <A> God wants to be glorified by His creatures. <S> In the Lord's prayer, the first statement we make is "Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name." <S> When Moses was appealing to God for the fate of the Israelis, he used the point that He would get disrepute if He killed them. <S> God repented. <S> (Ex.32:11-14) <A> God wants the nice smell of burnt offering: Numbers 28:27 . <S> Also he wants this to be done only in one specific place in Jerusalem: Deuteronomy 12:11 . <S> As the sole place of Jewish sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12), the Temple replaced the portable sanctuary (aka The Tabernacle) constructed in the Sinai Desert under the auspices of Moses, as well as local sanctuaries, and altars in the hills. <S> Temple in Jerusalem . <A> God wants us to do listen to his voice, or that is obey him. <S> He wants us to learn about him and his qualities. <S> He wants us to try to reflect his qualities as best we can. <S> Lastly he wants us to recognize his position and power. <S> We are also his witness that Satan the devil is a liar. <S> These are the only "things" that we can give back to god. <S> What material things can we give god that he doesn't already have or can create? <S> Acts 7:48-50 <S> " <S> However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands, just as the prophet says: 49 <S> ‘The heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool. <S> What sort of house will you build for me? <S> Jehovah says. <S> Or where is my resting-place? <S> 50 <S> My hand made all these things, did it not?" <S> God has us give him our material things, but this is not because God needs them. <S> Rather he is looking to see by our actions how much we love him.
|
God really wants us to come back to him .
|
Is righteousness a prerequisite for salvation? James 2:24 NIV 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. In James we are told that a person would be considered righteous by their deeds and not just their faith. Is righteousness a prerequisite for salvation? <Q> You say "a person would be considered righteous by their deeds and not just their faith". <S> I'm not sure this is a necessary reading of the Biblical passage. <S> You quote 2.24: I think verse 18 is more useful for interpreting James' account of the relationship between faith and works: <S> But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ <S> Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith. <S> James 2.18 (NRSV) <S> It isn't that faith and <S> works are separately required – prerequisites, if you like – for salvation. <S> It's much more that James sees them as inseperable. <S> You can't go round saying "I have faith, so ignore what I do: I've saved. <S> " <S> What you do, for James, demonstrates your faith. <S> If you have faith, you will do good works. <S> If you have faith in Jesus Christ, that faith will transform you and it will transform the way you act. <S> A genuine faith is shown by the fact that the person does good works. <S> A faith that isn't seen in works is, as far as James is concerned, dead: <S> For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead. <S> James 2.26 (NRSV) <S> Or, as Martin Luther would have it (despite his well known views on the Book of James...): Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. <S> An Introduction to St. Paul's Letter to the Romans (1522) <S> James is reacting against a tendency – which has come up time and time again in Christianity – to ignore how Christians act because in Christ all sin is forgiven, or because salvation is predestined. <S> The tendency – commonly known as antinomianism (ἀντί against + νόμος law) – has been seen as heretical pretty much by all Christian groups throughout history. <S> I don't think James is undermining the significance of faith, but he is saying that it doesn't exist in a moral vacuum where it has no effects in a Christian's behaviour. <A> The answer is NO. <S> The reason we need salvation in the first place is because we can't be righteous; by nature we are law-breakers ( Romans 3:10f ). <S> The only God way we can be righteous is if God gives it to us. <S> Salvation involves us being 'justified' (i.e. we are declared to be "not guilty") before God thus making us righteous ( Romans 1:16 , 3:20-26 ). <S> We receive this righteousness by faith, just as it always was from the beginning with Abraham ( Romans 4:2 ). <S> What about James 2:24 ? <S> It is not a contradiction. <S> Note James' wisdom-like teaching, not unlike Proverbs, which deals with everyday life with its complexities and paradoxes - very different from the precision of Paul's treatise. <S> James is not dealing specifically with a theology of salvation as Paul was. <S> Rather he wants to emphasise that faith is not a licence to sin (see lonesomeday's answer) which Paul himself also deals with in Romans 6 . <S> I just wanted to emphasise that salvation is wholly God's work, and that there is nothing in us or in what we do that will change that. <S> PS. <S> The reason Luther rejected the book of James was because he wanted to protect this doctrine of salvation and over-reacted. <S> However, he firmly believed in obedience to God as a Christian, and didn't see that salvation should be a reason not to. <A> Yes . <S> However, no one is righteous ( Romans 3:10 ). <S> No one, <S> that is, except Jesus. <S> And He offers to give us His righteousness in exchange for our sins: 2 Corinthians 5:21 <S> God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. <S> Click here for more info . <A> Quite the opposite. <S> It is unrighteousness <S> is the only prerequisite for salvation. <S> Jesus answered them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. <S> I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." <S> (Luke 5:31-32) <S> The point that James makes is that "faith without works is dead." <S> A faith that prompts no actions is not genuine faith. <S> Saying you love your children when you take no action to provide, protect, teach or enjoy them is not genuine love. <S> A genuine faith will always prompt actions, just as a genuine love will do the same. <S> Salvation has the effect of giving us a new heart that will prompt new actions. <S> If there is no difference in a life after salvation, then it is likely that no new heart was received and the faith was not genuine.
|
Righteousness is absolutely a prerequisite for salvation.
|
Where does God draw the line when it comes to Sin? So I've read 1 John alot and I understand that I cannot continue to sin if I want to be a child of God's. 1 John 1:6 (NIV) 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. But then at the same time, if we accomplish the call to be holy and to be righteous and to be free of sin then we are not children of God. 1 John 1:8 (NIV) 8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. I'm personally struggling with this very line in my own life. I don't hate people, because I know that I'm commanded to love. But when it comes to my own desires of the flesh I continually fail. I have no self control, I cannot even get out of bed when my alarm goes off lol. Where does God draw this line? does He give us any more insight into the battle with sin through scripture? So I ask again, where does God draw the line when it comes to Sin? <Q> Well, taking advntage of the God's mercy and forgivness is certainy not a right thing. <S> In my opinion, unless we compeletly sway out of God's way, we should not worry to much about what kind of sins we do everyday; unless it is serious. <S> We are humans, after all, we all make mistakes. <S> Like Jesus said in the bible: <S> Matthew 26:41: 41 Stay awake and pray for strength against temptation. <S> The spirit wants to do what is right, but the body is weak." <S> In the end, it is not how we can avoid sinning, but it is how we can be more like Christ. <S> We will always have transgressions, but we should be trying to make it better. <A> Our life here on earth is a process. <S> If we've accepted Christ as our Savior, then we're supposed to be striving for the life he lived. <S> Think of it like an onion. <S> Each time we learn something new about ourselves, another layer is pealed away. <S> If you're continuously sinning in the same way, then perhaps you've not gotten to the root of why you sin in that particular way. <S> Obviously, we know the end. <S> God has already forgiven all our sins, but we still will give an account for all we did here on Earth. <S> There will be days where we're "better" than others, but ultimately, I think God looks at the condition of our heart while we're doing the things we do. <S> Whatever they may be. <A> You have to understand the context of the bible always states that man is sinful in nature. <S> The scripture is stating that if you choose to walk around saying that you are without sin, then you are in fact lieing to yourself. <S> Every person struggles with some form of sin in their life. <S> Whether it being judgemental of your siblings or neighbors, an addiction to an earthly object (i.e. pizza/mountain dew/video games = <S> D), or lusting over someone whom you may or may not know. <S> He's just saying don't lie to yourself and saying you are without sin because no person is without sin. <A> Literally, the line is drawn when an unbeliever blasphemes the Holy Spirit, rejecting Him and His work of drawing them to God. <S> It’s not easy to tell when that line has been crossed, however. <S> But your reluctance to sin and acknowledgment about your weaknesses shows that you are nowhere near these lines; you still have a conscience and a heart to do what’s <S> right by God, which people crossing “the line” do not have or care about. <S> Your feelings are similar to the person who started weightlifting or dieting, and after a week notices no changes and starts to question the whole process. <S> But the spiritual life is just that – a process, and it takes time for fruit to grow. <S> But that fruit of the Spirit does indeed grow when we feed the plant properly, not with poison from the world, but water from the Word. <S> You aren’t anywhere near the line; you are in the place where Steve Jobs said: “Stay hungry.” <S> You hunger and thirst for righteousness, and that shows that you have a solid footing in the kingdom. <S> You are not deceiving yourself regarding sin, but confessing your inadequacy to live in your own strength, so you are in a good place. <S> Paul talked about this struggle in Romans 7:13-24 (and deliverance in 7:25). <S> Instead of looking for a line, look to the fact that His compassion fails not and His mercies are new every morning (see Lamentations 3:22-24). <A> It comes down to one thought. <S> We are all Gods children. <S> We are made in his imagine. <S> He loves us to no end and there is no end to his forgiveness. <S> But this doesn't mean you can sin without an thought of Gods retribution. <S> At some point you are not a Christian even though you still call yourself Christian. <S> Also, many Christians worry endlessly about bothmajor and minor sins of the flesh. <S> God is aware of our humanity <S> and it's pitfalls and wishes us to grow in our Christianity and uses these pitfalls to help us grow.
|
In the believer’s case, the line is drawn in Hebrews 10:26, when one sins willfully after knowing fellowship with God (or, "the truth"), and at that point, one looks fearfully to the judgment of God ahead.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.