source
stringlengths 620
29.3k
| target
stringlengths 12
1.24k
|
|---|---|
Why don't Christians celebrate the feast of tabernacles? Although there are some who celebrate the feast of Tabernacles they are definitely in a minority. A prophecy in Zechariah speaks of a time when all nations will have to keep the feast: Zech 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. 18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the Lord will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles We know that Jesus celebrated it (John 7:2) and if we believe the prophecies then we will keep the feast again in the future. The current period of not celebrating appears anomalous. Why don't Christians generally celebrate Tabernacles now? <Q> The prophecy has yet come to pass. <S> I wouldn't say the current period is anomalous at all. <S> Up until now, the feast has been celebrated by Jews only (ok, a few Christians). <S> That's a very small minority of people. <S> The prophecy talks about all nations , which is something very different from history. <S> You mention Jesus going to the feast in John 7, but notice what Jesus says about the feast: John 7:8 <S> (ESV) <S> 8 <S> You go up to the feast. <S> I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." <S> Granted, Jesus eventually went in secret. <S> But it doesn't seem to bother anyone that Jesus would not go. <S> If it wasn't necessary for even Jesus to go, why should we, gentiles? <A> Orthodox tradition holds that the current Feast of the Transfiguration of Christ replaces the Hebrew Feast of Booths, and we are a significant minority, if not a majority, in many countries. <S> In this guise, one could interpret this passage to mean that those who do not celebrate the Transfiguration, i.e. through Christ become transfigured themselves, in That Day will experience severe suffering. <A> Why don’t Christians generally celebrate Tabernacles now? <S> The simplest answer is that Christians never agreed to observe it. <S> The Israelites agreed to keep the Law of Moses at Sinai by confirming an oath in a bilateral covenant. <S> 1 <S> 7 <S> Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people. <S> And they said, “All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient.” <S> NKJV, 1982 <S> Even if one is a Jewish Christian (i.e., a Christian by faith who is of Jewish descent by birth), they died to the Law by their union with the Messiah. <S> 2 <S> 4 <S> Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. <S> NKJV, 1982 <S> The rabbis understood that “as soon as a man dies, he is made free from the commandments. <S> 3 Since we have died with Christ, 4 <S> we are free from the commandments (this would pertain to those Jews who were formerly covenantally bound to observe the Law of Moses). <S> Jewish Christians were obligated to observe it, but because they are dead with Christ, they are made free from the commandments and are no longer obligated to observe it. <S> Footnotes 1 Exo. <S> 24:7 <S> 2 <S> Rom. <S> 7:4 <S> 3 Babylonian Talmud, Seder Tohorot, Tractate Nidda, Chapter 8, Folio 61b , Gemara: כיון שמת אדם נעשה חפשי מן <S> המצות <S> 4 Rom. 6:8 <A> Moral laws in Old Testament are always the same (For Example, Ten Commandments and Other Moral commandments such as Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18, etc). <S> Unlike Moral laws, Ceremonial laws were written specifically for Hebrews (or ancient Israelites) due to the fact that God freed Hebrews from Egypt. <S> This doesn't apply to Gentiles. <S> Feast of Tabernacles belongs in this category, because Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated as a remembrance that the people of Israel lived in booths when God brought them out of the land of Egypt. <S> Leviticus 23:42-43 (ESV)- "You shall dwell in booths for seven days. <S> All native Israelites shall dwell in booths, that your generations may know that I made the people of Israel dwell in booths when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” <S> Salvation came to the gentiles through the arrival of Jesus Christ on earth and through his sacrifice for us. <S> Through his sacrifice for us, the ceremonial laws (which includes all sacrifices) were completely fulfilled. <S> We only have to keep the moral laws commanded by God and his son Jesus Christ.
|
In summary: Gentile Christians never agreed to observe the Feast of Tabernacles in a bilateral covenant; therefore, they were never obligated to observe it.
|
Where is the dead body in Luke 17? Jesus talks about the coming of the Kingdom of God in Luke 17:20-37 . This passage raises four related questions for me: Is this talking about the Rapture? Where is "a dead body" , that Jesus mentions at the end? Who are the vultures? Those taken? Is this talking about a world wide event? That one group is asleep and the other is awake would appear to imply this involves multiple time zones. Here is the full text from Luke 17:20-37 (with my emphasis) (there is a similar story in Matthew 24:36-40 ): Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. Men will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. Remember Lot’s wife! Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left. ” “Where, Lord?” they asked. He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.” <Q> This one line "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather. <S> " <S> is parable. <S> This would be the equivalent of saying, "Where there's smoke, there's fire." <S> Long answer: <S> Where, Lord? <S> The question that Jesus is responding to is also a bit confusing (particularly given our modern understanding of the rapture). <S> However, the question of "Where, Lord?" seems to be addressing the last thing Jesus says. <S> He just finished saying that the "Son of Man" will come and gather his people. <S> The disciples' question seems to ask "Where will they be gathered to." <S> This is the "gathering up" of people that Jesus will perform in the last days. <S> Just before this he talks about how the world is turning evil and then he says that he will come back and gather his people. <S> This is definitely what we modernly call the "rapture". <S> Jesus replies His reply to the question of "Where, Lord?" is a parable. <S> He's basically saying, "Where there's smoke, there's fire." <S> The meaning behind this is: "That should be pretty obvious to you." <S> Jesus was saying that his kingdom was coming, the world was about to end, he was about to gather his people. <S> The disciples ask a stupid question: "Where will you gather them?" <S> Jesus doesn't even bother giving a straight answer because the answer is obvious: <S> He's gathering them to heaven to be with him forever. <S> Why use a parable? <S> The reason that the answer is obvious is because, he's already answered that question. <S> Just previously in Luke 17:20-21 the passage begins Jesus' speech with <S> "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed." <S> The entire speech is about the Kingdom of God. <S> So when they ask, "Where will they be gathered." <S> He just replies in parables, since he's already made it obvious. <S> Summary <S> This phrase about vultures and a dead body is just Jesus way of saying, "Hey, it should be obvious". <S> He's not trying to imply anything with vultures or dead bodies. <S> Just like the phrase " <S> Where there's smoke there's fire" today does not imply smoke, fire, or anything related to smoke or fire. <A> It is a common view that this part is talking about the rapture: <S> "I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. <S> Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” <S> In that case the ones taken would be raptured while the left ones were in troubles, or tribulation. <S> There are other views too. <S> Kingdom Theology for example looks at this like this: <S> In Noah's time, the people that were left on the earth were the people after God's heart, while the ones taken were in fault. <S> This teaching is started by likening the times with Jesus is talking about to the times of Noah. <S> If we follow that analogy, to be taken has to be translated as to die (a valid translation from the Greek). <S> According to Kingdom Theology there is no rapture, as both accepted and not accepted will live on earth until the ones that are not accepted are done away. <S> This view is supported by the parable of the wheat and the tares, where the tares are kept until harvest and then burned. <S> This interpretation can be argued pointing out that both Noah and Lot left the place of destruction, while the others stayed and died. <S> Yet leaving and staying are active decisions on the part of the people, while being taken and being left are not. <S> Both views are within the local context valid interpretations and can be used to support both Rapture and Kingdom Theology. <A> Ok, I'll give you an answer to this question. <S> My answer is this. <S> Jesus Christ is using a veiled reference here. <S> And what it's referring to is a prophesy. <S> Daniel 8 to be exact. <S> In Matthew 24 he referenced Daniel 11 with the abomination of desolation. <S> I believe this carcass/dead body reference is simply another Daniel reference and his story of the battle of the ram and goat. <S> He telling you to watch for the event when 2 nations in the middle east get conquered by a powerful country from the west. <S> And it's aftermath in Matthew 24. <S> The tribulation of those days. <S> :)
|
This very much is a reference to what we call the "rapture".
|
What was the purpose of creating the world? Why did God create a world?Was the act of creation for some profit, or did God in His grace create world only because it was good? Genesis 1 (KJV) And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good . <Q> We don't know! <S> Unfortunately, the Bible doesn't tell us why he created the world, simply that he did create it. <S> Lonely One speculation (and it is pure speculation) is that he created the world in order to have other beings with free will that would love him. <S> We can see this in the fact that there are things we can do to please God . <S> From that concept, we can expand it a bit to assume that the things he finds pleasing is the reason that he actually created us. <S> So, in essence, the speculation is that he created us so that we could love him and choose to follow him. <S> Self-glorification <S> Another theory (eg speculation) is that he wanted to bring glory to himself. <S> The argument goes that all created things reflect God's glory (per Psalm 19:1 for example), in particular mankind (per Genesis 1:26 ); since the creation reflects His glory, then he must have created them for the purpose of reflecting his glory. <S> The problem with these theories is that they use the process of logical induction to come to these conclusions. <S> In fact these thoughts are a very weak induction . <S> It's like saying "I've only seen a green frog, therefore all frogs must be green." <S> These theories attempt to attribute thoughts to God based on our understanding of his creation . <S> This, in my opinion, is a very dangerous road. <S> Summary <S> (TL;DR) <S> We don't know why God created the world because he never told us. <S> We do have ideas including the two I mentioned above. <S> However, these ideas, as I mentioned, are pure speculation <S> and we must be careful not to presume that we know the mind of God. <S> Isaiah 55:8 NWT <S> “For the thoughts of YOU people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways YOUR ways,” is the utterance of Jehovah. <A> You've got to read into the deeper meaning of things in order to understand why the world was created. <S> Colossians 1:16 (NIV) <S> For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. <S> Romans 11:36 (NIV) <S> For from him and through him and for him are all things. <S> To him be the glory forever! <S> Amen. <S> All things, in heaven and on earth were created for Christ. <S> I like to think of this as gifts. <S> We are literally gifts from God the Father to God the Son. <S> We were made to serve Him. <S> Revelation 1:6 (NIV) and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! <S> Amen. <S> Jesus created this world complete with all of <S> it's suffering so that He could show us how much that He loved us. <S> Luke 7:47 (NIV) <S> Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. <S> But whoever has been forgiven little loves little.” <S> We can also learn from the commandments why this world was created. <S> As the first commandment is to Love God. <S> And the second is like it, to love everybody around us, all of the law and all of the prophets hang on these two commands. <A> God creates this world to show His existence. <S> Bible says "God is love" <S> it doesn't say that God has love, but it simply explains that God is the love itself. <S> By creating this world, God which is the love itself can be shown to the human beings created through his mercy, forgiveness and caring. <S> The ultimate revelation of His existence is when he died on the cross to redeem all human race by grace even though they don't deserve it. <S> The salvation through Christ reveals the 'greatest love' which is God Himself. <S> Without creating the world, He simply couldn't show His existence as the love itself.
|
I believe that God created this world and allowed us to fall so that we could learn to Love, because He first showed His love for us.
|
What is so special about sitting at God's "right hand"? This concept seems to show up in a few places: Psalms 110:1 (NIV) The LORD says to my lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” Ephesians 1:19–20 (NIV) ...and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms ... Romans 8:34 (NIV) Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life— is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Clearly, undeniably Jesus is at the "right hand of God". But what does that mean or signify? Would being at the left hand of God be a bad thing? Scope: I'm specifically seeking a mainstream Protestant exegesis of this text, although I suspect the understanding will be universal across all denominations and doctrines (although I could be wrong). <Q> It simply means that Christ is uniquely special to God and has his authority. <S> To sit at the right hand of an earthly king was a place of honor, denoting special trust, authority from, and relationship with the king. <S> It was something that was understood without needing explanation at the time. <S> If you were to sit at the right hand of the King meant that you acted with his authority. <S> Those who came to you would treat you with respect and obedience, as if you were the king yourself. <S> It's one of the many demonstrations in the Bible, which is not readily understood by us in our time that made perfect sense to the culture as it was then. <S> There's an article that explains it a bit differently, with more detail here: <S> http://www.letusreason.org/onenes10.htm <S> This is an excerpt: To sit at ones <S> right hand means a place of authority, it was a place of honor it meant dignity and rulership. <S> Throughout the O.T there are used what are called anthropomorphism to describe God in some function or characteristic. <S> this is figurative language describing a certain characteristic of God <S> it is describing his divine actions from a human view point. <S> ... <S> There are numerous things that need to be considered to understand this phrase. <S> The phrase right hand is a metaphor, God exercises his authority by his right hand. <S> Right after Peter writes of the resurrection he says 1 Pt.3:22 <S> Who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having made subject to him". <S> If he is God the Father then they are already subjected to him, If he is only a man, then the ruling of the universe is in a humans hands. <S> So it is as in Mt.28:18 all authority was given to him in both heaven and earth. <S> This is something he did not have as he came to earth in a state of humility <S> Phil.2:5-8. <S> There are several other ways of stating the same basic thing here: http://biblemeanings.info/Words/Body/Right_hand.htm <A> "Right" in many cultures signify more importantly than the "Left". <S> This is probably associated with the population of right handed is more than the left handed. <S> Hence, people use right hand to do important things more than their left hand. <S> " <S> Right hand man" also means the trusted one, or the most important one. <S> In my culture (Indonesia), it's consider rude to do something with left hand. <S> i.e passing an object (such as money) to somebody else using left hand is considered as an insult; and eating with left hand is disgusting for some people. <S> This habit is based on the habit that we use our left hand to clean, so it's not good. <S> from wikipedia <S> The Latin word sinistra originally meant "left" but took on meanings of "evil" or "unlucky" by the Classical Latin era <A> Also note Matthew 20:21, where the mother of two of the disciples asks Jesus, “Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom.”. <S> I think the most important point in these passages is the idea that the person is sitting next to God, clearly a place of high honor. <S> Just like if today you were invited to a formal dinner or whatever, and told that you would be sitting next to the president or the pope or Snooki or some such important person, you would surely take this as a great honor. <S> As others note, sitting at the king or whoever's right is more prestigious in most cultures than sitting at his left. <S> But both are pretty high up there.
|
The term at the right hand of God points to his exalted position he now is active on.
|
Why pray if God is omniscient? Possible Duplicate: What is the purpose of Prayer? What the question says, why do people pray if God knows everything? <Q> This is kind of like asking, "Why should you tell your Dad you love him if he already knows? <S> " It's not about conveying information, it's about fellowship. <S> God created us for fellowship with Him. <S> He choose not to force us to do His will, but that we are to choose to seek His will. <S> Jesus told us to pray in this way: <S> Pray in this way " <S> Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. <S> Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. <S> Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. <S> And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." <S> Prayer recognizes God as our Father, who is holy, and seeks to put our mindset in alignment with His. <A> Definitions first... <S> Omniscience means "all knowing", and this is how the Bible describes God. <S> For example, consider the following Bible verses - Our Lord is great, vast in power; His understanding is infinite. <S> (Psalm 147:5) <S> For He looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. <S> (Job 28:24) <S> God is greater than our hearts and knows all things. <S> (1 John 3:20) <S> So perhaps I can paraphrase your question like this... " <S> Since God already knows what everyone needs, why do we need to ask Him for things in prayer? <S> " <S> I think it's definitely true that God already knows all our needs. <S> Jesus says exactly that - "When you pray, don't babble like the idolaters, since they imagine they'll be heard for their many words. <S> Don't be like them, because your Father knows the things you need before you ask Him." <S> (Matthew 6:7-8) Still, Jesus goes on to teach the disciples how to pray, so <S> He still thought it was vital. <S> And James also points out the necessity of prayer when he tells Christians that - "You do not have because you do not ask." <S> (James 4:2) <S> So it seems that the Bible teaches that God knows all we need, yet He (sometimes at least) doesn't give us what we need until we ask. <S> Why is that? <S> I'm not sure if the Bible tells us exactly, but I believe it is because the act of praying, and then receiving answers to our prayers, actually increases our faith, and strengthens our relationship with God. <A> Why pray if God knows everything... <S> Well, think about what it is like when a child is growing up. <S> Children ask their parents all sorts of questions. <S> Would a child says "I know my parents know everything, so I don't need to ask them. <S> " That wouldn't make sense. <S> In order for the parent to guide the child and pass along wisdom, the child often asks questions. <S> It's the same for us. <S> We want God's help, we can't see where we are going, but He can. <S> Just because He knows doesn't mean we will somehow get His wisdom. <S> We must ask. <S> Prayer is not like a magic system, where we put in a prayer, and out pops an answer. <S> Prayer is relationship. <S> Think again about the child and the parent. <S> The parent longs for the child to love him/her and spend time together. <S> It's the same with God. <S> You know in a conversation you talk, you wait for a response, then you respond. <S> It's give and take. <S> When you first start praying, you may feel like you are doing all the talking. <S> But, keep at it...as you pray day after day and get into a relationship with our Father, you will begin to "hear" Him. <S> Not really like an audible voice, but, a small quiet voice inside. <S> If you get confused, remember, if the voice puts you down, it's not God. <S> God encourages and loves us. <S> Even when He corrects us, it's in a loving way.
|
We don't pray because God needs to be reminded of our needs, we are supposed to pray because we are to partner with Him to see His will be done.
|
What is an apostle? Often the apostles are referred to as "the twelve apostles" - the twelve disciples called by name by Jesus. But Paul called himself and Barnabus apostles. Were Paul and Barnabus really apostles? <Q> The word apostle is a straight transliteration of the Greek apostolos , literally meaning "one who is sent forth." <S> It implies an ambassador or messenger bearing an official message by the authority of someone more powerful than himself. <S> As we know, Judas, one of the twelve, betrayed him and committed suicide soon after. <S> Matthias was called to replace Judas, which made it clear that the intention was to continue as twelve apostles, replacing the original members as they died. <S> While the Bible doesn't record exactly when or under what circumstances Paul and Barnabas were called as apostles, we do know that there was a lot of persecution of Christians in general and Christian leaders in particular going on at the time. <S> It's reasonable to suppose that they were called as replacements for others of the original twelve. <A> Specifically, the word Apostle comes from the greek word 'apostolos' which literally means messenger, envoy, or one sent. <S> Specifically in Christianity the Apostles were the 11 disciples who went on to spread the Gospel of Christ after His death and resurrection. <S> Paul and some other 1st generation Christians are included in this term. <S> For most Protestants using the word Apostle as a title only applies to those first generation leaders, although some denominations and schools of theological thought may differ. <S> I can not speak authoritatively to the use of the word in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. <A> Apostle does come from the Greek word apostolos / apostello , as noted by Mason Wheeler , and it does indicate one who is sent out. <S> In the Gospels, the Twelve are most commonly referred to as disciples. <S> They were following the Teacher, learning from Him as His students. <S> In John 17:18 and Matthew 28:18-20, among other verses, Jesus specifically sends them out and commissions them with the Great Commission. <S> So, those who were once followers of Jesus became those who were no longer bid to come and follow, but also to go out and proclaim a message. <S> Even in Matthew 4:19, the pattern for this was established. <S> Jesus said, "Come follow me [be disciples], and I will make you fishers of men [apostles]. <S> This is also the call of everyone who comes to Jesus. <S> We must first and foremost follow Him, but we are also sent out with the Great Commission. <S> Every disciple is called to be an apostle - <S> a sent one . <A> Apo-stello: <S> those prepared or 'sent-out-of'There is a formal designation for Jesus' original 12, plus Matthias and Paul. <S> (Capital "A" Apostles, if you like) <S> But there ARE others who are authorised and sent: <S> • <S> James the Lord's brother (on the grounds of 1 Cor 15:7; Gal 1:19) • Paul sets Barnabas as an apostle side by side with himself (1Cor 9:5; Gal 2:9) <S> • <S> As does Luke (in Acts 13:2 f; 14:4,14); • <S> the natural inference from a comparison of 1 Thess 1:1 with 2:6 is that he describes Silvanus and Timothy as "apostles of Christ"; • to the Philippians <S> he mentions Epaphroditus as "your apostolos" interpreted in most bibles as messenger (Phil 2:25) <S> Apostles can be interpreted, in this manner, as messengers of the gospel. <S> We see Paul (Capital "A" Apostle) and Stephen (not capital "A" apostle) set apart by: "many signs and wonders …regularly done among the people" as we see in 2 Corinthians 12:12 and in Acts 5:12. <S> There is a casual reference to "Apostles", the disciples that met Jesus personally, whom many regard as elders of the New Testament Church in matters of doctrine (12 plus Paul). <S> And there were other authorised and 'sent-out' disciples who functioned as "apostles" of the church to spread the gospel.
|
Jesus called twelve Apostles to be his special messengers to all the world. Apostle essentially means "teacher" as opposed to disciple which means "student".
|
Why did the Pharisees need Judas to betray Jesus? I quite don't understand this whole thing. Jesus and his disciples are hanging around the city all the time. Why can't the Pharisees arrest him at their leisure? Why do they need Judas to tell the soldiers which one Jesus is? <Q> It's something you probably don't think about much, but we have reason to believe that Jesus really wasn't all that distinctive in his appearance. <S> John 8:58-59 <S> 58 <S> Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. <S> 59 <S> Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. <S> Luke 4:28-30 28 <S> And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, 29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. <S> 30 <S> But he passing through the midst of them <S> went his way <S> This is the act of someone who is very ordinary-looking and able to blend in with a crowd at will. <S> See also Isaiah 53:2 . <S> The context makes it clear that he's prophesying about the Messiah here, and he clearly states that he does <S> not look like what you'd expect of a powerful, charismatic leader: <S> ... <S> he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. <S> As Dancek pointed out, Jesus reminded them that they could have come for him any time he was in the temple teaching. <S> It's not hard to find him then <S> : look for the one who's the center of attention! <S> But looking for him at night, when you don't really know what he looks like and even if you did, that description might match any of thousands of Jews? <S> (And this was Passover season, so there were a lot of extra Jews in Jerusalem at the moment.) <S> The only way to make sure you've got the right guy in a situation like that is to get someone who personally knows your target to identify him. <S> And so that's exactly what they did. <A> Jesus makes the same point when he is being arrested. <S> He certainly could have been seized anytime without Judas's help. <S> Mark 14:48-49 <S> (ESV) <S> 48 <S> And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? <S> 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. <S> But let the Scriptures be fulfilled." <S> The Scripture had to be fulfilled, and that's why the arrest had to happen this way. <S> I think this might refer to Isaiah's prophecy on the Messiah being counted a criminal. <S> Isaiah 53:12 (ESV) <S> Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet <S> he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors. <A> You have to remember the time period. <S> Back then they didn't have photographs. <S> In fact, paper and horseshoes were still new inventions. <S> The soldiers that were sent to capture him weren't his disciples, so they wouldn't know his face, only his reputation. <S> As to how he betrayed him: Upon coming up to Jesus with the soldiers he kissed him. <S> Matthew 26:49 KJV <S> And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him. <A> Luke 22:2-6 <S> KJV <S> And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people . <S> Then entered Satan into Judas <S> surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. <S> And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them. <S> And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money. <S> And he promised, and sought opportunity to betray him unto them in the absence of the multitude . <S> Jesus meet with the disciples in reservated separated places, "in the absence of the multitude" to explain better doctrines, to pray, to rest, etc. <S> The chief priests and scribes expected that opportunity to arrest Jesus and Judas help them... <A> The pharisees did not want to arrest him in public for the fear of the people. <S> During day time Jesus was always surrounded by the multitude. <S> So it was necessary that he should be arrested during night. <S> But He might not be that distinctive in the night as the disciples also might have similar dress as he wore. <S> Besides, the pharisees could not be sure about where Jesus would be at a particular night. <S> The Roman soldiers were sent to arrest him. <A> First of all, the appearance of Jesus was ordinary. <S> According to Isaiah 53,He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him. <S> That means that Jesus appears as anyone of His disciples. <S> Only Judas who was with him all the time could acknowledge Him. <S> Second, the betrayal the Bible is talking about is more of the heart. <S> Jusah was wicked in his heart and never honored Jesus as it's due. <S> He wanted to "intentionally" kill him. <S> Lastly, the Pharisees needed to make sure they're not arresting the wrong person. <S> They intended to arrest Him long time ago, but they were afraid of the crowd because they take Him as a prophet.
|
They might not be very familiar with Jesus, so they did not want to make a mistake by arresting the wrong man...
|
Is Levi from Luke 5:27 and Mark 2:14 referring to the apostle Matthew Both Luke 5:27 and Mark 2:14 mention a tax collector named Levi: 27 After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. "Follow me," Jesus said to him, 28 and Levi got up, left everything and followed him. 14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him. It sounds like these could be referring to Matthew and I've seen some footnotes that offer that as a possibility (or even as likely) but are there any good reasons to believe that this is or is not referring to Matthew? <Q> It is almost certain that this person is Matthew. <S> In the parallel account of this narrative in the Gospel of Matthew , we see that Levi appears to be "renamed" Matthew . <S> Matthew 9:9 <S> (NIV) 9 <S> As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. <S> “Follow me,” he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. <S> It is unknown why Levi is called Matthew in this gospel. <S> Like all the gospels, Matthew is actually an anonymous document, and our attribution of it to Matthew is based on the consensus of Church Fathers in the 2nd century. <S> However, it appears that whoever wrote the gospel (hereafter called the evangelist ) wants to show that Levi is the Matthew listed in the Twelve (cf Matthew 10:3 ). <S> This could be "...because the writer believed that Levi was or should have been one of the twelve, or is it perhaps because in writing of himself he preferred the name Matthew to his own pre-conversion name, Levi?" <S> [Hagner, Introduction , lxxvi]. <S> Though there are theories that claim the evangelist is playing with names, it must be said that it is very unlikely that he would get away with substituting the name Levi for Matthew if they were not the same person. <S> It is not unusual for individuals in 1st century Israel to have more than one name. <S> For example, it seems that another member of the twelve is known by two names: Jude , was also known by the name Thaddeus . <S> (See Mark 3:16-19 vs Luke 6:14-16 ) <S> Suffice it to say, that the vast majority of scholars suggest that the "Levi" of Mark 2 and Luke 5 is indeed the Matthew of Matthew 9 . <S> Why the evangelist sought to enlighten his readers to this is speculative. <S> Sources: Hagner, D. A., <S> Word Biblical Commentary - Matthew 1-13 , Nelson, 1993 . <S> Cole, A., Mark , IVP, 2008 <S> Nolland, J., Word Biblical Commentary - Luke 1-9:20 , Nelson, 1989 <A> A number of the disciples had other names like we do today, however, the Gospels refer to James the son of Alphaeus (Mark 3:18) as a different disciple from Matthew (Mark 3:18). <S> The Bible also mentions a disciple : "Levi the son of Alphaeus" (Mark 2:14). <S> It's more likely <S> this James and Levi are the same person rather than Matthew and Levi. <S> Recall, the Gospels also mention "Simon the Caananite" as well as "Simon Zealotes". <S> It is from the different lists of the twelve that we know they are the same person. <S> So I believe that there were two "receivers of the custom" amongst the disciples because Levi the son of Alphaeus is also mentioned as sitting at the "receipt of the custom" <S> (Mark 2:14). <A> It is highly unlikely that Matthew and Levi were the same person. <S> Richard Bauckham goes into more detail on this in his book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" but I will summarize it. <S> It is true that a lot of people had two names in this historical context, but they were usually used for two reasons: Having a Greek/Latin name next to a Semitic name <S> A person having an uncommon nickname next to his common name to differentiate himself from the other people with the same name. <S> "Levi" and "Matthew" are both very common Semitic names. <S> It practically never happened elsewhere that a person bore two common Semitic names and it wouldn't make much sense because it wouldn't distinguish the person in any way.
|
It's more likely Matthew and Levi were different disciples than the same.
|
How does the Arminian view of salvation account for God's sovereignty? The Arminian view of salvation posits that man has free will and the choice to accept salvation is purely on our own free will. The total sovereignty of God (while disputed in some theological circles) carries a lot of Biblical evidence with it. Just two examples: Whatever the Lord pleases he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps. Psalms 135:6 Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases. Psalm 115:3 In light of those two statements, here is my question. How do Arminians reconcile the concept of a God who is in total command of the universe with the idea that humans can choose whether or not to accept His offer of salvation? Or do they not recognize God's sovereignty as total? Can a human being through His free will reject God even though God desires their salvation? To clarify: I am not asking for judgement on the correctness of Arminianism, just how those who adhere to the school of thought would answer this question. <Q> I can only speak from a Wesleyan-Arminian perspective. <S> A classical Arminian may have a slightly different understanding. <S> God is both creator and ruler of the universe. <S> As creator he has exercised complete sovereignty; God made all the decisions in setting everything up ( Genesis 1 ), including setting up the means by which we could be saved ( Romans 3:21-26 ). <S> God created everything according to his good pleasure. <S> Out of the whole universe he picked this planet for us to live on. <S> He chose the times and places in which each of us would live, so that we could seek him wherever we are ( Acts 17:26-27 ). <S> In his role as creator, God is completely sovereign. <S> God created a world that was very good ( Genesis 1:31 ). <S> However, God created humans with the ability to act in ways that were not according to God's will ( Genesis 2:16-17 , 3:6-7 ). <S> Rather than following God's will, we follow our own. <S> This is what we mean by free will. <S> As ruler and judge, God is both just and merciful. <S> Sometimes God may be more merciful than we deserve ( Ephesians 2:4-7 ), but he will never treat us unjustly ( Hebrews 6:10 ). <S> God has made his grace available to all ( Titus 2:11 ), and desires everyone to be saved ( 1 Timothy 2:4 ). <S> But God does not force us into submission; rather, God leads us to repentance through his kindness ( Romans 2:4 ) and gives us many chances to turn to him ( Ezekiel 33:11 ). <S> TL;DR: <S> But God also gives us the freedom to turn away from him and the grace to turn toward him. <A> I would say your argument is entirely backwards. <S> If the Lord has total sovereignty, then he can choose to let humans decide for themselves whether to accept salvation if that is what He wishes. <S> Saying that God cannot possibly let humans freely choose whether or not to accept salvation is saying that God does not have total sovereignty. <S> The question is merely what God wishes. <S> Nothing limits him from arranging things as he wishes. <S> His sovereignty is not a limit on what he can do or not do. <S> If he wishes to let humans decide whether to accept salvation, then that is what will happen. <S> If he does not wish to let us do that, then that will not happen. <S> That is what it means to be sovereign. <S> And, as Bruce Alderman points out, the Bible says God " desires everyone to be saved ". <S> So if God didn't leave the decision to us, everyone would be saved. <A> I believe God gives us the freedom to choose so that when we do choose to accept His grace, it is a conscious, humble, obedient choice. <S> That does not mean that God cannot force someone to accept his grace, but I'm not sure there is any evidence of God doing that. <S> Titus 2:11 (NIV) says "For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people." <S> If God's grace is offered to all people, then why haven't all people who know of God's grace accepted it? <S> How many atheist biblical scholars are there that despite knowledge of His grace will still spend eternity in Hell? <S> God values our obedience. <S> Throughout the Bible we are also called to "walk in obedience" . <S> We are not made to obey, but asked to obey in the same way we are asked to believe in Jesus Christ and accept salvation. <S> 1 <S> Samuel 15:22 NIV 22 <S> But Samuel replied: “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the LORD? <S> To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
|
God is sovereign in that he sets all the boundaries, both in putting each of us in a particular time and place, and in making a way that we might be saved and enjoy eternity with him. I would say that yes, through free will a man can accept God's offer of grace and salvation.
|
Significance of Methuselah's death year This is something I noted once when reading Genesis, and am still wondering if there's any meaning to it. Genesis tells us that Noah was 599-600 years old 1 when the flood came. Genesis 7:11 (ESV) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. We can also find the age difference of Methuselah and Noah in Genesis 5, and it's 187 + 182 = 369 years 2 : Genesis 5:25-29 (ESV) 25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he fathered Lamech. 26 Methuselah lived after he fathered Lamech 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Thus all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died. 28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son 29 and called his name Noah, saying, "Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands." So, if Noah was 600 when the flood happened, Methuselah was 600 + 369 = 969 . That is, he died around the time of flood. Did Methuselah die in the flood? Does the Bible refer to this anywhere else? Is this in any way significant? 1 I don't know Hebrew, so I'm not gonna guess. The tenth year of my life was technically when I was 9 years old. But even in English the phrase might also mean being 10 years old. 2 More precisely, the age difference is in the range of [369 years; 370 years + 364 days] <Q> It is relevant that Methuselah died just before the flood. <S> Just have a look at the names of the first 10 generations leading up to Noah: <S> Adam - Man (CJBPG) <S> Seth <S> - Appointed Enosh - Mortal, weak (Smith's, Hitchcock's, Nave's) <S> Kenan - Sorrow Mahalelel - The Praise of Lord (Smith's, Fausset's, Easton's, Nave's) <S> Jared - Descend <S> (Smith's, Fausset's, Easton's, Nave's, Hitchcock's, ISBE) <S> Enoch - Dedicated Methuselah - His death shall bring (Fausset's) <S> Lamech - Lamentator, the poor, brought low (Hitchcock) <S> Noah - Comfort <S> Putting this together: Man is appointed to be mortal and sorrowful. <S> But the Praise of the Lord will descend, dedicated that His death shall bring the desparing, low, and poor comfort. <S> I imaging that every time Methuselah had a cold, everybody worried. <S> But what a prophecy into God's plan for humanity! <S> Now, based on this it is my believe that Methuselah died before the flood. <S> There is no prove for that, though. <S> Jewish counting works different from ours: When Jesus was dead for 3 days, that means that he died on one, was dead the next, and rose the third. <S> (which would make it possible for him to be dead for only 27 hours: He died at 3pm, and the third day started at around 6pm the next evening.) <S> Therefore Methuselah could have died on his 968th birthday and still have lived 969 years. <A> Methuselah was of the line of Noah, of course, so it's quite possible that Noah followed in the footsteps of his father and grandfather. <S> His father Lamech died earlier, as indicated in Genesis 5. <S> So, if Methuselah was a righteous man like his grandson Noah, then Methuselah died the year of the flood. <S> If he was not a righteous man, it's possible that the cause of his death was drowning. <A> We know that he was around up until the time of the flood, and that he didn't end up on the Ark with Noah. <S> Beyond that, we don't know. <S> But there are a few possibilities that are consistent with what we do know: <S> He could have fallen spiritually and become wicked like the rest of the earth. <S> Or he could have finally died soon before the flood, leaving no one righteous on the earth aside from Noah's family, which left God no reason not to proceed with it. <S> (See Lot's family for a parallel.) <S> Without more information than we have now, though, choosing one over the other would be purely a matter of speculation. <A> Methuselah outlived Lamech (Noah's father). <S> There were none righteous in the world except Noah and his family, with the exception of Methuselah. <S> Gen 7:4 says "for yet seven days <S> and I will cause it to rain upon the earth..... <S> " <S> Methuselah did not die in the flood but died just before. <S> The seven days were days of mourning the death of Methuselah. <S> It was after his death there were none righteous except Noah and his family.
|
According to this article , Methuselah can mean a few things, one of which is, "when he is dead, it shall be sent."
|
How should we judge the trustworthiness of a given Bible translation? Given that both the humans who actually penned the Bible and the later humans who translated it all had free will, the issue of Biblical inerrancy is a tricky one. See also: By what mechanism could the Bible be inerrant? It is usually claimed that those transcribing and translating the text were working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. While this may be true of some, it is also clear that not every translation project has even approached the work in good faith, much less under supernatural guidance. Some 'translations' are clearly contradictory with others, and others show obvious signs of a specific agenda being brought to the text. Others specifically state having a political bias going into the project (e.g. the Conservative Bible Project). Of course nearly every group or individual that produces a translation then goes on to claim that theirs is the "true" rendition of the text or meaning. Since clearly not everyone that works on the Bible is guided by the Holy Spirit, how are we to know which translations are reliable? Are modern and ancient mainstream translations considered to be free from political agendas and personal bias? If so, how do we know? <Q> Cliche Christian answer: pray about it. <S> I'm guessing that isn't the answer you're looking for though, so I will say "research." <S> For example, looking at Wikipedia you can see the New International Version "translation took ten years and involved a team of up to 100 scholars from the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. <S> The range of those participating included many different denominations such as Anglicans, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Christian Reformed, Lutheran and Presbyterian." <S> Also, "Recent archaeological and linguistic discoveries helped in understanding traditionally difficult passages to translate." <S> Having a large team of international, inter-denominational scholars helps quite a bit to remove bias and helps to ensure an accurate translation. <S> Then, using different discoveries gives further insight. <S> You can easily do this research (and more in depth research) for the other translations as well. <S> I only used NIV as an example because it is what I see quoted most often. <S> With so many scholars using so many different translations, it is usually pretty easy to find out when a translation is inaccurate. <S> If worried about bias, consider purchasing a parallel Bible so you can always compare two or three translations <A> You can view this in different ways. <S> I think the three viewpoints I'm going to tell about all have their merits. <S> The optimistic answer <S> Warning: don't apply the following reasoning to sectarian translations, e.g. the New World Translation. <S> Seriously. <S> All (notable) Bible translations are very carefully created. <S> Every one of them is trustworthy on all of the more important points. <S> Any minor translation errors will be minor enough not to matter too much. <S> The realistic answer (in other words, what I recommend!) <S> All translations have errors. <S> You should read different translations side-by-side <S> (eg. <S> using an online parallel Bible ), and be careful with any translation choices that are found in only a few versions. <S> Practically, it's slow to do this for everything you read. <S> It might suffice to do it only when in doubt. <S> The ultra-cynical answer <S> All translations have errors. <S> Read the original, then. <S> But some of the manuscripts have errors, too. <S> And many things don't make sense to us, in a very different culture than which the texts were written in. <S> So become a Greek and Hebrew scholar, a historian, an archaeologist, a theologian, etc. <S> Or the less cynical variation: realize that sometimes a non-expert will need to do a lot of research. <S> And they might still be wrong. <A> The NIV does not do this well in a few cases. <S> Every instance where it says "sinful nature," should really be translated as "flesh." <S> "Sinful nature" denotes that sin can be a part of our human nature, whereas actually sin makes us less and less human (and therefore cannot be dubbed as a part of our human nature). <S> A good bible translation is one that can convey timeless Gospel truths as best as possible. <S> However, we must remember that translation is interpretation. <S> And that in any translation it is impossible to not do some amount of interpretation. <S> People can denounce a translation as not being very accurate, but the real question at root is whether or not God can use a poor translation to bring about transformative change in a person and community's collective soul. <S> So maybe instead of asking what is our basis for a good translation, we could be asking, is there any medium that God is not content to use in order to reach who he wants? <S> Not only that, but all text has an agenda. <S> Scripture definitely has an agenda, to point us towards Christ. <S> The real issue is trusting that the Holy Spirit has and does continue to guide the Church universal through means that we might deem "not good enough" if we were God. <S> But then again, thanks be to God that God can work through any and everything to his glory. <A> Most Bible translators have integrity and the majority of translations are therefore valid, however bias and inaccuracy <S> will creep in..... <S> you might be interested in reading 'Truth in Translation' by Jason David BeDuhn which compares the bias and accuracy of 9 of the most widely distributed versions of the Bible including the King James, NIV, NWT and the New American Bible.
|
A bible translation is deemed "trustworthy" according to how well it can translate the concepts described in one language into the vocabulary of another.
|
Where can I learn about Catholic terms and phrases? A number of very good questions and answers on this site refer to specifically Catholic doctrine or terminology. I've been one to ask for clarification on these terms at times, however I think it's clear that asking for clarification every time I see a Catholic term I'm not familiar with will drag this site down rather quickly (as well as make me look like I have nothing better to do than ask the same type of question repeatedly). Can someone (hopefully a Catholic!) recommend a good resource (preferably online) that explains common Catholic terminology in an accurate and respectful manner, to someone from a non-Catholic background? If we get some good answers, I'll probably suggest this question for site FAQ inclusion. <Q> The Catholic Encyclopedia is a public domain Encyclopedia compiled in the early 20th century. <S> Since not a lot has changed in the last hundred years, it's a pretty excellent resource. <S> Beyond that, if you want something that'll overload your senses, you can check out the intratext search of the Catechism of the Catholic Church <S> The other thing that might come up (and hopefully not here) is that we'll use awful acronyms like LG (Lumen Gentium), DV (Dei Verbum) and CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) or CCCC (Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church) to reference some important texts or encyclicals. <S> For these I've only seen good glossaries for these in the backs of print books, like the Catechism, and not a complete list, just the ones referenced within, but in the Catechism that's like everything from the Apostolic Father's on. <S> Finally, I just found this site http://www.catholicreference.net/ <S> so I'm super glad you asked because I'm going to link to it all the time from now on! <A> I have found many answers in their public forums. <S> They are usually moderated by well-known apologists. <A> This looks like a really good place to go to learn about Catholicism and it looks rather expansive. <S> I would imagine that it would also be a really good and useful tool for looking up a lot of generic religious terms. <S> The articles seem to be rather expansive and exhaustive.
|
Catholic Answers is a great reference site as well.
|
How do Christians justify their belief and how do they convince others of their belief? First of all, I assume that everybody should have some sort of justification for his beliefs. Secondly, I assume that Christians are interested in convincing others to join them as evangelisation seems to be promoted in the bible. Lastly, I assume that Christians respect the laws of logic and therefore their justifications must also follow these laws. My question, based on these assumptions, is as follows: How do Christians justify their beliefs to themselves as well as to others and how do they convince others of their belief? I am aware that this question is very fundamental. I tried to find an answer on the site, however, I couldn't find any. Please point me to any questions with good answers regarding this topic that I couldn't find! <Q> Lastly, I assume that Christians respect the laws of logic and therefore their justifications must also follow these laws. <S> Then you're not really going to get very far. <S> Yes, Christians respect the laws of logic, but we do not respect only the laws of logic. <S> We know that God is there because he makes his presence known through the witness of the Holy Ghost, and we know that he is good and worthy of obedience and worship because of the history of our relationship with him. <S> As we follow God's commandments faithfully, we can see the results in our lives. <S> We see that living the principles of the Gospel works , that it produces positive results, helping us to resolve or avoid problems in our lives. <S> That increases our faith, making us better-able to trust in God, so that when we need to do something truly difficult, even if it seems to contradict what we think is logical, we can say, "God has never led me wrong before, so I can trust in him now. <S> " <S> Those who don't understand this principle say that Christians live by "blind faith," but that is far from the truth. <S> As for how Christians convince others of their belief, we don't. <S> While it's possible to convince another person that our viewpoint makes sense, actual faith, the kind I'm talking about in the previous paragraphs, comes from God, not from another person. <S> What proselyting Christians attempt to do is convince others to open their hearts, to be willing to accept that the Gospel might be true, and to be willing to pray to God to seek their own testimony and establish their own relationship with him. <S> Conversion is a highly personal matter between oneself and the Lord; anyone else's involvement is secondary. <A> The formulation of this question is broad as has been noted, but I will answer this as best I can. <S> We justify our beliefs based on a series of foundational beliefs that require faith, but then have logical outcomes and structures that follow. <S> The book of Romans does an excellent job laying out these basics and their implications. <S> As such, I have found that you can logically justify the Christian faith and its beliefs, as long as you have faith and believe (accept as factually true) <S> the basic foundational beliefs. <S> If you believe there is a God, and if you believe that the Bible is what it says it is then you can logically form (a VERY long) argument for all facets of the Christian faith. <S> However, this would still just be head knowledge. <S> Let's forget labels for just one second as they tend confuse things. <S> To be a follower of Christ, to be "saved" or within His elect, you must believe that Christ was real, historical, bodily resurrected and alive today, just not with us here on this earth. <S> You also must love and trust Jesus to fulfill His promises and show you grace and mercy. <S> This is the essence of being a Christian, and in a very real way I cannot justify or prove this to you anymore than I can "prove" why I love my fiancee. <A> I could tell you how I justify my belief (and it is based on logic, which is based on assumptions), but it wouldn't provide a universal answer worthy of a StackExchange site. <S> What makes sense to me may resonate with a lot of Christians, or very few, or none. <S> In all honesty, I probably sound like a fool to the majority of people, yet to me, my reason for believing is as solid as the belief itself. <S> The answer to this question is unique to every Christian. <S> We can't give an answer that applies universally. <S> Not only are we all individuals, with different ways of viewing the world around us, we are also all called by God in a specific way, unique to each of us. <A> Not everything that is true can be logically proven. <S> Think about interpersonal relationships and your feelings for another person. <S> If you contend that all of your feelings for other people can be based on or explained by the laws of logic, I would assume you've never been in love. <S> I can't really speak for other traditions, but the Evangelical Protestant view is that Christianity is a relationship, not a religion . <S> (I can't really speak for other traditions.) <S> Christians are those who have responded to God's invitation to a personal relationship with Him. <S> Like human relationships, there are aspects of this that cannot be logically proven, yet are true.
|
The basis of Christian belief isn't grounded in logic, but in testimony, faith and experience .
|
Can you be Christian while wishing death upon another? As an American on 9/11 I wanted death to come to all who planned or contributed to the attacks. As a Christian, I felt conflicted. Should I be feeling this anger? Am I right in thinking that Osama bin Laden should be killed? As well as brought to justice. As a Christian should I have these views? Or should I leave it up to God to handle, to decide whether he should die or live? <Q> First of all, this is definitely something that should be left to God. <S> A great example is in Jude: <S> Jude 1:9 (NLT) 9 <S> But even Michael, one of the mightiest of the angels, did not dare accuse the devil of blasphemy, but simply said, “The Lord rebuke you!” <S> (This took place when Michael was arguing with the devil about Moses’ body.) <S> Satan is certainly the evilest being in existence, but even Michael left Satan's punishment up to God. <S> Also, consider these verses in Romans: Romans 12:19-20 <S> (NLT) <S> 19 <S> Dear friends, never take revenge. <S> Leave that to the righteous anger of God. <S> For the Scriptures say, “I will take revenge; I will pay them back,” says the Lord. <S> 20 <S> Instead, “If your enemies are hungry, feed them. <S> If they are thirsty, give them something to drink. <S> In doing this, you will heap burning coals of shame on their heads.” <S> Again, leave it to God. <S> He can do it way better than we can. <S> Also, instead of hating our enemies, we are called to love them instead. <S> Matthew 5:44 (NLT) 44 <S> But I say, love your enemies! <S> Pray for those who persecute you! <S> That being said...when the current event was Osama's death, a few of my Christian friends (and I) said that while they had not wished for Osama's death nor were they happy about the death itself, they were glad that Osama had been removed from his position at the head of Al Qaeda. <A> I heard a good comment after Osama bin Laden was killed. <S> They were commenting how people were celebrating his death, but he said that as a Christian he didn't feel like he should be happy. <S> He would have rather that bin Laden had become a follower of Christ. <S> I agreed with him, and believe it applies to this question. <S> We should also remember that we will be judged as we judge others. <S> Since we are not perfect, we should not be judging others. <A> There are many Christians that wish for the death of particular politicians. <S> These Christians unfortunately don't understand what Jesus taught about loving others, being willing to die for those that hate you, or following the example of Jesus when he healed the ear of the soldier that was arresting Him. <S> These Christians are choosing to follow the teachings of other ministers that have chosen to ignore what Jesus taught, and re-interpret it with their corrections. <S> So, since 1 Cor 13 is quite clear on this, in that if you don't have love then what you say is like a clanging gong. <S> Without love nothing you do means anything to God. <S> Unfortunately there is no way to really sugar-coat <S> this response, as these Christians are damaging the teachings of Christ by preaching a doctrine of hatred and intolerance. <S> One book that heavily influenced me, in that it showed me that there are <S> others like me was "Jesus Freaks", both vol 1 and 2 ( http://www.jesusfreaks.net/ ), to see not only stories about people willing to die for Christ, but those that made the huge risk to be willing to live for Christ, risking a great deal while they do that. <S> When Osama bin Laden was killed I was actually torn, as I felt guilty for being happy he was killed, and I struggled with how I should feel. <S> If he was captured it would lead to more deaths, so I don't see any good solution other than what was done, but being happy seems to be wrong. <A> 1 John 4:11-12 11 <S> Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. <S> 12 <S> No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. <S> and again 1 <S> John 4:19-21 19 <S> We love because he first loved us. <S> 20 <S> Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. <S> For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. <S> 21 <S> And he has given us this command: <S> Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister. <S> Now, here 'brother or sister' may be referring specifically to members of the church <S> but I think that the take away can be applied here. <S> Remember that "... <S> While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." <S> Romans 5:8. <S> The same applies to everyone, including ObL. <S> I do not believe that Jesus would want us hating or wishing ill will on those that he died for. <S> At the same time God also loves those who ObL might have killed, so wishing that he be brought to justice, not for revenge, but for law and order, peace, etc. <S> I warranted. <S> My view on him as well anyone who commits crime was (and is) ' <S> I hope that he finds Christ soon, though one day he may need to face man's justice.'
|
As a true follower of Christ, we should wish for others to believe in him and repent of their sins, rather than wishing for their death.
|
Should protestants not make the sign of the Cross? I'm not a Catholic, but I've been aware since I was little that Catholics will "Cross" themselves. Early on I felt like I shouldn't copy it as it always had been portrayed in tv/film as something ritualistic or superstitious. But now that I understand some of the Catholic's reasoning, I'm wondering if there is any doctrine in protestantism that addresses why you shouldn't do it, or is it simply because we don't want to imitate Catholicism? Catholic brethren please feel free to talk about the reasons why it should be done, in the comments. <Q> I don't think we could equate it with the type of superstition that equates to idolatry or occultism. <S> (I'm sorry if that sounds offensive to anyone who practices it. <S> Please read on, and you'll see I don't mean to offend.) <S> It's definitely meant as a Christian gesture for the Catholics and the other denominations that did or still do practice it. <S> I think that if you're a protestant that is not in a denomination that practices it, you should not practice it. <S> Not because it's wrong, or for Scriptural reasons but <S> because there's really no good motive to do so and because it just plain shows common decency to respect the traditions of others, so long as they are not anti-Christian, or anti-God. <S> To do it flippantly would seem to dishonor it and could prove offensive to those who hold it as important. <S> As a Baptist, I imagine I'd get annoyed if a bunch of Catholics went down to the beach and held dunking-style baptisms just to do it. <S> To me, baptism is very symbolic, and an important rite. <S> Not that it saves you or anything, but it's not something to be made fun of. <S> For those that make the sign of the cross, I'd imagine it's the same. <S> Since there is no scriptural prohibition against it, and it's important to some <S> , I'd say that we should just keep our silence, and show respect for their beliefs and practices, as we'd hope they'd have respect for ours. <A> Based on my personal experience as a lifelong Roman Catholic, I offer the following brief insight. <S> First, the sign of the cross is just the that: the sign of the CROSS, the cross upon which Christ's blood was spilled in atonement for our sins and to redeem us. <S> That's powerful in and of itself. <S> Second, in a Catholic mass, when the sign of the cross is made, accompanying it is usually the phrase, "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." <S> Obviously, that is an affirmation of the Trinity, a doctrine to which Christians of many traditions subscribe. <S> Third, when we make the sign of the cross, we often refer to it as "blessing yourself. <S> " You are invoking God's blessing and protection. <S> There is also one place in the mass where we trace the sign of the cross on our foreheads, then on our lips and finally over our hearts. <S> This is connected to the Old Testament scripture (and practice of the Jews) praying, "May the thoughts in my mind, the words on my lips and the meditations of my heart be acceptable to You, my God and my Redeemer." <S> As you can see, there is nothing whatsoever superstitious about it. <S> If you look at it not in a denominational context, it seems to have intrinsic worth for all Christians. <A> There is no prohibition against using the sign of the cross as a Protestant. <S> Yet, there is no Biblical command to use it either. <S> The same is true of closing your eyes when you pray, and even praying before meals. <S> Yet, the sign of the Cross, as I understand it, is used at the close of prayers. <S> We are commanded to pray in the Name of Jesus, but not that of the Father and the Holy Spirit. <S> "Until now you have asked nothing in my name. <S> Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full." <S> John 16:24 ESV <S> However, we are commanded to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. <S> "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] <S> the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. <S> " <S> Matthew 28:19 ESV <S> So, praying in the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit actually seems to be somewhat contrary to the command of Jesus. <S> We pray in the name of Jesus and we pray to the Father . <S> Adding the name of the Father and Holy Spirit is, again, not specified in Scripture, so it's likely just a tradition of men. <S> Conclusion <S> Consequently, a reasonable conclusion to draw is that if we are commanded to pray in the name of Jesus and not in any other name, including that of the Father and the Spirit, then that is probably what we ought to do. <S> Had God wanted us to pray in the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit in addition to the name of Jesus, it seems He would have mentioned that when He told us to pray in the name of Jesus.
|
I don't think there's any harm in making the sign of the cross.
|
Can a Christian have clinical depression? God can grant an amazing peace of mind to a person. Many Christians have been totally calm and prayed for their persecutors while being tortured and killed -- like Stephen , the first martyr. But do all Christians (I mean those who are saved) have the same kind of peace, or any kind of peace at all? I'd thought a Christian can be completely desperate and hopeless, even to the point of committing suicide. I came across an answer with another point of view, which made me question first the answer, then my own views. What does the Bible say about this, and what do churches teach? Can a Christian be desperate and hopeless? What about clinically depressed ? <Q> Has anyone thought about Job?Anyway... <S> Paul wrote to Corinthians; 2 Corinthians 1:8-11 (NKJV) 8 <S> For we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, of our trouble which came to us in Asia: that we were burdened beyond measure, above strength , so that we despaired even of life . <S> 9 <S> Yes, we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead, 10 who delivered us from so great a death, and does deliver us; in whom we trust that He will still deliver us, <S> 11 <S> you also helping together in prayer for us, that thanks may be given by many persons on our behalf for the gift granted to us through many. <S> Certainly Paul was expressing a sense of depression when he wrote that he was "burdened beyond measure" and "above strength". <S> So it would seem that, yes, Christians can be depressed. <S> We won't know why many of us are burdened to the limits of our endurance until God chooses to enlighten us. <S> There is one scripture, however, that has helped me during dark times. <S> Jesus tells us in Matthew 10:22;... <S> " But he who endures to the end will be saved. " <A> Those who are mentally ill can be saved <S> , I know of someone who is a severe schizophrenic, and has delusions that are contradictory to the Bible (such as he believes he is or soon will be king of the world), but at the same time, he believes in God as his personal Lord and Savior... <S> God knows and understands, He looks at the heart... <S> Can a Christian be desperate and hopeless? <S> Yes. <S> Following Christ is a spiritual journey , so we have ups and downs, times of "drought" and times of "blessing", where things are going well <S> and not so well... <S> In our spiritual lives, we grow and learn, that's the very nature of a spiritual journey... <A> There are some churches that teach that depression and other mental illness are not possible for a Christian - they are sinful or demonic. <S> Most churches accept that mental illness is a part of life in a fallen world, something which Christains are not immune from. <S> The likes of Job and Elijah are examples of Biblical characters who may have suffered from depression. <S> Can Christians be Hopeless? <S> Yes, like anyone else. <S> There are examples of Christians who have shown great fortitude in the face of difficulties, although, TBH, they are often when facing death, which may hold less fear for Christians than some others. <S> The truth is that in the face of death fortitude is sometimes easier than in the face of life. <A> As someone who suffers from bipolar and had a recent incident of major depression within the last twelve months (related to the bipolar), I will have to say, yes, yes we can. <S> This most recent bout of depression what characteristic of the disease: <S> severe lows triggered by nothing . <S> The question isn't whether a person with mental illness can be saved, the question is what can they do with what they have. <S> It also helps to remember that many (if not most) emotions are products of the sinful flesh and can often be corrupted by the devil. <S> Never put it past him to polish something a little to make it look more enticing. <S> After all, if he can cause physical disease, there is no reason he can't manipulate the chemical reactions in your grey-matter which is, after all, an organ.
|
Yes, Christians can be clinically depressed.
|
Should the words to prayers said in private be changed to fit the company? Why do we pray " Our Father who art in Heaven" and "Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death". Should we instead pray My Father and "Pray for me, a sinner now and at the hour of my death"? Or is there a reason to always use the same words in those prayers? I know there is some conflict in the Nicene creed where both I believe and We believe is used, but specifically in prayers, and not creeds, what is the reason for using the plural pronoun when you're the only person in the room, does this have something to do with the communion of saints or is it just convention? <Q> Don't get hung up on words; prayer should come from the heart. <S> I believe that prayer needs to originate from the heart. <S> Because of that, we shouldn't get hung up on words. <S> I believe that rote prayers and repeated prayers can be just as effective and just as "heard by God" as prayers that are unscripted. <S> It's about the state of your heart whether God hears you. <S> Because of that, I don't think that words in and of themselves should be the primary concern of prayer. <S> Clearly, you need the words to communicate what's in your heart ( "Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks" and all that), but it's more about the state of your heart than the singularity/plurality of the words. <S> Use the words that are most comfortable to you. <S> The worst thing you can do is to use words that distract you from the prayer of your heart. <A> Ephesians 6:18 <S> "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. <S> With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord’s people." <A> The Lord's Prayer (actually the disciples prayer) is a pattern of prayer, so just because it says "Our Father" there doesn't mean that all prayers for all times by all people should use that address. <S> That could indeed fall into the category of vain repetitions that Jesus warned about in Matthew 6. <S> It's instructive to look at the other prayers in the Bible. <S> The Psalms are full of prayers that do not have the "Our Father". <S> David says (or sings) " <S> O God You are my God". <S> I believe that God is honored by that. <S> He is certainly our God, but for every follower of Christ, He is "my God". <S> Certainly the atonement has ushered in a new and greater relationship with God <S> In John 17, Jesus addresses God the Father as "Righteous Father", "Holy Father", and "Father". <S> Since believers are joint heirs with Christ and sons and daughters of God, it seems very appropriate to address God as "Father". <A> Checked out the notes on the side of the YouCat. <S> Probably more in the Catechism, but since I'm studying the YouCat now, that's what I'll roll with for an answer <S> The Christian does not say "My Father" but "Our Father". <S> Even in the secrecy of a closed room, because he knows that in every place, on every occasion, he is a member of one in the same Body. <S> Pope Benedict XVI, June 6, 2007 <S> That's a little broader than just talking about the Lord's Prayer. <S> I think the pope is saying that we're praying each prayer as the Body of Christ. <S> We still say the Creed, "I believe" though, because believing is something we can't do for each other. <S> Praying in supplication and for intercession is something we do in communion. <S> Especially in communion with the Church Triumphant in Heaven and for the Church Suffering in Purgatory, but also with the Church Militant here on earth in some mystical way we can't really understand. <S> In the Lord's Prayer, we say all together "Our Father". <S> So says the Emperor, the beggar the slave, the master. <S> They are all brothers because they have one Father. <S> St. Augustine of Hippo <S> And St. Augustine, as always, puts things very succinctly. <S> We also pray with our brothers and sisters here on earth, together. <S> We pray for our brothers even when they're not with us because unlike Cain, we should be about our brother's business. <A> I think there is a place for private prayer that is personal and first person, and there is a place for personal corporate prayer - <S> that is prayer that engages with the others who are part of the worldwide community. <S> I am not sure why I would use, for example, the Lords Prayer as personal prayer.
|
My advice is this: If the prayer feels awkward to you, change it. There is a strong argument that praying a plural inclusive version of the prayers ( or the creed ) is about acknowledging the many others who are also praying the same thing - so saying "our father" includes the many others who are also praying the same thing.
|
Why did God come down so hard on Job? There is a video/workbook series on prayer by Phillip Yancey (which I highly recommend) (and based on one of his books ) that talks about how we should pray openly about all things. It even says that we should tell God when we are frustrated with God himself. After all, (a) God wants to be part of our lives, (b) God already knows what we're going through and (c) if we reach out to him, he may answer our prayers or comfort us to reaffirm that he is our God. All very valid and very useful points. To illustrate this, he uses the illustration from Habakkuk. In chapter 1, Habakkuk prays to God: Habakkuk 1:2 (NIV) How long, LORD, must I call for help, but you do not listen? Or cry out to you, “Violence!” but you do not save? God seems to respond favorably to this prayer: Habakkuk 1:5 (NIV) Look at the nations and watch— and be utterly amazed. For I am going to do something in your days that you would not believe, even if you were told. There's another example of this type of prayer (praying a complaint about God) in Jeremiah 12 . However , if we look at the book of Job, we see God respond unfavorably to Job's complaining. Job goes on for 37 chapters to complain while his friends chide him for brining it on himself (when really, as we see in Job 1 , God allowed Satan to do this to Job unprovoked ). Finally, in Job 38, God answers: Job 38:1-3 (NIV) 1 Then the LORD spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: 2 “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. God goes on for four more chapters to rebuke Job to show how powerless and foolish Job is. My question (finally): How can we reconcile God's angry response to Job's complaining with God's favorable response to Habakkuk and Jeremiah's complaining? What did Job do that was so wrong to bring on God's anger (in his response)? Furthermore, how should we pray to avoid committing the sin that Job committed (in order to avoid God's wrath)? I'm seeking the Protestant viewpoint, excluding the doctrine of reciting prayers. This is more a question regarding open-ended prayer. (see doctrine of prayer ) <Q> I believe it is because Job's complaining went beyond merely complaining and went into self-justification and questioning God. <S> Job 40:1-5 <S> Then the LORD said to Job, "Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? <S> Let him who reproves God answer it. <S> Then Job answered the LORD and said, "Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to You? <S> I lay my hand on my mouth. <S> " <S> Once I have spoken, and I will not answer; Even twice, and I will add nothing more." <S> and verse 8 : <S> Will you really annul My judgment? <S> Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?" <S> and finally, Job's confession of his own wrong-doing in his over-complaining: <S> Then Job answered the LORD and said, "I know that You can do all things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. <S> 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' <S> Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. <S> " <S> 'Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct me.' <S> "I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; <S> But now my eye sees You; <S> Therefore I retract, <S> And I repent in dust and ashes." <S> God is also angry at Job's " friends " (sidebar - with friends like those, who needs enemies?). <S> And yes, God does say Job has spoken rightly about him as well - <S> but there's some point beyond the right speaking that Job exceeded , too - as I understand it. <A> After chapters 38 and 39 where God displays his omnipresence and omnipotence to Job, God confronts Job saying, showing that Job's wisdom is power is limited and finite: <S> Job 40:8-9 (NASB) <S> 8 <S> “Will you really annul My judgment? <S> Will you condemn Me that you may be justified? <S> 9 <S> “Or do you have an arm like God, And can you thunder with a voice like His? <S> He goes on to say that in 40:10-14 that if Job can do these mighty things, then God will actually admit that Job can save himself: <S> Job 40:10-14 10 <S> “Adorn yourself with eminence and dignity, And clothe yourself with honor and majesty. <S> 11 <S> “Pour out the overflowings of your anger, And look on everyone who is proud, and make him low. <S> 12 <S> “Look on everyone who is proud, and humble him, And tread down the wicked where they stand. <S> 13 <S> “Hide them in the dust together; Bind them in the hidden place. <S> 14 <S> “Then I will also confess to you, That your own right hand can save you. <S> It's this pride and arrogance of Job that God is angry with. <S> Summary <S> We need to feel free to question God and bring all things before him. <S> However, we need to be mindful to speak truly about God's nature and also be humble enough to realize our own limited natures. <S> If we can keep these two things in mind, then we should take all things to God. <A> If God was angry with Job at all, it must be because of Job lack of knowledge of true nature of God. <S> Please, I stand to be corrected. <S> I think Job did not know that God does no evil <S> (James 1:13)-yes <S> God do allow evil in our world. <S> All that happened to Job was evil and yet -right from the word <S> go- <S> he was saying it was God that does it. <S> Job totally forgets to pray for himself when the evil begin. <S> I was of the opinion that if Job had call on God from start of the satan evil plan for deliverance (Psalms 50:15), God will have stop satan. <S> It therefore means that if God stop satan on time because of Job’s prayers, Job will not end up saying things that make God to be angry with him. <S> If we look at the Habakkuk and Jeremiah, we see that they prayed to God <S> and it was when it looks as if God not answering them that they try to call God attention to their prayer as a form of complained. <S> Thanks
|
It seems that the reason that God was so angry with Job was because of Job's pride and arrogance.
|
What are the differences between the translation ideologies of the NASB and ESV? I've read both the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version for some time now. I frankly can't tell which one I'm reading; they're that close. Many passages are translated with the exact same wording. What are the differences between the translation ideologies of the two? <Q> From the ESV Wikipedia link (emphasis added) : <S> The result is a translation that is more literal than the popular New International Version, but more idiomatic than the New American Standard Bible. <S> That's probably the main difference. <S> So ESV is going to be more literal, less figurative and free from exaggeration/embellishment in it's translations and is going to "use, contain or denote expressions that are natural to the native speaker" (idiomatic as defined by dictionary.com) . <S> (My opinion) From what I've read from each of them <S> , the NASB seems to be smoother and more easily understood in modern English. <S> However, with the ESV, it's nice sometimes to get a more clear look at the original meanings/translation. <S> The most updated version of the NASB was 1995 <S> * and the most recent version of ESV is a 2011 edition <S> *. <S> " <S> [...] on occasion the ESV translates 'person' or 'one' where previous translations used 'man' [however] it keeps gender specific language [as-is] in the original [text]. <S> " <S> * <S> * from Wikipedia links provided. <S> Good question <S> , I learned a bit through this short bit of research :) <A> The NASB follows more of a formal equivalence model of translation. <S> They try to translate every Greek/Hebrew word with the same English word in each occurrence. <S> They also try to be consistent in how they express grammatical constructions. <S> This is great if you are using the translation to talk about Greek words and grammar because you can pretty much guess what Greek/Hebrew words and constructions are being translated. <S> However, this benefit comes at a cost. <S> You will find the NASB to be a little less clear if you don't know Greek/Hebrew. <S> The ESV follows a little more of a functional equivalence model. <S> They still try to remain consistent with how they translate words and grammatical constructions. <S> However, the RSV translators (the ESV is an update of the RSV) are a little more willing to translate words differently based upon context. <A> Both are said to be very accurate. <S> No translation is perfect because translation involves some subjectivity, but both of these are good. <S> The 1970's NASB was said to have more "wooden" language, but that is not true of the updated (1995) NASB. <S> In fact, I think some parts of the updated NASB flow better than in the ESV, but that's my opinion. <S> Among some other things I like better about the NASB: <S> The NASB does a better job of footnoting variances among the manuscript text bases. <S> The NASB italicizes words that had to be added to make sense in English; the ESV does not, so you can't tell those words are additions. <S> The NASB capitalizes pronouns that refer to the Deity; the ESV does not. <S> Verses that are included in some of the manuscript bases but not in others (such as part of the Lord's prayer) are included in the main text, inside brackets, in the NASB. <S> In the ESV, they are only shown as a footnote. <S> I personally like the NASB better, but I don't think you'd go wrong with either of these. <S> They are very similar. <S> In fact, none of the mainstream translations (excluding those adulterated to fit cult theology, of course) differ in basic Christian doctrine. <S> The KJV, NJKV, HCSB, and NIV (especially the 1984 NIV) are also good translations, so take your pick. <S> The NIV is a thought for thought rather than more literal translation, however.
|
They are both said to be fairly literal word for word translations, with the NASB having the slight advantage.
|
Why do people interpret "Lucifer" as being Satan in Isaiah 14? In almost every case I've heard Isaiah 14:12-15 quoted or preached about, I'm told that these are the words of Satan in his rebellion against God. Isaiah 14:12-15 (KJV) : 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. For example, here . Yet if you jump up to verse 4 , it says That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! and continues on through the previously cited verses. So to me, a clear reading indicates that this it the Kind of Babylon saying in his heart,"I will ascend..." I understand that the prophetical books are often open to interpretation, but I believe I'm missing something. Why are these quotes attributed to Satan, when it appears that they're meant to be attributed to the king of Babylon? <Q> It is commonly believed to be Satan. <S> "Lucifer", however, is a transliteration of the word in the Latin Vulgate. <S> So, basically, it's a transliteration of a translation. <S> Many more modern translations render the original word rather than following the traditional transliteration. <S> How you are fallen from heaven, <S> O Day Star , son of Dawn! <S> How youare cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! <S> (Isaiah 14:12, ESV) <S> quomodo cecidisti de caelo <S> lucifer <S> qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram <S> qui vulnerabas gentes (Isaiah 14:12, Biblia Sacra Vulgata). <A> Isaiah did not have the understanding of Satan that is commonly held today. <S> Demonology really did not rise up until the Maccabean era, so to say that Isaiah was first writing with Satan in mind would be inaccurate (seeing as the language is more referencing the Tower of Babel). <S> Isaiah 14 is a passage that has been looked back upon and interpreted in light of people's views of Satan to the loss of remembering the original context. <S> For more on the subject check out the Isaiah commentary put out by Westminster press! <S> I hope this helps! <A> It's a case of parallelism. <S> Isaiah is using the story of Lucifer (Satan) the fallen angel who was once mighty in heaven, which is familiar imagery to his audience, and applying it to the king of Babylon as an analogy. <S> The king of Babylon is powerful and makes the world tremble in fear, as Satan does, but he will be overthrown and humbled and treated with contempt by those he used to oppress. <A> I know that Ezekiel and Isaiah are two different authors, but were they not of the same period of time? <S> Ezekiel writes a similar type of passage about the King of Tyre, where he describes Tyre as the Guardian Cherub (from the Garden of Eden) Ezekiel 28:12–15: <S> “‘You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. <S> 13 <S> You were in Eden, the garden of God; <S> every precious stone adorned you: carnelian, chrysolite and emerald, topaz, onyx and jasper, lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl. <S> Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. <S> 14 <S> You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. <S> You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. <S> 15 <S> You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. <S> Does this not sound similar to the way Isaiah speaks of the King of Babylon? <S> Yet clearly Ezekiel, who was writing in a similar time period, is describing this King telling him that he was in Eden and that he was anointed the guardian cherub. <S> I assume, but I may be wrong, that this Cherub is the one with the flaming sword. <S> By the way, the Hebrew word for flaming is lahat, which means to hide by use of the occult. <S> So does this not describe a fallen angel? <S> So is it not possible that Isaiah also had a fallen angel in mind and that perhaps Isaiah and Ezekiel had a pretty clear conception of our modern day Satan.
|
You are correct that in the original context the passage is actually about the king of Babylon.
|
Is having a moment of silence for someone anti-Christian? In our school, in one of my periods, one of my teachers told us the important things late Steve Jobs has done for the world and encouraged us to have a moment of silence for him for about 10 seconds. When I got home and told Dad about it, he said that it was a good thing. However when I told my Mom, she flipped out and said that it was anti-Christian and basically in the line of idol worshiping and told me to ask for forgiveness.I do not get it. How is having a moment of silence for someone a bad thing? IS it a bad thing? P.S. our family is Puritanish. <Q> I don't think there's anything religious at all about a moment of silence for somebody who died. <S> It is supposed to be a moment to remember those persons and to show our respect for them.. <S> If someone wishes to use the opportunity to pray, then that is their own business. <S> The political issues brought up in David Stratton's answer seem to be more concerned with a moment of silence where it is not held in connection to some deceased person or tragic event. <S> For example, a daily moment of silence in schools are seen by some as an endorsement of prayer in conflict with the separation between church and state, but that is a different matter and not really relevant to this question. <S> However, I agree that it would be best to ask her once she has cooled down. <A> Asking us to pray to another god would be anti-Christian. <S> The purpose of the moment of silence is to allow those who are Christian to pray to our God, while allowing others to pray to theirs, without annoying people with opposing religious (or anti-religious) viewpoints. <S> In short, it's a politically correct way of allowing prayer in public places, while trying to maintain a "separation of Church and State". <S> One possible explanation for the reaction is a a gut reaction to what's perceived as a violation of our first amendment rights by those who are working to remove all references to Christianity in public places. <S> That's more of a political issue, however, and I don't want to expand on it here, other than to say that this is one reason she may have said it's anti-Christian. <S> For clarification as to <S> why she found it offensive, you'd be better off asking her when she cools down. <A> I agree with the others. <S> There is nothing anti-Christian about a moment of silence. <S> I'd hope that you don't feel you or your classmates have done anything wrong. <S> Maybe your mother got upset not about that there was a moment of silence, but who it was for in this case. <S> Steve Jobs apparently (I don't watch TV) got a huge amount of coverage regarding his death, and perhaps your mother was fed up with so much attention being paid to a billionaire's death, when there is almost no attention in the popular media regarding the many deaths of average people or people who are dying in parts of the world the U.S. media doesn't care about. <S> Maybe in that sense she felt that bothering to honor Steve Jobs was misplaced, and, after all the attention in the media, approaching an almost worshipful reverence of the man (which, in her view, should of course only be paid to God). <S> (For what it's worth, I tend to think that, despite any person's death being sad--particularly for a young man like Jobs--there may well have been so much coverage that it bordered on poor taste.)
|
No, there's nothing anti-Christian about a moment of silence.
|
What was the specific trap being set for Jesus by the Pharisees in John 8? In the story of the woman caught in adultery, John indicates that the question of the Pharisees was a "trap". 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. John 8:2-6 (NIV) What specifically was the trap they were trying to get Jesus to fall into? <Q> At this time in history Israel was under the rule of the Romans. <S> The Jewish law required that a woman caught in adultery was to be stoned to death. <S> Leviticus <S> 20:10 NIV <S> “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor— <S> both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. <S> But under Roman law a person could only be put to death by the judge, otherwise it was murder. <S> Much like our law today. <S> Christ did not have the "authority" as a man under Roman law to sentence anybody to death. <S> Thus, if Christ had answered that the woman was to be stoned He would have be breaking the Roman law. <S> Not only this, but the act of stoning this woman would have gone against the mercy, grace and forgiveness that He had been preaching about. <S> But if He answered to let the woman go, then He would not have been upholding the Jewish law. <S> Christ himself had been teaching the people that whoever loves God will obey God. <S> So to not Stone <S> this woman would mean that Christ was not in obedience to God, which is also a sin. <A> This seems like a good place to start: http://www.gospeldoctrine.com/NewTestament/John8.htm <S> From the article: <S> "Christ’s mission was a mission of mercy and not judgment." <S> If Jesus tells them to carry out the law and stone her, he is not being merciful. <S> If he shows mercy, he is construed to be disobeying the law God handed down in Leviticus. <S> Whichever action he chose, in the Pharisees' minds, would enable them to accuse him of doing wrong. <A> They wanted to get Jesus in trouble with them (disregarding Moses' Law) or with the Roman government -- or both, if possible. <S> Adulterers were to be put to death, but the Law required two witnesses minimum to prosecute and convict before executing -- or at least two witnesses to cast the first stones (Deut 17:7). <S> I'm not sure how easily the adultery was proven. <S> Note that the man involved in the adultery was not recorded as being brought to Jesus, only the woman.
|
It's possible that the law-professors set up the adultery situation themselves, laying a stumbling block in her path in order to lay a different one in Jesus' path.
|
Is violence against LGBT people warranted by scripture? Possible Duplicate: Is there any Biblical basis for hating homosexuals? This week marks the 13th anniversary of Matthew Shepherd's torture and murder, a crime which appears to be motivated by disgust for who he was as a homosexual. Many Christians read the Bible to prohibit homosexual acts. Does the scripture advocate or justify violence against people who commit sexual sins? <Q> No, as little as it advocates violence against any other sinner. <S> The story in John 8 holds for homosexuals as well: <S> He who is without sin throw the first stone. <S> And when nobody did: Go therefore and don't sin no more. <A> Jesus advocates using means other than violence ( Mt. 5:38-48 , Mt. 26:51-52 ). <S> According to Paul, we shouldn't even be cruel nor hateful towards others: Romans 12:16-21 <S> (ESV) <S> 16 <S> Live in harmony with one another. <S> Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. <S> Never be wise in your own sight. <S> 17 <S> Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. <S> 18 <S> If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. <S> 19 <S> Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." <S> 20 <S> To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head. <S> " <S> 21 <S> Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good . <S> If we have the choice, we should live in peace with all and be good to everyone. <S> Even if they're evil. <S> Even if they're our enemy. <S> Even if they're sinners. <S> No, the Bible doesn't advocate violence towards sinners ( which we all are ). <A> However, in the Law of Moses that detailed the covenant relationship between God and Israel, God did command certain punishments for various crimes, including robbery, adultery, etc. <S> This is a function of community governance, though, and not personal violence. <S> Furthermore, it only applies within the context of God's covenant relationship with Israel. <S> It is how Israel was supposed to govern themselves as a nation--not how individuals should respond to others. <S> The punishments did include capital punishment. <S> The Sermon on the Mount, by contrast, specifies behavior for individual people and not the government. <S> So, we do unto others how we want them to do to us, but we don't make that the rule of government. <S> This would result in absolute lawlessness.
|
Violence is certainly not permissible against any immoral acts.
|
Which denominations are considered mainstream in the UK? Wikipedia lists these denominations as " mainline protestant " churches in the United States: American Baptists Disciples of Christ Congregationalists / United Church of Christ Episcopalians Lutherans Methodists Presbyterians However in the UK some of those denominations don't exist; I've always understood the British mainstream protestant denominations to be: Anglican Baptist Methodist United Reformed Church (The Congregationalists and Presbyterians merged a few decades ago to form this denomination). Does such a definitive list exist anywhere? Is there a way in which some denominations are "officially recognised" in the UK while others aren't? <Q> This 2007 report entitled Churchgoing in the UK has a vast array of demographic data on churchgoers in the UK. <S> It even differentiates between regular churchgoers and those who just state affiliation. <S> For example, among regular churchgoers surveyed, the denominational breakdown is: Church of England 31% Roman Catholic 29% Church of Scotland/Presbyterian 9% Methodist 6% Baptist 4% <S> Pentecostal/New churches 7% Other 7% <S> Non-trinitarian 3% <S> All these are defined in the report (especially Appendix 1 Figure 10). <S> This should answer mainstream as in "most common." <S> Mainline is defined as a specific doctrinal stance in the Wikipedia article you link, so denominations on that list would be "mainline Protestant" there too. <S> Though some don't exist there, I think there aren't any that exist there that aren't here/in that master list. <A> The NHS Data Dictionary , based on the international Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT), lists some 80 possible values for Christian religious affiliation - but since this is an international list it is not specific to Britain. <S> Some denominations self-identify as being mainstream; the URC website says: Although one of the smaller mainstream denominations, the United Reformed Church plays a dynamic and challenging part in the British Christian community. <S> Wikipedia provides a comprehensive list of denominations in the UK , categorised into 12 groups (including "interchurch" - ie pan-denominational groups, and Catholicism) but does not indicate which are "mainstream". <S> The twelve groups are: InterchurchAnglicanBaptistCatholicHoliness & PietistLutheranMethodist & WesleyanNew Church <S> MovementOrthodoxPenticostalPresbyterian & ReformedOther <S> The Methodist Church website contains a basic introduction to Christian denominations which contains some links to some other useful resources. <S> The World Council of Churches lists 11 member churches that are based in the UK while Churches Together in Britain and Ireland lists several more member churches . <S> Since none of these lists are an exact match for one another it is fairly clear that no definitive list exists, but that lots of denominations are "recognised" by some larger organisations. <S> What constitutes "official" could also be somewhat subjective. <S> It is well known that the Church of England is the officially established church in England. <S> The Church of Scotland, Church in Wales and Church of Ireland are not, however, officially established. <S> (The Church of Scotland is an unusual case where some official documentation implies the church is officially established, but the church themselves disclaim this.) <S> ( Source: good old Wikipedia ) <S> Nevertheless there have been a number of Acts of Parliament relating to individual denominations; <S> this does not of course make them official state churches, but does at least show that they are recognised by the state. <S> Examples include: Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Act 1707 <S> Methodist Church Union Act 1929 <S> / Methodist Church Act 1939 / <S> Methodist Church Funds Act 1960 / <S> Methodist Church Act 1976 <S> Salvation Army Act 1931 / Salvation Army Property Trust Act 1934 <A> 'Mainstream' is not a word with a clear definition, so there is never going to be a definitive list of such things. <S> You can always make arguments for including/excluding different groups. <S> You have made an obvious omission: you've only listed English denominations, although you talked about British ones. <S> If you want to include all UK mainstream denominations you should certiaily include the Scottish ones, especially the Church of Scotland (and assuming you count the Episcopal Church of Scotland as Anglican for your purposes), and also Northern Irish ones. <S> Apart from that the list you've made is a pretty good one, and I can't think of others with obvious cases to include them. <S> The others listed in the US list have very small presences in the UK. <S> You might also consider that Baptists come in different flavours. <S> In answer to your second question, the only form of official recognition is the special privileges granted to the Church of England as the state church. <S> These days these are largely ceremonial.
|
There is no definitive list of "mainstream" denominations in the UK - indeed the term is largely subjective - but there are a number of official and semi-official ways in which denominations are recognised.
|
Was the wine in The Last Supper fermented? I was reading " Does wine really mean wine in the Bible? " and I thought, The Last Supper was during the Passover, where the jewish was forbidden to use ferment in recipes: Exodus 12:15 KJV Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel. This implies that the wine used in the The Last Supper was just grape juice, right? <Q> Prior to the advent of pasteurization, fermentation was something which happened in all grape juice whether a fermenting agent was consciously introduced or not (and it happened with relative immediacy). <S> The last supper, then, would have had wine and not plain grape juice. <S> It is also noteworthy to point out that wine, unless something bizarre has occurred, is not leavened bread. <A> To expand on my comment a bit, there are hundreds of speices of yeast. <S> During Passover five of those are prohibited, and they are the yeasts that come from grains called chametz. <S> Yeasts that come from grapes or its sugars are not prohibited. <S> The prohibited yeasts are: wheat <S> barley spelt <S> rye <S> oats <S> *note these are the European grains for more information on chametz <S> see wikipedia Detailed information from Chabad.org <A> There is no reason to think that the wine of the Last Supper was unfermented. <S> The prohibition is explicitly made against "leavened bread", and there no indication that it is against other products of yeast. <S> It's not clear to me that wine was thought of in Biblical times as containing 'leaven'.
|
Fermentation of wine largely happened without added yeast.
|
What is the Evangelical view on tithing? Do Evangelical (by which I mean, taking the Bible as the ultimate earthly source of authority) Christians believe giving 10% of your income is a law for Christians? Note: this question is related to Was tithing 10% required or encouraged by the early church? After asking that question, a moderator said it was too broad and made it specifically about the early church (which I agreed with). This question is intended to be a more specific version of what I really want to ask. See that question for more details. <Q> This is at least one modern evangelical view... <S> It is true that the New Testament really does not prescribe tithing, that is, giving 10% of your income. <S> It does, however, prescribe giving: <S> Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. <S> 2 Corinthians 9:7 <S> The church at Phillip specifically financially supported the ministry of Paul: <S> Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again. <S> Philippians 4:16 <S> Another aspect is to consider that, as believers, we understand that everything we have comes from God, so we must honor God with 100% of our income , time, talents, and possessions--not just 10% of our income. <S> So, since there is a prescription to give, but not specific amount prescribed, it is common to use the tithe (10%) as a great pattern to follow. <S> So, in most biblically oriented circles that I've been involved with, the tithe is a great benchmark. <S> That means we are free to give whatever amount and should cheerfully give generously to the work of Christ all over the world. <S> Generosity may mean 5% for some, but others may be able to comfortably give 15%-20%. <S> Indeed, for people with very high income levels, 10% could be considered hardly generous. <S> The point is to be as generous as we can and to enjoy the pleasure of giving. <S> My personal hope is to continue increasing my percentage as my income grows. <S> It really is more blessed to give than to receive, and this is true in many different ways. <A> Mal 3:8-10 is not reechoed in the NT <S> like Is 61:1-2 in Lk 4:18-19 etc but the argument that it is an OT law should not be interpreted as not applicable in NT requirementJesus <S> confirmed in Mt 5:17 that He did not come to abolish the OT law but to fulfil it. <S> Paul stressed it in Rom 3:31The different interpretations given to tithing is complicating a simple matterIn my opinion these complicated interpretations which may even make sense are excuses to find a way outThe best advise is to simply obey. <S> It is so specific that inputing logic and arguments may lead to false teachingMay the Holy Spirit lead us to genuine submission to the will of God who is God of the Old and New TestamentsGod bless youMoses <S> Wey <A> It should be noted that Jesus does affirm tithing in Matthew 23:23, although He points out that there are weightier matters -justice, mercy, and faithfulness. <S> As you point out, high income people can actually do better than this, while some people who are struggling to put food on the table may not be able to tithe and feed their kids at the same time. <S> The real key to Christian stewardship is to be a cheerful and generous giver, and for most of us, the old covenant 10% is a minimum benchmark. <S> With that said, I don't want to hear about anyone starving their kids to tithe either. <S> (I have occasionally heard of such things.) <S> Remember - there are more important things like justice, mercy, and faithfulness. <A> The Tithe was effectively a tax to support the Jewish religious system, and in particular the Levites and priests who ran the temple. <S> So Tithing is not the correct term to use for giving to support ministry in church and around the world. <S> As Narnian said the key verse for Christians is 2 Corinthians 9:7: <S> Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. <A> I think there is a problem with the word tithe for new testament Christians because for some it might give the impression that once you have given your 'tithe' whatever you think that is then that is enough and the rest of your income is for you to spend how you please. <S> I used to tithe <S> so I know how I felt, <S> but now I dont'. <S> I now test everything I buy to see if I really need it. <S> This is no easy task as I enjoy expensive cameras and can always find a good reason to buy the latest model etc. <A> Tithing in Evangelical Christians is one form of worship. <S> We glorify God through giving. <S> 1 Corinthians 10:31 <S> (NASB) <S> Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. <S> Consider this: 1 John 4:19 (KJV) <S> We love him, because he first loved us. <S> So likewise, we can only give because God gave first: <S> John 3:16 <S> (NASB) <S> "For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son , that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." <S> And we give in the same attitude he has -- from our own free volition out of joy and love: 2 Corinthians 9:7 (ESV) <S> Each one must give as he has decided in his heart , not reluctantly or under compulsion , for God loves a cheerful giver. <S> NOTE <S> Abraham gave a tithe even before the Law came! <S> Hebrews 7:4 ( NetBible) <S> But see how great he must be, if Abraham the patriarch gave him a tithe of his plunder. <S> Indeed, this is a grand application of 2 Corinthians 9:7.
|
I believe that the tithe (10%) is an old covenant minimum standard for most Christians' giving.
|
What does it mean to pray in Jesus' Name? A few times in the book of John, Jesus instructs us to pray "in His Name". What does this mean? How do we know if we are praying in His name? How would we not be praying in His name? I don't believe this is using "In Jesus' Name, Amen" as the closing line of our prayers. Whatever you ask in my name , this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name , I will do it. John 14:13-14 ESV You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. John 15:16 ESV In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name , he will give it to you. Until now you have asked nothing in my name . Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full. "I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father. In that day you will ask in my name , and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. John 16:23-27 ESV Interestingly, there are other things that refer to "in Jesus' name': Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me Matthew 18:5 ESV For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. Matthew 18:20 ESV Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and they will lead many astray. Mark 13:6 ESV <Q> This can be answered by answering a more general question: what does "in someone's (anyone's) name" mean? <S> It means to act by proxy, on the authority of something or someone greater than yourself. <S> It's a concept that our culture has kind of lost, though it still exists as a storytelling trope. <S> When a medieval herald reads a proclamation "in the name of the king," or a cop yells at a fleeing thief to "stop in the name of the law!" <S> this is what they mean. <S> It's a convenient shorthand for "I'm not just saying this of myself; I'm speaking with the authority of a higher power." <S> So how does this apply to acting (and praying) in the name of Christ? <S> It means to act in his place. <S> To pray in the name of Jesus is to pray what Jesus would pray if he were in your position. <S> When we understand this in the context of Christ as the Perfect Man and our Exemplar, it means to pray for the right things, to seek the will of God and not our own desires. <S> And whatever we ask the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, that will be given to us. <A> Jesus has given believers His spiritual "power of attorney" to use His authority.... <S> God only answer those who approach Him "in" or "with" the consent, or "authority" of His Son. <S> This is another reason Jesus said no one comes unto the Father except by Him. <S> All who believe in the substitutional death of Jesus receive four imputations: the Holy Spirit, eternal life, righteousness, and His (Jesus') authority! <S> The apostle Paul said "these things we are to KNOW!" <A> What does this mean? <S> "When that time comes, you won't have to ask me about anything. <S> I tell you for certain that the Father will give you whatever you ask for in my name?" <S> Based on my personal experience, I always remember what Luke wrote in the Bible : (1) God sent the angel Gabriel to Mary in Nazareth. <S> The angel Gabriel told Mary : "You will have a son. <S> HIS NAME WILL BE JESUS." <S> (Luke 1: 31); (2) Mary asked the angel Gabriel, "How can this happen? <S> I am not married!" <S> The angel answered, "THE HOLY SPIRIT will come down to you, and God's power will come over you. <S> So your child will be called the HOLY SON OF GOD." <S> (Luke 1:34-35). <S> So ask something to the heavenly Father in Jesus' name <S> means ask something to the heavenly Father in the name of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Holy Son of God; (3) John wrote : " 23 <S> But a time is coming, and it is already here! <S> Even now the true worshipers are being led by the Spirit to worship the Father according to the truth. <S> These are the ones the Father is seeking to worship him. <S> 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship God must be led by the Spirit to worship him according to the truth." <S> (John 4:23-24). <S> Thank you, God bless you! <A> Saying “in Jesus’ name” at the end of a prayer is not a magic formula. <S> If what we ask for or say in prayer is not for God’s glory and according to His will, saying “in Jesus’ name” is meaningless. <S> Genuinely praying in Jesus' name and for His glory is what is important, not attaching certain words to the end of a prayer. <S> It is not the words in the prayer that matter, but the purpose behind the prayer. <S> Praying for things that are in agreement with God’s will is the essence of praying in Jesus’ name. <A> Good responses! <S> I'd like to add my Biblical Hebrew two cents, since Jesus and the apostles were raised expressing themselves in a Hebrew mindset. <S> The word "name" ( SheM in Hebrew) is derived from the verb ShiYM "to place" and carries the meaning of "position, rank, honor, fame, reputation and authority". <S> It reminds me of Sceva's seven sons in Acts 19:15 who thought they could incant the name of Jesus though Paul but didn't have His authority. <S> We have to be in the place of Jesus, as if crucified with him, dying to self, seeking no personal fame or honor. <S> Our authority only exists as we proclaim as his representatives what He has given us to speak. <S> When He is our all in all, we will have the faith to bind and release and move mountains, because it won't be our will that we pray for, but His .
|
Praying in Jesus’ name is praying for things that will honor and glorify Jesus. To ask "in His name" simply means "in" or "with" His authority....
|
Did Christ's original twelve apostles have families? We know that Peter was married because Christ healed his mother-in-law . Do we know if he had children? Do we know whether any of the other apostles were married and if they had children? <Q> Eusebius of Caesarea's Church History talks a bit about this. <S> He says St. Philip, at least, had 4 daughters and Sts. <S> Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. <S> "Or will they," says he, "reject even the apostles? <S> For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. <S> And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry." <S> Church History Book III <S> Regarding St. Paul (although not one of the 12) <S> : Paul was obviously unmarried when he wrote this verse. <S> Some interpreters believe that he had previously been married and widowed; there is no clear evidence either for or against this view, which was expressed already at the end of the second century by Clement of Alexandria. <S> NABRE - Commentary on 1 Cor 7:8 <A> There’s nothing that I know of in the Scriptures <S> that indicate whether or not they did, aside from the mention of Peter’s mother-in-law. <S> So, it seems we can’t know for sure. <S> However, the norm was that men would have wives and children. <S> When things conform to the norm, it isn’t necessary to mention that. <S> It is only notable if something goes against the norm. <S> So, one reason to conclude that the apostles did have families was that this would have been the norm, and we have no mention of them being different from this norm. <S> I do understand that this is an argument from silence, but either side would need to be that way. <S> Another consideration is that if the marital status of the apostles had been in any way significant or important for us to know, then there would have been ample mention of it. <S> We do know that Peter had a wife. <S> The normal occurrence would be that they were all married and that they all had children. <A> Based upon Paul's comment in 1 Corinthians 9:5, it would certainly seem logical to conclude that each of the Disciples had wives that traveled with them in ministry. <S> Certainly we cannot conclude that each one did have a wife as a traveling companion but the statement certainly would cause us to conclude that many if not most did. <S> If that be the case, I believe we could also conclude that ministry was a family mission as a whole not just a "Dad" thing. <S> Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas ? <S> 1 Corinthians 9:5 <A> Comparing Acts 1:15-20, particularly vs. 20, with Psalm 109:6-20 demonstrates that Judas was married and that he had several children. <S> The passage in Psalm 109 is not hyperbole; it is meant to be literal. <S> Judas had a wife and several children. <S> If Judas had children and was away from home for 3 1/2 years being trained for future ministry just like the other apostles, it seems reasonable to assume that the other apostles had children also since they were definitely married. <A> Matthew 17:24-27 probably takes place at the house of Peter in Capernaum (Peter, being the master of the house, would have been the one to go outside to meet the tax collector). <S> Therefore, as the narrative in this location continues into Chapter 18, when Jesus calls a child over in v2 to serve as an illustration for His teaching, it is reasonable to infer this child (likely male though the gender of the word is neutral), is Peter's as any children the other disciples had would likely not have traveled with them.
|
Peter and Paul had wives.
|
What does the Bible say about God being a different type of being than man? Most Christians believe God and man are different types of being (Mormons are a notable exception). What passages in the Bible support this? Or is it inferred by the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of only one God? <Q> God is certainly higher than man. <S> This passage from Isaiah spells it out quite clearly. <S> Isaiah 55:8-9 <S> (ESV) <S> 8 <S> For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. <S> 9 <S> For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. <S> Of course, being higher doesn't necessarily imply being different . <S> But we have further proof in that God is omnipotent and omniscient . <S> Genesis 17:1 <S> (ESV) <S> When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty ; walk before me, and be blameless, Matthew 6:4 (ESV) <S> 4 so that your giving may be in secret. <S> And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. <S> Acts 2:23 (ESV) <S> 23 <S> this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. <S> One might still nitpick that omnipotence and omniscience are attributes and don't require being a different type of being. <S> The final point is that God was the first one (as He was before the world and there is only one God). <S> But, one could argue, does the order of existence imply being a different type of being? <S> But that's arguable—it depends on how the types of beings are defined, i.e. the chosen taxonomy. <S> Similarly, men and natural satellites are quite different, but you could come up with a classification that puts them into the same class. <A> Along with what dancek posted, I would suggest that Numbers 23:19 speaks pretty clearly that God is not man, but something greater: <S> 19 God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. <S> Has he said, and will he not do it? <S> Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it? <A> Another verse making this distinction is Hosea 11:9 : <S> I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath. <A> I'm surprised no one quoted John 4:24 <S> God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. <A> God's repeated declarations about himself in Isiah 40-66 are also extremely relevant. <S> That God is the only god is indeed important; the difference between him and all else is categorical. <S> He is not just vastly quantitatively different, but qualitatively different. <S> All the nations are as nothing before him; they they are accounted by him as less than nothing and emptiness. <S> To whom then will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him? <S> — <S> Isaiah 40:17-18 <S> To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him? <S> says the Holy One. <S> — Isaiah 40:22 Is there a God besides me? <S> There is no Rock: I know not any. <S> --Isaiah <S> 44:8 <S> Those are just a few examples. <S> I recommend reading chapters 40 through 66 straight through in one sitting to really get a sense of what he is saying. <S> There are many other doctrines which are only coherent with an understanding that God is more than "a lot different" than man. <S> The overall emphasis on the Bible in describing God in the highest possible terms of human language. <S> The thrice-holiness of God pronounced by beings far above humans in Isaiah 6. <S> Holiness is a broader concept than righteousness; especially in its threefold emphasis, it indicates a different in being. <S> God's identification of himself as "I am" and calling himself by the name YHWH. <S> That all sins are so much against sins that they are effectly not even against anyone else. <S> After committing murder and adultery, David says in his repentance , "Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight." <S> (Psalm 51:4) Connected to this, God's ability to forgive sins in an ultimate sense. <S> The offense of the Pharisees at Jesus' claims to deity. <S> Countless other doctrines, such as his omniscience, omnipotence, absolute providence, seeking of his own glory, etc... <S> Also have a look at God's encounter with Job. <S> To contend that God is only greater and not utterly other is to miss the point of the text.
|
I think it's quite obvious that God is a different type of being than man.
|
Are St. Maximilian Kolbe's writings available in English? St. Maximilian Kolbe was known for printing his pamphlets in the years leading up to World War II. Reportedly, he had some very interesting musings on relativity, the speed of light and Christ's redemptive power. I can't find any of his works in English (or Polish for that matter), although I read his quotes now and again. I've never seen an actual book or collection of writings written by him. Is there a published collection of his works available anywhere? <Q> See the official web site of the MI: http://mi-international.org . <S> In the U.S. <S> the two-volume set is available through Marytown Press. <S> See http://marytown.com <A> This site appears to be down at the moment, but they claim, "There is no complete English edition of his writings at the present moment in one collected volumes. <S> Hence, we offer our readers and missionaries the following materials that can be used as supplement for meditation, and/or instruction on Kolbe's Total consecration to the the Immaculate." <S> Excerpts from Kolbe's Writings on Total Consecration to Mary <S> ( Google Cache ) <A> You've probably found something by now, but if not, St Maximilian's writings are available online, though mostly in Polish (I found a few articles in Latin) on the website of Niepokalanow (Mary's Town), <S> the Franciscan community founded by St Maximilian near Warsaw, Poland) http://www.niepokalanow.pl/pisma <S> From what I gather, there are 2 volumes published in paper version by the Franciscans of Niepokalanow, <S> http://www.wydawnictwo.niepokalanow.pl/index.php?products=product&prod_id=17 <S> (only 2 links are allowed here, so you'd have to look the other volume up yourself). <S> Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate are possibly the best source of information on the subject of the availability of any in English. <S> The writings definitely are a worthy reading, as St Maximilian was an extraordinary man, 'the Patron Saint of our difficult century', as Blessed John Paul II called him. <A> This might be helpful. <S> I say this and thought of you. <S> https://www.marytown.com/ecommerce/pc-158-7-the-kolbe-reader.aspx <A> The complete writings of St. Maximilian Mary are available in Italian. <S> A good portion are also available in English. <S> A three-volume paperback version was published years ago, probably in the '80s. <S> I don't have anything on hand, but be assured, a good portion of his writing is out there-- <S> well worth reading. <S> (Go to Mary Mediatrix Website and navigate to the "book store".) <A> There's a newly released book: "She Shall Crush Thy Head: Selected Writings of St. Maximilian Kolbe". <S> It contains a translation of some of St. Maximilian Kolbe's best writings. <S> It can be purchased here. <A> Amazon Kindle now has the title "Let Yourself Be Led by the Immaculate", written by Maximilian Kolbe, translated from the polish by a Dominican brother. <S> I hope that after the canonization of Pope John Paul II, a renewed interest in this "Saint of the troubled 20th Century" will occurr, but it just hasn't happened yet. <S> He is a truly remarkable man and a wonderful Saint for anyone to follow and learn from. <S> While not directly related to your quest for his writings, I wondered if you know about the National Shrine to Saint Maximilian Kolbe ? <S> Their contact email is: mail@marytown.com <S> and they also have phone numbers, but I have found that sending an email asking questions or for help is usually fruitful. <S> If you send them a question, I am sure someone could help you out and direct you to the proper documents and whether or not they can be obtained in digital or written format. <S> The title in the Kindle Store: Let Yourself Be Led by the Immaculate Kindle Edition by St. Maximilian Kolbe.
|
The writings of St. Maximilian Maria Kolbe are now available in English, published by Nerbini International. Most of his works are available in Polish and (in translation) in Russian... but sadly have not yet been translated into English extensively. You can check with Academy of the Immaculate for a copy of his "Roman Conferences".
|
Where was Catholic doctrine defined before the Catechism? Apparently the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) has only existed since 1992. Was Catholic doctrine clearly defined in a specific set of sources before CCC? What would a priest have referred to in earlier times, if he had needed to check the stance of the Church on a specific detail? Is it possible/practical/easy to find out what Catholic Church taught of a specific subject at a specific time in history? <Q> First, the history of the catechism is substantially longer than just 19 years! <S> The catholic catechism dates for hundreds of years - one of the earlier "official" ones was promulgated in 1566 . <S> Catechizing has been a long-standing practice (arguably, God told the Israelites to do that when He told them to write His law on the door posts and tell it to their children). <A> I asked this to a presenter in our diocese's catechist training program . <S> She said that the writings of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) were primarily used. <S> I guess that just helps Warren's answer. <S> Before that, I'd imagine we just looked at stained glass and/or frescoes... <A> Dogmas and doctrines were written down from very early on.
|
Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma is an excellent collection of important dogmas, ordered chronologically.
|
Which denominations use the King James Version? Which denominations primarily use the King James Version of the Bible? I did a search on Google and could not find anything reliable. <Q> It's really not a denominational issue, per se, but a doctrinal issue or a simple preference. <S> The King James Only movement are people and churches that believe that the King James version is the only one to use. <S> They have various reasons for this. <S> James White has broken it down into five primary reasons for sticking with the KJV: <S> "I Like the KJV Best" - people who simply like the translation <S> The textual argument - people who believe that the KJV translation is more accurate because it's based on better manuscripts <S> Received text <S> only - this belief states that the original manuscripts used by the KJV translation were supernaturally better than the ones we have today. <S> Inspired Translation - this group believes that there was inspiration behind the translation and that it was, therefore, inspired by God whereas other translations are not. <S> New Revelation - this group believes that the KJV translation was a new revelation from God. <S> This view is often called "Ruckmanism", after it's primary adherent, Peter Ruckman <S> Ultimately, it's not a denominational thing, but either a doctrinal issue (that extends beyond denominational decrees) or a preference. <A> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly referred to as the "Mormons" or "LDS") use the KJV. <S> For verification see Scriptures.LDS.org <A> I am compiling a list of churches (denominations, etc.) <S> that still hold to the KJV (AV) Bible. <S> Any additions and corrections are welcomed! <S> The Protestant Reformed Church in America, the Free Presbyterian, the Heritage Reformed, Life Bible-Presbyterian churches, and the Apostolic Lutheran Church of America. <S> Of course, most independent, Fundamentalist churches. <S> (These generally also use the 1662 [Anglican] or 1928 <S> [USA] Book of Common Prayer.)
|
Also The Church of England (Continuing) and some traditional Episcopalians and the Anglican Orthodox Church in this country use the AV/ KJV.
|
Is there a biblical basis for God calling one to place one's career above their other duties? I've tried to phrase this question several ways now, and none of them are really to my liking. I will just ask it clumsily and provide more details as they are asked of me. Does God ever call people to lives devoted to their careers? For example, suppose someone says to himself "God has called me to forego starting a family in favor of devoting my life to being the best dog groomer I can be." I choose a particularly strange career on purpose. The work of a doctor and the work of a dog groomer is equally meaningless if it is not blessed by God. I suppose my question, therefore, is whether there is precedent that God asks for and accepts such a life, or whether this hypothetical dog groomer is deluding himself. <Q> There is no specific Biblical precedent for such a claim - at least not in your example. <S> But there is also no Biblical reason to refute such a claim, either. <S> (Unless the claim is a direct contradiction of clear Biblical teaching.) <S> The Scriptures give examples of people called to be Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Preachers (Ephesians 4:11) and other ministries that directly serve God, or God's purpose. <S> He has also ordained Kings. <S> (Saul and David, for example). <S> Nowhere in Scripture is anyone specifically called to be a baker, a server, or other secular job. <S> There is validity and Biblical precendent in a claim to a career serving God as a Missionary, for example, or a Pastor, Priest, or other Church official. <S> We are all called to serve God in one way or another, and most traditions believe that God specifically calls people into positions of authority, such as those mentioned previously. <S> Exactly <S> how they are called, and how they can be sure is likely the subject for a different question, as it varies based on factors such as denomination, interpretation of Scripture, and tradition. <S> However... <S> Several examples of those serving honorably doing ordinary (secular) tasks and jobs do abound. <S> The woman at the Well giving water, for example, or the people called to feed the hungry, fight in the battles, serve their masters. <S> Being a good servant is a basic Christian principle, and is both commanded and honored in Scripture . <S> To answer your comment, it is entirely possible that God does call us to serve in secular jobs. <S> God is, after all, sovereign. <S> God alone knows where the line is between His sovereignty, and the free will He allows us. <A> @DavidStratton makes a good case about how God can use our ordinary jobs for his kingdom. <S> I would have quoted Colossians 3:23 myself. <S> I'll just note that there are many churches/organizations that teach pretty much what you asked about. <S> One good example is Opus Dei , a Catholic organization. <S> Opus Dei teaches that every Christian is called to follow Jesus Christ, sanctifying their ordinary life. <S> Especially family life and work are taught to be areas where we can commit our lives to God. <S> This teaching is apparently largely based on the Second Vatican Council <S> (but I'm no Catholic theologian). <S> Many Protestant organizations have similar teachings about worshipping through committing to our secular work, but I can't name any really major ones. <A> (This answer comes from a Reformed Protestant perspective) <S> As Christians we have two callings. <S> The college I went to liked to call them the "big C" Calling and the "little c" calling. <S> Your "big C" Calling is the calling to a life and ministry in Christ. <S> This is the call to follow Christ and to serve him. <S> Your "little c" calling is whatever vocation you are called to. <S> Sometimes these callings intersect (vocational ministry like the pastorate or the missions field or something like that), but they don't have to (secular work like being a doctor, a dog groomer or a programmer). <S> Another phrase that came up occasionally was " extraordinary callings in ordinary places . <S> " <S> Here is how our president explained it: <S> The principal point of the phrase is to remind us of the primary way <S> in which God has from the beginning accomplished his redemptive and reviving work in the world: through the faithful, day-by-day, most often mundane work of his people, most often in “ordinary” places and through “ordinary” means, as by his mercy and provision they fulfill the extraordinary callings to which he has called them. <S> The fact of the matter is that not everyone is called to vocational ministry and we can be just as worshipful in our dog grooming and programming and doctoring as a pastor is in his work. <S> There are still opportunities to minister to people both in your work and in your life. <S> If everyone was a full time pastor then there would be no one to work to support the church financially and there would be no one to reach people who wouldn't listen to two words from a pastor. <S> We are called to do everything we do for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). <S> Sometimes its a mundane place that makes for an extraordinary calling. <A> Their is no reason to think we cannot serve God in which ever trade we do. <S> I would like to think as a business student that one day when I'm a Chartered Accountant <S> I will be doing the lords work in my own way by running a business responsibly. <S> This will make certain that the people who work at the institutions livelihoods are safe. <S> It can even create a few new jobs and with that uplifting a few lives. <S> I think that every person can make his or her contribution towards the bettering of their communities irregardless of the profession.
|
The Bible does tell us that no matter what our career is, we should do it " as unto the Lord ", meaning that we should do our best as if we were working for God Himself.
|
Why do adherents to the priesthood of all believers still have organized congregations? I might be making some naive assumptions here, but I have a hard time seeing what the purpose of congregations are in the context of priesthood of all believers. As I understand it, priesthood of all believers basically says that all people have direct and equal access to God, as well as equal privilege and authority to minister. What then is the purpose of congregating? Why are those congregations well organized? <Q> The purpose of congregational gathering is not exclusively to provide the laity access to someone who can be a mediator between them and God, so the assumption that the priesthood of all believers is mutually exclusive is invalid. <S> Gathering as a congregation has many purposes, including mutual edification, encouragement toward love and good deeds, instruction in the word, serving one another, community, etc. <S> So, the biblical idea that we all have one Mediator between us and God in no way precludes the call to fellowship with one another. <A> At least part of this answer I believe comes through obedience to the many ‘one <S> another’ commands of the New Testament. <S> We are exhorted in various ways to be involved with and caring for one another: To admonish one another (Rom. 15:14) <S> To comfort and encourage one another (1 Thess. <S> 4:18; 5:11; Heb. 3:13) To worship with one another (Eph. 5:19; Col. <S> 3:16; Heb. 10:25) To bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2) <S> To always seek the good of one another (1 Thess. <S> 5:15) <S> To be honest with one another (Col. 3:9) <S> To show hospitality to one another (1 Pet. <S> 4:9) <S> To be at peace with one another <S> (Mark 9:50) <S> An overview of the Greek 'one another' is given in Christian Fellowship by J. Hampton Keathley, III which states: <S> The expression ‘one another’ is a translation of a reciprocal pronoun in the Greek New Testament. <S> Reciprocal means mutual, shared, shown or felt alike by both sides, united in feelings, actions, responsibilities, and attitudes. <S> Synonyms include: common, mutual, fellowship, and shared—ideas that are at the heart of the doctrine of fellowship. <S> In usage, this pronoun is used in statements and injunctions to believers regarding shared and mutual responsibilities. <S> In emphasis, it focuses us on our need of the ministry and aid of others, of our duty to care for others as partners in the body of Christ, and of how we can experience true fellowship. <S> Therefore, a study of the ‘one another’ commands of Scripture would be tremendously helpful in the matter of New Testament fellowship. <S> For a detailed study of the doctrine, see the study on the “One Another” Commands of Scripture.. <S> I believe it would be quite hard, if not impossible, to follow these instructions without some form of Congregationalism. <A> You are correct in viewing the priesthood of all believers as obviating the need for a mediator between oneself and God - but there is also incumbent upon the participant a duty, as a priest, to minister to one's fellow congregants. <S> Put <S> simply, without a congregation, there is no one to minister. <S> As a member in the priesthood of all believers, I am to minister to others in my church, and my church ministers to me.
|
We sharpen, encourage, and build up "the brethren," meaning that we all serve as priests for one another, without respect to hierarchy.
|
Is 1 Thessalonians 4:17 the only verse that supports the rapture? Are there any verses in the Bible besides 1 Thessalonians 4:17 that support the doctrine of the rapture? <Q> Two men will be out in the field; one will be taken, and one will be left. <S> Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken, and one will be left. <S> Therefore, stay awake! <S> For you do not know on which day your Lord will come. <S> and it's friend Luke 17:34-35 <S> I tell you, on that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken, the other left. <S> And there will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken, the other left.” <S> so long as you leave off the next verse <S> They said to him in reply, “Where, Lord?” <S> He said to them, “Where the body is, there also the vultures will gather.” <S> Which rapture folks might be likely to do. <S> It kind of leaves you thinking that the lucky one is the one who is left, not the one who was taken and eaten by a vulture. <S> If this were pointing to a rapture, the one who was left would be the one eaten by a vulture. <A> Matthew 13:30 and the book of Joel. <S> Search for the word harvest in the Bible. <S> Many references to harvest in the Bible are referring to the separation of weeds and the wheat which represents the difference between the unsaved and the saved during the Lord's Day. <A> I have yet to find a difference in events that take place in 1 Thess. <S> 4:17 and events that other scripture speaks of when referring to Christ's 2nd coming (as in Matt. <S> 24) <S> (if anyone can point any differences out, please do), so <S> I'm not certain about that verse. <S> However, I think that this verse might: 34 <S> But take heed to yourselves and be on your guard, lest your hearts be overburdened and depressed (weighed down) with the giddiness and headache and nausea of self-indulgence, drunkenness, and worldly worries and cares pertaining to [the business of] this life, and [lest] that day come upon you suddenly like a trap or a noose; 35 <S> For it will come upon all who live upon the face of the entire earth. <S> 36 <S> Keep awake then and watch at all times <S> [be discreet, attentive, and ready], praying that you may have the full strength and ability and be accounted worthy to escape all these things [taken together] that will take place, and to stand in the presence of the Son of Man. <S> Luke 21:34-36 (Amp) <S> Jesus tells us this after telling us about end-times 7 year tribulation events. <S> I would say He could've meant to have the strength to escape the desolation of Jerusalem, but what He says to escape from is coming upon on the entire earth. <S> Perhaps by strength, He means the strength to endure our sinful carnal urges (as in Rev. 3:10). <S> "[Be careful because that day will come upon you like a trap, for it will come upon the entire earth.] <S> " We will/would be trapped with nowhere to escape to..except into His presence. <S> Another verse that might speak of rapture: Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth. <S> Revelation 3:10
|
There's also Matthew 24:40-42
|
How have Protestants explained how Jesus could be born of mankind and be sinless? Very simple question really. If the sin of Adam is passed down through the generations, so that all of us are born with a sin nature, how can it be that Jesus was born of Mary (a human being), yet sinless? I'm from a Protestant (specifically Baptist) background, and would be interested in knowing how we explain it. Most churches have rather vague doctrinal statements that don't address subtle issues like this. So I am wondering if there are any common answers to this issue. Good answers will show that the position proposed is accepted by more than just the poster. The only argument I've beard before is that sin is passed via the seed of man, but I find no Biblical support for this, and it sounds like an artificially constructed argument to oppose some Catholic answers to this question which may require the sinlessness of Mary (which would be contrary to the Bible from the Protestant point of view). <Q> The Bible is very clear that Jesus did not begin to exist in the womb of Mary. <S> As the Second Person of the Trinity, He exists outside of the physical universe of time, space, and matter and with the Father and Spirit created the physical world. <S> He is holy, was holy, and will always be holy... and sinless and righteous and pure and blameless. <S> When Mary conceived, the eternal Son of God became flesh and entered into the physical universe. <S> That act did not require that He become sinful. <S> He retained His holiness, as He is the same yesterday, today and forever. <S> His being born of a virgin is an important part of this, of course. <S> When He was born, He was given the name of Jesus (The Lord saves) because He Himself was the Lord who was saving His people from their sins. <A> Per the Nicene Creed, He was begotten not made. <S> Conceived by the Holy Spirit, but born of the Virgin Mary. <S> The idea is that since he was born of woman but not man, as God's son, he did not inherit sin. <S> Catholic doctrine goes further, adding the idea of an immaculate conception - for Mary - that Jesus might be born sinless. <S> ( I know, I always thought that the Immaculate Conception refered to Jesus, but it's really Mary ! ) <S> Now, if you're saying, but where is this in the Bible? <S> The answer is that it ain't! <S> The whole idea of inherited sin is theological speculation. <S> It's grounded in Paul talking in Romans 6 when he says, "If sin entered through one man, Adam. ... <S> " and then proceeds to talk about how it is defeated by Christ. <A> There's one possible answer to this apparent dilemma here . <S> I've heard this repeated on Christian radio stations by protestant preachers from various denominations. <S> The basic outline of the answer is as follows: <S> Sinful heredity is passed through the blood. <S> Since Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, there was no corruption from the man. <S> The blood of a baby in the womb does not come from, nor mix with the mother. <S> Instead, the embryo itself generates any blood it has. <S> Therefore, since there was no corruption from the seed of a human father, and no mingling of the blood with the mother, the sinful nature is not passed on. <S> Whether this is, in fact, the real answer is something that I don't believe we can know for sure. <S> What we can rely on is that this is what Scripture teaches: Jesus was sinless. <S> The mechanism by which He is able to be sinless is not central to Christian doctrine for most denominations. <S> The fact of His sinlessness is. <A> Being born with a "sin nature" is very different from being born a "sinner." <S> Having a "sin nature" means it is natural for you to want to sin, but being a "sinner" means you actually do it. <S> We get tempted to sin and sometimes we fall into the temptation, other times we don't. <S> Since we have all fallen into a temptation to sin at some point, we are all sinners. <S> That is what separates Jesus as sinless: though he was tempted (Mt 4:1-11), he never fell into those temptations. <A> If you consider the original sin to be an figure to represent that we, humans, are disconnected from God's will by having our own will, and behaving on our own purpose instead of God's, then the original sin has nothing to with the physiological details on which a person was created (i.e. human blood heritage, male semen, sexual intercourse, etc.) <S> If you can decouple the notion of original sin from physical aspects, and see it as an spiritual condition, the idea that Jesus is the impersonated face of God and never deviates of God's plan (even in face of death, Lc 22,42 <S> "Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.") can easily be regarded as the lack of original sin. <S> Every man and woman on earth inherit the original sin because no man and woman on earth had or will ever have the same full connection Jesus had with God. <S> And Christ baptism frees us from it because there are not our sins that matters, but our good deeds. <S> I am very reluctant to accept such elaborated logic-dogmatic explanation to this problem, such as the catholic dogma of Immaculate Conception (and I am catholic), or that there is no corruption of man semen so there is no sin. <S> The problem with these explanations is that they build meaningless reasoning chains on concepts that should purely spiritual, and deviates from the real meaning of the figure of Adam's sin. <A> Jesus inherited a weakened human nature from Mary, He came in a body that was weaker than Adam's, especially prior to Adam's fall into sin. <S> This is what He inherited from Mary. <S> However, Jesus did not inherit a sinful human nature, an natural inclination towards sin, a trait that the rest of us inherits without choice. <S> Because He being God, conceived by the Holy Spirit without a second parent, inherited righteousness from Himself.
|
The doctrine indicates that without a human father, Jesus did not inherit the sin nature.
|
What do Quakers believe about war and serving in the military? It seems that I once heard that Quakers are pacifists, but I'm not sure if that's just a rumor or not. What is the Quaker doctrine regarding war and killing people as a soldier in the military? If they think it is wrong, what is the biblical basis for this belief? Also, do their beliefs extend to being a soldier in the military under any capacity (such as a chaplain, for example)? <Q> Quakers are considered one of the "peace churches" who oppose war of any kind, and typically refuse to participate in it. <S> However they are also not a denomination which expects everyone in it to do exactly what the church says. <S> See this article for more information. <S> The biblical basis for pacifism is discussed here . <S> I believe that some Quakers have indeed served in the military as medics. <S> I've never heard of one serving as a chaplain. <A> In the Bible one of the 10 Commandments says "Thou Shalt Not Kill". <S> However the belief is based on many other references too. <S> Quakers also refuse to swear oaths, on the basis that they always tell the truth and will not swear in God's name or any other. <S> The Quakers formed unarmed pacifist units to supply relief to refugees and ambulances to drive in battle zones picking up the wounded in WW2. <S> 3 of my family served in these units. <S> The Quakers were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1947 for this work. <S> Some more background information can be found at this link: <S> http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1947/press.html <S> Here is a memorial recently erected to their pacifism and relief work during WW2: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/16/rare-memorial-inspires-quakers-work <A> Pacifism was huge in traditional Quakerism, to the point that their home countries (particularly England, where they started) would often get a bit angry with the Quakers for failing to participate in their wars. <S> However, over time, Quakerism as a whole has gotten much more liberal (relative to their starting-point, mind you), and it has become increasingly common for Quakers to join the military. <S> Initially, their involvement was medical, but later expanded into combat. <S> In doctrine, I think most Quaker churches still prefer pacifism, but it is not stressed nearly as much as it used to be. <S> The Biblical basis for their belief is a mixture of Matthew 5:9 ("Blessed are the peace-makers"), Matt 5:38-39 ("Turn the other cheek", although this is less military-related), and perhaps Matt 24:6-8 ("Wars and rumours of wars"). <S> But their support comes mostly from the broad and very common theme throughout Scripture that all life is valuable, and we should love our neighbors and enemies. <S> With these principles in mind, and a few steps of logic, they also have support from a few more ideas: that to take someone's life is to take away their chance to turn to God, that humans bear the image of God, that we should be more concerned with evangelizing and doing good works than the petty conflicts our governments get into, etc. <A> I am a Quaker, and as such am regarded in our denomination as a voluntary minister. <S> Quakers do not have any laid down doctrines, creeds, or rules which we must follow. <S> A basic Quaker belief, which was quoted above, is that there is "that of God within everyone", and therefore if we kill another person or commit violence against them we are doing that to God, which is completely unacceptable. <S> If you want a source for this, you can find it in "Quaker Faith and Practice" , which is the closest Quakers come to having a book of "doctrine and rules" even though it is actually neither doctrinal nor rule based and it is up to each individual Quaker to decide for himself or herself whether or not to follow or believe in anything written in that book. <A> I am a Quaker son of Quaker parents, and both my father and I served in the U.S. military. <S> Reconciling a belief in pacifism with service in an armed force is, like many other decisions, a question which can only be answered by the individual upon communing with the Light Within. <S> My father served three years in the Air Force because there was a draft and he chose not to exempt himself for reasons which only he understood. <S> When I made my choice to join the military, my father expressed concern and asked me questions, but said that ultimately the choice was mine. <S> One of the reasons that community is so important for Quakers is that listening for and following the Divine Will is not always easy. <S> Important choices deserve worshipful support and help.
|
The majority of Quakers do not believe in violence of any kind for any reason. I would say that the choice to be a member of the armed forces, and the choices which subsequently present themselves, are a matter for the individual and the Wisdom and Divine Will that guides them.
|
What evidence is there that Jesus was a carpenter? I was about to say this in another discussion somewhere else, and wondered: do we know that? As in "it's mentioned or at least hinted at in $book $chapter:$verse"? Or is it just a very likely conjecture? <Q> We know that Joseph was a τέκτων (tekton)- traditionally a carpenter but <S> literally, any craftsman who worked with his hands, from Matthew 13:55 (Is this not the carpenter's son?). <S> Traditionally, boys would follow in their father's occupation, hence the tradition that Jesus was a carpenter. <S> Additionally in Mark 6:3, we get the same word describing Jesus himself. <S> (Is this not the carpenter?). <S> Mark is probably the older source ( the Farrer hypothesis ) from which Matthew is drawing. <S> With Matthew's desire to portray Jesus as king, it makes sense that he would prefer to move such a menial task to the dad and let people just assume that Jesus would have been trained up in the family trade. <A> A discussion here talks about the various possibilities. <S> The Greek word is Teckton which means builder. <S> Now, some say he worked with wood; building tools, doors, shelves, tables etc. <S> = carpenter. <S> Others say because of the region and the resources were rock, and most everything was built from rock, then he built millstones, winepresses, houses, etc. <S> = stonemason. <S> There is no real evidence to clarify exactly what Joseph was a builder of, but we know that he was a Teckton = Builder. <S> Now, in the Jewish culture of that time (1st century) it was required of the father to teach the son their trade at age 12, and find a wife for them around the age of 20. <S> Joseph being very Jewish would have adhered to this practice and began teaching Jesus at 12 his trade of being a builder (Teckton). <S> This page from the same site offers additional explanation for the stonemason theory: <S> Given that Israel's buildings were constructed of stones and rocks, Jesus likely worked as a stonemason rather than a carpenter. <S> He probably spent hours helping his father shape and cut stones. <S> The above quoted site is provided by That the World May Know Ministries , and offers a DVD series entitled Faith Lessons , featuring the founder Ray Vander Laan which offers documentary-style on-location Bible studies suitable for small groups. <S> I believe the one that addresses this issue is Life and Ministry of the Messiah , or possibly Walk as Jesus Walked . <S> It has been several years since I've watched these, and I don't have access to them now to confirm. <A> Yes, Jesus is called a carpenter in Mark 6:3 NIV1984 : <S> Isn’t this the carpenter? <S> Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,Judas and Simon? <S> Aren’t his sisters here with us?” <S> And they took offense at him. <S> Update: based on comments below, some explanation of the word carpenter . <S> First, that is the word used in various translations, e.g. Amplified , Good News , New American Standard Bible and King James . <S> Secondly, it is true that the meaning has been questioned in some commentaries, where it has been suggested that the word could also mean, craftsman . <S> So, we cannot be 100% sure, but since the church has historically considered Jesus to have been a carpenter, and most or all translations use that <S> , it seems probable. <A> The evidence is mixed. <S> Mark's Gospel clearly states that Jesus was a carpenter (Mark 6:3: <S> Is not this the carpenter , the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? <S> and are not his sisters here with us? <S> And they were offended at him.). <S> However, Mark is the only gospel that tells us that Jesus was a carpenter. <S> Matthew's Gospel, in the corresponding passage, only says that Jesus was the son of a carpenter <S> (Matthew 13:55: Is not this the carpenter's son ? <S> is not his mother called Mary? <S> and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?). <S> In copying from Mark, it should have been easier to retain Mark's words, unless the author of Matthew's Gospel had a reason not to say that Jesus had been a carpenter. <S> The later gospels, Luke and John , make no mention of Jesus being a carpenter or even the son of a carpenter. <S> One theory was put forward by Dennis R. MacDonald in his book, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark . <S> MacDonald compares Mark's story about Jesus with the Greek epics of Homer, finding many parallels between the portrayal of Jesus and that of Odysseus. <S> Both Odysseus and Jesus were known as carpenters. <S> MacDonald notes that Homer sometimes calls Odysseus 'divine' and 'son of Zeus', labels comparable to those given to Jesus. <S> If MacDonald is correct, Mark's description of Jesus as a carpenter was a literary creation that the later evangelists refused to accept. <S> Perhaps when the first gospel was being written, the author had so little information about Jesus as a person that he felt obliged to fill in some of the gaps. <S> Because of Mark <S> it is more than just a very likely conjecture that Jesus was a carpenter, but <S> because of Matthew , <S> Luke and John <S> it is no more than a conjecture. <S> Then, because of MacDonald's research, it could even be that this was simply a literary mechanism employed in just one of the gospels.
|
To quote a small part that summarizes well: Jesus' adopted father Joseph was a carpenter (Matthew 13:55 & Mark 6:3).
|
Were there any OT prophecies that Jesus should be a wood-working carpenter I like the stone mason theory because that would make Jesus and St. Joseph (the patron of manly men) really tough. But, is there any significance to the traditional conception of Jesus following St. Joseph as a table and chairs sort of carpenter as opposed to a millstone and monuments sort of carpenter borne of the Old Testament prophets? Are there any allusions to carpentry in the Old Testament? <Q> No. <S> I researched exactly this when working on this answer . <S> This is not mentioned in the Old Testament. <A> Carpenters are mentioned in several of the histories - unsurprisingly usually in the context of building houses and the like - and once or twice in Isaiah (depending which version you use - sometimes it is translated as the more generic "craftsman" instead of "carpenter"). <A> Zechariah 1:20 English: And YHVH showed me four carpenters. <S> LXX: καὶ ἔδειξέν μοι κύριος τέσσαρας τέκτονας <S> The same Greek word, τέκτων, is used in Matt. <S> 13:55 and Mark 6:3. <S> The Talmud (Sukka 52b) states that the four carpenters are Messiah ben David, Messiah ben Ephraim (i.e., ben Joseph), Malki-Tzedek, and Eliyahu. <S> But, we know that Jesus is both Messiah ben David and ben Ephraim, he is a priest after the manner of Malki-Tezedek, and he is a prophet greater than Moshe.
|
Carpentry is mentioned in the Old Testament but not as a prophecy about Jesus.
|
Can the Word of God and God's wisdom be beneficial to an unbeliever? More specifically I'm wondering in the way that we go to the Bible and to God about concerns or issues that we are facing for instruction and wisdom, can we think biblically about another's concerns or issues that they are struggling with in order to help them, and in overall hopes of leading them to Christ? I'd like to give a non-believing friend some Biblical advice, but I don't know if it will even benefit him (to be honest, I'm not quite sure what I would even say yet). <Q> This is a two-part answer, because your question addresses two things: I should also make it clear up front that I am one of those unbeliever types. <S> 1) <S> Because wisdom from all sources is beneficial. <S> As an unbeliever, no book holds a special place. <S> This means that all sources can be analysed for wisdom. <S> The bible in particular contains many parables and thought experiments that can be useful regardless of their source; exercises to challenge one's sense of ethics and morality. <S> But equally, we could read Harry Potter and analyse some of their circumstances and come out with different, but equally valid, wisdom. <S> Stories of daring and heroism, and in particular those things that the heroes are willing to do or sacrifice in order to achieve that heroism, are always fun to break down and analyse. <S> Try to work out the ethics of Snape, for example. <S> But do be aware that, since unbelievers don't share the same foundational concepts, the stories and ethics can come out somewhat differently. <S> Many of the more foundational stories of the Old Testament -- The Binding of Isaac, Jonah and the Whale, <S> The Testing of Job all being class examples -- and even the concepts from the New Testament -- the vicarious redemption of mankind by Jesus, Hell, etc. -- can be and are interpreted entirely differently. <S> 2) Don't do that. <S> Even in the rare case that the story you're going to tell is actually appropriate, telling bible stories to a stressed-out unbeliever is going to come across as preachy and will stress your friendship equally if not more. <S> Feel free to suggest actions taken by those in the stories as possible routes out of their situation -- after all, this is distilled version of the wisdom that is actually imparted to you -- but just telling the story will just likely cause your message to be lost. <A> I'm going to start with some base assumptions, because I sense that the atheists are going to have a field day with this, and I'm hoping to prevent this from turning into a debate on whether or not God exists, is good, etc. <S> The assumptions are those that are necessary for this site. <S> IMO, the debate over the assumptions on which this site are off-topic. <S> Those debates have nothing to do with the question asked Assuming that God is who the Bible claims He is (a core assumption of Christianity), then He is all-knowing... <S> Assuming again, that the Bible is God's word, given to us by His divine inspiration, and preserved through time (again, a core assumption of Christianity)... <S> And further assuming that God loves us, and is good, and knows what's best for us... <S> Then yes, Biblical advice can absolutely help an unbeliever. <S> In addition to pointing to God, and Christ as savior, the Bible is chock full of wisdom that is applicable to daily life. <S> If God loves us (as the Bible says He does), then He will give us good advice, and instructions that are for our own good. <S> His wisdom is good, regardless of whether not an individual believes it. <S> The instructions on how husbands and wives are supposed to love and respect each other in Ephesians 5, for example, will strengthen the relationship of anyone who chooses to follow them, regardless of whether they are Christian or not. <S> Similarly, advice to love our neighbors (and our enemies) as we love ourselves will benefit anyone. <S> Most strife in relationships is caused by selfishness on one or both parts. <S> Two completely selfless people, devoted to loving each other as God intended would have nothing to fight about. <S> (Of course, there is no such thing as a completely selfless human being.) <S> The question is whether or not they will choose to follow Biblical advice and apply it. <S> Plenty of people will reject even the best advice, if it comes from a source they don't agree with. <A> God is God. <S> His Word is the living Word. <S> It's been declared a seed of righteousness. <S> If it is sown it will thrive and it will bring a harvest. <S> If you think about it, this is a Word that has been around since the beginning of time and no one has ever been able to destroy it; and, it has edified and enriched countless lives. <S> Don't ever be afraid or reluctant to share God's Word. <A> Can? <S> Yes. <S> You know what they say 'History repeats it-self'. <S> Which is also said in Ecclesiastes 1:9 there is nothing new under the sun. <S> People learn from other's mistakes. <S> Specially Hollywood benefits. <S> It is said that are only 7 original plots for stories and movies. <S> Which comes from Bible. <S> Hollywood knows that people are drawn to the Bible so any movie based on the Bible plots should do ok. <S> thanks for reading
|
Yes, wisdom from the bible can be beneficial to an unbeliever.
|
Is civil divorce OK for Catholics, are there mitigating circumstances? This is not a pastoral advice question, I'm happily married. I just really don't know the answer to this question to help a friend, so I guess it's pastoral pastoral advice, but I definitely don't want a 'try to work it out' answer, just the facts please. Sacramental marriage cannot be undone by civil divorce, that much is clear from scripture and Church teaching. However, what does civil divorce mean for the sacramental marriage? If it is OK, what factors should a person take into account when forming their consciences to up and leave (for instance there could be a case where the laws in a particular region require someone to serve divorce papers in order leave their spouse with their kids and not be accused of kidnapping them) and if it is not OK then what recourse does one have to protect themselves and their children against their spouse, that does not constitute a grave sin? <Q> As usual the Catholic Encyclopedia is helpful here. <S> The Catholic doctrine on divorce may be summed up in the following propositions: <S> In Christian marriage, which implies the restoration, by ChristHimself, of marriage to its original indissolubility, there can neverbe an absolute divorce, at least after the marriage has beenconsummated; Non-Christian marriage can be dissolved by absolutedivorce under certain circumstances in favour of the Faith; <S> Separation frombed and board <S> (divortium imperfectum) is allowed for various causes,especially in the case of adultery or lapse into infidelity or heresyon the part of husband or wife. <S> I would take that last part to indicate that if the marriage is unlivable in (for example if there is violence or other abuse), then civil separation is a viable option. <S> In most jurisdictions civil separation does not need to be followed by a divorce - I have known people who lived in a state of separation for decades. <S> The only practical difference is that a separated person cannot remarry. <S> As I'm sure you are aware, sacramental marriages can be annuled. <A> In some cases the rules for a church annulment may coincide with the rules for a civil divorce, but not a civil annulment (those latter rules obviously depending on the jurisdiction in question). <S> This would mean that someone would be able to be not married, in the eyes of both church and state, but while the state considered them divorced - that is, that they had been married but are no longer - the church would consider them to have never been married. <S> There is also Pauline Privilege. <S> However, if two people were both non-baptised at the time that they got married, and later one of them converted to Christianity (note, to Christianity - not to Catholicism from another form of Christianity) and was baptised, then they may leave the marriage. <S> This has been justified in relation to 1 Cor 7:10-15. <S> A more recent extension of this is Petrine Privilege, where a baptised person marries a non-baptised, and the non-baptised remains un-baptised, then it can be dissolved (again, it would be lawful and valid, but not sacramental) by the pope, if the marriage was seen to impede the spiritual life of the believer. <S> Divorce a mensa et thoro <S> - still a legal concept in some places, was actually originally a matter of the ecclestiastical courts. <S> This would be close to what is called legal separation in many jurisdictions - the couple are married, but do not live together, and there may or may not be a form of alimony and/or maintenance paid. <A> what factors should a person take into account when forming their consciences to up and leave <S> Well, there's this from Malachi 2:16 : <S> "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel <S> It's really hard to overstate that. <S> The idea of "forming their conscience" to do something the Lord hates, even if you're only talking about the civil aspect, smacks of open rebellion against God, the very heart of sin. <S> The alternative in a dangerous situation, since we're talking about civil law, could perhaps be a restraining order. <A> Catechism of the catholic Church 2383 <S> The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law [Cf. <S> CIC, cann. <S> 1151-1155.] <S> . <S> If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense. <S> However, what does civil divorce mean for the sacramental [between baptized persons] marriage : marriage bond still remains and parties are not free to contract a new marriage.
|
The church considers most non-Christian marriages to be lawful and valid, but non-sacramental.
|
Is Abraham in heaven? If Jesus brought everlasting life and Abraham died before the coming of Jesus (and in fact before Judaism), would we therefore expect to see Abraham in heaven? What passages in the bible direct us to an answer? <Q> Jesus Himself said Abraham was in heaven, in the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus : <S> Luke 16:19-31 <S> NIV1984 <S> (I have highlighted the six references to Abraham.) <S> “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. <S> 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. <S> Even the dogs came and licked his sores. <S> “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side . <S> The rich man also died and was buried. <S> In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. <S> 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.’ <S> “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. <S> And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ <S> “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. <S> Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ <S> “ Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ <S> “‘No, father Abraham ,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ <S> “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.’” <A> The answer is yes. <S> It's in the first two of those that we find our answer: <S> What does the Scripture say? <S> Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. <S> (Romans 4:3, NIV) <S> Consider Abraham: <S> He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness <S> (Galations 3:6) <S> Abraham has received righteousness; in other words, he is made holy, or sin-free; he is saved by his faith. <A> God chose Abraham and made him blameless. <S> Gen 17-1 . <S> Before Jesus came the People of the old testament were more intimate with God , Jesus was sacrificed as an atonement for the world's sins, not just for God's chosen people. <S> Sins in the old testament were covered by the blood of bulls and goats. <S> Jesus's blood covers today's sin. <S> God saved Abraham by making him blameless.
|
As well as the Old Testament accounts of Abraham's life he is also mentioned a few times in the New Testament - namely in Romans 4 , Galations 3 and Hebrews 11 .
|
Did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest? I have a multi-part question. Did Adam and Eve's Progeny Commit Incest? Genesis, Chapter 4 tells us about Cain and Abel. Genesis, Chapter 5 tells us about Seth and "other sons and daughters". I highly doubt that our species began with many acts of incest (not just for religious/legal/moral reasons but biological reasons as well), so how did humanity continue? As a Christian, am I obliged to accept one of the following? Adam and Eve's progeny mated with descendants from another lineage that the Bible (through no apparent malice) failed to describe. The story of Adam and Eve is just that - A story. It is a story that was passed down by way of oral tradition. It was never meant to describe actual historical events. <Q> There is a third option - The prohibition on incest didn't come about until the covenant in Leviticus & Deuteronomy, and to accuse Cain, Abel, and Seth of incest is to accuse them <S> ex post facto . <S> As an aside, a Young Earth Creationist would date the Creation to 4004 BC, and the Exodus (and hence the Covenant) to about 1440BC. <S> As such, you would be accusing them of a crime that wasn't mandated for nearly 2600 years. <S> If you want to say, "but surely the law goes back further than the covenant," you get into territory of, "So when did it become a law?" <S> Incest is prohibited in most secular cultures today because it weakens the gene pool. <S> Over time, the level of closeness has gotten wider in order to ensure a wider mixing. <S> In modern times, a first or second cousin is off-limits. <S> If I remember correctly in Leviticus, immediate family was prohibited, but I believe that cousins were ok. <S> If you follow the trajectory backwards, you'd probably arrive at a date at which it was ok even for family members to procreate together, societally speaking. <S> An objection has been raised worth noting: <S> regardless, biology hasn't changed. <S> legally incest wasn't "wrong" yet but humanity does not tend to survive well on inbreeding. <S> My response stands, however: <S> Agreed that humanity doesn't tend to survive well on inbreeding, but it fares even more poorly if the first of the species refrain from procreation altogether <A> The reason why incest is medically bad is because it makes genetic birth defects more likely. <S> Most genetic defects are recessive. <S> If two people who both have the gene have children, the childrenm may inherit the gene from both parents, and it will materialize. <S> But if someone with the bad gene marries someone without the gene, then their children have one good gene and one bad gene, and -- assuming it's receissive -- they will not manifest the defect. <S> Bad genes are mutations, that is, DNA damaged by toxic chemicals, radiation, etc. <S> Adam and Eve were presumably created with no bad genes. <S> It took time for mutations to accumulate. <S> So incest was not a medical problem for the first generations. <S> Incest also has social implications, the confusion of roles of "sister" and "wife" or "brother" and "husband". <S> That would have been less of an issue before the Flood, when people lived longer. <S> If Eve lived to be circa 900 years old like Adam, and if she was fertile for the same percentage of her life as a modern woman. <S> That is, if a modern woman is fertile from mid teens to mid 40's, circa 30 years or 1/2 to 1/3 of her life, then if Eve lived to be 900, she might have been fertile for 300 years. <S> She could have had children decades or centuries apart, who would not have been raised together. <S> And by the way, if Eve was fertile for several hundred years, she could have had dozens or even a hundred or more children in her life. <S> And none of them ever called. <A> Maybe it's an allegory and not intended to be taken as literal as we often do. <S> I've always thought that there were 'others' with whom Cain mated. <S> Within the known history of the world outside of the Bible, I speculate that the first humans were Adam and Eve. <S> That is, they were the first intelligent beings who's children mated with the Neanderthals. <S> It is scientifically speculated that Homo Sapiens came out of Africa where they encountered the Neanderthals, who were stronger and better hunters (implying warriors) than the Homo Sapiens . <S> The Homo Sapiens retreated back into Africa for years and then came back north, but this time for some unknown reason (I believe that it's the fruit of knowledge of good and evil) <S> this time they had an enlarged brain. <S> The rest as they say is history. <S> Further reading about this: <S> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insidenova/2010/05/did-neanderthals-mate-with-modern-humans.html <S> This would also explain why Cain was fearful of the others killing him when he was sent away.
|
Yes, according to those that hold a literal view of Genesis, they did commit incest, but it wasn't a problem at the time.
|
Why would God create beings with the capacity to sin? Life on earth is filled with the horrible effects of sin. Why did God create mankind with the capacity to sin? Was there a higher purpose in this or was there a specific reason for it? I'm specifically looking for an answer based on biblical teaching as interpreted in the Protestant tradition. <Q> ( Isaiah 43:1-7 (esp v.7) , Rev. 4:11 , Col 1:15-16 ) <S> This is a hard concept to grasp for anyone, even for a committed Christians. <S> So the answer is that sin is there to glorify God. <S> You may ask, "How does sin glorify God?" <S> Sin glorifies God's attributes of justice and wrath, not His most popular attributes. <S> Many Christians view God a pure love, and that is correct; but God is also pure wrath "a consuming fire" and pure justice. <S> ( Hebrews 12:29 , Deuteronomy 32:4 ) Think about it this way. <S> If you had a family member who had been murdered by a criminal and you were present at the trial and the Judge decided to acquit the criminal despite eye witness testimony, how would you feel? <S> Would the judge be 'glorified' in your eyes. <S> God is glorified in the judging of sinners. <S> In the case of true Christians, Christ stands as their sacrifice. <S> So if we go back to the courtroom example we see the Judge's Son offering to take the punishment of the criminal and the Judge offering to take the criminal into his family to reform him. <S> So God is glorified by sin in two ways. <S> He is glorified by judging sin righteously and also by His Son taking the punishment for some of the sinners. <S> Romans 3:22-26 (NKJV): <S> For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. <A> Free will is the ability of people to make choices different than God's commands. <S> A sin is a thought or act contrary to God's will for us. <S> Without the ability to sin, there is no free will. <S> Our problem is that free will is never addressed in the Bible. <S> Bob DeWaay describes it this way: <S> Even in passages where prophets and others asked God why He allowed so much evil to harm the innocent, it was not discussed. <S> The answer was never that God was committed to the principle of free will and determined that allowing evil was a necessary by-product of free will. <S> He continues: <S> Most free will theology is based on philosophical considerations that are imported to the discussion from outside the Bible. <S> Since the Bible does not directly discuss the meaning of “free will,” the concept must be derived from passages about human bondage to sin and human responsibility and culpability before the Law of God. <S> You will see this as we examine literature on the topic. <S> Continuing: <S> Free will is not the simple answer to important theological questions that people think it is. <S> It raises more questions and complications than it answers. <S> I set about to study this matter in great detail over ten years ago. <S> I read the best material I could find, much of it sited in this article. <S> The bottom line for me is that we need to accept what the Bible teaches and not try to escape from clear Biblical passages through philosophical speculation. <S> I am not minimizing the sincere desire people have to answer the difficult question about God’s relationship to time, evil, and human choices. <S> But I am saying that outside of Divine revelation in Scripture there are true mysteries. <S> it's worth the time to read all of Bob DeWaay's essay. <S> My personal opinion is that God considers the free will of man to be the prime directive, with everything else supporting free will. <S> But my opinion is not supported by the Bible. <A> "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." <S> - Romans 11:32 <S> By looking at this passage alone, we can guess that God had set all this in motion in order to show mercy and love to all. <S> However, classical Christianity has always fallen silent on this mystery, we may not be intended to know why. <S> But the Westminster catechism at least teaches that we were intended to "love God and enjoy Him forever. <S> " <S> If that the the end that we hold that Christianity has for us, then whatever happens here and now in the interplay of sin and free will, election and grace, is for the purpose of helping us to "love God and enjoy Him forever."
|
The reason God created anything at all is for His glory.
|
Is the age of the earth in the Bible? Early scientists thought that the age of the earth is proven by the genealogical tables in the book of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Other than this observation, is there any reference to the direct age of the earth noted anywhere in the Bible? <Q> No. <S> However, according to young-earth creationists (like myself), it can be derived, assuming that the word "Day" in Genesis means a literal day, and that the genealogies are accurate. <S> Adding up the genealogies can give an age of about 6,000 years, but there are some gaps in the genealogies, and even among young-earth creationists, there is room for 6,000-10,000 years of history. <S> The most literal interpretation puts the age at about 6,000 years . <S> Of course, there are those that hold to the day-age theory (the days in Genesis can be interpreted as "time periods") and the Gap theory (there is a gap between the creation of the universe and the arrival of man). <S> These each throw age estimation out the window, and allow for a much older earth. <S> Also, there are those who believe in theistic evolution , or that the Genesis account is not to be taken literally. <S> These also throw the young earth idea out the window. <S> As far as other references in the Bible, again, nothing direct <S> but Jesus did say: Mark 10:6 (KJV) <S> But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. <S> Young-earth Biblical literalists (such as myself) would say that this is indication that Jesus Himself considered Adam and Eve as having been created "at the beginning of creation", ruling out the gap and day-age theories. <S> Again, there is much disagreement on this. <A> There is nothing in the Bible that pins down the date. <S> Just to give an alternative view to the speculation that exists in YEC (the existing answer), <S> the (Roman) Catholic church has an official position that is in acceptance of the scientific age of about 4.5 billion years. <S> I won't bother copying it all, but see Wikipedia under the heading "Pope Benedict XVI and today" (which has both the relevant quotations and sources). <S> Furthermore, Pope Benedict XVI officially distances the (Roman) Catholic church from both YEC and ID (leaning towards theistic evolution). <S> I'm not Catholic myself (or even religious) <S> but: credit where due <S> : the Vatican knows the Bible pretty well - and they're happy to go with what the scientists say with regards to the age of the Earth. <A> The only starting point for all calculations are the geneologies. <S> However, even if the age itself would be mentioned, we should not forget the following: <S> 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> (2 Peter 3:8) <S> This can make all age calculations highly speculative, and also, irrelevant. <A> Archbishop Ussher believed that the age of the earth could be calculated quite accurately, using the biblical genealogies that go all the way back to Adam, whom he assumed to be created on the sixth day. <S> Using the Bible and, to a limited extent, extra-biblical information, he decided that the world was created in 4004 BCE, a date that differs little from those of others who attempted to determine a biblical creation date. <S> Although Ussher's chronology is hopelessly in error (scientists have established that the earth is actually 4.5 billion years old), it has been defended even by eminent scientists such as Stephen Jay Gould as representing the best of scholarship in his time.
|
The age of the earth is not clearly stated in the Bible.
|
What happened to Ananias and Sapphira after death? Acts 5:1-11 (NIV) 1 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet. 3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.” 5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him. 7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?” “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.” 9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.” 10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events. This is the only passage that I know of in the New Testament that tells us of Christians being put to death. As far as I understand, it was God that put them to death for lying to the Holy Spirit. My question is what might have happened to them after their sudden death. Did they go directly to hell, or did they go to heaven? Was their death a kind of instant judgement that sent them away from God and directly to hell? <Q> We don't know The Bible doesn't tell us. <S> But the Bible doesn't tell us whether they were saved. <S> However, it should be noted that the nature of their punishment does not rule out the possibility of their salvation. <S> Consider <S> 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 <S> (NASB) : <S> It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. <S> You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. <S> For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. <S> In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus . <S> Although the meaning of "destruction of his flesh" is debated, one possible interpretation is that this person was being sentenced to death. <S> Yet it is made clear that, despite the severity of the punishment, the man himself was saved. <S> But the question remains of whether Ananias and Sapphira were saved in the first place, as nothing in the text rules out their salvation, or indicates their possession of it. <A> The two were believers and i presumed they were saved. <S> They belong to the church with right doctrine <S> They sold their property <S> They will not be disciplined if they were unbelievers nothing to lose. <S> They lied and not blasphemed as contemplated in Mark 3:28-29 <S> The filing of the heart in Acts 5:3 is nothing but similar to the heart of peter in Mark 8:33 when Peter was called "Get thee behind me, satan... <S> Death is just a mean to be transported to the next life and it doesn't invalidates salvation. <S> Romans 8:38 <S> /I Cor. <S> 15:15-16 <S> We all know that there are sins that leads to death I Cor 11:30 and James 1:15 <S> This is just a case similar in the old testament of sudden death in the wilderness during Moses' timeline. <A> I think we must take Ananias and Sapphira to have been believers. <S> We are told in Acts 4:32-34 that the believers who had lands or houses sold them. <S> Then we have two instances of specific individuals who did so. <S> We know that Barnabas was a believer, but he is introduced as a Levite and Cypriot, neither of which designation carries any connotation of faith in Christ. <S> So I don't see why the introduction of Ananias as Ἀνὴρ τις, 'a certain man', should make us think that he is not a believer, since believers are often referred to as 'men' in Acts, using the same Greek word ἀνὴρ. <S> We must take him as the second example given of the believers who were selling possessions. <A> I really appreciate all the comments above on this subject. <S> There are only 2 answers - either Ananias/Sapphira were believers, or they were non-believers. <S> If there were believers, then even though they suffered sudden death, they were saved. <S> If they were non-believers, they were not saved. <S> Personally, I know of many sincere christians who lied, who failed to give their great wealth to the church, who played church politics, and did harm to the church. <S> But they were sincere believers. <S> They were also not perfect. <S> They gave in to temptations and sinned now and then. <S> Christ had died for their sins. <S> I believe they will go to heaven despite being sinners. <S> Ananias and Sapphira were sinners. <S> I am too. <A> In chapter 4 it talks about believers selling property and giving the money to the Apostles. <S> Starting in chapter 5 it says there was a man. <S> When the Bible refers to fellow Christians, it usually calls them fellow believers, brothers, friends. <S> Here it states a man which leads me to believe they were not Christians <A> In Mark 3:28 Jesus stated that those who lie to the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven and their punishment will be eternal condemnation. <S> It states in Acts that both Ananias and Sapphira both lied to the Holy Spirit. <S> If scripture is our guide, then they are both condemned. <A> No real believer is or will be happy to hear that a fellow believer is in hell. <S> But note Acts 5:3 <S> "But Peter said, Ananias, Satan has filled your heart... <S> " Dont know if Heaven has room for a Satan filled heart that died without the opportunity to REPENT. <A> What's key is that they 'gave up the Ghost and died'. <S> That's a slam dunk for me. <S> The scripture 'you cannot serve both God & mammon' - Matt 6:24 - also rings true here. <S> They loved money more than The Lord and so served their true master. <S> I'm inclined to say that they are lost. <S> It seems Sapphira had the chance to repent when asked if she had 'sold it for so much' (as the implication is that it was her husband's idea 'and she was privy to it'). <S> She lied and so she received the same fate as her husband and so was buried in the ground next to him...
|
The only answer I can give is a tautology - if they were saved, then they went to heaven.
|
Why are people traditionally buried facing east? During a burial today, I noticed the coffin was buried facing east. Where does this Christian tradition come from? <Q> It's not a purely Christian tradition. <S> Other religions practice this as well. <S> There's an article here on ehow.com that gives an overview of the origins of the practice. <S> Some highlights: <S> According to "Ethnicity and the American Cemetery," the feet of the deceased face east as well. <S> This tradition is based on the belief that when Jesus returns, the departed will rise from the grave already facing his direction. <S> According to Northumberland County Council, the tradition began when Pagans buried the dead so they would face the rising sun. <S> Also note that it's not universal. <S> We have a cemetery tied to a Church a few miles from here where the graves all point to the North, and several others I've visited have some facing one way, and others at right angles - <S> those graves are laid out to maximize use of the land. <A> Most churches are built with the altar at the east end, expecting the Second Coming of Christ to be from the East: New International Version of Matthew 24:27 - "For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." <A> In the Judeo-Christian tradition the East was the direction of prayer since the time of Abraham. <S> Genesis mentions at least once, that he got up in the early morning facing East toward the rising sun to pray <S> (The Sun being an early symbol of God benevolence). <S> As others have noted this has also been the tradition when it comes to building sacred structures like churches, synagogues since the time of the Tabernacle in the Old Testament onward and in orientating their altars for Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and a some High Church Protestants. <S> So it natural that this sort of thing would be carried over to cemeteries since those places are considered sacred spaces and facing east is an ancient liturgical custom for having reverence for God. <A> At one time, it was true that Catholics must be buried facing the east. <S> It is no longer true, and it was part of the same Church Law which said that the body of the faithful departed should face the altar in a Catholic Church thus facing the east. <S> During the Funeral Mass of a priest, the corpse is reversed as to be facing his congregation. <S> As anywhere, you may find older Catholic cemeteries that still accommodate this tradition. <S> There is no requirement in church law regarding the position of burial. <S> The only thing that comes close is a reference in the Roman Ritual of 1950 (no longer in effect) that stated that at the funeral Mass the coffin was to be placed so that the feet of the deceased should point toward the main altar. <S> Presuming the church had been constructed so that a priest celebrating Mass would face the east, the deceased at the funeral would face in that same direction. <S> Although there was no canonical requirement, it was in fact customary for people to be buried facing the east, reflecting the traditional Christian belief that, at the end time, Jesus would return from the east. <S> (An even earlier pagan tradition had the deceased buried facing the east because it was where the sun rose.) <S> Correctly, you suggest that the same values guided the traditional placing of a church’s main altar, so that the priest celebrating Mass could face the east. <S> This evoked the Christian expectation as to Christ’s return. <S> (See Mt 24:27: <S> “For just as lightning comes from the east and is seen as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.”) <S> - Must one be buried facing east? <S> There is no fixed rule nowadays <S> and I know of <S> some very traditional Catholic Benedictine cemeteries where the brethren are buried facing the south due to limited burial space.
|
Christian graves also tend to face east, but the geography of the cemetery can be more influential.
|
What sources are used for the Christian Bible translations? When I was looking in the store to buy a bible, I noticed that the different bible translations not only differ in their style of translation, but also in the sources they use. What are the sources used in common bible translations? <Q> Wikipedia has a good list of the various sources used: <S> Septuagint Masoretic Syriac <S> Samaritan <S> Pentateuch Textus Receptus Codex Bezae <S> Codex Sinaiticus Codex Vaticanus other fragments and partial texts <A> Newer Bible translations are moving to the Masoretic text more and more for the Old Testament translation, especially since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (the Dead Sea Scrolls validate the authenticity of the Masoretic text). <S> Septuagint is a very good translation of the Hebrew original when it comes to the Torah, but the rest of the books are known to be poorly translated. <S> The translators, of course, make use of the Septuagint and other translations wherever the Masoretic text is not very clear. <S> As for the New Testament, most translators make use of the Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland text, among others. <A> This blog on NT Translations & Sources seems like a good summary, and pertinent to your question, at least in part. <S> Even though the author doesn't look at the OT sources, it does seem well-researched for NT translation sources. <S> It also has ample citations to its claims, including internet links, and books by well-known scholars in the field of textual criticism and history of Biblical sources. <S> The bias of the blog's author is noted (he is an ex-Christian), but I don't think this takes away from the literary content of this blog article.
|
Dead Sea Scrolls Vulgate
|
What's the right terminology here for what God's allowing something, but not blessing it? What's the right terminology here for when God's allowing something, but not blessing it?I once had it, but now I forgot. It's something about two different types of God's will. One is kind of "allowing" will, for example, in such things like earthquakes, in which children die, and the other one is a "good-pleasure" will, for example, in such things like preaching the gospel and saving people. So, what are the correct words here? <Q> I think that's considered His passive will as opposed to His active will ... <S> the will is the intellectual appetite. <S> But in the intellect there are two powers--the active and the passive. <S> Summa Theologica Question 83 article 4 objection 3 <A> There is no universally accepted terminology for this idea. <S> While some circles have distinctions they make, the lines between them and the terminology are not ubiquitous. <S> Whatever terms you use, you would do well to define what you mean by them as part of your own content. <S> That being said, the most common terms I have heard are Will of Decree and Will of Desire or Will of Command. <S> and it is exactly that way. <S> Examples of this would be creation itself, the order of things in heaven, the days of a man's life, etc. <S> God's Will of Desire (or Command) is anything that is God's will but not concretely enforced, instead it is given as a command for others to enforce according to their wills. <S> As an example, God commands men not to commit murder, yet murder is done because he did not make it impossible for us to do so. <S> God's will of desire can be (at least for a time) denied him through rebellion. <S> Anything that does so is, of course, sin. <S> What Jesus did on earth that every man before him failed to do was fulfill God's Will of Desire by living according to his commandments. <S> We life in the "now and not yet" period where it is not always clear to use how these two wills converge. <S> To continue with our example, we know that God ordains the number of a man's days and that it would be impossible for a man to live longer or shorter than God wills for them, but that murder (which can be the physical cause of their "early" termination) is against God's will. <S> In this sense his commands can be broken while not violating his sovereignty. <S> There is an apparent tension between these that with our limited view of only the physical world we are unable to resolve. <S> A time will come when all that is wrong will be made right. <S> This means that these two forms of "will" will eventually become one. <S> When death is disposed and Jesus is given permanent reign over the new Jerusalem (we're talking about heaven here) <S> then there will be no more murder (his desire will be decreed). <A> Just to add another version I have mostly heard: Sovereign Will and Moral Will <S> Here's a really good article for reference - <S> http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/gods-moral-will-and-sovereign-will <S> In summary, God's sovereign will, will be accomplished and cannot be changed. <S> His moral will consists of morals He has prescribed for us, but His moral will can be disobeyed. <S> Such as it isn't God's moral will that we murder, but yet we do. <S> But it is God's sovereign will that Jesus came and died for our sins, this couldn't have been changed.
|
God's Will of Decree would be anything that in his sovereign power he chose to be exactly one way
|
Has the name "Jesus" ever been used for naming Jewish children since the Savior's incarnation? I mean we still have a lot of men named Mohamed in the Muslim community. Is it the same with the name "Jesus" in the Jewish community? Do we have any evidence of Jewish men named Jesus that have lived since the birth of Christ? So, the main question is: Has the name "Jesus" ever been used for naming children since the Savior's incarnation? <Q> Yes, it is actually a common name in many languages. <S> It isn't so popular on English <S> but <S> I am sure it is used in many other languages as well. <S> Personally I would never name my kid that <S> but there is nothing to stop anybody from doing so. <S> * Several people have pointed out my mistake, it exists in English too the quite common name "Joshua". <A> Remember that the Hebrew Name "Yeshua" is exact English equivalent of "Joshua." <S> According to the United States Social Security Administration , this was, in 2010, <S> the 11th most popular boy's name - very, very popular, although its still a drop from when it was #3 from 2002 to 2006. <S> Per the same source, 'Jesus' (which is a fairly common name amongst Hispanics, and is pronounced 'Hey-sus'*) was the 92nd most popular boy's name, down from a peak of 67 in 2003. <S> Interestingly, neither appears in the list of the top 20 in either 1937 (the oldest complete set) or 1880 (the oldest set altogether). <S> * <S> Recently, I worked with an Indian developer and a Mexican named 'Jesus', and the Indian refused to pronounce it Hey-sus, but rather <S> G-sus. <S> It was really, really weird... <A> There are plenty of people named יְהוֹשׁוּעַ <S> (English transliteration: Yehoshu'a ) and יֵשׁוּעַ ( <S> English transliteration: Yeshu'a ) in the Talmud, both Babylonian and Jerusalem. <S> Each of these would be the equivalent to the Greek Ἰησοῦς <S> (English transliteration: Iēsous ) and English "Jesus." <S> Although not all those mentioned in the Talmud lived after Jesus the Nazarene (some lived during BC era), many did. <A> In Brazil I know some Jesus <S> but I'm like Caleb at that point and would never name my kid <S> Jesus <S> I think that calling someone Jesus looks serious. <S> Imagine a friend of someone called Jesus and someone cursing him because he was late or something, that looks bad. <S> But according to Psalm 33:14-15 where it reads: “From the place of His dwelling, He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually.” <S> I don't think God is really worried about it, He worries only with the persons heart <A> Barabbas ' name was Jesus. <S> Many people don't know it because the people who translated the scriptures into English left the original meaning out because of the conflict of interest. <S> When Jesus was before Pilot and Pontius Pilate gave the option to release Jesus (the Christ) or Jesus bar-Abbas (translated son of the father). <S> The later was a rebel leader against the Roman Empire and many thought him a freedom fighter for the Jews. <S> Which is why the wanted him released instead. <S> Jesus was a common name to the Jews, and translated The Hebrew name for Jesus <S> is Yeshua, <S> a name found 27 times in the Hebrew Bible, so we know exactly what his name was. <S> (The name is accented on the second syllable: ye-SHU-a ). <S> Yeshua is short for Yehoshua (= Joshua), which means Yahweh is salvation. <S> The first trace of the name is found in connection with Joshua, the son of Nun, Moses’ assistant.
|
* I know lots of people in the Spanish, Turkish and Arabic worlds that use various renditions of the name "Jesus".
|
Is Christianity just a belief system, or is it also a system for organizing and governing society? Works like "Mere Christianity" try and address common Christian beliefs and help recognize the diversity of belief systems within Christian sects. The question is whether this is what all of Christianity is, or is there more? Do Christian religious texts provide guidance on how to organize society and govern it with justice and fairness? Added after reviewing comments through morning of 1/13/12: Is it true that the family & social laws in the Old Testament texts are to be ignored? Yes/No? (provide supporting information) If OT laws are to be ignored by Christians, does God/Jesus provide substitute laws in the New Testament texts? I.e., if God thought it important to provide laws (in addition to requiring certain beliefs) to guide people prior to the New Testament, why has He not deemed it important to either re-affirm these same laws in the New Testament, or provide substitute laws? <Q> It is simply the way for imperfect people to get into an eternal relationship with a perfect God, not by our good works but by the gift of Jesus. <S> John puts it better than I can: <S> John 3:16 <S> For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. <S> Of course, there are consequences of this that affect the individual (e.g. a commitment to honesty and love) which then in turn affect society. <S> (We are also instructed about our duty to society, e.g. "pay your taxes" .) <S> But that's a by-product, rather than the central aim. <S> More directly answering your question, the Bible does not explain how to organise society but it does contain some very light weight (by which I mean, not overly proscriptive) examples of how to organise a church (e.g. mentioning elders). <A> If you liked Mere Christianity, you might like to read Screwtape Letters and see what Lewis has to say about using Christianity to further political ends. <S> That being said, Christianity is the basis for a Church, which is a bigger thing than a government. <S> In the OT, we've got the Covenants (Individual: Adam and Eve, Familial: Noah and his Family; Tribal: Abraham; National: Moses; Kingdom: David) and in the New Testament, Jesus establishes a new covenant with His Church, one that will not pass away. <S> If the old covenants were used to organize and govern those societal groups, getting bigger and bigger until the Kingdom of Israel. <S> Then what Christianity is, is actually too big to be used as a tool to govern a society, it's for all people, even though not everyone accepts it. <S> This is why at consecration, the priest says "for many" in the English translation now, they had it translated "for all" for the last 50 years, but Christianity is really just for those who accept Christ. <A> Islam proposes a system of government. <S> But the Bible does not. <S> Although many systems with Christian beliefs have tried to force a political system or government. <S> I would say that they failed. <S> I am not saying in any way that a Christian should not do politics and act out of his belief system. <S> What I am saying is more that there is no such thing as a Christian nation but there is an Islamic nation.
|
Christianity is not , "just a belief system" , nor is it "also a system for organizing and governing society" .
|
Was Voltaire's house being used by the biblical society? Is there any valid source for the claim that Voltaire' house has been used by the Bible Society? I heard this many times, but I've never read a valid source for it. <Q> Apparently it is not true: <S> There is an apocryphal story that his home at Ferney was purchased by the Geneva Bible Society and used for printing Bibles, but this appears to be due to a misunderstanding of the 1849 annual report of the American Bible Society. <S> Voltaire's chateau is now owned and administered by the French Ministry of Culture. <S> Source: Wikipedia <A> While the exact details may not match the most popular versions of this story - the house being used (ie on an on-going basis) by an actual Bible Society - there is evidence of a kernel of truth from which this story came. <S> This evidence is found in the wikipedia article on Voltaire's* home in Geneva from 1755 - 1760 "Les Délices" (See in particular the paragraph: "After Voltaire" ), which cites an article in reference to the question, by Rev. W. Acworth (1836) from "The Missionary Register." <S> (mouseover reference 6 - which contains a clickable link to the full article in GoogleBooks.) <S> The article verifies some of the details used to the 'refute' the original story (that this home was never used or owned by a Bible Society per se and is currently being used as a museum dedicated to Voltaire's life and works). <S> This source asserts that the home WAS owned by the President of the Evangelical society of Geneva and used during this period as a repository for Bibles: <S> I went through Geneva, and was much refreshed by meeting the Committee of the Evangelical Society ... <S> The room where Voltaire's plays were acted ... had been converted into a sort of Repository for Bibles and Religious Tracts. <S> - <S> Rev. W. Acworth (1836). " <S> Bible Notices in Switzerland and Italy". <S> The Missionary Register <S> (London: L & G Seeley) <S> 24: <S> 352 <S> *a nom-de-plume; real name: <S> François-Marie Arouet <A> I don't think we can determine the truth about one of Voltaire's houses being used to print Bibles, only what sort of website considers it a fact. <S> Here is a reference that quotes wiki and explains that there was a second house -- actually in Geneva. <S> Feel free to believe or disbelieve this version, as you prefer, since this site doesn't have any references. <S> In Geneva, he bought a large estate (Les Délices) and this is the one used to distribute Bibles. <S> It is not known if the Wikipedia statement is to "to deceive intentionally" or by ignorance. <S> We would have to think they know the difference between the Homes in France and Switzerland. <S> FACT: <S> The French Ministry of Culture operates the house in France! <S> FACT: <S> The Geneva Bible Society operates the house in Geneva. <S> Update: <S> The following article, by a non-believer, is mentioned at the link above: http://www.nzarh.org.nz/journal/2004v77n1aut.pdf (see toc for article about Voltaire's house) <S> This appears to be somewhat carefully researched, although I didn't check his references. <S> If it is correct, none of Voltaire's houses were used by Bible societies. <S> The article suggests the story may have originated due to a hotel Gibbon, from which many Bibles were sold, being mentioned in a book in the same sentence as Voltaire. <A> Apparently, the house in Geneva was used for storage and distribution of Bibles. <S> The house in Ferney, France was not used for storing or printing Bibles, but the presses of the nearby printers who printed his works while he lived there were used to print Bibles. <S> That functions just as well for irony and poetic justice. <S> Here are two links to articles that give the sources. <S> https://crossexamined.org/voltaires-prediction-home-and-the-bible-society-truth-or-myth-further-evidence-of-verification/ <S> also see this: https://bellatorchristi.com/2019/03/18/voltaires-prediction-home-and-the-bible-society-truth-or-myth/
|
The Voltaire home that the 'Geneva Bible Society' purchased was the house in 'Geneva, Switzerland; NOT the one in Ferney, France.
|
What does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teach about who Jesus is and where He came from? From the answer to another question , someone suggested that the LDS (Mormon) church teaches that Jesus is distinct from God—that though He is a part of the Godhead, the Godhead is not a Trinity defined by the "Three-in-One" idea. What specifically, then, does the LDS Church teach about who Jesus is and where He came from? Is He eternal, not eternal, uncreated, created? <Q> The below is pulled from The Araonic Priesthood Manual 3: <S> Lesson 1 <S> The Godhead <S> Jesus Christ is— <S> The Firstborn Son of Heavenly Father in the spirit. <S> The Only Begotten Son of Heavenly Father in the flesh. <S> The Creator of heaven and earth under Heavenly Father’s direction. <S> The Savior and Redeemer of mankind. <S> Mormons believe we are all the spirit children of Heavenly Father, Jesus is our older brother in spirit. <S> Kind of self explanatory <S> If the Godhead means 3 distinct Individuals, one of them was responsible for the physical creation of the earth. <S> Going further on this point would be a whole different answer. <S> This is, as far as I know, the common denominator among all christian denominations. <S> So that is who the Mormons believe he is, as far as created <S> , Mormons believe all spirits are created, thus given #1 above, Heavenly Father Created Jesus. <S> I would like to note though that from what I have learned the definition of Created to a Mormon is a bit different than to many other christian groups. <S> As far as eternal, <S> President Ezra Taft <S> Benson 13th <S> President of the LDS Church said "Life is eternal. <S> We are eternal beings." <S> If we are eternal then Jesus is Eternal. <A> I agree with @Matt's comment. <S> And from what I understand, LDS believe that all people, angels (including Lucifer and co.), and even Jesus were created by God and are His children and existed and lived with God before creation in what they call the "pre-earth" life, and that Jesus was chosen to be Savior in this pre-earth life. <S> Also, in our "pre-earth" life we (the people) all had faith in Jesus. <S> They believe God sent us to Earth to learn to make the right choices, and by choosing to have faith in Jesus, again , can we return home to the father. <S> The belief that Jesus was created would mean He is not eternal, and is not God, as defined by the trinity belief, but perhaps a god . <S> Here is a link for more info (Thanks @Matt). <A> At the same time He is the first spirit child of our Heavenly Father. <S> Our spirits are also spirit children of our Heavenly Father according to Mormon doctrine. <S> Therefore, we are all children of our Heavenly Father in the spirit <S> (Heb 12:9). <S> In this sense we are all brother and sisters and Jesus is our elder brother in the spirit. <S> Mormons believe that the universe and everything in it has an eternal existence and everything has been created from something. <S> (The universe didn't just pop up out of nothing.) <S> Therefore the creation is rather a question of organization. <S> This also applies to our spirits and the spirit of Jesus. <S> In this sense, Jesus is eternal and the spirits of mankind are also eternal. <S> We all have been created from spiritual matter which is in LDS terms sometimes referred to as intelligence . <S> As Jesus plays the special role of being the only begotten Son, He inherited some traits from our Father in Heaven, such as power over death and knowing all things (as is evident from the new testament). <S> Before He came to this earth and received a mortal body, Jesus existed in a premortal existence as everyone of us did. <S> In this premortal existance He created the earth and the rest of the universe under the direction of God, the Eternal Father. <S> Jesus Christ is considered the Jehova of the Old Testament by latter-day saints. <S> In many (most) instances, it is Jesus acting in proxy for our Heavenly Father. <S> However, Jesus Christ and our Heavenly Father are distinct being with different roles but with the same goal and purpose which is the eternal wellfare of the souls of mankind. <S> The role of our Heavenly Father is He is the Eternal Parent of our spirits, that He is the director of all things (though delegating many things to His Only Begotten). <S> The role of Jesus is that of a mediator who atoned for the sins of mankind to blot our all our transgressions against the law of God. <S> There is a good talk by an apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints about this topic here.
|
Mormons believe that that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh.
|
Non-Christian/secular translation of the Bible? Is there a rigorous translation of the Bible, sponsored or produced by secular organization? Not that this translation would be necessarily more impartial, but it would be nice to have this version to read in parallel with other versions. There are several Parallel works (listed below) but they too seem to be affiliated with Christian organization or scholars. Popular translations: The NIV was sponsored by the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals. The KJV conforms to instructions by King James I to support the episcopal structure of the Church of England. Parallel translations: The Amplified Bible (which sources 2+ translations side-by-side) is a product of the Zondervan Corporation, the founding member of the Evangelical Publishing Association of America. The Comprehensive New Testament - promising. I may read it, but also edited and compiled by Christians. <Q> According to their own mission statement, they are concerned with biblical scholarship and not doctrine. <S> Their vowed mission statement is simply "to promote biblical scholarship. <S> " They are a secular organization not affiliated with any religious organization (see comment below). <S> Their Greek translation of the New Testament is available for free here , but I believe their translation of the Old Testament requires purchase. <S> Additionally, Isaac Asimov and <S> Thomas Jefferson both have secular digests that bear some reading. <S> (Admittedly, neither is an ad fontes translation, but they did look at sources to compile their versions.) <S> As for commentaries that speak to the translation difficulties that come from a decidedly secular point of view. <S> : <S> The Oxford Companion to the Bible was the product of many well respected theological scholars, including several who are not Christians. <S> Bruce Metzger is (was?) <S> the chief editor. <S> Anything by Bart Ehrmann <S> e.g. Misquoting Jesus should speak to the historical value of the source texts and give guidance. <S> Anything by John Dominic Crossan or The Jesus Seminar would also fall into this category. <S> JDC is currently in the leadership of the SBL. <A> The obvious example (as it's been recently discussed here) is the Wikisource Translation <S> It's not complete, though, and its value as a "good" translation is debatable. <A> If you read French, the secular translation by André Chouraqui is very interesting. <S> One nice part is that he often translates figures of speech literally, so some of the verses sound very foreign but more poetic. <S> He also translates the names of the books and the people when possible. <S> Also, he uses a single French word in literal translation for each use of a particular word in the original; so for the Hebrew "ruah" or Greek "pneuma" <S> he uses "souffle" (breath), instead of something more modern like "spirit" (esprit in French). <S> This captures the original idiom rather well, but it does make it harder for us modern folk to read it. <S> Here is the first part of Genesis, re-translated by me from his French into English: Book 1: Heading. <S> 1 <S> : Elohims (the s to underline that Hebrew "Elohim" is plural, literally "gods", even if it's the name of a single god) was creating the heavens and the earth 2: <S> the earth was tohu-and-bohu (tohu is Hebrew for "waste"), a darkness on the faces of the abyss, but the breath of Elohims blew across the faces of the waters. <S> 3: <S> Elohims says: "A light will be." <S> And it's a light. <S> 4 <S> : Elohims sees the light: <S> what good! <S> Elohims separates the light from the darkness. <S> 5: Elohims cries out to the light: "Day". <S> To the darkness he had cried out: "Night". <S> And it's an evening <S> and it's a morning: <S> Day one. ... <S> Like I said, it's kind of a foreign read. <S> But then again, the Bible is a foreign anthology, isn't it. <S> Chouraqui also made a translation of the Qur'an; both are available online http://nachouraqui.tripod.com/id88.htm <A> At the risk of stating the obvious, the entire Old Testament can be found translated to English by Jewish scholars. <S> Wikipedia gives an overview. <A> There is an update of the popular NIV translation about to come out or recently released. <S> Whatever it's root, Zondervan (the publisher) is now owned by Harper Collins, which is in turn owned by <S> News Corp. Harper Collins is decidedly secular, publishing many books that would definitely be out of place in a Christian home. <S> Thus, while it involves mainly Christian scholarship, even the well-known NIV translation could no longer be said to be wholly Christian in origin. <S> Many other common modern translations have similar conflicts of interest.
|
The Society for Biblical Literature produces a well regarded translation (Logos even carries it).
|
Does the 'Sons of Jacob' refer to only Jews, or also Christians and Muslims? There is a song by Damian Marley that refers to "The sleeping sons of Jacob". I looked up 'Sons of Jacob' on Wikipedia and now understand them to represent the 12 tribes of Israel, but I have only heard "sleeping" sons of Jacob in the Damian Marley song. I am curious to know what the significance of "Sleeping" may be, if anything. Is this a reference to some religious concept? <Q> Having read the lyrics , I'm not convinced this has anything to do with the biblical Jacob at all. <S> There is no other reference, except for an oblique reference to Israel. <S> If one does assume that this is the Jacob who became Israel (hence Jews only), then the "sleeping sons of Jacob" would probably refer to the lost 10 tribes of Israel. <S> After Israel was invaded by Assyria in 722bc, the northern tribes were dispersed throughout the empire and the known world. <S> After that invasion, only Judah and Benjamin (the remaining two tribes of the Southern kingdom) retained any distinct identity as Jews. <S> Some parts of Africa (Uganda and Ethiopia to name two in particular) claim to be descended from these northern tribes. <S> The idea that a once great part of western history is alive in Africa could be the spark the writer wishes to blow into full flame, that Africa might "wake up" and play a greater role on the world stage, as it did in the past. <S> To get back to the Biblical issue, however, it is Abraham- <S> Jacob's grandfather, who is the father of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims. <S> According to both the Quran and the Torah, Abraham sent out Ishmael, once Isaac was born. <S> Ishmael, and his birth mother Hagar made it to Egypt. <S> Both traditions state that Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, and Islam posits that Ishmael was also supposed to be the promised son of the Lord. <S> Isaac, the father of the Jews (through Jacob, later renamed Israel) and the Edomites (through Esau) is not a Muslim hero, whereas Ishmael is. <A> The Bible lists out the sons of Jacob (also known as Israel) in the following verses. <S> These children of Jacob also became the twelve tribes of Israel. <S> 22b <S> Jacob had twelve sons: 23 <S> The sons of Leah: Reuben the firstborn of Jacob, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun. <S> 24 <S> The sons of Rachel: Joseph and Benjamin. <S> 25 <S> The sons of Rachel’s servant Bilhah: Dan and Naphtali. <S> 26 <S> The sons of Leah’s <S> servant Zilpah: Gad and Asher. <S> These were the sons of Jacob, who were born to him in Paddan Aram. <S> 27 Jacob came home to his father Isaac in Mamre, near Kiriath Arba (that is, Hebron), where Abraham and Isaac had stayed. <S> 28 Isaac lived a hundred and eighty years. <S> 29 <S> Then he breathed his last and died and was gathered to his people, old and full of years. <S> And his sons Esau and Jacob buried him. <S> Genesis: 35:22-27 <S> If this is not what you wanted to know, then I have misunderstood your question. <S> Please let me know if you're looking for something else. <A> He is referring to Africans and black ppl in the America and the Caribbean who do not know they are the real israelites, more than 90% of "jews" are not the real descendants of Jacob but merely converts. <S> He says yesterday we were kings but <S> who are we today meaning we r the lowest of lows due to disobedience. <A> However, there is a deeper meaning to the term "Israel" raised by the appearance of the term "spiritual Israel", the Israel of God. <S> Since the promise to Abraham, that the world would be blessed through him, was passed on to his children, by the clarification that the world would be blessed through his children, one needs to understand that the Bible teaches that the children of Abraham are not identified by flesh, descent or conversion, but by believing God's revelations. <S> That's why Jesus mentions that He had sheep who belong to another flock. <S> They were people who believed God's revelation either through a formal covenant or through their conscience, but who were not Jews. <S> As a result, we can understand that the recognised sons of Jacob according to the Bible are people who believe what God reveals to them. <S> They are found among those who are labelled Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc., Theists, and are identified by faith, not by possessing Torah, circumcision, or by blood descent. <S> There is no Biblical reference to sons of Jacob who are asleep.
|
Biblically, the sons of Jacob are the children of Jacob, who was renamed "Israel".
|
Who believes in Mechanical Inspiration? While the idea of Mechanical Inspiration -- that the very physical action of writing down the scriptures was guided or enacted by God through physical manipulation of the human writers -- is always listed for completeness as one of the ways the inspiration of the Scriptures could have been accomplished, I wonder if anyone actually holds that view. Do any current groups identifying as Christian believe in this kind of inspiration? If so who and what evidence or reasoning do they cite? <Q> Mechanical Inspiration sees the writing of the Bible as God dictating to the author every word that needed to be inserted in the Bible or that the author was in some sort of trance and did not know what he was doing. <S> God using the author has a puppet. <S> The view is presented in doctrines classes as a view put forward in history to explain the inerrancy or ineffability. <S> I do not know any evangelicals who hold this position in the current day. <S> Current evangelicals believed that the Bible was breathed by God, but that the human author was still lucid and that he wrote with his own words, his own style. <A> Definition I've always understood the term "mechanical inspiration" to be synonymous with inerrancy, although I believe technically that mechanical inspiration refers to God's ensuring that humans wrote what God said to write and inerrancy that the autographa were themselves without error. <S> In neither case would printer's mistakes like The Adulterers Bible be covered by mechanical inspiration. <S> Modern Adherents <S> Much of the Southern Baptist Convention (especially say, the Texas General Convention) and most "Bible Church" evangelicals believe in inerrancy. <S> This issue, of course, is what divides Baptists more than anything else. <S> The more conservative conventions (Texas, Alabama, Georgia) tend to make this a litmus test. <S> Paige Patterson <S> (I've had him over dinner!) <S> would be one such leader of this line of thinking. <S> History <S> As recently as the 1950's, the Lutheran church also accepted this position. <S> Rogers' and McKim's classic work The Authority and Inspiration of the Bible (1979) argues that it is a fundamentalist and evangelical novelty, although Paul Achtemeier's book The Authority and Inspiration of Scripture (1995 - I think?) would argue this has been the historical position of the church. <S> The classic source and defense for inerrancy is Francis Turretin , who expounded this doctrine as an extension of his understanding of Calvinism. <A> The analogy I've heard is that the inspired writer is to the Holy Spirit what a particular kind of pencil or pen or marker or paint brush is to a human writer: an instrument with unique qualities and properties which affects the manner in which they write what has been inspired in them. <S> As an example we see the physician Saint Luke using medical details not seen in the other Gospels; Saint John's contemplation yields scriptures unlike the others; Saint Paul's background as a Pharisee yields a degree of exactitude and legal precision not seen in the other books. <S> And for the sake of citation, here's a quote from the First Vatican Council and one from an encyclical letter by Pope Pius 12th: <S> The Catholic who wishes to make a correct analysis of Biblicalinspiration must have before his eyes the following ecclesiasticaldocuments: (a) " <S> These books are held by the Church as sacred andcanonical, not as having been composed by merely human labour andafterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they containrevelation without error, but because, written under the inspirationof the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and have beentransmitted to the Church as such." <S> (First Vatican Council, 3rdSession, const. <S> dogm, de Fide, cap. <S> ii, in Denz., 1787). <S> "The Holy Spirit Himself, by His supernatural power, stirred up andimpelled the Biblical writers to write, and assisted them whilewriting in such a manner that they conceived in their minds exactly,and determined to commit to writing faithfully, and render in exactlanguage, with infallible truth, all that God commanded and nothingelse; without that, God would not be the author of Scripture in itsentirety" (Encycl. <S> Provid. <S> Deus, in Dena., 1952).
|
I have never heard it called "mechanical" but simply that the writers of Sacred Scriptures (as opposed to the author, who is the Holy Spirit) were infused with the truths to write and then they wrote them down. There is a miracle component to the evangelical position, but it is not mechanical inspiration.
|
How many languages did apostle Paul speak? Of course, he could speak Hebrew and from such examples like preaching the gospel in Athens it seems that he had no problem speaking Greek. He also wanted to visit Rome, while there were no Jews living in Rome at that time, so does it mean that he could also speak Latin? Also he wanted to go to Spain. Does it mean that he could also speak Spanish? Was Spanish existent at that time? <Q> We know that he spoke Greek, Hebrew, and maybe Latin. <S> The Latin conjecture is based on the fact that he was Roman and the official language of Rome was Latin. <S> Proof text for Hebrew: <S> And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? <S> It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ <S> (Acts 26:14, ESV) <S> Proof text for Greek: <S> As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the tribune, “May I say something to you?” <S> And he said, “Do you know Greek? <S> (Acts 21:37, ESV) <A> In Paul's day, Greek was still widely used in Rome, so knowledge of Latin was not crucial. <A> 1Corinthians <S> 14:18 ISV : I thank God that I speak in foreign languages more than all of you. <S> Paul spoke more foreign languages than any Corinthian believer.
|
Besides Hebrew and Greek, he most likely spoke Aramaic.
|
Abortion and Biblical End Times Prophecy Is there anything in scripture (or even private revelation to the saints) which says that near the end of the world, the world as a whole will come to accept abortion as morally acceptable? <Q> Nothing specific to abortion, although I wouldn't expect there to be. <S> 2 <S> Timothy 3:1-7 gives us: 1 <S> But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. <S> 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. <S> Have nothing to do with such people. <S> Which generally points to people being disobedient, which is probably the closest you'll find. <S> The problem, though, is that people have <S> always been disobedient and rebellious. <S> Before deciding the above fits "today", first try to find a point in history where it wouldn't fit . <S> And indeed, much of this comes down to simply different ethics (meaning: <S> bemoaning people who don't abide the church's edicts) . <S> Moving away from abortion (too divisive to have a constructive discussion), while "modern" values may sometimes seem at odds with Christianity, I for one thinks today's society is heading in a positive direction, not a negative one, with a lot of emphasis on equality and the value of all humans, even (tongue in cheek) those that don't profess and follow Christian beliefs. <S> And even those that do. <S> Likewise, looking at Luke 21 10-11, 25-26 <S> - we have <S> always been at the mercy of nature. <S> The difference now is that we have much better reporting, measurement and awareness (including awareness of our own harm on the world). <S> On a more personal note, I don't think obsessing about end of the world prophecy is healthy in a culture. <S> I'd much rather we all got on with living our lives in accordance with our values, and to the greater communal (local and international) good. <S> So: no, and no. <A> The idea is based on the following logic: In Exodus <S> we learn that while Israel resided in Egypt under the oppression of the Pharaoh, God planned to bring a deliverer to His people: Moses. <S> However, when Moses was born, Pharaoh had issued a decree to slay the firstborn sons. <S> Moses was spared from this slaughter by the providence of God, and went on to lead God's people out of Egypt. <S> In Matthew <S> we learn that Herod sought to prevent the birth of the Christ by slaughtering all male children. <S> Christ was also a Servant of God and a leader to God's people, destined to lead God's elect out of the hand of their enemies. <S> Some conclude that: In both cases God was bringing someone to lead His people out of captivity <S> In both cases the enemy attempted to thwart that plan through a slaughter of children <S> There is a final deliverance that is yet to come (in the end times) <S> Prior to that deliverance certain key people will be born which will lead God's people Since Egypt is a type of "the world", and Israel a type of "the church", perhaps the slaughter is also a foreshadowing of a slaughter on the generation destined to lead God's people in the end times <S> We see abortion happening and it is an atrocity <S> Abortion must be that slaughter <S> Anyway, take it for what it's worth, but that's the origin. <A> There is nothing in scripture which makes this statement. <S> 2 <S> Peter 1:20-21. <A> some people think Jesus's words to the weeping women were about abortion.
|
As far as private revelation, nothing I know of, however, I do not typically seek out teachings based on private revelation.
|
What Biblical support is there for a non-Churched Christianity? I'm interested in people who say "I'm a Christian, but I don't go to church." I understand the sentiment - it really fits in well with the "spiritual, but not religious" Zeitgeist, and it seems to often coincide with a dislike of "hypocrites in the church." Jesus clearly inveighed vehemently against the Pharisees and all who would put on a show, but I'm trying to figure out what Jesus or any of the Biblical writers would have thought of the person who doesn't show up at all. In making the case against a non-churched Christianity, I would point to: "Wherever two or more are gathered in my name" The fact that the vast majority of the NT is addressed to churches and not inviduals The fact that the OT seems to also simply assume corporate worship. I could keep going on, but I'm interested in understanding the opposite view. What scriptural or traditional evidence could one muster to make the case for an idiosyncratic Christianity? (Etymologically, the word "idiot" actually comes from "one who refuses to join the greater body") In other words, how would the idiosyncratic believer claim he's a Christian? <Q> None. <S> Every time the Bible presents the belivers it presents them in a context of a group. <S> The biblical christian (believer in the Bible) always get together in houses, underground. <S> Here are a few passages tackling this subject: Romans 12.3-8 1 Corianthians 12.12-31 1 Peter 2.4-5 <S> Heb 10.25 <S> They say that Jesus never built a Church or been to one (But Jesus was in the synagogue). <S> The church was to protect and help the member in hostile time like the beginning. <S> There are hypocrites in the church. <S> The church does not serve me ... <A> I spent a long time as a non-church going christian. <S> My reasoning was based in tradition/culture. <S> I looked into several churches and one of the few things they all agreed on <S> was that if I picked the wrong church I was going to hell. <S> So to not pick the wrong church I picked no church. <S> I didn't have the time to look into over 40,000 (or however many there are) Christian churches and find the right one (at the time I believed there could only be one true church), so I studied the bible on my own, spread my word to those that I could, and prayed for a merciful God that would understand I was doing my best to follow the path of Christ. <S> I agree with David Laberge there is little to no biblical reference for not going to Church. <A> I'm an exchurcher who was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, left it in my teens, and tried the Protestant Church for awhile until I realized church doctrine contradicts scripture. <S> The word "church" is an intentional mistranslation of the Greek "ekklesia," literally "out-called" which should be translated "ecclesia." <S> The Roman Empire corrupted Christianity not only by changing the name of the ecclesia but by changing the name of "Gehenna" to "hell" and propagating the pagan doctrines of torture in fire forever, immortality of the soul, and the Trinity. <S> There is good reason to not go to church. <S> Two or three can gather together in his name anywhere anytime, and every day is holy when you're in the spirit. <S> Scripture is sufficient for revelation. <S> An accurate translation reveals that God is the savior of all mankind (1 Timothy 4:10); all on earth and in the heavens will be reconciled to God through Christ <S> (Colossians 1:20); and God will be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:20-28). <A> To begin with I will apologize because I am not an academic and consider myself to have a very simple faith in Jesus which is the perspective I will share from... <S> For some people attending "a church" is not an enjoyable experience and is not something that they regularly do, but this doesn't mean they choose not to be a part of "The Church". <S> A lot of men especially find the traditions & cultural practices within church difficult... <S> Sitting for long periods of time, being told by one person how they should live, and for some even the singing is not their thing but this does not in any way reflect on their love of Christ and others. <S> For some they have been hurt or had negative experiences which although they have not turned their back on Christ, they have become disheartened with the man made institution of church and church culture. <S> It doesn't mean that they opt out of gathering with others, or worshiping Christ, or reading the Bible or living their life for and with God. <S> They still love Jesus and try their best to live in a God honouring, Christ replicating life. <S> Their version of gathering may well be within the family home or with a small group of other Christians in a less formal manner because for many it is the institution of church that they reject and not the gathering of believers or the worshiping of Christ the redeemer. <S> And for some it is simply that they have not yet found a church where they feel at home, so instead they opt to worship outside of the church building and they find their fellowship with other Christian there too. <S> There are just so many reasons and everyone has their own, but not attending a church does not mean that they are not part of "His Church."
|
The argument advanced by the non-church goer is all over the place, but not in the Bible.
|
What are the Biblical arguments against modalism? Modalism, or Sabellianism , is the belief that the three persons of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) are simply three "roles" or "modes" of the same person. This view is labelled as a heresy by many denominations. What are common Biblical and theological arguments against modalism? <Q> Biblically the biggest problem with modalism is that you end up having God talking to himself several times in the NT. <S> The idea of modalism is simple enough - God has different "modes" of being, kind of like an actor who simply appears with different masks in different situations [1]. <S> If the same person is merely appearing in multiple forms simultaneously, there are some weird situations in Scripture that result, and have implications that are dicey. <S> When Jesus is Baptised, a voice from heaven declares, "This is my son, with whom I am well pleased". <S> If Jesus is just a different view of the same God, why would he say something like this, to himself? <S> It makes God seem a bit arrogant, frankly. <S> When Jesus is on the cross, he cries out "Father, Why have you forsaken me?" <S> How could he forsake himself if he is the same person forsaking and forsaken. <S> Note - specifically in relation to the cross, the view that the Father was on the cross is a heresy known as Patripassianism - from "the Father suffering" In Hebrews 9:14, "the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offer[s] himself unblemished to God". <S> How can Christ offer his own blood to himself if he is the same person? <S> Unless that were somehow possible, <S> Substitutionary Atonement is also invalid.(See Note 2) <S> By maintaining the distinct personalities (and personhood) of each part of the Trinity, you avoid all of these ridiculous to downright bad implications. <S> 1 Or kind of like the Doctor meeting his past selves, crossing the timelines, and somehow necessitating running up and down corridors a lot. <S> But I digress! <S> 2 Note - Substitutionary Atonement is only one theory of salvation, so even if you could some how prove Modalism true and <S> S.A. false, it wouldn't deprive us of salvation - it would just upset a lot of people who think this legal metaphor is the only theory that describes salvation. <A> Any scripture that proves the Son pre-existed is contra-Modalism. <S> For example, John 17:5 wherein Jesus states that he had glory with the Father before the world existed. <S> In order to counter this, Modalists will insist that Jesus had glory with the Father as a "plan" in the mind of the Father before the world existed. <S> Creative, but eisegetical, and thus fallacious. <S> Modalists deny the pre-existence of the Son and insist that the "Son" only began to exist when he was born at Beit-Lechem. <A> The argument against modalism is that the Trinity is made of three distinct Persons, a topic which is addressed here: When talking about the Trinity, what does "persons" mean? <S> UPDATED BASED ON ERIC'S <S> COMMENT: <S> As for what the Modalists believe: God was said to have three "faces" or "masks" (Greek πρόσωπα prosopa; Latin personae). <S> The number three is never mentioned in relation to God in scripture, which of course is the number that is central to the word "Trinity". <S> The only possible exceptions to this are the Great Commission Matthew 28:16-20, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and the Comma Johanneum, which many regard as a spurious text passage in First John <S> (1 John 5:7) known primarily from the King James Version and some versions of the Textus Receptus but not included in modern critical texts. <S> This topic is addressed in greater detail: <S> On Wikipedia In the Catholic Encyclopida OrthodoxWiki <S> The encyclopedia Britannica
|
Modalists note that the only number ascribed to God in the Holy Bible is One and that there is no inherent threeness ascribed to God explicitly in scripture.
|
What symbols are unique to the various denominations? In reading the meta discussion about what logo should be used for Christianity.SE , I got to wondering what symbols are unique to various denominations. Note: I'm not looking for symbols which are common across Christianity -- such as the Cross -- but which are more narrowly focused. For example, the following symbols are -- as far as I know -- uniquely Catholic: An example of a symbol which I think is denominationally unique (and I think is Episcopal) is this: Shield http://aldiechurch.com/images/episshield.png What other denominationally unique symbols are there? <Q> The Chi-Ro symbol dates back to 312 AD when Constantine had a vision, and was told to fight under that symbol at the Battle of Milvan Bridge. <S> It is truly "catholic" in the sense that it is universal to all of Christianity. <S> [You may have heard of a city in Egypt that the Copts named after this symbol ;) ] <S> IHS is also fairly common- <S> I've seen that in Baptist churches and Anglican ones. <S> I believe that is supposed to be the Greek form of Jesus <S> but I don't know. <S> (maybe someone should ask!) <S> The last one is just a coat of arms for The Episcopal Church, much like the emblem of the Holy See. <A> I suspect most Protestant denominations in America and Europe have some sort of official logo. <S> For example: Southern Baptists Christian & Missionary Alliance <S> Evangelical Lutheran Church of America <S> United Methodists <S> Etc etc. <S> I'm sure we could list hundreds. <A> Here are the ones I know: Lutheran cross: ELCA <S> Papal flag: <S> Episcopal (American) Anglican <S> Baptist Methodist <S> Orthodox (and Eastern Catholic) <S> Russian Orthodox (foot goes opposite way) <A> For good measure, the Church of England (Anglican Church - i.e. what Episcopalians diverged from):
|
I would not be surprised if every church had some form of logo.
|
How does Christ define a Christian? Referencing the gospel accounts of Christ's actions and teachings, how does He clearly define a Christian? <Q> Jesus didn't, because the word "Christian" only appeared much later. <S> Acts 11:26c : <S> The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. <A> In commentary on this verse Saints Chrysostom, Euthymius, and Theophylactus, show that free will is confirmed by these words: "Do not expect, O Peter, that since you have confessed me to be the Son of God, you are immediately to be crowned, as if this were sufficient for salvation, and that the rest of your days may be spent in idleness and pleasure. <S> For, although by my power, as Son of God, I could free you from every danger and trouble, yet this I will not do for your sake, that you may yourself contribute to your glory, and become the more illustrious." <S> (St. Chrysostom, hom. <S> lvi.) <A> Jesus generally talks about His Kingdom when He talks about the church. <S> But He does have things to say about who belongs among His followers: <S> Mark 9:33-41 <S> (ESV) <S> 33 <S> And they came to Capernaum. <S> And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” <S> 34 <S> But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. <S> 35 <S> And he sat down and called the twelve. <S> And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” <S> 36 <S> And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, 37 <S> “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” <S> 38 <S> John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” <S> 39 <S> But Jesus said, “Do not stop him, for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. <S> 40 <S> For the one who is not against us is for us. <S> 41 <S> For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ will by no means lose his reward. <S> He sets the bar of membership much lower than any church I know (including my own): <S> No matter who you are or what you've done, if you act in Jesus' name, you are His follower. <S> But we can't forget the immediate context: <S> Mark 9:30-32 <S> (ESV) <S> 30 <S> They went on from there and passed through Galilee. <S> And he did not want anyone to know, 31 for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him. <S> And when he is killed, after three days he will rise.” <S> 32 <S> But they did not understand the saying, and were afraid to ask him. <S> If we want to follow Him, be imitators of Christ, or Christians (literally "little Christs"), we need to follow Him where ever He goes: even to death. <S> We also believe we can follow Him in Resurrection.
|
To the extent that "being Christian" means following Christ in imitation of Him, Christ gives the answer in Matthew 16:24: " Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."
|
What is the central idea of the Bible? I know there are many denominations in the Christian circle. I was wondering if there is a consensus on what the Bible is about? Or in other words is there a consensus in Christianity today on what is the main theme of the Bible. Luther said of the Bible: None of its parts are obscure... The scriptures is the book the more clear in all the world The Bondage of Will by Martin Luther <Q> Jesus is the central "idea" of the Bible: <S> The old Testament begins with the fall of man and the prophecy of the Redeemer (Jesus) <S> The Jewish religion was constantly looking forward to the Messiah (Jesus) <S> The New Testament records Jesus' life and public ministry <S> The Epistles both explain the doctrine of Jesus as well as re-establish the proofs that the old testament prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus (esp. <S> St. Paul's letter to the Hebrews) <S> Revelations/Apocalypse looks forward to the second coming of Jesus <A> The Old Testament reveals Christ and the New Testament reveals the church as the counter part of Christ (Ephesians 5:32). <S> We cannot simply remain in just knowing Jesus Christ. <S> Our issue of knowing Him must be the edifying, the building up, of the church, which is His body (As revealed in Colossians 1:18). <S> This is God's purpose and desire. <S> So how can we build up the church? <S> 1 Corinthians 14:26 :) <S> Much grace, fellow believers in Christ. <A> I was reading for a class and came across the folowing: <S> Augustine proposes that when Christ is viewed has the center of the Bible and love is our supreme good, we understand the Scripture in all their light. <S> Class notes from pastor René Frey, trough translation from French
|
The central thought of the Bible is Christ and the church.
|
Why no specific names of false apostles and false brothers in Acts and epistles? Why is it so that while we are told in the Acts and epistles of many false-apostles and false brothers, there are no specific names mentioned? Has this matter ever been considered in Christianity? <Q> Here are some suggestions, none of which I am claiming as necessarily the answer: Naming people draws attention to them. <S> The writers probably didn't want their readers going to find out what these people were writing <S> Naming people makes them exclusive. <S> If the writer says "don't listen to Marcus and Suetonius" that leaves Octavius free to spread his teaching. <S> This is especially true since the letters were circulated widely, and the authors may well have understood that they were also writing for a later generation. <A> Considering that the Gnostic movement would have started by the time that the Johanine literature was complete, I think this should hold particular prominence in this discussion. <S> There was a desire to generalize those who are proclaiming false gospels. <S> By giving examples, they automatically include and exclude certain groups. <S> While there are many ways of falsehood, there is only one way of truth. <S> This is what was meant when the Council of Constantinople said, "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". <S> Had they said, "this community" or "that community" and a third community came along this generalization <S> makes it so that they might be automatically excluded. <S> It is not charitable to write that such-and-so is a heretic . <S> While that person may be a heretic now, a week from now he could repent (such as was the case with James "the brother of our Lord," who was a Judiazer until the council described in Acts). <S> If that happens, then you have this message sent out to all of the Churches condemning this person unjustly. <S> Direct condemnation places a major stumbling block on the road to repentance. <S> Perhaps they were not well known: <S> Everyone knew Paul the Evangelist. <S> Not quite so many knew Joe the third heretic. <S> John speaks of a separation with these false brethren. <S> It could be that they were no longer a part of the Church in the formal sense, and so similarly, they would not have been as well known. <S> 1.Pagels, Elaine The Gnostic Gospels <A> Pauls did name and shame Phygelus and Hermogenes for leaving him, and latter in the same letter, he mentions Demas <S> (maybe the same guy in Col 4:14) who had deserted him. <S> [15] You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. <S> (2 Timothy 1:15 ESV) <S> [10] For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica. <S> Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. <S> (2 Timothy 4:10 ESV) <A> In political debates, candidates who wish to take "the high ground" will often not refer to their opponents by name. <S> Indeed in the US Republican Presidential primary contest, when Mitt Romney was trailing Newt Gingrich, he started calling his opponent out by name, leading the media to call him "desperate. <S> " Once he was comfortable in his lead, he ceased to call his own name. <S> This, coupled with the expense of ink and paper would probably have simply led to the "omission."
|
The false brothers were less known — it is quite possible that, since there was no Apostolic (and, by proxy, divine) support for their position, they were not able to gain notoriety save as individuals in the congregations. I see several possibilities: One major characteristic of the Gnostic groups was the lack of defined leadership 1 , so one might imagine that the false brethren may simply have been without definite leader.
|
Do those who pray to saints ascribe to them the quality of being able to hear many people at once? I mean, there could be thousands of Orthodox Christians at this moment praying to, say, Saint Blessed Xenia of St. Petersburg, and there could probably be even more of Catholic Christians praying right now to, say, saint Patrick, let alone Mother Mary. Does that mean that all those saints have the All-knowing God's ability to hear all of those praying to them, distinguish their prayers one from another, and later adequately act on each one of them accordingly? <Q> Time has no meaning in heaven, there is probably a more precise Thomistic answer for this question bit that should suffice. <S> If time is meaningless then "at the same time" is meaningless. <S> I'll get confused if I write any more about that. <S> Is it possible, O Lord, that, since thou art in eternity, thou art ignorant of what I am saying to thee? <S> Or, dost thou see in time an event at the time it occurs? <S> If not, then why am I recounting such a tale of things to thee? <S> Certainly not in order to acquaint thee with them through me; but, instead, that through them I may stir up my own love and the love of my readers toward thee, so that all may say, "Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised. <S> " I have said this before and will say it again: "For love of thy love I do it." <S> So also we pray -- and yet Truth tells us, "Your Father knoweth what things you need before you ask him." <S> Consequently, we lay bare our feelings before thee, that, through our confessing to thee our plight and thy mercies toward us, thou mayest go on to free us altogether, as thou hast already begun; and that we may cease to be wretched in ourselves and blessed in thee -- since thou hast called us to be poor in spirit, meek, mourners, hungering and athirst for righteousness, merciful and pure in heart. <S> Thus I have told thee many things, as I could find ability and will to do so, since it was thy will in the first place that I should confess to thee, O Lord my God -- for "Thou art good and thy mercy endureth forever." <S> St. Augustine of Hippo - Confessions Book 11, Chapter 1. <S> We not only believe that the saints can hear and deliver our prayers to God. <S> We believe all the angels and all the saints are present at every Mass. <A> The answer is no. <S> Recall first of all that prayer is not necessarily audible words, and secondly, the means by which prayers 'rise like incense before the throne of God' is never entirely clear. <S> If we take for instance the issue of God hearing prayer, there are multiple ways in which the prayer could be received. <S> To take two, the first is that God knew before the foundation of the world what would be prayed, though he himself did not make it so. <S> The second is that through the Spirit he fills all things, and thus knows the words that are going to be prayed before they are formed into words. <S> We who venerate and ask for intercession of the saints believe that they dwell in God, so while it is not impossible that they can hear and interpret multiple 'messages' at the same time this does not seem to be an issue raised nor a description used. <S> The saints live in the power and energy of the Divinity; they simply do what is given for them to do. <S> They hear us through God to begin with. <A> (Rev5.8) 'Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. <S> He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.' <S> (Rev 8.3) 'Tobit, when you and Sarah prayed to the Lord, I was the one who brought your prayers into his glorious presence.... <S> I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who stand in the glorious presence of the Lord, ready to serve him. <S> '(Tobit 12.12,15) <S> 'So it was, that while he was serving as priest before God in the order of his division, according to the custom of the priesthood, his lot fell to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. <S> And the whole multitude of the people was praying outside at the hour of incense.' <S> (Lk 1.8-9) The practise of the jews standing outside the temple and having a prayer service known as the 'hour of incense' is a type for the intercession of the saints and communion of the saints. <S> Those praying in the outside court of the temple are us, the earthly saints of the church militant. <S> Our prayers are offered with much incense by the high priest who is inside the temple serving God near the altar and the holy of holies. <S> The high priest is Symbolic of those holy people that have triumphantly crossed over into heaven interceeding on our bahalf and spoken of in Rev 5.8. <S> They serve as priests with Christ(rev 5.10)
|
Yes, this is granted by God himself: 'Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.'
|
Is/will there be time in heaven? An answer suggests that "time is meaningless in heaven." Do we know this to be true? It seems like an easy conclusion to draw, based on the following: God created the entire universe, including all dimensions and time. Therefore, God exists outside of time. Heaven is the place of "eternal" life. In Heaven we will be "with" God (so possibly/presumably outside of time as well?) But does all of this add up to time being meaningless or nonexistent in heaven? Or does the Bible give us any other clues as to the "timeliness" of Heaven? If there are significantly diverging views on this based on theological tradition let me know in comments, and I can try to make the question more specific, or ask separate questions for those traditions in which I am most interested. <Q> God, as the Creator of time, space, and matter, is the only Being that exists outside of time, space, and matter. <S> There is a significant distinction between that which is mortal, that which is immortal, and that which is eternal (outside of time). <S> That which is mortal has both a beginning and an end. <S> This includes the earth, our physical bodies and taxes (thank goodness). <S> That which is immortal has a beginning but no end. <S> This includes our souls and spirits as well as angels. <S> God alone is eternal. <S> Only God has no beginning and no ending. <S> The eternal life that we have does not mean that all of a sudden our lives go from having a beginning to not having a beginning. <S> We have eternal life in the sense that it will have no end--not in the sense that it has no beginning. <S> God is eternal in an entirely different sense. <S> Perhaps our language is not specific enough in this. <S> The key point is those beings who have a beginning cannot go through any process where their beginning is eliminated and makes them timeless. <S> We have been created inside of time, space, and matter, and we will always exist within that. <S> Only God exists outside of it. <A> Here's a relevant part from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Eternity So far for the strict or proper notion of eternity, as applying solely to the Divine existence. <S> There is a wide or improper sense in which we are wont to represent as eternal what is merely endless succession in time, and this even though the time in question should have had a beginning, as when we speak of the reward of the good and the punishment of the wicked as eternal, meaning by eternity only time or succession without end or limit in the future. <S> In the Apocalypse there is a well-known passage in which a great angel is represented as standing with one foot on sea and one on land, and swearing by Him that liveth forever that time shall be no more. <S> Whatever the meaning of the oath may be, it has found an echo in our religious terminology, and we are wont to think and say that with death, and especially with the Last Judgment, time shall cease. <S> I tried reading the passage in revelation referenced in the above quote. <S> Which I believe is the end of Revelation 11 <S> and I can't make heads or tails of it, but that's par for the course. <S> Suffice <S> it to say, it is the Catholic understanding that our subjective conception of time will cease in Heaven. <A> I am pretty sure there will be time. <S> Time is, basically, order. <S> Without order there is chaos and God is a God of order. <S> Events happen in a certain order--you plant a seed and it grows into a tree, you are in one location <S> and then you are in another (etc). <S> In Revelation 22 we read about the river of God and the Tree(s) of life that yield fruit every month . <S> Now, fruit coming to maturity is evidence of one event occurring after another. <S> There are many other passages of an event and then another event following it in order. <S> Sounds like "time" to me. <S> Anyhow, my conclusion, is that there IS time, but more then likely not as we currently know it or understand it. <A> It doesn't make sense that there is no time in heaven. <S> After all, just talking takes time to occur, and plenty of talking gets done in heaven throughout the book of Revelation. <S> There are passages like Rev. 8:1 (silence in heaven for about half an hour) and Rev. 6:10-11, in which the martyrs are told to wait a little longer. <S> It takes time for the trumpets to blow and bowls of wrath to be poured; <S> they are not all poured out at once. <S> We are told in Eph. 2:7 of the ages to come ahead of us. <S> Every event takes place over a span of time. <S> Remember that a "time" will come when there will be a new heavens and new earth, and we'll be on earth.
|
It seems that the idea that created beings become timeless in heaven is not one that is widely held. We have no reason to doubt that time will continue as we know it.
|
Why isn't the virgin birth of Jesus mentioned in all of the gospels? Does it matter? I recently saw Bill Maher's documentary and he mentions that the virgin birth is only mentioned in two of the gospels. He goes on to bug Christian people several times by asking questions such as "How can you believe in the virgin birth if it's only mentioned in two of the gospels?". I know for a fact that the virgin birth is mentioned in the gospels of Matthew (1:18) and Luke (1:26-35), however, it is mentioned in neither Mark nor John . In spite of that, millions of Christians world-wide take the virgin birth for granted. My question is, as stated above, why isn't the virgin birth of Jesus mentioned in all four gospels? <Q> The birth of Jesus is also only mentioned at all in Matthew and Luke. <S> Following the logic, since only half of the Gospels mention that means we should discard the theory that he was ever born at all. <S> In 100% of the cases where a birth narrative is present, the miracle of God becoming man is mentioned. <S> Indeed, in John, even where the birth narrative isn't present, the incarnation - that God became man - is explicit. <A> The underlying assumption is that if something is true, it has to appear in all four Gospels. <S> However, if it appeared in all four gospels, some would ask why doesn't it appear in every epistle as well. <S> It's interesting that people attack the Bible for having four versions of the same story in the Gospels and other people attack the Bible for not having four exact copies of the same story in the Gospels. <S> Some people will find fault no matter what the Bible teaches. <S> A good answer to bill maher's question would be to ask him if he believes that Jesus died and rose again from the dead, since that is, in fact, recorded in all four gospels. <S> Of course he would say he does not, because he doesn't believe the Bible. <S> By the same token, those who believe that Jesus did die and rise again are well prepared to believe that Jesus is also virgin born, even though only two gospel accounts record that. <S> One witness would have been sufficient--two is more than enough. <S> Mark and John, as Affable Geek noted, do not even record Jesus' birth. <S> The books were written to concentrate on different aspects of Jesus life. <S> So, maher's question was nonsensical at its very root. <A> why isn't the virgin birth of Jesus mentioned in all four gospels? <S> Because mentioning it wasn't important to Mark or John. <S> It's really that simple. <S> The writers of the Gospel accounts & the epistles weren't trying to mention everything that's true. <S> They weren't even trying to mention everything that matters. <S> Maher's attempt to turn this into any kind of argument is pretty silly. <S> (Affable Geek and Narnian say more about that.) <S> I'm afraid I can't understand how anyone can see his question <S> "How can you believe in the virgin birth if it's only mentioned in two of the gospels?" as anything but an obvious non sequitur. <S> It's reaching & empty rhetoric, not rational skepticism.
|
Neither John nor Mark say anything about the birth of Jesus at all, so it is not surprising at all that there is nothing about the virgin birth.
|
Why do biblical names vary in different languages? In my regional language (Tamil) biblical names vary from the actual names. I'm sure this is not only in my regional language only but also in other languages too. For instance Jesus' name is Yesu and John's name is Yovan and so on. But in my regional language it doesn't mean anything; rather it's confusing. In our prayers also we used the regional names and I think, would we mean Jesus' name or something else? I can understand it'd be necessary to translate the Bible as it'd help the people to understand the Bible better. But what was the reason to change the names ? <Q> For instance, Russian has no "th" sound. <S> Consequently, the sound of that name cannot be reproduced in Russian. <S> In Greek, it is ματθαιος, or /Mat-thaios/. Russian translates this as Матфей, or Matfay . <S> So, the "th" becomes an "f". <S> Also, the ending of the name changes in Greek depending upon which part of speech it is. <S> We don't do that in English, so we just have to select an ending and stick with it. <S> There is also a difference whether or not the Greek or Hebrew is being translated. <S> The Greek for the Hebrew Name of Jesus (Yeshua) is Ἰησοῦς, or Yay-soos . <S> The Hebrew name of Yeshua is translated into Joshua, while the name Yay-soos is translated Jesus. <S> So, sometimes a word's sounds are not matched in the receiving language. <S> Other times, there is variance on whether it is coming from Hebrew or Greek. <S> This accounts for some of the issues. <A> That is simply the nature of language. <S> Here's how things got from Yeshua (Hebrew) to Jesus (English). <S> Greeks changed it to Yeshu <S> (drop the final <S> "a") Romans changed it to Iesu (sh changes to s, Y->I) and, in certain grammars, a final "s" was added. <S> Over time, as the J came into common use, this changed to Jesu/Jesus (pronounced yay-soos). <S> The letter J in English warped and gained its modern pronunciation. <S> Interestingly enough, the hymn "O come all ye faithful" has the line "Jesu to thee be all glory giv'n". <S> In England (and in fussy choirs here), this is pronounced with the French "J" (as in Jean) as the first consonant. <S> Or, there is Yochanan, which became Ian, Sean, and John. <S> Yochanan becomes Yohana (final n dropped in Greek? <S> not sure if this is a Latinism.) <S> It was then changed to Iohannes <S> (that extra "s" added in Latin again (This is one of the final forms in Germany, the alternate simply missing "es", thus Johan Sebastian Bach and Johannes Brahms)) <S> In Italian the "h" becomes a "v" (there is no aspirate H in proper Italian, meaning that "Yohan" is technically unpronounceable) and the "es" becomes an "i". <S> In France the "ha" and <S> the "es" are dropped and, when the i becomes a j, it becomes "Jean" (ea is a better spelling of the aw sound in John). <S> In English the "es" and the "a" are missing (but the H is still there!) <S> because they were deemphasized over time to the point of obscurity. <S> In Irish Gaelic (Irish John = Sean) it actually was the same process as found in France, only they took the extra step of "unvoicing" the first consonant (the French J is the voiced version of the English SH) <S> In Scotch Gaelic (Scottish John = Ian), it kept much of the original English pronunciation (remember J and initial <S> I's used to be pronounced Y), but as time went on, the sound of that initial I changed into the "ee" sound. <S> "Juan" in Spanish kept the same sounds that English, both Gaelics, and French did, but then the "J" changed into the "w" sound. <A> Part of this, too, has to do with the language spoken by the first missionaries to visit a particular area. <S> Different languages transliterate sounds form other languages in different ways, even within the same area. <S> So to render the name "John", an Italian would use Giovanni , a Spaniard would use Juan , a Portugese would use John , a Dutchman would use Jan , a Saxon might have used Johann , and a Dane might use Hans . <S> For a more complete list of alternatives to the name rendered in English as "James" . <S> That fact that the Tamil name for John is <S> Yovan suggests more to me that the Tamil language picked up the name of John from missionaries of Italian origin, than anything else. <S> The "y" in place of the "j" in both the Tamil name for John, and the Tamil name for Jesus suggests to the that the Tamil language may not, at least at the time those spellings were standardized on, had a sound for "J", and that the "Y" was used instead. <A> Names should be transliterated where possible, not translated. <S> The Hebrew alphabet could not be transliterated into the Greek alphabet, so the Koine Greek texts used a phonetic spelling to mimic the Hebrew sound of Yeshua (ya shua). <S> The Iesous spelling was most likely pronounced "ya shu" without the last "ah" of Yeshua. <S> The Latin Vulgate translated the sound "ya su" into the Latin alphabet with Iesu or Iesus (case definitive) as the "I" before the "e" rendered the "ya" sound. <S> The translation into the English from the Latin used the "Ie" but added a hook onto the "I" to signal the "y" sound with the long "a" sound for "ya su". <S> After some time, the French influence on the English "J" slurred it into a soft "g" sound and eventually "ya sous" began to be said as "ge sus"... <S> and now we are stuck with Jesus in the English. <S> It was a progression of phonetic spellings in different alphabets trying to keep the Yeshua from the original Hebrew pronunciation. <S> Tracing back through the progression we can be fairly certain because of the sound of the Koine Greek "ya sou" that the Hebrew pronunciation of the first syllable was originally a long "a" sound in Yeshua.
|
One of the reasons for the variance in names is that languages often don't share the same sounds as Greek or Hebrew.
|
Which traditions practice paedocommunion? What specific traditions (or denominations inside a tradition) currently practice paedocommunion? Are there any that practice paedocommunion but not paedobaptism? Are there any that historically practiced it but have given it up? I am specifically interested in the treatment of infants, not children. <Q> The Orthodox practice paedocommunion and the Roman Catholics used to but don't anymore. <S> I can't speak to your second point though. <A> I'm not sure which denominations/traditions have stopped practicing paedocommunion, but I would be surprised if there were any that offered communion to children of believers without also baptising them. <S> From my understanding, the argument for paedocommunion is that the children are considered part of the covenant and are welcomed as members of the church body (this being sybolized w/ baptism), so they should be welcome as participants in all of its sacraments and not excluded from the communion table. <A> Catholics of the Eastern Churches (Ruthenian, Ukranian, Melkite, etc), like the orthodox, baptize, commune and chrismate infants.
|
I found this website which lists currently practicing denominations: Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) Covenant Presbyterian Church Federation of Reformed Churches (FORC) Reformed Episcopal (REC)
|
What is the connection between Mardi Gras, Fat Tuesday, Ash Wednesday, Lent, etc? Coming from a Protestant tradition, I grew up hearing about Lent but never having any practice associated with it. In the years since, I've gathered that there's some sort of connection between Easter, Lent, Ash Wednesday, and Fat Tuesday. Would someone please explain how it all fits together? <Q> Lent Lent is a period of penance in preparation for Triduum (Maundy Thurs. <S> through Easter Sun). <S> The faithful are encouraged to increase their works of mercy and decrease their self-indulgence. <S> It begins on Ash Wednesday, which is 40 days (minus Sundays) before the Triduum. <S> Ash Wednesday <S> So called because it invokes the ancient practice of covering oneself in ashes when in morning. <S> Often it is accompanied by, "Thou art dust and to dust thou shalt return. <S> " <S> As a side note: the ashes are generally from (at least in part), the palms of the previous Palm Sunday. <S> Shrove Tuesday <S> Well, "Mardi gras" means "Fat Tuesday" in French, so there's that. <S> Fats and fatty foods are often given up for Lent (at one point abstaining from all meat was a requirement), but fat will go rancid if it is left out for all of Lent. <S> So, instead of letting it go to waste, it would be used for cooking. <S> Often this would mean that there would be a rich supper immediately before Ash Wednesday. <S> It is called, "Carnevale" because that, originally, was "Carne vale," which means, roughly, "without meat. <S> " I believe the relationship with "Fat Tuesday" would be obvious (for more ways of saying the same thing, look up Shrove Tuesday ). <S> Unfortunately, with the rise of secularism, this tradition became bloated and corrupt, and eventually lead to the depravities which can be seen in New Orleans. <S> Easter <S> We all know what Easter is... <S> I hope. <S> It is the Teutonic name for an ancient pagan festival, brought to mean the celebration of the resurrection of Christ, apparently because the German speakers were too lazy to use the word pasch , which is what it is called in basically every other language on earth. <A> Here's the Catholic Lenten Cliffnotes. <S> I see I've been beaten to the punch at answering, but what the heck. <S> Mardi Gras is some sort of French meaning Fat Tuesday. <S> It's called that because the next day is Ash Wednesday Ash Wednesday (today) is the beginning of Lent. <S> It is a precept of the church that Catholics are supposed to fast on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and abstain from meat on Fridays during lent. <S> (we usually give something up too) <S> Lent is observed for 40+ days, remembering Jesus' temptation in the desert. <S> Lent is officially over at sundown on Holy Thursday (Thursday before Easter). <S> Thus begins the Holy Triduum (Thursday, Friday and Saturday until Dusk) <S> Then Easter begins, it is a 50+ day celebration seemingly ending on Ascension Thursday, but actually going until Pentecost (and the week after). <S> So, if properly observed, you've just completed a quarter of the year, Catholic style. <A> I'd like to add some comments from a Protestant who lived in New Orleans for 4 years. <S> I like the idea of Lent as a time to reflect on what Christ's sacrifice means to us, and a way to draw closer to Him as we approach the celebration of His resurrection, and I have used this in church settings. <S> Unfortunataly, for some it is merely an outward ritual that does not reach to their soul (true in all denominations). <S> In New Orleans, more emphasis seems to be on the carnival than the self-denial. <S> Despite falling during the Lenten season, St. Patrick's Day (3/17) and St. Joseph's Day (3/19) are celebrated with parades and parties. <S> It is our challenge to lead others to the true meaning behind these rituals. <S> By the way, an alternative translation of carne vale that I have heard is "farewell to the flesh," not only in the sense of giving up meat but also getting outside ourselves and closer to God.
|
The connection is that Mardi Gras is the last chance to celebrate before Lent.
|
Is the phrase, "Heaven is the presence of God, but Hell is the absence of God" an orthodox viewpoint? Is the phrase, "Heaven is the presence of God, but Hell is the absence of God" an orthodox viewpoint? By orthodox I mean orthodox with a lower case o, not an upper case O, as in Orthodox. I used this idea when responding to another question regarding exclusion from heaven here: Will good, God-fearing people who don't believe in Jesus' divinity be excluded from Heaven? . More to the point, does this phrase describe the primary characteristics of both places, and what verses support/refute this idea? <Q> Depends on what you mean by "orthodox", I guess. <S> Origen, and all rationalists who are like him, was not able to understand that the acceptance or the rejection of God's grace depends entirely on the rational creatures; that God, like the sun, never stops shining on good or wicked alike; that rational creatures are, however, entirely free to accept or reject this grace and love; and that God in His genuine love does not force His creatures to accept Him, but respects absolutely their free decision. <S> He does not withdraw His grace and love, but the attitude of the logical creatures toward this unceasing grace and love is the difference between paradise and hell. <S> Those who love God are happy with Him, those who hate Him are extremely miserable by being obliged to live in His presence, and there is no place where one can escape the loving omnipresence of God. <S> http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm <A> It is an orthodox view inasmuch as it's not heterodox. <S> (The question asked whether it's "orthodox," not "Orthodox") <S> The Catholic Catechism defines hell as "the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed." <S> CCC 1033 <S> The real Hell is knowing that not only is God absent, but that he is absent because one's own actions have excluded him. <S> He's not absent because he wants to be. <S> "To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice." <S> [ibid] <S> Heaven is entirely the opposite, being in the presence of God crying "Holy, Holy, Holy" and falling on one's face worshipping him for eternity <S> because that's the best thing ever and something you never want to stop doing. <S> [Isa 6:1-3, Rev 7:9-12, Rev 11:16-17] CCC defines "heaven" as having a number of meanings: the firmament of the sky; God's own place; the place of angels and spiritual creatures who surround God; eschatological glory. <S> CCC 326 <A> Revelations 14:9-10 <S> Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, <S> "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; <S> and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. <S> Assuming this is the Lake of Fire or Hell, then the damned are not just away from Jesus and His benefits, but in His presence, and He is actively involved in administering their eternal torment. <S> So I don't think that is an orthodox statement.
|
According to the Eastern Orthodox, the answer would be "no".
|
What did the carnivores/predators eat on the Ark? It's something that has stumped me since I was a kid: What did the carnivores/predators eat on the Ark? Did Noah also round up sufficient vegetation to feed all of the animals? Or did they somehow maintain the circle of life on the Ark for 40 days and 40 nights? <Q> Genesis 6:21 has your answer <S> You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.” <A> In addition to Affable's answer , there is also Genesis 9:3 <S> which indicates that at least mankind did not eat meat before the flood: <S> Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. <S> And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. <S> It is arguable that animals did not prior to the release from the Ark, as well - they also were not afraid of men until after (the previous verse): <S> The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. <S> Into your hand they are delivered. <S> However, regardless of whether animals were carnivorous prior to the flood or not, we know that God provided for them via Noah's efforts to lay-up stores in the 100 years before the flood. <S> Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him. <A> When we read in Genesis Ch.7 that Noah was to take with him seven of all clean animals, of course taking both male and female/ and two of all unclean animals, also male and female. <S> Scripture then continues in verse 3 saying also seven each of birds of the air, both male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth. <S> (NKJV) <S> As we know, birds lay eggs that can either be eaten as such or hatched for a supply of poultry. <S> Also, nobody is taking into account the fish that would be available. <S> The bible clearly states later in verses 17-24 that he destroyed all living thing that breathes air and lives on dry land, never speaking of things that swim in the waters below. <S> The simple answer may be that the carnivores ate fish <S> Bugs may have been another source of protein for some.
|
When I think even deeper into the situation, animals such as small rodents would procreate rapidly and maybe were also used as a protein source for the animals.
|
Did Jesus condemn contraception Are there any passages in the New Testament where Jesus himself condemns the practice of contraception? As a virgin and the product of a miraculous conception himself it would seem odd for Him to have a strong opinion on the subject. <Q> Coincidentally, He never mention airplanes, computers, fast food, or cell phones either. <S> :) <S> All of these are modern inventions for which there was no vocabulary or context in which teaching could be given. <S> (While there were examples of contraceptives in ancient history, the Jewish people don't appear to have used any.) <S> The basis of the teachings of the Catholic church and others comes from arguments of design. <S> God's design of intercourse leads to reproduction--not all the time, of course, but that is certainly a reasonably common outcome. <S> Additionally, there is a specific command given to Adam and Noah to fill the earth and multiply upon it, so taking unnatural action to prevent reproduction seems to go against that to some extent. <S> Also, the idea that Jesus would not have a strong opinion on the subject, merely because He Himself was the product of a miraculous conception, ignores the Biblical teaching that Jesus was Himself the eternal Son of God who took on flesh 2,000 years ago. <S> The Son of God, through whom all things were created, certainly has a strong opinion on truth and morality. <A> There are not any references to contraception in the Bible. <S> The two arguments I have heard against using contraception are Onan dying after spilling his semen on the ground to avoid getting his brother's wife pregnant ( Genesis 38:8-10 ). <S> The other is just that it is unnatural <A> Jesus didn't condem Contraception per se, but there is a stong traditon running back to Genesis, that children are a good thing: Genesis 1:28 <S> And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth <S> And another (Psalm 127:5): <S> Blessed is the man that hath filled the desire with them; he shall not be confounded when he shall speak to his enemies in the gate. <A> If you'll excuse what may be faulty parallelism, you might see that one of the more ancient prophecies about Christ is right next to the denouncement of "those who engage in witchcraft" Deuteronomy 18:9-15 (NIV) <S> 9 <S> When you enter the land the LORD your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. <S> 10 <S> Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. <S> 12 <S> Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. <S> 13 <S> You must be blameless before the LORD your God. <S> 14 <S> The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. <S> But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. <S> 15 <S> The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. <S> You must listen to him. <S> I don't know if no one thinks about contraception as witchcraft nowadays, <S> but in days of yore, I'd imagine, if you'd want to get a contraceptive back in the day, you didn't go to Planned Parenthood. <S> You went to the old hag who knew how to conjure that kind of stuff. <S> I should note, witchcraft as contraception is not completely bogus opinion .
|
No, there are no passages in the New Testament where Jesus even speaks about contraception.
|
What did Jesus quote Psalm 22: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" What is the correlation between these two scripture? Why Jesus felt forsaken if he knew what was going on? Why was it mentioned in Old Testament as well as New Testament(in two places)? My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are Youso far from helping Me, And from the words of My groaning? (Psalm 22:1, NKJV) And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with aloud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “ My God,My God, why have You forsaken Me? ” (Matthew 27:46, NKJV) <Q> He was quoting David in Psalm 22. <S> But nevertheless, Jesus must have felt these words Himself. <S> What it was like for the Son of God to experience "Hell", or separation from God, we can not begin to imagine. <S> We can only speculate that Jesus, when He uttered those words, felt God had abandoned Him in a real way, not a symbolic way. <S> Jesus truly felt separated from God, and that was far worse than even the pain and suffering on the Cross. <A> For the same reason so many other things from the Old Testament are mentioned in the New Testament: they're quotations. <S> This particular one was a reference to the beginning of the 22nd psalm, and it's quite instructive to look at the psalm in its entirety . <S> Of particular interest is verse 18, which had literally happened to him just moments ago. <S> Jesus's invocation of the psalm gives a good look into his mindset and his feelings at the time. <A> <A> Jesus was really suffering. <S> He probably could have used miracles to not feel any pain, but then the whole sacrifice would just have been a fake one. <S> To be a real sacrifice, feeling real human pain, both physical and psychological, was indeed necessary in my opinion. <S> Can there be any bigger emotional pain than feeling that God has forsaken you? <A> Take a look at this article which I feel explains one view pretty well. <S> "It is possible that at some moment on the cross, when Jesus became sin on our behalf, that God the Father, in a sense, turned His back upon the Son. <S> It says in Hab. <S> 1:13 that God is too pure to look upon evil. <S> Therefore, it is possible that when Jesus bore our sins in His body on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24), that the Father, spiritually, turned away. <S> At that time, the Son may have cried out." <S> http://carm.org/questions/about-jesus/why-did-jesus-cry-out-my-god-my-god-why-have-you-forsaken-me
|
The quick answer, the condensed one that I hear in homilies at Mass around Holy Week is that Jesus quotes this scripture to evoke the Psalm, not just the part of the Psalm where David feels forsaken, but the part where God is glorified.
|
Why does the throne in Daniel 7:9 have wheels and are they literally wheels? Daniel 7:9 He sat on a fiery throne with wheels of blazing fire. There are also references to wheels in Ezekiel Chapter 10 (which may or may not be related). Is there a significance to the throne having wheels? Are they actually wheels? Why are they on fire? I read the Wikipedia article on Ophanim and it almost led be to believe that these "wheels" were actually beings that enabled the thrones to move. <Q> David Pawson has an interesting answer, referring to a similar vision in Ezekiel 1 . <S> First, bear in mind that the Israelites were at that time in captivity in Babylon. <S> Then: Clearly, the throne can travel in any direction. <S> This symbolizes the omnipresence of God, who is able to be anywhere and everywhere. <S> He is a mobile God. <S> This is significant because, until this point, every vision of God’s throne in the Bible had portrayed it as static, fixed in Jerusalem. <S> So it was a comfort for Ezekiel to learn that God’s throne was mobile, for it meant that he could move to Babylon. <S> This was an important truth to communicate to the exiles, who may have believed that God lived in one place, hundreds of miles away in Jerusalem. <S> Furthermore, the ‘eyes’ on the rims of the wheels tell us that God can see everything, everywhere. <S> It’s a very meaningful picture. <S> No wonder Ezekiel was overwhelmed with the vision and fell to the ground. <S> Summary: <S> yes the throne has wheels to symbolise that God is with His people , even when they are not near the temple. <S> But, no, they are not literal. <S> God is speaking to Ezekiel in a vision which he and the people he preached it to would immediately understand and draw comfort from. <S> For more information see this page which quotes directly from David Pawson's Unlocking the Bible Omnibus . <A> * <S> In Daniel, as in Ezekiel, God cracked the door that we might peer into the heavenly realm. <S> In Daniel 7, we also have the only directly related vision referencing the Lord's throne with wheels. <S> These two visions of the throne have similarities and there is much imagery. <S> However, in Ezekiel the wheels are described in much greater detail. <S> Fiery Throne: The throne in this dream is described with the Ancient of Days seated and the throne as "burning as with fire and its wheels were ablaze." <S> In and of itself this description wouldn't make much sense. <S> However, in light of the historic understanding of the chariot throne, it does. <S> It is reminiscent of the wheels in Ezekiel's vision. <S> In the first chapter of this study, we observed that Ezekiel beheld a moving throne that included the chariot of the cherubim and their wheels. <S> Those wheels were to the prophet burning with fire. <S> The fact that the wheels are included in a vision where many other things in the passage are interpreted as allegoric/figurative gives evidence that the wheels are to be understood in this same sense. <S> Though these two passages are the only places in scripture that the wheels of the throne are spoken of directly, there are many passages that use related imagery. <S> The words "chariots of the Lord" can be found in a greater number. <S> This concept is important in that it sheds light on the more obscure passages where wheels are associated with the throne. <S> Imagery in the Fire of God: <S> As noted earlier, the wheels are associated with fire. <S> In a related passage, Psalm 97 states: "1 Yahweh reigns. <S> … Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne. <S> 3A fire goes before him, and burns up his adversaries on every side." <S> * <S> Quotes from the online eBook <S> "The Wheels of God's Throne" (Ch2) by G.Thomas Windsor <A> Revelation 21-22 reveal that God's throne will MOVE <S> - it will descend with the New Jerusalem to the (New) Earth after Jesus' Second Coming! <S> God's ultimate plan is to join with His creation, creating Heaven on the New Earth, dwelling with us face-to-face forever, just as was the case before the Fall in Genesis 1-2. <S> God's ultimate plan is to bring the Heavenly and Earthly realms together in the resurrection and eternal Kingdom of God. <S> " <S> And this is the plan: At the right time he will bring everything together under the authority of Christ—everything in heaven and on earth. <S> " - Ephesians 1:10 (NLT) <S> It is all thanks to Jesus' victory over sin and death on the cross, and His future victory in establishing the Kingdom of God in power and fullness as He vanquishes the evil worldwide empire of the AntiChrist. <S> All glory to the lamb that was slain! <S> The eternal dominion of the eternal Kingdom of God belongs to the Son of God and Son of Man, our amazing, loving, humble, just, and mighty savior! <S> As the second/last Adam who fulfilled perfectly the will of the Father as a human (yet eternally was and is fully God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity), He alone is worthy to fulfill the dominion mandate given by God to humanity, as the fully-God, fully-man, King of kings and Lord of lords.
|
Perhaps the wheels of God's throne are to indicate to us that God's throne is not staying in "Heaven" (which is actually where God's throne is)!
|
Are Many Christians postmodern in their approach to modesty? Christians have a wide variety of opinions concerning modesty. Many say that if you believe you should dress a different way than that is fine for you--just don't impose your beliefs on us--because the bible doesn't explicitly define modesty. That seems to be a postmodern way of thinking. Being a Christian means trying to be more like Christ and incidentally less like the world. Many "Christians" seem more interested in being a close as they can to the world in how they dress. Surely that stance denies the truth that we are to follow Christ as best we can and is therefore "postmodern": If we aren't supposed to follow Christ as best we can, does truth even exist? <Q> With all due respect, to compile the entire Christian community into a composite entity and then direct the question at that entity is at best unfair. <S> Do some Christians reflect a Postmodern preference of modesty? <S> Of course. <S> Do some Christians consciously value humility instead? <S> Most definitely. <S> It's no different for any other religion. <S> This really comes down to a case-by-case basis and can't be applied to the Christian collective. <A> I understand where you are coming from. <S> It seems that the level of modesty seen as acceptable by <S> some Christians seems to have declined. <S> I am not sure if post-modernity is really the reason for this change, though. <S> It seems more like it may be an issue of sanctification, or perhaps the result of teaching that puts little emphasis on holiness and coming out from the world. <S> I think to call it postmodern thinking takes away from the possibility that it could indeed be an issue that the Church (Body of Christ) is facing at this time in history. <S> Here are a few excerpts from Scripture that I find to be relevant to the situation at hand: 2 Corinthians 7:1 <S> (NIV) 1 <S> Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God. <S> Romans 12:1-2 (NIV) 1 <S> Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. <S> 2 <S> Do not conform to the pattern of this world , but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. <S> Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. <S> Follow your Biblical convictions. <S> I hope that this answers your question somewhat. <S> Chris <A> The view you essentially describe is indeed held by some Christians, but this is not postmodernism. <S> Postmodernism implies a denial of absolute truth, and I assume that your question arises because if many Christians deny an absolute definition of modesty, this seems to imply, to some degree, a denial of absolute truth. <S> But that is not the case. <S> Denying an absolute modesty dress code does not imply the denial of an absolute principle of modesty. <S> In other words, the Christians you describe still hold themselves to an absolute truth - but that truth is a principle of modesty, and not a legalistic dress code. <S> The Bible does cover the principle of modesty, though what that looks like in practice will vary greatly from culture to culture, and from conscience to conscience [1] . <S> This principle of modesty [2] is described much better by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity (emphasis added): <S> The Christian rule of chastity must not be confused with the social rule of 'modesty' (in one sense of that word); i.e. propriety, or decency. <S> The social rule of propriety lays down how much of the human body should be displayed and what subjects can be referred to, and in what words, according to the customs of a given social circle. <S> Thus, while the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. <S> A girl in the Pacific islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally 'modest', proper, or decent, according to the standards of their own societies: and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste). <S> [1] See Romans 14 <S> [2] Note that C.S. Lewis distinguishes between "modesty" and "chastity", and uses the word "modesty" only to describe social propriety. <S> In my answer, I have used the phrase "principle of modesty" in the same way he uses the word "chastity" <A> Christians would only be postmodern in the view of modesty if there were an absolute standard set forth in the Scriptures. <S> Since there is no such standard, then there is no absolute truth to deny. <S> (As another answer mention, postmodernism is the denial of absolute truth.) <S> There is an absolute truth defined in Scripture regarding adultery, so if Christians denied that adultery (or lying, blasphemy, stealing, lust, etc.) were wrong, then that would be postmodern. <S> Modesty is certainly based on culture in some ways. <S> in Alaska, it is probably possible to wear much more clothing than it is in Jamaica.
|
To be a Christian certainly involves always being cognizant of the image that one is projecting to others in their daily life, and to that end a Postmodern stance on one's level of modesty is contrary to the teachings of Christ.
|
What narrative purpose does the Flood story fulfill? In the Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh flood myth, the gods are rash, foolish, even weak. Genesis copies most of the myth. And although it's sanitized quite a bit, some actions seem to be inconsistent with an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God. God decides one moment that all animals must be killed 6:7 , and the next that Noah must save them all himself 6:19–20 . All humanity is evil and must be purged, except for Noah, but Noah is punished with spending the better part of a year on a tiny boat filled with polar bears. At the end God promises never to try the scheme again 8:21 , apparently one step from an outright apology. What higher narrative purpose does this myth fulfill, that it's included in the Bible despite its extremely subversive origins and troublesome implications? <Q> The narrative purpose of the flood account is actually quite simple. <S> It reminds us of one simple truth of God's character: God is just. <S> To the Jew for whom this exact version of the narrative is written (I can leave aside Gilgamesh because it differs in thrust), there is one overwhelming truth- <S> In a world where the wicked often seem to prosper, this is too easily forgotten. <S> To say, the Jews of the exile, this is actually a very comforting thought - that even though they may be temporarily defeated (and that happened a lot in Jewish history) <S> God is simply "slow to anger" not completely silent or ineffectual on the matter. <S> In punishing the wicked, the righteous will be protected. <S> To an enslaved and defeated people, this is good news indeed. <S> There will be an accounting when God's wrath is complete. <S> He is not slow in keeping his promises, as some count slowness to be. <S> Neither is he unconcerned, nor is he Powerless. <S> Peter (who, it should be remembered, was a Jew) says if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven other ... <S> if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment. <S> (2 Peter 2:5,9) <S> For the Christian it holds a secondary meaning, namely that God may be love, but he is more than love. <S> God is not just "nice," but he is also just. <S> It is too easy to forget that because God is good, it doesn't mean he can't be powerful too. <A> As Flimzy said your question seems argumentative so I will answer as concisely as possible. <S> First thing of note, stories and information did not travel back then as they do in this day and age. <S> So while Gilgamesh is perhaps older (not saying it is we have no actual date on the writing of Genesis <S> so it could in fact be older) <S> its quite possible that the writer of Genesis had never even heard of the story before. <S> The Jews were well known in their devout stages(when <S> they actually followed the commandments of God) for not mingling with other societies which makes it even more likely that the writer had never heard the myth before. <S> Secondly, as Marc said the narrative is there to record events and therefore is not a myth. <S> Whether you believe that or not depends on your interpretation of the bible but for most they take it as fact not myth that the Noah flood actually happened. <A> First off, it's highly intellectually dishonest to claim that the story of Noah is a redacted version of the Utanapishtim myth found in the Epic of Gilgamesh . <S> That notion was discredited at least half a century ago with the discovery and translation of the much older Sumerian Epic of Atra-Hasis . <S> The Atra-Hasis tale contains a deluge myth that both differs from Gilgamesh and agrees with the Genesis account on many important points--including the cowardly character of the gods as mentioned in the question above--making it clear that the Utanapishtim story is the one that's been edited and changed from the original account. <S> (see Hilprecht, The Earliest Version of the Babylonian Deluge Story and the Temple Library of Nippur , p. 61 ) <S> It's hard to believe that people are still dredging up the Utanapishtim-Noah theory after all these years! <S> Having said that, the purpose of including the story of Noah and the Flood in Genesis is very simple: the author believed it! <S> This is one of the interesting things about the ancient Israelites: almost uniquely among ancient cultures, they saw their stories handed down from older times still as literal history rather than mythology.
|
God will punish the wicked.
|
What did Luther think of the Eastern Orthodox and vice versa? When the Reformation began to take hold, the Orthodox may have been in decline, but were definately still present. I'm curious to know what what the two "breakaways" thought of each other - is it a case of "my enemies' enemy is my friend," or was the doctrinal difference too great? <Q> I linked to this article in another question, but it's certainly relevant here: <S> Luther Had His Chance <S> Some Lutherans did make contact with Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople . <S> They gave him a copy of the Augsburg Confession and requested his reaction. <S> The Patriarch politely thanked them and, later, gave a detailed reply, indicating where the various points of the Lutheran document were in conflict with Orthodox doctrine. <S> The Reformers, in turn, composed a detailed reply to explain themselves and assert that doctrinally the two churches were not really so far apart. <S> The Patriarch replied at greater length, again explaining which doctrines were not acceptable to the Orthodox faith. <S> The Reformers sent one more letter, but the Patriarch felt things were at an impasse. <S> He replied requesting no more correspondence on matters of doctrine, but rather "for the sake of friendship." <A> It is doubtful that, considering the pressures every hour placed on Martin Luther at the time, he gave a great deal of thought to the Eastern Orthodox. <S> If so, it surely would have been left in his abundant writings, of which we have volumes. <S> Communication between Orthodox and the Roman Catholic West, were limited at best.this <S> was about the same era as the Fall of Constantinople to the Turks, <S> so I doubt greatly that the Orthodox Divines were much concerned about the stir of a lone Augustinian Monk in Germany. <A> Orthodoxy has never been a "breakaway" from anything. <S> It is the original church. <S> Rome broke away from Orthodoxy to become a secular power in Western Europe. <S> The Orthodox Church except for Russia was under the Ottoman yoke in the east and under Roman domination in the west. <S> A humdred years before Luther, Jan Hus of Czechia (Bohemia) intended to remain Orthodox, but was burned at the stake for this by Rome in the 14th century. <S> The martyred St. Jan is now an Orthodox saint. <S> (Czechia is the land of another saint Good King Wenceslaus.) <S> Luther's influence from the Blessed Augustine was too great for him to absorb the depth of the Orthodox view of the Trinity in which the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit "proceeds from" the Father, hence Luther's aversion to relinquishing the Roman unilateral and arbitrary addition to the canonical formulation of the Creed of Symbol of Faith approved over a thousand years earlier at the Council of Nicaea, a western addition known as the filioque or "and the Son", which had its first appearance in a Spanish priest's rendition of the Creed. <S> While there are New Testament bases for both views, only the Orthodox view is supported by the whole Tradition of the Church from its beginnings. <S> The Roman wording is a new encrustation without the test of Tradition as given to us by the unbroken chain of tradition from the early church. <S> They were too far away to help him anyway.
|
Luther was viewed by Orthodoxy as under a straying bishop of Rome, and the Patriarch Jeremiah II in the 17th century advised Luther's followers to address their complaints to the bishop of Rome first, and first reconcile their ojections with him. Luther probably had too much on his political plate to think too much about his fellow Christians in the East.
|
Why do some Christian churches have classes about other churches? The context of my question is is directed mostly toward "non-denominational" or independent Christian groups, though feedback from the perspective of more established (e.g. Protestant) churches is welcome where applicable. I'm aware that there are Sunday-schools by churches to teach their congregations about the scriptures, the gospel, etc. Some churches also teach classes about other churches. Why do some Christian churches have classes about other churches? What is the Christian, not secular, reason for having them? <Q> Because, and I say this with all humility, everyone of us concedes (or at least should concede), we could be wrong. <S> Besides- <S> one thing we know about God's Truth is that it can always stand up to rigorous inquiry. <S> If it did not, either we serve a weak God (which we don't) or our understanding of God is wrong. <S> Either way, the last thing any Christian should be scared of is the Truth. <A> We want to understand the extent to which we have common ground with others. <S> As Affable Geek has said, we want to demonstrate our openness to alternative points of view. <S> We want to show why we believe that our own POV is superior to everyone else's. <A> When I was a Evangelical/Presbyterian(ish), I always took it as an opportunity to contrast <S> beliefs: these people believe this, which is why we say that "such-and-so" and not "this-and-other." <S> Comparing theology of communion and predestination was especially beneficial as that was an issue which was of particular interest to the people in my congregation. <S> And even though I have a different perspective (Catholic), that is still true: we can learn a lot from the teachings as to what is wrong with the gnostics. <S> Augustine's refutation of Donatism and Manicheism are made more invaluable when you actually have opportunity to learn a little bit about the heresies.
|
Several reasons: We don't want to pretend that everyone else agrees with us.
|
Why isn't God mentioned in Esther? As you may know, God is never mentioned in the book of Esther, either by name (Yahweh), title (Adonai), or being (El). Neither is prayer. Why not? I realize this is rather open ended, so I'll try to give some objective criteria: If it never mentions God, why is it in the canon? What is the theological application to be gained from Esther given the lack of any reference to God. waves hands I have a few thoughts on this myself, but i'll try to hold them until I can get a good sampling of answers. (also, why hasn't this been asked yet? Have I missed an obvious duplicate? Or stumbled into the Area51 of ✝.SE?) <Q> The Book of Esther's legitimacy as part of the canon of Christian scripture has been the subject of debate because there is no direct reference to God. <S> Even though God is never directly mentioned in the book, His Providence is distinctly evidenced in the deliverance of the Jews in the face of great opposition and terrible odds. <S> It is a witness of God's mindfulness of His people, His recognition of their faith, and His direct intervention in their lives despite His indirect presence among them. <S> In fact, the refrain of mention of His name emphasizes this contrast: that even though God isn't directly with us (as it would seem), His hand is still mighty on behalf of His faithful, and thus, is actually with us. <S> This answer by Warren suggests that Esther prefigures Mary, a significant example of faith and virtue. <S> Embedded in Esther 4:13-16 is the confidence in a sure deliverance by Providence: whether by Esther's house or by some other means, the Jews would be delivered . <S> So while the historical accuracy of Esther is debated here or there, I for one personally love the book because of the inspiring display of virtues, and the profound example of faith by fasting, courage/loyalty, and patriotism. <A> You have to remember that the Old Testament canon was not set by Christians. <S> but Jews. <S> The RCC Old Testament canon is that of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Jewish Holy Scriptures done by Jews in the third century before Christ , and by extension, before the church was even thought of. <S> Back then, the Jewish canon obviously included these extra books we today call the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon. <S> The Protestant canon follows the modern Jewish canon (the one that was established at the caouncil of Yavneh by the rabbis around the end of the first century after Christ). <S> They dropped the deuterocanon, but kept the books that make up the protestant Old Testament. <S> Anyway, Esther is in the Christian Bible because it is in the Jewish Bible. <S> Why would the Jews include it in their Bible? <S> Chiefly because it tells the story for one of their feasts, that of Purim. <S> Purim is a joyous festival in which they act out the story of Esther by reading through the book of Esther. <A> I think the primary reason Esther is there is to show the hand of God in preserving the line of His Messiah. <S> Without Esther's intervention the Jews would have been destroyed and the line of the Messiah crushed. <S> So whether God is ever mentioned or not, this book contains a pivotal story in the march toward the coming of Jesus. <S> In our family we actually don't think too highly of Esther's character. <S> She was willing to disobey God's law by sleeping with the King. <S> Perhaps you could argue that she was forced to come to the King's palace, but that isn't a necessary conclusion from the text. <S> Unlike her predecessors, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshech and Abednego, who abstained from the King of Babylon's delicacies and were rewarded, Esther fully partakes of all the preparations of the Persian harem in preparation for her night with the King. <S> Despite all that, however, Esther shows God's work in preparing for the coming of the Messiah. <S> Interestingly, it appears John is telling us in John 5 that Jesus celebrated Purim so that is possibly another link between Esther and Christ. <S> Hopefully some helpful thoughts. <S> EDIT: <S> I remembered reading once that God's name appears in Esther in acrostic form. <S> Today I found the link explaining how it works: http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app60.html <S> I'll leave it to you all to decide if this is just clever hunting on the part of a zealous reader or inspiration within the text. <A> Now, I'm a little naive because I'm way way way more familiar with the Golden Books version of Esther that I've read to my kids a zillion times. <S> But didn't Esther proclaim a 3 day fast with the intention of saving her people. <S> There's a picture of her praying with her attendants so it just sort of confused me that prayer wasn't obviously an important part of who Esther was (as a person and a book). <S> Esther 4:15-16 <S> (NIV) 15 <S> Then Esther sent this reply to Mordecai: 16 <S> “Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. <S> Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. <S> I and my attendants will fast as you do. <S> When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. <S> And if I perish, I perish.” <S> Fasting for three days is not to make Esther appear haggard when she approaches the king. <S> Apparently she's even more radiant than ever. <S> She desires something only God can give her, the means at hand are fasting. <S> It's only God who is moved by the fasting. <S> Maybe I'm echoing the previous, very good answer, but I just thought a few more things could be said about this. <A> I would say that the Book of Esther does mention God's name, a few times, but they are hidden in acrostics. <S> Here are the instances:
|
The compilation of the original Bible is largely obscured in history (e.g. the Song of Solomon has been likewise disputed because of its romantic content), but Esther may have been included because of its rich demonstration of Christian values such as loyalty, courage, faith, and fasting (and by implication, prayer).
|
Why do churches often have altars? In Judaism, the template had an altar for sacrificing. But we believe our sacrifice is done . So, what is the point of a church altar? <Q> In Roman Catholic liturgy specifically, the altar is where the Eucharistic Sacrifice is made; i.e., Christ's one sacrifice on Calvary is made present again on the altar at each mass. <S> The altar, in this theology, is still for performing sacrifices. <S> "In the New Law the altar is the table on which the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered. <S> Mass may sometimes be celebrated outside a sacred place, but never without an altar, or at least an altar-stone." <S> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01346a.htm <S> As the largest unified body of Christians on the planet, Roman Catholics have a large influence on the terminology we use. <S> Note that as a Protestant I don't agree with this theology, but the term "altar" likely persists in our churches merely as a matter of "stale" terminology used by those who do not know better. <S> Protestant theology ( <S> at least all that I'm aware of) does not allow for an "altar. <S> " The reason to have an altar is antithetical to the Protestant doctrines regarding regeneration and justification and having something that fulfills the purpose of altar (meaning that it isn't just a matter of stale terminology) is nonsense in Protestant churches. <A> In Eastern Orthodoxy, the Altar is the type of the Altar in Heaven as described in Revelation. <S> In the Anaphora, the Church joins in the 'One Liturgy' going on in heaven, and the Christ who offers himself once and for all becomes present in the gifts on the altar as a bloodless, spiritual sacrifice. <S> As a secondary note, it is traditional for the relics of Martyrs to be embedded in the bottom of the altar, following Revelation. <A> In the church in which I grew up (a United Methodist church), we have a wooden altar in the middle of the front of the sanctuary. <S> It serves a purpose in two main contexts in the service: <S> The offering plates are laid on it after the offering is received, and the pastor prays over them. <S> During communion, the bread and wine are kept on the altar, and a short rite involving breaking the bread is conducted before communion is taken by the congregation. <S> In light of these two things, Here are my thoughts on the altar, with the caveat that none of this is confirmed as doctrine: <S> I agree that the Jewish laws of sacrifice are not demanded of Christians, and in light of that alone it seems strange to have an altar any more. <S> However, as Narnain mentions , the altar is very different now than it was then. <S> So if it's not a Jewish sacrificial altar, what is a Christian altar? <S> My answer is that it's still a symbol of sacrifice, but a whole different kind - it's a symbol of Christ's sacrifice. <S> It's an altar that has had its order filled, and we keep it as a reminder of that sacrifice. <S> Likewise, whether they are mandated in the same way or not, Christians still make sacrifices and offerings to God, and I find it very fitting to make such a sacrifice on an altar that is symbolic of Christ's sacrifice for me. <S> I don't believe there is a scriptural demand for churches to contain altars, and neither do I believe that there is scripture which explicitly disallows altars. <S> I feel like they are much more symbolic than anything, but I think there's plenty of grounds for justifying one.
|
The altar is an ancient religious symbol of sacrifice.
|
Did Jesus undergo another temptation in the the garden? The only temptation I know of in the bible concerning Jesus was when in the wilderness with the devil. A friend used Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ as his basis to claim Jesus was tempted by the devil (with the appearance of a snake) while praying. I kind of thought, personally that it made sense to why he needed the disciples to help him in prayer. He had to go back for the third time to pray with sorrow and heaviness untill an angel came to strengthen him. "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." (Luke 22:43-44). Is it a mere spiritual reason to this claim that he was strengthened by an angel from heaven as if in a struggle or there are actual biblical references that support a spiritual encounter with the devil? If there was an encounter, how and why? <Q> The Bible does not definitively state whether or not Jesus was tempted in the garden or not, so for us to be definitive where the Bible is not must be speculative at best. <S> What we do know is that Jesus was tempted during His life in all ways, just as we are, yet was without sin. <S> For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. <S> ( Hebrews 4:15 ESV ) <S> This doesn't mean that Jesus experienced every temptation anyone has ever experienced, but that He was tempted in the same ways that we are. <S> It should also be noted that Satan is not the only source of temptation. <S> There are, of course, other demons, but temptation also comes from our own sinful flesh, apart from demonic influence. <S> Now, in this case, if there were any demonic temptation, Satan himself would probably have thought it worth his time. <S> Yet, we just don't and can't know for sure. <S> So, Jesus experienced distress, as the Scripture tells us, but we don't know for sure whether or not He experienced temptation at this particular moment, although it's quite possible and perhaps even as much as probable. <A> As lining up with a response of mine to another question, it is clear that he is tested in his humanity, since he does not want to die (living is a good thing.) <S> Death is an evil that the human recoils from naturally. <S> This 'natural' recoiling is overcome, it would seem, by doing something even better, that is, the will of God, which is life itself . <S> If this counts as a 'temptation' in your analysis, then there is your answer! <A> He asked the Father to take this cup (possibly of suffering) from Him, nevertheless He asked for the Father's will to be done. <S> He submitted to God and resisted what He wanted (not to suffer) and what Satan ultimately wanted (for Jesus not to die for mankind). <S> As for dying, He knew that He was returning to the Father in Heaven. <S> I would see no reason for His dying and returning to heaven,to be upsetting to Him.
|
It is possible that Jesus was tempted in the Garden because of the suffering He was about to endure for mankind.
|
What's the deal with oil? If you look across the Bible, there are many instances where oil is used. The anointing of Saul and David; Jacob pouring oil over the rock where he had his dream of the staircase to heaven(?); Maria pouring oil on Jesus, etc. Was oil expensive back then or something? <Q> The short answer is yes, oil was expensive. <S> It was used in ceremonies both because it was often perfumed to have a pleasing aroma and because the financial sacrifice was an act of humility. <S> You mentioned several good examples, but I figured I would offer you one more: Elisha providing for a widow ( 2 Kings 4:1-7 ). <S> In this scenario, Elisha is able to provide the woman with enough oil that she can pay off all her late husband's debts, and she and her sons are able to live on the rest. <S> Now, this passage doesn't explicitly state that oil was expensive, but a little common sense will tell us it can't have been cheap. <S> Elisha sends the woman's sons for empty vessels, and not too few , so he was clearly preparing to give her a large volume of oil, but it's fair to guess that the number ended up being in the 20-50 range (obviously just an estimate) as opposed to in the hundreds or thousands. <S> For that amount of oil to be enough to pay off debts and set multiple people up for life means that oil had value, far more than it does today <S> (imagine how much olive oil you'd need to hoard to be set for life). <A> I've always thought of it as more of an issue of versatility and approachability. <S> Oils can be used for everything . <S> The only thing on earth which is more useful is water (unless you're willing to start debating gasses &c., in which case I'm going with Hydrogen and Oxygen for the win). <S> But, unlike water, which will often suppress fragrance and flavor, oil will absorb and augment it. <S> Smell a child after a Catholic baptism or confirmation ( <S> and I know there are other denominations who do the same, but I am looking only for an example). <S> In addition to that, it also has use as a material to light the home (no symbolism there). <S> Oil, if it is properly stored, also has a remarkably long shelf-life. <S> Look at the expiration date on your next purchase of olive oil. <S> It won't be any time soon. <S> So, we have oil associated with light and with food, it lasts a long time, it can heal, it is something which can be fragrant, and it can be gotten relatively easily (except in times of drought) as it is one of the major uses of olives (something not exactly uncommon in that area). <S> Is there any wonder that it is significant? <A> Oil is a healing substance rubbing it all over you will literally strengthen your skin and thereby giving you strength to carry on. <S> That's one of the reasons oil is an excellent symbol for the Holy Spirit and furthermore why it's used all over the Old Testament. <S> Any time you read oil, wind, water or fire you can read "Holy Spirit" unless otherwise indicated. <S> I know that in a historical/economical sense, this is not an answer to your question. <S> But if you wanted a non-doctrine answer you probably should ask on BH.SE. <S> According to Catholic Doctrine, blessed oil is a sacramental; and in this case it is the means by which actual graces can be conferred and we have a few distinct oils that are used for this. <S> One for Anointing of the Sick; another for consecrating priests and altars; and another for baptizing and confirmation. <S> So, following biblical traditions and ancient cultural practices, oil has always been used in this way. <S> As far as the woman perfuming Jesus' feet and the gifts of the Magi, the value of their oils were in the substances mingled with the oils. <S> Oil itself would have had to been a fairly common substance since it was used to make bread (ala 1 Kings:17 ).
|
Oil also has medicinal use.
|
Do angels still visit us on earth I know that throughout the Bible Angels met with humans for very specific reasons. An obvious example can be found in Luke 1:26-38 . Gabriel speaks to Mary and informs her she will give birth to a son who is to be named Jesus. Do Angels still visit us on earth and interact with humans today? <Q> Hebrews 13:2 reminds us to show love and hospitality towards all, "for in doing so <S> , some have entertained angels," unaware. <S> When Samsons parents were told they were going to have a child, they too were unaware that they were in the presence of an angel, until after they sacrificed, the angel went away dramatically revealing what he was. <S> * <S> ok, possibly one could say that because we have the Bible, God no longer requires messengers (and by definition an angelos ' job is a messenger) but that would just be speculation. <A> They certainly exist, they exist in the past, present and future. <S> The Bible speaks of them in all three tenses to the last age of man. <S> Do they interact with humans today? <S> I can see no reason they would not, but it is not an absolute thing, where the Bible says this is the way it is exactly, as far as when and <S> how they interact with men. <S> I have read and heard stories and perhaps had a few interact with me <S> and I never knew it. <S> They can appear like men and save your life. <S> Carry you over a mountain pass through snow and then disappear. <A> There are numerous stories, particularly in the lives of the Saints. <S> But traditionally every Christian is regarded as having their own guardian angel. <S> So to answer your question in perhaps a less spectacular and significant fashion, Yes, and constantly. <A> No angels do not still intervene in the world today. <S> If every Christian in the world had a Guardian Angel, bad things would not happen to any Christian because they would be protected. <S> The Bible also says that the sole purpose of the creation of angels was for them to worship God, not protect his people. <S> As for the "stories" of angels that help you in the form of a human, what's to say that isn't a person full of the Holy Spirit? <S> What happens when the person is then suddenly gone? <S> In Acts, the spirit teleported Philip to speak to the Ethiopian Eunuch, then he teleported him back to his home immediately. <A> Certainly Angels would exist even today, as well have the same authority God has intended for them. <S> u just saw a demon. <S> Demons would hope to allude you from the truth and in doing so will attempt to taint the faith in regard to what u believe rather than attempt to discredit it altogether. <S> Just because you have a Guardian Angel doesn't make you exempt from bad things. <S> If it did we wouldn't need prayer. <S> This is how God answers our prayers many times by sending our angels to intervene when truly necessary. <S> And remember that just because a Guardian Angel is appointed to you that I <S> you have no faith <S> then you also receive very little of any assistance. <S> However, should someone else pray for you it exists the great possibility that the unfaithful may be influenced by their Guardian Angel. <S> Interesting topic and wondrous to think about. <S> When you pray to God please don't discount these facts and watch miracles happen in your life as they continue to happen in mine. <S> Simply put, a prayer answered in any form is a miracle of intervention by our Heavenly Father who really does care when we need him. <S> Not so much to the frivolous requests. <S> Think about your prayer before you make the request so it is meaningful and not in vain.
|
There is nothing to suggest that angels no longer visit Earth*, but nothing says that says we will recognize them as such when they do. My best guess is that they interact all the time, they seem to deliver messages a lot, I suspect they still do. No your likely not going to notice them and if u think u do u may consider it the possibility
|
What does Satan look like? Many people have seen the Classical depiction of Satan in paintings and statues, but what does scripture say about what Satan looks like? <Q> Apparently, anything he likes, including an angel: 2 Corinthians 11:14 : ... <S> Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. <S> Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it. <S> Hebrews 13:2 <S> And possibly a snake (though some Christians do not take this passage literally) <S> Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. <S> Genesis 3:1 <S> More information can be found on the Christian demonology Wikipedia article. <A> Don't forget the images in Revelation: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. <S> Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. <S> Rev 12:3–4 NIV And especially this one, which gives the Number of the Beast: <S> Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. <S> It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon... <S> It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. <S> This calls for wisdom. <S> Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. <S> That number is 666. <S> Rev 13:11,16–18 NIV <A> It should be noted that as an angel, aside from a stint in fleshly imagery in the West, Satan like other angels is considered to not actually have a 'true appearance' at all. <S> He is a bodiless intelligence and is thus, invisible. <S> It is highly misleading to try to tack down his appearance, like that of any angel or demon, because what they are is not primarily bodily and thus, passively or objectively visible, but intelligible and intelligent, and subtle. <S> Any image they assume can be considered a 'vision of angels', since they have no actual appearance. <S> How they appear is based on how they wish to be intelligible to us. <S> If you can stomach it, you may wish to consider On The Divine Hierarchy by St. Denys. <S> Satan can appear as an angel of light and frankly, as alluded to above, whatever suits him and God permits. <A> The Bible says that Lucifer( Satan's former name)was a cherub(Ezekiel 28:14). <S> Cherubs are not cute little chubby angels but are in truth actually pretty frightening to look at. <S> Cherubs are twenty cubits long, had four faces(of an ox, lion, eagle and man), an enormous wingspan, huge flaming swords and are covered in eyes according to Ezekiel and Isaiah's accounts. <S> We can only assume that Satan looks like one of these.
|
Assuming Satan is an angel , then he can probably take on any appearance, at least that of a human:
|
How can common believers be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous? There have been some councils, the decisions of which were later reversed by some latter councils. Thus, if your position on a particular matter that was being considered at those councils was too strong, you could easily be excommunicated from the Church as a heretic between those two councils, while you would be just fine after the second one, or the other way around. The most recent example that comes to my mind is probably the incumbent Pope's decision to condone contraceptives. So, the question is: How can common believers be sure that the Church's decisions are correct and not erroneous? Has this matter ever been discussed in history? <Q> The simple answer is know your Bible. <S> God has given us His Word to guide us. <S> The church, being filled with sinful men, is going to err and has erred. <S> But God's word is 'settled in the heavens', is perfect, is truth (John 17:17). <S> So the primary source for truth must be God's words and not men's words. <S> It is however difficult sometimes to go against the church and her teaching. <S> The leaders of any given church have usually studied the Bible a lot more than the average Christian. <S> But we must also remember that God guides His children into truth, so study your Bible, know it, and then ask God for His Holy Spirit to guide you in all truth. <A> The 2012 world-wide General Conference of the United Methodist Church is going on right now in Tampa, Florida, USA. <S> This conference is held every 4 years to determine the guidelines and direction of the United Methodist Church. <S> The only thing you can do as a common member is to pray that the delegates are guided by God and God's will, rather than the earthly desires of a majority of delegates. <S> The only other thing you can do is find a church more in line with what you believe to be the will of God. <A> One can not be sure the Church's decisions are correct. <S> There must be some standard each individual uses to judge the Church's decisions. <S> Jesus said simply: Mark 22 : <S> 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ <S> 38 <S> This is the first and greatest commandment. <S> 39 <S> And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ <S> 40 <S> All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” <S> If a Christian feels like the Church he is attending is violating Jesus's commandment, then they must decide for themselves to follow their Church or follow Christ.
|
You can also pray to God for his confirmation that the decision you're concerned about was made in accordance with his will.
|
Are non-Anglican Protestant churches ever named after extra-biblical saints? Catholic and Orthodox Churches are often named after saints because we believe in the communion of Saints and like to put our congregations under some sort of patronage. I've seen Episcopal churches named after St. Francis and St. Dunstan and I'd imagine there are quite a few named after the various awesome Saxon saints. And I've seen Lutheran Churches named after Biblical Saints (John, Mark, Luke etc...) I've never seen any traditions in Protestantism (not that it's a thing) that violate this rule, or this custom. Are there any Protestant churches who name their churches after extra-biblical saints? <Q> As it happens, my local church is named after a saint who wasn't written up by name in the Bible. <S> He was the founder of our church and his name was Emmanuel Peterson. <S> (No prizes for correctly guessing whether the church uses his first or last name.) <S> I also found a non-denominational Protestant church called San Diego First Assembly . <S> (That's probably cheating since the church was named after the city named after the saint .) <S> But as you noticed, naming churches after people (at least people not described in the Bible by name) is remarkably rare for Protestant denominations. <S> The most likely reason is one you alluded to: Protestants have a different view of sainthood than the Orthodox or Catholic traditions. <S> We have some reason not to put our trust in the names of people no matter who they were. <S> As Luther said : <S> The more I read the books of the Fathers, the more I find myself offended; for they were but men, and, to speak the truth, with all their repute and authority, undervalued the books and writings of the sacred apostles of Christ. <S> Therefore, we Protestants are far more likely to name our churches after concepts, especially those found in the Bible. <S> Alternatively, we use strictly descriptive names (cities mostly). <A> The answer depends on how you define "saint." <S> If you use a protestant definition of the term, then any church named after a Christian (living or dead) is a church named after a saint. <S> And there are many examples of this. <S> A few I found quickly by google: <S> Moody Church in Chicago, Illinois, named after D. L. Moody. <S> Martin Luther Lutheran Church in Milwaukee, WI, named after Martin Luther Calvin Presbyterian Church in Zelienople, PA named after John Calvin Calvin Church in Holland, MI presumably named after John Calvin Calvin Community Church in Gore, New Zealand presmably named after John Calvin <A> Round the corner from me there used to be a Methodist Church called St Aidan's. <S> St Aidan was Bishop of Lindisfarne and died in 651. <S> Potted biography . <S> So <S> yes: it does happen. <S> But I know of only that one. <S> [That particular church was closed some years ago due to structural problems and demolished. <S> There's now a block of flats called St Aidan's Court on the site. <S> I hope that wasn't the last Protestant church dedicated to a non-Biblical saint!] <A> The Reformed (Calvinistic) Churches, which theologically are very much the same as the Presbyterians (just historical differences, Presbyterianism born in the British Isles and Reformed Churches in the European Continent) very rarely have churches with name of saints, and I think (not sure) only in the United States. <S> You can do that exercise: google "Saint (one very well known like Paul, or the evangelists) (succesively write Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Reformed) Church", and you will find lots of web sites of these churches. <S> The Congregational churches are now part of the UNited Church of Christ <S> so you must write "Saint (famous) <S> United Church of Christ". <S> Remember that denominations with British (Anglican, Methodist and Presbyterian) origins also have their patron saints (Saint George, Saint Andrew, Saint Patrick).
|
Some Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational churches are named after saints.
|
Where does the Catholic tradition that Mary did not have pain giving birth to Jesus come from? Where does the Catholic tradition that Mary's birth of Jesus was painless come from? My wife just got home from a non-denominational study about Mary and she said she thought everybody knew this, but apparently no one knew about it - especially the Protestants! In any event, what I'm looking for is the origin of the quote that Jesus' birth was "like light passing through glass" and whether that quote is wholly indicative of a painless birth or if it could have been painless in another way? I understand that it's a little t tradition in the Church, not a dogma or anything. But it's definitely a strong tradition; although it's one that could use a little preaching on from what I can tell. <Q> The Catholic "tradition" is just that. <S> It is not an official teaching or doctrine, but rather something one is free to believe. <S> The Church does not take a physiological stance on whether or not Mary experienced pain during child birth. <S> But to understand where this tradition came from, we have to go back to the Garden of Eden. <S> When Adam and Eve sinned, God said to Eve that because of her sin, women would now experience pain during child birth. <S> The teaching of "Original Sin" is that we have all inherited the sin of Adam and Eve. <S> The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was "the arc of the new covenant" and that God prepared her to be the perfect vessel which carried God (Jesus) into the world. <S> That meant that she needed to be free from Original Sin and that she did not commit a sin. <S> So since she was free from sin, including the sin from Eve, the tradition is that she did not need to experience pain during child birth. <S> You can read more about the teaching on "the arc of the new covenant" here: http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant <A> Many Protestants reject this teaching, but most are unaware of it entirely. <S> I don't know the status of this teaching among Protestant theologians. <S> The image of light passing through glass seems to originate in the 12th century, and becomes very widespread by the 14th century. <S> See this scholarly overview of the sources: Breeze, Andrew. <S> " The blessed virgin and the sunbeam through glass ." <S> Bells: <S> Barcelona English language and literature studies 2 (1990): 53-64. <S> The teaching continued to be promulgated through the Catechism of the Council of Trent: <S> " <S> He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or, not to depart from every-day examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother's womb without injury to her maternal virginity. <S> " <S> " Catechism of the Council of Trent " 1566, Part <S> I: <S> The Creed, Article III <S> You also wanted to know about interpretations of this tradition. <S> Some of the traditional sources use the image to refer to Christ's conception, not birth (Breeze). <S> The primary concerns of traditional authors are Mary's perpetual virginity Reversal of the curse of Adam and Eve. <S> That Christ's birth should not cause distress <A> Her painless childbirth follows from these truths of divine revelation: <S> Painful childbirth is one of the punishments of Original Sin ( Gen. 3:16 : "in travail shalt thou bring forth children"). <S> Mary did not have Original Sin ( dogma of the Immaculate Conception ). <S> Therefore, Mary did not have a painful childbirth (at least not as a result of Original Sin). <S> St. Thomas Aquinas, answering the question " Whether Christ was born without His Mother suffering? " <S> ( Summa Theologica q. 35 a. 6), writes: <S> The pains of childbirth are caused by the infant opening the passage from the womb. <S> Now it has been said above ( q. 12 a. 2 , Replies to objections), that Christ came forth from the closed womb of His Mother, and, consequently, without opening the passage. <S> Consequently there was no pain in that birth, as neither was there any corruption; on the contrary, there was much joy therein for that God-Man "was born into the world," according to Is. <S> 35:1,2: <S> "Like the lily, it shall bud forth and blossom, and shall rejoice with joy and praise." <A> It is in prophecy of Isiah regarding the birth of the Messiah. <S> "Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child” (Isa 66:7)
|
Extensive biblical and traditional material advocating for Mary's painless childbirth can be found from " The Virginity of Our Lady in Partu ".
|
Do they use icons in the Roman Catholic Church? Do they use icons in the Roman Catholic Church like they do in the East Orthodox Church? In my limited experience, I've only seen statues in the Roman Catholic Church, but not icons. I don't just mean having some images in the temple, but also praying while looking at them and kissing them from time to time - just like it is done in the East Orthodox. <Q> I don't know if it's common practice among all Catholics, but I kiss the image of Jesus on my scapular every chance I get. <S> It's pretty much an icon except it's done on cloth. <S> I kiss the cross when making the sign of the cross while praying the rosary and on Good Friday we venerate the cross of Jesus by kissing the crucifix. <S> Latin American Catholics are also known to make a tiny cross with their fingers after making the sign of the cross and kissing that (their hand). <S> There is one company that I know of in the united states that makes Catholic Icons (as well as Orthodox Icons); that's monastery icons . <S> I don't believe a Catholic would be prohibited from venerating any sort of holy icon in an appropriate manner. <S> Blessed icons would be considered sacramentals. <A> Sure, they do!!! <S> See this famous icon - <S> San Damiano Cross <A> It is up in her guest room. <S> It is not exactly used a lot however, it is mostly used as being in Greek Orthodox or Eastern Catholic, however it can be used in Roman Church aswell.
|
My grandmother is Catholic and she bought an icon of St. Gregory at her Catholic church. Yes, we do use icons from what I am aware of.
|
Should a Bible believing Christian be pleased at the death of Osama bin Laden? I'm looking for a Biblical response to this question. And it's not specific to bin Laden but I'm just using him as an example. I know Jesus said love your enemies . And Paul even showed how this can be a form of revenge . But I can't help but wonder if a Christian could at least be relieved that the bin Ladens and Hitlers of the world were killed. <Q> In one sense, I don't think we should be "pleased" that he is dead. <S> God is not "pleased", which should be our ultimate example: <S> Ezekiel 33:11 (NIV) 11 Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked , but rather that they turn from their ways and live. <S> Turn! <S> Turn from your evil ways! <S> Why will you die, people of Israel?’ <S> However, just because we should not take pleasure in his death, does not mean we cannot be pleased with the net outcome of the situation. <S> We can be pleased that future lives will be spared. <S> For example, even though God did not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, he still ordered sentences of death for certain offenses ( <S> and he does all that he pleases ). <S> This was for the net benefit of the society. <S> So, although God did not take take pleasure in the death of the individual, he took pleasure in the protection of the masses. <A> The most important reaction to this should be that Osama bin Laden died without Christ, at least we presume he did, as he gave us no evidence of accepting Christ as his Savior before his death. <S> 2 Peter 3:9 <S> The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. <S> So we too should be longing for the salvation of all the "Osama's" of the world. <S> We should be sad that another lost soul went to Hell but similar to Eric's comment, we can take comfort that Osama bin Laden will no longer deceive others and cause them to turn from God. <S> Furthermore, we can also praise God for keeping His promise: Genesis 12:3 <S> And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: <S> and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed . <S> As we all know Osama bin Laden was an enemy of Israel, therefore, I believe God fulfilled his promise against Osama bin Laden. <S> So we can praise God for keeping His promise. <A> We are taught to hate the sin and not the sinner. <S> We are called to love every brother. <S> This would include Osama.
|
So while we ought to grieve his individual death, for his sake, we can still be pleased overall for the sake of others.
|
What was the Birthright? What, specifically, did Esau lose when he lost the birthright, and what did Jacob gain? What did the birthright represent, and why was it so highly prized by Jacob? <Q> Jacob may have prized the birthright out of greed, but it's worth mentioning that God spoke to Rebekah in Genesis 25:22-23 and told her that the younger of her sons would rule over the elder. <S> While it doesn't say that this is the case anywhere in the Bible, If Rebekah had told Jacob of this, perhaps he felt he was doing the will of God. <S> This might also explain why Rebekah helped him in deceiving his father (Genesis 27). <S> Again, this is only speculation on my part. <S> You can read more about the Hebrew birthright here: http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/B/BIRTHRIGHT/ <A> Mainly it appears to be a right to a double share in the inheritance. <S> That is, if a couple had two sons, the first inherited 2/3 of the property and the second inherited 1/3. <S> I've read some discussions that he also had additional responsibilities which made this fair. <S> Side note: Modern Bible teachers routinely talk about how sneaky and dishonest Jacob was in buying the birthright. <S> But it's interesting to note that the only editorial comment the Bible makes about it is not, "Thus Jacob stole his brother's birthright" or "Thus Jacob tricked his brother out of his birthright", but, "Thus Esau despised his birthright." <S> (Gen 25:34b) <S> Thus the position of the Bible appears to be, not that Jacob , was at fault, but that Esau was an idiot. <S> He was a classic case of immediate gratification, giving up (say) a million dollars several decades in the future in exchange for twenty bucks today. <A> It's worth mentioning that inheritance included father's blessing. <S> Orthodox professor of theology Lopukhin thinks that those blessings had mystical meaning - the son being blessed becomes continuator of testament between God and Abraham, takes ability to "speak" with God and so on. <S> Also i like Jakob's blessing of Joseph <S> , it's so poetic.
|
When Esau lost his birthright, he lost a greater ownership of his father's property, as well as the position of leader of the family (thinking of family as a whole tribe of people).
|
Jehovah's Witnesses's teaching on the Church I just read a wiki page on Jehovah's witnesses, visited their official website, and was quite surprised that in the list of their believes there is a striking absence of the definition (or at least description) of their concept of the Church. According to what I can see at the moment, they are only using the word "church" or plural "churches" in reference to the numerous religious groups in the main-stream Christianity (which they consider all to be in apostasy), while they themselves prefer to speak about the Kingdom, rather than the Church. Is it a result of their special translation of the Bible (in which many words were translated quite differently from the way it is done in the majority of Bible translations, for example, in many places the word that is translated in other translations as "fellowship" in their translation is rendered as "sharing") or am I simply missing out on something here? What's their concept of the Church? What's their teaching on the Church? When did it start? How long has it been around? Has it always existed since it was started or, perhaps, it was over at some time and then re-stated again? <Q> The word church has various meanings. <S> It can be used to refer to an physical building. <S> Witness churches are called Kingdom Halls . <S> It can also be used to refer to a group of believers in a specific area. <S> For sense of the word, Witnesses use congregation , which I believe is quite common for many branches of Christianity. <S> But the word church has another meaning, and it is this meaning <S> I think you're asking about. <S> The "church" as the united body of all believers. <S> For this sense, Witnesses don't have a direct word. <S> They do use the word <S> Christian in a very narrow sense, to refer only to themselves. <S> Perhaps that's their nearest equivalent. <S> And yes, they do believe that "true Christianity" essentially died out after the First Century, and (with the exception of a few brief flames here and there) was reborn with them. <S> The church may also be the organisation , the institution, as distinct from the individual members thereof. <S> For that sense, the Witnesses use various words, notably, the word organisation itself. <S> They may also talk of the "Faithful and Discreet Slave", which is the teaching body of the organisation (basically, the group that define the doctrine). <S> The finer points of how the Faithful and Discreet Slave is distinct from the Governing Body have now escaped me. <S> I used to know that. <S> I've forgotten. <A> In Jehovah's Witness theology, "the Church" is restricted to 144,001 humans who form the heavenly government, with the risen Jesus Christ as its head. <S> The others (the 144,000) are humans from earth who are selected to go to heaven and reign with Christ in the heavenly aspect of God's kingdom, over the earthly aspect. <S> In their "Insight on the Scriptures" volume 1, they do not even have an entry under the heading 'Church'! <S> You have to turn to page 497 to find the heading 'Congregation', with the sub-heading 'The Christian Congregation of God' before you can learn anything about what mainstream Christians speak of as the Church of Christ. <S> There you learn how Jehovah's Witnesses claim the Jewish nation was rejected as the congregation of God, to be replaced with what you and I would call 'the Church' that Jesus Christ said he would build, that the gates of Hades would never overcome, over which he is supreme head. <S> Jehovah's Witnesses speak of 'the congregation' instead of 'the church'. <S> They claim that it is limited in number to 144,000 humans who are specially chosen to join Jesus in heaven, Jesus being the head of this tiny group, 'the church' (see page 498 para. <S> 3 and 4). <S> This is a somewhat derogatory term, as they view "Christendom" (in its entirety) as under the control of Satan. <S> They view the genuine, biblical church today as being restricted to the 144,000, all of whom, they claim, are Jehovah's witnesses from the 1st century until today. <S> This means that the millions of other JWs who are not anointed as evidence of being in the 144,000 class, are supporters of the church class, identifying themselves with it, but not technically members of it. <S> They say the church [i.e. congregation] of Christ took over from the church [congregation] of Israel when Jesus died, and that this congregation is limited to 144,000 humans with Christ as its head (therefore, technically, member number 144,001.) <S> Now you might understand why their version of the Bible, the New World Translation, states in its 'Bible Word Index' (page 1559 1984 edition) <S> CHURCH - See CONGREGATION. <S> It almost seems as if the word 'Church' is a dirty word to JWs. <A> The word we use is "congregation" which is a group of worshipers which can be a few or millions, examples:- NWT Acts 16:5 <S> "Then, indeed, the congregations ("churches" KJV) continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number day by day." <S> The Greek word "ekklesia" means 'called out" (rendered "church" in a lot of Bibles) or people that have been "called out" from by Jehovah from Satan's world and now collect together to worship Jehovah as Jesus taught. <S> "Ecclesia (or Ekklesia) in Christian theology means both: a particular body of faithful people, and the whole body of the faithful. <S> Latin ecclesia, from Greek ekklesia had an original meaning of "assembly, congregation, council", literally "convocation. <S> "-Google <S> It is not limited to a 144,000 but open to millions which will become billions yet to come in!!!
|
With regard to how Jehovah's Witnesses speak of what non-JWs call 'the church', they only speak of "Christendom".
|
Does a Christian have a responsibility to participate in government? I have heard it said many times that it is the responsibility of Christian to participate in their government, specifically that every Christian has the responsibility to vote . Is there some biblical justification for this belief? I know that the government of the US is dramatically different than what existed in Biblical times, but is there some precedent set forward by scripture that would validate this? I am wondering about the US system of government specifically, as it is largely based around citizen participation, and as an American. <Q> The New Testament doesn't say much about our relationship with government, because the emphasis is on our membership in Christ. <S> We are to be less concerned with things of the world, and more concerned with the things of God. <S> Here's what the Bible does say about our relationship to government: Give to Caesar what is Caesar's Luke 20:22-25 (ESV) <S> 22 <S> Is it lawful for us to give tribute to Caesar, or not?” <S> 23 <S> But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them, 24 <S> “Show me a denarius. <S> Whose likeness and inscription does it have?” <S> They said, “Caesar's.” <S> 25 <S> He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” <S> Jesus is saying here that since we do live under the authority of a human government, we ought to honor that authority. <S> This is not an imperative to participate in government, but it is an imperative to obey our government <S> (when it does not conflict with our obedience to God, of course). <S> In this case, Jesus is referring to paying taxes, but I believe that the principle applies to honoring government laws and regulations in general. <S> Submit to authorities <S> 1 <S> Peter 2:13-15 (ESV) <S> 13 <S> Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. <S> 15 <S> For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. <S> Romans 13:1 <S> (ESV) <S> 13 <S> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. <S> For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. <S> Again, we ought to submit to authorities. <S> And again, there is no indication here that we ought to participate in government - only that we ought to submit to it. <S> Our true citizenship is in heaven Philippians <S> 3:20 (ESV) <S> 20 <S> But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it <S> we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, Although we are under the authority of earthly governments, we ought to remember that our true citizenship is in heaven. <S> Participation in earthly government, while acceptable, should not be our focus. <A> I like Eric's answer , but I'm going to give a contrarian answer. <S> In Philippians 4: 8,9, we read: Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. <S> Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God of peace will be with you. <S> Christ did not speak on every topic. <S> Peter and Paul did not speak on every topic. <S> While Paul does not specifically address participation in government in his letter to the Philippians, we can discern from what he did say that we ought to participate in art, literature, and yes, even government so that we can do our part to make these activities true, honorable, just, pure, pleasing, commendable, and excellent. <A> I don't know of anything in the Bible that explicitly commands participation in government. <S> While the idea of voting was known at the time -- Rome and parts of Greece were republics during periods that overlapped the Old Testament -- I don't know of any mention of it in the Bible. <S> On the other hand, the Bible does repeatedly command us to help orphans and widows, to fight injustice, and to defend the oppressed. <S> Sometimes these good things can be done through government. <S> More often government is the source of the evil, and by participating in goverment we can mitigate it. <S> A number of people in the Bible were govenrment officials, like Joseph and Daniel and David, and it's clear they used these positions to further God's work. <S> So I think that applying general Biblical principles would lead us to the conclusion that Christians should participate in government when there is an opportunity to do good. <S> But I don't know of any specific command. <A> Absolutely; for if we don't we become complicit in the results and we can claim no authority to object to the actions of that government's rulers. <S> Sure we can say there's a higher calling <S> and it's heaven but to not participate, even so little as not voting <S> is a poor witness at best; we in essence are throwing our support to the victor whether they're good or bad as the case may be. <S> We must be part of the solution; not part of the problem. <S> God didn't say to sit still, he called us to action. <S> Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. <S> Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. <S> For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. <S> Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. <S> Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. <S> And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints.... <S> " <S> Ephesians 6:10-18
|
No, there is no Biblical imperative for us to participate in government in the way you describe.
|
Can someone point to a prophecy about the 3 days between the cross and resurrection? Can someone point me to a OT prophecy about the Messiah being in the tomb for 3 days? As general or specific as you can think of. I think I have one, and it seems pretty obvious to me, but a lot of Bible commentators don't mention it. <Q> Old Testament prophecies are sometimes 'thematic', by 'type' or 'metaphor' as in the case of these three days. <S> There are various places in the Old Testament that give special meaning to three days. <S> The gospels however only refer to the prophecy of Jonah. <S> Christ said that Jonah would be the 'sign' that God would give the Jews, as a rebuke for their obstinacy. <S> (Math 12:39-40). <S> As Jonah was buried in a watery death for three days, then spit out and believed upon by Gentiles, so would Christ be buried in the belly of the earth and spit out miraculously to be believed on by the Romans and Greeks. <S> Beyond this single prophecy, there does seem to be more in the Bible and in rabbinic history that enshrines a three-day significance. <S> The main idea seems to stem from Abraham arriving at Mount Moriah to sacrifice his son, on the third-day (Gen 22:4). <S> This is another resurrection image no doubt. <S> The idea is that Isaac was good for dead all three days until God provided a ram in his place. <S> From this the third day, there seems to have become some concepts of a third day resurrection, further supported by Hosea 6:2. <S> Notice though that Rabbi's often differed among themselves, just as we do with Revelation, so <S> the three days in Hosea 6:2 was interpreted by some as 3000 years. <S> Despite the differing historical interpretations by the Rabbis, it cannot be denied that this three-day-theme existed before Christ. <S> Still the bottom line is that in the New Testament Christ's reference to Jonah is enough to fully satisfy the statement that Chris was raised on the third day 'according to the scriptures' (I Cor 15:3-4) <S> The Old Testament <S> three day theme is mostly of supplemental interest. <S> For a deeper analysis on the three day theme, there is an excellent little article by Michael Brown at JewishRoots.net here . <A> There is also the foreshadowing in the book of Esther. <S> When Haman maneuvered the decree to kill the Jews, it was Nissan 14 ( <S> the day Jesus was sacrificed,) <S> Esther told the Jews to fast for three days with her before she went to the King. <S> No food or water, a fast to the death. <S> On the third day, she went to the king and their deliverance came. <S> There is another tie in with Esther in that Herod the Great died on Purim in 4 B.C shortly after commanding the murder of the innocents. <S> Some sources say that it was done at the same time he commanded the murder of his oldest son, which was 5 days before his own death. <S> Purim was the day chosen by lot by Haman for the annihilation of the Jews and they continue to observe the date and celebrate God's deliverance. <A> There are many, many specific prophecies in the OT about the Messiah, but none that state how long he would be in the grave. <S> If memory serves. <S> Doubtless some or all of the three-day periods were foreshadowings, but that will have been all they were.
|
The only prophecy specifically stating that Messiah would be "dead" for three days, came from Jesus himself, shortly before his passion, when he began to reveal to his disciples what was to befall him.
|
Arguments For/Against Spiritual Uses of Cannabis in Christianity? As I am aware most Christians regard the physical and spiritual effects of Cannabis as the same as use of alcohol for intoxication, and that its use is not permitted by their doctrines. Contrarily, some Christian denominations such as the Rastafari and Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church not only allow its use but strongly suggest its use for meditation and communication with God. Now, I realize that Cannabis use is a controversial topic for many devout Christians and many will not give it a second thought as to whether it has any place in worship. Through some research I have landed upon the following article regarding its use in the time of Jesus: Jesus 'healed using cannabis' . Cannabis is often referenced in the Bible as Calamus (hebrew 'קנה-בשם' or "kaneh bosm"), as in the following scripture: "Take thou also unto thee the chief spices, of flowing myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty, and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty" ( Exodus 30:23 ). "Vedan and Javan traded with yarn for thy wares; massive iron, cassia, and calamus , were among thy merchandise" ( Ezekiel 27:19 ). "Spikenard and saffron, calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices" ( Song of Songs 4:14 ). There is no debate that Cannabis was used in the time of the Hebrews and throughout the time of Jesus Christ. I am neither for nor against the use of Cannabis, I only wish to see arguments for/against its use as an aid in spiritual connection with God and developing a deeper understanding of his Word. Any insights on this? <Q> However, as you already noticed, the Bible does oppose drinking too much alcohol. <S> 9 <S> Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? ... nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. <S> ( 1 Cor 6:9–10 ) <S> Alcohol is an interesting subject because it shows that the Bible is not unreasonable or defensive. <S> On one hand, it assigns the destination of hell for all drunkards, yet a little wine it does not condemn. <S> It is natural therefore that there is no need to concern ourselves with this controversial debate among some scholars, whether there was some Cannabis in the Holy Oil, or whether there was not. <S> It has no bearing on real life. <S> The Holy Oil was simply used for anointing physical things in the temple services. <S> The oil was not smoked; it was just dabbed on the utensils used in the service. <S> It was not even allowed to be put "on men’s bodies". <S> It was also commanded that they "do not make any oil with the same formula." <S> ( Exodus 30:32 ) <S> So actually, if there was some Cannabis in the oil, the only bearing it would have on life in ancient Palestine, is that it would prevented a wider use of Cannabis. <S> The point here is that there is no evidence Cannabis was ever used in a manner that would have any effect on the mental state of the Hebrew worshipper. <S> If it did, the Bible would condemn it just as excessive alcohol was condemned. <S> The Bible looks on the subject with pity, rather than with anything else. <S> Basically the Bible say's one is to be pitied, if one allows mind-altering drugs to make them into a lazy fool. <S> 20 <S> Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, <S> 21 for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags. <S> ( Proverbs 23:20–21 , NIV) <S> Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise. <S> ( Proverbs 20:1 , NIV) <A> While there is little debate that the ancient Hebrews had access to cannabis, whether it was used is something which is very much subject to debate. <S> The LXX suggests that it was cannabis, while the most reliable Hebrew documents say calamus (which is an entirely separate species), other sources identify that Hebrew word with yet another plant from the ancient Near East. <S> As to whether it is an aid to relationship with God, well, here is another question: is there ever a time where a like action is recommended to a believer (in scripture or in Tradition)? <S> Alcohol is recommended for an upset stomach, but not only is excess alcohol condemned, but it is also something which the Nazerites (you know, like Sampson) were forbidden from consuming and it was expressly forbidden from those who would go an worship at the tent of meeting in Lev. <S> 10. <S> And, as a side note, my understanding is that cannabis is actually very effective at prohibiting the intellect and dulling the whit. <S> I find it very doubtful that it would lead to a clearer understanding of a passage than, say, fasting and meditating. <A> It has opened my own understanding of scripture and given me an insight into deeper feelings of being one with God, therefore we consider the plant an entheogen <S> not an "allucinogen". <S> I believe Cannabis is an incarnated spirit of consolation, a gift from God. <S> It is such a pity that it is prosecuted by the laws of (most parts of) this world. <S> I have faith it will be eventually freed from this prohibition. <S> That said, it is a powerful plant that needs to be treated with respect. <S> Always consacrate its use to God and use it for meditation, prayer or selfless service. <S> In this way it will bring you inspiration and clarity of thought. <S> If you use it all the time or in an inappropriate setting, you will not obtain the benefits but rather experience suffering, either by reduced energy, cloudy thinking and even axiety.
|
I belong to a church where we actively use Cannabis as a sacred plant that allows for a deeper understanding of ourselves and god. There is no Biblical argument for any food or drink of any type to 'aid in spiritual connection with God' or in 'developing a deeper understanding of his Word'.
|
Did Jesus wear tefillin? Tefillin 1 are boxes containing Torah verses, worn by Jews on the head and the upper arm, in accordance with instructions in Exodus 13:9, 13:16, and Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18. There is a great deal of commentary in the Talmud and elsewhere about exactly how this should be done. Jesus says that the Pharisees were ostentatious in their wearing of tefillin - Matthew 23:5 (NIV) reads: Everything they do is done for people to see: they make their phylacteries 1 wide and the tassels on their garments long. It seems from Mt 9:20, 14:36, Mk 6:56 that Jesus may have worn the same kind of fringes or tassels (tzitziyot), similarly commanded in the Law, albeit presumably his were not as long as those of the Pharisees. Would Jesus also have worn tefillin, and why/why not? If he did (and his disciples too?) then when did Christians stop? If he didn't, then was this unusual or scandalous? 1 Tefillin (תפילין), or totafot (טוטפת), or phylacteries (φυλακτήρια) <Q> In the first council of Jerusalem (In the Acts of the Apostles), we see an outline of the practices which the Jews did that they thought were reasonable to ask of the Gentiles. <S> The wearing of Tefillin is not among them. <S> In all likelihood after the destruction of Jerusalem and certainly after the Muslim incursions into the middle east, the number of culturally Jewish Christians was probably close to zero, and thus the practice of wearing Tefillin too would have disappeared. <S> Jesus may have worn Tefillin, we don't have a solid answer for that question. <S> It is reasonable to assume that he didn't given his criticism of the practice. <S> There are no records of him having worn them. <S> It also would have been redundant. <A> It's also worth considering that tefillin is not necessarily a biblical commandment for Jews anwyay. <S> There is argument about this in Judaism even today and some sects (Karaites) assert that the tefillin commandment is actually meant to be taken metaphorically. <S> They compare it to the "circumcision of the heart" which is obviously not literal. <S> It is possible that tefillin actually emerged in the time of Jesus and that he did not see it as a fulfillment of any real Biblical law. <A> We don't know, but I think it would be safe to presume that if Jesus in Mt 23.5 criticized teachers of the law and the Pharisees for wearing longer Tzitzit but still wore some (Mt 9:20, 14:36, Mk 6:56), we can presume he also wore Tefillin while criticizing teachers of the law and Pharisees for using wider ones.
|
There is no evidence of tefillin being worn previous to the Second Temple period.
|
From where did Cain get his wife? I want to know that where did Cain Son of Adam and Eve get his wife? As there was nobody except Adam and Eve after he killed Abel. <Q> As there was nobody except Adam and Eve after he killed Abel. <S> Some source of this claim? <S> Because Genesis says: <S> And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters (Gen 5, 4). <S> According to apocryphal Book of Jubilees, Cain's wife's name was Awan. <A> Adam and Eve: The Only Humans Without Parents? <S> Sin is said to come from one man (Ro 5:12). <S> Adam (and Eve) are pointed to as the "source" of sin/death. <S> The curse that God pronounced upon them in Ge 3 after they disobeyed God affects us because we are their descendants and will inevitably sin (Ro 3:23). <S> God didn't immediately make Eve in the same manner as he made complimentary genders for the other animals. <S> Ge 2 tells of how God showed Adam that he was alone before creating Eve. <S> If God created other humans who were not descendants of Adam and Eve, did he do the same for them? <S> Would he need to? <S> Would these others have been in the Garden of Eden, too? <S> When did they sin (presuming they did), and when were they expelled from the garden? <S> @Jomet, Typical readings of the text suggest that once created, every plant/animal reproduced in the manner in which God designed "after [its] kind. <S> " There's no other mention of God (re-)creating any of the creatures (or creating more than one pair). <S> While the text does not exclude the possibility, the mere fact that they are never mentioned (or referred to by other Biblical authors, who occasionally refer to elements of tradition for which there is no mention in the OT) is a reasonably strong suggestion that there weren't any others. <S> Attempting to make room for other humans who weren't descendants of Adam and Eve is not completely impossible, given what's written, but it certainly requires crafting some complicated stories to fit the facts if there were any. <S> It really sounds like the Biblical account leaves very little room for other people being created simultaneously. <A> From Genesis 4:14 ESV <S> 14 <S> Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. <S> I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” <S> This appears to suggest that there were "others" besides Adam and Eve. <S> While someone could take the story of Adam and Eve literally as the first humans, it doesn't imply that they were the only humans - just the only humans that we talk about. <S> Therefore Cain's wife MAY have been one of the "others". <S> Else there would have been an incestuous relationship: <S> Cain was the first born son of Adam and Eve, and Abel was the second. <S> In Genesis 4 we read how Cain kills his brother and is sent east of Eden where he marries a woman and “lays” with her. <S> Because Adam and Eve were the first humans – assuming ONLY humans – <S> Cain’s <S> wife was his sister – and, consequently, all of the early Biblical relationships were incestuous (with the exception of Adam and Eve).
|
Cain's wife was almost certainly a descendant of Adam and Eve (most likely their daughter).
|
What did Peter, James and John see on the Mount of Transfiguration? During a Bible discussion for seekers last week, one of them asked a question that led me to ponder this questions. As I understand it, the body of Moses (not Elijah since he never died) should still have been in the grave at the time of the Transfiguration of Jesus--and would be pretty decomposed at that point. However, his spirit (and probably souls) would have been in Paradise at that time--still separated from his body until the resurrection at the last day. And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. Matthew 17:1-3 ESV If that is true, then what exactly did Peter, James and John see on the Mount of Transfiguration? Did they see the spirit of Moses? Can our spirits be seen with physical eyes? Were the disciples perhaps allowed to see spiritual things as Elisha appears to have done in 2 Kings 6? When the servant of the man of God rose early in the morning and went out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was all around the city. And the servant said, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” He said, “Do not be afraid, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, please open his eyes that he may see.” So the Lord opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw, and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. 2 Kings 6:15-17 ESV As a side note, the rich man and Lazarus presumably "saw" each other as well. I'm looking for the Protestant understanding of this. <Q> In Jude 9, we read: <S> But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, “ The Lord rebuke you!” <S> This is often taught as the body of Moses was taken into heaven. <S> We also know that Elijah ascended in a fiery chariot in a whirlwind: <S> And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. <S> And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven <S> This would mean that the bodies of those mean would have been kept in heaven, so it could very well be that the two men were actually physically present. <A> Matthew 17:9 <S> As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus ordered them, "Tell no one about the vision until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." <A> Matthew's Gospel alone uses the Greek word ὅραμα to describe the Transfiguration. <S> This can be translated into English either as 'that which is seen' or as 'vision', leading to differences among different Bible translations - those that prefer 'what you have seen' include NIV, NLT, God's Word Translation and World English Bible, while most others use 'vision' to describe what they saw: <S> Matthew 17:9 <S> (KJV) <S> And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. <S> In Mark , the original New Testament Gospel, and in Luke , there is no suggestion that what the disciples saw was a vision. <S> In all three gospels, the disciples knew without hesitation that the two strangers to whom Jesus spoke were Moses and Elijah. <S> It would be pure speculation to say that Peter, James and John were granted the ability to see spirits on just this one occasion, especially as they were instructed to tell no one of their experience, and Peter even went on to deny Jesus. <S> It would probably also be speculation to say that they simply saw a vision, in spite of Matthew . <S> There is probably no single answer that would satisfy all Protestants. <A> Peter, James and John saw Moses, Elijah and Jesus in the Kingdom of God on the mt. <S> Of transfiguration. <S> Just look at the preceding verses where Jesus tells all disciples That some of them will not die before they see the Kingdom of God!
|
According to Matthew 17:9, what they saw was a vision, and not the physical bodies of Moses and Elijah.
|
Proverbs 14:4 - What does this mean? Proverbs 14:4 Where there are no oxen, the manger is empty, but from the strength of an ox come abundant harvests. I've been reading proverbs lately, but I haven't been able to understand this verse! What is the context that this applies to? Is there some kind of metaphor? I can understand the second clause "from the strength of an ox come abundant harvests". This part seems somewhat easily understood. But for the first part, why would you not want oxen in the first place? <Q> I usually take proverbs to be straightforward about earthly affairs. <S> They often fall under the theme of Ecclesiastes: <S> A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. <S> This too, I see, is from the hand of God (Ecclesiastes 2:24) <S> This proverb might be a word of wisdom to farmers, touching on laziness or reluctance to work in the grime of hard labor. <S> A framer might not like working hard with oxen because of the mess they make in the barn. <S> They would prefer the manger to be’ empty’ as indicating ‘cleanliness’ (or’ empty’ could signify poverty). <S> I lean to the cleanliness aspect of the barn resulting in poverty from the lack of harvest. <S> Accordingly, not only having to feed oxen and getting dirty oneself, but all the dung and waste that they would have had to clean up. <S> However, to really accept the work that we have been assigned by the ‘sweat of out brow’ and the kindness that God provisioned in man’s use of stronger animals, man can reap a good harvest. <S> A farmer, who just wants a tidy place to relax in, will have nothing but poverty. <A> <A> A proverb uses equal and opposite idealism to get its point across. <S> If no work is being done, then you have no fruits from labor. <S> If much work is being done, then you have much fruits from labor. <S> This was not to suggest that no work should be done. <S> The oxen was used in those days as a worker, and the manger being empty was showing what results from no work being done. <S> Proverbs 14:4 overall could be literally suggesting to the people of those days to purchase an oxen to enjoy in abundant harvests. <S> Or allegorically, start getting to work if you want abundant harvests, else wise your food storage will be empty. <A> Horses represent warfighting strength; oxen represent productivity strength. <S> God's Word is a deep ocean and seldom does a Proverb have one simple application. <S> While they speak of earthly affairs, they also speak of spiritual affairs. <S> We benefit from understanding them either way (or both ways). <S> Oxen are submissive animals used for their great physical strength. <S> One thing that helped me with this verse was to simply ask myself, "What does an ox represent? <S> Specifically, what is it that an ox does? <S> " <S> So the Proverb is saying (on one hand) that "without hard work, the feeding trough is empty, but an abundance of sustenance comes from hard work. <S> "It <S> also says (on the other hand) that "without a submissive attitude and diligent, HARD WORK (at studying Scripture, for example) we are spiritually famished, but diligent effort with a submissive spirit yields an abundance of spiritual growth (or production, if you will). <S> While reading through the Proverbs, I frequently find that one verse will teach me something new and different every time I revisit it. <S> For example, what I stated above is what I learned this time through. <S> When I read it again--say in 1 month--I will likely see it another way. <A> I agree with Jas with the exception that I want to point out that Proverbs 14:4 applies not only to ministers but all those who labor. <S> People make mistakes and cause problems but its through people that work is accomplished. <S> Every employee requires the labor of an employer. <S> The "perfect" employee will never work for you because you are not the "perfect" employer and vice versa. <S> God doesn't disregard people because they make messes, mistakes or sin. <S> He does "fire" people but it is a severe punishment for pride and rejecting correction. <S> Jas 5:4 <S> Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth. <S> Pro 29:1 <S> He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy. <A> God's way of saying, "Dung" Happens. <S> Even though we might have to, and it's never fun to clean up the poop, it's worth it in the long run because of how much good can come from the ox. <S> Much like how God uses adversary in our lives to produce a good outcome in the end. <S> Anyhow, that's my take on it. <S> Blessings <A> The stall will get dirty when you're active, involved and productive. <S> A nice clean stall simply meant someone wasn't doing anything. <A> Back in the day, an ox was very important to a farmer. <S> Maybe the only way to harvest. <S> This reminds me of Luke 10:2 niv <S> He told them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. <S> Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field. <S> A church needs people that will bring others otherwise it will not grow.
|
The simple meaning is to take care of your tools and work animals, because you'll regret it when they are not there. The answer to me is, "An ox does HARD WORK". Considering that at one time the ox was a farmer's "tractor", the gist of Prov 14:4 is: If you're doing nothing productive, you won't have any mistakes (or mess) to clean up.
|
Why are Protestants from the Church of England allowed to divorce? Since Paul said that divorce is forbidden, and Paul's letters are to be taken as word of God , why do some Protestant churches (Church of England for example) permit divorce? <Q> I think there are two basic answers to your question. <S> The first, and simple answer is: Many Protestant churches do not allow divorce. <S> Some congregations deny membership rights to people who are divorced. <S> The more direct, and also more complex, answer to your question is: Many protestant churches permit divorce because there is simply nothing they can do about it. <S> Divorce is a legal right in most places, regardless of whether the church allows it. <S> Many Catholics get divorced, too. <S> Although in the eyes of the Catholic church, such a divorce (and possible remarriage) is not recognized. <S> The consequences of divorce within the church are usually rather minimal. <S> A divorced person cannot remarry in a Catholic ceremony, for instance. <S> Many protestant churches and pastors will have similar restrictions, refusing to allow a ceremony of a divorced couple in their facilities, or refusing to officiate the ceremony for a divorced person. <S> However, beyond refusing to allow or officiate marriages, and possibly refusing membership rights to divorcees, there's very little any church <S> can do to prevent divorce. <S> The same is true of practically any practice that is considered sinful in the eyes of the church. <S> A church can only do so much in "discipline." <S> A second issue, beside the fact that churches are essentially powerless, is the concept of forgiveness. <A> As Matthew 19:18 states, Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. <S> But it was not this way from the beginning. <S> Jesus is clearly pointing out that divorce is, in fact, legal. <S> It is bad, but it is permissible. <S> To turn it into an iron-clad law is then much like laws concerning the Sabbath - Jesus values the individual over the institution, even an institution as great as marriage. <S> (Note: Not advocating, just explaining the rationale!) <A> I think that the biggest issue is the exception in Matthew 5:32: <S> But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication , causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. <S> The Catholic Church takes that phrase to mean, "except in the case of unlawfulness" (which is why there is an annulment process), but many take it as an "out." <S> Regardless of the merit of such an interpretation, it seems that that "escape clause" has been used a bit more than it should be.
|
Many churches are willing to forgive pass transgressions such as divorce, especially if they happened prior to conversion.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.