source
stringlengths 620
29.3k
| target
stringlengths 12
1.24k
|
|---|---|
Does any church follow the Apostolic Tradition of Baptism ‘in the nude’, or was that never the tradition? The Apostolic Tradition was the work of Hippolytus, written somewhere between 215 and 400 AD. Recent scholars seem to take the later date ( source ). The whole writing can be found here: Apostolic Tradition . Among the 'oddities' of this Tradition, seems to be that people were baptized 'nude', which I assume means that only deaconesses were overseeing the baptism of woman. Am I reading this correctly, or not? 21 At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. 2When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water. 3Then they shall take off all their clothes. 4The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or someone else from their family. 5After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any foreign object with themselves down into the water. (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition ) <Q> I think the deaconess assumption is unsound and contradicted: 14He shall then baptize each of them once, laying his hand upon each of their heads. <S> 15Then he shall ask, "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose on the third day living from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, the one coming to judge the living and the dead?" <S> 16When each has answered, "I believe," he shall baptize a second time. <S> 17Then he shall ask, "Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the Holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh? <S> " 18Then each being baptized shall answer, "I believe. <S> " And thus let him baptize the third time. <S> Now, it could just be translation (and a lack of a gender-neutral single pronoun), but that is a lot of "he". <S> It continues in the same tone for quite some time. <S> Note that is also seems to describe all the participants present at once, not individually. <S> There is nothing improper in this nakedness. <S> It is not associated with any indecent act, humiliation, or lack of basic needs. <S> Also keep in mind: this is ancient Rome. <S> Their views on nudity could be quite different from yours. <A> This is an old question, but I'll answer anyway. <S> The Orthodox Christian Church baptizes in the nude because most baptisms are performed on very young (less than 1 year old) babies. <S> The children are nude and fully immersed. <S> The service is pretty much exactly as you'd see in Hippolytus. <S> Adults who are baptized are permitted to wear a robe or bathing suit for the sake of modesty. <A> Baptism in the early church was modeled after the Mikvah immersions of Judaism. <S> The Mikvahs were done in the nude. <S> I believe that the baptism of John the Baptist was very similar to the Mikvah immersions. <S> The difference was that (1) <S> All people now had to immersed (not just proselytes to Judaism), (2) <S> this immersion was in the nude and was an initiation into the Kingdom of God. <S> (3) <S> The early church carried on nude baptism till about the fourth century AD (4) <S> Public baths were in the major cities, and there was a different idea about nudity than the West has. <S> (5) <S> Luther accepted the nude immersion baptism of the Saxons, The Orthodox church still baptizes in the nude (mostly children. <S> adults generally wear bathing suits). <S> At Epiphany each year, many Russians rededicate their lives and affirm their original baptism. <S> Many of these people are nude, and some do wear bathing suits. <S> Some Christian Naturist churches have nude baptism today. <S> I believe it is a viable option for the modern church, as it reenacts the rebirth of a person to the Kingdom of God in a very powerful way. <S> (Personal note: <S> I am not a naturist. <S> As an ordained minister with an M.Div. degree, I have studied baptism for many years. <S> These are my conclusions. <S> God bless you.) <S> Endnotes: [1] John Schoenhiet, THE HISTORY AND AND DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. <S> [2] Lauren Markoe, "What is the Mikva all about?", WASHINGTON POST. <S> [3] www.catholic.com, "Did people understand John the Baptist saying "Repent and be baptized"? " <S> [4] Maimonides, "Three requirements for converts to Judaism: Circumcision, baptism in living water, and sacrifice." <S> [5] George E.Rice,"Baptism in the Early Church", WWW.MINISTRYMAGAZNE.ORG . <S> [6] <S> "Baths and bathing as an ancient Roman", depts.Washington.edu ; [7] Roy Bowen Ward, "Women in Roman Baths", www.justor.org . <S> [8] John T. Christian, THE BAPTISTS. <S> [9] Robin M. Jensen, BAPTISMAL IMAGERY IN EARLYCHRISTIANITY: RITUAL,IMAGERY AND THEOLOGICAL. <S> [10]Ellen Barry, "Russians Strengthen their Faith and Tradition with an Icy Water Plunge", www.newyorktimes.com. <S> [11] Jim CUnningham, NUDITY AND CHRISTIANITY. <A> I've noticed that the question was published a lot of years ago, but still wanted to share that there are Orthodox Icons that depict Jesus Christ being Baptised naked. . <S> Also in Greece, among some priests, there is still the Tradition (it was kept Patristicaly) of baptising the adults totally naked. <S> As it was explained by a Theologist, in Ancient Church when women were to receive the Baptism, they had deaconesses which would participate at the Baptism and help. <S> Nowadays there are no Deaconesses, so the Priest provides the Baptism with the help of a Godmother, that will be in charge of spreading oil in the baptised's body, before the thrice-immersion, and also will help cleaning all the body, after the immersion. <S> This was closed to other people, only the priest and deacon/deaconess could be present. <A> I'm not aware of any mainstream churches that baptize adults while they are nude, though when I lived in Mexico the churches often didn't have facilities to perform baptisms in the church and would have these ceremonies at the river. <S> When this occurred the men and boys often wore only a pair of brief shorts. <S> This, of course, was hardly nude baptism. <S> In the Reformation, on the other hand, one of the complaints against the Anabaptists was that they only baptized adults. <S> The Anabaptists, on the other hand, were baptizing adults, men and women both, and these baptisms were initially done as they had always been done--naked. <A> There is plenty of early Christian Art which clearly displays both Jesus and the early Christians as baptizing people nude. <S> Also, in the history or Christianity, there are scattered instances of nude baptism, among the Adamites and Anabaptist groups. <S> Perhaps this is one reason that the Anabaptists were so severely persecuted for their adoption of adult or believer's baptism? <S> Then there are the histories of Quakers and Doukhober's, two offspring Christian groups who practiced going "naked as a sign". <S> So there are both artifacts and historical evidence that the followers of Jesus practiced nude baptism as the norm, and as a means of genuine spiritual protest.
|
At the time all baptisms were done in the nude, but usually these were infant baptisms.
|
For what purpose were the "Chosen People" chosen? I have a good friend who is Jewish, and he often refers to being one of the "Chosen People". I understand that God "chose" Abraham and his descendants. With a New Testament perspective, as the answer to this question indicates, Christians are "chosen people" as well. However, for what specific purpose were Abraham and his descendants chosen ? Being chosen seems to have no meaning unless we know the reason and purpose for which they were chosen. So, that's my question. <Q> From Scripture, they are chosen to do a number of things, for several reasons, all of which serve God's purpose. <S> They were chosen to produce the Messiah. <S> They were chosen to demonstrate God's power, as demonstrated in his dealings with Egypt, and throughout Scripture. <S> They were chosen to be the example, to teach us about God's nature. <S> We learn almost everything we know about God through His dealings with His chosen people His attributes and nature <S> His attitude toward sin <S> We learn that he blesses those who love and obey Him, and judges those who rebel, and grants forgiveness when His people repent, as seen throughout the history books. <S> (Kings, judges <S> I'm sure the list could go on and on. <A> The term chosen can also be interpreted as favored . <S> In the most general sense, the seed of Abraham is chosen in the sense that Christ would come through Abraham's lineage. <S> Also, the Priesthood, or the authority to act in God's name on earth, would be passed down through the descendents of Abraham: Abraham 2:9 <S> And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee above measure, and make thy name great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations; <S> Any follower of Christ (regardless of lineage) is considered Abraham's seed by adoption, which allows those who are not direct descendants of Abraham to hold the Priesthood. <S> Galations 3:29 <S> And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. <A> As the other answers suggest, there are lots of reasons why God has a chosen people . <S> Just want to add few points. <S> Lets go back to the creation where God decided or chose to create heaven an earth. <S> He also chose to create humanity to populate the earth. <S> And then begins a privileged relationship between God and his creation. <S> In this relation was a covenant between God and Man. <S> But this relationship is broken by sin and so is the covenant. <S> As time goes, the population on earth increases along with deviant behaviors. <S> I believe God didn't want His first intention in creation to be lost. <S> So He chose a man with whom He would have a covenant as Genesis 12 says: The Lord had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you” <S> “I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. <S> I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” <S> And through that chosen person, God would reach out to the entire humanity. <S> Jesus is the finalization of God's purpose, which is to have a new covenant with not only His chosen people (Israel) but to all humanity, which is resumed by John 3:16 - 17 <S> For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, so that whoever believes in Him, should not perish but have everlasting life. <S> For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him <S> So through Abraham, God intended to restore His covenant with His creation. <A> There's a story from the Oral Torah which I believe adds an interesting element to this idea of God having "chosen" or "favored" one particular people. <S> http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_abrahamidols.htm <S> ... when Abraham was still a young child, he realized that idol worship was nothing but foolishness. <S> To make his point, one day, when Abraham was asked to watch the store, he took a hammer and smashed all the idols - except for the largest. <S> His father came home aghast. <S> " <S> What happened?!" he shouted. <S> "It was amazing, Dad," replied Abraham. <S> "The idols all got into a fight and the biggest idol won!" <S> The idea, of course, was to show his father how ridiculous it is to <S> ascribe power to such idols!There was no way for his father to respond; deep down he knew that Abraham had tuned into a deeper truth. <S> Here, in a sense, we have Abraham "choosing" God. <S> Or, if you will, cooperating with God's Will rather than the more common idea of God choosing/electing/predestining Abraham. <S> It's a remarkable parallel to the synergism/monergism debate. <S> IMO, the Covenant makes more sense in this light than in the arbitrary selection by God of one particular tribe.
|
They were chosen to record Scripture
|
What practical effect do stock worship phrases, like "God be magnified", have? In our worship to God many times we utter phrases like "God I magnify you" or "God be magnified". I used to wonder, is God really magnified by saying those words? How can we really magnify God or have him magnified? <Q> Clearly, those phrases can't mean that we have the ability to alter God in any way. <S> I don't think that the definition of "magnify God" in these phrases means to actually make God "bigger" or "greater". <S> I understand them to mean "Make God more prominent in my life, our culture, etc." <S> Magnification doesn't make objects bigger, it alters our perception of an object, making it appear bigger to us. <S> Similarly, magnifying God doesn't make Him bigger, it means He becomes more prominent to us. <S> The phrase " <S> God, I magnify you" simply means "I am making you greater (more important) in my life, and putting you first, because you are my focus and priority." <A> They're probably just taking this verse literally: <S> Psalm 70:4 <S> KJV <S> Let all those that seek thee rejoice and be glad in thee: and let such as love thy salvation say continually, "Let God be magnified" . <S> Though more modern translations usually replace "Let God be magnified" with "God is great!". <S> It's simply a statement of praise meant to worship the Lord. <S> So then your question, are we really magnifying God by saying these things? <S> If by magnifying you mean worshiping then, if our hearts are sincere, yes we are! <S> But if you mean are we literally magnifying him, making him bigger, stronger, etc... then most certainly not. <S> God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. <A> There are not enough words to describe the greatness of God. <S> We are bringing Him to the fore front of our consciousness making everything in our life less significant at the time of worship.
|
When we say "God be magnified" we are saying we are focusing on Him and only Him in our moment of worship.
|
How did Peter recognize Elijah and Moses? Matthew 17:3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. 4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” I am wondering how Peter recognized that the men were Elijah and Moses? Photographs and portraits didn't exist back in those days. If they did, Peter being a fisherman wouldn't have been to school to see them. And I doubt Moses and Elijah began their conversation by saying - "Hello Jesus, I am Elijah and this is my buddy Moses." So how would Peter know it was Elijah standing there? <Q> Short Answer: <S> We don't know. <S> Some possibilities: <S> There was some sort of heavenly announcement, similar to the voice of the Father at Jesus' baptism ( reference ) Jesus explained it to them, as He was accustomed to having to do for them. <S> (Keep in mind that there is a lot of stuff that wasn't recorded in Scripture!) <S> ( reference ) <S> They recognized it by divine illumination, similar to Peter's recognition of who Jesus really was ( reference ) Prior to Peter referencing them by name, it says (in verse 3) that Jesus was talking with them. <S> My money is on the last one, since that's the only one that draws clues from the passage itself, but as I said, we really don't know for sure. <A> Maybe not in so many words, but that's probably exactly what happened: they introduced themselves, or someone else (an angel not mentioned in the text, the voice of God, etc) introduced them. <S> Seeing as how Peter & co lived centuries before the development of photography, and Elijah and Moses centuries before them, and given the strong cultural prohibitions on creating likenesses of people, such as statues, that's the only reasonable way they would have had to recognize a historical figure. <A> To be sure, Peter did not have the pictures or photographs of Moses and Elijah to compare them to. <S> Since Peter recognizing them on his own was an impossible task, he could not have done so without divine help. <S> On another occasion, Peter recognized a greater Person than Moses and Elijah. <S> In Matthew Chapter 16, Jesus asked His disciples who they thought him to be: <S> He saith unto them, "But <S> whom say ye that I am?" <S> And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." <S> And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou,Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. <S> (vv. 15-17). <S> Peter got it right while others didn't. <S> He easily identified who Jesus was--"the Son of the Living God" because he had heavenly help. <S> The heavenly Father revealed it to him! <S> Similarly, Peter got it right again in identifying Moses and Elijah because the Father revealed it to him through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. <S> The same Peter said that it is the Holy Spirit who reveals things to God's people. <S> He wrote:Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21). <A> I think the answer is in Luke 9:33. <S> Peter says, "Lord, it is good for us to be here if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee one for Moses, and one for Elijah” NOT KNOWING WHAT HE SAID." <S> Peter reveals it but his words are inspired and he is unaware of what he is saying. <S> Much as he spoke in other languages by inspiration on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4). <A> Interesting question with an interesting answer. <S> How did Peter know Elijah and Moses at the transfiguration ? <S> Among other places Malachi had prophesied that Elijah would appear before the coming of the Lord. <S> Jesus picks up this same prophecy and points to John the Baptist as the fulfillment. <S> And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. <S> Mal 4:6 <S> In another place, Jesus speaks of <S> And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. <S> For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. <S> Mat 11:13-14 <S> So, what about the transfiguration? <S> And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. <S> Mat 17:3 <S> Moses represented the Law and Elijah (Elias) the prophets. <S> Peter knew this. <S> They were to continue until Christ. <S> They weren't to be abolished, but fulfilled. <S> Christ was the end of the Law and the fulfillment of the prophecies. <S> The point of the transfiguration is Peter correctly understood the two figures as the Law and Prophets, but along with Christ mistakenly wanted to maintain that order; he wanted to build three tabernacles as if they would be permanent fixtures. <S> God instead opens the heavens and speaks to them and corrects them. <S> While he [Peter] yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. <S> Listen to Jesus Christ. <S> He alone remains, having fulfilled all that Moses (law) and Elijah (prophets) had required. <A> Notice how the transfiguration is described a few verses later: <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> This was not an actual appearance by Elijah and Moses, who were dead, buried, and unconscious. <S> It was a "vision". <S> The same Greek word "ὅραμα" (horama) was used elsewhere ( <S> e.g. Peter's vision of the unclean animals ) to describe similar dream-like situations, not actual events. <S> When one dreams or experiences a vision, one doesn't need to be explicitly told who people are, one simply knows.
|
Perhaps Jesus called them by name and Peter overheard.
|
Do Calvinists believe that it is possible to be saved without believing the doctrine of predestination? From a Calvinist theological view, is it possible for God to predestine that XYZ be saved, but for XYZ to reject the doctrine of predestination throughout his or her life? <Q> All that is required to be considered 'predestined' in the eyes of men, is that a person believes in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. <S> Anyone who truly 'confesses Christ' in this sense will be saved, regardless of how clear, or confused they may be on the surrounding doctrines of their salvation. <S> If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. <S> 10 <S> For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. <S> 11 <S> As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” <S> 12 <S> For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile <S> —the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” <S> (NIV Romans 10:9-13) <S> Knowing how Calvinists leaders have thought through history, I can assure you if someone added a requirement like 'faith in the doctrine of predestination' to be needed in addition to 'faith in Christ' they would have denounced it. <S> It is a 'person' who died for our sin that we must put our faith in, not a textbook statement phrased by church leaders. <A> Yes, absolutely. <S> This is a common point of confusion for people who haven't been exposed to much Reformed theology, so let me try to state this briefly and directly. <S> The Calvinistic doctrine of Predestination fits into a larger framework of doctrines, all built on scripture and playing off of each-other. <S> If you try to transplant the doctrines like pieces from a puzzle and fit them into a different puzzle, they will stand out and look wrong. <S> In particular, our understanding of Predestination goes hand in hand with our understanding of salvation as a grace bestowed upon us by God. <S> Just like we believe salvation cannot be earned through doing good works, we believe that it cannot be merited by believing the most sound doctrine. <S> Quite simply this means that even people who actually hold some WRONG beliefs about God and salvation are going to be saved just because God wills it to be so. <S> On the flip side, we do believe that it pleases God for us to know how deeply we are indebted to his grace and that the closer we come to holding and promoting sound doctrine the more we will be transformed to be like him. <S> While someone who insists on believing that it was their personal choice to follow God may well be saved by God's grace, an area of their life is held hostage to a kind of pride that thinks they accomplished something. <S> One who deeply understands that they did not merit their salvation through their own actions or beliefs is setting the stage for a more humble and thankful life of grateful service. <S> In other words, belief in the doctrine of Predestination isn't necessary for salvation, but we do believe it serves a purpose in the life of a believer. <A> This perhaps isn't a typical answer to the question, but it does provide the opinion of one well-known Calvinist, George Whitefield . <S> Whitefield was once asked if he expected to see his Arminian friend John Wesley in heaven. <S> He replied: <S> I fear not, for he will be so near the eternal throne <S> and we at such a distance, we shall hardly get sight of him. <S> Cited in W. Wiersbe, Wycliffe Handbook of Preaching and Preachers , Moody Press, 1984, p. 255.
|
Without any question any person who never believes in predestination can still be considered a saved and regenerate predestined Christian by a Calvinist.
|
Has the Roman Catholic Church ever issued an official response to the accusations of the Reformers? I just started reading Luther's Tabletalk , and the preface , written by Dr. John Aurifaber in 1569, roundly condemns the Roman Catholic Church, presenting an analogy which compares Christians' "servitude" under the ecclesiastical and political authority imposed by the Church of Rome prior to the 16th century with the Israelites' captivity in ancient Egypt. Over the course of several pages, Aurifaber uses striking language to enumerate the specific flaws that many Reformers claimed were evident in the Papal system, and he echoes Luther's oft-heard refrain which equated the Pope with the antichrist described in the First Epistle of the Apostle John, and the "man of lawlessness" described in Paul's prophesies in Second Thessalonians. We have heard these condemnations of, and accusations against the Church of Rome repeated by countless Protestant leaders and teachers in every intervening century. Excepting things like Luther's Papal Bull and the Diet of Worms, which were intended to accomplish other ends, has the Roman Catholic Church ever issued an official response to / defense against the accusations of the Reformers, such as those recounted by Dr. Aurifaber in his preface to Luther's Tabletalk ? <Q> The only response I know of it <S> the counter-reformation amount <S> the Catholics : <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Reformation . <S> period of Catholic revival beginning with the Council of Trent (1545–1563) and ending at the close of the Thirty Years' War, 1648 which is sometimes considered a response to the Protestant Reformation. <S> The Counter-Reformation was a comprehensive effort, composed of four major elements: Ecclesiastical or structural reconfiguration <S> Religious orders <S> Spiritual movements <S> Political dimensions <A> The closest thing you'll find is the Council of Trent, the catechism which resulted from it and the structural reforms shortly thereafter. <S> But, for the most part, those addressed what were considered abuses within the Church and not the criticisms of the reformers. <S> To be honest, it is relatively normal for breakaway groups to indulge in fairly vehement polemic against the Catholic Church (a practice which dates back to the Gnostics in the second century). <A> Catholic Professor Geoffrey Saint-Clair, from Catholic Dossier Magazine (September/October 2001), writes: Success or failure often depends on leadership—what leaders do or fail to do. <S> When it comes to the Reformation, the lion’s share of the blame rests squarely with the hierarchy, including the papacy. <S> Or at least so said Pope Adrian VI, who in 1523 sent his legate to confess the following before the German princes gathered in Nuremberg: <S> “We freely acknowledge that God has allowed this chastisement to come upon His Church because of the sins of men and especially because of the sins of priests and prelates . <S> . . <S> We know well that for many years much that must be regarded with horror has come to pass in this Holy See: abuses in spiritual matters, transgressions against the Commandments; indeed, that everything has been gravely perverted” (quoted in K. Adam, One and Holy, p. 97). <S> Medieval papal scandals, including the so-called Babylonian Captivity of the Church and the Great Western Schism, in which there were first two, then three, claimants to the papal office, brought derision upon the papacy, as did scandalous living and nepotism. <S> Furthermore, the popes themselves failed to reform the Church, even when they were in a position to do so. <S> And when the Reformation eventually broke out, the papacy failed to understand the challenge to the Church and failed to act quickly to address the problems that gave rise to it. <S> At the same time, when the Church finally did get around to reform, the papacy helped lead the way. <A> There are many responses being made such as Colloquy at Regernsburg in 1541 , Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in 1994 , and lately together with Evangelicals in Evangelicals and Catholics Together in 1994 . <S> The main purpose of this response is to bridge an ecumenical reconciliation between Catholic and Protestant groups. <S> Council of Trent is the official Catholic position but it can't be read in isolation apart from Vatican I, Vatican II, and recent ecumenical dialogues. <S> The fundamental issue that still dividing Protestant groups and Catholic is the doctrine of Justification. <S> For Protestant groups, justification and sanctification must be distinguished without being separated. <S> While Catholic without confusing faith and works maintain that the two are united. <S> This differences is similar to that which lead into Formula of Union between St. Cyril and John of Antioch, where the two were reconciled over one nature vs two natures Christology. <S> Similarly the issue about the relationship between imputative alien righteousness and transformative acts of the Holy Spirit in believers' life are not that different. <S> Reconciliation is not impossible, we're still on a journey from conflict to communion .
|
Often the Church's official response is to simply clarify the points of doctrine which were in dispute and move on.
|
Does the Dome of the Rock have any importance to Christianity? The Dome of the Rock is right beside Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, Israel. Is it considered a sacred place in Christianity? If so, in what way? <Q> From Wikipedia : <S> The Dome of the Rock is located at the visual center of a platform known as the Temple Mount. <S> It was constructed on the site of the Second Jewish Temple, which was destroyed during the Roman Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. <S> In 637 CE, Jerusalem surrendered to the Rashidun Caliphate army during the Muslim conquest of Syria. <S> Christianity,of course, has its roots in Judaism, and as the site of the original Jewish Temple, it would have historical significance, as well as being recognized as a Holy site, reserved for Israel, God's chosen people. <S> Also, according to some of the end-time scenarios , the Antichrist will make some deal that will allow the temple to be rebuilt, and this will mark the beginning of the Great Tribulation. <A> I'd say that the site itself is important but the Dome of Rock is not. <S> This site is believed to be the place where Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac. <S> But this is only a Jewish tradition and hence not all Christians would agree with its importance. <S> The Dome contains the following inscription (also from Wikipedia) - <S> "So peace is upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!" <S> 34. <S> Such is Jesus, son of Mary. <S> It is a statement of truth, about which they doubt. <S> 35. <S> It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. <S> Glory be to Him! <S> when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is. <S> This of course would not be well received by most Christians. <S> So I don't think that the Dome is important to Christianity. <A> In addition to it's location as the site of the original Temple, and the place where Abraham almost sacrificed Isaac, the Dome of the Rock does still play in Christianity today. <S> First of all, the Crusaders thought it was Solomon's Temple, so they let it stand. <S> More importantly today, however, many evangelicals see the Dome of the Rock in End Times prophecy. <S> Many dispensationalists believe that in order for Jesus to return, the Temple must be rebuilt. <S> Because the Dome of the Rock is where the Temple was, many Evangelicals believe that the Dome of the Rock must be destroyed in order to usher in the End of Days. <S> (No, no Mehdi here <S> , we don't believe it should be destroyed, just that it will.) <S> This particular understanding has led to many attacks on the Dome of the Rock over the years, leading psychologists to coin an ideas called Jerusalem Syndrome in which self-appointed Messiahs will sometimes take it upon themselves to be this agent of the End Times coming.
|
The Dome on the Rock itself is not significant to Christianity or Judaism, other than that it's a shrine to another god, from another religion, that exists on the property where the temple should be.
|
Is Salvation a State Function? Does the salvation of a believer depend on the present state of her faith or are the different life transitions taken into account? Suppose a believer leads a life of faith in Christ. At the end of her life she falls away for some reason, say persecution. Is she saved? There are verses that seem to support both. Only the end matters – Matt 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. The life matters – Hebrews 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister. So is salvation a state function or a path function? <Q> Your question presupposed that salvation is acted out by the believer. <S> Coming at it from a reformed/calvanistic point of view here is out I would answer it. <S> Salvation starts by God in eternity past through his election. <S> Here is how Wayne Grudem describe election in is book Systematic Theology chapter 32 . <S> (Sorry could not get a direct link to the page) <S> Then if God calls those who will be save, then the believer receive the gift of salvation. <S> In God eye, the believer is already in heaven. <S> Then salvation is an act of God, and also God is the one responsible for the calling and the keeping on the path of faith. <S> Here is how Romans present this thought: For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. <S> And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. <S> (Romans 8.29-30) <S> ESV <S> God chooses, the christian respond in faith and God keeps the believer during all the life of the believer. <S> Salvation is then a state matter. <S> Although the end matter as well, a Christian is called to perseverance in his faith. <S> If he was to fall he would be sinning, not loosing is salvation. <S> Because God choosed the believer before any good work or any faith on his part. <S> The sinning does not rob salvation, but his joy , his peace and different gifts. <S> In 1 Jonh one of the test of a true christian is his walk in the light. <S> If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. <S> But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. <S> (1 john 1.6-7) ESV <S> In a way salvation is a path, but not unto salvation but unto holiness. <A> If you're free to convert even unto the last moment (ala Constantine, Oscar Wilde, John Wayne etc. <S> ad. <S> infinitum), then you must also be free to "de-vert" at the last moment, assuming you are free. <S> Some say that suicides are destined for hell for this reason, because the moral choice they took at their last moment was one of despair (which is an offense against the Holy Spirit) or presumption (which is an offense against the Holy Spirit). <S> But, the modern loving Church has taken in to consideration advances in psychology which make it clear that some actions are not of our own freewill and if no free choice is made in those actions, then we do not bear the responsibility for those actions. <S> Hopefully, as David Laberge points out, God will keep you a believer all your life. <S> If you vacillate between belief and unbelief, it's a sign that you need to get deeper with your faith (prayer and Lectio Devina and retreats can help with this). <S> It certainly is possible to completely dump the religion - don't do this! <A> From the Baptist point of view, which holds to: Salvation by Grace through Faith alone, apart from "works" Eternal Security The indwelling of the Holy Spirit for all believers <S> It is both. <S> Salvation is a one-time event that occurs the moment one realizes their lost state, repents, and puts their faith in Christ for salvation. <S> (Salvation by Grace through faith) <S> Once the above has occurred, the person is saved, in the state of salvation. <S> (Eternally secure) <S> Baptist statement on salvation <S> The result is God's gift of salvation being given freely; a gift that can neither be revoked, taken back, or forfeited. <A> Salvation is a relationship issue. <S> You are saved based on your relationship to Jesus Christ. <S> You ask about the time near the end of a life. <S> In a normal interpersonal relationship between two human beings, there will be ups and downs. <S> It's the strength of the relationship that keeps the two persons together, even through disagreements and conflict. <S> I believe the same principle applies to your relationship with Christ. <S> In our relationship with God, approaching the end of life is often a source of conflict for the person in question. <S> Facing death may cause the person to question some things they have long held. <S> If a person is having struggles coming to grips with something at the end of their lifespan that causes them conflict in their relationship with Christ, it's the strength of the relationship that will matter, even if they pass on while in conflict. <S> Did they have the kind of relationship that would continue through that conflict, or had they completely burned their bridges? <S> Was there still a meaningful relationship there? <S> God knows.
|
Salvation is a point of time experience where a sinner goes to God in prayer, asks forgiveness for sin, states his/her faith in the completed work of Christ on the cross, and places faith in the resurrected Saviour.
|
How does a Christian justify free thinking? What types of Christianity promote free thinking or thinking for yourself? The more I go to church, the more I feel guilty for free thinking and feel I should be passive to let the Holy Spirit guide me (but I find it is the will of other men that becomes bigger). So what does Christianity say about free thinking? How and when are we not supposed to think freely? EDIT What if after deep prayer and meditation and critical thinking, my interpretation of a Biblical concept is different than the logical understanding of it, held by the majority \? <Q> Thinking is actually commendable and encouraged for Christians. <S> In Thessalonica, Paul's witness is recorded as follows: <S> And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ.” <S> Acts 17:2-3 <S> So, Paul's method was to reason and logically demonstrate the truthfulness of the Gospel. <S> After Thessalonica Paul traveled to Berea, who were commended by Luke as follows: <S> Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. <S> Acts 17:11 ESV <S> The Bereans were commended for doing their research, considering what Paul was saying, and searching the Scriptures to verify the truthfulness of Paul's claims. <S> So, thinking was commended. <S> Throughout Scripture, God asks us to think, to consider, to contemplate. <S> Proverbs is full of exhortations to the many who makes wise decisions. <S> I have heard that the book of Romans apparently used to be used in Law Schools in America to demonstrate how to construct a logical argument. <S> It invites the skeptic, the critic, and the scoffer to ponder. <S> Many of such people have done so and come to faith in Christ, notably Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel, among many others. <A> I'm not sure what you mean by "free thinking" but you make it sound like a combination of "whatever I feel like" and "things I shouldn't be thinking about". <S> We are always free in our thoughts (constrained by our experiences, previous choices, mental faculties, education, etc) but just because we are free to think about anything <S> doesn't mean we should let our minds wander hither and thither just for freedom's sake. <S> The thoughts that you dwell upon do have an effect on you and your actions so it is always profitable to think on wholesome things over vile things. <S> Anger, lust, pride... <S> these are all harmful things that begin as a seed of thought. <S> 2 Corinthians 10:5 <S> We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up againstthe knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make itobedient to Christ. <S> It takes conscious effort to discern the Holy Spirit's guidance. <S> You don't become a robot waiting for instructions. <A> Our God is a God of reason who gave us the facilities to critically think about all things. <S> To disallow the use of a gift God gave us is a form of insult to the giver. <S> Indeed, many the Enlightenment scientists understood the purpose of study and reason to be the glorification of God and thankfulness for the facilities he gave us. <A> I don't know what you mean by 'free thinking' but God wishes us to engage our brain in our Christianity. <S> Romans <S> 12:2 - Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect <S> It's quite clear that our intellectual faculties, such as they may be, are an integral part of our growing in faith.
|
Christianity proclaims itself as a logical, rational, convincing truth.
|
According to the Bible, is it a sin to marry a non-virgin? According to the Bible, is it a sin to marry someone who is not a virgin? For the purpose of this question, lets exclude dealing with the following scenarios: the special cases of somebody not being a virgin due to the death of their spouse. the practical difficulty of being able to figure out if somebody is a virgin. (See Hymenorrhaphy ) the practical difficulties of meeting people who avoid premartial sex in this modern age. I'd like to hear answers that present a Biblical basis for whether or not the act itself is a sin rather than anything from modern cultural perspective. <Q> Why would it be a sin to marry non-virgin? <S> Jesus said that nothing from outside (e.g. not washing of hands before eating) defiles a man but what comes from the heart. <S> Not being a virgin does not make the person impure or a sinner. <S> If the person is a Christian <S> I don't think it would be a sin to marry such person. <S> It would be practical love if a Christian marries a non-virgin even after having the knowledge beforehand. <S> In the Bible, God asked Hosea to marry an harlot and have children with her. <S> This did not turn Hosea to a sinner. <S> Whatever God declares pure is pure. <S> If any man is in christ, old things have passed away and everything is new. <S> If she has repented from her old ways then it is ok. <S> We should show love to them and accept them because no matter what we do, God accept them. <A> I challenge your statement that "meeting people who avoid premarital sex in this modern age" is difficult in practice. <S> Today social networks allow you to find people according to such criteria. <S> Additionally, I perceive the culture to be more morally polarized. <S> In other words, there is less incentive to feign virginity, making it easier to discern who holds themselves to the standard. <S> The simple answer to your question is no. <S> There is no scripture forbidding marriage to non-virgins. <S> However, there is of plenty scripture forbidding sexual relations of married people with others. <S> It's called adultery. <S> Similarly, sexual relations outside of marriage is fornication. <S> Both adultery and fornication are forbidden, but not marrying a non-virgin. <S> A wife is bound as long as her husband is living. <S> But if her husbanddies, she is free to be married to anyone she wants—only in the Lord.(HCSB 1 Cor. <S> 7:39) <S> For example, a married woman is legally bound to her husband while helives. <S> But if her husband dies, she is released from the law regardingthe husband. <S> (HCSB Romans 7:2) <A> Not only is it not a sin to marry someone who is not a virgin, it is sometimes commanded . <S> In Old Testament times, if a husband dies then the brother of the husband has a right - sometimes duty - to marry the widow. <A> But it is not more holy to marry someone that is a virgin. <S> Here is my preoccupation with the question. <S> Mariage is the union of one sinner to another. <S> Where both party convenant with one other to be faithful all the way to the end to the other. <S> The problem lies when young men and women view a possible husband or women as less attractive because of that sin, as if that sin was bigger then any other sins. <S> There is no second class christians. <S> My heart does out to the young ones who have committed sexual sin before knowing Christ and are now living to please Him or to does who fell in this area. <S> They do get looked down by some christian virgin and that is plain old hypocrisy. <S> I did not covert the consequences that are brought in the marriage in consequence of that sin, but on the other hand, all sins bring consequences in the marriage.
|
It is not sinful to marry someone who is not a virgin.
|
Where did the religious symbol of the 'halo' come from? I once read somewhere that the 'halo' was inherited by Christianity from ancient worshippers of the Sun. However, although this seems believable I never bothered to verify its historic credibility - something I suppose would not be that difficult, one way or the other. It does make me wonder though, 'Where does the halo originate, or similarly the lights behind the portraits of 'holy' men in art, etc'? I am specifically wondering at what point in history and for what meaning was the 'halo' 'first' used by Christians and was it 'new' or 'borrowed from pagan practice'? I am not interested if it should, or should not be used. <Q> First you should read The Wikipedia article on the halo to get a good idea of the use of the halo in the past. <S> You will see that it was indeed used by the Romans and possibly the Greeks as well as in Asian art. <S> Wikipedia states (without citation) that it was first used in Christian art around the 4th Century. <S> Roman art in particular used the halo to indicate divine personages, and initial use on Christian art was restricted to Christ. <S> Given Christianity's intimate association with the Roman Empire in the 1-3rd century it is unlikely that the use of the halo was independently invented by Christianity. <S> The next thing you should realize is that the halo is simply an artistic convention. <S> Early art was much more 'representational' than modern art. <S> It was not intended to imply that holy figures literally had a glow around their head. <S> It simply indicated who in the picture were 'holy' or 'divine' characters. <S> Because of this it makes no sense to read anything into Christian artists use of the convention - it's simply a way to convey meaning to the the viewers of the art. <S> It would make no more sense to denegrate Christian art for using it than to condemn a Christian comic book-writer for using 'speech bubbles'. <S> The halo fell out of favour when art transitioned to more realistic conventions. <A> The halo originated from the Pre-Islmaic Iranian faith of Zoroastrianism. <S> They believed in the Idea of Farr, or "Divine Favor". <S> this 'favor' was represented by a ring called the Hvrena which was given to the king by their gods, but if the king displeased the gods, it was taken away. <S> This ring was guarded by the god Mithras, who was the god of Daylight. <S> It was through the relation of the Hvrena with Mithras and a mistranslation of the word "Farr" which means glory, that brought about the idea that the halo, or ring of divine favor, was actually representing light. <S> Christianity was developing at the same time as Mithraism, and artists would have seen halos in Mithraeum at the time. <S> In the Roman Empire, it was common to practice more than one faith. <S> Halos were not, however, used in Christian art until Mithraism was almost extinct. <S> My source for this is that I wrote a term paper about the origin of the Halo for my History of Christian Art course during my undergrad. <S> For more information on Farr and Hvrena, see this website: Encyclopedia Iranica . <S> For information on how it transitioned to Christian art, however, one needs to dig through many books, as no one has ever written a full book on this process. <A> If you have no credible source for this idea, then why do you mention it? <S> It is impossible to prove that the first iconographers to use halo <S> didn't take inpirations from pagan imaginery. <S> In order to know if halo is compatible with christian faith, you have to look what is the meaning of light in Scriptures. <S> You can see from many fragments (like The Gospel <S> According to St Jonh the Theologian Prologue) that the light means the life-giving energy of God. <S> We can see that Christ shone with light during His transfigurations. <S> We see prophets seeing light during their revelations. <S> This is why Christ is surrounded by halo in icons (in the icon of Transfiguration this halo is big and surrounds His whole body). <S> Also the holy men (I don't know why you use quotes here) could be seen shining this light. <S> There is a wonderful example in this text: <S> http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/wonderful.aspx Father Seraphim replied: "I have already told you, your Godliness, that it is very simple and I have related in detail how people come to be in the Spirit of God and how we can recognize His presence in us. <S> So what do you want, my son?" <S> "I want to understand it well," I said. <S> Then Father Seraphim took me very firmly by the shoulders and said: "We are both in the Spirit of God now, my son. <S> Why don't you look at me?" <S> I replied: "I cannot look, Father, because your eyes are flashing like lightning. <S> Your face has become brighter than the sun, and my eyes ache with pain. <S> " <S> Father Seraphim said: "Don't be alarmed, your Godliness! <S> Now you yourself have become as bright as I am. <S> You are now in the fullness of the Spirit of God yourself; otherwise you would not be able to see me as I am." <S> (i recommend to read the whole text) <S> So even if there was some pagan inspiration in this symbol (like e.g. clergy vestments taking inspiration from the roman officials dresses), it is now used for the christian meaning and is fully compatible with what Christianity teaches.
|
When Zoroastrianism traveled to the Roman Empire in the form of Mithraism, or the Mysteries of Mithras, the Hvrena was depicted as a halo on the head of Mithras.
|
Should we have realistic unbelief? Jesus makes it pretty clear that because of our unbelief we will not see miracles in our life (see below). However, psychological experts warn against the dangers of unrealistic expectations. See Psychology Today: The Danger Of Having Unrealistic Expectations In summary, unrealistic expectations can lead to very negative consequences, if the outcome is not met. However, the New Testament instructs us to believe - in the super natural, in the impossible or in psychology terms: the unrealistic. i.e. - Jesus Gives Life to a Dead Girl: Matthew: 35 While Jesus was still there speaking, some men came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue leader. They said, “Your daughter is dead. There is no need to bother the Teacher.” 36 But Jesus did not care what the men said. He said to the synagogue leader, “Don’t be afraid; just believe .” and Matthew 13:58 And so he did only a few miracles there because of their unbelief . Should our life be filled by consistently believing in the impossible - will that end up damaging our faith or just create a denial fantasy world apart from reality? Should we be thinking about unrealistic vs. realistic belief ? Since Jesus is no longer here in human form, is OK to have unbelief? Are there any good studies or articles on this concept? Thank You. <Q> I think we need to be careful with our terms here. <S> It is good to believe the truth , including a belief in God, and a belief in His ability to miraculously impact the physical realm. <S> It is not good to believe lies . <S> You were not made for the purpose of believing lies, and it can actually be destructive to you physically (mentally). <S> I think what Psychologists are observing is the destructive effects of believing what is not true , whether that be <S> "I am a gorilla", or "I am going to be a gorilla tomorrow" (an "unrealistic expectation"). <S> So in that sense, it is not good to believe in the "unrealistic." <S> But it is not fair to equate the "supernatural" with the "unrealistic" or "impossible", as if all that which were possible must exist in the natural (physical) realm. <S> To reject the God who really exists would be extremely unhealthy! <S> Bottom line: <S> Christianity is about truth , not blind faith in unrealistic fantasies. <S> “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” <S> -Jesus <S> ( John 8:31-32 ) <A> Daniel 3:17-18 17 <S> If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. <S> 18 <S> But if not, be it known unto thee, <S> O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. <S> 1 <S> John 5:14-15 14 <S> This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. <S> 15 <S> And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him. <S> ==== <S> Thus, I think the question really is: "Is our 'unrealistic' expectation according to God's will or our own sinful desires?" <S> In the latter case, the unrealistic expectation is pure stupidity. <S> In the former case, I think it's faith. <A> According to Hebrews 11:1, Faith is the evidence of things hoped for, the conviction (one could use the word rebuke here) of things not seen. <S> It is not that one is called to believe a lie, but rather that a Christian is called to see " through and not with the eye ". <S> There is far more to this world than what can be seen. <S> Faith is merely having the trust in God that says, " no eye has seen see or ear heard what God has prepared for those who love him ." <S> (1 Cor 2:9). <S> Just because we do not see what is truly going on, does not negate the fact that God is still orchestrating a reality unperceieved by our senses. <S> Furthermore, as verse 6 says, Without faith, it is impossible to please God. <S> As such, I would argue that yes, indeed, Christians are thus compelled to believe what may not be perceived with the senses, but is nonetheless true. <A> Surely the question here is what is "realistic". <S> Few people would say that you should believe things that are false. <S> The question is, What is the truth? <S> If you start with the assumption that miracles are impossible, then of course the rational conclusion is that you should not believe in miracles. <S> But that's the question, isn't it? <S> Are miracles possible or not? <S> It is obviously true that miracles are not common. <S> Not dramatic, obvious miracles like seas parting or water turning into wine, at least. <S> Whether they could be common if only we had more faith, or were better in tune with God's will; or if God's plan does not include more-frequent miracles under any circumstances is a big question that I don't claim to know the answer to.
|
To the extent that the supernatural realm is "real", it would be best to believe in it .
|
According to premillenial view, What is the point of the Millenium reign? Here's my understanding: Some people believe during the tribulation. They make into the 1000 year reign. During this reign, there is peace on earth. At the end of the 1000 years, Satan is released. Some of the descendants of the believers follow Satan. There is a final battle. Satan loses. There is final judgment. New Jerusalem arrives. Now, what is the point of the 1000 year reign here? Is it to prove that Christ can do something that Satan could never do (i.e. real world peace?) <Q> There are two main purposes to the millenial reign: First, to show the world that the true problem isn't the devil (since he will locked away for 1000 years) but rather, the real problem is our evil hearts. <S> Under the perfect and utopian rulership of Jesus, people will still choose to rebel and hate Him and wage war against Him. <S> Second, to prepare the earth for the coming of the Father. <S> The Father doesn't come to earth until the end of the 1,000 years. <A> It's possible that 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 is the reason: <S> Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. <S> For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. <S> The last enemy to be destroyed is death. <S> For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” <S> But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. <S> When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. <S> So the extra 1000 years is to continue working among His people in order to perfect or train their surrender to Jesus in a manner suitable to Him before He hands it all over to the Father. <S> In Psalms 2:10-12, God is giving instructions to His kings. <S> This passage takes place when God has "set My King on My holy hill of Zion" <S> (Psalms 2:6), after the return of Christ and when He has set up His rulers, which is during the Millennium: <S> Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. <S> Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. <S> Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. <S> Blessed are all who take refuge in him. <S> The thousand-year rule = <S> further training in submission and obedience. <A> Now, what is the point of the 1000 year reign here? <S> Is it to prove that Christ can do something that Satan could never do (i.e. real world peace?) <S> The millennial reign is the kingdom that was promised to Israel. <S> Jeremiah <S> 31:31-33 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: <S> Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: <S> But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. <S> This kingdom was offered to Israel at the time of Christ, but most of Israel was not interested. <S> A faithful remnant of Israel will finally accept the kingdom and all that was promised to Israel will be fulfilled. <S> Revelation 1:7 <S> Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. <S> Even so, Amen. <S> If Israel had accepted Jesus as King when he first came the last 2,000 years would have had no war, people would have had much longer lives, and even nature would have been less hostile. <S> Romans 11:15 <S> For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but <S> life from the dead? <S> At the end of time we will have laid out before us the testimony of all human history. <S> We will have had every possible form of government including a planet wide rule by God himself. <S> What we will see is that no matter under what conditions, all human endeavor apart from God is sinful and corrupt. <S> Without God we are hopeless.
|
The millennium fulfills the promises to Israel as well as serves to demonstrate our need of God.
|
Jesus got angry in the temple - should we do that too? I think we know the story. Matthew 21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves Can we emulate this as Christians? I mean, can we get as angry as this? I can say Jesus was fighting on behalf of God. If we do the same, are we also justified? <Q> There's an interesting bit of detail about the event in Mark 11:11: <S> Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. <S> He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve. <S> He did not allow his anger to control him. <S> This was not an act of rage. <S> There is another issue at play here, as well. <S> Since Jesus is Himself part of God, the offense committed by the changers in the temple was towards him directly. <S> An analogy is that if you see someone habitually blaspheme God, it's as if that person physically assaulted your mother. <S> But from Jesus perspective, it was as if they were assaulting you directly, or perhaps even assaulting you and your mother at the same time. <S> While we are to use Jesus as the great example, we must be careful to remember that, as the creator, he sometimes sees things differently than we do, both through his power to understand people's hearts, and from the fact that he relates to people differently than we do. <A> There is such a thing as righteous anger. <S> There is, however, the issue of authority. <S> Jesus, as the eternal Son of God who took on flesh 2,000 years ago, had the authority not only to be angry but to take appropriate action. <S> However, we do not have the authority given to us to do anything like what Jesus did. <S> It should be noted here what it was that angered Jesus so much. <S> In the design of the Temple, the largest section was the court of the Gentiles. <S> Israel was chosen to be a God's light to the world, so this very large place was build specifically for non-Jews. <S> The Jews turned this area into a marketplace, effectively crowding out the place designed for people from every nation, tribe, and language. <S> This is what enraged Jesus. <S> Mark's account identifies this more specifically: <S> And he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations ’? <S> Mark 11:17 ESV <S> Conclusion <S> So, we can certainly have righteous anger, but we are not given the authority to do what Jesus did. <S> Also, if you want to make God really mad, try preventing people from worshiping Him. <A> Short answer, <S> yes: Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil (Eph 4:26,27) <S> Paul is saying here that it is possible to be angry and to not sin. <S> That conclusion can also be reached since Jesus was angry but never sinned. <S> However, we need to be very cautious. <S> Anger has a way of dulling good judgment and, often leads to sinful actions. <S> Hence the many warnings in Scripture against it such as: <S> Know this <S> , my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God (James 1:19,20) <S> And proverbs dealing with anger abound: http://strengthenedbygrace.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/proverbs-on-anger/ <S> Furthermore, the heart is very deceitful: <S> The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? <S> we need to be careful that we are not viewing our own sinful anger as righteous anger. <S> Finally, can we emulate what Jesus did in the temple? <S> Well, remember it was his father's house. <S> He had the authority to act there. <S> If I came into my father's house and found a bunch of thieves and robbers, I think it would be legitimate and God honoring to be angry about it and to kick them out. <S> Likewise, there are evils committed in this world that we should be angry about. <S> If, however, our anger leads us to sinful actions or attitudes (bitterness for example), then we should be quick to recognize that our anger is no longer God honoring. <S> For what its worth, I doubt my own ability to be righteously angry. <S> So whenever I reflect on my own anger, I start with the assumption that it is sinful, and begin to diligently search and examine to make sure I am not giving an opportunity to the devil (Eph 4:29). <S> If, after reflection and seeking godly counsel, I can determine that my anger is justified, then so be it. <S> I highly recommend the following book for a very good look at anger from a biblical perspective: Uprooting Anger by Robert Jones
|
We as Christians can certainly have righteous anger and probably do whenever we here of murder and violence throughout the world.
|
Looking for a resource discussing the Biblical principles on how to avoid a victim mentality Beyond the obvious of: Jesus died on the Cross and drank down God's wrath, what do we have to complain about? All things that happen were things allowed by God to sanctify us. Read the book of Job what are some deep theological works on avoiding/fighting the victim mentality? This is definitely a reference request in that I'm unable to extract this knowledge out of the Biblical verses myself, so I'm looking for a great theologian who has -- and reading their work. In particular, I'm looking for something scripture based. I'm not looking for the prosperity gospel notion of "God wants you to be happy! To have your best life now! Smile! Be Happy! Yay! :-)!" rather I'm looking for something deep -- something that takes the "victim mentality", reduces it to the fundamental sins / thoughts that gives rise to the "victim mentality", and shows how to over come it. Certainly, people like Martin Luther, David Brainerd, Dietrich Bonehoeffer, and others ... must have at times been tempted with "victim mentality" -- and surely some must have written about how they overcame it. Lastly, if anyone had a right to claim to victim mentality -- it'd probably have to be Christ, who lived a perfect live and became the sacrificial lamb. Thus, if there's work on how Christ avoided the victim mentality, that'd be great too. <Q> For some reason modern popular authors that deal with this subject are more of the autobiographical nature, such as <S> Joni Eareckson Tada who has various books and lectures about taking joy in God's sovereignty, where she herself has been in a wheelchair for over thirty years. <S> Another person along the same line that I remember is Corrie ten <S> Boom <S> whose story of trying to love and evangelize people in Nazi concentration camp was published under the name'The Hiding Place'. <S> However, although these show great faith and lack of the victim mindset, they are not theological works but works of example. <S> As far as theological works go, there really are not many. <S> Some might argue a famous work like ' The Christian in Complete Armour; A Treatise Of the Saints War against the Devil ', By William Gernel is what you are looking for, and possibly it is. <S> However, although many give this work very high reviews, I found it a little tiring to read and not really delving in the questions you are raising. <S> It might almost seem to veer slightly into a stoics approach to the 'warfare' of life. <S> It certainly leaves no room for a victim mentality, but still I would not say 'this is it'. <S> Its Causes and Cure '. <S> The title is a little misleading because although it's been about twenty years since I read it, I remember it would depress a lot of people. <S> It spends some time showing that the gospel really has all we need to rejoice in our sufferings. <S> I do not remember it being stoical, but at the same time self-pity is not spared at all in this deep theological work. <A> Several spring to mind. <S> In no particular order: Galatians 6:5 : ...each one should carry their own load Principle: don't transfer your burdens to others. <S> 2 Thessalonians 3:10 : <S> For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” <S> Principle: (similar to above) don't rely on others hard work, earn your own way. <S> Psalm 32:9 9 Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you. <S> Principle: think for yourself! <S> Matthew 25:14-30 (Parable of the talents). <S> One man just buried his talent instead of putting it to use, blaming God for it! <S> Then the man who had received the one talent came. <S> ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. <S> So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. <S> See, here is what belongs to you.’ <S> ( Verses 24 & 25 ) <S> Principle: don't blame others, take responsbility yourself! <S> Finally, perhaps the best illustration, is in the first ever sin, recorded in Genesis 3 . <S> Relevant verses are 12 & 13 : <S> The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” <S> Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” <S> The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” <S> The man blames the woman and God, and the woman blames the snake. <S> * Principle: as above, take responsibility for your actions! <S> * <S> As Nicky Gumbel then says, " <S> And the snake didn't have a leg to stand on." <A> "God Wants You To Be Happy" by James Randall Robison. <S> Good chapter on taking offense and victimhood. <S> Also, "Happiness Is A Serious Problem" by Dennis Prager. <S> Another good chapter on victimhood.
|
The only book I can think of that properly deals directly with the subject and is a classic, is Dr. Martin-Lloyd Jones, ' Spiritual Depression:
|
What is the significance of the inverted pentagram symbols on the LDS Temple in Salt Lake City? The Temple in Salt Lake has several inverted pentagrams as decorations. (To see a few, just google "lds temple salt lake inverted pentagrams" and click on images. Or click here ) According to Wikipedia , the inverted pentagram symbol is used in Neo-Paganism, Satanism, and magick, as well as Freemasonry. How exactly did it become a symbol of the LDS church? (It seems like an odd symbol to use, given how it's used by others.) What does it represent according to LDS teaching? <Q> The symbol has no specific meaning within LDS theology, and there are no teachings regarding it. <S> According to an article found among the Wikipedia page's sources , the pentagram symbol actually has a long history in Christian and Jewish art and architecture, and only first began to be associated with Satanism and the occult in the 1850s. <S> By this point, the design for the Salt Lake temple had already been drafted. <S> The star symbolism in the temple was included, along with carved depictions of other celestial bodies, as symbolic of heavenly glory, which is described in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 76, as being similar to the brightness of the sun, the moon and the stars. <A> The inverted star represents the second coming of Jesus Christ. <S> This symbol is also on the Nauvoo Temple and this is what I was told when I asked around about it. <A> Joseph Smith was a freemason and many of the symbols on the temple are also used in freemasonry. <S> As Mason noted, this doesn't give any meaning to the symbol (unless you have conspiracy theories regarding freemasonry,) but simply seems to be one possibility for the architectural influence.
|
Some have also suggested that there are also some influences between some of the garments used in the LDS temple and the robes of the Freemasons and also having members-only ceremonies, though these may be more coincidental.
|
Is there a concept of Christian State in Christianity? In some of my other questions, I have read that State and church are kept separate in Christianity. I am curious to know, is there any concept of Christian state where Biblical laws and doctrines are enforced or facilitated? Or simply Christians are never supposed to strive for a Christian state? <Q> Christianity does not hold a "church and state must be separate" view at all ; that might be part of the US constitution, but : not universal - and to all intents and purposes it is not even correct in the US, since it is quietly acknowledged that you don't stand much chance of election if you are openly non-Christian (regardless of your actual views). <S> Indeed, there are still several US states that have, as part of their state constitution , that you can't hold office unless you believe in God (to all intents and purposes, the Christian God). <S> OK, that sounds like a technicality, until people actually try to enforce it . <S> Now, let's step away from the US, and look at Europe; there are plenty of places in Europe that have an established church . <S> Which is to say: the church that is officially recognised and has power . <S> In England, the Church of England held massive power, and it is only recently waning - but even so, the C of E has unelected bishops that have an automatic place in the highest assembly in the land. <S> That does not sound like separation. <S> This is mirrored in a number of other countries, where the church holds not just social influence, but genuine political power. <S> Historically, this power was put to direct use, often to suppress and enforce the religious statutes of the time. <S> Heresy and blasphemy have been beaten down with sticks and pyres. <S> My point: <S> the premise of the question is incorrect. <S> Whether Christianity "demands" a separation between church and state seems largely a point of interpretation; for many, the "render unto Caesar" view (i.e. separation) is adopted, but conversely Christians of various ilks have worked hard to try to bring about such a state. <A> When Pilate asked Jesus about the accusations made against him, that he was calling himself the King of the Jews (and thus implicitly threatening Roman rule), Jesus told him that "My kingdom is not of this world." <S> ( John 18:36 ) Also, consider one of the rhetorical traps the Pharisees laid for him: <S> Matthew 22: 15-21 15 <S> Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk. <S> 16 <S> And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, <S> Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. <S> 17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? <S> Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? <S> 18 <S> But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? <S> 19 <S> Shew me the tribute money. <S> And they brought unto him a penny. <S> 20 <S> And he saith unto them <S> , Whose is this image and superscription? <S> 21 <S> They say unto him, Caesar's. <S> Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. <S> Here again, he draws a clear separation between worldly government and God's spiritual authority. <S> We are told that after the Second Coming, Christ will reign personally upon the earth, but it seems that until that time, we are not to be blessed with a true "Christian State" as such. <A> There are in fact different concepts that emerged in christianity during the ages. <S> Early christians that lived under pagan emperors were taught by Saint Paul to respect civil authorities and pray for them so they come to truth. <S> When the persecutions ended and emperors accepted christianity, there was a temptation to accept millenarist view that Rome becomes the Tousand-Year Kingdom. <S> It was however rejected by early Councils. <S> The emperor became protector of christianity and the idea of "symphony" between Altar and Throne was strongly advocated (of course this "symphony" went through lot of crises, as iconoclast period shows) <S> In the West where the secular power was weaker and the pastoral power stronger, Pope managed to create a papo-caesarist model of states. <S> In the East again some rulers managed to subdue Church. <S> Most notable here is Peter the Great, who destroyed the Patriarchate of Moscow. <S> So the ceasaro-papist states were created. <S> Today, especially in the west the idea of Christian Democracy is very strong (this is the option present in many european parliaments), which states that christians should defent christian values by participation in democracy. <S> All in all - christians always believed that a christian should have some responsibilities when ruling others. <S> The models of this participations reflect the shape of countries they lived in. <A> To wit: <S> The state church of England is the Church of England (Anglican). <S> The state church of Scotland is the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) <S> Most Orthodox denominations (Russian, Armenian, Ethopian) have specific integrations with the state. <S> In the past, the Greek, Byzantine, and Syraic did as well. <S> Historically, the role of the Roman Catholic Church in Italy, Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, and many others was exceedingly close. <S> The story of Barbarossa's pentinence in the snow was symptomatic and emblematic of a very long standing trend. <S> In short, it is not at all a "Christian" tradition by any means to separate the government from the church. <A> The idea that the Catholic Church should be separate from the state was condemned by Pope Pius IX Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, # 55: <S> “The Church is to be separated from the state, and the state from the Church.” <S> Condemned.
|
The separation of church and state is a " Baptist Distinctive " but is not commonly held across the remainder of the Christian spectrum.
|
Is there any evidence that Jesus had no children? There is no evidence that Jesus had children. But is there anything in the Bible indicating that he certainly did not? The reason for asking about the evidence of the negative: If someone says "Jesus might have children, I might have his blood in my veins" I may answer "I don't believe that Jesus had children because..." - is there anything in Bible supporting this attitude? <Q> I think the clearest is prophecy in Isaiah 53:7-9 : <S> He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. <S> By oppression and judgment he was taken away. <S> And who can speak of his descendants? <S> For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. <S> He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. <A> Proving a negative is philosophically a very difficult argument to make, and in many cases is impossible. <S> The onus would be on an historian to make a case that he did have children. <S> No one disputes that Moses had children. <S> There is a record in Exodus, and a tradition. <S> That Charlemagne had children is "proven" in that there are records of his children. <S> Proving that George Washington, for example, had no children is difficult. <S> Saying that he had no legitimate heirs is simply a matter of saying, there is no evidence that he did. <S> (Though with all the Claims, "George Washington slept here," doubtless some future historian is bound to say he bedded someone!). <S> Proving that he had no children is only as valid as saying that no record of any progeny exists. <S> Because the record is so ancient, some might not consider that sufficient, however. <S> That said, there being no evidence for, the only rational answer is to fallback on "you can't prove a negative." <S> whilest completely true, it will nevertheless be unsatisfactory for those with an axe to grind. <S> As such, I propose a more modern example of the same. <S> There is no evidence for George Washington having any children either, though I'm sure some mischievous person might choose to start a rumor. <S> (don't believe me? <S> Google 'Grover Cleveland' and ' Ma, Ma, <S> Where's my Pa? <S> Gone to the White House, Ha Ha Ha. ) <S> In short, absent any kind of historical tradition or contemporary account (of which there is none) there is simply no way of sustaining such a claim. <A> If Jesus had children then who took care of them as he wandered from one city to another? <S> He wouldn't be there for his wife and children. <S> It was mentioned in the Bible about his father, mother, and brothers but his wife nor children were not mentioned. <S> The people around said "Your mother is here" and he gave the another definition of who his mothers or brethren should be. <S> Matthew 12:49-50 49 <S> And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! <S> 50 <S> For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. <S> Jesus said my meat is to do the will of who sent me, and not to eat every food I see around. <S> Jesus knew what was before him and he couldn't mix pleasure of having a wife, children, family, life activities with the task at hand. <S> Matthew 19:10-12 10 <S> The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” <S> 11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. <S> 12 <S> For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the * kingdom of heaven <S> *. <S> The one who can accept this should accept it.” <S> Jesus fits the third category of eunuchs he described and as a leading and perfect example, I believe he went in that direction so others could follow. <S> The disciples did not ask him "But you are married?" <A> I would find it very hard to believe that Jesus had children. <S> Jesus, during the time of His ministry, took special care to talk to children, and to encourage His followers and disciples to do the same. <S> His ministry, however, would have prevented Him from caring for and being there for His own children during their late pre-teen to early teenage years. <S> While this wouldn't be too terrible if He had no male progeny, as daughters married away quite frequently prior to or around their early teens (although she would have been extremely poor, having no dowry, and would have been extremely devalued in that culture), a male child would have suffered much stigma for having no inheritance, no land, and no home. <S> Additionally, the Bible very clearly labels a man who doesn't provide for his family as being worse than an infidel, yet according to Jesus, He didn't even have a stone to call a pillow. <S> Lastly, if He did have children, then He must surely have also had a wife, as having children out of wedlock was extremely taboo in those days in the Jewish culture. <S> Jesus lived by the Levitical law, and would have been required to marry any woman He had intercourse with, unless she refused Him. <S> There's never any mention of a woman traveling with Jesus, so for Him to have been married he would have had to have left his wife homeless somewhere... <S> I think that the implications there are strong that Jesus had no children. <S> There is, however, no conclusive proof that I am aware of in either regard. <S> I would dare to say that if Jesus did have children of His own it would invalidate nearly His entire ministry, as it would seem quite hypocritical the disparities between His teaching and His life if He did have children and a family for which He obviously did not provide.
|
In the case of Jesus, there is zero evidence of any children, and zero evidence he was even married.
|
Is there a name for someone who believes in Jesus as God and Savior, yet follows no sect? Do not know if I worded that right. But was wondering what you call someone who does not believe in organized religion at all. They may go to church but never as a member or follower of any particular group. <Q> It refers to people who don't adhere to any of the subdivisions of Christianity, such as Lutheran, Catholic, Reformed etc. <S> The answer is made slightly confusing because there are now churches that refer to themselves as 'nondenominational', since they do not adhere to any of the larger groupings. <S> However some of those churches are now grouping together, thus effectively creating a 'nondenominational' denomination. <S> But in principle 'nondenominational' is a good description. <A> There is a growing trend amongst certain Christians to eschew denominational labels in favor of the term " Christ-follower ." <S> The implication is that an ad fontes, "it's just about Jesus and me" religion trumps any group politics. <S> There is more about this terminology in this question <A> In What I saw in America Chrsterton used the terms undenominational and unsectarian to describe such folks and to my surprise, it is a real word. <S> Adj. <S> 1. <S> undenominational - not bound or devoted to the promotion of a particular denomination; "undenominational religious instruction" nonsectarian, unsectarian - not restricted to one sect or school or party; "religious training in a nonsectarian atmosphere"; "nonsectarian colleges"; "a wide and unsectarian interest in religion"- Bertrand Russell <S> thefreedictionary.com
|
I believe the word you are looking for is 'nondenominational', as in 'nondenominational Christian'.
|
What traditions fully embrace the concept of a "local parish church"? As far as I understand it, the concept of having parishes and parish churches means that regions are divided up geographically, that each region will have a church that is specifically dedicated to that region, and that everybody in that region is expected/required to be a part of that local church. I know that there is a huge variety when it comes to implementation. What I would like to know is what modern traditions fully embrace this concept to the point of enforcing it on some level. Are there any traditions that would refuse to let members cross parish lines to attend another church? Do any others with perhaps a less hard line rule have specific doctrines encouraging this but define exceptions where it might not be required? <Q> There is a parish system of around 13000 parishes in England <S> [that's not Wales or Scotland, which have their own autonomous Churches] each with at least one parish church. <S> Residents in the parish can be baptised in their parish church; baptised people can be married in their parish church; people who die can have a funeral either in the church of the parish where they die or where they lived. <S> There are some exceptions which extend these permissions. <S> Residents can be baptised in another church with their parish priest's permission. <S> There are "qualifying connections" which can be made with other churches to allow marriage — for example where your parents have worshipped. <S> And there is nothing stopping you from attending church outside your parish and joining the electoral roll of the church you attend. <S> That effectively makes you a parishioner. <S> Because the Church of England is a broad church with a variety of liturgical practice [and associated theological belief] <S> it's not uncommon for people to "shop around" to find a church which suits them. <S> The church where I was churchwarden* had a particular ministry to its little bit of the country, an urban situation with a high population of poor and homeless people. <S> Shameless plug: <S> Go to this map on A Church Near You and click the map. <S> The parish containing your click is highlighted, together with local churches. <S> I'm responsible for the coding behind that. <S> If you're very lucky you may even find a parish with more than one non-contiguous area, or a tract of land which is not in any parish at all. <S> Anyone resident in such an extra-parochial place can attach themselves to an adjacent parish. <S> The map is intended to provide a service for potential churchgoers to find their local church, or for engaged couples to find their parish church (in order to simplify the process of a church wedding). <S> *Churchwarden: an ancient layman's elected office in the Church of England with particular legal responsibilities for finance, buildings, ministry and parochial management. <A> Orthodox do have a parish system, but it is not mandatory. <S> Partly this relates to the odd Jurisdictional condition in the USA right now because of mass immigration, but even in countries that are traditionally and nationally Orthodox you find that while there is absolutely a geographical division that can be very strict and rigorous, there is not membership the way Anglicans typically have it. <S> People are free to visit other parishes and commune there; typically (unless circumstances dictate otherwise, such as letters from the Bishop and so forth) without any notice at all. <S> I think the Parish-membership system - If I am recalling correctly - relates to the Protestant reformation in England and churches there as instruments or ministries of the state itself. <S> In such a case, parish membership - or the concept of Parish itself was no longer ecclesiastical but was political, and thus held in many cases the force of law. <S> Partly this relates to the disbanding of monasteries and the need to care for the destitute falling on the municipality. <S> Adam Smith goes into this in some detail in Wealth of Nations. <A> I'm guessing that any "state church" would have this policy. <S> Also, generally, any religion where local congregations have little autonomy: if the same beliefs, and the same practices, are being followed in every region, why would you choose one over another? <S> Jehovah's Witnesses certainly recommend you stick to the congregation in whose territory ( <S> parish) <S> you live. <S> The idea of shopping around for a church that "suits" you would be completely alien.
|
The Church of England falls into the "partial" category.
|
Does Satan actually laugh? I've watched a lot of horror movies and I can't help noticing Satan or any demons are often portrayed 'diabolically' laughing somewhere in the movie. But then, Satan is supposed to be our prosecutor* at the Last Judgement and a professional prosecutor would NOT laugh for other reasons. So, my question is - are there any facts in the Book or elsewhere confirming that Satan indeed laughs? * I got the idea that Satan will be our prosecutor from the Book of Revelation but please also explain that imagery if my interpretation is wrong. <Q> "Laughter" has two completely different manifestations: it can be joyous or a cynical sneer. <S> Joyous laughter: not possible for Satan since Joy is a fruit of The Holy Spirit . <S> Sneering: not recorded in the Bible from Satan, but certainly used by his followers, see both in the Old Testament <S> ( Isaiah 57:3-5 ) and New when the Pharisees sneered at Jesus, both regarding His attitude to money and His failure (in their perception) to save Himself . <S> Personal note <S> : I'm pretty sure I can hear the sneering when I read Biblical accounts of Satan, e.g. in his first appearance . <A> I think the axiom on which this question is presented is also based on the movies. <S> Namely this fellow from Heaven Can Wait. <S> God, in His mighty majestic omniscience hardly needs the prince of lies, darkness and evil to cough up a laundry list of sins. <S> At the end of all things, the final judgement (as opposed to particular judgement) all your works will just be exposed. <S> The judgment will embrace all works, good or bad, forgiven as well as unforgiven sins, every idle word (Matthew 12:36), every secret thought (1 Corinthians 4:5). <S> With the exception of Peter Lombard, theologians teach that even the secret sins of the just will be made manifest, in order that judgment may be made complete and that the justice and mercy of God may be glorified. <S> This will not pain or embarrass the saints, but add to their glory, just as the repentance of St. Peter and St. Mary Magdalen is to these saints a source of joy and honour. <S> Catholic Encyclopedia <S> And this is what Catholic Encylopedia says concerning Satan appearance at the particular judgement. <S> the appearance of angels and demons to bear witness before the judgment seat are regarded as allegorical descriptions (St. Augustine, City of God XX.14). <S> The common opinion is that the particular judgment will occur at the place of death particular judgement <S> However, the question of whether Satan laughs is an alright one. <S> Chesterton says that God's hidden virtue is His mirth. <S> I'd imagine that Satan's most egregious vice is his wicked chortle. <S> But, I hardly suspect, if he's read the Bible, that he's laughing on the inside. <A> It's an interesting question, but films and media in general use their own take on how demons or Satan would act. <S> As far as I'm aware in my reading of the Bible, Satan never laughs. <S> Even his depiction in Revelation shows no laughter. <S> In Job, the Adversary (ha-satan) doesn't laugh.
|
If you interpret the serpent in Genesis to be Satan, he doesn't laugh.
|
Are other religions treated differently by any major branch of Christianity? In Judaism, some religions are considered to be Avodah Zarah , and others are not. So, for example, if Christianity or certain of its denominations is Avodah Zarah, that has implications for Jews' interactions with those religions and with their places of worship. Islam also distinguishes between religions which are Ahl-ul Kitab and ones which are not . Does any major Christian tradition make similar distinctions, or does Christianity generally merely treat all non-Christian religions as non-Christian? <Q> General orthodox Christianity believes that there is an exclusivity with Christians. <S> This is because their interpretation of: John 14:6 NIV <S> Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. <S> No one comes to the Father except through me. <S> However because of: Mark 12:30-31 NIV Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ <S> The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ <S> There is no commandment greater than these.” <S> They are to have compassion for all people regardless of their belief system. <S> While other religions are generally considered "Pagan" or worshiping a "false" god(s). <S> This sometimes gets confusing when some Christians claim that another religion's main god is really Satan in disguise - which is mentioned as an enemy of God in the bible. <S> Judaism has a different type of the relationship with Christianity. <S> However its definition is not universally agreed upon. <S> So, is the relationship special, "yes". <S> Can I define it? <S> "No, unless you want to read a book." <A> Christians believe Judaism to be true except on the key point of the identify of the Messiah. <S> Besides that, Christians believe that all other religions are false to the extent that they disagree with things that Christians believe are true. <S> And every other religion disagrees with Christianity on vital points. <S> (I presume most every other religion will likewise say that they are right and everyone else is wrong. <S> Who would not say that? <S> I mean, who would say, for example, "I believe the world is round, that person over there believes the world is flat <S> , well, we're probably both right. <S> " That's the definition of "controversial subject".) <A> Christianity has a special and unique relationship with one other religion - Judaism. <S> The history of these two religions is that thousands of years ago God had a chosen people - the Jews. <S> He made a special covenant with them and promised them a saviour - Messiah. <S> Then (according to the Christian view) God sent this Messiah - Jesus. <S> Some Jews accepted him and some did not. <S> Those that accepted him became called Christians and began to accept non-Jews into their ranks. <S> Those that did not continued to call themselves Jews and began a whole new strand of religion - Rabbinic Judaism . <S> Opinions within Christianity differed and continue to differ about the status of Jews. <S> Some believe that by rejecting the promised Messiah the Jews have forfeited the promised made by God for their salvation. <S> Some hold that God's promises of salvation made to the Jews still apply to them. <S> Some passages from the new testament would tend to indicate this. <S> In any case it is certain that Judaism has a unique relationship with Christianity because of their shared history and scripture and because of many shared articles of faith.
|
Christians view Judaism differently than we view any other religion.
|
Why did Satan tempt Jesus in the desert? In Matthew 4:1-13 and Luke 4:1-11 , Jesus was in the desert for 40 days and tempted by Satan. Of particular interest is the first temptation. Luke 4:3-4 (NLT) 3 Then the devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become a loaf of bread.” 4 But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say, ‘People do not live by bread alone.’” Satan full well knew who Jesus was! There couldn't have been any doubt in Satan's mind as to Jesus' identity, as opposed to the Pharisees and Sadducees, who simply refused to believe. No, Satan isn't really asking Jesus to prove Himself. Rather, he has some other motive... What was Satan's motive in asking Jesus for a sign of His identity? I consider myself non-denominational, but I grew up Wesleyan, so the closer answers are to that, the better. I won't turn away Catholic or Orthodox answers though. <Q> The recorded three temptations of Christ mirror the steps Satan used to bring sin into the world in the first place: If you are the Son of God ... vs Genesis 3 <S> Did God actually say ... <S> Also, like with the first sin, it is related to food. <S> Second: If you are the Son of God, jump off ... vs <S> You will not surely die <S> God didn't mean what He said ("I even quoted a passage to prove it!") <S> And lastly: <S> if you will worship me ... <S> vs <S> you will be like God ... <S> Questioning God's authority. <S> so He couldn't be our perfect sacrificial substitute. <A> I don't read that as Satan asking Jesus to prove his identity; rather, it reads as a temptation . <S> "You have power. <S> You're very hungry. <S> Use your power to take care of your personal problems." <S> As Paul points out, For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. <S> ( Hebrews 4:15 ) <S> Satan absolutely did know who Jesus was, and why he was there. <S> And he also knew that Jesus had free will and the ability to make his own choices. <S> (In fact, we have one recorded instance where Jesus directly stated that his will was in opposition to the will of the Father, in the Garden of Gethsemane, ( Matthew 26:38-44 ,) but he chose to do his Father's will and not his own.) <S> And he knew that Jesus needed to be perfect to complete the work that he had come to accomplish. <S> So if he could find any way of tempting Jesus to step off the path, even once, it would have destroyed God's plan, which is exactly what Satan wanted. <S> So Satan tempted him, trying to get him to use his power for physical desires, for fame, and for wealth and earthly power. <A> Why did Satan tempt Jesus in the desert? <S> Because Satan hates Christ and wants him to fall. <S> What was Satan's motive in asking Jesus for a sign of His identity? <S> Because Jesus was going to save people by living a sinless life and dying for them. <S> Satan didn't want that. <S> He was tempting Jesus to fulfill a lust of using God's divine power to satisfy his hunger so that Jesus would fall. <S> Satan could then make Jesus not able to save other on account that he was no longer sinless. <A> One of Satan's biggest tricks is to try and confuse you about who you are, and whose you are. <S> Satan will wait until you are at your weakest point in life and then come to you with questions about your life... <S> your calling... and your ability to do for God the Father. <S> You must know that you have been given the power to become a son of God... <S> Just as Jesus was his son in whom God was WELL PLEASED. <A> The Holy Spirit also not only Satan has a motive in the temptation of Christ: <S> " Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the Devil"( Matthew 4:1 NIV) <S> The motive of the Holy Spirit is to prove that the Son is God just as his Father is: Temptation 1: If Jesus is really God's own Son, consubstantial with him, then he surely has the ability to turn those stones into bread. <S> ( This is selfish and not the essence of life --Philippians 2:1-11) <S> Temptation 2: <S> If Jesus is really God's eternally begotten Son, superior to angels, then he surely cannot be void of his servant's service, he cannot be hurt when he falls as it is written. <S> ( This is not the divine will of the Trinity albeit possible and even good -- Mark 14:35) <S> Temptation 3: <S> Satan commands Jesus to worship him and he will give his world to him. <S> (Satan does not understand the hypostatic union-- 1 Peter 1:12) <S> In every instance of temptation, Christ appealed wisely to the Scriptures for he himself is God's Wisdom <S> ( Greek: sophia theou) --1 <S> Cor. <S> 1:24-25 <A> There is no plausible reason for Satan to tempt Jesus in the wilderness, at least as described in Matthew 4:1-13 and Luke 4:1-11. <S> Knowing that Jesus was the Son of God and knowing that Jesus would successfully and easily resist him, Satan would always have known that the effort was futile. <S> Dale C. Allison Jr. ('How to Marginalize the Traditional Criteria of Authenticity', published in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus , Volume 1, edited by Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter - page 14) does not believe Satan's motives need explaining: <S> Consider also Matt 4:1-11 = <S> Luke 4:1-13 (Q), the temptation story. <S> Most modern scholars have rightly judged this to be unhistorical, an haggadic fiction produced through reflection on scripture. <S> Yet whoever composed it clearly did so in the knowledge that Jesus was (a) <S> a miracle worker who (b) sometimes refused to give signs, (c) thought himself victorious over demonic forces, (d) was steeped in the scriptures, (e) had great faith in God, and (f) was a person of the Spirit. <S> So what we seem to have in Q 4:1-13 is an illustration of the obvious fact that historical fiction can inform us about history. <S> The story, which narrates events that probably never happened, nonetheless catches Jesus in several respects. <S> Here the inauthentic incorporates the authentic.
|
Satan is questioning whether Jesus was who He said He was (and whom His Father had just attested to at the baptism) - He was trying to get Jesus to fail in His earthly life
|
Does Christianity have any other books besides the Bible that the disciples use for following? Does Christianity have any other book beside Bible which narrate stories of the Jesus and Moses and is considered auspicious or sacred? Are there any other such books other than Bible which kind of augments/completes the Bible? In Islam there is the Quran (Bible) and then hadith books which narrates stories of the prophets. <Q> It really depends on which branch of Christianity you're asking about. <S> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) recognize the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants. <S> They also believe in continuing revelation. <S> Jehovah's Witnesses use the periodic publications of the Watchtower as authoritative. <S> The Catholic Church recognizes the Deuterocanon as part of the Bible, which most other Christian faiths do not. <S> Seventh Day Adventists use the writings of Ellen White. <S> For a more comprehensive summary, see this article on Wikipedia <A> For many centuries, The Didache would have qualified. <S> Additionally, today, many denominations use a Prayer Book or a Missal as an aide to the practice of the faith, but as far as doctrine goes, no - it's "The Bible," as defined by the sect. <A>
|
The Community of Christ, formerly Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, recognizes the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Revised Common Lectionary. You could argue that the New Testament itself is the "other book" in addition to the Old Testament which is based either on the Masoretic text or the Septuagint depending on the tradition.
|
Why is the book of Hebrews named that? The book of Hebrews in the New Testament shares a name with the Hebrew people of the Mosaic Law. Why was that book named Hebrews? <Q> It's called that because it was written as a letter to Hebrews. <S> Most of the Epistles are titled after the group they were written to. <S> (Corinthians was written to the Church at Corinth, etc.) <S> From http://christianity.about.com/od/newtestamentbooks/a/Book-Of-Hebrews.htm <S> Date <S> Written: <S> Hebrews was written before the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. <S> Written <S> To: Hebrew Christians who were wavering in their faith and all future readers of the Bible. <S> There's more similar information all over, including Wikipedia . <A> It seems that one reason that this book was named Hebrews was due to: the earliest form of the text that has come down to us, P 46 , this book had the title <S> (Greek won't display here) <S> - (Pros Hebraious, "To[the]Hebrews"). <S> Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. <S> "Hebrews." <S> An Introduction to the New Testament. <S> Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005. <S> 609. <S> Print. <S> Although authorial attribution is missing there seems to be a high likelihood of this being a possible original title. <S> I am no scholar though <S> so I am just throwing this in as food for thought. <A> This letter was written to Hebrews (Judean believers of Jesus Christ from Judea). <S> Josephus' Antiquities of Jews Book 1, Chapter 6, Paragraph 4 - "Sala was the son of Arphaxad; and his son was Heber, from whom they originally called the Jews Hebrews . <S> " <S> Hebrews became known as Judeans or Jews after they came back from Babylon. <S> Josephus' Antiquities of Jews Book 11:5:7 - "So the Jews prepared for the work: That is the name they are called by from the day that they came up from Babylon, which is taken from the tribe of Judah, which came first to these places, and thence <S> both they and the country gained that appellation." <S> Apostle Paul calls himself a Hebrew. <S> Philippians 3:5 (NIV) - "circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews ; in regard to the law, a Pharisee." <S> Jewish Priest Josephus also calls himself "a Hebrew." <S> Jewish Wars (Book 1, Preface, Paragraph 1)- " <S> I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians. <S> Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew , a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work]."
|
Hebrews is the original name of Judeans (or later called "Jews" in English) due to the fact that they are the descendants of Heber.
|
Why does Jesus feel only certain people that come into physical contact with Him? Luke 8 43 A woman was there who had been bleeding for twelve years. She had spent all her money on doctors, but no doctor was able to heal her. 44 The woman came behind Jesus and touched the bottom of his coat. At that moment, her bleeding stopped. 45 Then Jesus said, “Who touched me?” They all said they had not touched him. And Peter said, “Master, people are all around you, pushing against you .” 46 But Jesus said, “ Someone touched me. I felt power go out from me. ” In this passage I can only imagine all these people pushing and shoving against Jesus but this one small gentle touch - He feels so powerfully. Can we concluded anything about the other people who touched Him, where He didn't feel anything like that? Were they all not in need of any health that touching Him had no effect on them or Him, does it mean they were all unbelievers, incapable of understanding what Jesus was trying to tell them or something else? Why does Jesus feel only certain people that come into physical contact with Him? <Q> As Jesus Himself said Luke 8:46 : <S> I know that power has gone out from me. <S> So presumably He noticed the touch because at the same moment power had gone from Him. <S> So to answer the rest of your question, <S> why only this person? <S> Here it helps to notice that this story is also told in Matthew 9:18-26 and Mark <S> 5:21-43 , because they draw out different details. <S> (By the way, the quote in your question ends before the relevant verse - the full story is in Luke 8:40-56 .) <S> In Luke ( v48 ) we read that Jesus said to her: <S> “Daughter, your faith has healed you. <S> Go in peace.” <S> And this faith is further detailed in the other Gospels, Matthew 9:21 : <S> She said to herself, “If I only touch his cloak, I will be healed.” <S> (See also Mark 5:28 .) <S> Summary: <S> her faith caused the power to go out from Jesus, which caused Him to notice the touch. <S> To answer your other questions: Can we concluded anything about the other people who touched Him, where He didn't feel anything like that? <S> Only that they did not touch Him in faith, expecting healing. <S> Indeed, they were a crowd doing what crowds do - crowding ( Mark 5:31 ). <S> Were they all not in need of any health that touching Him had no effect on them or Him <S> , does it mean they were all unbelievers, incapable of understanding what Jesus was trying to tell them or something else? <S> The text doesn't tell us. <S> The fact that this woman alone (of the crowd) is mentioned as an example in the three Gospels implies that she was indeed an exception - the only one who touched Jesus in faith. <A> This will seem highly unsatisfying to some, obvious to others, and deeply comforting to yet others. <S> The passage simply shows that He chose this woman above the others. <S> So the question becomes, "why did He choose this woman?" <S> The obvious answer is "for the same reason He did anything. <S> Because she suited His purpose and the will of the Father.". <S> Specifically, when it comes to the miracles Jesus performed, not one of them was just for the sake of performing a miracle (showing off, having fun). <S> Every miracle is accompanied by a lesson, a claim of authority, a claim to deity, or a claim to the power to forgive sins. <S> So we need to ask, again, <S> why this woman? <S> That's pretty straightforward. <S> This woman had been unclean for years due to her illness. <S> His healing of her demonstrated all of the above. <S> Healing <S> her showed that He had the power to make clean the unclean. <S> It was a beautiful picture of salvation in an easy-to-understand demonstration. <S> To paraphrase how the Oracle might have said it, What's really going to bake your noodle later is, would she have been unclean, had Jesus not needed her to demonstrate His ability to make the unclean clean? <S> This is yet another fine demonstration of Romans 8:28 <S> KJV <S> And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them <S> who are the called according to his purpose. <A> Good question. <S> The Greek text states that the woman touched <<τοῦ κρασπέδου τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ> <S> > ( tou kraspedou tou himatiou autou ). <S> The Greek word κράσπεδον ( kraspedon ) is used in the LXX to translate the Hebrew word ציצת ( tzitzit ) (cp. <S> Num. <S> 15:38-39; Deut. 22:12; Zech. <S> 8:23). <S> The ציצת is the fringe worn by the Israelites on the ארבע כנפות ( arba kanfot ), that is, "four corners" of their garment (cp. <S> Num. <S> 15:38-39; Deut. 22:12). <S> The Hebrew word כנף ( kanaf ), meaning "border" or "corner," is translated in the LXX by the Greek word πτερυγίον ( pterygion ). <S> In Malachi 4:2 (KJV), it is written, <S> But to you who fear My name, the Sun of righteousness shall arise with healing in his wings (בִּכְנָפֶיהָ); and, you shall go forth and grow up as calves of the stall. <S> The English word "wings" is translated by an inflection of the Hebrew word כנף, the same word used to translate the English word "borders" in Num. <S> 15:38-39, etc. <S> So, "wings" refers to the borders of the garment. <S> We know that the woman had a case of "infirmity" or sickness. <S> Jesus is the "Sun of righteousness with healing in his wings" or borders of his garment. <S> On each of the borders of his garment would have been a κράσπεδον or "fringe." <S> The woman is said to have touched τοῦ κρασπέδου τοῦ ἱματίου, that is, "the fringe of the garment." <S> Remember, the κράσπεδον is actually the fringe or ציצת, and it is located on each of the four כנף or πτερυγίον. <S> I believe power went out from Jesus because he had healing on the fringes on borders of his garment, and the woman "was healed immediately" (Luke 8:47).
|
There is no indication that Jesus didn't know or feel the needs of anyone else.
|
What does it mean to magnify or glorify the Lord? 'Magnify' can mean to make something look bigger than it is, but this is not possible to do with God. Certainly God can't obtain more glory than the infinite worth he had from all eternity. So if we can't make God seem bigger or more glorious than he already is, what does it mean for God to be magnified or glorified? Note: I am not asking 'what' magnifies or glorifies the Lord, but what does it mean in our understanding of God that he is 'magnified'? <Q> I'd give the same answer I gave on <S> this similar (but not quite duplucate) question . <S> Clearly, those phrases can't mean that we have the ability to alter God in any way. <S> I don't think that the definition of "magnify God" in these phrases means to actually make God "bigger" or "greater". <S> I understand them to mean "Make God more prominent in my life, our culture, etc." <S> Similarly, magnifying God doesn't make Him bigger, it means He becomes more prominent to us. <S> The phrase " <S> God, I magnify you" simply means "I am making you greater (more important) in my life, and putting you first, because you are my focus and priority." <A> Sure, nothing we can do will make God more powerful or more holy than he already is, but we can acknowledge his greatness and make others aware of his greatness. <S> Like, suppose that a great orchestra is coming to town to give a concert. <S> I tell a friend how great this orchestra is and encourage him to attend the show. <S> Does me telling my friend this make the orchestra perform better? <S> No. <S> I'm just making my friend aware of how well they perform. <S> Likewise, we can't make God greater, but we can tell others about his greatness. <S> In a different vein, suppose a man tells his wife how beautiful she is. <S> Does his saying it make her more beautiful? <S> No. <S> (Well, it might, if it encourages her to put more effort into her hair styling or make-up or whatever. <S> But let's assume she's already doing all she can.) <S> But it pleases her to hear him say it. <S> Likewise, our praise does not make God greater, but it pleases God to have us acknowledge him. <A> As John Piper says, we are to magnify God like a telescope, not a microscope! <S> A microscope makes tiny things look bigger than they are, but a telescope helps us to see stupendously large things for what they really are. <A> St. Augustine says of the Blessed Virgin Mary (whose soul magnifies the Lord): <S> What the Lord magnified in her was, that she did the will of the Father, not that flesh gave birth to flesh. <S> St. Augustine of Hippo - Tractate 10 <S> That's what Mary magnified, as a handmaid, her soul magnifies the Lord. <S> Augustine goes on to talk about: <S> May they ever say, “Exalted be the LORD who delights in the peace of his loyal servant.” <S> (Psalm 35:27b NABRE) <S> which in his translation must have clicked with the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) because his says: The Lord be magnified, they that wish the peace of His servant <S> So, exalting (or lifting the name of ) God, it's an action of the soul, which we desire God to do to us. <S> Mary's "Yes" meant something, it meant that she desired that her soul would be open to accept the Holy Spirit. <S> While at the same time she, like John, must decrease as well as suffer, so her Son could increase. <S> Depending on your understanding or opinions regarding the faculties of the soul <S> it would seem as though there's not a lot a person can do to influence one's soul. <S> A devout prayer that God should allow a soul to magnify Him (and this is a prayer, in the Psalms and the Gospel) is the an excellent way, an perhaps one of the only ways, to open ourselves up to God's grace. <A> I think through our free will we have the ability to magnify the love of God to the world. <S> Look at Mother Teresa such a small and diminutive woman; through her obedience to God she accomplished amazing things. <S> This <S> I believe is what we are all called to do; love God; but also to take his love and magnify it to the world. <S> We are the lens that shines his love on the world. <S> Without his faithful the world would be a very dark place. <A> I stumbled upon this question quite by accident this morning while reflecting on the word "magnifies" in the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55). <S> I wanted to offer my own take on the word. <S> First, from childhood, I thought to magnify something means to make something appear bigger, period. <S> However, used in the context of the Lord, that is impossible. <S> So, it hit me all of a sudden, that to magnify something means to draw oneself closer to the true nature of the other. <S> To our senses, we make something appear bigger when we magnify it. <S> In reality, the object does not become bigger as we perceive. <S> Rather, we are drawn intimately closer to the object's reality or true nature. <S> Therefore, in the case of the Holy Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, I propose that to magnify means to be drawn closer to the true nature of the Lord, to His reality, His essence. <S> To get to the true nature of the Lord, Jesus Christ, we have an opportunity to draw ourselves more closely to Jesus through the lens of Mary, mother of His humanity and divinity. <S> This does not take anything away from our worship of the Lord, but rather intensifies our worship, drawing us intimately closer to the Lord.
|
Magnification doesn't make objects bigger, it alters our perception of an object, making it appear bigger to us.
|
Eating of which non-fish animals does not go against the dietery law of the Roman Catholic Church? During lent a Roman Catholic may not consume meat other than that of a fish. However, there are some non-fish animals that have been considered okay to consume during that time, like beaver for example . What other non-fish animals are okay for a Roman Catholic to eat during lent? <Q> Canon Law 1251 says : Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference , is to be observed on all Fridays [...] <S> (emphasis mine). <S> In other words it is to be determined by the bishops exactly what constitutes abstinence. <S> The bishops of Quebec can simply state that beaver meat is OK to eat on days of abstinence. <S> They don't have to declare it 'fish'. <S> I would imagine that this is common practice in areas where fish is very hard to come by and meat is a staple food. <S> In areas where meat is a rarity, giving it up would be little sacrifice and the rules might again be changed. <S> As this page puts it, "when we abstain, it's not because the food is impure; we're voluntarily giving up something good, for our spiritual benefit". <S> The exact nature of what is given up is of secondary importance. <A> As DJClayworth wrote, nowadays it's not a strict rule what you can eat in lent. <S> But in Middle Ages, there were strict rules about it. <S> All fish were allowed. <S> But fish were not defined as today, but as "all water animals", including a beaver or a capybara. <S> Molluscs were permitted too - <S> thats why monks (some order had to fast for most of the year as others fasted in lent) <S> brought Roman snails ( helix pomatia ) to some regions where it's not native. <A> The classical definition of what constituted "fish" in the days of St. Thomas Aquinas was based on the Summa Theologica's understanding of animals which took into account both animal habits as well as anatomy. <S> Generally speaking fish could be eaten on days of abstinence but not the flesh of animals. <S> In the Rule of St. Benedict abstinence is considered the flesh of four-legged creatures . <S> First Things offers a great list of some weird Lenten foods .
|
Usually seafood was permitted and occasionally cold-blooded animals might be acceptable in certain areas.
|
Are there any sects of Christianity that still practice animal sacrifice? Are there any modern sects who originate from or claim affiliation with Christianity that still practice any sacrificial rites? If so, who are they and what specifically is their understanding of the nature of sin and forgiveness in relation to sacrifice? I think I understand the general position of orthodox Christianity on the issue. I'm specifically looking for anybody who both claims the label "Christian" and acknowledges Christ as the Messiah, but still sees a need for ongoing animal sacrifice -- and why. <Q> According to this article , there are local churches in Israel that still practice animal sacrifice. <S> It says: Although slaughter for sacrifice contradicts a basic belief of Christianity, it is practiced by local Catholics, Greek Orthodox and other Christians at the ruined Byzantine church of Saint George in the village of Taybeh, 20 miles from Jerusalem. " <S> Around 70 to 80 lambs are sacrificed here each year," said the Roman Catholic priest, Father Raed. <S> Similar sacrifices are also made in the towns of Lodd, Jaffa, al-Khadar and elsewhere in the Holy Land. <S> Unlike traditional sacrifices, the meat is then distributed to the poor rather than to the priests, but the purpose is very similiar. <S> From the article: <S> "The sheep are always facing east when a sharp knife goes through their necks," Khoury explained. <S> "Sometimes sacrifices are offered as gratitude for the birth of a healthy child, help with a relation surviving a deadly illness or a major operation, or thanks for survival from a car accident." <S> During the killing, prayers are offered in the name of the father, son, and holy ghost and accompanied by entreaties to al-Khader (Saint George) to act as an intermediary. <S> Qleibo, although a Muslim himself, insists that Christian blood-sacrifice cannot be explained away as a Muslim influence: "Blood sacrifice was an important part of the ancient Canaanite religion and numerous pagan cults. <S> Semitic blood sacrifices have persisted." <S> All this said, it seems to be a peculiar practice of a place, not so much as a denomination. <S> Syncretism is apparently not the sole province of the Samaritans... <A> The Armenian Orthodox Church has practiced animal sacrifice since its inception in 301 AD and still does until this day. <S> It is referred to as Matagh and performed outside of the church on holy days such as Easter or to ask for forgiveness. <S> The practice was instituted by St. Gregory the Illuminator in his efforts to convert pagans, so it is an example of adapting a pagan practice to further conversion efforts. <S> Please refer to the following article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3154334 <S> Please note that the Armenian Orthodox Church was the first nationally established church, the country officially converting in 301 AD. <S> The second was its neighbor, the Kingdom of Georgia, which was officially declared Christian in 337 AD. <S> Georgian Christians also occasionally perform animal sacrifices. <S> The Armenian Orthodox Church is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches which rejected the ruling of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, over the definition of the Trinity, so it has split with the larger Eastern Orthodox community. <S> Also for a history of animal sacrifice within Eastern Orthodoxy, see the following: http://www.academia.edu/1183305/The_Encaenia_of_St_Sophia_Animal_Sacrifice_in_a_Christian_Context <A> I personally know of a Christian Church in Conyers, Georgia, USA that participates in animal sacrifice ( sacrificial lamb/goat) before the Masters Supper during Passover. <S> This year the holy day will fall on March 12, 13, or 14th. <S> The church is Ministers of the New Covenant - Pastor Matthew Janzen. <S> Children are encouraged to participate in the slaughter. <A>
|
Santeria is kind-of sort-of a Christian denomination, and they practice animal sacrifices.
|
What is the "paradise" that Jesus references in Luke 23:43? Luke 23:43 - Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." At first glance, I casually assumed "paradise" was referring to heaven, but if Jesus was dead for 3 days after His crucifixion and didn't ascend to heaven until much later, what is He referring to here? A prerequisite question may be: where was Jesus during the 3 days after crucifixion ? <Q> While this isn't a universal view, many traditions believe that Paradise is distinct from Heaven. <S> Some other references that point to Paradise being a temporary place, distinct from the final Heaven promised to those who have been saved: http://www.bible-uk.com/paradise.htm <S> So what IS Paradise? <S> The concept of a place of limbo, somewhere between heaven and earth, some kind of celestial waiting room is not one that will be found in the pages of scripture. <S> What about a park or garden? <S> Now we are on a firm biblical path! <S> We know of a garden from the early pages of Genesis, called the Garden of Eden. <S> We know, because Adam and Eve were thrust out of it (Genesis 3:24) and were unable to get back in again, which fits well with original Persian concept of Paradise being an enclosed garden. <S> Equating Paradise with Eden is not something new or unusual. <S> It is the rationale behind Milton's book, "Paradise Lost", for instance. <S> Also: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/november/24.79.html <S> http://www.wor.org/Books/p/Paraking.htm <S> There are many more, so I'll stop here. <S> I'd also like to post a disclaimer that I don't agree with all of the things said in the last article linked to. <S> It was included just to show that diverse traditions hold the view, and that it's not a "fringe" view. <A> One of the difficulties with this question is that the likely answer is not discussed very much in actual scripture and comes more from Jewish tradition. <S> Here is a general analysis of what the different ideas are. <S> From what I have read, the Jewish tradition was essentially that when a righteous man died, he went to a place that was similar in concept to hades, called "Abraham's bosom. <S> " <S> The belief is that in order to be "with God" one has to be completely void of sin, which before Jesus' death and resurrection, sin was not 100% paid for, so prior to the resurrection people could not enter God's presence and therefore heaven. <S> Instead of going to heaven, they instead went to a special set aside place in hell called Abraham's bosom, (also referred to as "paradise) where they would wait until Jesus' resurrection. <S> This is elluded to in the story of Lazerous and the rich man and may also be where the idea in the Apostles' Creed comes from about Jesus descending into hell. <A> It may be wortwhile to note that, during the time of Jesus, the Jews had a concept of two places in the afterlife: Geihinnam <S> (variant spellings exist), and <S> Gan Eden , also known as "the Garden of Eden. <S> " <S> The Talmud and midrashim are replete with such mentions. <S> What does this have to do with "paradise"? <S> Well, we derive the English word "paradise" in the KJV and other English translations from the Greek word παράδεισος, the same word translated into English as "paradise" in Luke 23:43. <S> (Yes, there is an earlier Old Iranian root, but that's not the point.) <S> This same Greek word is used in the Septuagint (LXX) to translate the Hebrew phrase גַן־עֵדֶן <S> ( gan eden ) in the Tanakh. <S> What this tells us is that "paradise" is equivalent to "the Garden of Eden." <S> Hence, Jesus was saying that the thief on the cross would be with Jesus in the Garden of Eden that day. <S> Did this happen? <S> Some insist that it did not because Jesus' body was 3 days and 3 nights in the sepulcher ("the heart of the earth"). <S> This is true, but Jesus wasn't just a body. <S> His spirit went to paradise that very day, along with the spirit of the thief on the cross. <S> If you carefully read Paul's writing in 2 Corinthians 5 (e.g., "in this we groan" --- what does "this" refer to, and who does "we" refer to?), it should become evident that we continue to exist although our bodies remain in the grave. <A> At the moment of Jesus's death, He entered paradise, where the spirits of believers were held until Jesus's sacrifice was made complete through the resurrection. <S> Jesus was not referring to heaven at this point. <S> Remember, in the day of His resurrection, He told Mary not to touch him because He had not yet ascended to Heaven. <S> Once Jesus ascended to Heaven, He brought with him the spirits of those that had been in paradise. <S> That is what is meant when the Bible says "... <S> He led captivity captive... <S> " Any believer who died after this occurred was led directly into the presence of God in the 3rd heaven. <A> Paradise is a place of blessing where the righteous will go after death. <S> According to revelation 2;7 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. <S> To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God."
|
Our Church (a Baptist Church) teaches that "Paradise" is a temporary holding place for those who have died and are awaiting Christ's return.
|
What is the evidence that suggests that the Apostle Paul was married? I have heard people say over the years that it is likely that the Apostle Paul had been married at some point, perhaps prior to his conversion. However, there doesn't seem to be any biblical evidence to this end. What, then, is the evidence in support of this position? <Q> He writes in 1 Corinthians 9:5: <S> "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?" <S> The implication could be made that Paul was complaining about leaving some wife behind. <S> In Galatians 1:14, Paul says: <S> "I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers" <S> One of the traditions, especially if he was a member of the Sanhedrin (which he never outright claimed), is that eventually he would be married. <S> That said, there is nothing to say that he had necessarily progressed far enough to require a wife. <S> On the other side (that Paul was not married), the evidence is far more convincing <S> 1 Corinthians 9:5 clearly implies there wasn't a woman travelling with him. <S> 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 has Paul declaring that he has the gift of celibacy. <S> 1 Corinthians 7:8 has Paul directly saying that he is not married - 8 <S> Now to the unmarried[a] <S> and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. <S> The tense of the verb is ambiguous as to whether he was at one point married, however. <S> As an aorist verb , the tense is de-emphasized in any event. <S> In any event, however, it is clear that even if Paul had been married at some point, by the time he had been to Corinth, he no longer was. <A> I had not previously heard that there was a debate going on about whether the Apostle Paul was married. <S> I found an excellent resource here at Denny Burk's Blog about the subject . <S> Mr. Burk seems to indicate that the Greek word ( agamos ) that Paul uses in his writings and the way in which he addresses those that are married, unmarried and virgins seems to suggest that Paul is making a distinction for those that have been married previously, but that are no longer married. <S> He clearly indicates that he is unmarried in 1 Corinthians 7:8 . <S> 8 <S> But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. <S> The author also points out that a "Hebrew of Hebrews" ( Philippians 3:5 ) 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee; would have more than likely have been married as was the custom. <S> There is no definitive evidence that we can ascertain from the Scriptures except that he was not married during the time of his writings, but very well could have been previously been married and widowed. <A> Apparently some of the church fathers believing he was married. <S> I'm reading "The History of the Church" by Eusebius and he quotes Clement in saying " <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> This book obviously isn't Scripture, but the mention is interesting nonetheless. <A> I have heard some people say that the following scripture suggests he was once married. <S> I say therefore to the unmarried and widows <S> , It is good for them if they abide even as I. (1 Corinthians 7:8 KJV) <S> They say that because he mentioned widows, and then stated "even as I". <S> However it's not terribly compelling evidence. <S> I think that generally speaking, it's just a guess, and not really spoken of. <A> The argument I have heard is from his speech to Agrippa where he says: <S> I too was convinced that I ought to do all that was possible to oppose the name of Jesus of Nazareth. <S> 10 <S> And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. <S> On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the Lord’s people in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them. <S> (Acts 26:9,10 NIV) <S> The claim that he "cast [his] vote against them" suggests he was a member of the Sanhedrin which was a role normally reserved for married men. <S> I don't know whether this was an absolute rule or whether it would just have been very unusual. <A> The main argument I have heard is that Paul was a Pharisee, and being married was a requirement for being a Pharisee. <S> (I have heard others claim that since he referred to Timothy as his son, that meant he must have been married, but that is clearly not what Paul meant by calling Timothy his son in the Lord.) <A> The Scripture did not clearly state whether Paul was single in his entire life nor have been married and widowed. <S> What was clearly stated is that Paul was single at the time of his writings of the letter to the Corinthians. <S> The final answer will surely be known when we all get to heaven. <S> What is important is that being married or ""single-blessedness"" is not a sin. <S> What would be sin is that you are single but having sexual affairs with others. <S> Also, with married people, it is a sin to have extra-marital sex.
|
The evidence for Paul being married is fairly scant.
|
What person(s) of the Trinity were the people of the Old Testament interacting with? When a someone or groups of people were interacting with God, as recorded in the Old Testament, in general were they simply interacting with person of 'God the Father' within the Trinity? Or were they interacting with the 3 in one at the same time? Or where they sometimes speaking with the 3 in one, and sometimes God the father? Perhaps I have a fundamental misunderstanding what the Trinity is, but the reason I am asking I because I am wondering if the second and third person of the Trinity ever interacted with humanity prior to the incarnation of Christ? <Q> John 6:46 <S> οὐχ <S> ὅτι τὸν <S> πατέρα τις ἑώρακέν <S> εἰ μὴ <S> ὁ ὢν παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ οὗτος ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα <S> Not that anyone has seen the Father except he who is from God; this [one] has seen the Father. <S> Nobody has ever seen the Father. <S> If they saw God in the Tanakh (and, they did), then it was not the Father. <S> Conundrum? <S> No. <S> I can quote many Early Church Fathers who insist that they saw pre-incarnate Christ. <S> But, hey, let's dig a little deeper, shall we? <S> John 12:41 Isaiah said these things when he saw his glory and spoke about him. <S> Isaiah 6:1 <S> In the year that king Uzziah died, I also saw Adonai sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. <S> So, they saw the pre-incarnate Son of God. <S> If you read the targumim (Aramaic translation/ interpretation of the Hebrew Tanakh), you will see that in many places where it says that YHVH is interacting with His creation, the targumim say that it is the Meimra <S> d'YHVH <S> (Word of YHVH) interacting with the creation. <S> Quite phenomenal if you ask me. <S> =) <A> It's usually unwise to try to separate out the persons of the Trinity from one another, unless two of them are clearly interacting. <S> When Jesus talks of "The Father" it's certainly clear to those listening to him that he means "God"; i.e. YHWH. <S> Jesus also identifies himself with YHWH, yet the scriptures also draw a distinction between Jesus and the Father - it is part of these complexities that led to the doctrine of the Trinity. <S> It is clear from other parts of scripture that God is not divided into three - the whole of God exists in three persons. <S> The Old Testament also clearly speaks of occasions when the Spirit of God interacted with people, by which we have to understand the Holy Spirit. <S> In short, the simplest way to approach this is to assume that all interactions in the Old Testament were with God as a whole - unless the Spirit is clearly named. <S> Attempting to make any finer distinction is fairly meaningless, and to insist that the interaction be with only one is to misunderstand the nature of the Trinity. <A> The God of the Old Testament is Yaweh (The Father).The christians of the Old Testament had no idea of the Trinity. <S> There was no physical incarnation (Jesus) as we have in the New Testament. <S> In as much as the Son and the Holy Spirit were there in the beginning, people of the time were not aware of their existence. <S> Does the Father still want that interaction with us - the New Testament church? <S> My answer would be, "Yes". <S> The Son was sent to draw us back to the Father and upon His death on the cross, the way was once again opened for us to do just that. <S> The modern day church seems to have an affiliation to the One that was sent rather than with the One that sent Him. <A> The old testament people had been interacting with all the three persons of the God Head. <S> God <S> The Father of the nation of Israel / Individuals Deut 32:6, Isa 63:16, Jeremiah 3:4, Jeremiah 3:19 , Mal 1:6, 2 Sam 7:14 ,1 Chron 17:13 Psalm <S> 68:5 <S> The Angel of the Lord - Christophany Exodus 3:2-6, Genesis 16:7, Judges 2:1-2, Judges 13:16-22, Zechariah 3:1-2, Zechariah 1:12-13, Psalms 34:7 <S> Holy SpiritGenesis 1:2, Job 33:4, Psalm 104:30,Nehemiah 9:20,Job 32:8, Psalm 51:11,Psalm 139:7,Exodus <S> 31:3 <S> One old testament verse that supports Trinity is Isa. <S> 48:16-17 <S> "Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. <S> And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent Me. <S> "Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, who leads you by the way you should go. <S> Lets examine this again because this theme occurs over and over Isaiah 48:16:“From the beginning from the time that it was, I was there: <S> (1st person) and now the Lord GOD (2nd person) and His Spirit, (3rd person) hath sent me (1st person).” <S> The Trinity Is Foreshadowed In Benedictions <S> The Trinity is also foreshadowed in the triple benediction of Numbers 6:24-27. <S> The LORD bless you and keep you; the LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; the LORD turn his face toward you and give you peace. <S> So they will put my name on the Israelites, and I will bless them. <S> The doxology of Isaiah 6:3 also gives hint of the Trinity. <S> And they were calling to one another: Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory (Isaiah 6:3).
|
The nature of the Trinity means that if you are interacting with one, for most purposes you may as well be interacting with all.
|
Are animals under the curse? Animals without a doubt go against the commandments of God. There are gay animals, animals that kill each other for no reason, etc. Does it say in the bible that the animals are under the curse of sin as well? If so, how is that justified? As in, why should animals suffer the curse of sin when they were not made in the image of God, did not disobey God, and are not descendants of Adam? <Q> For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. <S> For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. <S> For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.—Romans 8:19-22 ( ESV ) <S> Francis of Assisi is famous for preaching to animals . <S> Whether or not this is apocryphal, it illustrates his concern for non-human life. <S> Wikipedia also notes: <S> Francis preached the teaching of the Catholic Church, that the world was created good and beautiful by God but suffers a need for redemption because of the primordial sin of man. <S> He preached to man and beast the universal ability and duty of all creatures to praise God (a common theme in the Psalms) and the duty of men to protect and enjoy nature as both the stewards of God's creation and as creatures ourselves. <S> The final words of God in Jonah express compassion for both Nineveh and its cattle. <S> On the other hand, humanity is clearly distinct from the rest of creation: <S> Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. <S> And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” <S> So God created man in his own image, in the image of God <S> he created him; male and female he created them. <S> — <S> Genesis 1:26-27 <S> ( ESV ) <S> It would be a mistake equate the effects of sin on animals with their effect on humanity. <S> It's also clear that creation will be relieved of its curse when we take on our rightful place as children of God. <S> Summary <S> The Bible, early Christians and many doctrinal frameworks assert creation has suffered as a result of original sin. <S> But I don't know of any Christian group that puts the effects of the curse on animals at the same level as the curse upon humanity. <A> Does it say in the Bible that the animals are under the curse of sin as well? <S> No. <S> Now, some groups may or not believe animals are under the curse, but there's no direct Biblical statement. <S> Therefore, it would be a subjective, interpretation issue to address if they are truly under the curse or not. <S> Many YEC groups believe the curse affected not only animals, but plants, and even the universe itself via the law of entropy. <S> ICR, for example puts it like this: <S> The animals, not having moral natures, were not guilty of sin, of course, but they also shared in the Curse, for they were—like Adam—made of the dust of the ground that God had cursed. <S> Like Adam's body, their bodies also must return to the ground. <S> Henceforth, "death reigned ... <S> even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression" (Romans 5:14). <S> Thus there is death in the world only because there is sin in the world. <S> It is this great truth that causes evolutionists to stumble over God and His word. <S> By stretching the six days of creation into great ages, many evolutionists can put up with the Genesis "story" of creation, but they simply cannot tolerate the record of man's Fall and God's Curse as the cause of suffering and death in the world. <S> But that's just ICR. <S> They do not speak for Christianity as a whole, and I refuse to get sucked into a debate over whether their view is correct or not. <A> Apparently creation has been given for man to tame, just as a horse would have been given to a bronco buster to break: Genesis 1:28 NET <S> God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply! <S> Fill the earth and subdue it! <S> Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that moves on the ground.” <S> Looking at the record, the bad attitude, the lying, blame shifting, disbelief and the actual disobedience, the subduing was to start with the serpent, the adversary, the bodily appetites within Man. <S> Quote from Article from Judaism.About.com <S> The Hebrew word "satan" literally means "adversary" and in Jewish thought one of the things we struggle against every day is the "evil inclination," also known as the yetzer hara. <S> The yetzer hara is not a force or a being, but rather refers to mankind's innate capacity for doing evil in the world. <S> Using the term satan to describe this impulse is not very common though. <S> (The "good inclination" is called the yetzer hatov.) <S> Luke 4:1-4 NET <S> Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan River and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness, where for forty days he endured temptations from the devil. <S> He ate nothing during those days, and when they were completed, he was famished. <S> The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” <S> Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man does not live by bread alone.’”
|
Paul does say that "the whole creation" (including animals, presumably) suffers because of the fall:
|
Is the Bible an inexhaustible source? "I have heard many pastors on online and in sermons make the statement that the bible is inexhaustible. I am trying to wrap my mind around that. Isn't it a finite book. can't you know what it says completely? I would love for it to be inexhaustible because I love to learn new things about God and Heaven etc. Maybe people make the claim that it is inexhaustible because it shows us how to have a relationship with God and he is Infinite. Can you shed any light on this?" Disclaimer: The above question was asked on my church's website by a seeker. I have some definite ideas about this, but I would like some input from the community. <Q> When we talk about the Bible from a Christian point of view (and especially as men preach about it), we cannot separate the Bible itself (a collection of words) from the power of the Holy Spirit who not only inspired its writing, but who also gives light to us as we read and hear the words. <S> We can live our whole lives reading the Bible, and the Holy Spirit can continue to shed increasing light on what we understand the Bible to say about who God is and the great works he has done. <S> Is the Bible a finite book with a finite number of words that have specific meanings? <S> Yes. <S> But we do not get wisdom from the Bible without the work of the Holy Spirit teaching us. <S> And the God that the Bible speaks of and the Holy Spirit shines light on is truly infinite. <A> It seems pretty clear that the Bible is inexhaustible to anyone who has experienced its power. <S> The scriptures have no bottom in that there is no end (in this life) to the increasing knowledge of God's glory and grace which we will gain in studying it. <S> Some books have a bottom. <S> For example, one could read mathematics books over and over until the reader knows more about the subject than most books explain. <S> That is, his knowledge would surpass the knowledge conveyed in the book. <S> The Bible is obviously not like this. <S> No man can ever know what is revealed in it anywhere near to its depth. <S> Strictly speaking I would not say it is infinite (as written in ink) for in heaven we might know more about Christ's glory than what is strictly written, but at least on this side of heaven we can't know how far we have understood even after living a hundred years in intense study of it. <S> I suspect <S> the most knowledgeable and wise man knowns less than 1% of what is deposited in the riches of the scriptures upon which we also requires the illumination of the Holy Spirit to perceive aright. <S> I suppose one of the reasons for why it has no bottom is that it reveals God's mind on things that humans could not otherwise discover on their own thinking, study, or scientific exploration. <S> Furthermore, what it has revealed it reveals in a way where personal experience with God is necessary in understanding it along the natural endless growth of that relationship. <S> Also, love and truth are not separate, so <S> the Bible demands thought emotions and a spiritual sense to coincide in a unity of living soul to form a proper understanding through a spiritual tasting and experience of the truth in Christ. <S> It is not just a subject of natural study but is life itself. <S> For more in-depth reasons on how inexhaustible and infallible the scriptures are, I have previously posted here (for any that might be interested in a long read): <S> If the Bible has been changed over the years, can we still trust it? <A> Part of the inexhaustible nature of the Bible is that it acts as glasses that allow one to see things in the visible world more clearly and correctly (e.g., Psalm 19:1a "The heavens declare the glory of God" [NIV]) counteracting tendencies to suppress the truth (Romans 1:18) and as a hearing aid that allows us to more clearly and correctly hear the Holy Spirit (who not only inspired Scripture but works through Scripture [2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Hebrews 4:12]). <S> Creation is effectively inexhaustible from the perspective of a single human mind (and reflects the truly inexhaustible glory of God) and the Holy Spirit is inexhaustible from any perspective. <A> If the Bible were merely an ordinary book, then its contents would be as exhaustible as any other book. <S> However, the Bible declares itself to be anything but an ordinary book. <S> Specifically, it describes itself as "living and active". <S> For the word of God is living and active , sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. <S> Hebrews <S> 4:12 ESV <S> It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. <S> The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life . <S> John 6:63 ESV <S> Furthermore, a principle in Luke 6:45 is that a person's words reveals the heart of that person. <S> The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. <S> If, then, the words of God reveal the very heart of God Himself, then the Word of God is, in fact, inexhaustible, as God Himself is infinite. <S> Isaiah also speaks of how God's understanding is unsearchable: Have you not known? <S> Have you not heard? <S> The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. <S> He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable . <S> Isaiah 40:28 ESV <S> Since God is infinite, it will take an eternity to get to know Him fully. <S> Fortunately, He has promised to give us exactly that amount of time to be with Him in Heaven. <S> As a side note, however, it is likely only inexhaustible for people who are actually Christians. <S> Many believers attest to the fact that prior to their conversion to Christianity, the Bible was a confusing, lifeless, incomprehensible book, yet it came alive to them after their conversion. <S> Paul hints at this phenomenon: <S> For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. <S> 1 Corinthians 1:18 ESV
|
So, from a Biblical perspective, the Bible, as the very words of God which reveal the nature of God, is, as a result, inexhaustible.
|
What is the difference between holiness and righteousness? Both holiness and righteousness are used to describe God. Additionally, we as Christians are called to be holy and righteous as well. These are two distinct words, so they must have distinct meanings. So, my question is what distinguishes holiness from righteousness? You shall be holy to me, for I the Lord am holy and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine. Leviticus 20:26 ESV 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy , you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “ You shall be holy , for I am holy .” 1 Peter 1:14-16 ESV You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our conduct toward you believers. 1 Thessalonians 2:10 ESV But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. Ephesians 4:20-24 ESV <Q> "Holy" means "set apart", as in set aside for a particular purpose, and implies being "special" and acting accordingly. <S> In particular it means " set aside for God's service ". <S> Perhaps a better way of putting it would be "not guilty" or "blameless". <S> The two should go hand in hand. <A> Holiness is what we strive for and is gradually improved in us by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit. <S> This is not something imputed to us, but something which we are commanded to become: since it is written, "you shall be holy, for I am holy." <S> 1 Peter 1:16 <S> Righteousness is something imputed to us by the vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ. <S> While we will often talk about striving for righteousness, I believe the best context to understand it is that our "righteousness is as filthy rags" Isaiah 64:6 and that the only way we are considered righteous is by the imputed righteousness of Christ upon us. <A> Righteousness is a gift from God through Jesus Christ (2Cor.5:21)Holiness is a responsibility (2Cor.7:1) as kings in the kingdom of God. <A> First, to be holy, one must reconcile with God by being Baptized in Christ (cf. <S> Gal 3:23, Romans 6:3-5), that way the person will put on Christ and his Adamic nature will be broken. <S> After that, by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands (cf. <S> Acts 8:16-17, Acts 19:4-6), the person is qualified to live a holy life. <S> Righteousness is basically behaving rightly and may not necessarily mean that the person is a Christian, as in the case of Cornelius in Acts 10. <A> When the Bible says no one is righteous <S> it means that no one could deserve salvation on their own. <S> No one was right enough without Christ to be in right standing with God. <S> "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." <S> (Romans 3:23) <S> 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, "He who knew no sin became sin so that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ. <S> " <S> People confuse righteousness with right living. <S> These are two different things. <S> Righteousness is a position. <S> When you become saved you are considered in right standing with God. <S> The word says, "Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness" (Romans 4:3; Genesis 15:6). <S> No one is considered righteous based on their behavior. <S> Their righteousness is based on their belief in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:20-22). <S> You don't do right things to become righteous. <S> Because you are righteous you do right things.
|
" Righteous " means "made right" (justified), or "being right", not in the sense of "correct", but as in "not wrong" - being pure, honest, sinless.
|
What does INRI stand for? On the crucifix there is sometimes a plate above Jesus' head that has the letters INRI. What does INRI mean or stand for? Why is it there? <Q> According to John 19:19-20 , 19 <S> And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. <S> And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. <S> 20 <S> This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, [and] Greek, [and] Latin (KJV, 1769) <S> The phrase "Jesus the Nazarene, the king of the Jews" was written in three languages: Hebrew (likely Aramaic), Greek, and Latin. <S> In Aramaic: ישוע נצריא מלכא דיהודיא (see Peshitta) <S> In Greek: Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος <S> ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων (See Textus Receptus) <S> In Latin: Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum (See Latin Vulgate) <A> The actual inscription on the Cross was written in three languages, Latin, Greek and Aramaic. <S> We know from Scripture that what was actually written was "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews". <S> The Latin rendering of this has initials <S> I.N.R.I. <S> I know in Greek there is no "J", <S> so "Jesus" and "Jews" is rendered with an "I". <S> The "R" stands for King. <S> The word in French for King is "roi", I believe, which is likely based on Latin. <S> So, this is the meaning: I = <S> Jesus <S> N = <S> Nazareth R = <S> King <S> I = <S> Jews <S> There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them. <S> 19 Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. <S> It read, “ Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews .” <S> 20 <S> Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified <S> was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek. <S> John 19:18-20 ESV From Elendia:Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum <A> It's the initial letters of the Latin inscription Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" which Pilate wrote at the Crucifixion. <S> Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. <S> It read: Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews. <S> John 19:19 NIV
|
INRI is an acronym meaning Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum , or "Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews."
|
Is the genealogy in Matthew a complete Genealogy, or did he abreviate it for a specific reason? The genealogy in Matthew 1 lists the names in 3 groups - From Abraham to David, David to the Exile, The Exile to Jesus. I'm just interested to know is this a complete family history for Jesus, or is it done "poetically" so that there are 14 generations in each group? Is Matthew trying to highlight something to his Jewish readers by pointing out there are 14 generations between each event? <Q> Many people believe that there are gaps in the Genealogy listed in Matthew. <S> This article addresses "the primary problems of the Genealogy in Matthew", and lists the gaps as one of the arguments for "unreliability" leveled by critics. <S> Section <S> I: <S> What Are The Primary Problems <S> Associated With Matthew <S> ’s <S> Genealogy <S> And How Are They Reconciled? <S> There are 3 main problems associated with Matthew’s genealogy that most critics point out. <S> They are as follows: <S> The Inference That Joseph Was Actually Jesus’ Father <S> The Promise Of God Against Jeconiah Nullified That The Messiah Would Be As A Result Of His Bloodline. <S> (Jer. 22:29-30) <S> Too Many Gaps <S> In The Genealogical Succession Of Matthew Against Known References <S> In Other Texts Prove Discrepancies. <S> The "gaps are explained thus: The critic often levies the charge that gaps found within the genealogy of Matthew are as a matter of sloppy investigations of the facts and proof <S> that Matthew either made the story up or simply couldn’t seem to get it right even after he wrote it. <S> These type of statements usually claim the historical ignorance of the gospel writer and relegate Jesus to the realm of myth, which is another tired critical argument refuted over and over down through the last couple of centuries. <S> Was Matthew eagerly, erroneously and fallaciously promoting information that even he couldn’t seem to get straight? <S> What are we to make of gaps in Matthew’s <S> account? <S> Once again this type of observation is clearly and certainly overemphasized, and has no bearing on the accuracy of the narrative. <S> It is a fact that some of the individuals Matthew says “begat”, were grandfathers and sometime great grandfathers and not paternal fathers and sons. <S> One such example is Mt. 1:8 where Joram is said to have “begat” Uzziah. <S> We know that 1 Chron. <S> 3:10-12 states that Joram was Uzziah’s great-grandfather not paternal father. <S> 3 generations are skipped by Matthew in this case. <S> The article does go on further, but from just this last paragraph, we can see that this author, at least, believes that there are gaps, and the genealogy is not complete. <S> This has been my understanding as well, as it's a common explanation in Apologetic literature. <A> In most ancient cultures, the letters of the alphabet doubled as numbers. <S> The best known example today is Roman numerals . <S> The Hebrew alphabet had its own numeric encoding . <S> The reason Matthew chose 14 is simple: <S> 14 is the sum of the letters of David's name . <A> Thoughts from a minister I know: <S> The Matthew passage is more stylized than the Luke chronology…and it’s different too in places. <S> Almost all of his Jewish audience would be able to see that he had made omissions. <S> He would have known that too. <S> So we can discount simple error or fraud. <S> Matthew was simply making stylistic omissions that reflected the importance of the number 7 in Jewish writings (14 is 2 times 7).
|
Matthew is tracing Jesus' genealogy to show he is the heir of David; by dividing the genealogy into groups of 14, Matthew is simply reinforcing this point.
|
According to Roman Catholic doctrine, why does Mary refer to God as her Savior if she was born without sin? In the Magnificat, Mary refers to God as her Savior. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, Mary was born sinless and remained sinless throughout her life. So, why does Mary refer to God as her Savior if she was sinless (and therefore would not have need of a Savior or even have one). And Mary said: “My soul exalts the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior . For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; for behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed. For the Mighty One has done great things for me; and holy is His name. And His mercy is upon generation after generation Toward those who fear Him. He has done mighty deeds with His arm; He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart. He has brought down rulers from their thrones, And has exalted those who were humble. He has filled the hungry with good things; And sent away the rich empty-handed. He has given help to Israel His servant, In remembrance of His mercy, As He spoke to our fathers, To Abraham and his descendants forever.” (Luke 1:46-55) <Q> Credit to H3br3wHamm3r81 who actually found this link. <S> According to Catholic Answers , it was because of God's salvation that she was able to be born sinless and remain sinless. <S> Paraphrasing, God saved her pre-emptively, preventing (or perhaps keeping/preserving) her from sinning in the first place, something no human could do without God's protective saving power. <S> In other words, in Catholic doctrine, she was sinless, but only through the Grace of God. <S> Without the Grace of God and His keeping power, she could not have remained sinless. <S> Excerpt: <S> The Catholic Answer <S> Not a few Protestants are surprised to discover the Catholic Church actually agrees that Mary was "saved." <S> Indeed, Mary needed a savior! <S> However, Mary was "saved" from sin in a most sublime manner. <S> She was given the grace to be "saved" completely from sin so that she never committed even the slightest transgression. <S> Protestants tend to emphasize God’s "salvation" almost exclusively to the forgiveness of sins actually committed. <S> However, Sacred Scripture indicates that salvation can also refer to man being protected from sinning before the fact: <A> The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. <S> Mary was preserved from these defects by God's grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature that original sin brings. <S> Mary therefore says: Luke 1:47 and <S> my spirit has begun to rejoice in God my Savior, Some argue that this indicates that Mary was sinner, since only sinners needs a saviour. <S> But it is not so. <S> Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. <S> But by special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. <S> She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way ---by anticipation. <S> To quote an analogy <S> that I read <S> : Suppose a man falls into a deep pit and someone reaches down to pull him out. <S> The man has been saved from the pit. <S> Now imagine a woman walking along and she is about to topple into the pit, but <S> at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. <S> She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit; she was spared from getting strained by the mud in the first place. <S> In this way God became her saviour in a special way and hence her exclaim. <S> She has more reason to call God her saviour than we do, because He saved her in an even more glorious manner. <S> As per New Advent , the formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was in her soul. <S> Simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. <S> The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining to original sin, were excluded. <S> But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam — from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death. <A> Read Jude 1:24-25 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy. <S> To the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion, and power, both now and forever, Amen. <S> Jude 1:24-25 <S> KJV <S> " <S> Full of Grace"
|
Mary was saved because her Savior prevented her from falling into sin.
|
Why appoint Matthias to replace Judas only to later appoint Paul as a thirteenth Apostle? It seems that twelve is a number with a lot of meaning in the Bible, and thirteen not so much. So why not make Paul the twelfth Apostle and just skip Matthias? Later in Revelation the church seems to be still presented as based on twelve as a complete number: And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (Revelation 21:14, ESV) So why thirteen? Or why are there twelve Apostles to Israel and only one to the rest of the world? Note: I am not doubting that Matthias was an Apostle. This question assumes he was. I am also assuming the restricted sense of Apostle as not just 'bearers of the NT message' or 'commissioned representative of a congregation' but those inner circle of Apostles whose offices were directly appointed by Christ in the flesh, Matthias being a replacement of one of those. Therefore, I am excluding Barnabas, James, etc. from the question. Please see also the related (but not duplicate) question Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthais or Paul? That question asked if Paul replaced Matthias, or not. This question assumes he did NOT and then asks 'What is the meaning of twelve Apostles to Israel and one to the Gentiles?' What is the meaning of 12 + 1? <Q> We have no record of when or under what circumstances Paul was called as an apostle, but we do know that his ministry coincided with a period of very heavy persecution for the church. <S> So it's not at all unreasonable to assume, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that Paul was appointed, as Matthias was, once one of the other existing apostles was killed. <A> The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb . <S> Revelation 21:14 <S> (emphasis mine) <S> At issue here is who the 'apostles' were, and how many there were. <S> See this question, "How many apostles are there" . <S> Or this one, " <S> Who was the 12th apostle..." . <S> The underlying premise is in question. <S> Scripture lists upwards of the possibility of 25 people as apostles. <S> Peter, in Acts 1:20, says the reason for the election of Matthais, quoting Psalm 109:8, "Let another take his place of leadership". <S> From the passage in Revelation, while there are numerous people mentioned as apostles, there is a distinction between the "apostles of the Lamb", the twelve, and those who are called Apostles after that. <S> While some would disagree, I believe, with respect to Revelation 21:14, that Matthais's name, not Paul's, will be on one foundation, as he was specifically elected (by God, through men), to fill that vacancy. <S> Paul, too, is an apostle, not less than the "super apostles", also "least of the saints", and "chief of sinners". <S> But, simply because Scirpture records largely the activities of Paul, and not others, does not mean that they weren't very fruitful. <A> I had no idea that upon questioning the number thirteen I would find an Old Testament pattern that does seem to reappear in the New Testament. <S> However I have not found this seeming perfect match made notice of by my favorite Bible commentators <S> so I remain in doubt whether this is truly prophetic or just a very convenient coincidence. <S> In any case it does answer the question, at least making one not be so fussy about twelve, verses thirteen. <S> The fact is the tribes of Israel started out as 12 <S> but then a double portion went to Joseph, so two of his son's (Manasseh and Ephraim) became their own tribes. <S> Technically the tribes of Israel started at twelve and then became thirteen. <S> Furthermore, when Jacob blessed the two sons Manasseh, the first born was to have the greater blessing, but Jacob reversed the order saying: <S> Nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude of nations. <S> (Genesis 48:19) <S> Actually, Ephraim became so prominent that it came to designate the northern kingdom and Judah denoted the southern kingdom. <S> It seems that in some ways then the loss of the one office which needed replacement was possibly resurrected into an unpredicted double portion when the youngest, Paul, became the office that was greater greater, even as 'a multitude of nations' being brought into the blessings of the gospel. <S> This large blessing to Ephraim, which Messiah was not to have his lineage from, may act as a symbol of the Gentiles being a thirteenth tribe included in the twelve. <S> Under this view Matthias corresponds to Manasseh filling out the Jewish offices and Ephraim to Paul indicating the ministry focused on Gentiles. <S> Literally 'the odd man out' at thirteen, yet became greater than the other which completed the twelve. <S> Symbolically as the original number was twelve, twelve remains the figurative symbol for all the tribes and apostles. <S> One has to admit the coincidences are more than singular in the convenient parallels. <S> Yet it still begs the question why would Paul, not mention this? <S> Possibly he did not notice it for <S> it was God's blessing on him for always considering himself the least. <S> In support of the theory, when we read the book of Acts, Paul really is the trail blazer. <A> Matthias was mans at attempt to complete the prophesy and bring the number back to twelve. <S> The 11 were not asked to do it nor did they ask God if they should. <S> They only assumed they should. <S> They chose between Him and another by lots. <S> Notice Matthias never did anything. <S> Paul was chosen by Jesus as the other 11 were. <S> Paul is the true 12Th. <S> notice Rev says there are 12 names on the wall? <S> We know one of them is NOT Judas. <S> and if you add matthias that's 13. <S> What ever you conclude, it can't be a contradiction. <A> Jesus is referred to as an Apostle in <S> Heb. <S> 3:1–2 <S> ; 1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; 2 <S> Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. <S> This is a designation meaning that He is the personal and select representative of the Father. <S> It also makes him a thirteenth apostle in addition to the twelve, but with a different role than the twelve. <S> Christ conferred the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven unto Peter. <S> If this made Peter the successive representative of the Father on earth, then that would have left two open positions in the quorum of twelve apostles, not just the one left by Judas. <S> Matthias was called to fill the position of Judas, Paul may have been called to fill the open position left by Peter, who was advanced to assume Christs position as High Priest of the church.
|
Matthias was appointed for a very specific purpose: to fill the void in the Twelve once Judas had died.
|
Apostolic Succession in the Catholic church Wikipedia says: In the Catholic Church, the Pope is regarded as the successor of Saint Peter, the Apostle. cf. Pope | Wikipedia As someone who isn't Catholic I don't want to argue how true this is or how significant this is. What I'm interested to know is there an office/title/person in the Catholic church for any of the other 11 Apostles (12 if you include Paul), or is it just Saint Peter because he was the leader of the apostles? <Q> The other apostles are associated with other Churches. <S> St Mark , for example, was the founder of the Church of Alexandria; <S> St Thomas is believed to have taken Christianity to India; and so on. <S> Only St John the Evangelist did not die a martyr in a far-off place (at least, Patmos isn't as far as India). <S> Accordingly, most of the other apostles do not have such a place as Peter's within the Roman Church, but they do have a similar position as Patriarchs of the Churches they founded. <A> Apostolic succession applies to all successors of the original 12 apostles. <S> Every modern day bishop and priest (including the Pope) has been ordained by Bishops, creating an unbroken lineage all the way back to the original 12. <S> This wikipedia section has it right, as far as I've read. <S> By conferring the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders on the apostles, they were given the authority to confer the sacrament of Holy Orders on others, thus consecrating more bishops in a direct lineage that can trace its origin back to the Twelve Apostles and Christ. <S> This direct succession of bishops from the apostles to the present day bishops is referred to as apostolic succession. <S> -- <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession#Catholic_Church <S> And as it states, Papal Primacy, which is what you're hinting at, is a different but related matter. <S> The primacy of the Bishop of Rome is an ecclesiastical doctrine concerning the respect and authority that is due to the Bishop of Rome from other bishops and their sees. <S> -- <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_primacy <A> The questioner asked if there is an office or title of "apostle" in the Catholic Church, and seemed to want to know whether there are 12 of them, as in the primitive church. <S> To my knowledge, neither the Catholic, Jewish, nor Protestant traditions recognize the calling/office of "apostle". <S> See also this related answer re hierarchy of order and hierarchy of jurisdiction in CC <S> What are the positions relative to each other in the Catholic church's clerical hierarchy? <S> I know of only one sect that does recognize the office or title of "apostle", and has 12 men currently holding that title. <S> But it's not the Catholic Church.
|
In Roman Catholic theology, the doctrine of apostolic succession states that Christ gave the full sacramental authority of the Church to the Twelve Apostles in the sacrament of Holy Orders, making them the first bishops.
|
Somebody was born into a culture that has no knowledge of the Christ - could he still "find him"? If somebody a) has no access to the Bible or any other written document on the Christand b) has no chance of hearing of "him" through the word of mouth either (because he lives in a culture that has no knowledge of the Christ, for instance), could he still "find the Christ"? Is there any Christian denomination that would say " yes " and how such a person could "find the Christ"? <Q> Mormons would be one to say yes. <S> According to LDS belief, any who die without a complete or necessary knowledge of Jesus will be taught about Him in the Spirit World after this life, where they may choose to accept or reject the gospel. <S> (This is why they build temples: to redeem the living and the dead.) <S> On a related note, they also believe that Christ came to more than just the Jews as in the Biblical record, citing John 10:16 and the Book of Mormon, indicating that there may be more people who know of Christ than we think. <A> The Bible seems to suggest that anyone who sincerely seeks God will find Him. <S> You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. <S> Jeremiah 29:13 NASB <S> Even though this particular verse was written to a particular people, the principle could, perhaps, apply. <S> A very real way that God has and continues to respond to people in remote tribes who are seeking Him is the sending of missionaries. <S> In his book, Eternity in Their Hearts , Don Richardson records actual occurrences where this has happened. <S> So, if this response from God is not excluded, then the answer is a definite <S> If, however, this means of finding Christ is excluded, then the answer is definitely , "Maybe". <S> In the past decades, Jesus has been revealing Himself to Muslims at an alarming rate through dreams and visions, even the heart of Islam where Christianity does not even exist and no Bible is available. <S> (See Which None Can Shut , Miracles Among Muslims , Dreams and Visions: <S> Is Jesus Awakening the Muslim World , and I Dared to Call Him Father , to name a few). <S> When these people experienced these dreams and visions, some of whom completely hated Christianity, they went in search of Jesus and found Him. <S> So, in these cases, people were not living in a remote tribe, but were, in fact, living in places where there were no Christians and no Bibles, yet they still found Christ. <S> For those people living in remote tribes, it is, perhaps, possible that Jesus could appear to them in similar fashion. <S> We just can't know for sure. <A> In reality it is very hard to imagine circumstances in which someone would have no chance of hearing about Jesus. <S> Living in a non-Christian culture certainly makes it harder, but it would have to be a very strange and isolated culture where there was no chance at all. <S> There are Christians in virtually every country in the world - and its only a lack of definite information that stops me from saying "every country". <S> Even countries where Christianity is forbidden or persecuted have Christian communities in secret or semi-secret. <S> There are people who carry out evangelism in places where evangelism is forbidden. <S> In addition there are Christian radio stations that broadcast into places where literature and missionary work are forbidden. <S> The only case where this might be true is a remote tribe entirely isolated from the developed world. <S> There are very few of them - and by definition we don't know about them <S> So in short, the situation your propose is entirely theoretical. <S> If you are asking if someone who has never heard of Jesus can be saved, that's an entirely different question (the short answer is 'yes', but I'll let you ask it elsewhere for a more detailed answer) <A> Molinism <S> One view not mentioned here is molinism . <S> Under this theory of divine providence, God, through his middle knowledge (God's knowledge of the results of everyone's free choices, in all possible worlds), knows everyone who would free choose Christ given the choice. <S> God, knowing what people would freely choose, arranged creation such that those who would choose Christ were placed in a circumstances that they would hear. <S> Not my personal view, but an interesting one none the less. <A> The answer: <S> yes and I'm proof of it. <S> I had no interest in Christianity, but a group on the west coast took me on as a prayer project. <S> I didn't care. <S> But "coincidences" arranged for me to read an apologetics book on the Bible. <S> Since I was out of thick books to read, I bought a Bible and started reading it. <S> When I reached the New Testament, I was amazed at this fellow, Jesus. <S> I became a Christian out of the Bible. <S> In Acts 9, Pharisee Saul set out to arrest the Christians in Damascus. <S> The Christians there were fervently praying for Him. <S> God came through and saved him on the road. <S> In Muslim countries, Muslims are becoming Christians because of Christians praying for God to visit them in visions and dreams. <S> Many converted Muslims are reporting that's how they became Christians.
|
"Yes, a person who has no access to the Bible or other Christians can still find Christ if he seeks God, because God can answer his seeking by sending him what he did not originally have."
|
Why do churches have steeples? What purpose do steeples serve? Are they put high up on church buildings as some sort of marketing tool so it can be seen from far away or is there some other reason(s)? <Q> Interesting question. <S> I managed to find an article, The History of Church Steeples , that actually addresses this. <S> One reason: <S> It was simply an architectural style that happens to inspire us to look heavenward. <S> These early church architects designed grand cathedrals and churches that had intricate, soaring steeples. <S> The vertical lines of the steeple helped to visually enhance the lines of the church, directing the viewers' eyes vertically to the heavens. <S> Obviously, this verticality complements part of the mission of the church, to keep us in a heavenly frame of mind, but from an architectural standpoint, this vertical lift gives the architecture a more graceful and pleasing look. <S> The shorter the building, the more squat the appearance; the taller the building, the more graceful it becomes. <S> Therefore, the steeple has a dual role in that it helps the congregant in his or her spiritual mindset, and the steeple also helps the architect with a design feature that enhances the overall harmony of the architecture. <S> In short, there's no doctrinal significance, or symbolic other than the pointing to the Heavens. <S> It's simply a beautiful style that, once done, was imitated throughout the ages until it became expected. <A> Because steeples have bells in them <S> See, they know they need to pray the Angelus because the bell is ringing. <A> for the sound of bells to carry over the tops of buildings, the bells had to be higher than surrounding buildings. <S> Bells were used not only before church service, but also to notify people of emergencies, such as fires. <S> The buildings were regularly used as a town meeting place, as well, not like today where they are often locked except on Sunday mornings. <A> The church has always been recognised as a patron of art as it has needed to use art for teaching and inspiring . <S> Stained glass windows often contained depiction of scriptural teachings, and allegorical interpretation lent itself particularly well to this form. <S> Common folk found pictorial depiction easier to understand. <S> Thus the Samaritan would be depicted as Christ, the wounded man as man under sin's oppression. <S> The other way art could be used was for inspiration . <S> Cathedrals have been called prayers in stone, depicting the heavenward soaring of men's words. <S> People entering a place of worship were inspired to believe they were seeing and hearing men praising God through architecture and music. <S> God was the recipient of this worship, and men's energies were used to create forms in a way that reflected this. <S> Conscious effort was made in the soaring interiors and ethereal singing to convey the idea that God was present in all His Majesty. <S> Compare this with contemporary architecture and music, where the end products have the consumer in view. <S> Churches are patronised because they have comfortable seating, climate control and theatre acoustics, the better to hear words that comfort and beats that stir the feet to tap.
|
The early church believed that the church could communicate the truth of the Bible in pictures and symbols to those who were illiterate, such as using the picture in the stained glass to tell stories, as well as the steeple, which helped by pointing upwards devotedly to Heaven.
|
Does the Christian Old Testament have the exact same list of books as the Jewish Bible? Does the Christian Old Testament include exactly the same books that are in the Jewish Bible (called the Tanakh in Judaism)? Are there any differences between the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Bible? <Q> The Christian Old Testament is the Jewish Bible. <S> They are the same books , but in a different order . <S> Some Christian churches also add the deuterocanonical books , which are not held as scripture by the Jewish Bible. <A> (The Catholic Church uses variations in books compared to the Protestant groups, and it all overlaps with but isn't identical to the Jewish inclusions.) <S> However more importantly, the translations for Christian versions (aka Old Testament) include translations that would not be considered accurate in Judaism. <S> Therefore while one can see the same title and say it's the same book, it's not entirely the same book in content as it comes over into English. <S> The term Old Testament was invented by an early Christian (I'm not recalling his name), whose goal was to say that Judaism was defunct and their texts were "old" and "superseded. <S> " It's part of the whole anti-Judaism theme that ran through parts of Christianity's implementation over the years. <S> (So from a Jewish perspective it's considered very negative to refer to their texts as "the Old Testament.") <S> This is why some of those differences in translation exist, and why it's not even intended to be "the same" books entirely. <A> The term "testament" can also be translated as "pact" or "covenant". <S> The notion of a coming new covenant is a completely Jewish one, as it first appears in the prophets (e.g. Isaiah 59.21; Jeremiah 31.31, 32.40; Ezekiel 37.26). <S> Jesus, the Messiah, established this new covenant through his death at his last Passover with his disciples (Mark 14.24; Luke 22.20; Hebrews 8.8, 10.16-17). <S> Thus, the term "New Testament" refers to the scriptural writings inspired by God under this new covenant. <S> Those Jews who reject Jesus as the Messiah obviously do not believe that a new covenant has been established and so reject the validity of the New Testament as well as the term "Old Testament" for the Tanakh. <S> This link offers a good explanation of the difference between the Jewish Tanakh and the Christian Old Testament in terms of the order of the books, which are the same for both. <S> The author prefers the order in the latter based on its symmetry, but argues that both were probably in existence during the first century, when the discussions and arguments were taking place between Jesus (and subsequently, his apostles) and the Jewish religious leaders.
|
The Old Testament is based on the Jewish Bible with often the same books.
|
Where is the Trinity in the Bible? Possible Duplicate: Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity I've heard of the Trinity multiple times and under the basis of it. He is one God, but with three personalities. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But nowhere do I ever see the word Trinity mentioned in the Bible. If I'm going to believe in a God, wouldn't his name or "nickname" at least be listed once (If that makes any sense)? God has many names listed throughout the Bible, but never is Trinity listed. If the Trinity is the basis of who my God and what he is, wouldn't that term of that basis be defined? It's not like the Bible doesn't describe Him. God is omnipotent, all-powerful, etc. God has been given many names and titles, and has been defined and described of who and what he is, but I've never seen the Trinity defined. I also never even see anyone get baptized in the names of the father, son, and holy spirit. Paul baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and was never "corrected" by God. Doing a little Google search, I see that the Trinity was introduced years ago by the Roman Catholic church to settle a dispute between the Christians and paganists (sp?). (Long story short). I would have added more tags, but wasn't allowed to add new tags. <Q> Jesus himself said to baptize that way: <S> Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, <S> (Matthew 28:19 ESV) <S> The word "trinity" is not a name or nickname, merely an adjective that describes the fact that there are three distinct persons (not personalities ) that together are God. <A> The Trinity is not a name of God. <S> It is a doctrine that describes the relationship of the three distinct persons of the godhead. <S> The term is a construct that explains this paradox. <S> That answer shows how we know each member of the Trinity is god, and that they are all one, and yet three. <A> Well, once can't distinctly blame the "Roman" Catholic Church for this, it's certainly in the Apostle's Creed which would predate the Protestant reformation and nearly coincide with the final compilation of the Bible in the 3rd century. <S> Check out the table of creeds in the old Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org for instances of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost). <S> Sacred Tradition is the other half of Jesus' revealed truth. <S> It's revealed through the Church that Christ established. <S> But it's just a natural extension of a deep understanding of the teachings of the Apostles. <S> The Old Testament is littered with references to God the Father (Who did Moses talk to?) <S> and God the Holy Spirit <S> (What blew over the waters) and even God the Son (What's in the Ark of the Covenant) and in the New Testament Jesus reveals what all these things really mean. <S> But, 3 Persons 1 God is the only suitable interpretation that leaves us a monotheistic religion. <S> 1 Person 1 God would make us Muslims <S> 1 Person multiple Gods would made us Buddhists. <S> The Father loves the Son and that love is the Holy Spirit, that makes us Christians.
|
Catholics believe the Trinity is part of Sacred Tradition, not Sacred Scripture.
|
What makes someone an antipope? Rather straight forward question. There have been multiple men declared antipopes. Is it different each time, or generally the same set of circumstances that causes this? <Q> Flinn points out that there have been 39 antipopes in the history of the Catholic Church and that the criteria for papal validity as well as the correct electoral body for the popes has evolved over time. <S> The first person declared an antipope was St. Hippolytus of Rome (r. 217-35) for his challenging of Pope Callistus (r. 217-222). <S> The best known antipopes are those from the Babylonian Captivity when the seat of the papacy was moved in 1309 from Rome to Avignon, France where it remained until <S> 1377--these popes were known as antipopes by the Holy See in Rome and a valid pope was elected by that body. <S> For further reading, you can refer to:Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes (San Francisco: <S> HarperSan Francisco, 2000)Daniel MacCarron, The Great Schism: Antipopes Who Split The Church <S> (Dublin: <S> D.M.C. Universal, 1982). <S> I hope that helps answer your question some! <S> All information in this reply came from:Encyclopedia of Catholicism. <S> Frank K. Flinn. <S> New York: <S> Facts on File, 2007. <S> 33-34. <S> Full Disclosure: <S> I am an MSIS student at the University of Texas' School of Information and am answering this for a class on reference. <S> I found this source through the Gale Virtual Reference Library. <A> Wikipedia has a good, though slightly sparse, article on the subject of Antipopes . <S> An Antipope was someone who claimed the title of Pope in opposition to a current pope, typically setting up an alternative papacy. <S> The two main groups of Antipopes were those set up by the Holy Roman Emperors during the 11th and 12th centuries, and those established by the French cardinals who claimed in 1378 that the election of Urban VI was invalid, and set up an alternative papacy. <S> The latter was reunited with the Roman church in 1415 by the treaty of Constantinople. <A> Anti in Greek can be found in Strong's Concordance as G473. <S> antian-tee'a primary particle; opposite, i.e. instead or because of (rarely in addition to):--for, in the room of. <S> Often used in composition to denote contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc. <S> So antipope can mean someone opposite the real pope, someone instead of the real pope, someone in the room of (in the place of) the real pope, or someone in substitution of the real pope, etc. <S> In saying real pope meaning the bishop of Rome.
|
Frank K. Flinn's Encyclopedia of Catholicism defines an antipope as "a person who lays claim to the office of bishop of Rome and tries to act as head of the Roman Catholic Church, in opposition to the person duly holding that ecclesiastical office in the eyes of the church as a whole."
|
Have witches ever been executed by the Eastern Orthodox Church? If we don't count lynchings, have people ever been executed for witchcraft by the Eastern Orthodox Church? In western Christianity, the execution of witches was condemned until 1484 , four centuries after the schism of the eastern and western churches, so I'd guess no, but I'd be glad for some evidence for it. <Q> Most early Eastern theologians didn't believe in witches (technically, neither did Western theologians, as is evidenced by Canon Episcopi ), but most common folk did. <S> The 9th century Canon Episcopi <S> that I mentioned is interpreted by modern historians to be a renunciation of the existence of witches, not of witchcraft itself (the bible sufficiently denounces witchcraft). <S> For various reasons, medieval Western society changed their tune and began burning witches. <S> According to Stephen Hayes (the link is now dead but clicking here will take you to an online archive ), It is perhaps significant that the persecution of witches began in the West after the Great Schism of 1054. <S> In parts of the Orthodox East, at least, witch hunts such as those experienced in other parts of Europe were unknown (Stewart 1991:38). <S> The Orthodox Church is strongly critical of sorcerers (among whom it includes palmists, fortune tellers and astrologers), but has not generally seen the remedy in accusations, trials and secular penalties, but rather in confession and repentance, and exorcism if necessary (Stewart 1991:212f). <S> I have tried to show that the process of accusation, trial, sentencing and execution of alleged witches is not a typical Christian reaction to witchcraft. <S> It was practically unknown in Christendom for the first ten centuries. <S> It then gradually appeared in certain parts of the Christian world, but not in others. <S> It lasted for about 600 years, though the last 200 years of this period were the worst, after which it suddenly disappeared. <S> Such behaviour was fairly common in pre-Christian societies, but was altered when those societies became Christianised. <S> The article goes on to elaborate on Orthodoxy and its response to witches <S> (hint: it didn't burn them). <S> The source continually referenced by Hayes in the above quote is: Stewart, Charles. 1991. <S> Demons and the devil. <S> Princeton, NJ: <S> Princeton University Press. <S> I highly doubt that the Eastern Orthodox Church ever executed witches (and I have not found any sources indicating that they did). <S> It is far more likely that they tried to lead witches to repentance. <A> Frankly, the more you know the history of the Orthodox Church, the more you would be inclined to say that they would never have executed witches. <S> In fact great portions of the Eastern Orthodox Churches history, is when they have been the ones being executed, whether by pagans or heretics. <S> In fact if someone told me that the Orthodox had executed witches, I would probably think that it was some heretical branch. <S> According to this link : <S> the Protestant reformers often agreed with Rome, that witches were a clear and present danger. <S> All four of the major western Christian "churches" (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican) persecuted witches to some degree or another. <S> (Eastern Christian, or Orthodox Churches carried out almost no witch hunting). <S> I would say that if the Orthodox Church ever found a "witch", they would have tried to purify him/her, and bring that person (back) to the Church. <S> Also, no one was allowed to kill anyone, except as a soldier. <S> Perhaps some corrupt Emperors would have done this, (In fact I know they did), but the Church Fathers would confront that emperor to his face and tell him he did wrong (though this is not an example with witches, I had to call to mind the story of Ambrose and Theodosius ). <S> So if you have any doubts and questions, please tell me. <S> I believe that the Eastern Church would never have done this, unless someone in authority was corrupted. <S> But then we are all sinners. <A> In the Orthodox Church, people who have practised witchcrat, or attempted to do so, are urged to confess that as a sin. <S> Attempting to harm other people, whether by natural or "supernatural" means, is an indication of malice, which is definitely sinful, <S> There is more detail in my article on Christian responses to witchcraft and sorcery . <S> Someone else referred to that above, but the link has changed. <A> Well, in fact there was a period that the Greek Orthodox church (with the guidance of the emperor of course) committed a "witch-hunting" staff. <S> It was the period of iconomachy (it lasted almost a century) and during the crisis the iconoclasts burned holy icons and many iconophile texts and books, because they believed that god and saints cannot be iconized (probably influenced by Islam). <S> Many monks, icon painters, and common people were tortured, maimed, exiled, or even executed for painting or even possessing icons. <S> It was a situation quite similar to witch-hunting. <S> But the motivations for iconomachy were clearly political, not religious. <S> No other "witch-hunting situation" ever developed in the Orthodox East. <S> If you ask me why, the answer will be: The land where Orthodoxy was ingrained was the Eastern Roman Empire (now called the Byzantine Empire). <S> Its capital was Constantinople, originally called Nova Roma (New Rome). <S> There were libraries, universities, and schools; the dark ages was never actually experienced there before 1453. <S> So it makes sense that people would be (a little) more open-minded there than they were in the West. <A> Yes, they've been. <S> Less but still. <S> Started in Byzantium , but the most huge in Muscovy <S> (Russia), especially after the Stoglavy Sobor of Russian Orthodox Church. <S> Of course, we don't know such a huge scale of victims as in Germany or France (but great amount of such an information might be unknown because of lack of paperwork in Early Modern Russian courts). <S> And we should keep in mind that huge witch-hunts all over Europe were held in secular (not church!) <S> courts
|
Without getting into the confounded history of witch-burning , it is generally held that theologians prior to the 10th century did not believe in witches .
|
Are there any accidents (philosophical term) in God? Accident being defined as an attribute or property contingent upon the existence of something else, from the Latin word accidēns , or the Greek word συμβεβηκός ( symbebēkos ). Do accidents exist in God? <Q> St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this directly in the Summa . <S> Article 6. <S> Whether in God there are any accidents? <S> I answer that, From all we have said, it is clear there can be no accident in God. <S> First, because a subject is compared to its accidents as potentiality to actuality; for a subject is in some sense made actual by its accidents. <S> But there can be no potentiality in God, as was shown (2, 3). <S> Secondly, because God is His own existence; and as Boethius says (Hebdom.), although every essence may have something superadded to it, this cannot apply to absolute being: thus a heated substance can have something extraneous to heat added to it, as whiteness, nevertheless absolute heat can have nothing else than heat. <S> Thirdly, because what is essential is prior to what is accidental. <S> Whence as God is absolute primal being, there can be in Him nothing <S> accidental. <S> Neither can He have any essential accidents (as the capability of laughing is an essential accident of man), because such accidents are caused by the constituent principles of the subject. <S> Now there can be nothing caused in God, since He is the first cause. <S> Hence it follows that there is no accident in God. <S> The entire section on The Simplicity of God may help to clarify this, if there's any confusion. <S> The main contributing points, I think, are that God's essence and existence are one in the same, that God is His own essence and existence, and that God is absolutely simple . <A> Perhaps being forgiving and compassionate might be attributes contingent upon something else, namely the existence of an entity requiring compassion and forgiveness. <S> God, in and of himself, requires no forgiveness or compassion for weaknesses, as he has no weakness or sin. <S> Of course, the argument that being compassionate and forgiving might be an accident could easily be offset by saying that those attributes are really only extensions of love, which would be something that would already exist in God on account of the fact that the trinity already expresses perfect love among it's members. <S> I would probably have to vote no on this one. <S> It is we who change, not God. <A> There can be no accidents in God but God has created life so that accidents exist for every member of creation. <S> The reason why no accidents can occur in God is already couched in your question, I presume rhetorically. <S> Nothing in God is truly contingent upon the existence of something else. <S> As God alone is infinite, all that he is is without boundary or parts. <S> Being infinite in knowledge and infinitely wise to decide every best choice in time, before he created time, means for want of better words, God chose everything before anything existed to chose between. <S> As he can not change and can't improve in that decision for want of knowledge or perfection he can't be properly influenced outside of himself. <S> In time, to our human understanding he appears to be influenced by many things, for example our desire for him, our prayers, etc., <S> but there is much truth to our perception. <S> The only correction needed is that God chose before the foundations of the world that he would be influenced by us at any given movement based on his own properties from eternity in infinite self-sufficiency. <S> Nature, including humans, are in the opposite position on this point. <S> It's properties and attributes are under the influence of many things especially God. <S> While God can't be influenced man always is.
|
Briefly, there are no accidents in God.
|
What substitutes for prayers for the Pope's intentions during sede vacante? One of the requirements one must meet to obtain an indulgence is to pray for the intentions of the pope. When there's no pope, what's the substitute? I guess it's the conclave and the next pope, but I don't know the exact rules on this. <Q> It's not a prayer for the Pope; it's a prayer for the intention of the Pope. <S> From the Enchiridion of Indulgences issued on 29 June 1968: 26. <S> To acquire a plenary indulgence it is necessary to perform the work to which the indulgence is attached and to fulfill the following three conditions: • sacramental confession, <S> • <S> Eucharistic Communion, • and prayer for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff. <S> It is further required that all attachment to sin, even venial sin, be absent. <S> If the latter disposition is in any way less than perfect or if the prescribed three conditions are not fulfilled, the indulgence will be partial only. <S> 29. <S> The condition of praying for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff is fully satisfied by reciting one Our Father and one Hail Mary; nevertheless, each one is free to recite any other prayer according to his piety and devotion. <S> Although certain functions of the Papacy are carried out during a vacancy under the Cardinal Camerlengo, there is no "Sovereign Pontiff". <S> Given that a prayer for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff cannot be properly fulfilled in a vacancy, it would appear that any indulgence will be partial only. <A> I made some research myself, and I found that someone tried hard to learn after death of John Paul II. <S> Here is an English translation of a latin answer from the office of Apostolic Penitentiary , answering our question: <S> Most eminent father; Geoffrey W. Horton of the Seminary of the of Baltimore Archdiocese under the title of Mount St. Mary's in the city of Emmittsburg, in a letter dated the 4th of April 2005, puts forth the following questions: <S> In regards to the prayer prescribed for the intention of the Supreme Pontiff for gaining a plenary indulgence (cf. " <S> The Manual of Indulgences", 4th edition, Norm. <S> 2. <S> 20 paragraph 1), if in the vacancy of the Apostolic see the faithful are impeded in procuring <S> said plenary indulgence. <S> And to what point they are not be impeded. <S> How in this condition, with the Apostolic See vacant, the plenary indulgence is fulfilled. <S> And God, etc. <S> April 13th, 2005 <S> The Apostolic Penitentiary responds to the proposed question: To the first question: No, the faithful can seek a plenary indulgence even in the time of a vacant Apostolic See. <S> To the second question: <S> Even though the Apostolic See is vacant, the conditions of praying for the intention of the Supreme Pontiff are fulfilled (by reciting once the "Our Father" and the "Hail Mary" once; nevertheless, the opportunity is also given to the individual faithful to recite another prayer which pleases them according to the piety and devotion of each one), even if he has fulfilled the duty of his life, since the ends of the Pope's intention, the ends for which one must pray--undoubtedly the spiritual good of the whole Church -- persist. <S> John Francis Girotti, OFM Conv. <S> John Mary Gervais <S> It's the pope's job to pray for the Church (and while we pray for the intention of the Sovereign Pontiff, we support mainly this kind of prayers). <S> If he does it while living as a member of ecclesia militans , he will certainly continue in heaven or purgatory. <S> There is a problem when a pope doesn't pray for the Church, either because he lives and is prayer-lazy or because he is dead and damned, but I don't think either will be the case of Joseph Ratzinger in March. <A> Each year, the Vatican announces the Pope's Intentions for the year ahead (see <S> e.g. <S> http://www.ewtn.com/faith/papalprayer.htm ) - so by praying for the intentions the last Supreme Pontiff indicated for that month, surely you are praying for the Pope's Intentions, even when there is no current Pope?
|
The answer is awesome: Communion of Saints !
|
Why did Protestants abandon Liturgy of the Hours? In Divine office or Liturgy of the Hours as it is practiced in Catholic Church there's nothing bad for Protestants (or at least nothing of which I know that Protestants consider bad); prayer is good for all Christians and Psalms are a good basis. However, most Protestants don't pray this way. Why? Did any of the reformers condemn it? Or did this tradition just fade away over time? EDIT: I'm adding history , because I'm interrested mostly in the time when Liturgy of Hours vanished from practice of most Protestants (16th or 17th century? I don't know exactly). Modern Protestants' point of view has some value, but the best answer shouldn't rely on practice/ doctrine nowadays. I know that some denominations practice it (especially Lutherans); these are excluded from "protestantism" for this question's sake. I imagine citation of some reformer, founder of some denomination, or at least a notable convert who prayed Liturgy of Hours before (i.e. former Catholic priest) or at least knew the practice and wrote anything about it. I'm not sure whether such a source is even available. Less direct citations + few words on context and how it applies to Liturgy of Hours are also OK. For example some of early criticisms against prayer in someone other's words, including words of Bible, by someone who influenced some of the major branches of Protestantism. Such a criticism could apply if it sounds plausible to audience accustomed to Liturgy of Hours, though not necessarily understanding its significance - so "vain repetitions" as Narnian suggested are based on ignorance of the prayer's structure and therefore not acceptable to anyone knowing it, but fear of praying "only at set times" as LCIII mentioned could be easily accepted by someone who prayed it regularly for a long time, but didn't discover its value as a backbone of constant prayer. An answer based solely on reasoning and Bible citations can be (temporarily) accepted as well if at least some of its points likely played role in the beginning of Protestantism. However, if some answer with solid historical reasoning and/or citations appears later, I will definitely accept the new one instead. <Q> Protestantism is so broad that you can't avoid getting a broad answer. <S> As the protestant church has no official head there is no official answer and there was never an official LOTH rejection meeting. <S> Furthermore, some Protestant denominations still do practice LOTH . <S> The best you can do in this case is summarize the most common Protestant beliefs and come up with the most probable yet not all-encompassing conclusions. <S> Here's a list with (I think) <S> the most probable reasons to the least probable. <S> Protestants are more than likely not going to follow Liturgy of The Hours because... <S> ...there are prayers to the saints/dead, which Protestants believe isn't good, so they'll throw whole Liturgy out--baby and bath water. <S> ... <S> it makes the prayer seem insincere, as opposed to a sincere, unscripted, heart-felt prayer conversation with God. <S> The Protestant would cite this verse as their reasoning: <S> Psalm 62:8 ESV <S> Trust in him at all times, <S> O people; pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for us. <S> ... <S> setting a required time to pray gives the impression that that is the only or best time one needs to pray, when prayers should be constant. <S> The Protestant would cite these verses as their reasoning: 1 <S> Thessalonians 5:17 <S> ESV <S> ...pray without ceasing. <S> 1 Thessalonians 1:2 ESV <S> We give thanks to God always for all of you, constantly mentioning you in our prayers, <S> 2 Timothy 1:3 ESV <S> I thank God whom I serve, as did my ancestors, with a clear conscience, as I remember you constantly in my prayers night and day. <S> ... <S> it's Catholic, and Protestants tend to buck against anything that Catholics promote. <S> ... <S> it's not in the Bible. <S> Protestants are all about accepting no doctrine except that which is explicitly stated in the scriptures. <S> ...it's unnecessary. <S> They give it no added spiritual significance. <A> The key issue is not what is in the prayers, but that the prayers are repetitive. <S> It seems to follow from this that prayers would not arise from a person's heart. <S> Protestants generally believe pretty strongly that prayer should be spontaneous from a person's heart--not words that someone else wrote for them to read or recite. <S> In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught us not to use "vain repetitions": <S> But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions , as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. <S> Matthew 6:7 <S> KJV <S> The Psalmist also entreats us to pour out our hearts to God. <S> In order to do this, rote prayers seems counterproductive. <S> Trust in him at all times, <S> O people; pour out your heart before him; God is a refuge for us. <S> Psalm 68:8 ESV <S> In fact, the Psalms are full of people pouring out their hearts to God. <S> So, the model appears to be to pray from the heart rather than to repeat what others have written for us to pray. <S> Of course, Protestants typically believe pretty strongly that we should read the Scriptures pretty regularly. <A> The Anglican church has not entirely done away with this, and has the Book of Common Prayer which has prayers and Psalms as well as bible readings, confessions, and creeds for each day of the week, as well as for group meetings, communion, weddings, funerals and so on. <S> The structure of Prayer in Protestant churches is often taught based on prayers and Psalms in the bible. <S> In fact, at our church on Sunday (an Anglican church in Sydney, Australia) we prayed Psalm 51 as a prayer of confession. <A> Each Protestant body does different things. <S> Remember, "Protestant" is not a denomination. <S> Various bodies actually do practice it, including Lutherans. <S> As a Lutheran, we have it in our Divine Service book. <S> There is also the Book of Common Prayer available. <S> We don't see it as "vain repetition", but rather a solid structure - just as many recite the Lord's Prayer from time to time. <S> It all depends on the denomination's interpretation of scripture. <A> My reply is generic because not all Protestants believe the same things, there is a great variance with that wide-ranging, generic term which historically refers to protesting against the Catholic Church or what it believes. <S> For the first replier, it certainly has nothing to do with vain repetitions, otherwise Protestants would only pray the Our Father once in their lives, yet when Jesus was teaching his disciples to pray, that is what he told them to say. <S> The Liturgy of the Hours is not nearly as repetitious overall. <S> It seems to me it was probably a combination of the knee-jerk reaction and being repulsed by anything Catholic, based upon my own experiences in leaving and returning to the Catholic Church (for completely different reasons: I left because I was uncatechized <S> and I could not answer the criticisms & returned as I became convinced the Catholic Church was correct). <S> It seems more a emotional reaction, not a premeditated plan to reject something bad in Catholicism. <S> Surely no believing Protestant who loves God would ever reject the recitation of the Psalms, Scripture readings, etc. <S> which are mostly directly from Scripture. <S> They may raise an objection to the so-called "Catholic" books of Scripture, but this is a smaller subset of the readings and is in the minority because percentage-wise, there are only 7 books and a couple chapters that are objected to compared with a 66 books on which we all agree.
|
While more open-minded Protestants may consider the Liturgy of the Hours helpful in its structure (ignoring prayers to the saints/dead), many would categorize it as just another reading/prayer plan similar to ones you could buy at a Christian bookstore. I don't know of any Protestant teaching that would discourage someone from praying from any bible passage.
|
What is the "city of seven hills" in St. Malachy's Popes Prophecy? Reading through St. Malachy's Popes Prophecy , I couldn't understand a particular phrase: Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed , and the dreadful judge will judge his people I have been searching the internet for some time now but I have not found any clue. What does the city of seven hills refer to? <Q> The Latin phrase civitas septicollis , or "seven-hilled city," is an allusion to Rome. <S> According to Joseph Lomas Towers in his Elucidiations of Prophecy , Ch. <S> XIII, p. 199, <S> Rome was as well known by its situation on seven hills or montes , as by the name of Rome itself; Urbs septicollis was never mistaken for any other city, Roman authors have so fully determined the sense of it. <S> Capitoline Hill (Capitolium, Campidoglio) <S> Esquiline Hill (Esquilinus, Esquilino) <S> Palatine Hill (Palatinus, Palatino) <S> Quirinal Hill (Quirinalis, Quirinale) <S> Viminal Hill (Viminalis, Viminale) <S> According to Wikipedia , "The Seven Hills of Rome (Italian: Sette colli di Roma ) <S> east of the river Tiber form the geographical heart of Rome, within the walls of the ancient city." <S> In his Carmen Sæculare , the Roman poet Horace wrote, <S> When Sybilline verses have issued their warning To innocent boys, and the virgins we’ve chosen, To sing out their song to the gods, who have shown their Love for the Seven Hills ( septem...colles ). <S> O kindly Sun, in your shining chariot, who Herald the day, then hide it, to be born again <S> New yet the same <S> , you will never know anything Mightier than Rome! <S> Christopher Wordsworth, in his Union with Rome , Ch. <S> I, pp. <S> 3-4, also lists several other Roman authors who refer to Rome in a similar manner. <S> On another note, I was examining the Latin which states, <S> Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oves in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis civitas septicollis diruetur, & Iudex tremẽdus iudicabit po pulum suum. <S> Finis. <S> While the verb pascet , a conjugation of pasco , can mean to feed an animal (like sheep; cp. <S> Vulgate of John 21:16 ), it can also mean "to lay waste, ravage" (cp. <S> Vulgate of Mic. <S> 5:6 ; Lewis & Short, I. II. 2. ). <S> Therefore, this Peter the Roman may not be the one "feeding" or nourishing the sheep, but the one persecuting the sheep. <S> Just something to consider. <A> The problem with prophecies in general is that it is almost impossible to know the correct interpretation(s) to them until the actual time of fulfillment is upon us. <S> The Prophecies of the Popes is no exception. <S> The original Latin text of this particular prophecy does not name the city of Rome as being the city of seven hills. <S> Its interpretation as to which city is the actual one is still an open question. <S> Nevertheless it is almost safe to believe that it may be one of the three following seven-hilled cities: Rome, Constantinople (Istanbul) or Jerusalem . <S> Given the very eschatological nature of this prophecy, Jerusalem could very well be the city in question. <A> Bamberg Bavaria, what better area than in the central part of Europe, Bamberg is also known as the Franconian Rome. <S> It sits on 7 hills with a church on each hill. <S> In order to control the world a better place could not be found. <S> There is even speculation that the Antichrist will come from Germany.
|
The seven hills are: Aventine Hill (Latin, Aventinus; Italian, Aventino) Caelian Hill (Caelius, Celio)
|
What does the LDS Church teach about Jesus being married, having children, and His position on polygamy? In the Journal of Discourses, LDS apostles suggest that Jesus Himself was married, that He had children, and that He and His disciples endorsed polygamy. It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. Journal of Discourses, Volume 4, Page 259 What did the old Prophet mean when he said (speaking of Christ), “ He shall see his seed , prolong his days, &c.” Did Jesus consider it necessary to fulfil every righteous command or requirement of his Father? He most certainly did. This be witnessed by submitting to baptism under the hands of John. “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness,” said he. Was it God's commandment to man, in the beginning, to multiply and replenish the earth? None can deny this, neither that it was a righteous command; for upon an obedience to this, depended the perpetuity of our race. Did Christ come to destroy the law or the Prophets, or to fulfil them? He came to fulfil. Did he multiply , and did he see his seed? Did he honor his Father's law by complying with it, or did he not? Others may do as they like, but I will not charge our Savior with neglect or transgression in this or any other duty . Journal of Discourses, Volume 4, Page 260 The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion was evidently based upon polygamy , according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were "Mormons". Journal of Discourses, Volume 1, Page 346. Was this ever the official teaching of the LDS Church? If so, what biblical support for these doctrines is there? <Q> Both @MaskedPlant and @Matt spelled out how the Journal of Discourses is viewed. <S> I will add this; the only thing I have ever heard was during the whole " The Da Vinci Code " hoopla. <S> And that was that the LDS church had no official opinion and that it neither endorsed or found fault with the ideas presented in that book. <S> (Namely of course that Christ was married and had children). <S> So the LDS church has no official teachings on the topic, but if it were to come to light that Christ was in fact married (or even had kids!), the LDS church would have no issue with that information. <S> Edit: I found the official statement made by the church on this subject from 2006: " <S> The belief that Christ was married has never been official Church doctrine. <S> It is neither sanctioned nor taught by the Church. <S> While it is true that a few Church leaders in the mid-1800s expressed their opinions on the matter, it was not then, and is not now, Church doctrine." <S> Link to the news article right here . <S> I believe that definitively answers your question and the issue of the Journal of Discourses. <A> That was never the official teaching of the LDS Church. <S> The Journal of Discourses is a book and is not, nor has ever been, canonical scripture, or any other type of scripture for that matter, to the LDS. <S> See the answers to this question: <S> What is the Journal of Discourses viewed as? <A> Was this ever the official teaching of the LDS Church? <S> If so, what biblical support for these doctrines is there? <S> No. <S> It is not the official teaching. <S> I would refer you to this answer for more information on why this has never been official teaching of the LDS church. <S> This is a link to lds.org with a question about the journal of Discourses. <S> Scroll down to the question on it for the pertaining information. <S> I copied the two sentences that I thought were the most important. <S> The original intent of their publication was to provide income for George D. Watt, their stenographer and publisher. <S> So no scriptural intent, but they were written to provide income, by someone who was not a general authority. <S> Though the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal, there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents. <S> So they said go ahead and publish it, but they NEVER said anything in it was canon. <S> As for your title question: What does the LDS Church teach about Jesus being married, having children, and His position on polygamy? <S> Nothing that I know of. <S> I have talked to some people that would say differently, but none of them could back anything up with scripture or official canon. <S> I can find nothing on their site at this time about whether or not Jesus was married. <A> I'm LDS <S> so I can tell you that there is no set doctrine on this <S> but there always is discussions of it amongst the members. <S> None of the answers above actually answer the second part of the question, about there being biblical proof. <S> But what people use as proof, that it could be possible, is the first mircale Christ ever performed. <S> Turning water into wine. <S> Tradtionally at a wedding the groom was in charge of food and drink. <S> For anyone to ask Christ about the lack of wine is to imply he was the groom. <S> Of course they don't go into enough detail for it to be made clear whether he was the groom or not. <S> Recent speculation by writers like Dan Brown has made people think that maybe Christ had a wife and children and even point to one of the few woman named in the scriptures. <S> The LDS members are all encrouaged to ask God ourselves for answers and to question everything we are taught and have any doctrine taught confirmed by the spirit. <S> This is probably why the discourses weren't discouraged. <S> The LDS church doesn't censor its members except to say to speak sparingly and cautiously about sacred things. <S> If the church at the time didn't think the discourses were particularly sacred they would not have stopped its printing. <S> What I can say is if there is any evidence uncovered that he was married, the LDS would have no issue with it as we believe that marriage is a sacred ordinance and blessed by God. <S> Marriage and children is a good thing and not a bad thing. <A> Early LDS leader Orson Hyde said the following, though this is not official church doctrine: <S> I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said in a lecture on Marriage at our last Conference that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begot children. <S> All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this—they worship a Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfill the commands of his father. <S> I worship one that is just pure and holy enough " to fulfill all righteousness ," not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still more righteous and important law "to multiply and replenish the earth." <S> Startle not at this for even the Father himself honored that law by coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and if Jesus begot children, he only " did that which he saw his Father do. " <S> (JD 2:210; quoted in Hyzer, Anthology I , 108 )
|
True there is no reference to Christ being married in the bible directly.
|
What is the biblical basis for considering gender to be not merely physical/biological? From the perspective of the tripartite nature of man--that men and women have a body, a soul, and a spirit--is there a biblical basis for the position that gender is not merely present in the body or the physical nature, but that it is also present in the soul and even a person's spirit? A few other ways to ask the question... Is there a biblical basis that suggests gender is not merely biological/physical? Is there a biblical basis that suggests gender is not merely something that distinguishes a person's body type, but also a person's soul type or spirit type? Is there a biblical basis that suggests masculinity and femininity something that distinguishes not just the the body, but also the soul and possibly the spirit as well? Is there such a thing as a masculine or feminine soul or spirit? Is gender identity (being male or female) temporal or eternal? Will we continue to remain as men/women after our death, in eternity? <Q> You seem to be asking for a definitive verse in scripture that states or implies that the soul has a gender. <S> There is no such verse (it seems), and indexes to mentions of gender list nothing concrete. <S> However: God made humans, "in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:26), and this was so before the fall. <S> This passage is used to show that human persons are male or female. <S> The body will rise, for "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body". <S> This passage is used to show that the perfection of a person includes both soul and glorified body. <S> A person is not soul, not body, but the unity of both. <S> A soul is a male soul in the sense of being the soul of a male person: a person with a male nature. <S> Your hand has no gender, your blood has no gender. <S> In that sense a soul has no gender. <S> The Bible's account of creation assigns gender to persons. <S> Human persons are both body and spirit. <S> So in that sense gender is not purely physical, because humans are not purely physical. <S> Souls have "types" in the sense of being the souls of female and male humans, of animals (non-eternal gendered souls), of angels (no gender), of God (no gender!, though the human nature of Christ was male (...but this merits its own question), and we have been instructed by Christ to refer to God the Father as "our Father"). <S> Masculinity and femininity can be aspects of souls/spirit. <S> That the perfections of the female as well as the male can be found in the perfection that is God, who is spirit and without gender, can be seen in Isa 49:14-15; 66:13; Ps 131:2-3; Hos 11:1-4; Jer 3:4-19 (CCC270). <S> Which perfections are appropriate to male humans and which to female might merit its own question. <S> Are there masculine and feminine souls? <S> Of course: the souls of human males, the souls of human females. <S> For similar reasons, gender is eternal. <S> A person who has her breasts cut off, like St. Agatha, does not cease to be a female. <S> Even a person who has his head cut off, like St. John, does not cease to be a male. <S> Adam and Eve will rise still male and female, as they were even before sin. <A> Is there a biblical basis that suggests gender is not merely biological/physical? <S> One would think that, if gender was only a trait possessed by physical creatures, God would simply be referred to by neuter-pronouns (e.g., αὐτό ("it")). <S> In addition, He is frequently referred to as "father" (and then, never "mother"). <S> God is called "father" and referred to by the male gender for several reasons, including: primarily, because He is the Creator, and thus, He is the head (cp. <S> Exo. <S> 6:14 ) of His family in heaven and on earth ( Eph. 3:15 ) <S> all of creation are His children ( Acts 17:28 ) <S> He begat a Son ( John 3:16 ) <A> The Catechism of the Catholic Church #239 specifically states that "God is neither man nor woman: he is God": 239 <S> By calling God "Father", the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. <S> God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. <S> The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. <S> But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. <S> We ought therefore to recall that God transcends the human distinction between the sexes. <S> He is neither man nor woman: he is God. <S> He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father. <S> To make it simple, what I take away from the "whole picture", is that there is NO difference in the spirit and soul. <S> Made in the image of God, the alpha and the omega, our bodies just express the spirit in different ways, almost to the point that gender is just as analogous to type A vs. type B personality. <S> In conclusion, we have male and female bodies made from the dust of the earth, with God (no sex) inside . <A> Using the King James translation, the soul is female: <S> My soul shall make her boast in the Lord: the humble shall hear thereof, and be glad. <S> (Psalm 34:2, KJV)
|
I would say that the principal argument in favor of the assertion that gender is not limited to physical creatures, is that God the Father is spirit ( John 4:24 ) and invisible ( 1 Tim. 1:17 ), yet He is always referred to by masculine-gendered pronouns in the New Testament.
|
What is the significance of priest breaking the bread (Host) in a Catholic mass? In a Catholic mass, just before the distribution of communion to people, the priest breaks the Host in to pieces and people simultaneously acclaim: Lamb of God you take away the sins of the world, Have mercy on us....... What is the significance of this fraction of bread (Host)? Does it have any parallel to the act of sacrifice for atonement of sins: like sacrificing of lambs in OT and then sacrifice of Jesus himself for our sins? Also the shape of this fractioned Host is different at different times. Are there any laid down norms for this? <Q> As the prayer in Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom states <S> The Lamb of God is broken and distributed; broken but not divided. <S> He is forever eaten yet is never consumed, but He sanctifies those who partake of Him. <S> Also, dropping the part of the Host into the Chalice is a sign of Resurrection - the reunion of Blood and Body, of Body and Soul. <S> There is no specific meaning to the shape of breaking in Catholic churches. <S> The priests typically break the host roughly in half and then break a small particle off one of the halves. <S> (In Orthodox churches and Eastern Catholic tradition, the host is a cube, a quarter of which into the chalice). <A> The priest breaks the bread because it is Jesus' body, and he is distributing it to us <S> so Jesus will be with us. <S> This originates from the Last Supper, when Jesus gave the bread, his body, to his disciples in order for them to remember him. <A> The priest breaks the bread because of two reasons. <S> 1. <S> During the Passover, Christ broke the bread and gave it to His disciples asking them to do so in remembrance of him. <S> 2. <S> After His resurrection, Christ visited some of his disciples at the lake where they were fishing but they did not recognize Him. <S> They talked for hours but only recognized him after they had sat down to eat as he took break and broke it and gave it to them. <S> This part it to open the eyes of “blinded” Christians so that they may see Christ as he comes to stand before them on the Altar.
|
The meaning of the fraction of bread is, that Christ is 'distributing himself' to the Faithful.
|
How is it significant that Jesus rose on the 3rd day? Christianity teaches that Jesus died on the cross and on the Third day rose from the dead. His resurection is significant for all sorts of reasons which I don't want to go into in this question. What I'm interested in is why did he rise THREE days later? Why not 4 days, or 2 days? The only thing I could find is that Jonah was in the fish for 3 days, however this just moves the question to why was Jonah in the fish for 3 days (instead of 2 or 4 or any other number). Is there any significance to Jesus being dead for three days? <Q> The significance lies in that Jesus prophesied that He will rise from the dead on the third day. <S> Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." <S> John 2 <S> : 19 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. <S> John 2 : 21 <S> The false witnesses misquoted Jesus at His trial, not for the days but on who will destroy the 'temple'. <S> But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. <S> Finally two came forward and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.'" <S> Matthew 26: 60 - 61 <A> Numerology in Scripture us often debated, but the number three is significant. <S> It is considered the number of divine perfection , represented in: <S> The Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit <S> The three-part nature of man - Body, Soul, Spirit Past, Present, Future Time, Space, Matter Depths, width, height Solid, liquid, gas <S> The number three is seen by some as significant all throughout creation and history. <S> Others remain skeptical. <S> Specifically, the significance of three days applied to the death, burial, and resurrection is addressed at http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/The%20Symbolic%20Significance%20of%20the%20third%20day.htm <S> Genesis <S> 22:4 records that Abraham's journey to Mt. Moriah to offer his son in sacrifice, as commanded by Yahweh, was a three day journey. <S> In the Matthew passage Jesus refers to three days, applying the significance of the three day period to His resurrection and man's redemption. <S> In the Gospels Jesus often spoke of a three day period prophesying His sacrifice and resurrection. <S> (2) <S> Interestingly, in Judaism, the number three has this significance: From http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/608781/jewish/On-the-Meaning-of-Three.htm <S> The number three symbolizes a harmony that includes and synthesizes two opposites. <S> The unity symbolized by the number three isn’t accomplished by getting rid of number two, the entity that caused the discord, and reverting to the unity symbolized by number one. <S> Rather, three merges the two to create a new entity, one that harmoniously includes both opposites. <S> That can be taken many ways applied to Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. <S> A new harmony between sinful man and righteous God made possible by Christ's atoning death, for example. <S> It seems likely (but not conclusive if you discount numerology) that there is a significance in the choice of three days. <A> I think there is a much simpler answer to why 3 is an important number and related to resurrection. <S> First of all the concept of resurrection is not a new one. <S> There are numerous cultures that have had Christ-like gods that have been born of a virgin, had 12 disciples or followers, died and rose in 3 days. <S> This is most likely related to an astrological understanding of the stars and of course the almighty sun (son?). <S> Ancient cultures recognized that the sun provided life. <S> The sun in its pattern moves southward across the sky until December 24 or so. <S> It then stops and appears to reverse its course - signaling the coming of spring and new life. <S> Visually the shift in the sun lasts three days. <S> This was known by ancient cultures for thousands of years and is likely the bases for the three day resurrection that has been consistent in the lore of many cultures for thousands of years.
|
In the symbolic language of the Bible, a three day period points to an act of divine intervention which impacts Salvation History.
|
What do the words Catholic and Protestant mean? Also, what is the history of use and what languages do they come from? Is it a fitting name today or is it outdated? How do the two relate to each other? <Q> Catholic can have a few different meanings. <S> It could refer to: The Roman Catholic Church Eastern Catholic churches in communion with the Pope <S> The universal church The Nicene creed which is used in a lot of Christian churches that have broken away from the Roman Catholic church still say that they "believe in one holy and catholic". <S> (note the lower case letter 'c' in catholic.) <S> Catholic in this context does not refer to the Roman Catholic church, but to a holy Universal church. <S> Protestant refers to churches and/or individuals who call themselves Christians, but disagree with the Roman Catholic Church. <S> The word 'Protestant' derives from the protests made by German princes at the Second Diet of Speyer in 1529. <S> The Diet voted to end the toleration of those who followed the teachings of Martin Luther within Germany ( source ) <S> They generally follow the teachings of leaders of the reformation (e.g. Luther). <S> The original Protestant movement came from within the Roman Catholic church. <S> The teachings of the protestant movement disagree with Roman Catholicism and a number of the reformers were put to death because they taught these things. <S> Do these terms still fit today? <S> I don't think this can be answered objectively, but I feel that they are still a correct fit. <S> Mainstream Protestant denominations still hold to the Five Soli . <S> From my understanding, these beliefs do not fit with the Roman Catholic church teachings and so Protestants are still protesting the Catholic Church <A> The word "Catholic" is an old term meaning "universal." <S> For this reason, even non-Roman Catholics still confess in the Nicene Creed that they believe in "one holy apostolic and catholic church. <S> " <S> As Roman Catholics consider their church to be the one true church descended from Peter, this makes sense. <S> Based on the confession of St. Peter, they believe that they alone have "the keys to heaven," and that grace can be conferred within the church for the forgiveness of sin. <S> Protestants, typically beginning with Martin Luther in 1517, have "protested" this claim to universality. <S> Specifically, they tend to deny that the Pope- the leader of the world's 1.2+ billion Catholics, is in fact the earthly head of the church. <S> (Oddly enough the same protest the Eastern Orthodox have had since the beginning of the church, but formalized with the agreat Schism in 1054). <S> In contrast, Protestants typically believe the Pope to be an important leader, but not the leader, outside of whom there is no means by which grace can be conferred. <A> Protestant refers to groups which originated in protest of many beliefs that (they felt) lead to the authoritative and tyrannical nature of the Catholic Church of the era which spanned hundreds of years. <S> Some people call Protestants the reformers, but it should be noted that the Catholic Church has gone through major reform as well since the era. <S> The major difference between Catholics and Protestants is that original Protestants believed true knowledge of God came from the Holy Spirit alone through the Holy Bible alone, specifically through personal study of the Scriptures as opposed to being taught within structured and institutionalized organizations which they viewed the Catholic Church as. <S> This isn't meant to discredit modern Churches, it was just seen a major factor in how the Catholic Church was able to work outside of God's word during the era. <S> The word 'Catholic ' is still fitting since much of Catholicism has remained the same. <S> The term Protestant however has become very generalized, to the point that few groups that refer to themselves as Protestants share exactly the same beliefs, and many Protestant groups follow greatly different beliefs.
|
They are called Protestant because they protested the teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
|
How does a Catholic church support itself without Tithe? Usually, in Protestant churches, the church's income is mostly from tithes and then offerings, and secondarily from any outside sponsors the church may have. I am less informed how the Catholic church raises their funds. I learned from this post that Catholics don't tithe. As a protestant, I wonder how Catholic churches support themselves. How does a Catholic church support itself without the money from Tithe? How generous are Catholics in giving offerings to the church? <Q> Your question seems to imply there must be some secret source, some behind the scenes force. <S> I'm not sure what you expect to find, but money doesn't grow on trees for Catholics any more than for Protestants. <S> In fact, if anything, Protestants have a harder time with this than Catholics do. <S> The question you linked to has answers that explain very clearly that Catholics are obligated to give. <S> This sort of obligation tends to be taken much more seriously in Catholicism than in Protestant circles. <S> Even in countries where belief is nominal, fulfillment of such obligations often outpaces other aspects of devotion. <S> In addition, since the Catholic church is centralized, the local ups and downs of giving are averaged out and the expenses are spread out over a larger giving base. <S> Just because some Protestants define a tithe as a regular 10% offering doesn't mean that actually happens. <S> In practice it is usually much much smaller than this. <S> Since the funds aren't centralized, this often means local churches may have noticeable shortfalls at various times. <S> I still feel that only offerings may not be sufficient. <S> It doesn't matter too much what you feel, the account ledgers say otherwise. <S> Of course they have hard times too and giving shortfalls mean less ability to carry out projects etc, but the fact of the matter is that Catholics do give and these offerings do support the church . <S> This is the major source of income for the church. <S> End of story. <S> There isn't some vast hidden business network or other money making scheme. <A> It's a precept of the Catholic Church that her members should "provide for the needs of the Church", it's right next to going to Mass on Sundays and holy days and confessing your sins. <S> The fifth precept ("You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church") means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability. <S> The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his own abilities. <S> CCC 2043 <S> So, in order to call be a Catholic in good standing, you need to do what you can to support the Church. <S> Lots of Catholics call it tithing regardless of what the word means in a Protestant or Old Testament sense. <A> Depends also on the country. <S> For example in Germany the Catholic church has a deal with government to collect taxes on their behalf. <S> It's called "Kirchensteuer". <S> (see for example http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchensteuer_(Deutschland) ). <S> If you are an official member of the Catholic church, 8%-9% (depending on state) of your income will directly be deducted from your paycheck and collected together with the federal tax. <S> The church is very protective of this income stream: in order to get out of this, you actually have to show up in court in front of a judge.
|
The Catholic church benefits from a large member base and their obligation to give out of their ability to the needs of the church.
|
According to Roman Catholic orthodoxy, is Jesus Christ a human person, a divine person, both, or none? I'll give you an example of a divine person: God the Father.I'll give you an example of a human person: the apostle Paul. According to Roman Catholic orthodoxy (note: cite it), is Jesus Christ a human person, a divine person, both, or none? <Q> According to Chalcedonian Doctrine (that is shared by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestant churches) <S> Christ is fully God and fully human. <S> He isn't a person of God that dwelled in a separate human person (which is the teaching of nestorianism). <S> The Oriental Orthodox (e.g. Coptic) churches reject the teaching of Chalcedonian Council, however they mostly declare, they are not monophysitic. <S> The argument here is partly about the meaning of the work 'nature'. <A> In Chalcedonian Council, a letter from Pope Leo I called "Epistola Dogmatica", was endorsed which explains the mystery of the Incarnation. <S> Pope declared that : “after the Incarnation what was proper to each nature and substance in Christ remained intact and both were united in one person, but so that each nature acted according to its own qualities and characteristics.” <S> Chalcedonian Council, also adopted a document saying: We teach . <S> . . <S> one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, known in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. <S> Source: <S> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm <A> The Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, 480 , states, <S> Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person ; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men. <S> Ergo, the Lord Jesus Christ is a divine person. <A> There are two issues here, which can unfortunately interact in a confusing way. <S> Part 1 <S> : Christ is one Person. <S> He is fully human. <S> He is also fully divine. <S> That's what it means to have those two natures. <S> So both "divine" and "human" <S> can be correctly used as predicate adjectives describing Christ. <S> Part 2 <S> : Theologians have decided to use only the greater of the two natures, namely the divine, as an attributive adjective for Him. <S> So they call Him a divine person, and they do not call him a human person. <S> This decision leads to the linguistically strange situation that theologians say that Christ is a person, that Christ is human, but not that Christ is a human person.
|
Christ is however one person which is both God and human.
|
Why does God command the Israelites not to boil a goat in its mother's milk? Some of the laws I can directly see why they were given, however I do not understand the last part of the verse below regarding not boiling a kid in its mothers milk. Deuteronomy 14:21 NIV Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk. What does this law mean really, is there some spiritual significance I am not getting? <Q> There is much debate about this one <S> but I think the Rabbis never understood it, which causes trouble to some Christian commentators as well. <S> It reminds me of this: <S> For it is written in the Law of Moses:“Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” <S> Is it about oxen that God is concerned? <S> (1 Corinthians 9:9, NIV) <S> The Apostle applies this to establishing an argument that ministers should be paid for their effort. <S> A prohibition is there about an animal but for the purposes of how we treat each other. <S> The law is established about less important things to make a stronger point. <S> God honors the relationships of a goat and her child. <S> How much more than should we honor the relationship of parents and children? <S> We should not despise relationships that God honors so strictly. <A> Opinions abound. <S> Another is that the Jews were lactose intolerant, but if that were true, only common sense would be required, not a law. <S> Perhaps the practice did not fully or properly cook the meat, so the prohibition was actually a health benefit. <S> What does make sense is that the practice was perhaps associated with idolatry. <S> One opinion I read suggested that this was a foreign religious ritual meant to obtain favor from pagan gods over the fertility of their herds. <S> As such, it would seem to violate the first and second commandments given to Moses, namely, to have no other gods before God and to not be involved with idolatrous practices. <A> Boiling a young goat in the very thing that is intended to bring life to the goat would be abhorrent. <S> A goat in the Old Testament was killed for one of two reasons, for food or for atonement for sins. <S> In both instances, the goat is giving up it's life for the good of the people. <S> Not only has the goat's life been taken, but now we're taking something that is intended to give life to the animal, and we're using it to add flavor to the young animal whose life has been taken. <S> This practice would be considered abhorrent mainly because of the blatant misuse of the milk. <S> It's main purpose is life intended for the young, not flavoring to please those who take the life of the young. <S> It's not unlike the respect that hunters have for the deer that they kill. <S> The hunters I know <S> (and I know quite a few living in Texas), will tell you that one of the most disturbing things that can happen while hunting is that might fail to make a clean kill. <S> That is, they don't shoot the animal in a place where it's death is as quick and painless as possible. <S> Hunting isn't about animal cruelty. <S> It's about finding food for the hunter. <S> No hunter <S> I know wishes to bring pain upon the animal. <S> They recognize that the life that the deer gives brings life to those who take it (via it's meat), and they seek to respect the animal by not bringing more unnecessary suffering upon it. <S> There's a respect that comes in the exchange of one life for another. <S> Of course, there are many differing viewpoints. <S> But this is mine.
|
One is that the practice was cruel and inhumane, but given the animal sacrifices for sin, that just doesn't make sense to me. In this case about a goat and its mother, the lesson is we ought to respect the tender relationship of an animal and her young.
|
Does Jesus have a last name? I heard "Christ" isn't the last name He got from His parents. Is that true? Does He have a last name? If He does not have a last name, then how does that work? If that wasn't His last name, and there were other people named Jesus, then how could people even know which Jesus people were talking about? Please explain this to me in an easy to understand way, like if I am young. <Q> Surnames didn't exist in Jesus' day. <S> People typically referred to somebody by referring to their parentage. <S> So Jesus would have most likely been referred to as "Jesus son of Joseph" or "Jesus son of Mary", much in the same way as Peter was referred to as "Simon, son of Jonah" in Matthew 16:17 and "James son of Zebedee" in Mark 3:17. <S> While nobody is entirely sure when the concept of the proper surname began, one guess, at least for English speakers, is around the 13th or 14th century. <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name#Modern_era <A> Jesus had no last name. <S> Christ is a title that was given to Him. <S> As noted in other questions, "Christ" comes from the Greek word "Christos", which is the translation of the Hebrew word "Meshiach", from which we derive the word "Messiah". <S> So, "Messiah" and "Christ" are transliterated words for the same thing. <S> These words mean "anointed one" in their original languages. <S> Last names or family names likely had their origin England about 800 years ago, but this was not common in Jewish cultures in the days of Jesus. <S> However, there were sometimes distinctions made for individuals based on their city of origin or residence. <S> Jesus was sometimes referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth". <S> He was not born there, of course, but that is the place Mary and Joseph lived after their return from Egypt. <S> (Jesus was born in Bethlehem.) <S> Incidentally, this was the cause of some confusion about whether or not Jesus could be the Messiah, since the people knew that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem and not Nazareth, although another prophecy indicated that He would be called a Nazarene. <S> As David Morton noted, people were also distinguished by their parentage. <S> This is seen in Simon Peter, in particular, whom Jesus referred to as 'Simon, son of John". <S> He brought him to Jesus. <S> Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John . <S> You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter). <S> John 1:42 ESV <S> In John 1:45, we find both of these distinctions in Philip's reference to Jesus: <S> Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth , the son of Joseph .” <S> John 1:45 ESV <S> Finally, Jesus was also distinguished by his trade. <S> He was known as a rabbi or teacher. <S> So, there was little need to distinguish between other people with similar names when referring to the "rabbi named Jesus", to "Jesus of Nazareth", or to "Jesus, the son of Joseph". <A> Since in that day and age, your father and the place you come from, were used to describe someone... <S> He would have been called: Yeshua ben Yosef haNotzri <S> ~ <S> Jesus son of Joseph of Nazareth of course in everyday speech sometimes only: Yeshua ben <S> Yosef or Yeshua haNotzri People did not refer to him as Christ (Messiah) in their every day speech, as most did not recognise Him as the Messiah, and it was dangerous to confess Him as such. <A> He had no last name. <S> In the Middle East, it was (and still is) custom to name someone after from where they come. <S> Like Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti. <S> (Saddam was from Tikrit, Iraq). <S> Hence the name "Jesus of Nazareth." <S> Sorry for mentioning the Savior of mankind and such an evil man in the same sentence, <S> but I had to make a point. <A> Did Jesus have a last name? <S> Since you didn't specify if you referred to his human family last name, I will answeraccording to what name His Heavenly Father gave Him: <S> Philippians 2:9 <S> 9 <S> Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above <S> all other names , 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, YHWH to the glory of God the Father <S> This scripture informs that because Jesus humbled Himself to become a man, and further to die the death of the cross for humanity, that the Father highly exalted Himand gave Him THE name that is ABOVE every other name, so that every human will bow and declare that Jesus Christ is LORD - which means YHWH Almighty God. <S> The Father gave Jesus the man, the LAST NAME of HIMSELF the GODHEAD - YHWH. <S> JESUS' LAST NAME IS YHWH, GIVEN TO HIM BY THE FATHER, WHILE JESUS WAS IN THE FORM OF THE SON OF MAN. <A> Up to this day, children of Semitic parents inherit the father's or grandfather's or from an ancestor a lot of generations back surname as their family name. <S> In Semitic languages such as Aramaic, Hebrew or Arabic your last name refer to your father's surname with the prefix beth/bar, bet or bin, respectively. <S> The prefix means 'house' or 'house of'. <S> So Jesus is often described as being from the House of David. <S> The lingua franca in Israel and in the Middle East was Aramaic at His time. <A> 1 John 2:22 explains that the one who don't believe in Jesus that is the CHRIST, the translations from Hebrew to Greek is Messiah or anointing one that explain the last name Christ. <S> The first name was given to Mary by the Angel.
|
Jesus had the name before he came to earth, but he received it as the son of man/God, in this form, where he is now in heaven still in this form making intercession for us.
|
Who do mainline Protestants believe an "archangel" (such as Michael) to be? Some sects including Jehovah's Witnesses believe the archangel Michael to be one in the same with Christ . The basic premise of this claim seems to stem from the unique usage of the role archangel rather than just any-ol-angel. Michael is the only one said to be the 'archangel', meaning 'chief angel' or 'principal angel'. I would like to know what a mainline Protestant understanding about the role of "archangel" is. What makes them different from a mainline* angel? Do they bear any special relation to Christ? How many might there be? Also, are there any ways in which Protestants view the type "archangel" differently than other major traditions? * Sorry, couldn't resist. <Q> There is some debate over how many archangels there are. <S> Gabriel is referred to as an archangel by Catholic tradition , but there is no scripture supporting that. <S> The apocryphal 'Book of Enoch' as well as Ephesians 1:21 and Colossians 1:16 was used by Thomas Aquinas and others preceding him , to develop the 'Angelic Hierarchy', but scripture is very vague when it comes to this. <S> The word "archangel" comes from the Greek αρχάγγελος (archaggělǒs), meaning chief angel, a translation of the Hebrew רב־מלאך (rav-mal'ákh). <S> There are only 2 verses in the NT that say "Archangel", 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 1:9. <S> They both refer to Michael as the archangel (singular), though Michael is also referred to in the OT, Daniel 10:13-21, as "one of the chief princes" (vs 13) (also translated as chief angels in some translations). <S> So scripture isn't clear as to whether he is one of several/many archangels, or the only one. <S> It is important to note that Michael is AN angel, and therefore not accorded the same favors that are afforded to Christ (Hebrews 1:5, 2:5), as the author of Hebrews shows how unique the Son of God is, even above the angels, nor will the world be subject to them, unlike Christ, who will reign (Revelation 19:16; Matthew 2:1, 2; 9:35). <S> Also, Jude 1:9 presents Michael as not even have the power to rebuke Satan alone, as he stated "the Lord rebuke you", whereas Christ had the power to rebuke Satan and demons on his own authority (Matthew 4:10, 16:23, 17:18; Mark 8:33; Luke 4:35). <A> It is believed that they have a higher rank, and power . <S> Not much else is known for sure, as precious little is found about them in the Bible <S> As was stated previously, the Bible gives us precious little information about angelic beings - especially the Archangels. <S> We would all like to know more about these extraordinary creatures, yet God has chosen in this present age to disclose very limited knowledge about them. <S> In the kingdom of God, however, all will be made clear to us, including the mystery of the angels: <S> The understanding isn't significantly different than the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox understanding. <S> The Catholic Encyclopedia article on angels does give a bit more information on what "higher rank" might mean by showing their understanding of the hierarchy: <S> St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:108), following St. Denis (De Coelesti Hierarchia, vi, vii), divides the angels into three hierarchies each of which contains three orders. <S> Their proximity to the Supreme Being serves as the basis of this division. <S> In the first hierarchy he places the Seraphim, Cherubim, and Thrones; in the second, the Dominations, Virtues, and Powers; in the third, the Principalities, Archangels, and Angels. <S> The only Scriptural names furnished of individual angels are Raphael, Michael, and Gabriel, names which signify their respective attributes. <S> Apocryphal Jewish books, such as the Book of Enoch, supply those of Uriel and Jeremiel, while many are found in other apocryphal sources, like those Milton names in "Paradise Lost". <S> (On superstitious use of such names, see above). <S> Archangels, like all angels are created beings. <S> Certain denominations claim that Jesus was an angel, but this is considered a heresy by most Christian denominations , as it denies the divinity of Christ. <A> Mainline Protestants understand that an Archangel is simply a higher-ranking angel, the prefix "arch" meaning "over". <S> For example, an Archbishop is the "principal" bishop in an ecclesiastical province. <S> Although Michael may be the only named Archangel (in Jude verse 9) that does not mean there are no other Archangels. <S> With regard to the view held by Jehovah's Witnesses (that Jesus is Michael the Archangel) <S> I found an article that addresses this subject as published in one of their books: <S> Did John Calvin <S> Really Teach that Jesus was the Archangel Michael? <S> The main difference between the Protestant view of archangels and angels compared to how Jehovah's Witnesses view Michael the archangel, is that Protestants understand all angels were created, unlike the pre-mortal Jesus who is the eternal and uncreated Word of God who was with God in the beginning and who is God (John 1:1-3, 14). <A> While Mikha'el ("Michael") is referred to as an ἀρχάγγελος ("archangel") in the Greek New Testament ( Jude 1:9 ), some assume that he is the only archangel in existence. <S> However, Dan. <S> 10:13 states that Mikh'ael is אחד השרים הראשנים, <S> that is, "one of the chief princes," not the chief prince. <S> If Mikh'ael is an "archangel," and also "one of the chief princes," then this equates "archangel" with "chief prince" and implies that there are other archangels. <S> Scripture does not mention them because they're not relevant.
|
An archangel, in the Protestant definition, is simply an angel with a high rank, often referred to as a "chief" angel .
|
Which Person(s) of the Trinity were in Jesus? The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that God is one, and God is three (Father, Son, Holy Spirit.) From what I understand the Eternal Son came in human flesh, and we know that resultant man as Jesus of Nazareth. So would it be accurate to say God the Son was operating in a human body as "Jesus"? Were the Father and/or Spirit also in Him? (I am, of course, looking for answers from a Trinitarian perspective.) <Q> 1 <S> Hence, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father 2 and the Spirit of the Son, 3 <S> yet there still exist three persons of the Trinity. <S> 4 <S> The Son said, “I and my Father are one,” 5 to which the Jews picked up stones in order to stone him. <S> He also told Phillip, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” <S> 6 <S> By means of the Holy Spirit, the other Comforter, 7 the Father and the Son would dwell in individual Christians. <S> 8 <S> The Father is essentially and spiritually (obviously, not physically, as in the sense of a corporality) in the Son, as the Son is spiritually in the Father, and both are spiritually in the Holy Spirit, as there is a unity of essence. <S> In such a manner, the Father is indeed in the Son, not only by a unity of will, as some assert. <S> Thus, the apostle Paul wrote that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” <S> 9 <S> Footnotes <S> 1 <S> From the Greek word περιχώρησις 2 <S> Matt. <S> 10:20 cp. <S> Mark 13:11 3 Gal. <S> 4:6 <S> 4 <S> Matt. <S> 28:19 <S> 5 <S> John 10:30 6 <S> John 14:10–11 7 John 14:16 8 <S> John 14:23 9 <S> 2 Cor. <S> 5:19 <A> Jesus is one Person of the Trinity. <S> He is never the Father or the Spirit. <S> That being said, Jesus did speak of the union He had with the others when He said "the Father was in Him" and such. <S> However, it was the Son who became a Man--not the Father or the Spirit. <S> In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. <S> John 14:20 NAS <S> The Father and the Spirit are spirit and do not have physical bodies, so neither of them could be physically in the body of Jesus. <A> I will answer your second Question only because the first seems very complicated and technical. <S> Were the Father and/or Spirit also in Him? <S> He was in heaven. <S> Scriptural Support <S> Luk_3:22 <S> And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. <S> God the Father (voice from heaven) is in heaven and <S> The Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus. <S> Simple and straight forward. <S> all other arguments are just metaphors for example <S> John 10:30I and <S> my Father are one. <S> While reading the Bible go to the clearest passages before going to the metaphoric ones. <S> For example when studying the state of the dead do not start with the parable of Lazarus and the richman <S> (please don't that's a parable <S> you can find clearer statements which talk on that issue) <S> If you anyone does not agree here is a passage for you: <S> John 14:23 Jesus replied: If anyone loves me, they will obey me. <S> Then my Father will love them, and we will come to them and live in them. <S> Obviously this is metaphoric because Jesus is in the Heavenly sanctuary now: <S> Heb 4:14 <S> Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession Heb 8:1 <S> Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; <S> Heb 8:2 <S> A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. <S> When He finishes this ministry He will surely come again... <S> Rev 22:12 <S> And, behold, I come quickly ; and <S> my reward is with me , to give every man according as his work shall be.
|
Answer : yes the Holy Spirit was in Him, no the Father was not in him (he was in Him in a metaphorical sense though) All three persons of the Trinity are in a perichoretic union.
|
Was Jesus God's only Son? In some places, the Bible uses wording like "children of God" or "sons of God". One example of this use is Genesis 6:2 , and another is Galatians 3:26 : 26 For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus. 26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, [ alternate translation ] I understand that many of these uses might be symbolic. Does the Bible clarify? According to the Bible and Christian teaching, was Jesus the only Son of God? <Q> The Greek word /monogenes/ is the key here. <S> I did a word study on this a number of years back. <S> The word actually appears in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrews Scriptures). <S> Here it is actually used in reference to Isaac as the /monogenes/ son of Abraham. <S> Interestingly enough, Isaac was not the only son of Abraham and not even the first. <S> Ishmael was born first and Abraham had six other children with Keturah after the death of Sarah. <S> So, /monogenes/ does not indicate that Isaac was the only son. <S> The word comes from the combination of two other words -- /mono/ and /genes/. <S> /mono/ is, of course, indicative of "one". <S> /genes/ refers to kind. <S> In a sense, then, /monogenes/ refers to "one of a kind" or "something wholly unlike any other". <S> Since Isaac was not the only son of Abraham, in what sense was he a one of a kind? <S> Specifically, he was unique in his miraculous birth and in his being the fulfillment of the promise of God. <S> No other son was born in fulfillment of a promise from God and no other son was born miraculously. <S> Jesus is identified as the /monogenes/ Son of God. <S> Typically, this is translated as "Only Begotten". <S> It is true that Jesus is not the only son of God or only child of God, because, as you identified, all of those who have faith in Jesus are children of God. <S> However, the Sonship of Jesus is unique. <S> Indeed, His Sonship is wholly unlike any other. <S> Its uniqueness is that it is eternal. <S> Jesus never became a son of God, but was always the Son of God and God the Son. <S> So, Jesus is not the only son of God, but He is a Son unlike any other in His divinity. <A> Jesus is not God the Father's only son, but he is God the Father's only-begotten Son. <S> And, μονογενής means "only-born" (or "only-begotten") not "one of a kind." <S> The the suffix <S> —γενής is found in many Greek words, including εὐηγενής ("well born"), ἀγενής ("low born"), ἀλλογενής ("other born"), πατρογενής ("father born"), πυριγενής/ πυρογενής ("fire born"), γηγενής ("earth born") and θεογενής ("God born"). <A> However, Christians are the children of God via adoption. <S> See Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:5, and Ephesians 1:5. <S> Note that Angels are also referred to as the sons of God (see Job 1:6; <S> Gen 6:2 <S> [there is some debate whether Gen 6:2 refers to angels or men]). <S> However, the reference to angels is figurative. <S> μονογενής is the subject of some etymological debate. <S> It comes from mono meaning "one" and either ginomai meaning become or geneo meaning beget. <S> Current scholarly opinion vastly favors "become." <S> Thus μονογενής means "special in kind." <S> We say Jesus is the only Son of God not because of μονογενής <S> but because he is the Firstborn of the Father and there are no other member of the Trinity than Father, Son, and Spirit.
|
Jesus is the only Son of God.
|
Why did Jesus not want people to talk about his healing? There are numerous instances in the gospels of Jesus healing someone, and then Jesus in some form or another instructing them to keep silent about it. One example, in Matthew 9:27-31 27 As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, calling out, “Have mercy on us, Son of David!” 28 When he had gone indoors, the blind men came to him, and he asked them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?” “Yes, Lord,” they replied. 29 Then he touched their eyes and said, “According to your faith let it be done to you”; 30 and their sight was restored. Jesus warned them sternly, “ See that no one knows about this. ” 31 But they went out and spread the news about him all over that region. ( emphasis mine ) Why did Jesus not want them to proclaim their healing? It doesn't make sense to me, as anyone who was healed of a lifelong malady would naturally want to tell all their friends & family . Was this just him making a point about how silly it would be not to share what God has done for us (e.g. the gospel) with others? Or is it something else? <Q> When reading the gospels there seems to be two or three main problems Jesus always encountered in terms of ministry and politics. <S> The most deadly was the jealousy and hatred of the religious leaders. <S> Jesus often had to move away from any opportunity where they might be overly aroused and have easy access in apprehending him (Luke 20:20) <S> Jesus seemed to manage the timing of his arrest. <S> The second was crowd control (Matth 8:18). <S> As more and more flocked to Jesus the crowds became too large to effectively minister to them <S> so he had to move away to less crowded areas and even leave to a new region to avoid crowds. <S> The third problem is less obvious but quite clear in Jewish history, that of the zealots who wanted a Messiah to lead them in war against roman rule. <S> All three of these concerns might be involved in Jesus wanting to limit his fame depending on the situation , where the religious leaders and their 'spies' were, how big the crowd was and how the zealots might have used his fame for their own agenda. <S> Of course there is no way of hiding a miraculous healing to those who knew the man. <S> To those who would know he was healed he would have to explain what happened. <S> He was not asked to 'hide' his healing, just refrain from telling people who would not already know. <S> Jesus seems to simply want to avoid sensationalism and some political hazards. <S> He did not want the man to broadcast his exciting experience, until perhaps much later on. <S> Jesus managed the political landscape on which he was drawing more and more attention from crowds of people with differing motives of interest. <A> I always thought that this was attributable to His approach to Kings in general. <S> Earthly kings want credit for the work that they do; it's how they maintain power. <S> Jesus' kingdom is heaven, therefore the standard rules of earth-bound kings do not apply. <S> Approaching the question from a faith-perspective, it really makes sense to me that Jesus wouldn't go around granting favors to and then asking them to remember who it was that did " <S> x" for you when the Pharisees came around. <S> Earth-bound kingdoms are by definition transitory; taking credit for His good works would have put him in the same class as the Caesars of Rome. <S> Instead, Christ opts for a revolution from below approach. <S> Also, it's entirely consistent with what he preached. <S> How would it have been if he said "stay humble, the last will be first" and then go out and make a spectacle of himself? <A> Why did Jesus not want people to talk about his healing? <S> The works Jesus did were to authenticate his ministry. <S> Matthew 11:2-5 <S> Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, And said unto him, Art thou <S> he that should come, or do we look for another? <S> Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and <S> see: <S> The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. <S> Jesus was aware that such signs could be used to create an almost carnival atmosphere. <S> John 6:26 <S> Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. <S> Jesus came to give testimony to the truth. <S> Spectacle and celebrity usually interfere with those who seek truth. <S> John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? <S> Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. <S> To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. <S> Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
|
I think that had Christ performed miracles then went around bragging about it, the faith would have died shortly after The ascension.
|
Does God have the capacity to sin? Can God sin? To clarify, this question is not asking for a "justification" of those times, described in the Bible, when God struck someone dead. Life is His to take. the question is also not asking strictly whether Jesus had the capacity to sin. The answer should not hinge on whether Jesus was God (He was, assume this), or whether Jesus was one or two persons (He was one divine Person, assume this). The question is asking if God can sin, with attention to, for example, how that might be reconciled with his omnipotence and benevolence. I expect that there are some theological constructs already in place to deal with this question or others like it. If there is some well-established theological difference between "can sin" and "has the power to sin" or "has the capacity to sin", then this should be clarified. Can God (three Persons, one Being) sin? <Q> God cannot sin, not because He lacks the free will to do so, but because it would be inconsistent with His character and His nature. <S> From http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html <S> The word "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible, but has been inferred primarily by one of God's Hebrew titles, "Shadday," which is most often translated "almighty. <S> "1 <S> However, the Bible never claims that God can do all things. <S> In fact, the Bible makes a point that there are things that God cannot do. <S> The Bible says that God cannot commit sin .2 <S> God cannot lie.3 <S> Therefore, biblical omnipotence does not mean that God can do all things. <S> However, God can do anything that He determines to do . <S> This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that one sets out to do. <S> Technically, God could sin if His nature were not perfect - if He chose to, but because His nature is Holy, Perfect, Flawless, to sin would be contrary to His nature. <S> He would never "set out" to do it,even if it is conceivably within HIs power to do so. <S> A pastor (I can't remember which) once put it like this: "If I were to say I can't eat rotten garbage, that doesn't mean that it would be physically impossible for me to do so. <S> I have the physical capability to pick it up, put it in my mouth, chew, and swallow. <S> However, I say I cannot do it because it is so repulsive to me. <S> In this same way, it is possible for God to be omnipotent, yet be unable to sin." <A> God cannot sin, because sin is defined in relation to who God is and what He does. <S> Anything God does cannot be sin, simply because God did it. <S> Sin is a failure to live up to God's standard. <A> God can't sin because he is immutable. <S> Some questions do not need long answers. <S> It would be more debatable to ask 'Can men become muti-headed rabbits?' <S> The simple answer is, 'Of course not.' <S> If one were to imagine a god that could sin in some sense, then it would not longer be the God recognized by the scriptures. <S> Therefore it would only be true when changing the meaning of the word God, to 'idol'. <S> There may be some unholy and unbelieving people willing to do this, but it would be an incorrect answer by the definition of the words being used in the question. <S> I am assuming by 'God', in the question it is meant 'God'. <S> I am also assuming that by 'sin' in the question, it is meant something God hates and punishes, as it is against his holy nature and perfect will. <S> Unless either 'sin' or 'God' be corrupted into a new meaning, there can be only one obvious answer which all understand as self-evident. <S> No. <A> The essence of sin is a rejection of God's authority over our lives. <S> Sin is rebellion, it's wanting to be autonomous when we have no right to that. <S> The doctrine of the Trinity is complex, but its unity makes the suggestion of rebellion between the persons of the Trinity nonsensical. <A> In answer to the question, no, the God being presented in the Bible cannot sin. <S> Whether that is by reason of inability or constraint of good character, the 'why' is irrelevant to the strict up or down answer. <S> " <S> No" is the accurate answer in order to depict the God presented to us in Scripture. <S> Whatever other dilemmas or implications that may create do not affect the reality of that fact. <A> As far as I know about Christianity, God is All-Powerful who created everything and cannot be restricted by anything. <S> That would mean that God actually defines what sin is. <S> In other words, lying is wrong because God says it is wrong, killing is wrong because God says so...and so on. <S> Otherwise, God would not have everything under His control. <S> In order to clarify my point, I will give an example... <S> If God says killing is wrong because killing is wrong (in and of itself)...that's like saying God has to say killing is wrong because it is wrong. <S> In other words, we are saying that God does not have the freedom and power to make it right . <S> This means God is restricted and does not have everything under His complete control, which goes against the Christian belief.
|
God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character.
|
What is the significance of presenting the Apostles as acting foolishly many times in the Gospels? Multiple times in the four Gospels, the Apostles seem to act foolishly. They are around Jesus for a long time, witness miracles, and still lose faith pretty easily. Another example: Jesus says a parable, they don't understand the meaning behind it, so Jesus needs to explain as if they were children. Or they try to heal the sick or perform exorcism, and fail miserably. I'm wondering what significance has this depiction of the Apostles. If they only cared to look better and show later Christians that "the group you are joining is the best", they wouldn't have included these unflattering descriptions about themselves. Please include either the view of a notable Christian denomination, or at least a citation from a notable theologian. <Q> I think the answer can be summed up in what John the Baptist says regarding Jesus in John 3:30: <S> "He must increase, but I must decrease." <S> That is to say, the Gospels were not primarily about bolstering confidence in the disciples, but rather about telling the truth about and bolstering confidence in Jesus. <S> In other words, I think you partially answered your own question, when you said, "If they only cared to look better and show later Christians that "the group you are joining is the best", they wouldn't have included these unflattering descriptions about themselves." <S> That's just the point <S> , they weren't only trying to show later Christians that they group they are joining is the best. <S> They were telling the truth, and leaving it to the reader to decide whether to accept the truth or not. <S> That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— <S> the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. <S> The entirety of the Gospels is written to depict the interaction of God with the interaction of fallen, feeble, and confused human beings, so let me answer the question with a question: How could the authors have demonstrated Jesus's patience and love for immature and confused people without showing their sinfulness, immaturity, weakness, and confusion? <S> The answer is, they can't. <S> The greatness and wisdom of Christ can only be seen clearly against the backdrop of the sinfulness and short-sighted nature of people. <S> Take away the immature sinful behavior of the disciples, and all you have is a set of smart, perfectly kind, loving people talking about smart, perfectly kind, loving things in complete agreement with one another. <S> Without conflict, there's no story. <A> If Christians of later centuries who venerated the apostles had been the actual authors, it is highly improbable that such unflattering details would have been included. <S> Those we venerate we do not shame. <S> Yet, time and time again, the Gospels describe the slowness of the apostles to believe, their prejudice, their difficulty to understand, their self-serving deeds, etc. <S> Thus, it seems more likely that the apostles themselves were the ones to write the Gospels. <S> Secondly, the unflattering details give very weighty evidence to the accuracy of the accounts. <S> The apostles proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus Christ and suffered greatly for it. <S> If the story had been made up, then to what purpose was it? <S> If they had truly loved the man Jesus and just wanted to make history remember him, then no doubt <S> their created stories would have described themselves as never-doubting, always convinced, ad always faithful to Jesus Himself and to His teaching. <S> As someone once suggested... <S> What kind of story would they have told if they wanted the whole world to believe something they themselves knew to be false? <S> Would they have sought to convince the world by proclaiming their own doubts? <S> Would they have endeavored to inspire faithfulness by revealing their own unfaithfulness? <S> Would they have hoped to draw many to follow their teaching by admitting their many faults and unworthiness to be considered leaders? <S> Would they have sought to make many believe in Jesus by recalling how so many learned men rejected Jesus and only the simple received Him? <S> Would they have endeavored to appeal to men of wealth and power by recording the harsh way in which Jesus often dealt with such men? <S> The answer is "No!" <S> The disciples would have told none of this if it were not actually true? <S> In fact, if the Gospels were made up stories, then they would be drastically different. <S> Thus, the fact that there are so many unflattering details points to both apostolic authorship and historical accuracy. <A> The Catholic response you'll often hear: To show that they're weak, stupid, feeble humans. <S> In the economy of salvation, God is the only "thing" that needs to be perfect. <S> All else can be weak and broken -- you, your neighbor, your church leaders, and so on. <S> And the inclusion of the weaknesses and imperfections of the 12 in the Gospel properly aligns this expectation. <S> It attempts to prevent the Gospel readers from putting their faith in a perfection that doesn't exist. <S> It was like telling the communities they wrote to, "Hey. <S> Don't look at us as prime examples of anything. <S> We're just telling you what we saw and offering the sacraments that Christ, who is perfect, gave us."
|
The unflattering details included in the writings of the Gospels attest both to their accuracy and to apostolic authorship.
|
According to Protestantism, what is the significance of Jesus and the Mount of Transfiguration? Matthew, Mark and Luke all record the story of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. Matthew's version is provided below. It seems that each writer simply records that the event occurred, but none of them seem to indicate why it was important. Did it fulfill prophecy? Was it just another authentication of Jesus' divinity? Are Moses and Elijah somehow significant to be the ones speaking with Jesus? According to Protestant understanding (and Catholic if it carries over), what is the significance or importance of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration? 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. 4 And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 5 He was still speaking when, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” 6 When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces and were terrified. 7 But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Rise, and have no fear.” 8 And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one but Jesus only. 9 And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them, “Tell no one the vision, until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.” 10 And the disciples asked him, “Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” 11 He answered, “Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. 12 But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist. [ Matthew 17:1–13 (ESV)] <Q> John 5:39 <S> You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. <S> These are the very Scriptures that testify about me... <S> A common refrain in sermons (and I've used this myself!) <S> on the Transfiguration is that Jesus is being shown to be "the Word." <S> Historically, Jesus referred to the Scripture as "the Law and the Prophets," referencing a common idiom of the time. <S> Of these, Moses is clearly the "Lawgiver," in that he is identified with the Covenant most closely. <S> Elijah is the "Prophet," the first in a line and the prototype of many. <A> Moses represents the law and Elijah the prophets,what simply happened there was a handover or a transition from the law and prophets into the dispensation which we are now in which is the dispensation of grace. <S> After they saw moses and elijah,God said this is my beloved son hear him,he did not say hear them <S> and they looked up and saw only Jesus.. <S> hence we are no longer under the law and prophets but under Grace.. <A> Moses was both a great Law giver and also a great prophet. <S> Just before he died he said to the Israelites: "God will raise up for you a prophet LIKE ME from among your own people (Israelites) you MUST LISTEN TO HIM anyone who doesnt listen to him will be completely cut off from among his own people" This great prophet had not appeared by the time of John the baptist because the priests and levites asked him are you THE prophet and John answered "no". <S> This great awaited prophet is JESUS we know this because he was just like mosesie <S> Just like Moses he had a miraculous escape from death when many innocents were killed by demon possessed rulers. <S> Just like moses came out of the desert after 40 years with signs and wonders to convince the people that God had sent him Jesus came out of the desert after 40 days of fasting with signs and wonders to convince the people that God had sent him. <S> Just like Moses went up the mountain and gave the Law of the old covenant to the people Jesus went up the mountain and gave the LAW of the new covenant to the people ie the sermon on the mount which STILL MUST BE KEPT at the end of this sermon JESUS said whoever hears THESE words of mine and puts them into practise is like a wise man that builds his house on the rock. <S> Just like Moses went up the mountain and he was transfigured so that his face shone like the sun <S> and he had to cover his face with a veil <S> so does Jesus and God the father emphasises to the disciples that JESUS is the great prophet and law giver that Moses prophesied about by emphasising this truth and saying the same message that he spoke through Moses " <S> This is my son who <S> I hav chosen LISTEN TO HIM" <S> The mount of transfiguration like many other events of JEsus's life underlines that fact that Jesus is the promised prophet, the greatest prophet ever to walk the face of the earth whose words are more important than any other words ever spoken. <S> WE MUST LISTEN TO HIM or we will be completely cut off from among our own people ie ETERNAL SEPERATION from all those we love.
|
By appearing with "the Law" (Moses) and "the Prophets" (Elijah), Jesus is shown to be fufilling all of Scripture.
|
Why was the New Testament Written in Greek? New Testament was written in Greek. But Jesus lived in Israel and was supposed to be the next King of Israel. I think it is probably fair to assume that he and his twelve apostles spoke Hebrew. Then why would the New Testament be written in Greek? I would think at least the Gospels part would be written in Hebrew. <Q> First, actually, it was very likely that Jesus and His followers spoke no fewer than these three languages: <S> Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. <S> What language did Jesus speak? <S> Aramaic was the primary language of the land, Greek was the language of business, education, and for communication with foreigners (because it was a wide-spread language), and Hebrew was the religious language of the Jews and was primarily reserved for prayers, religious teaching, and communication with other Jews. <S> But why did they choose Greek? <S> Well, first, we don't have the originals of any of the texts, but it is likely that most were written in Greek, however, there is some debate over a few of the books, just for your information. <S> The primary reason would be portability. <S> Greek was a very wide-spread language. <S> Hebrew and Aramaic were not. <S> Further, after Peter had an encounter with Gentiles that had him declare that the message of Christ's resurrection was for the Gentile too, it became an international matter that all hear the Good News. <S> 48 <S> So he ordered that they [Gentiles] be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. <S> Acts <S> 10:48 Greek was the language that made sense. <S> It was wide-spread, it was for the foreigner, and the Jew knew it as well. <S> Greek was the language that would affect the most people. <A> "But Jesus lived in Israel and was supposed to be the next King of Israel. <S> ... <S> Then why would the new testament be written in Greek?" <S> There would be no special spiritual connection with Hebrew in particular; Christ did not come to reign over Israel. <S> Christ is the King of Kings, and He rules over all the earth and heaven. <S> He came for our salvation, to die a horrible death on the cross. <S> His status as King of Israel was only "formally" recognized by Pilate, who had these words attached to the cross above Christ's head, in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek: <S> INRI <S> Iēsus Nazarēnus, Rēx Iūdaeōrum <S> Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews John 19:19-20 <S> The authors of the New Testament were not really trying to write scripture. <S> St Paul's letters were exactly that: letters that he sent to other diocese. <S> For the most part, the various authors were simply telling what they had heard, or what had been passed down to them. <S> Later, these works came to be recognized as scripture. <S> Greek was the language everyone spoke at the time. <S> Even the Jews spoke Greek, and most Jews could not actually read Hebrew. <S> The Letter to the Hebrews, directed to Jewish Christians, has Greek that " is in many ways the best in the New Testament ". <S> Matthew might have originally been written in Aramaic. <S> Muslims might have a problem with something like the Koran not being written in Arabic (it is supposed to be the literal word of God). <S> But Christians do not see a problem with the New Testament not having been written in Hebrew. <S> It is the Gospel, not the language, that matters. <S> So major parts of the New Testament were written in Greek and not Hebrew because: Hebrew was not considered a "Sacred Language" <S> The authors were not trying to write scripture <A> The New Testament was written in Greek by Greek-speaking writers for a Greek-speaking, largely Gentile audience. <S> Paul was a Jew of the diaspora, and diaspora Jews used Greek in their everyday lives, with many of them unfamiliar with the Aramaic (or Hebrew) of Palestinian Jews. <S> The development of the Septuagint is evidence of this language difference. <S> Tradition says that the New Testament gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, of whom three were Palestinian Jews. <S> Ian Wilson says in Jesus , page 25, it can therefore come as quite a shock to discover that no-one can even be sure who wrote the gospels, and most scholars now agree that the authors were unlikely to have been disciples of Jesus. <S> There is a strong consensus among scholars that Matthew and Luke were based on Mark's Gospel, and a lesser but still significant consensus that John was inspired by Luke's Gospel. <S> A linguistic comparison of the gospels shows that they were derived from Mark in the Greek language. <S> If John was originally written in Greek, then the three Johannine epistles can be expected to have been written in Greek. <S> The Book of Revelation was written on the Greek island of Patmos and appears to be addressed to churches in Greek-speaking Asia Minor, so naturally it was written in Greek.
|
Greek was (only incidentally) the most popular language of the time, so it turned out to be the primary language the authors used
|
What is "your peace" in Matthew 10? In Matthew 10, Jesus is instructing his disciples, whom he is sending out to preach to the children of Israel as follows: 11 Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. 12 As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13 If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you What does it mean to "let your peace rest on it", and even more curiously, how would one let his peace return to him? <Q> A similar passage in Luke: <S> Luke 10:5-6 5 <S> Into whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this household.’ <S> 6 <S> If a peaceful person lives there, your peace will rest on him; but if not, it will return to you. <S> See also Mark 6:8 . <S> Here is the whole passage: <S> Matthew 10:12 12 <S> 13 <S> If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; if not, let your peace return to you. <S> * <S> 14 <S> Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. <S> The note says: "The greeting of peace is conceived of not merely as a salutation but as an effective word. <S> If it finds no worthy recipient, it will return to the speaker. <S> " Consider what happened after St Paul and St Barnabas were driven out of a city, and shook the dusk from their feet: <S> Acts 13:51 51 <S> So they shook the dust from their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium. <S> 52 <S> The disciples were filled with joy and the holy Spirit. <S> See also: <S> Luke 2:14 14 “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” <S> Peace is effectively a blessing, the favor of the Lord. <S> If the blessing finds no worthy recipient, it will fall back on those who gave it. <S> Those who St Paul and St Barnabas gave peace to would not have that peace, so the peace of the Lord fell back on the two men, and they were "filled with joy and the holy Spirit". <A> I believe the Lord Jesus Christ is referring to the common salutation among Jews, שלום עליך ( shalom aleikha ) if greeting a singular male, or שלום עליכם ( shalom aleikhem ) <S> if greeting a group of people (with at least one male). <S> It means, "Peace be upon you" (cp. <S> 3 John 1:14 ). <S> Hence, we find the Greek verb ἀσπάζομαι ( aspazomai ), meaning "to greet someone." <S> So, he is simply saying that the peace (שלום) will indeed come to that person/ home if they are deserving of it (in their treatment of the apostles), or it will not (it will return to the apostles whom spoke it). <A> I once heard Paul Martini preach on this passage at a Randy Clark Healing ministry conference. <S> He posed that this peace of which Jesus was talking about was a tangible presence that one could quite literally give away or have return to oneself. <S> He also made reference to Mark 4 when Jesus calms the storm. <S> Some translations record <S> Jesus saying 'Peace, be still.' <S> Martini suggested that Jesus was actually releasing an atmosphere of peace, in the spiritual, that changed the circumstances in the natural. <S> After hearing this my wife <S> and I thought we'd try it out. <S> Not long after the conference we were having dinner with some friends. <S> They have two crazy dogs that were really hyperactive the whole time we were there. <S> They just wouldn't stay still or be quiet. <S> Before leaving we prayed with our friends and prayed peace over them and their house. <S> As we got up to leave we noticed that the feeling of the place had dramatically changed. <S> It felt really peaceful, more than just relaxed. <S> We also noticed that the two dogs that only minutes prior couldn't sit still, were lying on the floor completely at peace. <S> Since then we've made a habit of praying for peace and have seen time and time again God's peace change lives. <A> The translators of the NLT viewed "peace" to mean a blessing which is how they translated it - see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+10%3A11-13&version=NLT <S> The commentary in the Geneva Study Bible appears to agree with this in that it describes it as "an idiom taken from the Hebrews, by which they meant every type of happiness." <A> “And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. <S> And when ye come into an house, salute it. <S> And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.” <S> Matthew 10:11-13, KJV. <S> The question is what should we ( as disciples) be doing in order to follow this commandment of Jesus?St. <S> Augustine gave a sermon on this, and when I get back to my computer, I will add some comment.
|
As you enter a house, wish it peace.
|
What does the story of Noah's Ark foreshadow in the New Testament? I have seen Noah's Ark listed one of the "types" in Scripture -- something that occurred, but that also foreshadowed something else that would come later. What exactly, then, does the story of Noah's Ark foreshadow? <Q> The flood is explicitly used typologically twice in the New Testament. <S> Jesus, speaking of the final judgment <S> ( Matthew 24:37-41 ), says it will be like "the days of Noah". <S> For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. <S> For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away <S> , so too will be the coming of the Son of Man. <S> Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. <S> Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left. <S> 1 <S> Peter 3:20b-22 says that the flood prefigured the sacrament of baptism. <S> God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. <S> And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him. <S> Over the centuries Christians have found additional typology in this story: <S> The ark has "rooms" for the animals ( <S> Genesis 6:14); Jesus says that his father's house has "many rooms" (John 14:2). <S> The ark had one door (Genesis 6:16); Jesus claimed to be "the door" to salvation (John 10:9). <S> God invited Noah to come into the ark (Genesis 7:1); Jesus said, "Come to me, all you that are weary" (Matthew 11:28). <S> The ark was made of wood (Genesis 6:14) just as the cross was. <S> Because God saved him, Noah "remained alive" <S> (Genesis 7:23); Jesus gives us eternal life (John 10:28). <S> This is only a sample; you can find longer lists here and here . <S> Some of the connections are more explicit in the King James Bible; newer translations use different phrases that don't always match up, but the similarity should still be apparent. <A> Traditionally, many Christian theologians have likened the flood story to that of Christ's coming and sacrifice. <S> Basically, all of Mankind was doomed by the flood, but God, the Redeemer, found a way to save. <S> One was found righteous, Noah, so God commanded him to build the ark to save mankind. <S> We are doomed to die because of sin. <S> That is the flood. <S> God, sent Jesus to redeem us; to save us from calamity. <S> God's judgement came down on Christ just as it came down on the wicked of Noah's time. <S> Just as there was only one Ark there is only one Jesus by which we can be saved. <S> Noah and his family were spared by the Ark just as the church is spared by Christ. <S> The 'types' you are referring to is the theology that the Old Testament is filled with stories that show a 'type' of Christ that gives a kind of Gospel story in a sort of allegory. <S> It is sometimes called typology . <S> I coincidentally read this summary from this page on an unrelated subject yesterday. <S> I like the wording. <S> The ark which saved Noah and his family from the Flood is a beautiful type of Christ as the only way of salvation. <S> As the Flood of God's judgment on sin came upon the earth in Noah's day, so the flood of God's judgment against sin came upon Christ at the cross. <S> As the ark was battered by the awesome storms of the Flood, and then rested on Mount Ararat, so the Lord Jesus bore the terrible penalty for our sins and now rests from His finished work. <S> As Noah and his family believed God and were saved from physical death solely through the ark, so we who trust in Christ are saved from sin's penalty of spiritual death through Christ alone. <A> Noah and the flood is definitely a type and for shadow. <S> Just like in the days of Noah, God Builds an ark and saves a remnant . <S> Those who take Christ name, those who take his name as a bride takes her husbands name. <S> There are two groups those who hear and those who do not and those who do not are destroyed from among the people. <S> Acts 3:23 <S> And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’ <S> And the ones who are saved are his new creation. <A> 1st Peter 3: 20 (eight souls were saved by water.) <S> don't argue with God. <S> Noah danger was not the flood. <S> It was living in a sinful world. <S> God used the water to separate Noah from this condition. <S> Noah represents the soul of man, <S> the people that drown in the flood represents the old mankind. <S> the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us <S> we are to put off the old man. <S> Rise up to walk in newness of life. <S> Through grace Noah was instructed how to be saved through grace were instructed on how to be saved. <S> The ark was the vessel used to take him to safety. <S> The church the body of Christ takes us there. <A> If we look to the New Testament, then Mary (the Mother of God) becomes the Ark in the New Testament--the vessel through whom Jesus (God) becomes man and creation is saved from destruction. <S> Therefore, the Ark of Noah foreshadows the incarnation of Christ through His mother, Mary. <S> The Ark also represents the Church, through which all of Creation is preserved from the raging of the flood. <S> We go to the church and find refuge in God.
|
Literarily speaking, the Ark of Noah is the vessel through which the world (Noah and the animals of creation) is saved from destruction.
|
Did the sun and the moon really stop rotating? Or, the better question is: did the earth really stop rotating? Joshua 10:12-14 New International Version (NIV) 12: On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” 13: So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on[a] its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14: There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel! Obviously, if the earth really did stop spinning for extended period of time, it would have severe implications. For one, rotation velocity is 1,674.4 km/h at the equator. This means that if the Earth suddenly stopped spinning everything would be launched in a ballistic trajectory sideways. All of the masses would be scoured clean of anything. This means rocks, trees, buildings, warriors fighting right then and there, and etc, would be swept away into the atmosphere. And/or, Earth would be torn apart by the gigantic deceleration forces. Seismic waves will flow through the earth causing massive earthquakes. The atmosphere would possibly boil over. Also lets not forget the 2.58x10^29 Joules of rotational energy. all that energy has to go somewhere. Why do I feel like I am writing xkcd what-if article? Anyway... Unless by some miracle God was able to stop the Earth from spinning without the consequences, this act would be impossible. So did he really stop the Earth from spinning? Or was it only an illusion? <Q> Yes it was a miracle. <S> It is clearly stated that God did this for Israel. <S> There is no need to fall back on "illusion" if this is marked as a miracle. <S> When a miracle happens, "natural laws" might as well no longer apply, because God applies. <S> That is part of what "miracle" means. <S> You've made a number of assumptions that I think are unwarranted. <S> Their orbits around the earth are not synchronized, so we can rule out the possibility that God only stopped the rotation of the earth. <S> Though even if He did stop its rotation, why would there be a problem? <S> Imagine the even application of a force to every single particle on the entire planet. <S> He might have stopped the rotation of the earth and then moved the moon as well. <S> Or He might have turned space around the earth to counteract its rotation, and then turned space again at some point past the moon, to counteract its rotation. <S> Alternatively, God may have swung the sun and moon and stars around the earth. <S> This would have caused the distant galaxies to move at far, far, far beyond the speed of light. <S> Again, no acceleration forces if God were "putting His hand on" every particle. <S> This would have been trivial for God, who created everything and is infinitely powerful . <S> That's not mathematical infinity. <S> It's Divine infinity . <S> Or He might have done it in some way far, far, far beyond our comprehension. <S> It is a miracle, and marked as such. <S> What's the problem, again? <A> Similar to this question ( Where did Noah find polar bears and penguins in Palestine? ) <S> , there are two distinctly different answers, depending on your underlying assumptions. <S> Everything in the bible is literally true as written. <S> In this casethe answer is simple: God made it so because God made it so. <S> Reason,causality, laws of physics, and logic can be disbanded at will. <S> IfGod can stop the earth (or moon, or sun) he can surely deal withphysical side effects of this as well. <S> The bible was written (and edited and translated) by humans thatwere trying to make a point to the best of their abilities andwithin their frame of reference given by their times, society, andenvironment. <S> In this case the answer is equally simple: neithersun, moon, nor earth did actually stop and it’s just a metaphor,allegory, or symbolism used by the author to convey his/her message. <S> I don't think there are a lot of view points in between that hold together without internal contradictions, so you probably just have to have pick one. <A> Remember that in the minds of the Hebrews (and pretty much all of humanity for most of our existence), the Earth has always been stationary and the various lights in the sky moved around us on some variation of a crystal sphere or firmament
|
The passage states that both the sun and the moon stopped moving.
|
Why do Matthew and Luke contain genealogies of Jesus, while Mark and John do not? Both Matthew and Luke contain genealogies of Jesus, Matthew to Abraham, and Luke to Adam. However, neither Mark nor John contain genealogies. What is the reason for this--both for why Matthew and Luke do contain genealogies, and for why Mark and John do not? <Q> I don't think we can ever know for sure as we can't ask them. <S> However I think the answer is probably to do with who they are writing to and what is the purpose of their writing. <S> Matthew is probably writing to a Jewish audience. <S> For them the Christ has to have come from Abraham & David and so Matthew spends the time to show that Jesus has the credentials to be the Christ. <S> Luke has probably been employed to write the book by Theophilus (debated if that is the persons name or title). <S> He has been tasked to report on what has happened and what it means - thus it goes into a lot of detail. <S> Mark seems to be focused on just reporting the facts as they happened. <S> He doesn't need to present the background information on what it means, just runs through the events. <S> In terms of who Jesus is he is very much focused on Jesus' divinity - not his human family. <A> Matthew <S> The Gospel of Matthew appears to be written to Jews in order to present Jesus to them as the King of the Jews. <S> As such, it was necessary to trace Jesus' lineage through Joseph, His adopted father, through the lineage of the kings back to David, whom God promised would have an heir who would reign forever. <S> It was also important to trace His lineage back to Abraham, the Patriarch. <S> As the son of Joseph, Jesus had legal right to the throne. <S> Mark <S> The Gospel of Mark presents Jesus as the Servant who fulfills the Suffering Servant prophecy in Isaiah 52-53. <S> For a servant, a genealogy is unnecessary and even irrelevant. <S> Thus, Mark does not include one. <S> Luke <S> The Gospel of Luke presents Jesus as the Son of Man. <S> As such, it is thought that he actually traces Jesus' biological lineage through Mary. <S> Her lineage leads to David as well. <S> However, Luke's emphasis is not the Jewishness of Jesus, but His human nature. <S> As such, he traces the lineage all the way back to the first Adam. <S> John <S> The Gospel of John is said to present Jesus as the Son of God. <S> As such, God has no genealogy. <S> His authority does not come from the legal line of David or in His Jewishness, but in His divinity. <S> Jesus' Divine nature has no genealogy. <S> He is, forever has been, and forever will be the Son of God and God the Son. <A> This point has been touched on, but I wanted to flesh it out a bit. <S> The lack of genealogies in Mark and John is intentional. <S> John HAS a genealogy, if God can be said to have one... "In the beginning was the Word." <S> He always was, and always will be. <S> All four Gospels are making a point about some aspect of Christ's "origin."
|
John is in a completely different format than the other gospels. Mark portrayed Christ as a Servant, which was stated already, and as such the author intentionally left out the genealogy.
|
Did God ever talk about his other creations? I have always been a lover of all things "Science", space, other life forms, etc. I excelled in Science in School but a few years ago I started questioning things and now believe that "Science" and God can coexist - something that most people I've spoken to disagree with. Anyway. There are other planets out there, we all know that. But does Life exist on any of those planets? Does God ever mention anything about his other creations (outside of Earth)? When we look at Earth from outside of it (correct me if I'm wrong), we can see the lights all across the world. But when we look at other planets, there are no lights. This alone leads me to believe that there are no other forms of life on planets that we can see - unless they are completely different from us and are of colors that our eyes cannot see, or is it that God made it so that forms of life on one planet cannot communicate with or see forms of life on another planet? I would very much like this to be a discussion but since that's not appropriate for this website I would like to know if there is anything in the scriptures about any of this? <Q> This is not an answer but a scientific clarification, please delete if inappropriate. <S> But since the OP asked (correct me if I'm wrong) <S> Lights on earth are only visible from space if you are very close. <S> The only planets we can actually "see" are the ones in our solar system. <S> As far as we know these don't carry any life at all With the aid of Kepler telescope, NASA has recently discovered three "earth like" planets that are not too far away http://www.npr.org/2013/04/18/177774505/kepler-telescope-spots-three-new-planets-in-the-goldilocks-zone <S> If these planets had lights we would not be able to see them from that distance. <S> It's just too far away. <S> Visible light for humans only covers a small part of theelectromagnetic spectrum. <S> Even on earth there are animals that usedifferent frequencies for vision. <S> We have no reason to believe thatlife on other planets would "see" the same way <S> However, we would expect some sort of electromagnetic radiation from a technological advanced civilization. <S> We sure produce a heck of it. <S> Then again, the planets that Kepler has found (and there are most likely lots more out there) are about 1000 light years or so away. <S> That means it takes about 1000 years for any type of radiation to get here <S> and we'd only hear/see/detect what happened there 1000 years ago. <S> So far we've come up empty. <S> If today there would be an alien at a Kepler planet pointing their radio-telescope at earth they would detect absolutely nothing. <S> 1000 years ago, earth didn't radiate any electromagnetic waves. <S> The whole definition of "Life" is a tricky problem in itself. <S> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Definitions . <S> For example it's not entirely clear whether a virus is a living thing or not <S> (according to most, but not all, definitions it's not) <S> We don't have very credible idea of how life on other planets may look like or express itself and how we would recognize it as such if we came across it. <A> I had this question myself a few years back, and spent quite a while reading through the Bible to get an answer. <S> And by spiritual realm <S> I mean a wide category of creation mentioned in the Bible, from angels to demons to the horsemen in the book of Revelation and everything in between. <S> The Bible also tells us that we are made in the image and likeness of God, and by that we are a unique part of creation, so that even the angels are envious of us. <S> So even if there is other life in the universe, we shouldn't expect it to be like us. <S> As for finding other life, as Hilmar pointed out our current detection methods are restricted mainly to visible light and radio-wave telescopes, which both have the same fundamental limitation: the speed of light vs distance ratio. <S> Because of the immense distances, we are very unlikely to find anything of interest even if it is there. <A> The Bible never explicitly refers to anything other than the angels and life on earth. <S> This does not necessarily demand that there is no life elsewhere. <S> It does suggest, however, that it was not important for us to know. <S> There is one passage which some have referenced as perhaps suggesting that there is life on another planet. <S> That is in John 10:16 <S> And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. <S> I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. <S> So there will be one flock, one shepherd. <S> John 10:16 ESV <S> However, Jesus was talking to Jewish people at this time, and the other sheep seems to be pretty obviously referring to Gentiles. <S> In other places, it is explicitly identified that God has, indeed, brought both Jews and Gentiles together in Christ. <A> God did mention multiple or plural worlds as created through Jesus Christ. <S> "has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;" Hebrews 1:2 NKJV <A> The possibility of a plurality of words was a hotly debated question during the Middle Ages. <S> The bishop, philosopher, theologian, economist, and physicist Nicole Oresme (1320-1382) wrote what is considered the best exposition of the possibility of a plurality of worlds, translated in: Grant, Edward, ed. <S> A Source Book in Medieval Science . <S> HarvardUniversity Press, 1974. <S> pp. <S> 547-54. <S> ( PDF / DjVu <S> pp. <S> 191-5).
|
What I found was that there is no explicit mention of other life in the universe apart from what is on earth and the spiritual/heavenly realm.
|
Did God create other people besides Adam and Eve? After Cain killed Abel, he was cast away and said "whoever finds me will kill me", there he took a wife. I think this indicates there were other people on the face of the earth created by God, but are there any other explanations? The reason I ask this is that Adam and Eve are supposedly the couple that gave birth to all humanity, which I think is genetically impossible. <Q> According to the Bible, God created no other people besides Adam and Eve. <S> Adam was created from the dust of the earth, while Eve was created from Adam (perhaps his rib). <S> Genesis 5 indicates that Adam and Eve had quite a few children. <S> We have names for Cain, Abel, Seth, other sons (plural) and daughters (plural). <S> So, at a minimum, they had seven children. <S> If we assume that the birthrate for women is just equal to that of men, then Eve may well have had five daughters, pushing the total to ten. <S> The earth at that time was very fruitful, and people lived a very long time, so she may well have had more than that. <S> Genetically speaking, it is not impossible at all <S> that one couple could give birth to all humanity. <S> Just because one scientist asserts something to be true does not make it so. <S> See this article regarding skin tones and <S> this article regarding a challenge to that claim altogether. <A> "Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living." <S> Genesis 3:20 (NIV). <S> Also Romans 5:12 <S> "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned. <S> " If there were more directly created people, original sin would mean nothing because it would not have been passed on, there would have been lines where Adams sin would not have "infected" his none-offspring. <S> The assertion that this is genetically impossible is certainly not a scientific one for whatever passes for "science" in your mind, the consensus even among evolutionist atheists has been for quite some time that modern humans had a single matriarchal ancestor. <S> Anyone who claims it's science to say two people with the proper genetic code can't create the diversity we have today <S> doesn't understand basic genetics. <S> ( <S> And neither did Darwin, he was a botanist NOT an educated biologist). <A> Let me bring up some unauthentic book. <S> The Book of Adam and Eve gives a good explanation to this confusion. <S> The first son, Cain was born along with his twin sister Luluwa. <S> The second son, Abel also had a twin sister Aklia. <S> After Cain murdered Abel, Cain married his twin sister Luluwa . <S> As we know, the Bible rarely mentions the name of women, their is no doubt that those first daughters of Adam and Eve were also not mentioned in the Bible. <S> The writer, probably Moses might have assume that there was no strong reason to mention the names of the first daughters and might even did not think that the readers like us will later come up with this kind of questions. <S> When Cain said "whoever finds me will kill me" , it does not necessarily mean that there were already other people on earth. <S> Remember that those days the lifespan of human was above 900 years and less than 1000 years. <S> Cain simply meant that the people who will born later will want to kill him because he is a murderer. <S> And we know very well that 900 years is enough for a civilization to rise . <S> Although Cain did not know how long he will live, he also did not know when he will die. <S> There was no one yet who saw how a man will die of old age. <S> Cain would surely think that he will at least live for a long time because death by old age was not yet known to them.
|
So according to Genesis Eve was the mother of all living, so that means there were no other directly created people.
|
What is the difference between Protestantism vs Protestants? According to me Protestants are the one who doesn't pray to Mary. I also came across the Protestantism which speaks about the 95 Theses which Martin Luther started against indulgence . I don't see any relationship with Protestants and Protestantism. Are they same? Or Protestants came from Protestantism? Rectify me if Iam wrong. <Q> Protestants" are people who are part of that movement. <S> It's the same relationship as between the words "Catholicism" and "Catholics". <S> Catholics are the people who are part of Catholicism. <S> The problem is that your definition of Protestants is far too narrow. <S> Protestants don't pray to Mary (mostly - there are a few exceptions) but it's not the most important thing about them <S> - there are many other differences between them and Catholics too - their beliefs about the authority of the church, the place of the sacraments, the theology of the priesthood are just a few of many examples. <S> It should also be pointed out the Protestantism is incredibly diverse and there is almost nothing that is unquestionably true of all Protestants except that they are not Catholic (or Orthodox, whose followers are also considered not Protestant). <A> The difference between Protestants and Protestantism isn't the same as the difference between an optician and an optometrist or the difference between a Pontiac and a Buick. <S> It's not a level of the same sort of thing with different priorities or anything. <S> It's the difference between Catholics and Catholicism or Communists and Communism or sadists and sadism or hedonists and hedonism or stuff like that. <S> The -ism part of the word is the suffix that means "it's got that same condition" <S> So, protestants have protestantism. <S> (no one would say this, but it's true) <A> Protestants do not pray to the saints (like Mary, or any other "saint"). <S> We pray only to God. <S> Since God is revealled to Christians in 3 different ways (what we call different "persons"), you will hear Protestants paraying to The father (God the creator, in Heaven), or to Jesus (who is God incarnate in human flesh), or to the Holy Spirit (the on-going presence of God in the world). <S> Because we pray to those 3, we don't bother praying to the saints. <S> Some Protestants (such as certain Anglicans, or certain Lutherans) may pray to the saints, but if they do, they are careful to not ask the saint for anything. <S> Instead they ask the saint to pray for them to God the father.
|
"Protestantism" is the name of a movement. " Protestants base their beliefs and actions on Scripture (the Bible), and since the Bible doesn't recommend praying to saints (who, after all, are dead), we just stick to praying to God.
|
Why did the conclave elect Pope Stephen I, when he died prior to taking office? According to Wikipedia , Pope Stephen I was elected to the papacy in March of 752 A.D., but died a few days later, prior to being installed. As I understand it, Catholic teaching indicates that God's will is accomplished through the voting of the papal conclave. This, however, brings up a question with regard to Pope Stephen I. Why was he elected as pope if was going to die prior to taking office? What purpose did God have in working through the conclave to elect him? What is the Catholic understanding of this? Did he, after being elected, somehow become unworthy? <Q> I don't see the problem, and the Church sees no problem worth explaining, because: Unlike some groups, Catholics don't think that death is a sign from God that a person is unworthy. <S> Being elected pope makes a man infallible under certain conditions. <S> It doesn't make him sinless or immortal. <S> It was God's plan to have a man unanimously elected, and then to have him die of a stroke. <S> I don't understand what the problem could be. <S> For all I know of God's plan, which is nothing , Stephen died so that you could ask and learn the answer to this question. <S> We try not to speculate on God's will, because we can't, and we don't need to. <S> We just trust God. <S> Man elected unanimously, dies like everyone else. <S> What's the problem? <S> The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord! <S> There is no problem. <A> This is very similar to another question . <S> In addition to Alypius' answer here, what I wrote in that other question is also valid: <S> There remains the possibility that the cardinals will fail to discern the will of the Spirit. <S> However, that can no more be determined by the faithful than it can be by the cardinals themselves. <S> So yes, we must believe that the right person has been chosen. <S> Even if the wrong person is elected, his ministry is not invalidated. <S> God will find a way of making everything good. <S> Perhaps that conclave was mistaken in its discernment and God found a method of putting things right. <S> Much the same thing has been said of the election of Pope John Paul I. However, as Alypius has said, "there is no point in speculating on God's will, because we can't." <A> I shall pose a counter-question. <S> Why do bad things happen to good people? <S> Why do good things happen to bad people? <S> I see no issue with the death of Stephen. <S> As to "God's will is worked through the conclave", well, I will agree but only to a point. <S> God's will is also worked through the US general election. <S> The fact that God's will is worked through a process is neither informative, nor useful, not particularly significant and <S> I see little ability to draw conclusions based on such a premise. <S> The conclave is supposed to elect the man best suited for the job, and it is supposed to be something done with much prayer and discernment. <S> But anyone who has an even cursory understanding of how conclaves have worked in the past will know that often this is not the case. <S> However, as the saying goes "God does not call the qualified, but he qualifies the chosen. <S> " Even though the outcome of a conclave can be very human (though often it is far greater than human), the papacy remains protected. <S> As to Stephen's qualities, well, by an accident of history we simply are not privy to that information. <S> Perhaps his election was something which was not prayerfully done. <S> Perhaps he was intending on driving the Church of Rome into heresy and God felt the best way to stop that was killing Stephen off. <S> Perhaps God thought it better if he served as an active intercessor in heaven. <S> We don't know. <A> So a pope who died before his official installation would still have been a pope and have ruled the church briefly.
|
As far as I know, the Catholic Church teaches that a man acquires the power of the papacy as soon as he has been duly elected and has accepted the office (provided he is already a bishop; otherwise he'd have to be consecrated a bishop first), even before any official installation, coronation, or even public announcement.
|
Why is Rome the holy city? Why did Rome become the seat of the Pope and the central location for the Church? I would think that Jerusalem would be the first choice. There are also a number of other cities that I would personally pick over Rome because of location and centrality to the early Church. Maybe the issue is that Rome was more central to the early church than I think it was. I am looking for an answer that discusses the history mostly and the RCC opinion on this. <Q> During the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD the city was destroyed almost down to the bedrock with not a stone left atop another, just as Jesus had predicted. <S> Jews were forbidden to enter the city for a long time afterward. <S> This also applied to a small Jewish dissent group called "Christians". <S> This forced everybody (who were alive) to leave Jerusalem and move to the next possible alternative, wherever that was. <S> Reason 1: <S> St. Peter was in Rome . <S> St. Peter and St. Mark went to Rome to help Christians there. <S> The Catholic Church has always held that Ubi Petrus ibi ecclesia, et ibi ecclesia vita eterna , that is Where there is Peter <S> there is the Church, where there is the Church there is life eternal! . <S> [St Ambrose (d. 397 A.D.), Commentary on the Psalms 40, 30] So where else can Christians go when they have nowhere else to go? <S> There are plenty of Church Fathers like St. Jerome <S> (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]) and St. Irenaeus who give this as the reason. <S> Reason 2: <S> Rome was the largest and most powerful City on Earth . <S> Hence, it was the best possible place to spread the Gospel quickly, as it was the most connected city. <S> Remember " <S> All road leads to Rome". <S> Reason 3: <S> Pre-existing infrastructure . <S> When the emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the official state religion, all pagan temples in Rome were converted into christian churches which made Rome amicable to the Christian population. <S> Reason 4: <S> Necessary to full-fill prophecy of Daniel . <S> Some scholars like Dr. Scott Hahn interpret the prophecy in Daniel 7 as Rome to be the fourth kingdom and that Christ was to come, overthrow this kingdom, and establish an everlasting kingdom in its place. <S> This is why the first thirty or so Popes kept coming back to Rome despite being martyred there. <S> Reason 5: Divine providence . <S> As a Catholic, I personally believe the reason to be divine providence. <S> If the Catholic Church is based in Jerusalem, then there would be unnecessary problems with other faiths which existed then and have come into existence since. <A> There are a large number of historical reasons. <S> Part of it has to do with the fact that Peter finished his ministry and died there and so the papacy was centered on Rome from very early on. <S> But the main reason, I think, has to do with how Islam took control of the East during the Middle Ages. <S> With Jerusalem closed, people started going to Rome because it was the next logical alternative (for the reasons enumerated above). <S> All of that being said, most people will still think Jerusalem when you say, "The Holy City." <A> St. Peter was crucified in Rome; he was the first Pope. <S> The Basilica was built on top of his grave, hence it became the center of the Church. <S> It has nothing to do with scripture, but instead is based on tradition. <A> Even Protestants tend to defer to Rome as a holy city. <S> However, Constantinople was regarded as the holy city of the Greek Orthodox Church because this was the seat of the Patriarch. <S> In a similar style, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem is known as the Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem , and indeed many Christians would regard Jerusalem as the holiest city in Christendom. <S> The Catholic Church asserts that the apostle Peter went to Rome, where he led the church as Rome's first bishop, appointing his successor there, but this claim is far from certain. <S> Even at the end of the first century, the author of 1 Clement appears unaware that St. Peter ever came to Rome. <S> Written from Rome, 1 Clement mentions Peter's 'many labours' and makes a general comment about Peter's death, without mentioning Rome: <S> " There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory ." <S> Rex Wyler, in The Jesus Sayings , page 252, says the legend that Peter visited Rome appears in the non-canonical Acts of Peter , composed in about 185 CE. <S> Even in the absence of St. Peter in Rome, the city became the holy city of the Catholic Church because it was the centre of the Roman Empire, and thus the most powerful city on Earth. <S> During the early years, the eastern Church had divided loyalties, between Constantinople, Jerusalem and Alexandria, whereas the entire Church in western Europe had Rome alone as its major centre, in turn giving the bishop of Rome considerable power and influence - in addition to the claim of Petrine succession. <S> Nevertheless, Rome will never replace Jerusalem as the most holy city in Christendom.
|
Rome is the holy city to western Christianity because it became the seat of the Pope. Part of it has to do with the fact that it was a fairly significant city even apart from religion.
|
Does the word 'testament' in the titles OT and NT imply the death of the testator in both covenants? A will or testament is a legal declaration by which a person, the testator, names one or more persons to manage his estate and provides for the transfer of his property at death. This property an inheritance. What I am wondering is the origin of the word Old Testament, or New Testament. Does 'testament' imply the death of Life in order that we receive an inheritance? Is the Old Testament, a 'Testament' or just a Covenant? Was the Old Covenant truly a Testament, or is only the New Covenant a Testament? If the Old Covenant was also a Testament which would not be ratified until the testator died, in what sense is the Old Covenant a testament before the actual death of Christ? Does the word testament in the titles 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament' imply the death of the testator in both covenants and thus provide a biblical basis for calling the two divisions of the Bible testaments, rather then just covenants? <Q> It has more to do with the translators and languages than the bible itself. <S> The word Testament is derived from Latin testamentum -a <S> will. <S> I understand you confuse it with the modern meaning of the word, but Blue Letter Bible tries to explain it as follows: <S> The word "testament" is an old English word that means, "covenant." <S> The Latin term testamentum was used to translate the Greek and Hebrews words for covenant. <S> The English word was derived from the Latin. <S> Hence the Old and New Covenants became the Old and New Testaments. <S> src <S> That is the covenants before and after Jesus Christ. <S> That is here both Testament and covenant have the same meaning. <S> The sourced cited above goes on to even say: It is unfortunate that the English word "testament" is used to describe the Old and New Covenants that God has made with His people . <S> I also don't understand how the 'Old Testament' implies the death of testator? <S> God did not die in the Old Testament. <S> Note: <S> The word covenant came into usage only in Middle English (12th - 15th century) borrowed from Old French, from present participle of convenir, meaning to agree; src <S> So, we can't blame the translators for not using the proper word. <A> The Greek word "diatheke", according to Hebrews 9:15-17 means: "the will of the dying father for his children". <S> In this "will" the father pledges to transfer his property to his children after he dies. <S> For the will/the pledge to take an effect, it implies the death of the father. <S> Thus, the Christians receive God's will/pledge/promise (the eternal salvation), not after the death of God the Father, but after the death of Jesus Christ, who perfectly represent God the Father. <S> Now, the debatable question is: Was the Hebrew word "BERITH" also used to mean "the will/the pledge" of the father? <S> That is not certain. <S> What is certain, however, is that the word implied the death of the sacrificial animal, which typified the death of Jesus Christ, the Son, the perfect representative of his holy Father. <A> There is no reference within the Old and New Testaments per se of an "Old Testament" or a "New Testament" section of the Bible. <S> In the Latin translation of Against Heresies , written sometime between 175 and 185 AD, <S> Irenaeus uses the phrase "Scripturae veteris Testamenti". <S> The Latin word "testamentum" is derived from the Latin verb "testari", meaning to witness, testify, attest, etc. <S> It is recognizable as the root for the English word "testify", but it is also the root of the "-testor" words such as "protestor". <S> It is, as others have pointed out, the word used in Latin when referring to the old and new covenants, but it is also used in Latin as you suggest, meaning "will" or "last testament". <S> The former, however, is the Biblical usage; for example: Luke 1:72 <S> Ad faciendam misericordiam cum patribus nostris: <S> et memorari testamenti sui sancti <S> To performe the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy Couenant (KJV) <S> Although the original 1611 King James Version (KJV) and the earlier Tyndale translation (1536) used the word "covenant" ("Couenant"), the 14th century Wycliffe Bible - written in Norman-influenced Middle English - used the word "testament": <S> To do merci with oure fadris, and to haue mynde of his hooli testam ent <S> At some point Church Fathers used the phrases "Old Testament" and "New Testament" to refer not only to the Old and New Covenants, but also as a shortening of the phrase "Old Covenant (Testament) Scriptures" and "New Covenant (Testament) Scriptures". <S> Canon LIX, of the Synod of Laodicea (c. 365 AD), states,for example: <S> No psalms composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books may be read in the church, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments. <S> The writings of the 4th Ecumenical Council (451 AD) include the following commentary by Leo the Great : <S> For what learning has he received from the sacred pages of the New and the Old Testament, who does not so much as understand the very beginning of the Creed?
|
Old and New Testaments just means old and new covenant.
|
Why isn’t the soul (ψυχή) considered to be a “person” (ὑπόστασις)? From my understanding, the unity of spirit, soul, and body is considered to be a ὑπόστασις, or “person.” But, what argument is there against the soul itself (apart from the body) being a ὑπόστασις? It seems the soul possesses reason. It exists by itself. So, why is it not considered to be a ὑπόστασις? Or, if it is considered to be a ὑπόστασις, where and by whom is such an argument affirmed? I am particularly interested in an answer in accordance with Catholic beliefs. NOTE : To clarify, I am using «ὑπόστασις» as an equivalent to the Greek πρόσωπον and Latin persona as understood in Trinitarian creeds and theology. <Q> Humans are living souls. <S> Soul (psyche) means the breathing existence. <S> The body (soma) is the outward appearance and the physique of the human. <S> It all means the same human being. <S> Soul more in the sense of living and ability to feel. <S> Body more in the sense of physical existence. <S> The spirit, pneuma, is what moves the person, what his thoughts are and his emotions. <S> It all is the human as one whole living being. <S> The difference is regarding what of a person one is looking at. <S> It is about aspects to the human, not about entities or compound parts. <S> In certain instances the soul is considered the person, but in a more impersonal way to say. <S> (Name, onoma, would be the more personal expression.) <S> Person (prosopon) is used for the human encounter, the facial and bodily appearance towards one another. <A> The answer to this question can be summed up in one sentence from the Catechism: <S> The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. <S> ( CCC §362 ) Persona humana, ad imaginem Dei creata, simul est ens corporale <S> et spirituale <S> ( Latin text ) <S> That is to say, yes, perhaps the human soul fulfils all the "requirements" for being a persona . <S> But that isn't what God chose to make. <S> God chose to make human beings as both body and soul. <S> What makes a person isn't adherence to a set of criteria, but God's sovereign and creative will. <S> From the same section of the Catechism: "Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God." <S> From later in the same paragraph: spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature ( CCC §365 ) <S> A human person is inherently both soul and body: they are ultimately inseparable. <S> They are a unity: as Gaudium et Spes (quoted in the Catechism) puts it: <S> Though made of body and soul, man is one <S> ( Gaudium et Spes <S> 14 § 1 ) <A> In his Summa Theologica , in an article article concerning “The Definition of a Person” ( De Definitione Personæ ), 1 Thomas Aquinas noted the following objection, 2 <S> Further, the separate soul is an individual substance of a rational nature, but it is not a person. <S> Therefore, “person” is not properly defined thus. <S> Praeterea, anima separata est rationalis naturae individua substantia. <S> Non autem est persona. <S> Inconvenienter ergo persona sic definitur. <S> to which he responded, 3 Concerning the fifth objection, it must be said that the soul is a part of the human species, and so, although it exists separate, yet since it ever retains the nature of unibility, it cannot be called an individual substance, which is the hypostasis or first substance, as neither can the hand nor any other part of man. <S> And so, neither the definition nor the name of person belongs to it. <S> Ad quintum dicendum quod <S> anima est pars humanae speciei, et ideo, <S> licet sit separata, quia tamen retinet naturam unibilitatis, non potest dici substantia individua quae est hypostasis vel substantia prima; sicut nec manus, nec quaecumque alia partium hominis. <S> Et sic non competit <S> ei neque definitio personae, neque nomen. <S> Because the soul exists as part of man, just like the hand—both having “the nature of unibility”—Thomas Aquinas reasons that it is not a person, an individual substance of a rational nature. <S> For the record, I disagree with him. <S> I do not see comparing the soul to a hand as a fitting analogy, for, unlike the hand, the soul can exist separate ( separata ) from the body. <S> Nevertheless, he addressed the question of whether the soul is a person. <S> References Aquinas, Thomas. <S> The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. <S> Trans. <S> Fathers of the English Dominican Province. <S> New York: Benziger, 1911–1912. <S> (28) <S> Aquinas, Thomas. <S> Summa Theologica. <S> Vol. 1. <S> Paris: Bloud, 1880. <S> (244) <S> Footnotes <S> 1 <S> ST I, Q 29, A 1 <S> 2 ibid. <S> , arg. <S> 5 <S> 3 <S> ibid. <S> , co. 5
|
A soul cannot be considered without the body.
|
Why do Mormons/LDS refer to God as "Heavenly Father" rather than "Our Heavenly Father"? I have noticed a very subtle distinction in the way Protestants and LDS refer to God. When Protestants pray to God, he may address Him as "Heavenly Father", but when they speak about God, they seem to refer to Him as " Our Heavenly Father". However, the LDS people that I have known and met seem to refer to God as " Heavenly Father " (without the Our ) in both situations--as a direct address and as an indirect address. I really don't know if there is any reason for this. Perhaps it is just cultural to each group, but I thought I would ask anyway as it does make me curious. <Q> It's not significant. <S> It could have to do with anything from how they're raised, to how they prefer to speak, to language and dialect, to setting, or to anything else. <S> Mormons will say both "Our Heavenly Father" and "Heavenly Father" interchangeably. <A> As @Matt said it's not that significant because they can be used interchangeably (and are both used, I use <S> our in prayer all the time when with other people). <S> I wanted to address your comment to Matt's answer. <S> If I was talking to my sister about my earthly father, I wouldn't say "Our father, said foo and bar", I would however, say, " <S> Father said foo and bar". <S> He is our father, we know that already so there is no need to refer to him as such again. <S> It is much the same with our Heavenly Father. <S> We know He is our Heavenly Father, there is no other Heavenly Father, and He is the Heavenly Father of all people on earth, so it's felt that there isn't a need to refer to Him as 'our' Heavenly Father again. <S> It's interesting to note that Our and My are probably used more by the LDS in prayer then in indirect speech. <S> So if what you say is true about protestant prayer the usage of these possessive words is reversed between the two groups. <S> I would conjecture that it's more common in prayer in the LDS culture because of how formal and reverent the LDS are towards prayer. <S> The LDS believe that prayer is a dialog between them and God, but the word choice is more akin to a dialog though mail (instant mail but still mail). <S> Where the use of salutations like "Our" or "My" would be more appropriate then normal speech. <A> I am LDS. <S> When a person stands and offers a prayer as the representative of a congregation of people---we say, Our Heavenly Father, but when we are praying only representing ourself (not speaking in behalf of all humanity), we don't need to say, OUR, because we are speaking personally to My Father. <S> When said this way, we are not discrediting that all have the same Father in Heaven. <S> But rather, one example addresses the collective and the other addresses the singular--addressing the personal relationship that one has with their Father, recognizing themselves (and others) as a son or daughter of God. <A> While most responses I have heard indicate that it is simply the semantics of a Christian-derived subculture (the LDS) which result in the article-less (i.e. sans " <S> The" or "Our") version typically used by the LDS adherents, I do wonder if the difference in semantics comes from the fact that the two groups are speaking of two different concepts entirely. <S> Most traditional Christians, including Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic, profess the Nicene Creed and their concept of God as the Heavenly Father is closely bound also to their concept of God as an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being who is the creator of all universes, of everything that exists everywhere, while LDS followers are normally referring specifically to the progenitor of the human race and creator of this world and possibly other worlds, but not all worlds and all universes. <S> God the Father, or Heavenly Father, as he is typically referred to in LDS concepts, is more akin to one of the Greek gods, a created figure, indeed once a human, of massive, but not unlimited power, and he is a specific, corporeal being, not a purely spiritual being. <S> I am not certain <S> this is the reason for the difference in semantics, but I suspect it has something to do with it. <S> I should also note that I am by no means an expert and if any LDS folks dispute my characterization of their cosmology, I am open to discussion.
|
Heavenly Father is used so often in a indirect manner because of the personal relationship LDS feel they have with God.
|
What is the spiritual significance of swearing on a Bible among the various churches and denominations? When someone is deposed in court, they are asked to swear on a Bible. My premise is that the use of a printed Bible in this instance is derived from a pagan ritual or rituals, rather than a practice that the holy Scriptures themselves would encourage. What is am overview of Christian beliefs about the spiritual significance of the practice? I am in no way dismissing the seriousness (legal, personal, or spiritual) of the sin of lying; I am talking about the specific act involving putting one's hand on the Bible itself, particularly in official or legal situations. The closest question on this topic doesn't get into the significance of the printed Bible itself: Swear to tell the truth 'so help me God'? <Q> A very straight reading of Matthew and James would lead you to believe what Jeff wrote . <S> But that may not be the end of it, or have anything to do at all with judicial oaths. <S> Christ meant, as the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers explain, to be so truthful that men could believe them without need of oath to confirm what they say. <S> He did not forbid the use of oaths under proper conditions, when necessary to satisfy others of our truthfulness. <S> Oaths - Catholic Encylopedia <S> All the sacraments are oaths. <S> Saying Amen is an oath. <S> Every covenant God made is an oath. <S> There's no reason you shouldn't "swear to God" when you're seriously "swearing to God". <S> Just like you can say "God help us" or "Mother of the Saints!" without using God's name or other holy names in vain. <S> You shouldn't go down a path that is going to lead to perjury. <S> However, swearing on a Bible, or swearing on "The Precious" or your mother's ashes, etc doesn't seem necessary does it? <S> Almost seems idolatrous. <S> But, then again, you're not swearing on a Bible, you're just touching a Bible and swearing on the Holy Word of God and as long as you're not perjuring yourself <S> and you're fulfilling your obligations, you're doing the right thing. <A> Gospel Truth <S> The practice of swearing an oath on the Bible sits in the uncomfortable median between secular and religious practice. <S> John Bouvier explains the motivation behind the practice in his Law Dictionary : OATH . <S> A declaration made according to law, before a competent tribunal or officer, to tell the truth; or it is the act of one who, when lawfully required to tell the truth, takes God to witness that what he says is true. <S> It is a religious act by which the party invokes God not only to witness the truth and sincerity of his promise, but also to avenge his imposture or violated faith, or in other words to punish his perjury if he shall be guilty of it. <S> He cites Novisimi Recopilacion de las Leyes de Espafia as tracing the practice of holding a book back to Roman law. <S> What book would have been used, I don't know. <S> Bouvier notes that the "Gospel" is the usual book taken in hand. <S> This seems appropriate since the words gospel and truth have had a strong association going as far back as Paul: <S> In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation... <S> —Ephesians 1:13a ( ESV ) <S> These days , a Bible is not required by most courts nor do they require true oaths, but allow simple affirmations. <S> One reason is that the Bible itself warns against taking oaths . <S> Notice that the reason is not because oaths on the Bible are powerless superstition, but because oaths are supremely significant . <S> Even God swears oaths: <S> Therefore he raised his hand and swore to them that he would make them fall in the wilderness,and would make their offspring fall among the nations, scattering them among the lands. <S> —Psalm 106:26-27 ( ESV ) <A> Matthew 5:33-37 and James 5:12 <S> The premise is that you should always be trustworthy. <S> If you are known to always tell the truth, then you would not need additional corroboration or incentive that you are telling the truth. <S> Does it swearing an oath on the bible have any additional significance beyond swearing on oath on nothing? <S> I am not aware of any bible passages that directly deal with the question. <S> One could argue that to knowingly lie while invoking God would be to treating Him with contempt. <S> There is much the bible says on that topic but that is another question.
|
The bible is clear that swearing on anything and taking oaths is sinful.
|
What is the background of the verse Heb 10:25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. Hebrews 10:25 What would be the reasons to give up meeting? And a sub question, How can we motivate others for Sunday worship for denominations which have Sunday worship? <Q> Why did the author make this statement? <S> By reading before and after this verse, we can get an idea of his mindset when he wrote it. <S> The beginning of the chapter tells us that the worshipers in the OT had to keep sacrificing animals every year, having no consciousness that their sins were forgiven. <S> But we may come to church with the sense that the blood cleanses us from all sins. <S> Perhaps some were staying away because they felt too sinful to come. <S> v14 tells us that we have been perfected forever, especially those who are being sanctified, who have set themselves apart for Christ's purposes. <S> Perhaps some are staying away from church because they are filled with their own purposes. <S> By participating in church activities, we'll find Christ's church-building purposes fulfilled through us. <S> in v26-ff, we find that we can be deceived by sin and stay away from church, and forget that we were cleansed from sin, and therefore set ourselves up for an awful judgment. <S> The church is a place to hear the preaching of the Word, which can point out our sins and keep us repenting of sins. <S> Perhaps some Hebrews could have been recovered from their sin if they had continued. <S> These are several situations the author may have had in mind when he wrote the passage; he encouraged the Hebrews to continue attending and strengthening other believers while there. <A> Hebrews 10:24-25 <S> (NIV) <S> And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together , as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another —and all the more as you see the Day approaching . <S> Background: <S> The author of this book is unknown. <S> Some proposed authors are Apostle Paul, Clement of Rome, Barnabas etc. <S> Since the book focuses more on the tabernacle, it might have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. <S> The intended audience is possibly the Jewish Christians because gentile audience may not understand the tabernacle system. <S> It was the time when Christianity was spreading like fire. <S> The Jewish Christians were still finding difficulty to adjust themselves with the new faith. <S> Explanation: <S> This verse contains many important elements. <S> Let's dissect them and see what they mean. <S> Spurring one another: <S> The writer wants to encourage the new believers in Christ to maintain the love relationship among themselves and to keep on doing good works, helping others in need. <S> Not giving up meeting together: <S> This does not explicitly mean the Sunday worship. <S> Sunday, of course was the day when they used to meet each other, not on Sabbath ( see Acts 20:7 ). <S> This simply means to meet each other whenever possible in order to increase the love relationship and helping each other. <S> Without meeting together, how could they know the needs of their fellow Christians? <S> The writer also pointed out that some of the brethren were getting lazy to meet the other Christians. <S> It was the concern of the writer to encourage them again in this matter. <S> Encouraging one another: Christians need to encourage each other always through spiritual guidance and prayers. <S> Without encouragements, it is difficult to grow in Christ individually. <S> The writer was really concerned about this, it seems. <S> The Day approaching: <S> We don't know what this Day meant. <S> There are two possibilities. <S> The destruction of Jerusalem: Jesus predicted that the Temple in Jerusalem will be completely destroyed. <S> ( See Matt 24:1-2 ) <S> The second coming of Jesus: <S> The end of the world, the time of the Anti-Christ, the glorious return of Jesus Christ. <S> ( see Matt 24:30-31 ) <A> Sunday worship was totally foreign and since the Biblical day begins at sundown, the Acts 20:7 reference, could even refer to early believers meeting Saturday evenings after normal traditional Jewish sabbath services had concluded. <S> My understanding of this verse was that it was a warning for the church not to forget or divorce itself from its (Romans 11) Jewish roots by forgetting the Leviticus 23 meetings, sabbath and feasts, which were the appointed times according to the bible- <S> which sadly, the church clearly did not heed this warning in Hebrews. <A> There are individuals who reasoned out that they can worship God in the privacy of their homes of which basing on Hebrew 10:25 is discouraging us. <S> Attending church services is one way of fellowshipping with fellow believers thus strengthening our faiths. <S> It’s also a way of discovering the needs of fellow members <S> and you can extend your help.
|
Another possibility I have always considered is that the assembling together could have referred to the Feasts found in Levitucus 23, which were actually the only assemblies that were commanded and required of ancient Israel.
|
Will people in hell be able to remember people in heaven? I've heard many times that once you go to heaven, you'll no longer remember your past life, or those that never made it to heaven. Does the same apply in hell? <Q> that it doesn't apply in either. <S> (Didn't want to just say "yes" or "no" because that would have been ambiguous.) <S> In Luke 16:19-31 , the rich man in hell pleads for Abraham to allow Lazarus, a man he knew during his time on earth ( not the Lazarus in John 11 ), to bring him even a drop of water from heaven. <S> Clearly, the rich man remembers Lazarus, even though he is in hell (and Lazarus is in heaven). <S> Also, Abraham remembers not only the rich man's identity, but also the things he did. <S> Also, since Abraham had likely never met the rich man or Lazarus during their earthly lives, we can assume that those in heaven also know/remember the people they did know on earth, regardless of the final destination (heaven or hell) of either. <S> The rich man also remembers the people he left behind and begs Abraham to send someone to warn them about hell. <S> Additionally, the Bible says we will be rewarded in heaven for the things we do for Christ. <S> I'm trying to imagine what it would be like if nobody remembered anything: <S> God: Hey, great job. <S> Here is your crown; it's got orange on it 'cause you really like orange. <S> I really loved your dedication to Me in your workplace, even when it meant not getting that promotion. <S> Person: ... <S> Thank you? <S> I don't know what any of this is for? <S> (Neat. <S> I guess I like orange.) <S> I feel like the passage about wiping tears away means that the things that pain and upset us now won't matter anymore in heaven, and not necessarily that we won't remember that they ever happened. <S> No matter what heaven's like, though, I'm sure God will get it just right :) <A> Again, nice question. <S> I have read books about people who have had an experience of visiting hell and then coming back to earth by God's will <S> and they all wrote that they had absolutely no concept of God in hell. <S> In my thinking, I would imagine Satan NOT wanting memory of God or heaven in his kingdom, but God is also more powerful than Satan. <S> I believe there is a Bible verse somewhere, but honestly can't recall it. <S> My personal belief based on the things I've heard/read, you can not remember heaven, perhaps people who died and went to heaven, but not God or heaven itself. Ava <A> In the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus....the rich man remember his brothers still on the earth and ask Abraham if Lazarus could be sent back to warn them of this place of torment. <S> Your memories are with you in hell...also notice he never complained why he was there as he knew full well... <S> The flip side of the question will us in heaven have knowledge of family in hell <S> I dont believe we will...its says in Isa 65:17 <S> "See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. <S> The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind." <S> We will have no knowledge ... <S> We will serve the Lord forever in bliss, joy and love... <S> those in hell will have full knowledge, and accusing conscience and be tormented forever without any rest...alone.
|
Yes, those in hell can remember their past life; no, I know for a fact (according to the Bible; if you don't consider the Bible a valid source, then I got nothin :) )
|
What are the "signs of grief" for which a pastor should be on the look out? So, in my seminary pastoral care class, I remember being taken to a funeral home, and walked through the mechanics of a funeral. During that visit, I was told that "everyone's grief process is different," and I have seen wide variation in this. I have seen people who have lost sisters and mothers grieve for several weeks and be fine. I have seen at the upper end four to six months of being seemingly stuck on the loss. Later (in the same class I should add!), I was admonished that as a pastor, I should be on the lookout for those who are "stuck in grief." When I pressed on this – namely 'what are the signs that someone is stuck in grief,' I was never given a satisfactory answer. While the Psalms describe the emotions that many feel when grieving (as well as comfort), are there any lists by classic pastoral care givers (e.g. Thomas Owens, patristic sources, the Reformers, etc... – not just Ms. Kubler-Ross please) of the signs that a pastor should be on the lookout that someone really is "stuck in grief?" <Q> Being stuck in grief is referred to by professionals as "incomplete grief" or "complicated grief." <S> It is often defined as grief that is not resolving or normalizing within 6 to 12 months after the loss. <S> Identifying red flags may include: * A sense of unrelenting disbelief or numbness <S> * Intensifying anger, rage, irritability, or agitation <S> * <S> * Difficulty in relationships, including withdrawal or problems with intimacy * Avoidance of situations and activities that are reminders of the loved one <S> * Apathy, giving up, feeling that life has no meaning or purpose <S> * Severe depression with hopelessness <S> This is an amalgamation of various lists which come up on an internet search for "stuck in grief". <S> References: WebMD Glynis Sherwood Counseling <A> While not strictly taken from the Bible, the 7 Stages of Grief is a very well-known, concise description of what everyone goes through when dealing with grief (some combine 1&2 and 4&5 to get 5 stages instead): <S> Bargaining Guilt Depression Acceptance and Hope <S> In various forms, these can be found throughout the Bible when the writer / writee is undergoing trauma, grief, etc. <S> Jesus went through most of these on / before the cross (except 3 & 5 ( per se - <S> He was "made sin for us" ( <S> 2 Cor 5:21 ), <S> but that's not 'recorded' directly): <S> 1/2/6 <S> "My God, my God, why have Your forsaken Me?" <S> ( Mark 15:34 ) 4 " <S> If it be possible, let this cup pass from me" ( Matt 26:39 ) 7 " <S> Nevertheless, not My will, but Thine be done" ( Matt 26:39 ) <S> ; "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do" ( Luke 23:34 ); "today you will be with Me in Paradise" ( Luke 23:43 ) <A> What are the “signs of grief” for which a pastor should be on the look out? <S> The word “pastor” is used once as a noun in the New Testament of the KJV. <S> Ephesians 4:11-12 <S> And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; <S> For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: <S> This usage in conjoined with "teachers" in the Greek such that the idea of pastoring (shepherding) is accomplish through teaching. <S> Some denominations define the role of a pastor as almost the only Christian in a church and seem to place on him the responsibility to monitor every person in the church. <S> The Bible presents a view of a broader view of responsibility. <S> Galatians 6:2 <S> Bear ye one <S> another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. <S> Each Christian is to be sensitive to the “burdens” others are carrying. <S> Sometimes sensitivity needs an active voice. <S> For example, I once visited a church where an older woman was sitting by herself. <S> In conversation I asked how she was doing financially. <S> She was having a little trouble and we were able to help a little. <S> However, she had been attending the church for 30 years and no one (even her best friend) knew of her troubles. <S> A church model of the pastor having super powers of observation may not be the best way to help those with burdens. <S> The self-reporting model may also have some problems. <S> It may be that the cultivation of caring relationships by the whole church may be the best way to insure that someone with burdens does not “slip through the cracks”. <S> The best way to measure grief is to ask the person how they are doing and listen to what they say. <S> I have found that asking a person about their fondest memories of the lost one helps them use those memories in a healing process. <S> A solicitous and iterative inquiry can reveal if someone is not healing but stuck with a burden with which they will need help.
|
A preoccupation with distressing thoughts about the death event * Recurrent or growing pangs of painful emotions with intense yearning and longing for the dead loved one Shock or Disbelief Denial Anger
|
Has any church organization refused lottery winnings as donation? Sometimes I've played the lottery when it gets over $100 million, thinking I could retire on a small fortune and then give tens of millions away to charity, including of course, Christian ones. Has anyone ever seen a congregation or parachurch organization (pick the Billy Graham Evangelical Association for example) flatly refuse a donation because it came from lottery winnings? I'm actually wondering about the prevalence of such refusals , or denominational / charity by-laws that state up front they would not accept such funds. I'm not immediately interested in debating the sinfulness of playing the lottery. Although citations of its sinfulness in refusing donations is of course of interest. <Q> Their position on gambling can be found here . <S> For those that don't want additional information/links the position is this: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is opposed to gambling, including lotteries sponsored by governments. <S> Church leaders have encouraged Church members to join with others in opposing the legalization and government sponsorship of any form of gambling. <A> The First Baptist Church of Orange Park in Orange Park, FL refused a $600,000 donation of lottery winnings from one of it's members back in 2008. <S> 14 October, 2018 edit: If the above citation is invalid, here is another report . <A> Yes. <S> I read about an assembly of God church that refused the donation of a man who won 350 million. <S> I think it was in Virginia but don't remember. <S> The way that they turned it down, however, was so condemning and hurt the man so much, that it led to a downward spiral of the man. <S> Playing responsibly is not a sin, but refusing a gift in such a way that it destroys a persons life is a sin.
|
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has an official policy of not accepting any tithing from winnings having to do with gambling, this includes the lottery.
|
Torah and the Old Testament Both Torah and the Old Testament relate to Jews. How different or similar is Torah and the Old Testament of Bible? <Q> I've found "Judaism 101" at jewfaq.org to be a reasonably sound site when looking for answers to questions about Judaism. <S> Here's their basic definition of Torah: <S> The word "Torah" is a tricky one, because it can mean different things in different contexts. <S> In its most limited sense, "Torah" refers to the Five Books of Moses: <S> Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. <S> But the word "torah" can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings. <S> In everyday usage, speakers commonly use the word "Torah" as a synonym for what Christians sometimes call the Book of Moses. <S> Worth noting is the fact that the Torah is one of many central texts used in Judaism -- the Talmud, Mishnah, and other texts are also significantly important. <S> Book one of Edersheim's The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah explores the topic in significant depth. <A> In its broader sense, it could also mean the whole Jewish teachings and practices. <S> List of books accepted by Jews and Christians are almost similar with some little differences. <S> In short, Torah and Old Testament is relatively the same. <S> It's all about the Jews and their history. <S> For the Jews , it is their history and the Laws given to them by God. <S> For the Christians , it is a shadow of the New Testament which fulfills its prophecies regarding the Messiah and many others. <A> First of all: what is in Torah are the teachings of God to Israel. <S> Torah today contains these teachings. <S> There are no Torah scrolls older than the 10th. <S> cent. <S> Most of Torah is oral teaching, which was passed down orally until the 3rd. <S> cent A.D. when the oral Torah was finally written down. <S> The Church in the 3rd. <S> century were pressured to include the OT as part of the Bible, in order to counter the arguments of Gnostic religions. <S> The Church scholars, who were Greek at that time, could not refer to the Hebrew writings because Hebrew scholars in the Church had left the Church. <S> The Church wrote the "Old Testament" - the version that is in most English Bibles - from a 3rd. <S> cent. <S> B.C. Greek document called the Septuagint, which was a translation of Jewish documents with a few Greek additional books thrown in (actually they used Origen's Greek version in his Hexapla which included three Greek versions including Septuagint.) <S> Septuagint was universally condemned by the Judean authorities, and it was forbidden to even study Greek in Jerusalem. <S> Later in the 5th. <S> cent, the Church revised the Old Latin translation of the Greek Septuagint using Hebrew writings translated into classical Latin by Jerome. <S> This version of the OT is currently part of the Latin Vulgate Bible which was translated by Cambridge scholars into English in the 16th. <S> cent. <S> (the Duoay-Rheims Bible.) <S> To see the differences between a Christian OT and Torah, you must read a Jewish "bible" - The Chumash Stone Edition, or the Etz Hayim, for examples. <S> These are five times thicker than the Pentateuch in the English Bible, as they contain both Written and Oral Torah, which are equally sacred.
|
Torah in it's simplest definition is the first five books of Hebrew Bible ( Tanakh ). Canonization may be different but the individual books are same, only the list is different.
|
What Doctrine Supports The Christian Gun Culture? In America, there is a large group of people where being a Christian, active in the gun culture and protecting their right to fire arms is proudly the basis of their identity. For example, at the shooting range you may see a bumper sticker on a car stating " All I need is my Bible and a gun ". (The movies also eat this one up romanticizing, glorify and macho-fy this phenomenon.) What denomination or general belief is the root of this phenomenon and is it like that in other countries? <Q> As a preface, I think the question might benefit from some further clarification. <S> Aside from considering the matter in the light of Scripture, it seems many would likely agree that there is a significant difference between what might be called "responsible gun ownership" and the subculture often highlighted by the media that defiantly and aggressively glorifies gun ownership. <S> I'm aware of no Scriptural basis on which gun ownership can be advocated. <S> In fact, the first verse that comes to mind is Mt 26:52: <S> Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. <S> For all who take the sword will perish by the sword." <S> No historical doctrines come to mind, either. <S> The strongest potential connection I can see between the church and the "gun culture" would stem from the independent, uncompromising, perhaps "defiant" character of the Protestant Reformation in relation to the Church of Rome in the 16th century. <S> (Some of Luther's "antics" come to mind). <S> Elements of the same uncompromising approach can be seen in the choice of the Puritans to separate from the Church of England. <S> But, while I'm not a pacifist, I don't mean to suggest that the Bible encourages gun ownership. <S> As far as I'm aware, it does not. <A> I am unaware of any doctrine that explicitly states such a thing. <S> However, it might be linked to the fact that there is a scriptural basis for defending yourself and your family, although it is a matter of opinion that a gun is the best tool for that. <S> What I would say is more likely <S> is as Ryan Frame said it in a comment: <S> [I]t's cultural rather than denominational. <S> In the USA, where the gun culture you are referring to is most prevalent, patriotism is arguably it's strongest. <S> Often, you will find casual Christians who are ultra-patriotic. <S> These people are generally "red" voters because the "blue" candidates typically support such things as abortion and gay marriage. <S> By default, they become gun supporters because "red" candidates usually are. <S> When you live in a country where it is not uncommon to display the American flag on the same alter as the Cross of Christ what do you expect? <A> Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword <S> , let him sell his garment, and buy one. <S> Jesus told the disciples to carry a weapon. <S> The sword in particular the short sword was the most deadly weapon available during the times of Jesus. <S> Many quote this verse in connection with guns because both a weapons which can def end .
|
Roman Catholic "Just War" doctrine doesn't seem related to the issue, though someone with better knowledge of the Church of Rome may know otherwise.
|
What do Protestants who deny transubstantiation do with the remainders of wine and bread after the Eucharist? What do Protestants who deny transubstantiation do with the remainders of wine and bread after the Eucharist? For example, in Eastern Orthodox Church, after the liturgy the priest must consume (I mean eat) all remainders of the Body and the Blood of Christ. And is not permitted to leave even some the smallest parts of consecrated bread and wine, or lose some of them or to let fall on the floor some of them. As I understand, many Protestants do not believe that the wine is real blood and the bread is the real Body of Christ. So, how do Protestant pastors treat such remainders? <Q> You are correct that most Protestants do not see the bread and wine as anything more than symbols. <S> There is no blessing that is ever attempted to transform the elements into the literal body and blood of Christ. <S> Consequently, the bread and wine (or juice) that could be stored for long periods of time prior to the observance of the Eucharist (the Lord's Supper) can be stored for long periods of time afterwards. <S> So, some would ask if the disposing of these elements is irreverent. <S> To answer that, it should be understood that the elements only serve as symbols during the observance of the Eucharist/Last Supper. <S> Before and after, they are just regular, ordinary, "garden variety" bread and wine. <S> It should be noted, though, that there are some Protestant denominations that do hold the bread and wine in high regard. <S> Some may even subscribe to transubstantiation. <S> For those denominations, the practice would likely be similar to that of Catholics and Orthodox. <A> Episcopalians: <S> The ushers count the congregation and count the wafers to match. <S> If they miscounted the Priest in charge reserves the wafers in a "tabernacle" on the altar. <S> They drink all of the wine/water. <S> If a wafer is dropped it is retrieved quickly and consumed by the Priest. <S> Whether or not individuals believe the wafer is the actual body of Christ is between him and God. <S> Episcopalians are not required to believe in the transubstantiation as are Roman Catholics, though many do. <A> "Protestantism" is extremely diverse, and there is pretty much no single way that Protestants do anything. <S> This is especially true of the Eucharist. <S> Some Protestants do believe that the transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus is real. <S> Others believe in treating the communion elements with special reverence even if the transformation is symbolic or spiritual. <S> The Anglican church, for example, also expects that leftover elements are consumed after the service - usually by the Priest. <S> For those that don't follow this practice, the elements can be disposed of in any way that is convenient. <S> They can be eaten, thrown out, or kept for next week. <S> Many Protestants also don't use actual wine for the communion, but grape juice instead. <A> Some Lutheran churches have an extra drain in the kitchen (sacristy) sink for disposal of extra, unused communion wine. <S> This extra drain dumps directly to the soil underneath. <S> The idea is that it is more respectful to dump on soil than to mix with sewage. <S> Page 13 of <S> this FAQ from the LC-MS Lutherans <S> explains their policy on disposal of the communion elements, including "returning to earth". <A> As a United Methodist Clergy, I have two habits: <S> I invite the children and youth to join me around the table to consume the elements (bread and juice) following worship. <S> I offer this prayer for the remaining elements: Thank you God for the gift of these elements which have served to remind us of your Son's sacrifice and great capacity to love us. <S> As these elements have come from the earth, we now return them to the earth with thanksgiving. <S> Amen. <A> At my church (an Anglican Church in Sydney, Australia), the elements are considered symbols, however are treated with respect. <S> If there is any left over bread or juice/wine, it is consumed. <S> One of our ministers (who also leads the band) will normally just consume the rest of the drink and eat the bread. <S> It is my impression that we would consider it disrespectful to just chuck it in the bin simply because it does have a symbolic importance and has been used to in what is a sacred meal to remember Jesus' atoning death. <A> A good friend of mine and her husband attend a non-denominational Bible Church. <S> I go to services with them <S> (Mass on Saturday <S> though, I'm Catholic). <S> Their church has "The Lord's Table" once a month. <S> The first time I attended when they had The Lord's Table my friend said "Oh I have to go downstairs ( to their social hall) to get the communion. <S> " Of course the Catholic in me wanted to ask, "You keep it in the KITCHEN?? <S> " I don't mean that as an insult. <S> It was a very spiritual service <S> and I felt privileged to take part. <S> But they just had no special feelings towards the crackers and grape juice once the service was over unlike the way we regard the Bread and Wine. <S> Once it is consecrated it must be consumed. <S> Since they see it as only a symbol they just store the leftover crackers for next time. <S> My friend's husband put the communion trays away. <S> I was so surprised to see him toss all the little cups we had used into the trash can! <S> And as we were leaving he put the bottle of grape juice in his coat pocket to take home. <S> He was saving it for next time.
|
Additionally, if the bread or wine goes bad or if there is anything left over after an observance, they can be just thrown away.
|
Apostle John lived in Ephesus - what sources claim that? Which earliest sources does Christianity posses that claim that apostle John spent the last years of his life in Ephesus? <Q> Revelation 1:9 explicitly states that John was on the island of Patmos when he wrote revelation: <S> I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. <S> That he would have been exiled there is common: <S> "Early tradition says that John was banished to Patmos by the Roman authorities. <S> This tradition is credible because banishment was a common punishment used during the Imperial period for a number of offenses. <S> Among such offenses were the practices of magic and astrology. <S> Prophecy was viewed by the Romans as belonging to the same category, whether Pagan, Jewish, or Christian. <S> Prophecy with political implications, like that expressed by John in the book of Revelation, would have been perceived as a threat to Roman political power and order. <S> Three of the islands in the Sporades were places where political offenders were banished." <S> (Pliny Natural History 4.69-70; Tacitus Annals 4.30)[9] <S> Patmos is an island very close to the city of Ephesus , the major port city of the day. <S> Indeed, Revelation 2 - 3 is a series of letters to the 7 cities in Western Turkey, and Ephesus is by far the largest of them. <S> This is not surprising, since Rome pretty much cleared Jerusalem of Jews in 70AD (actually completely destroyed Jerusalem in 125AD!) <S> thus resulting in a diaspora that moved many of the writers to Western Turkey and Galatia. <S> Indeed - every one of the Epistles written to a city or region in Turkey or Greece. <S> Were we to receive word that a certain person was familiar with the <S> Bronx, Manhattan, Newark, Hoboken, and we have written correspondance to them where he claims to be at Hsing Hsing prison - especially absent any transportation - it would not at all be unreasonable to assume he is from New York. <S> When tradition thus states that John was living in the biggest city of the area, and we have written correspndance that shows how close he was, it's a really safe bet. <A> The earliest written tradition placing John in Ephesus comes from Irenaeus, Against Heresies , book 3, chapter 3, section 4 . <S> During an explanation of how the apostles passed on teachings to their chosen successors, Irenaeus says: <S> There are also those who heard from him [Polycarp] that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.” <S> Irenaeus lived and wrote in the late 2nd century, but as a young man he had met Polycarp and been taught by him. <S> Polycarp, in turn, is said by Tertullian ( Prescription against Heretics , chapter 32) to have been appointed Bishop of Smyrna by John. <A> It is just a tradition that John the Revelator is also John the Apostle whom Jesus loved. <S> Nothing inside the word specifically says who is John the Revelator. <S> In a similar fashion the epistle titled James is not thought to be written by either James the Apostle of the Lamb. <S> It is also tradition that John lived at Ephesus. <S> So Revelation itself is not a good choice for this tradition. <A> Irenaeus is the source of the idea the John lived in Ephesus. <S> Irenaeus was born in 130 - at least 30 years after John died. <S> He wrote Against Heresies in about 180 - it is this work where he makes the claim. <S> John's living in Ephesus, if Irenaeus is correct, would have to occur AFTER the "coming of the Son of Man". <S> Because before the "coming of the Son of Man" John was forbidden to preach in Samaria or places of the Gentiles. <S> The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; (3) Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; (4) Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. <S> (5) <S> These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, (6) but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. ... <S> Mat 10:23 <S> When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes . <S> Mat <S> 10:2-6 - ESV <S> Therefore, his living in Ephesus that Irenaeus speaks of would be sometime in the last portion of the 1st Century. <A> The Son of Man was Jesus, he came in power of the Resurrection on the 17th of Nisan, 30 A.D. and the gospel had not been preached in all the towns of Israel before his resurrection. <S> There is no proof, only conjecture that John was in Ephesus, though it is possible since the apostles would’ve left Jerusalem during the siege of Titus, probably John was the only remaining of the 12 disciples. <S> Mary would not have traveled to Ephesus considering she would’ve been around 84 years old at that time. <S> Its very likely that she was deceased and buried in Nazareth many years prior.
|
The oldest tradition I could find but was not qualified for the word of God and also is not used as cannon and probably is just made up and is definitely gnostic is the acts of John .
|
What will happen to the Trinity when the Bride of Christ is revealed? Are there any Christian teaching that address What will happen to the Trinity when the “Bride of Christ” is established, will it then be a Quadrinity? Revelation 21:9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. <Q> No, at least in the context of mainstream Nicene (including Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox) <S> I don't think there is any teaching about this. <S> The reason being simple: it is a non issue. <S> The very idea of this is not based on a classic understanding of the Trinity at all and therefore is not a problem for normal Trinatarian theology. <S> The basic idea here is that God is ONE being. <S> Never mind the person aspect of his nature for the moment, that is irrelevant to the difficulty you are posing. <S> You have one being, then a separate entity and a relation between them. <S> The one being (esp when that being is God!) doesn't fundamentally change in nature based on the state of relationships with other beings. <S> It is what it is. <S> Now you can throw the three persons of the Trinity back in the equation, but nothing changes. <S> They are still God and God still has a relationship with his chosen people, his bride. <A> You don't specifically identify a denomination perspective, but in a comment you reference Scott Hahn (a Catholic). <S> I will likewise take a Catholic perspective. <S> God is immutable (Summa Ia Q9 A1) and thus the Divine Essence cannot change, nor can an additional Procession (Person) occur. <S> There are exactly 3 Persons in the Trinity (Summa 1a Q30 A2) and nothing created can be taken up into it to become another Person. <S> "God in His deepest mystery is not a solitude, but a family, since He has in Himself Fatherhood, Son-ship and the essence of family, which is love." - Scott Hahn <S> The traditional understanding of this is somewhat more metaphorical than you seem to be interpreting it. <S> We can call it a family because there is true paternity (fatherhood) and true filiation (sonship), but there is no marriage and no maternity. <S> Love is the double-procession of the Father and the Son as the Holy Spirit. <A> Cannot see a problem with the Bride of Christ joining (being absorbed into) the Trinity in Marriage with The Lamb (the two shall become one) .. <S> we who believe in Christ are already of 'one spirit with theLord' (1 Cor.6.17), as He dwells in us and we dwell in Him - both Father & Son dwell in the believer ( <S> John 17.22-23) .. <S> and in that mysterious and wonderful reality, we already bear thenature of God, as 'children of light' who have been born of God, andare already'partakers of the divine nature '( <S> 2 Peter 1.4)? <S> .. <S> our Creator God is still a Trinity (of course), but the joy issurely that we have 'joined' the Trinity and share fullness of lifewith Him (them) now and forever. <S> I love the lines of hymn, 'Before the Throne of God <S> Above' (Bob Kauflin, Sovereign Grace Music), which reads: 'One with Himself I cannot die; my life is hid with Christ on high' God bless, much joy, Richard
|
Ultimately, nothing can happen to the Trinity based on those verses.
|
How have major theological traditions handled "continuing to indulge in sin when saved?" There is interest in the question of what happens to someone who continues to indulge in a specific sinful habit while (apparently, originally) saved. What happens to this person? So far, I've asked a Truth Question, and to make matters worse, there's probably stridently different schools of thought on this not only between denominations but within congregations, if you worship in a real one. Nonetheless, can anyone provide an overview of the major theological schools of thought on this topic? A good answer might be along the lines of Puritans saying, "No sinner remains in fellowship"; Luther's Theology of the Cross saying, "Only those who realize they are a slave to sin cling to Jesus like the truly saved"; and Total Depravity saying, "You're hell-bound: go make trouble." I'm hoping that someone qualified to answer this would be familiar with at least this variety of opinion and succinctly pick out three to six major schools and explain them briefly. A poor answer would be your denomination vs. the devil. The identifiable schools of thought could all be popes or all Tent Revivalists—it doesn't matter. <Q> You've asked how various groups of Christians handle the problem of the believer who continues sinning in a particular way (presumably without even a show of repentence?) <S> I can give you maybe three schools of thought on this. <S> The "Carnal Christian" view: <S> this view takes the doctrine of the preservation of the saints to a different level (one not intended by most adherents). <S> The idea is that if God saves me, I'll be saved no matter what I do, so I might as well eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow I'll die and go to heaven. <S> This idea is related to the Lordship controversy . <S> Anyone in the Lordship controversy who argued that one can have Jesus Christ as Savior but not as Lord of their life, would adhere to this Carnal Christian view. <S> The Arminian view: this view argues that one can lose one's salvation by sinning a lot. <S> I don't think any Arminian would say that you could lose your salvation by sinning just once, but certainly, if you remain in sin for a long time, you would lose your salvation. <S> Arminians include many, but certainly not all, Baptists, Methodists, Pentacostals, and no doubt others. <S> The <S> Reformed view: people who are in this sort of sin are one of two kinds of people: the elect or the non-elect (impossible for humans to determine - only God knows). <S> If the deeply sinning person is elect, then the Holy Spirit will work in that person's life to lessen the power of sin, since God's purpose is not just to remove the guilt of sin, but the power of it as well. <S> If the person is non-elect, then his "salvation" was illusory in the first place. <S> Since we don't know who is elect and who isn't, it is not possible to distinguish between the two cases. <S> However, the approach is the same for either: assume that a true believer will improve in their holiness and start sinning less. <S> Those holding to the Reformed view would include many Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed (Continental), and Calvinist Baptists. <A> Catholic Perspective: <S> There is no such idea, as "a state of being saved", while here on earth. <S> This is a journey, you are saved once it is over. <S> If by "saved", you mean simply something like baptized, or in full communion with the church or something like this, then please clarify <A> If someone is in such a state, that person can repent and be restored to Justification through the Sacrament of Confession. <S> There is no Catholic concept of "being saved" in the sense of "eternal security" or "once saved always saved"
|
The Catholic position is that there are certain sins that remove one's State of Justification, if one commits such a sin and dies, they will be condemned.
|
What is the meaning and origin of bridal veils in Christian weddings? Does the practice of brides wearing veils have its origin in either the Bible or Christian tradition? If so, where exactly did it originate and what is it supposed to symbolize? <Q> Tertullian.sayeth <S> Let virgins alone be veiled, and this when they are coming to be married, and not till they have recognised their destined husband De Corona Owing to a lack of exact biblical instructions for the performing of rite of matrimony found on the Bible. <S> One of the instructions clearly found in the Bible is that after a marriage is settled, it is good that a woman should cease to be a virgin. <S> So she can take off her veil. <S> Mr. Tertullian goes on to explain how reason can and should play a role in keeping traditions not found in the law. <S> tradition has given the fashion in question to custom, to find subsequently (its authorization in) the apostle's sanction, from the true interpretation of reason. <S> This instances, therefore, will make it sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten tradition established by custom; the proper witness for tradition when demonstrated by long-continued observance ibid <S> so, this answer is probably lacking in the pre-Christian historicity, (although he makes mention of Rebecca and Susannah) but it is probably foundational for most of Christendom, and the logic applies to much more than just wearing bridal veils. <A> Here's a basic explaination I found online. <S> It gives a simple, streamlined answer to at least part of your question. <S> Bridal Veil <S> Not only does the bridal veil show the modesty and purity of the bride and her reverence for God, it reminds us of the Temple veil which was torn in two when Christ died on the cross. <S> The removing of the veil took away the separation between God and man, giving believers access into the very presence of God. <S> Since Christian marriage is a picture of the union between Christ and the church, we see another reflection of this relationship in the removal of the bridal veil. <S> Through marriage, the couple now has full access to one another. <S> (1 Corinthians 7:4) <S> ( source ) <A> As a minister I can tell you there is no biblical requirement for a veil...and while Rick did a fantastic job of research of the word itself...even he could find nothing in the Bible giving example for a bride to wear a veil... <S> no more than a man should ( Moses ) ... <S> But here is some "church" tradition From “History of the Wedding" The introduction of the veil came into Europe during the time of the Crusades. <S> In early weddings the bride was bargained for through her father. <S> Covered in a veil, she was revealed to her husband after the ceremony. <S> Brides also wore orange blossom wreaths in the hair on top of the veil, which is where the tiara could have originated from. <S> “History of the Bridal Veil“: <S> The medieval Europe enriched its traditions and customs in the XV century when crusades resulted in several eastern traditions. <S> One of the trophies was a wedding veil though with some changes in the meaning; in Muslim countries women had to hide their faces under the yashmak even after the wedding party was completed hiding the beauty and charm of a young woman, but in Europe the perception of the veil changed and European trendsetters saw the veil as the symbol of modesty and purity. <S> Tenderly white veil symbolized the purity and innocence of a young woman getting married and to some slight extent the traditions still keeps the meaning, possibly in some particular countries and this is the answer why only a woman getting married for the first time wear the bridal veil. <S> Just a couple references, I can provide more some silly, ( like because the bride is ugly to keep the groom from running...haha ) ... <S> but it is in those times that the veil came to symbolize modesty and purity. <S> The flowing white veil became a sign of virginity. <S> Thus honoring church tradition, only first-time brides wear a veil.... <S> But no... <S> no biblical instruction or inference to do so...only tradition and superstition ... <A> For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. <S> [cf. <S> Gen. 2:21] <S> For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. <S> (Therefore ought the woman to have power [veil] upon her head for the Angels.) <S> She must wear a "power" (veil) to humbly respect the hierarchy of angels present and show that she is under the power of her husband. <S> This is related to Ephesians 5:22, which is the beginning of the epistle read at traditional Nuptial Masses: <S> Let women be subject to their husbands, as to our Lord: Because the man is the head of the woman: as Christ is the head of the Church, Himself, the Saviour of his body. <S> It is common for virgins to wear white veils and married women, especially widows, to wear black veils, although other colors can be worn as well. <S> Religious women wear veils of the habit of the order to which they belong. <S> Veils are used to cover sacred objects, like the Holy of Holies or tabernacle in Scriptures, and especially to cover sacred vessels—of which wives certainly are, as they will soon carry new life within their wombs. <S> For more information, see: <S> The Veil from Christian Family Outreach ( audio format ) cf. <S> these verses chapel veils and mantillas on Etsy <S> Click the images to go to the source websites of these images. <S> Some chapel veils: <S> Mantilla: <S> The following are recent pictures, taken in the year 2016: Postulant sisters (novices) of the Sisters Adorers of the Royal Heart of Jesus dressed as brides of Christ: during vestition ceremony: taking their vows: <S> sisters during recreation (the one with a white veil is a postulant/novice):
|
Veils were used as a symbol of virginity and purity for brides given to their mates. Veils are indeed Scriptural, as St. Paul, in Chapter 11 of his First Letter to the Corinthians, instructs women to cover their heads in church: every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered: dishonorest her head …
|
What is role of speaking in tongues in Assemblies of God denomination? A previous question was answered listing perhaps only one denomination, and it wasn't AOG, that held speaking in tongues as sign of spiritual maturity. Does the Assemblies of God group speak in tongues? <Q> Assemblies of God strongly believe and encourage speaking in tongues. <S> It is considered as the physical evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit. <S> This site mentions about this matter. <S> It says, The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance. <S> (Acts 2:4) <S> The speaking in tongues in this instance is the same in essence as the gift of tongues, but is different in purpose and use. <S> ( 1 Corinthians 12:4-10 , 1 Corinthians 12:28 ) <S> The preachers in AG churches many times encourage their members to speak in tongues and sometimes it became a burden to some of the members who are not speaking in tongues, but this is some exceptional case. <S> Some preachers take less importance to tongues but not diminish it. <S> The worship in AG churches are all centered around inviting the Holy Spirit, singing, praying and speaking in tongues. <S> Worship services are mostly lively and sometimes noisy because many people speak in tongues loudly. <A> They believe that believers are baptized by the work of the Holy Spirit, and thus the Holy Spirit allows them to speak in tongues, as what happens in the biblical narrative in the book of Acts of the Apostles . <S> It is a religious experience. <A> I have attended a 30-year AOG church for the past three months and never during service or otherwise (fellowship, classes, etc.) <S> have I heard someone speak in tongues or even mention speaking in tongues or desiring to - <S> that goes for all leadership as well as attendees. <S> I suspect some AOG churches lean into it and others do not? <A> When I still attended an AOG church, I was told, with no uncertain terms, that speaking in tongues was a requirement of being a mature Christian. <S> No speaking in tongues, well, you're not really a Christian. <S> That said, this is my experience, and perhaps not yours. <A> 1 Corinthians 12:30 is clear that speaking in tongues is one of many spiritual gifts but no more necessary than the other gifts. <S> In fact, to stress speaking in tongues as a necessary evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit may be discouraging to saved Christians who do not have the gift of speaking in tongues. <A> I recently spoke with an Assembly of God minister, and he agreed that if the holy spirit moves you to speak in tongues during worship that there would be a purpose for speaking in that tongue among that group and that if no one is able to translate or no one is reached by that it most likely is not from the Holy Spirit. <S> 1 Corinthians 14:13-19 NIV 13For <S> this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. <S> 14For <S> if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. <S> 15So <S> what shall I do? <S> I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. <S> 16Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer,d say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? <S> 17You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified. <S> 18I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. <S> 19But <S> in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue. <S> That is why I disagree with @Mawia that <S> The worship in AG churches are all centered around inviting the Holy Spirit, singing, praying and speaking in tongues. <S> I do not believe that to be true. <S> the speaking of tongues ( or in tongues ) is something that is described as a religious experience or a feeling of being immersed in the Holy Spirit. <S> A lot of people that experience this are praising the Lord or giving themselves to the Holy Spirit that it should pray for them, in the Tongue of the spirit. <S> Romans 8:26 NIV <S> In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. <S> We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.
|
According to this website , the Assemblies of God denomination really does speak in tongues as an important part of the faith.
|
Why did Jesus refer to humans as salt? As with reference to the verse Matthew 5:13 13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. Why did Jesus refer to people as salt? Why it is so important as many more valuables are available in this world? <Q> In early times, salt was substantially more significant than it is today. <S> (E.g., see the etymology for salarium at Wikipedia .) <S> Salt has some association with holiness; it was part of the grain offerings (Leviticus 2:13 [NIV]): <S> Season all your grain offerings with salt. <S> Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings, add salt to all your offerings. <S> This contrasts with verse 11 (NIV) prohibiting the inclusion of yeast: ' <S> Every grain offering you bring to the LORD must be made without yeast, for you are not to burn any yeast or honey in an offering made to the LORD by fire. <S> In 1 Corinthians 5:8, Paul associates yeast with "malice and wickedness" (NIV). <S> This points to the fact that Christians are supposed to be positively effective in the world. <S> Perhaps most significantly salt is similar to light <S> (another image Jesus used) in being beneficial, distinctive (salty is a major aspect of the sense of taste, light defines the sense of sight), powerful (a little salt or light goes a long way), present in the world <S> (salt was part of everyday life, a light is not hidden under a basket), and even a bit disruptive or annoying (e.g., early morning light can be annoying when one is tired, salt can be similarly unpleasant) while also being attractive (one tends to be drawn to eating salty foods not unlike how one tends to be drawn to a lighted area). <A> Salt fulfills a very specific purpose which other more valuable things do not. <S> One significant thing salt is used for is as a preservative. <S> In the age before refrigeration, this was very important. <S> To apply this symbolically to followers of Christ, it would seem that they serve to preserve the purity of the world. <S> As it was in the days of Noah, there is a bent in mankind toward impurity. <S> True followers of Christ, the Bible teaches, are called to be pure. <S> Thus, the impact of Christians in the world is to hold the line, so to speak--to bring a standard of righteousness and purity into the world that is supposed to bring restraint to the progress of evil. <S> Also, salt was used metaphorically in rabbinic literature of the day to refer to wisdom. <S> this would actually fit quite well with the Old Testament where it says "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." <S> (Proverbs 8:13) <S> So, calling followers of Jesus or fearers of God "the salt of the earth" is quite appropriate. <A> He did not refer to "people" as in "all humans", but to those who do his will, ie, "good Christians" <S> And like other answers suggest, salt has a numbers of great properties: <S> preservative <S> [something we could not live without pretty much] taste enhancer [something that brings out the taste already in the food] <S> ie, so people of God are (or supposed to be :) those who preserve the good of this world, and give it its intended "taste" / happiness. <A> Salt provides essence and taste to food; no one prefers having bland food, hence the saying "take it with a pinch of salt". <S> In this sense Jesus says that people are the essence of the earth, the planet, it is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. <S> The planet's survival is based on the mere existence of humans. <S> Humans are like salt they provide the flavour to the food, too much or too little can spoil the taste of the food (earth). <S> They, humans, like salt have the power to turn earth into something better or worse depending upon their essence (flavour). <S> The essence of salt is its flavour, the essence of a human is his conscience, most commonly referred to as a person's soul. <S> If salt (humans) loses i's flavour (essence), it's of no use to anyone or anything. <S> And as a matter of common sense something that is not useful to anyone is disposed off without thought or second consideration, - I mean would you keep something that you find useless? <S> Hence the words " <S> It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. <S> " <S> I hope this a good answer for the words that Jesus used- <S> As with reference to the verse Matthew 5:13: <S> 13 <S> “You are the salt of the earth. <S> But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? <S> It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. <S> Thank you for your patience
|
Salt is also important as a preservative and a seasoning.
|
Why is being gay considered more sinful than being divorced or commiting adultery? I am looking for Biblical evidence that homosexuality is a greater sin than adultery or divorce (for any reason other than adultery). Prohibitions of "sexual immorality" could cover homosexuality, and I understand that Christian marriage is to be the joining of a man and woman as long as they live. I have also read Paul's warnings about men acting/dressing like women and vice versa, but these still don't seem to be outweighed by the passages relating to adultery. Many Christians are opposed secular gay marriage but do not seem to oppose secular divorce that can set aside a Christian marriage for "no fault". <Q> It is worth noting that while divorce was not part of God's original intent / design, for those who were determined to divorce, God made a provision (through Moses) for them to do that in a respectful way. <S> This is in stark contrast with homosexuality, which, throughout the entire Christian canon is characteristic of deep depravity (cf. <S> Sodom, Rom. 1), and leads to the severest condemnation and judgment from God -- every time it is mentioned . <S> Sin is sin, but one is tolerated (cf. polygamy), and one is severely, consistently condemned (cf. idolatry.) <S> Regarding the alleged distinction between orientation and practice, we should probably consider Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, where He explicitly refutes such thinking and defines even perverse thoughts as sin. <S> So what is a "homosexually-oriented" person to do? <S> those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. <S> -Galatians <S> 5:24 <S> we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ -2 <S> Corinthians 10:5 <S> Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. <S> -Colossians <S> 3:2 <S> Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, <S> whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. <S> -Philippians <S> 4:8 ... <S> which, incidentally, is good advice in general for any such struggle with the flesh. <A> First of all, if you are going to accept an answer from conservative biblical scholarship, you have to set aside the claim that Paul merely condemned "men acting/dressing like women." <S> Romans 1:26-27 has been claimed to be addressing certain forms of sexual intercourse, not just dressing or acting like women. <S> An additional point on this distinction is that homosexual orientation, per se, is not condemned in many theologically conservative treatments of the issue, as opposed to homosexual practice. <S> Here is one example of a theologically conservative group making a distinction between orientation and practice. <S> The American Lutheran Church's 1980 Statement on Human Sexuality says : <S> We believe it appropriate to distinguish between homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior. <S> Persons who do not practice their homosexual erotic preference do not violate our understanding of Christian sexual behavior. <S> Secondly, you are precisely correct that scripture holds divorce in higher disregard than homosexual practice. <S> Those who hold it homosexual practice to be a greater outrage are relying on extrabiblical, perhaps cultural or personal, motivations. <S> Jesus himself has great outrage at divorce. <S> Matthew 19 <S> : <S> Some Pharisees came to him to test him. <S> They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” <S> “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? <S> So they are no longer two, but one flesh. <S> Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” <S> “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” <S> 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> I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” <A> Sin is like cyanide, it is deadly in small or large doses. <S> Sin is also defined as missing the mark. <S> If you hit the mark, you get the prize. <S> If you miss the mark, you miss the prize. <S> Genesis 1:27 states that God created man in His own image, male and female <S> he created them. <S> Therefore for every type of male DNA there must be somewhere a corresponding type of female DNA that is a compatible match for it. <S> It is the enormity of the intended gift that determines the enormity of the sin that causes one to miss out. <S> Divorce and remarriage are allowed in some cases. <S> Homosexuality is never approved. <S> Adultery is also never approved. <S> All can be forgiven and restored through faith in Christ and the help of the Holy Spirit; deliverance can be instant but often it is long and difficult as in any case of addiction or allergic reaction. <S> (addictions now are treated as allergies bringing on a strong and unusual response to stimuli that cause little or no response in others). <S> Hope this perspective helps.
|
If you head into homosexual activity, you enter an addiction that causes you to miss out on something better.
|
Why did Daniel consider the allotment of food and wine to be wrong for him to eat? When Nebuchadnezzar conquered Israel and took Daniel and other Jewish men into his court, he assigned them food and wine from the king's table. The king appointed for them a daily ration from the king’s choice food and from the wine which he drank , and appointed that they should be educated three years, at the end of which they were to enter the king’s personal service. Daniel 1:5 NASB However, Daniel seems to believe it would be wrong for him to eat this, but eating vegetables and water is, somehow, alright. But Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself with the king’s choice food or with the wine which he drank ; so he sought permission from the commander of the officials that he might not defile himself. Daniel 1:8 NASB “Please test your servants for ten days, and let us be given some vegetables to eat and water to drink. Daniel 1:12 NASB So, what was it about the food and what was it about the wine that made Daniel believe it was inappropriate to eat? <Q> Some possibilities why Daniel refused the King's choice of food. <S> Unclean animals: <S> According to this source , pork was the choice meat of Babylonians. <S> If this is true, it is certain that Daniel was ready to die by not eating nor touching the food. <S> Leviticus 11:7-8 (NIV) And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you. <S> You must not eat their meat or touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you. <S> Cooking method: <S> According to this source , ancient Babylonians were very advanced in cooking method unlike the ancient Jews who were eating food with simple recipes prepared in a simple way. <S> The Babylonian food might have upset the stomach of Daniel. <S> Eating food prepared in a way other than what we are used to is not easy. <S> Offered to idols: Ancient Babylon was highly influenced by idolatry. <S> They were ready to annihilate any group who did not bow down in front of their idols. <S> The three friends of Daniel were also the victim of this. <S> Idol worshipers have the habit of offering their foods to their idols before they eat. <S> This is still in practice today by Hindus as this source says. <S> Sacrificing food to idols was also in practice during the first century. <S> 1 <S> Corinthians 8:7 <S> (NIV) <S> But not everyone possesses this knowledge. <S> Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. <S> Daniel took a leap of faith towards his diet and God blessed him. <A> My pastor preached a sermon on this exact question. <S> There is a lot going on the that particular story but to answer your question. <S> The reason had to do with the treatment of the food before it was served. <S> Any of the kings choice food and drink was offered to idols before coming to the table. <S> Thus the statement from Daniel about defilement. <A> Maybe how the wine was processed would shine some light on <S> it's inappropriateness. <S> What about how it was stored--what kind of skins did they put it in, or what kind of other vessel was used? <S> Could it simply just be the "offered to idols" problem? <S> The vessels of the Jewish temple were carried into Babylon and were brought into Nebuchadnezzar's temple to his god. <S> Much later, Belshazzar, Nebuchadnezzar's son, commanded those same vessels to be brought for him, his princes, wives, and his concubines to drink wine out of. <S> They praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone. <S> God punished this act! <S> Maybe Babylonian wine was specifically used with it's vessel for idol worship. <A> Although it doesn't state exactly what the food actually was, it leads me to question the word defiled as in the bible, defile meant unclean. <S> Example numbers 5:38. <S> Defile also could mean destroy, for example 2kings 23:10.look at psalm 119: 1 which says blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of God. <S> This verse refers us to the laws of God given through Moses as in Leviticus, numbers. <S> Take Isaiah 24:5 <S> which says- <S> The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. <S> From this scripture I understand that the word defiled is given because of disobedience of the law of God by those who inhabited the earth. <S> Could it be that Daniel did not wish to be separated from God by defiling (destroying, make unclean) <S> his flesh with defiled (unclean) food. <S> because he was determined in his heart to walk in the law of God given through Moses?
|
Daniel was probably suspicious about the source of the food or he saw that it was offered to idols first and refused to eat it.
|
Must everyone live a quiet life? 1 Thessalonians 4:11 says, and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, If this was a blanket statement to everyone, people like Billy Graham would be sinning by living famous lives in the public spotlight. Is that true? What is the real command here? How has this issue been addressed elsewhere in the Old & New Testaments, or by scholars and theologians? <Q> The clue to understanding this is found in verse 12. <S> 1 Thessalonians 4:12 (NLT) <S> Then people who are not Christians will respect the way you live, and you will not need to depend on others. <S> When the non-Christians see the peace among the Christians, they will be respected by the community. <S> Christians should maintain good characters. <S> Work with your hands: Paul wanted them to be independent and prosperous so that they don't have to beg/ask from others. <S> He encouraged them to work hard, make their own living without disturbing society. <S> Paul did not want them to be lazy. <A> Living a quiet doesn't necessarily mean being a quiet person. <S> If we look at Paul's 1st and 2nd letter to the Thessalonians <S> I think we get more context on what Paul means 1 Thessalonians 4:11 11 and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you, 2nd Thessalonians 3:12 11 <S> For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. <S> 12 <S> Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. <S> In the 1st scripture he particularly says "your own business". <S> Then in the 2nd scripture he is saying that people are walking around doing nothing, just busybodies, basically meaning meddlesome and in other people's business, and not being productive. <S> So instead quiet here means someone who minds their own work and not meddling in other people's affairs. <S> (read this definition from the original greek: http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/gwview.cgi?n=2271 ) <S> Now to contrast that we have this command from Christ: Matthew 28:19-20 19 <S> Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and <S> lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." <S> We are supposed to go into the whole world and proclaim Christ, and that is the business we are to be about. <S> ("I must be about my father's business" - Luke 2:49). <S> I would say it is "business" versus "busyness" <S> So I think the key here is the definition of what Paul means when he says "quiet", which according to context isn't referring to silence. <S> So in short Billy Graham did what was right. <S> Now if Billy Graham was just a traveling meddler, that had no work of his own and just meddled in other people's stuff, he would've been wrong, but he was actually doing what Paul commanded, he was busy doing the work (the work of the Lord), and working with his own hands. <A> I see in Explanatory Bible of Lopukhin following explanation. <S> We should think that generous Christian charity caused big abuses and created class of people who preferred to live at the expense of other people, which left quiet and independent working life. <S> Being free of work and job responsibilities, they devoted themselves completely to agitation, and, possibly, were the cause of abnormal grow eschatological expectations of Thessalonian citizens. <S> Their fussiness, restlessness was destroying the quiet and peaceful lives of Thessalonian Christians and involuntary was undermining Christians amongst the pagans, making pagans look at Christians as gathering of idle and harmful people involved in sky-high dreams only. <A> 1Th <S> 4:11 <S> And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; G2270 <S> ἡσυχάζωhēsuchazōhay-soo-khad'-zo <S> From the same as G2272; to keep still (intransitively), that is, refrain from labor, meddlesomeness or speech: - cease, hold peace, be quiet, rest. <S> The King James translation of this verse is not very good. <S> Strong's G2270 does not really mean to be quiet thats part of it <S> but in other places it seems to mean stop argueing. <S> Act 21:14 <S> And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done. <S> Act 11:18 <S> When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, <S> Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. <S> Luk 14:3 <S> And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?Luk 14:4 <S> And they held their peace. <S> And he took him, and healed him, and let him go; <S> All the words cease and peace in the three above verses are the same Greek word. <S> Looking at its usage you can see it means to stop being annoying or nit picking. <S> Luk 23:55 <S> And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid. <S> Luk 23:56 <S> And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment. <S> It also is used once to mean just flat out rest like they were commanded to do on the sabbath. <S> So this one isolated <S> text from the King James does not mean you must be quiet not at all. <S> It means you must not argue or bother other people.
|
Living a quiet life : Paul instructed the Christians in Corinth to live peacefully and not fight among themselves.
|
Is there any evidence for the claim that the Catholic church suppressed translation of Scripture? There is a popular Protestant polemic that Catholics don't (or didn't) want people to read the Bible. It is often furthermore assumed that the Catholic Church went so far as to ban people from having the Bible in their own language. Supporting the claim are the stories of: Martin Luther who is sometimes thought to have been persecuted for translating the Bible into German, but who in fact was accused of heresy, and in any event, was not the first to translate the Bible into German. William Tyndale who was executed for heresy, but also did not even make the first English translation (rather there were others already extant) John Wycliffe who is often credited with the first English Bible, although older versions went back to the 6th Century, and who nonetheless was never charged with heresy until a good 30 years or so after his death. In each of these cases, however, the position does not seem to be the act of translating the Bible, or of making it available, but rather of heretical teachings from these translations. And, clearly the example of the Jesuits, translating the Scripture into hundreds of languages, seems to run counter to the claim that translating Scripture or encouraging lay popele to read it was heretical. So, the question is, is there any papal directive that specifically addresses the possession of the Scripture in a vulgar (i.e. native) tongue, or addresses the translation of Scripture outside of Latin in a negative light? <Q> Quoting from The Story of Christianity, chapter thirty (emphasis added): <S> 1 <S> When Alexander died, Hildebrand was elected pope, although the order prescribed by the Second Lateran Council was reversed, for it was the people who demanded his election, and the cardinals who agreed. <S> He took the name of Gregory VII, and continued the work of reformation in which he had been engaged for years. <S> His dream was of a world united under the papacy, as one flock under one shepherd. <S> Among the many steps he took in this direction, he declared that the Bible should not be translated into vernacular languages, for the ministry of teaching and interpretation must be in the hands of Rome... <S> Additional Context: <S> Chapter thirty is entitled "Movements of Renewal," and Gonzalez is describing the Roman Catholic Church in the eleventh century, following the corruption which existed during and after the decline of the Carolingian empire. <S> The "reformation" referred to is not the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, but rather the eleventh century ecclesiastical reformation internal to the RCC, as initiated by monks from Cluny and other monasteries. <S> The Story of Christianity, Revised Edition, by Justo Gonzalez. <S> Volume I, p. 337. <A> Not today. <S> The Vatican uses the Vulgate in the Liturgy, and does not prohibit the Liturgy used outside the Vatican to be translated into the vernacular of any country. <S> Since Vatican II, scholars and clergy have been encouraged to read other translations. <S> In the USA, the American Catholic Church has adopted several translations including RSV, NAB, NSAB, and NRSV. <S> In the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) <S> the Vulgate was declared to be authoritative. <S> It had already been in use by the Roman Catholic Church since the 5th. <S> cent. <S> Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. <S> Translation into other languages by Roman Catholics was forbidden by Papal decree until Vatican II.Of <S> course, before the Reformation everyone in the West was a Roman Catholic, including Tyndale. <S> The Eastern Orthodox churches are different. <S> Their New Testament and Old Testament have always been in Greek, and Syrian since the 4th. cent. <S> (The Aramaic Gospels in the Brit. <S> Museum are signed and dated AD 464.) <A> As is stated in Wikipedia, there are a few times when a given college of bishops or a given region might have forbidden the vernacular, but these were almost always at times when mis-translations were more common than adequate ones. <S> In these cases, the Church decided to whitelist instead of blacklist .
|
The evidence that the Church has ever completely forbidden the translation of scripture is dubious at best .
|
Are there any examples of Jesus praying publicly? As a follow up to this question: Is it ok to pray in public? There are many examples where Jesus prays privately and he will intentionally separate himself from his disciples, but are there examples where he actually prays out loud (not including the Lord's prayer where he is not actually praying but teaching the disciples how to pray)? <Q> When Jesus fed the 5,000, the Gospel of John records that Jesus took the bread and gave thanks <S> : Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated. <S> So also the fish, as much as they wanted. <S> John 6:11 ESV <S> Additionally, in Mark's account of Jesus feeding the 4,000, Jesus again gives thanks, presumably in a public setting: <S> And he directed the crowd to sit down on the ground. <S> And he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and they set them before the crowd. <S> Mark 8:6 ESV <S> So, Jesus does appear to pray publicly, albeit not to make a show as the Pharisees did. <S> In this case, it appears to be private prayer prayed in public. <S> And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. <S> For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. <S> Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. <S> Matthew <S> 6:5 ESV <S> So, it does not seem reasonable to conclude that it is wrong to pray in public. <S> Indeed, it is more reasonable to conclude that it is right to pray in both public and private settings, as long as it is with a right heart and not done for show. <A> He prayed in public over the fish and bread, "Jesus then took the loaves, and having given thanks..." <S> [John 6:11a]. <S> The "high priestly prayer" of John 17 starts, "Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said..." Given that He also taught in the synagogues, it seems highly likely He prayed frequently in public (though never to "be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. <S> Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full." <S> [Matthew 6:5]) <A> "FATHER forgive them for they know not what they do!" <S> If no one had heard it, none could report it as a prayer! <A> I would not say its "wrong" to pray publicly. <S> However, one should avoid such and there is little to no value in it. <S> I only find Jesus praying publicly one time, John 17. <S> Giving thanks does not qualify imho as public prayer. <A> Praying is different from giving thanks. <S> Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated. <S> So also the fish, as much as they wanted. <S> John 6:11 ESV <S> how about.. <S> "FATHER forgive them for they know not what they do!" <S> Jesus cannot go down from the cross and pray in private at this time. <S> So, why you should pray in private. <S> Because praying is asking earnestly, begging, communicating with God. <S> So you should do it without distractions. <S> And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. <S> For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. <S> Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. <S> Matthew 6:5 ESV <S> So, praying and broadcasting it in TV is wrong! <S> For they have received their reward. <S> For guidance, if you want to pray at public, keep it secret. <S> If someone complements you like, "wow, you are a holy man. <S> " Then you have received your reward.
|
JESUS prayed publicly even from the cross...
|
Is "the observer on earth" view common among Creationists? According to these sources, source 1 , source 2 , source 3 , source 4 , the Genesis account was narrated from the viewpoint of an observer on the earth's surface. from source 1 : As in any scientific experiment, you make observations of what is occurring. It is extremely important to consider your “frame of reference” when interpreting any observation. In other words, where are you observing these events from. For the entire creation event, the key to this is in verse 2. To an observer, standing on the surface of the earth, God was hovering over the earth. The rest of the creation events must be interpreted as if the observer were standing on the surface of the earth . Only with this “frame of reference” will you reach the right conclusions. from source 2 : It is narrated from the viewpoint of an observer on the earth's surface. This is the most important key to understanding Genesis 1. Most people view the creation account from the opposite direction: of someone in outer space looking down on the earth. Misunderstanding the proper frame of reference causes most of the confusion over this portion of Scripture. As per this view, the sun was not created on the fourth day but rather was created prior to it (Day 1 or before) and became clearly visible from that day on wards. This can solve the problem of the sun, moon and stars seem to have been created after the earth , which is not in harmony with science facts. In this question and here and here also , it looks like most of the people agree that the sun was created only on the fourth day. Genesis 1:16-19 (NIV) God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night . He also made the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day. Looking closely at this passage, there is no mention of sun and moon explicitly but many readers conclude it as implicitly mentioned. source 1 says, " Here the atmosphere is finally clear enough for the observer on the surface of earth to observe the sun and the moon ". Question: Is it a common view among Creationists(OEC & YEC), to assume that Genesis account was narrated as if the observer were standing on the surface of the earth? Or, this view is not common at all? <Q> No, it is not common. <S> In the Old Earth Creationist view of Hugh Ross , the Spirit's vantage point is key to a literal interpretation of the passage. <S> The cosmos was created in verse one, which would include sun, moon, stars, earth. <S> Now you have the Spirit hovering over the waters of an formless, empty, dark, earth which is experiencing accretion of dust . <S> First the Spirit will say, "cause there to appear" light, then later as more dust settles will the sun appear as a distinct object in the sky. <S> YEC, in contrast has no need to pay special attention to the vantage point of the author. <A> It's hard to say that anything isn't common, unless you've interviewed everyone. <S> I'm pretty sure it's not the mainline creationist view, though, if there even is such a thing. <S> The biblical creation story implies that there was no one able to act as observers until day 6. <S> Those who tend to buy in to the first part of the story are also likely to buy into the second part. <S> Instead, I think many creationists would point you to Exodus 33. <S> In this passage, we learn that God spoke directly with Moses, as you might talk with a friend. <S> Creationists also tend to believe that the Genesis account was first written down by Moses, even though Moses was not an eyewitness. <S> Some may be believe that Moses was writing down oral traditions that already existed. <S> In that case, they might believe that this tradition began with an observer such as you describe. <S> But I think the more common belief among creationists is that the Exodus 33 passage describes how God gave creation knowledge to Moses. <S> There are likely a number of other common theories as well. <A> As a keen Young Earth Creationist, I can say that mainstream YEC's (e.g. Creation.com ) consider the whole Bible when interpreting Genesis 1-3.As mentioned above, that would include Exodus 33. <S> The Lord told Moses what happened at Creation and that is what Moses wrote down. <S> The language of Genesis 1-3 is historical narrative, so God simply told Moses what happened as God made each day. <S> So for YEC's the Sun was created on Day 4.
|
The "observer on earth" perspective is common and key to OEC, while it is tangential to the YEC interpretation.
|
Is Jesus the Creator? The following verses clearly credit Jesus Christ with “Creation.” How do Christians view the role of Christ in Creation? Ephesians 3:9: And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ : John 1:1-14: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made …and the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Colossians 1:16: For by him (Jesus Christ) were all things created , that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him <Q> For Christians that are creationists, and that accept the doctrine of the Trinity , yes. <S> From CARM.org , which believes and advocates both doctrines. <S> The idea that Jesus is Creator is one of the arguments to support that Jesus is God. <S> * CARM is not alone in this belief, but I decided to link to only one reference. <S> To anyone who rejects the idea of Creationism altogether, or to anyone or any group that doesn't believe that Jesus is God, the answer would be "no". <A> Isaiah 48:12-13 <S> (KJV) <S> 12 <S> Hearken unto me, <S> O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. <S> ( What is Jesus called in Revelation ? <S> Alpha and Omega... ) <S> 13 <S> Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. <S> The above shows that the Bible teaches Jesus Christ to be the Creator. <S> And Christians believe the propositions of the Bible to be true. <S> Thus Christians believe that Jesus "laid the foundation of the earth" etc. <S> But Christians, having established that Jesus is God the Son, the 2nd person of the Trinity and the Word of God, would thus see Christ as that Word which proceeded from the Father's mouth when He (the Father) spoke at creation. <S> Thus Christ was the energizing Word that created all things for the Father. <S> We are not to imagine that the Father has vocal cords (He is a Spirit). <S> His "speaking' is an anthropomorphic term. <S> The Word that He spoke, being that same Word which was in the beginning with God and was God (John 1). <S> This shows us a glimpse of how tightly knit the Persons of the Trinity are. <S> The Son is the very Word of the Father, Who brings all things into existence for the Father and the Holy Spirit is His breath. <S> Amazing imagery to meditate upon! <S> As a short reference to the above thought, please hear Calvin :" <S> Since at the very moment when God said, "Let there be light," The energy of the Word was immediately exerted......" <A> Jesus is the word of god that became flesh. <S> The words of man are flimsy, men can lie and change their positions. <S> The will and word of god never change, and as such the words that he speaks ring true and are consistent throughout time. <S> Because he has had all knowledge and all things are known until him, he does not "grow" as men do: he has made all things from the beginning. <S> As such, Christ Jesus is the word. <S> In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god. <S> This is because GOD CANNOT LIE! <S> he can only speak of himself, that in which means that when he speaks, he speaks himself! <S> Every word that he utters IS the ESSENCE OF GOD! <S> And out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, so Jesus has been there since the beginning and even before the world began. <A> Let thus much suffice for the explanation of the first article of Creation, the Creed : <S> it may not, however, be unnecessary to add that the creation is the common work of the three Persons of the Holy Persons, and undivided Trinity of the Father, whom, according to the doctrine of the Apostles, we here declare to be " Creator of heaven and earth ;" of the Son, of whom the Scripture says <S> , " all things were made by him ;" and of the Holy Ghost, of whom it is written, "The Spirit of God moved over the waters:" and again, " By the word of the Lord the heavens were established and all the power of them by the Spirit of his mouth."
|
The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that Creation is the common work of the Three Divine Persons
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.