Split (1)

train · 95.7k rows

source stringlengths 620 29.3k	target stringlengths 12 1.24k
What is the significance of dead saints being resurrected to life at the crucifixion of Jesus? Matthew records that immediately after the death of Jesus, many Old Testament saints who had died came back to life, went into Jerusalem, and appeared to many people. 51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. Matthew 27:51-53 NASB I think it is interesting that this occurred at the death of Jesus and not the resurrection, and I'm not sure what the reason for this could be. My main question though is what the significance was of the Old Testament saints coming back to life physically at this time. This appears to be a sort of "Zeroth" resurrection (borrowing from the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, that was asserted after there was already a first and second). <Q> If we read the words carefully one interpretation has it that the graves were opened at his death <S> but they were not raised out of them appearing to many people until ‘after Jesus’ resurrection’ . <S> At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. <S> The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. <S> The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. <S> They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people. <S> (NIV, The New International Version. <S> (2011). <S> Mt 27:51–53) <S> This is how Lange takes it: <S> The rising was the result, not the immediate accompaniment of the opening of the graves, and is mentioned here by Matthew in anticipation, but with the qualifying insertion: after His resurrection, to preven misunderstanding. <S> Christ’s death opened their tombs. <S> His resurrection raised them to life again, that He might be the first-born from the dead (Lange, J. P., & Schaff, P. (2008). <S> A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Matthew ,p. 528) If we follow this logic is seems to fit well. <S> There is an earthquake; it strikes the temple curtain symbolizing the breaking of the death that separated man from God and subjected him to the separation and curse under God’s holy laws. <S> Removed the curse of law and death is opening a way to a new heaven and a new earth. <S> The earthquake comes across the earth, including rocks and tombs, shattering the death that bound us. <S> After his resurrection, whereby he presented the merits of his death and righteousness to God as our high priest, some sample saints come from out of the tombs, to symbolize the guarantee of our future bodily resurrection into life forever and ever. <A> <A> Yes, the Saints did resurrect after Jesus and not before Him. <S> It was also asked, " what was the reason for this resurrection?" <S> Some of these Saints of God were listed in Hebrews 11:4-11. <S> The reason for the resurrection was stated in verse 13. <S> These all died in faith, not having received the promise ...... <S> The promise they were to receive was the Baptism of the Holy Ghost which was poured out on the Day of Penticost.	In addition to what's been said already, this is a preview (mini-version) of Jesus' second coming, when there will be a great earthquake on the Mt. of Olives (which is a giant cemetery even today) and the all the dead will rise from their graves.
Why is Jesus occasionally referred to as "The Christ"? Is there a different definition between the two? I've occasionally heard of Jesus Christ referred to as "The Christ" and the phrasing has always struck me. What are the differences (if any) between referring to him as Jesus Christ versus "The Christ", and what is the origin of the title? <Q> The word "Christ" is simply the English transliteration of the Greek word "Χριστός" (pronounced "khristós"). <S> It has the same meaning as the word "Messiah" which is simply a loose English transliteration of the Hebrew word "מָשִׁיחַ" (pronounced "mashíach"). <S> Therefore, you'll find the word "Christ" used in translations of the New Testament and the word "Messiah" used in translations of the Old Testament. <S> Both words essentially mean "the anointed one". <S> In other words, Jesus is the one chosen by God to save His people. <S> He is the Messiah who was promised to the children of Israel. <S> He is the fulfillment of the prophecies. <S> When people call Jesus, "Jesus Christ," they are simply using the word as his title or epithet. <S> And when Jesus is called "The Christ," it is the same thing as calling him "The Messiah" or "The Anointed One. <S> " There is no obvious distinction in meaning between the two. <S> It is simply a matter of grammatical style. <A> The proper way to refer to him is "Jesus, the Christ," since the Greek text states, «Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός». <S> Note the definite article ὁ which precedes Χριστός ("Christ"). <S> However, to be even more accurate, it would actually be proper to say, "Jesus, the anointed one" or "the anointed one, Jesus" (for the Greek «ὁ Χριστός Ἰησοῦς»), since the actual English translation of ὁ Χριστός is "the anointed one." <S> But, of course, tradition is hard to overcome, so people simply say "Jesus Christ" since that is what they were taught (there's nothing "wrong" about this tradition, mind you). <A> Christ is not Jesus' last name. <S> " <S> The Christ" is a titled bestowed on that of the Messiah. <S> Since Jesus is the Messiah, He is "The Christ". <S> We refer to Him as Jesus Christ because it is easier to say and to differentiate. <A> From an Anglican Catholic: <S> The Greek word Christos (khris-tos') is used 530 times in the KJV, and only 19 of those times was it translated as " The Christ ," and only in the Gospels. <S> But in Young's Literal translation of the NT we find that the phrase " the Christ " appears 155 times, including Acts the Pauline writings, and Peter and John. <S> In the RC DRV it is the Christ 24 times; in Greene's Literal Translation it is the Christ 56 times; In Darby 131 times; in RSV 50 times. <S> So, it depends on which Bible translation you read as to the usage. <S> Christos is the anglicized Greek word for the Hebrew Messiach, a title given to The king of Israel <S> The high priest of Israel <S> Cyrus <S> The patriarchs as anointed kings <S> Jesus <S> Simon bar Kokhba, the commander of the Jewish revolt 132-136, was acclaimed as a Messiah also. <S> It means someone who has been anointed by God for the special purpose of leading Israel. <S> The title is given to the King of Judea. <S> Many people thought Jesus was that King, but He did not accept the title, because His "Kingdom was not of this world. <S> " <S> In the ACC we almost always say the title as "the Christ," which sometimes refers to His Kingship. <S> To share in the divine spirit of God is to have "the Christ within you." <A> "Christ" means "anointed" and can be easily shown because Acts 4:26 is basically a quotation of Psalms 2:2, except in Acts they used the word "Christ", whereas in Psalms they use the word "Anointed". <S> Jesus is "the Christ" because He is the only One who is anointed to be the King of the world as described in Psalm 2:2,6 and more extensively in Psalm 45:6-7 (which is quoted again in Hebrews 1:8 confirming that this talking about Jesus). <S> A more detailed explanation can be given in an article that a friend <S> and I have put together: http://biyn.org/gospel/theChrist.html	Usually the name "The Christ" is identified with the divine personality of Jesus. "Christ" is actually a transliteration, not a translation.
What is the difference between Reformed and Presbyterian I feel like this is a dumb question, but maybe, just maybe, I'm not the only one confused by this. Maybe if I'm willing to stick my neck out and look stupid, the answer will be here for those poor confused saps who come after me. It seems like I often hear the terms reformed and presbyterian being used interchangeably. When I'm speaking about the presbyterian church, or rather, the reformed church, or... I often stumble over my words because I feel like I'm probably saying the wrong thing. I know that in a technical sense, reformed refers mostly to the theology and presbyterian refers mostly to the church government (or maybe I'm wrong about that too), but, in every-day parlance, what do you call a church who follows in the tradition of John Calvin? Surely you can't go around calling them churches-that-follow-in-the-tradition-of-John-Calvin. It's a bit of a mouthful. If I call them Presbyterian churches, will someone think I'm foolish and think that I don't know what I'm talking about? If I call them Reformed churches, will I be wrong? Is it just a matter of only usually being right? Does it depend on the denomination/association? What do Christians who belong to such churches call themselves? Do they call themselves Presbyterians? Reformed Christians? Calvinists? All three? None of the above? Am I going to offend someone by using the wrong term? <Q> There are also Presbyterians that are not Reformed, such as many in the PCUSA, who would be better called " liberal ". <S> Further complicating the matter is that, as Brian Johnson pointed out, the word 'Reformation' would certainly include Luther, who would not now be called Reformed or Presbyterian. <S> I would define someone who is Reformed as a " covenantal Calvinist ". <S> There are Calvinists who are not Reformed (such as Calvinistic Baptists like John Piper or John MacArthur or Mark Dever or Al Mohler, <S> Jr.) I would define a Presbyterian as one who subscribes to the presbyterian form of church government , especially the plurality of elders elected by congregations and the connectedness of the wider Church. <S> It is representative, like the American republic. <S> You could argue, actually, that some of the Dutch Reformed denominations such as the RCUS and URCNA are presbyterian in their polity, and there's some truth to that, even if their names for things are a bit different. <S> Still, the label isn't usually applied to them, because they subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity (the Canons of Dordt, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Belgic Confession) instead of the Westminster Standards <S> (Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Directory for Public Worship, and the Form of Church Government). <S> Indeed, the Westminster Standards typify what it means to be Presbyterian and Reformed. <S> In summary: the words are not exactly synonymous, though they are certainly related in church history. <S> The typical Reformed or Presbyterian, rather than getting all uptight about whether you're using the words accurately or not, would, I hope, just try to explain it to you! <S> Labels <S> can be helpful, but they are only labels; sometimes they are not so helpful. <A> Presbyterian is a name that defines a large body of believers. <S> As mentioned above though, there are MANY Presbyterian denominations. <S> As in all large groups, there will be vastly different opinions and beliefs of its members. <S> Some members within a single Presbytery (local group of Pressie churches) will hold to the Westminster Standards (as mentioned helpfully above) and would be considered reformed in their stance. <S> Other members of the same Presbytery might reject the standards of Westminster and thus would not be considered reformed (and I would argue not truly Presbyterian in an historical sense, since they have rejected the standards of Presbyterianism). <S> So, Not all Presbyterians are reformed (if they disagree with the Westminster Confession as their standard).And certainly there are many, many Christians from other non-Presbyterian denominations who would be reformed and agree with the Synod of Dordt , but do not necessarily hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith as their standard e.g. Reformed Baptists, Dutch Reformed Church. <S> They have other standards such as the 1689 Baptist Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. <S> Calvinism would, broadly speaking, be that set of doctrines as taught by John Calvin in his Institutes . <S> These are considered to be a Reformed understanding of Scripture and one of the best Systematic theologies ever written. <S> But whereas the Westminster Confession is ~33 chapters of Systematic Theology, the Institutes are 2 Volumes. <S> Calvin was in the 1500's on the continent and the WCF was in the 1600's in Britain. <S> For an excellent summary of Church History and how some of these terms came into being have a look at Sketches from Church History by S.M. Houghton. <S> It is an excellent summary of how the Church developed since the Apostles. <A> that's a totally appropriate question, and certainly shouldn't offend anyone... <S> here are some resources, which should clear up the understanding that Presbyterians are simply a denomination that teach and align with Reformed church traditions: The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), or PC, is a mainline Protestant Christian denomination in the United States. <S> Part of the Reformed tradition, it is the largest Presbyterian denomination in the U.S., followed by the Presbyterian Church in America. <S> refs http://www.presbyterianmission.org/ministries/101/ To the point of "reformed church" <S> this is a good description:The Reformation began as an attempt to reform the Roman Catholic Church, by priests who opposed what they perceived as false doctrines and ecclesiastic malpractice—especially the teaching and the sale of indulgences or the abuses thereof, and simony, the selling and buying of clerical offices—that the reformers saw as evidence of the systemic corruption of the Church's Roman hierarchy, which included the Pope.[[2]][2] <A> If the aforementioned labels seem too specific, but Christian seems too broad, Evangelical Calvinist may be appropriate for those who are Calvinistic, and Reformed (i.e., holding to the Five Solas), but perhaps vary in areas of Polity, Sacramentalism, Eschatology and Cessationism, to name a few. <S> There are many, for example, who espouse Calvinistic theology, Covenant Theology, and Presbyterian polity, but may differ in Baptism, and may not categorically affirm Confessionalism (either Presbyterian, Reformed, or Baptist). <S> They may even differ in views on the Charismata. <S> Yet, the term " Evangelical " (though having developed negative connotations and stereotypes in recent decades) is a legitimate and respectable term which has described Protestant Calvinists (Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John Stott and D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, most notably) for centuries. <S> While it can also encompass other theological systems (e.g., Revivalism, Arminianism, etc.), "Evangelical" implies the majority of the Protestant movement, and that makes it useful in keeping with broad descriptions; yet, "Calvinist" draws the focus back to the theological framework of the Doctrines of Grace , which unifies Presbyterians, Reformed Churches, Reformed Baptists, certain Anglicans, Congregationalists, and other non-Confessional Calvinistic and Reformed Christians.	There are Reformed Christians who are not Presbyterian (or at least wouldn't call themselves that), especially in the Dutch or Continental tradition such as the RCUS and URCNA .
Why is Jesus portrayed and remembered in a state of suffering? My observation of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is portrayed, worshiped and promoted in his state on the cross: suffering, crucified, having wounds. I don't see what sense this makes. This seems like a form of sadism. Why is he not portrayed healthy? Why aren't his good deeds before the last supper remembered instead? <Q> Catholics portray, worship, and promote Jesus in all of His states of being, actions, words, etc. <S> A strong emphasis is placed on his suffering and death on a cross because it was in this act that He atoned for the sins of all humanity. <S> This is the single most important thing He did because without it, we have no hope. <S> Paragraph 623 of the Catholic Catechism states: <S> By his loving obedience to the Father, "unto death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:8), Jesus fulfills the atoning mission (cf. <S> Is 53:10) of the suffering Servant, who will "make many righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities" ( <S> Is 53:11; cf. <S> Rom 5:19) <S> It would be highly mistaken to think that Catholics only focus on the suffering of Christ. <S> The Catholic Church teaches that in rising from the dead <S> He confirms who he is and the work that He accomplished by His death. <S> Paragraph 651 of the Catechism states: <S> "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. <S> "521 <S> The Resurrection above all constitutes the confirmation of all Christ's works and teachings. <S> All truths, even those most inaccessible to human reason, find their justification if Christ by his Resurrection has given the definitive proof of his divine authority, which he had promised. <S> I'm sure with a little investigation, many examples can be found of Catholic images, prayers, etc. <S> the are devoted to the healthy, happy, resurrected, glorious, etc. <S> natures of Jesus Christ. <A> Because, with St. Paul, "we preach Christ crucified," which, with a false understand (1 Corinthians 2:14) of the meaning of the suffering of Christ, or inded the idea of such on its face, is "foolishness" and "a stumbling block" (1 Corinthians 1:23). <S> We are to "proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26; 1 Corinthians 2:2). <S> He is definitionally "portrayed as having been crucified": <S> Galatians 3:1 (cf. <S> John 20:27; Revelation 5:6). <S> [The Galatians could even have been shown the Shroud of Christ <S> ... thoughts] Since the mission of Christ was to suffer, and it played the most serious element of His mission, it deserves depiction. <S> This is not exclusive. <S> There are statues of Christ not suffering also. <A> It seems your source of motivation is mainly related to crucifixes , which is where, in many modern Catholic churches, you can see Jesus depicted as dead. <S> To add a historical note on this regard, taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia , the custom of how Jesus is presented in crucifixes has changed over the centuries. <S> I wrote an answer about this here . <S> The key points are that, when the crucifix was first introduced into Christian art (around the sixth century), and until the thirteenth century, the depiction of Jesus in the cruficix was: ... the Crucified is shown adhering to the cross, not hanging forward from it; He is alive and shows no sign of physical suffering; ... <S> The head is erect, and surrounded by a nimbus, and bears a royal crown. ... <S> In a word, it is not Christ suffering, but Christ triumphing and glorious on the Cross. <S> In contrast, in the second period, which stretches until today: ... the head droops onto the breast (cf. <S> Borgia, De Cruce Veliternâ, 191), the crown of thorns is introduced, the arms are bent back, the body is twisted, the face is wrung with agony, and blood flows from the wounds. <S> In the thirteenth century complete realism is reached by the substitution of one nail in the feet, instead of two, as in the old tradition, and the resulting crossing of the legs. <S> The living and triumphant Christ gives place to a Christ dead, in all the humiliation of His Passion, the agony of His death being even accentuated. <S> (emphasis mine). <S> I want to highlight here one phrase from the above quotation: <S> All this was done from artistic motives to bring about a more moving and devotional pose. <S> Whether that was the actual reason why the radical change in crucifixes over the centuries, personally, remembering Jesus suffering or dead in the cross is a much more powerful devotion-enhancing image than remembering Christ triumphant in the cross, which itself is a literal contradiction, as the cross, a humiliating death method for those times, is where He died.	All this was done from artistic motives, to bring about a more moving and devotional pose.
What is closest thing Baptists have to a catechism? I teach Sunday School at an evangelical congregation that is essentially nondenominational, but has various, historical ties to the Church of the Brethren and or one of the smaller Baptist denominations. The pastor has generally given me free reign to come up with my own material: I send him my slides after the fact as a courtesy and to allow him to offer any correction or guidance. I have learned in this forum that not all Christian groups have a catechism in the same way that Lutherans do. My question is, do the Southern Baptists, American Baptist Association, or any other Baptist association have a common book that is relied on for instruction of youth in a similar way that Lutherans would have Luther's Small Catechism ? If no, is there any standard of doctrine-- even a book of systematic theology, or works of a theological hero like Charles Spurgeon-- that is trusted for doctrinal clarification beyond the bible? If such a thing exists for "nondenominational evangelicals" and not Baptists, that's even better. <Q> In fact, Baptists do have a catchecism. <S> As John Piper writes here : <S> Written in 1677, " <S> The Baptist Catechism" was patterned after the Heidelberg and Westminster catechisms to teach Reformed doctrine from a Baptist perspective. <S> The problem isn't the existence, but rather how many Baptists are willing to "cede my author-ITAY" (imagine your best Cartman voice) and use it... <S> That said, if a Baptist is going to trust anybody, John Piper is a pretty good modern bet, and the 1677 Heidleberg & Westminster Confessions, from which Piper draws all his source material, is about as good as one can get. <S> As far as being "trusted" then, it definitely suits the bill. <S> Again, your primary problem in declaring "a" Baptist anything, however, is that there is a native distrust of anything that exists outside of the local congregation, hence the waffling. <S> Finally, John Piper has very solid evangelical credentials, so its applicability to "nondenominational" churches should be a good bet. <S> As just two data points (and with evangelicals that's about as good as your going to get), I was turned on to Piper by Mike Minter, the pastor of Reston Bible Church (approximately 4000 in regular attendance) and have heard similar endorsements from Lon Solomon, pastor of McLean Bible Church, the 17th largest church in the United States . <S> Both of these should qualify. <A> There are several Baptist Catechisms. <S> The one our church uses is "The Shorter Catechism: a modest revision for baptist today". <S> Here is the link http://www.vor.org/truth/95cat/te95ct01.html <S> It is published by Grace Immanuel Reformed Baptist Church. <S> There is the one previously mentioned by John Piper. <S> In Modern English: A Baptist Version. <S> For older catechisms there is Keach's Catechism and Spurgeon's Catechism. <A> I would say Southern Baptist don't use a "catechism". <S> I was a member for 20 years and never heard of a Baptist catechism. <S> I am now a Regular Baptist. <S> We don't use a catechism either. <S> Each local congregation has a doctrinal statement. <S> This is a general outline on what we believe, backed by bible verses. <S> It would not be as comprehensive as a catechism, but sets a foundation from which all other beliefs can be tested. <S> I will include a link to John MacArthur's belief statement. <S> He is not a Baptist, but he is a great Evangelical and most Baptist <S> Doctrinal Statements would look similar, perhaps not quite as detailed. <S> Here is the link: https://www.gty.org/connect/doctrine . <S> Generally to be a member of Baptist church you need to have a testimony of receiving Christ as your Savior and agree not to teach anything contrary to the the doctrinal or try to persuade others to change the doctrinal statement. <S> I hope that helps.	there is The Shorter Catechism: Baptist Version and The Shorter Catechism
Could you please help me locate this hymn? I heard a sermon that was recorded in the 1980s. The speaker was Dr. Paul E. Toms , who at the time was senior pastor at Park Street Church in Boston, Massachusetts . In his sermon, Dr. Toms referenced a hymn, but he didn't mention the title. My mother and I would really like to find this hymn. We would be very grateful for any clues or ideas that you might have! Here is what I know: The hymn is about a man who lived and died. At the gates of Heaven, the gatekeeper said, "On whose authority should I let you in? The man replied: "I come in the name of Jesus. For me He bled and died." And the pearly gates swung open and welcomed him inside. This was all that Dr. Toms mentioned about the hymn itself; unfortunately, he did not mention the title. Dr. Toms did mention that a certain visitor to Park Street Church, "Bill Hoyt" (or possibly "Hoight" or similar; since I only have the sermon on audio, I don't know the spelling) sang this hymn at the church. (But since I'm not sure if "Bill Hoyt" is a famous person or not, I'm not sure if this is a helpful bit of information.) Unfortunately, this is all that I know. We will be really grateful for any clues that you might have! Thank you! <Q> I think your song might be <S> This One's With Me by NewSong. <S> I stumbled across the service's lyrics while searching for another set of lyrics and found a combination of terms from your quote that located This One's With Me . <S> I was dreaming about Heaven <S> Dreamed <S> I was standing at the Pearly Gates <S> We're all there <S> and I was so scared <S> In the presence of One so great <S> I felt so worried and worthy <S> I felt like running away <S> I bowed my head <S> and I turn to go <S> When I heard someone say <S> "Father, this one's with me Part of the family One of the reasons I died on Calvary Father, welcome him in <S> I paid the price for him Father <S> , oh Father, this one's with me" <S> I was dreaming about Heaven <S> When I looked up the gates were opened wide <S> And in the distance, I saw Jesus Our eyes met and I began to cry Angels robed in their beauty Were there to show me the way <S> And all of Heaven singing <S> When I heard His voice say <S> "Father, this one's with me Part of the family One of the reasons I died on Calvary Father, welcome him in <S> I paid the price for him Father, oh Father" <S> Finally, we were there face to face <S> And He placed on me <S> Heaven's crown <S> I fell down on my knees, laid my crown at His feet <S> Then He said to me "Father, this one's with me Part of the family <S> One of the reasons I died on Calvary Father, welcome him in <S> I paid the price for him Father <S> , oh Father, this one's with me" <A> Some would argue that a text about a man who lived and died is a "spiritual song", and not a hymn, as one commonly accepted definition of a hymn is "A song in Praise of God". <S> Having written that, I would not be at all surprised to find that the stanza did, in fact come from a text included in a hymnal. <S> The problem is, many hymnals index the texts they include by the first line, and some omit the title altogether, even if the original poet included one. <S> And to make the task even more difficult, nearly every hymnal and spiritual song book I know of indexes the first line of only the first stanza, so knowing the first line of the refrain or of stanza other than the first is usually not much help. <S> Further, there have been many hymnals, and collections of books of spiritual songs which have not yet been catalogued. <S> First, I suggest you contact the church music department of Park Street Church , and see if the music director recognizes the bit you quote. <S> It may be included in a hymnal used by the church with which he is familiar. <S> If that doesn't help, I suggest you contact <S> The Hymn Society of the US and Canada and see if they can refer you to someone who might be able to better help you. <S> I would also contact the music departments at the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, and <S> Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, TX, and see if someone there, or in the respective libraries of those institutions might know of the text, or be able to refer you to someone who might. <S> You might also contact the Billy Graham Evangelistic Organization and see if there is someone there who might be able to help you. <A> I had the old LP. <S> I recorded the alblum on C.D. and have this hymn.	Yes, this hymn was sung by Bill Hoyt.
Who symbolizes Christ in J. R. R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings"? I have long been a fan of J. R. R. Tolkien , and have enjoyed his works from an early age. I am aware that he was raised by a Roman Catholic priest, and remained a deeply religious man his whole life. I'm wanting to pin down some of the major christian symbols and undertones in his works that are a byproduct of his Catholic world view. I would particularly like to know who or what symbolizes Christ in The Lord of the Rings . <Q> Tolkien always denied that The Lord of the Rings was an allegory, let alone a Christian allegory. <S> Specifically there is no character who corresponds to Christ. <S> There are of course strong themes of good and evil, of destiny and of guiding and creating spirits, sacrifice and nobility. <A> While Tolkien made the statement that there was no implied allegory in LOTR, I did pick up the following things: <S> LOTR can be read as an allegory of WW2. <S> LOTR can be read as an allegory of the industrial revolution of the West (Saruman's "mind of metal and wheels", the endless smoke from Mount Doom) and all the evil it entails for rural man (the hobbits). <S> LOTR can be read as an allegory of the history of Christendom. <S> It helps if one has read The Silmarillion. <S> The Silmarils being analogues for the light of Christianity. <S> As for catholic allegories, ones that jumped out at me were: <S> The other wizards can also be seen as angels, Saruman being Azazel, one of the fallen. <S> Elves are ante-deluvian man with their extremely long life spans and the knowledge such a long life makes possible. <S> The most obvious one for me: <S> Aragorn is Jesus whose Kingdom will be established when evil has been conquered forever. <S> Sauron is Satan, the corruptor and enslaver. <S> Again, a very obvious one. <S> It also helps if one has read the Apocryphal Texts. <S> Most notably the two books of Enoch which seems to have served as a strong influence for The Silmarillion (along with Norse mythology). <A> DJClayworth's answer, while based on Tolkien's own words of disdaining his work being interpreted as strict allegory (he preferred the term "applicability"), is based on a false notion of not relating to Tolkien's religion. <S> As fredsbend stated, Lord of the Rings and related works set in Arda are all fundamentally Catholic in character. <S> The Lord of the Rings is basically Catholic theology in narrative form with the dressings of Norse and Celtic myth. <S> Gandalf is Christ the prophet. <S> Aragorn is Christ the King. <S> Frodo is Christ the priest, the lamb, the redeemer. <A> Frodo's self-sacrificial trip to Mount Doom to "destroy power" has allegorical similarities to Christ's incarnation and "descent to Hell".	Gandalf is an archangel and a keeper of the sacred fire (the word of God being an all-consuming fire). While many people have searched for Christian symbolism, the author did not intend that there should be any.
Do United Methodist Church members really eat ham during Easter? Do United Methodist Church members really eat ham during Easter? I knew a classmate who was Methodist. She told me that she ate ham during Easter. Is this a Methodist church tradition? Are Methodists allowed to eat meat during Easter or Lenten season? <Q> I think you may be confusing the terms a little. <S> There's a simple solution to your question. <S> Easter is the joyful celebration of Christ's resurrection. <S> Lent is the forty-day* period leading up to Easter. <S> It is a time of penitence and fasting. <S> Many Christians observing the Western-style liturgical calendar (this probably includes your friend) fast in some way—often from meat, if possible—during Lent. <S> This fast is broken on Easter, when lots of rich foods are eaten. <S> Ham is a traditional Easter meal in the West. <S> When you understand this aspect of the calendar, it actually makes a lot of sense to eat meat on Easter. <S> You can read more about the church calendar at Ken Collins's web site . <S> (*) <S> You might notice that Lent is actually longer than forty days. <S> The reason for this is a bit detailed and dry, so read only if you're curious! <S> The week before Easter is referred to as Holy Week ; it begins with Palm Sunday (the commemoration of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem). <S> Holy Week contains Maundy Thursday (commemorating the Lord’s Supper) and Good Friday (commemorating the day of Jesus’ crucifixion). <S> As you can imagine, this week is especially sombre and penitential. <S> In the Eastern church, Holy Week is not considered part of the forty days of Lent; they last forty days beginning from Clean Monday, with the last day on a Friday. <S> The day after this is Lazarus Saturday, followed by Palm Sunday and Holy Week. <S> In the West, Holy Week got counted as part of Lent. <S> The extra days are accounted for by making Sundays not count as full fasting days. <S> Lent is then two days shorter than in the East, beginning on Ash Wednesday. <S> Not counting Sundays, there are forty days from Ash Wednesday till Easter. <S> In both traditions, the season of Easter lasts 49 days till Pentecost. <S> Fasting is not encouraged—in fact, it may be generally prohibited, especially in the first week of Easter, which is called Bright Week. <A> This page (Lent 101 from the UMC) gives a guide to Lent from a Methodist perspective. <S> It is very similar to other protestant traditions. <S> Lent is a time for fasting and prayer, but fasting means different things to different people/denominations. <S> From the page I linked to above: <S> FASTING: <S> Some people have been known to go without food for days. <S> But that's not the only way to fast. <S> You can fast by cutting out some of the things in your life that distract you from God. <S> Some Christians use the whole 40 days to fast from candy, tv, soft drinks, cigarettes or meat as a way to purify their bodies and lives. <S> You might skip one meal a day and use that time to pray instead. <S> Or you can give up some activity like worry or reality tv to spend time outside enjoying GodÕs creation. <S> What do you need to let go of or "fast" from in order to focus on God? <S> What clutters your calendar and life? <S> How can you simplify your life in terms of what you eat, wear or do? <S> Some people have been known to go without food for days. <S> But that's not the only way to fast. <S> You can fast by cutting out some of the things in your life that distract you from God. <S> Some Christians use the whole 40 days to fast from candy, tv, soft drinks, cigarettes or meat as a way to purify their bodies and lives. <S> You might skip one meal a day and use that time to pray instead. <S> Or you can give up some activity like worry or reality tv to spend time outside enjoying GodÕs creation. <S> What do you need to let go of or "fast" from in order to focus on God? <S> What clutters your calendar and life? <S> How can you simplify your life in terms of what you eat, wear or do? <S> With that definition of "fasting" you can give up anything. <S> It's not about just giving up meats. <S> Therefore, there's no reason not to eat Ham during Easter or Lent. <S> For Methodists, as with most Protestant denominations, how we celebrate Easter and lent are a very personal choice, rather than a rigid, prescribed, dictated way of celebrating. <S> if your classmate ate ham for Easter, it's really nothing to be surprised about. <A> I grew up in the Methodist church and we were required to make a sacrifice during Lent. <S> It doesn't have to be meat. <S> It doesn't even have to be food. <S> But, it should be a real sacrifice. <S> It's a personal commitment that you make to God. <S> Extra study and prayer is also encouraged.	There is no prohibition against eating meat, whether ham or any other kind, so
What do immersionists believe it means to be buried with Christ through Baptism? Romans 6:1-4 (NIV) What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death ? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. How do immersionists/Baptists understand the meaning of being buried with Christ ? What significant role does being buried with Christ have on the baptized person's spiritual life? Do immersionists use this verse as support for Immersion Baptism? <Q> I can only answer for my denomination (Baptist), but it was used as a supporting scripture for Immersion. <S> During baptism, pastors would often say Buried in the likeness of His death, raised in the likeness of His resurrection or ...raised to walk in newness of life <S> The idea is that baptism is a the believer's public confession of faith. <S> And the immersion itself is a symbol of Christ's burial and resurrection. <A> To be buried with Christ through baptism means to walk in newness of life. <S> Romans 6:1-4 <S> (NASB) <S> 6 <S> What shall we say then? <S> Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? <S> 2 <S> May it never be! <S> How shall we who died to sin still live in it? <S> 3 <S> Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? <S> 4 <S> Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death , so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. <S> As to how is one buried with Christ through baptism, it is by faith alone. <S> Colossians 2:12 <S> (NASB) <S> 12 having been buried with Him in baptism , in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. <S> The English word “baptism” came from the Greek word “baptisma” ( <S> to dip).This word has more than one meaning. <S> In Biblical contexts, it means “to identify with” (union with someone) and “to be washed with” (cleansing) whether literally or figuratively. <S> In both Romans 6:1-4 and Colossians 2:12, it means union with Jesus Christ in his death, burial and resurrection. <S> Immersionists (from the Fundamental Baptist POV) believe that to be buried with Christ through water baptism symbolically signifies the union we have with Jesus Christ. <A> New Testament Baptism, which is enjoined upon new believers, is the first obedience required of those who united themselves by faith to Christ's crucifixion. <S> Having been crucified with Christ, their body of sin is now dead, and they must bury the old man of sin. <S> Notice that believing in Christ's sacrifice and resurrection must precede the "burial" that baptism signifies. <S> This is important because baptism is the template for all future Christian obedience, as described in the rest of Romans 6. <S> Believers are to present their members as slaves of righteousness, just as they initially presented their bodies of sin crucified with Christ in the rite of Baptism, they from then on present their members as slaves of righteousness. <S> Presenting their members as slaves of sin is a denial of their baptism and must be remedied with repentance, which it always is among the truly redeemed. <A> To answer your second question first: This is one of a few passages that immersionists such as myself reference when baptism is discussed. <S> Others include Matt. <S> 3:16, which describes Jesus "coming up out of the water"--difficult to do without being surrounded by the water first? <S> Acts <S> 8:38 says "Philip and the eunuch went down into the water , and Philip baptized him." <S> So then this passage in Romans is in keeping with other passages that describe the circumstances of baptism in terms of immersion. <S> However, I may or may not point to Rom. 6:1-4 during a debate on immersion. <S> I might choose Col. 2:12 instead. <S> On your first question: My understanding of my baptism is that God requires me to put to death my old life. <S> The immersion is a way of marking that division between those abandoned ways and my new ways that are more obedient to God's will. <S> If I want to be like Christ, I have to behave like Christ. <S> I have to put him on in baptism.	Baptism signifies that the believer has been crucified with Christ having embraced and received Christ's sacrifice for his sins.
Do any denominations believe in reincarnation? In discussion with others about God's will in situations that don't have any answers (i.e. - difficult prolonged situations) I hear a lot of (as also mentioned in this question and answer) that God is "teaching us lessons and preparing us for eternity". However, when I put this together with the fact that humans are in all different stages of learning lessons (some almost barely getting by - to some here on vacation on this earth), sayings like "she is an old soul" and the fact that some people don't need to learn certain lessons, they just "have it" from birth, there is a chance after death for atonement - I logically, instinctively and intuitively get the feeling that souls are reincarnated and purified to be more like the light of Christ, through each human experience they occupy. I have heard there are other religions that believe this but independently of them, are there any Chrisitian denominations that also believe this? Why or why not is it valid? <Q> Source: Morse, D. R. (2006, April). <S> Reincarnation: <S> Yes, No or Maybe!. <S> Journal of Spirituality & Paranormal Studies . <S> p. 61. <S> Although some sects of Christianity accept reincarnation, for some people (e.g., innocent infants, murder victims), generally, Christianity does not support reincarnation, because no matter how evil you might have been, if you repent and accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God and your savior, you will go on to Heaven. <S> Source: Davies, M. (2004). <S> Should Christianity Embrace Mediumship, Healing and Reincarnation?. <S> Journal Of Religion & Psychical Research , 27(3), 132-144. <S> St Paul very plainly rejects reincarnation in his letter to the Hebrews. <S> (Hebrews 9:27-28) <S> The Gnostics did believe in reincarnation, but they were squashed after the Council at Nicaea in 325 AD. <S> St. Jerome tells us that metempsychosis (reincarnation) was a secret doctrine of certain sects in his day, but it was too evidently opposed to the Catholic doctrine of Redemption ever to obtain a settled rooting. <S> However some sects — particularly the early Gnostics and the later Cathars of 13th century France — did believe in reincarnation, and often paid the price. <S> While some individual Christians believe in reincarnation, the only major push for reincarnation from within official Christian circles has been from the "Army of Mary," a Catholic sect that is based in Quebec, Canada. <S> Conclusion: <S> There are examples of such sects, as mentioned above. <S> Sects who do believe in this reincarnation are often persecuted, and over the centuries, the non-heretics procreate non-heretic offspring, which is why the number of people who believes in reincarnation is in the minority. <A> "I logically, instinctively and intuitively get the feeling <S> that souls are reincarnated and purified to be more like the light of Christ, through each human experience they occupy. <S> " <S> "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? <S> (Jeremiah 17:9) Just a warning, you're instincts and feelings can betray you :). <S> The truth is "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27) <S> There are no denominations that support reincarnation to my knowledge, for it goes against the Bible. <S> May the Lord bless you as you study His word. <A> this sounds a lot like the Nature <S> Vs. <S> Nurture argument to me. <S> just because someone has wisdom beyond their years doesn't mean that they magically got it from a previous life. <S> I believe that they did sort of get it from a previous life, from their upbringing. <S> I am good with logic and Mathematics, but that is because of the way that my Father talked to me and explained things to me. <S> these things are true for everyone. <S> motivation and patience and other things like that are learned through the years, during vital times of development. <S> there is no way for those that are Dead to come back to Learn more, if they have not Learned it the first time then they are forever lost. <S> as illustrated when Lazarus was with Abraham. <S> Luke 16:19-31 <S> Verse 26 <S> And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.	Although there are certainly Christian individuals and sects that accept reincarnation, reincarnation has always been an iffy issue, because it has long been perceived to undermine the significance of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.
What is the source of the phrase "in your chamber bewail your sins"? In the Imitation of Christ , Thomas à Kempis writes (Book I, Chapter XX, paragraph 5): If you desire true sorrow of heart, seek the privacy of your cell and shut out the uproar of the world, as it is written: “In your chamber bewail your sins.” Does “In your chamber bewail your sins” refer to a particular Scripture passage, or is something else in mind? <Q> The Rev. William Benham's translation (available at Project Gutenberg ) references this as Psalm 4:4. <S> That translation renders the sentence thus: If thou wilt feel compunction within thy heart, enter into thy chamber and shut out the tumults of the world, as it is written, Commune with your own heart in your own chamber and be still. <S> The ESV translates Psalm 4:4 thus: <S> Be angry, and do not sin; ponder in your own hearts on your beds, and be silent. <S> The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition might be closer to the Vulgate used by Thomas' community since the Septuagint on which it is based might vary a bit from the Hebrew texts preferred by the ESV translators. <S> It translates the verse (4:5, because the annotation text is treated as verse 1): Be angry, and sin not: the things you say in your hearts, be sorry for them upon your beds. <S> "be sorry for them upon your beds" is reasonably close to "in your chamber bewail your sins". <A> The quotation, which may not in fact be a quotation from the Scripture, could have come from a non-biblical source that was familiar to à Kempis. <S> Otherwise, it suggests to me a conflation of several biblical concepts such as we find in Matthew 5:4, 6:6, and 6:12. <S> "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted." <S> "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." <S> "And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors." <S> Put them all together, and you have the substance of à Kempis' quotation. <S> I suggest the following paraphrase of the quotation: <A> Wow! <S> Nice detective work, Paul A. Clayton. <S> To add to your excellent answer... <S> The original Latin in De Imitatione Christi is: Si vis cordetenus compungi; intra cubile tuum et exclude tumultus mundi: sicut scriptum est, In cubilibus vestris compungimini . <S> Thomas à Kempis is quoting the (old) Vulgate (not the corrected Nova Vulgata), which reads for Psalms 4:5 — quæ dicitis in cordibus vestris, in cubilibus vestris compungimini , literally: "[those things] which you say in your hearts, repent [for them] in your chambers". <S> The Masoretic Hebrew text for this verse reads <S> אִמְרוּ <S> בִלְבַבְכֶם עַל <S> -מִשְׁכַּבְכֶם וְדֹמּוּ, imru bilevavkhem 'al mishkavkhem wedommu , "speak to your hearts on your beds and be silent", while it seems that Jerome was working with a different Hebrew text (noted in my BHS as a variant reading in the Greek manuscripts) where the conduction ' we ' [and] was moved two words up: <S> * imru bilevavkhem we'al mishkavkhem dommu , "speak to your hearts, and on your beds be silent."	"If you want to experience true heart-sorrow, go into your private prayer closet where only God can see and hear you and where the din of the outside world is silenced; repent of and mourn for your sins; and receive the gift of forgiveness in proportion to your willingness to forgive others who may have sinned against you."
Why are sandals considered to be unholy? As I was reading Exodus 3 chapter 5, this passage got my attention. Then he said, “Do not come near; take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” Why it is considered as unholy? Even in churches they are said to remove your sandals and shoes. When considered this as unholy, what about other things as our clothes, etc. <Q> It's not so much that sandals or slippers are considered to be unholy, it's that they're dirty, and removing them is a sign of respect similar to removing one's hat when entering a building, or perhaps removing a nose ring when entering a strict parent's house. <S> From the United church of God's article on the subject : Taking off your sandals was like the old custom of a man taking off his hat when entering a building or greeting a lady—it was a token of respect. <S> The ground was holy because of God's presence. <S> People were to approach God with solemnity and humility. <S> Taking off their sandals expressed an inward reverence through an outward behavior in their worship. <S> Showing such respect avoids anything casual, sloppy or rude. <S> Some Eastern religions today still require bare feet when entering their temples. <S> Anciently the Greeks, in the worship of Diana and Jupiter, required worshippers to take off their shoes <S> (Adam Clarke's Commentary, Exodus 3:5 ). <S> A common custom in the Orient and for many in North America is to take off your shoes when entering a person's home. <S> God Has a High Standard for Approaching Him <S> As to why... From Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary : put off thy shoes—The direction was in conformity with a usage which was well known to Moses, for the Egyptian priests observed it in their temples, and it is observed in all Eastern countries where the people take off their shoes or sandals, as we do our hats. <S> But the Eastern idea is not precisely the same as the Western. <S> With us, the removal of the hat is an expression of reverence for the place we enter, or rather of Him who is worshipped there. <S> With them the removal of the shoes is a confession of personal defilement and conscious unworthiness to stand in the presence of unspotted holiness. <S> Also, from the Pulpit Commentary (available at the link in the preceding section) <S> Rather, "thy sandals. <S> " <S> Shoes were not worn commonly, even by the Egyptians, until a late period, and would certainly not be known in the land of Midian at this time. <S> The practice of putting them off before entering a temple, a palace, or even the private apartments of a house, was, and is, universal in the East - the rationale of it being that the shoes or sandals have dust or dirt attaching to them. <A> emman: FYI from the NET Bible-- <S> It was a way of excluding the dust and dirt of the world. <S> But it also took away personal comfort and convenience and brought the person more closely in contact with the earth. <S> (Exo. 3:5, note 20) <A> As a Christian follower of Christ, therefore, according to my own understanding, I can explain that the removal of the sandals that God told Moses to do, is simply a very critical action that we need to do as Christians. <S> It doesn't mean that it is literal <S> but it is something that is contextual that we have to understand. <S> The "sandals" represent our sinfulness, we have to have reverence before God, he is the Almighty and ever living God, through him we will take our last breathe, to stand before God is kind of feeling that each individual experience, removing our sins is to meet God,, respect begins in this scripture. <S> Thank you for reading, Almighty bless. <A> I think the removal of sandals in today's life is removing everything that may hinder you to be in the presence of God. <S> John said in Matthew 3:11, "He that cometh <S> after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire," which means we have to change our ways of living and start to follow Jesus. <S> He is the way to the Father. <A> It's not that Moses's sandals were unholy but that the holy ground was holier. <S> In the context of ritual purity (spec., refraining from intercourse three days before offering sacrifice; cf. <S> Ex. <S> 19:15 or 1 <S> Sam. 21:5 ), St. Jerome writes in Adversus Jovinianum bk. <S> 1 §20 : <S> Moses who when he saw a great vision and heard an angel, or the Lord speaking in the bush, [ Ex. 3:5 ] could not by any means approach to him without first loosing the latchet of his shoe, that is, putting off the bonds of marriage.	The removal of sandals was, and still is in the East, a sign of humility and reverence in the presence of the Holy One.
Does Cain still have descendants on the earth? According to Genesis 5 : 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died. 6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father[b] of Enosh. 7 After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912 years, and then he died. If we continue reading, we see that we are descendants of Seth as his genealogy leads to the birth of Noah. God destroyed other families and spared only the house of Noah (8 people), from whom the earth was repopulated. Adam->Seth-> ... ->Methuselah->Lamech->Noah->(Noah's Sons)-> .... ->Us Genesis 7:23 - Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark Cain's descendants and Seth's siblings' descendants were therefore wiped out. <Q> Your answer seems correct. <S> As God has never approved of being unequally yoked. <S> Cain's descendants followed after Cain and dwelt in his city ( Gen 4:17 ). <S> God never wanted people to live clustered in cities, where sin would abound, and there are various examples of this throughout Genesis. <S> God's people stayed in the wilderness, tilling the ground and doing the work God had commanded to them as a blessing, even though the ground was now cursed. <S> These were the people that began "calling on the name of the LORD." <S> ( Gen 4:25 ) <S> You could see the striking difference between the people that followed God and obeyed His commandments and those that did not. <S> From this point you can infer that Noah and his sons, being righteous in the eyes of God, would not mix with those who did evil in the eyes of God. <S> If this is so, then Noah and his 3 sons would have wives that loved the LORD and were not of the lineage of Cain. <S> Of course it could also be that one or more of the wives were descendants of Cain that decided to follow in the way of the LORD. <S> Nevertheless, the Bible offers no such insight on this matter. <S> So the true answer is we do not know, but I'm definitely more inclined to say that they all were destroyed. <A> Whether or not Cain has any DNA remaining in any or all of the humans <S> now existant on earth, it can be unequivocally stated that Cain has no "descendants." <S> A descendant - at least in a legal sense <S> - implies legitimacy to which the Bible itself does not lend credence. <S> Abraham, for example, is technically the ancestor of Ishmael, but after he was kicked out, was not reckoned as a descendant. <S> Noah is reckoned as a descendant of Seth, regardless of whether or not a daughter in the line of Cain was a grandmother of some relation. <S> Cain's line was wiped out with the flood, as were the Nephilim. <S> Cain's legacy was to be "a restless wanderer on the earth." <S> This would imply that any progeny would not necessarily have his legacy, and hence while he may be an ancestor, his children are not "descedants." <A> We cannot know. <S> We know nothing about Noah's female ancestors or his sons' wives. <S> Maybe one (or more) of them was a descendant of Cain, maybe not. <S> The Bible simply doesn't tell us enough to know either way. <S> The idea that Seth's righteous family wouldn't intermarry with Cain's unrighteous family is unsupportable from the Bible, because Seth's righteous family didn't exist. <S> At the time of Noah God said he was the only righteous person. <S> The only other one we know for certain is righteous was Enoch. <S> I've asked before why people call Seth's line righteous and <S> no one has given any good reason why it should be. <A> The Bible doesn't mention explicitly that only the descendants of Cain are destroyed in the flood. <S> Therefore, we can only speculate . <S> There are other less authentic books apart from the books of the Bible. <S> These books sometimes help us to understand the accounts written in Genesis better and in more detail. <S> According to Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan and other books like Life of Adam and Eve , the descendants of Cain lived completely isolated from the descendants of Seth. <S> It was the descendants of Cain who were wicked and God wiped them from the earth by flood, saving only the descendants of Seth, who were only eight people when the flood happened. <S> The descendants of Cain were numerous because unlike the descendants of Seth, they were very active sexually and reproduced rapidly, resulting in large population.	The Bible is silent on this matter.
Is it moral or immoral for Satan to punish souls for immoral acts? Satan, to my understanding, punishes souls in hell as a result of their immoral acts on earth. It also is my understanding that the concept of Satan represents pure immorality (evil). Does that mean it is immoral to punish souls in hell or is it actually moral ? <Q> In Dante's Inferno, that may have been the case, however, in the Bible, that is absolutely not the case. <S> Satan was never given dominion over hell. <S> In fact, Revelation 19 and 20 tells us Satan will be bound and thrown into the Abyss for 1000 years. <S> After his release, he will be cast into the Lake of Fire with Death, the Grave, the Beast and the False Prophet to burn forever. <S> Satan receives eternal punishment for his actions according to the Bible. <S> Aside from 14th Century literature, he never gets to take his revenge out on anyone. <S> In other words, Satan does not ever punish any souls for immoral acts according to the Bible. <S> As for the morality of "punishing" someone in Hell, I would contest that as well. <S> I would say a person who rejects God has chosen Hell over Heaven and God forcing a person who wanted nothing to do with Him in life to spend eternity with Him in a relationship they didn't want is tantamount to kidnapping. <S> Think Jayce Dugard. <S> That would be the truly immoral thing to do. <A> Punishment for sin is solely and exclusively claimed as a right by God. <S> Romans 12:19 makes this abundantly clear when it says 19 <S> Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[a] says the Lord. <A> In Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus gives us a picture of the Judgement. <S> Notice that there are ONLY 2 groups. <S> The ones on the right, His sheep, those that followed Him, will inherit the kingdom <S> prepared for you from the foundation of the world (v. 34) ; and the ones on His left, the goats, who chose not to follow in His footsteps, will go into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels (v. 41) <S> Notice that heaven was prepared for us, but the fire was prepared to the devil and his angels. <S> Revelation 20 also gives us a closer look into Judgement. <S> It is the same, the people who have received the seal of God, whose names were written in the Book of Life, they will sit on thrones; while the devil, his angels, and those who were not found written in the Book of Life are cast into the lake of fire. <S> If we follow the succession of Revelation 20, the devil and his angels are tossed in the lake of fire first and then the ones not found in the Book of Life. <S> Then it says, And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. <S> This is the second death . <S> And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. <S> (Rev. 20:14, 15) <S> Satan is cast into the lake of fire, the second death, eternal death and separation from God, because they did not wish to follow the Truth that was revealed to them. <S> There are many schools of thought on the matter. <S> Based on the parables of Jesus it seems to me that the punishment, hell, will come AFTER the Judgement. <S> I think this is only fair because it would be unfair to condemn someone to 10 years of prison without a fair trial and judgement. <S> In the same way it would not be fair to send people to burn in hell and then be judged. <S> This is a VAST subject and cannot be comprehensively discussed in detail in a single post. <S> In short, Satan does not punish anyone in hell, because no one has been judged and condemned.	Satan does not punish anyone for sin.
Why are Kingdom Halls sometimes built in the "quick-build" manner? Wikipedia has an article on Kingdom Halls that states: In many countries, a number of standard designs of construction are used that can be built in just a few days. The act of constructing a Kingdom Hall in this manner is called a quick-build, although typically the preparation work involving the structural foundation and surrounding surface may take several weeks prior to the scheduled build. For various reasons, not all Kingdom Halls are constructed as quick-builds or using the standard designs. Seeing many issues that can go wrong with building something so quickly I figure there is some sort of theological importance in doing this, however, not all are quick-builds , so it cannot be all that important. Why do Jehovah's Witnesses build their Kingdom Halls in three days? Please provide quotes and links to official sources <Q> As another answer stated, we get the building done in 3 days for convenience mostly. <S> The whole thing is amazingly organized and thus moves quickly. <S> Nothing is done to be cheap. <S> That would be disrespect to Jehovah. <S> The main concern is to not take time away from the builders lives and to continue the preaching work. <S> The preaching work is the #1 priority to us. <S> Look at Acts 6:1-4 . <S> A situation arose where the Greek widows weren't getting food, but the Hebrew ones where. <S> Instead of taking up the time of the Apostles with fixing this the twelve assigned reputable men to take care of distribution. <S> What is their motive? <S> Furthering and focusing on the preaching work. <S> Like the apostles, we too focus mainly on our ministry. <S> We use our resources and time wisely, so as not to slow the preaching works. <S> I don't know why we decided on 3 days, but we do it and do it well. <S> The level of education doesn't matter. <S> It matters only that you are motivated to do so. <S> If you don't know how to do anything, then chances are you are going to learn a lot. <S> There are a lot of skilled brothers on site working on whatever section is their trade. <S> We get a lot of volunteers from all over the state and some out of state. <S> Here is a video showing the building of a kingdom hall. <S> This one actually only took 2 days. <S> Quickbuild <S> Most of us tend to not have a ton of money, but that is because we work to pay bills and provide for what we need. <S> A lot only work part time, so that they have more time to go out and preach. <S> When building we want 3 things Quality, safety, speed. <S> I think we achieve those remarkably well. <S> Safety . <S> To attest to the quality of the building, just attend a meeting. <S> The building is not extravagant, but also not cheap. <S> The buildings are made to last and are well maintained. <S> I am currently an unbaptized publisher working towards baptism. <S> I am prospectively looking at going to trade school for something like electrician, HVAC, etc.. <S> sometime early 2014. <S> I will most likely be helping with quick builds very soon :) <A> Construction: Standardized designs and materials will be suited to local circumstances and will be based on guidelines from the Publishing Committee of the Governing Body. <S> The buildings will be low maintenance and durable, yet attractive and economical. <S> Maintenance: Volunteers in each congregation will be trained to care for and prolong the use of our places of worship. <S> Source: <S> https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/2016-yearbook/highlights/speeding-up-kingdom-hall-construction/ <S> All Kingdom Halls are paid for by the members of the congregation, and they are also responsible for maintenance costs. <S> However they no longer own the property or the land. <S> A few years ago all previous loans (for building new Kingdom Halls) were cancelled in exchange for ownership. <S> They now belong to the Organisation. <S> Recently a Californian Kingdom Hall sold for almost $12 m. and the proceeds went straight to Head Office. <S> Interestingly, Jehovah’s Witnesses plan to consolidate media production into a new facility to be constructed in Ramapo, New York. <S> The property is located approximately two miles from world headquarters in Warwick, New York. <S> The goal is to begin construction in 2022 and complete it by December 2026. <S> During the peak of construction, the project will require an estimated 1,500 volunteers per day. <S> Source: <S> https://www.jw.org/en/news/jw/region/global/2019-Annual-Meeting-Summary/ <S> The organisation may not be using the quick-build method everywhere, but they continue to be blessed by the volunteers who give of their time and their talents in the service of Jehovah. <A> It is because we like to use our time wisely... <S> so the less hours we put in a building the more hours we have left for our meetings... and preaching work. <S> Furthermore we build our Kingdom Halls with volunteers. <S> Most of the time they come from all over the state(s) so its more efficient if we do the job in only a few weekends with hundreds of workers. <S> It has nothing to do with money as one suggested. <S> We can afford anything but we just build what we need. <A> So, not to be too blunt about it, but JWs are demographically typically drawn from the least well-off amongst society. <S> Put crassly, they tend to be the poorest and least-educated Christians in the United States . <S> Furthermore, this is a very cheap method of putting together a building. <S> Especially when you consider the amount of volunteer labor (think Amish barn-raising) <S> what you may be seeing could simply be a manifestation of resource constraints. <S> In other words, they might not be able to afford anything else. <S> It may very well be just a matter of economics.	The short answer, taken from the 2016 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses is for reasons of economy: Speeding Up Kingdom Hall Construction: To speed up the work in the most cost-effective way, the Governing Body has been implementing adjustments to our various construction departments.
Are there any well-known Christian nihilists? I have been studying Nietzsche, and I find his ideas thought-provoking. Doing a wider search of the literature on the subject of nihilism, I note that very nearly all of the content that espouses nihilism is irreligious, and all of the religious sources attempt to refute nihilism. There must be some dissenters in this regard -- it's a big world, and there are many forms of nihilism . Ecclesiastes, for instance, sure sounds nihilist. “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.” Usually, I hear this explained away (e.g. -- "Yes, meaningless without God! "), and that may be the correct response, but surely there must be someone with an interpretation of Ecclesiastes that takes Solomon's words at face value. Are there any well-known Christian nihilists whose literature I can examine? Where can I find discussions on this topic that do not take an anti-nihilist view? Just to clarify, I am not asking someone to explain whether or why Christianity and nihilism are (in)compatible. I'm trying to get a sense of what's out there on pro-nihilism Christianity. <Q> Yes, there is school of theological nihilism influenced by Nietzsche, known as the "Death of God" movement . <S> This work explores the idea that the traditional concept of God has "died", and the extent to which faith (or reason, or ethics, etc.) can still exist in such a world. <S> We can argue about whether this sort of thing is nihilist, or existentialist, or both, or not really either; but in any case it comes out of that general area of thought. <S> It should be distinguished from the older and more "respectable" pursuit of apophatic theology . <S> This is an approach to God founded on describing God in "negative" terms (he is not evil, he is not limited, etc.). <S> Typically, this theology is mystical rather than rational, and Eastern rather than Western. <S> A standard idea in apophatic theology is that God does not exist, meaning that the mode of his "existence" transcends the way in which ordinary everyday stuff is said to "exist". <S> Contemplation of paradoxes associated with the divine is also part of apophatic practice - without necessarily trying to solve them in the manner of rationalist theology. <S> Apophatic theology has influenced nihilistic theology but they are not identical. <S> Another relevant writer is Kierkegaard for his exploration of paradox and despair in a Christian context. <S> He is not a nihilist but there is a good deal of later work which responds to him. <S> I would suggest Fear and Trembling as a good starting point (because out of the two books I've read by him, it was the one I liked the best). <S> In it, he works through the story of the Binding of Isaac with an emphasis on the supposed moral of the story, Abraham's greatness through faith; this is contrasted with the anxiety and subjectivity of Abraham's personal experience, in the context of an apparently immoral command to murder his son. <A> Check out Gianni Vattimo 's work. <S> He's a modern Italian philosopher who identifies as both a nihilist and a Catholic. <S> His main interests are Heidegger, Nietzsche and Rene Girard. <S> To him, the death of God represents the end of metaphysics (which he deduced is a form of violence), as revealed by the death of Christ. <S> After Christ's death, we are freed from the law (metaphysics) and are free to focus on communities which work toward common goals (a process synonymous with the Holy spirit). <S> The New Testamant destruction of the law is considered the ultimate nihilistic act. <S> Mine is a drastic paraphrasing but he's very interesting. <A> Your question is not an easy one to answer in that nihilism takes many shapes and forms, and therefore it is hard to pin down how nihilism relates to any particular part of the Bible. <S> For instance the commonly known divisions of nihilism fall into the following categoriesMetaphysical nihilism,Epistemological nihilism,Mereological nihilism,Existential nihilism,Moral nihilism &Political nihilism <S> Most Christians that I know would subscribe to Metaphysical nihilism, <S> prior to Genesis 1:1 in that there were no concrete (material) objects. <S> To embrace Epistemological nihilism would be to dispute that there was a tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil in the garden of Eden. <S> Mereological nihilism would be denying creation. <S> Existential nihilism which you seem to be referring you question citing Solomon is tantamount to ascribing Creation to be a meaningless effort. <S> Moral nihilism would dictate that the 10 commandments are only a fabrication with no intrinsic meaning. <S> And if Law which is denied as part of Political nihilism has no meaning and really does not exist then God never gave the Law to Moses on the mount. <S> (check out Leo Strauss) <S> You might also care to read Martin Heidegger's interpretation of Nietzsche. <S> For my part other than the idea that before creation nothing material existed, none of these other ideas could be accepted by Christians, I most assuredly cannot!	Probably the most famous individual associated with it is Paul Tillich .
Does the Bible forbid a man from dressing like a woman? Are there any verses in the Old or New Testaments that forbid a man from dressing like a woman? My question was prompted by this news article about the Harvest Crusade event and the comments that followed. <Q> In the Mosaic Law, God strictly forbids this: <S> A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. <S> Deuteronomy 22:5 NASB <S> It must be stated, however, that this was specifically in the Mosaic Law, so it cannot necessarily be extended outside of the Jewish people and that covenant. <S> In this case, however, it does not seem to be an issue of covenant, but an actual abomination to God. <A> Deuteronomy 22:5English Standard Version “A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God. <S> But MIND you, this is from the Law.we <S> are no longer under the law so congratulations. <S> These laws were given to Jewish people and not to Gentiles. <S> So we don't need to follow it. <S> If a woman was asked to come for an interview for a business job <S> and she was asked to dress smart. <S> Will you say "God said don't wear trousers for it is detestable to him"?Once again.. <S> you are imputing law into people's lives which causes them to stumble. <S> Is it a sin to cross dress? <S> No because if you are in Jesus Christ, you will live by Faith. <S> As Habakkuk said "the just shall live by faith" not the just shall live by law. <S> "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap unto themselves teachers, having itching ears;And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. <S> 2 <S> Timothy 4:3-4This has nothing to do with The Law, which is a covenant, the first writer is correct, a man dressing as a woman is an ABOMINATION. <S> It is not a New Testament/Old Testament Covenant issue. <A> Deuteronomy 22: 5 is a very complicated verse with many different opinions and a variation in translation that is pertinent. <S> Google it and see for yourself. <S> I want to stick with what Maimonides said. <S> Amonst the idolaters men wore women's clothing when honoring Venus and women put on armor when honorin Mars. <S> Here it is the use made of the clothing/item that is important. <S> The intention of the wearer not the garment. <S> This eliminates a lot of the debate around unisex clothing, women in combat uniform, and as was the case in the article, men wearing women's clothing for a joke (common during Purim). <S> Based on this, the sin for Christians is in the 'why', not the what. <S> Was it done for idolatary? <S> For immoral purposes? <S> To deceive? <S> Etc. <A> " <S> I believe it applies to Christians too. <S> Jesus Christ obeyed all of the commandments in Auraytha (Aramaic word for Torah). <S> We even see Jesus Christ criticizing Pharisees for setting aside God's commands to observe their human traditions. <S> Mark 7:8-9 <S> (NIV) - <S> "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” <S> And he continued, “ You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions !" <S> Jesus Christ taught this (below) Matthew 22:37-40 (KJV) - " <S> Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. <S> This is the first and great commandment. <S> And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. <S> On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." <S> "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind" comes from Deuteronomy 6:5 and is also mentioned in Deuteronomy 30:6. <S> "Love they neighbour as thyself" comes from Leviticus 19:18. <S> Jesus Christ is teaching the greatest commandments in Auraytha. <S> Malachi 3:6 - "I the Lord do not change. <S> " <S> Hebrews 13:8 - " <S> Jesus is the same yesterday and today and forever." <S> Jesus Christ tells in John 10:30 (NIV) - " I and Father are one ." <S> Since Jesus and Father are one, Jesus Christ can never deny the teachings of his Father. <S> John 14:15 (NIV) <S> - " If you love me, keep my commands ." <S> So in order to obey the greatest commandment - "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind", we must keep the commandments of Both Father God (Old Testament) and the Son (New Testament).	It says in Deuteronomy 22:5 (NIV) - "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.
Why was Jesus called Jesus, and not Immanuel? Was the choice of Jesus (Joshua) in addition to Immanuel(Matthew 1: 21 and 23) in order to fulfil the prophecy in Deuteronomy 18: 15? This gives a message that Jesus, like His namesake, would lead Israel into the promised land and not Moses (the law). Can the answers concentrate on the prophesy in Deuteronomy. <Q> Because Emmanuel/Immanuel is a nick name. <S> It is like saying Clark Kent, his name is SuperMan, though people also know him as Man of Steel. <S> Which is the same with Jesus, he's name is Jesus of Nazareth, we call him Jesus Christ <S> (Christ means Messiah) <S> but we know him as Emmanuel because he's God in the flesh who walked with us. <S> and the prophecy is Isaiah 7:14 14 <S> Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. <S> Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. <S> (And Abram to Abraham has no connection to this. <S> Abram did wrong things, lying to those kings and allowing Sarai to be taken as the King's wife while Abram accepted the good/provision over Sarai. <S> A man to be Father of all nations should not bare a name and remembrance of someone who lied and gave up his wife. <S> God had to change his name to Abraham. <S> The thing was back in those times, names actually meant something. <S> Jacob's name meant cheating and his name was changed to Israel. <S> Jacob who would become the first to bear Israel was cheating a lot of people and did wrong things, so we cannot let the Jews bare the forever name Jacob to someone who cheats. <S> That was why God had to change his name to Israel. <S> Saul people knew him as a persecutor so he had to change his name to Paul. <S> I do think it's important for us to look at our name meanings for they can impact our lives. <S> If name makes changes to our life as a bad thing, it is best to change our name. <S> If you look at the prophet names in the bible, they all have good meaning outcome like David means beloved.) <S> God bless <A> Immanuel means "god with us." <S> Christ means "messiah" which we know means savior. <S> As Christians we believe that Jesus is the only person who walked and never sinned. <S> God descending to Earth in human flesh.(while <S> the father still exists in heaven also. <S> Father, son, Holy Spirit) <S> And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. <S> People in Jesus life called him by the name Yeshua. <S> Really the thing that matters most is what Christ did for us. <S> The technicalities are good to have opinions on, but never something we divide ourselves over. <A> And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.	The best reason I know of is because God told them to name him Jesus Mat 1:21 KJV
Does the Lutheran view of pope as AntiChrist stem from doctrine of justification? I've heard popular retellings of the Lutheran view of pope as Antichrist that range from: a delusion that Pope Leo X was the incarnate figure of prophecy, to a slur (like calling George Washington a communist), to a conviction that it's a simple statement of the doctrine of justification: no one is "ante" (stands before, between Christ and sinner) in the mechanism of salvation A previous question focused on the role of prophecy in the idea. But my question is to what extent this concept is not a mere slur but rather a necessary consequence of the doctrine of justification. Both bases may offend, but one is unavoidable consequence of there being two different denominations. Quotes from Reformers and prominent Lutheran theologians are of interest. <Q> Despite my love for Martin Luther and the doctrine of justification, I believe the answer to your question is (for the most part) <S> yes. <S> While I don't believe that most modern Lutherans believe that the Pope is the Antichrist, Martin Luther did say it as a criticism of papal supremacy and the sale of indulgences. <S> So as you put it, a conviction that it's a simple statement of the doctrine of justification: no one is "ante" <S> (stands before, between Christ and sinner) in the mechanism of salvation <S> might be most correct for the original view held by Luther himself. <S> " <S> This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God." <S> --Martin <S> Luther <S> Some Lutherans may still have strong views regarding the Pope, but most do not. <S> The WELS webpage about this topic may give you additional insights into the view of some Confessional Lutherans, or at least some within WELS. <A> From what I had read in Roland Bainton's "Here I Stand", there were strong emotions between Luther, his followers, the Catholics and the Vatican. <S> The very concept of secularizing and commercializing the Catholic Church and its belief system (i.e. selling indulgences) brought the money-changers, dressed as the clergy, into the temple. <S> The Pope, being the head of the Church and condoning this activity, was seen by Luther as the Antichrist. <S> This in itself would have also compelled Luther to write his 95 <S> Theses. <A> I was originally raised in a conservative Lutheran church and household (Missouri synod split off church and later Wels). <S> Your speculations on Justification is a big part of the picture, but there are other elements as well especially the other "Solas". <S> Besides having major issues with Catholic Soteriology, Luther had major issues with the Magisterium, the pope as "Christ's representative on Earth" etc. <S> Having given my testimony I proceed to take up the bull. <S> Peter said that you should give a reason for the faith that is in you, but this bull condemns me from its own word without any proof from Scripture, whereas I back up all my assertions from the Bible. <S> I ask thee, ignorant Antichrist <S> , dost thou think that with thy naked words thou canst prevail against the armor of Scripture? <S> Hast thou learned this from Cologne and Louvain? <S> If this is all it takes, just to say, “I dissent, I deny," what foo1, <S> what ass, what mole, what log could not condemn? <S> Does not thy meretricious brow blush that with thine inane smoke thou withstandest the lightning of the divine Word? <S> Why do we not believe the Turks? <S> Why do we not admit the Jews? <S> Why do we not honor the heretic if damning is all that it takes? <S> But Luther, who is used to bellum, is not afraid of bullam . <S> I can distinguish between inane paper and the omnipotent Word of God. <S> http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/luther/againstexecrablebull.html <S> "This teaching [of the supremacy of the pope] shows forcefully that the Pope is the very Antichrist, who has exalted himself above, and opposed himself against Christ, because he will not permit Christians to be saved without his power, which, nevertheless, is nothing, and is neither ordained nor commanded by God”. <S> Smalcald Articles, II "nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist. <S> For who is the man of sin and the son of perdition, but he who by his teaching and his ordinances increases the sin and perdition of souls in the church; while he yet sits in the church as if he were God? <S> All these conditions have now for many ages been fulfilled by the papal tyranny." <S> Martin Luther, First Principles, pp. 196–197	Luther very much believed that the Pope was leading people away from the truth of the Gospel.
What is the role of a "Methodist lay pastor"? This site makes mention of a "Methodist lay pastor." What does this person do? How is this role different from the "pastor" in the Methodist Church? What type of religious training or education does this person have? <Q> The lay pastor can perform most of the duties of ordained ministers : <S> The certified lay minister shall preach the Word, provide a care ministry to the congregation, assist in program leadership, and be a witness in the community for the growth, missional and connectional thrust of The United Methodist Church as part of a ministry team with the supervision and support of a clergy person. <S> However, lay pastors cannot lead Holy Communion unless they receive special ordination to do so. <A> I expect in the context of your reference, the point is simply being made that the the mother of the author, Sandra Sue, has pastoral duties (perhaps leading a small group, Sunday school, etc), but is unpaid in this position, and has a professional career outside of the church. <S> The concept of a Lay pastor is not new, but is recently (in the last 10-20 years?) seeing a resurgence in popularity as a concept, at least in the U.S. <S> The basic idea is that lay people (those without formal pastoral or religious training) should be heavily involved in ministry. <S> A brief explanation, from the forward of a book co-authored by my father, The Lay Ministry Revolution: <S> How You Can Join : <S> During more than twenty years of pastoral ministry, I have often tried to fulfill the many expectations that go along with what I call a clergy-centered approach to ministry but have always ended up feeling frustrated and guilty. <S> I never have enough time, never enough talent, never enough energy to fulfill all the expectations. <S> And, while feeling overwhelmed, I have often observed laypeople who are gifted and willing to serve but remain stifled and unfulfilled in their expressions of discipleship. <S> I believe that many of the frustrations of both overburdened pastoral staff and unfulfilled laity spring from the same source--the unbiblical division of God's people into categories of "ministers" and "non-ministers. <S> " And I feel strongly that the solution to both problems, and a key to the church's spiritual power, is to be found in the recovery of lay ministry. <S> Another related concept is that of Tentmaking : <S> Tentmaking, in general, refers to the activities of any Christian who, while dedicating him or herself to the ministry of the Gospel, receives little or no pay for Church work, but performs other ("tentmaking") jobs to provide support. <S> Specifically, tentmaking can also refer to a method of international Christian evangelism in which missionaries support themselves by working full time in the marketplace with their skills and education, instead of receiving financial support from a Church. <S> The term comes from the fact that the apostle Paul supported himself by making tents while living and preaching in Corinth (Acts 18:3). <A> Lay pastor is actually an official designation in the Methodist church. <S> There is some formal training that goes along with it --but nothing that comes close to the training required of a fully ordained pastor. <S> I'm basing this answer on attending a Methodist church that has two fully ordained pastors and a lay pastor on staff.	In the United Methodist Church, a lay pastor is a church member who has received training and can assist with preaching and care ministries, but does not have a formal seminary education.
Did Jesus ascend to Heaven twice? While studying the book of John I came to: Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17, KJV) Jesus would not allow Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection until he had ascended to God the father, and in: Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. (John 20:27, KJV) Because he tells Thomas to stick his hand into his side, does it indicate that he had already ascended to God the father in Heaven? Then in Luke we have the account of him ascending into Heaven as he was blessing the disciples. Are there any other passages which might help answer my question? <Q> The Gospels, Matthew and Luke, are based off of the gospel of Mark and the gospel of John is based independently on its own source. <S> The Savior said He was not to be touched until He has ascended to God. <S> Perhaps He was to present Himself Resurrected to His Father. <S> As far as we can tell by His conversation with the disciples versus His conversation with Mary, this had occurred by the time he was with the disciples. <S> Also, I believe it is implied in Acts that the Savior visited people after that ascension after Mary saw him. <S> Edit: Places where the Savior shows up after resurrection (not comprehensive): <S> Matthew 28:9-10 <S> (held him by the feet),Matthew 28:16-20,Mark 16:12 =? <S> Luke 24:13-33,Mark 16:14 =? <S> Luke 24:36-49 =? <S> John 20:26-29,John 20:19-23,John 21, Acts <S> 1:3Acts <S> 7:55Acts 9:5Acts <S> 9:10Acts <S> 9:27Acts 10:40Acts 13:31Acts <S> 18:9Acts <S> 22:18Acts 23:11Acts 26:16 1 Cor. <S> 15:6 <A> In the passage in John 20:17, the word used for Touch ἅπτομαι , is not used in John 20:27. <S> This word is used in different ways throughout the bible. <S> This means that it is not unreasonable for the passage to have meant "to hold on to" or "grasp". <S> Some eisegesis here, but if a person had a loved one they presumed to be dead, and they find them alive. <S> What would they do? <S> I would embrace them in excitement. <S> Now this is speculation, but we do know that Jesus wanted Mary Magdalene to not touch him (embrace) and instead wanted her to tell His disciples the news. <S> The passage never explicitly states that she did not touch him either, but the next verse makes it reasonable to believe that she did not since it says that Mary saw Jesus. <S> Furthermore I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God <S> There seems to be the assumption that this means Jesus ascended into heaven at that very moment, which doesn't seem to be apparent to me. <S> Also, look at other translations <S> Many translate ἅπτομαι as hold. <A> IMO Jesus ascended after talking with Mary and before meeting the brothers in Galilee. <S> The whole picture of the sacrifices and offerings and the feasts days in the OT are a picture of the Messiah. <S> During the Passover week <S> (days of Unleavened Bread) <S> the Lord told the Jews to do this. <S> After sunset ending the regular Sat. sabbath the High Priest went to the field and cut enough barley to make an omer (1/10 of an ephah) for an offering to the God of the firstfruits of the harvest. <S> This was called the 'Wave Offering'. <S> Very early the next morning on the first day of the week they beat the barley grain off the stalk and cleaned it of chaff, purifying it. <S> Then the High Priest lifted up the bowl containing the omer of barley and brought back down. <S> Jesus was the Firstfruits of the Resurrection. <S> I believe that as the High Priest cut the stalks loose from the ground Jesus was Resurrected shortly after sunset on the Sat. sabbath which would have been the beginning of the first day of the week for the Jews. <S> Then Mary sees Him. "say to them, I ascend to My Father". <S> As the High Priest lifted up the omer of barley as a firstfruits offering, Jesus ascended to His Father as the Firstfruits offering of the Resurrection. <A> There is evidence that Jesus ascended to heaven twice, but this evidence does not come out of John's Gospel but out of Luke/Acts. <S> First of all, Luke 24:13 tells us that what follows occurred on the same day as the resurrection: <S> And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. <S> Then, Luke 24:33-36 tells us that the two returned to Jerusalem and that Jesus appeared to them the same evening: <S> And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread. <S> And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. <S> And the same evening, Jesus took the disciples towards Bethany, where he was lifted up to heaven: <S> And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. <S> And it came to pass, <S> while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven . <S> Another, more famous occasion occurs after forty days, near the mount of Olivet <S> (Acts 1:3,9): <S> Acts 1:3 : <S> To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: Acts 1:9: <S> And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up ; and a cloud received him out of their sight. <S> Only the author of Luke/Acts writes of Jesus being taken up bodily to heaven in the sight of the disciples <S> (The ' Long Ending ' of Mark was written later and briefly follows the lead of Luke ). <S> The first occasion, in Luke's Gospel, was on the day of his resurrection. <S> When writing Acts, he may have wished to bring the Jewish festival of the Pentecost into his story, and so wrote of the ascension after forty days <S> and then the Pentecost on the fiftieth day.	So yes, he had ascended before the time they saw His final ascension in the first chapter of Acts.
Why do Salvation Army members wear uniforms in the church? I have seen Salvation Army church members going to church in white uniforms. Here is a sample image (source) . What is the role of uniforms in the Salvation Army? Is it compulsory for them to wear uniforms in the church? <Q> As a Soldier of The Salvation Army, I wear my uniform, in the same way others might wear a cross around their neck or something, the uniform identifies the wearer as a soldier of The Salvation Army, but more importantly as a Christian. <S> This excerpt from the New Zealand. <S> Fiji, Tonga Website answers the questions "Does a soldier have to wear the uniform, and why?" <S> Today, not all Salvationists wear uniforms—it has become a personal choice. <S> But the reasons for wearing a uniform are unchanged—to show a commitment to a war against evil; a personal testimony to the wearer's own Christian faith and practice; and to signify to those in need that the wearer is available to help or listen. <A> This is an old thread <S> but I just found it. <S> As a Salvation Army Soldier who feels called into officership I want to answer this. <S> The SA (Salvation Army) does not do water baptisms, nor do they partake of communion <S> (another story for another time) <S> But we do have the Uniform. <S> The uniform is an outward statement of an inward change much like Baptisms. <A> It tells the onlooker that the person wearing uniform is a professing Christian and that he or she is available to give practical or spiritual help through the Movement, if not personally. <S> Uniform also opens the way for the wearer to be recognized and accepted as the representative of The Salvation Army in all kinds of situations. <S> There are also personal advantages in uniform-wearing. <S> It helps the wearer to remember to live up to the Christian profession he or she has made. <S> In difficult or dangerous situations the uniform can give the wearer a measure of protection. <S> I remember every moment I wear my uniform that I represent the covenant that I signed as a soldier to live a christian life and live HAND TO MAN AND HEART TO GOD.	Wearing uniform also gives Salvationists a feeling of fellowship when they meet.
How do decentralized churches/denominations practically deal with "brothers" from another denomination in light of Matthew 18:17 "If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church ; and if they refuse to listen even to the church , treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector." It must be noted that the word Church is used in the singular form - not a church, and not one of the churches. In light of this verse, what happens in a situation where there are two " brothers " from two different denominations, (baptist, presbyterian, pentacostal, etc.) and one of the brothers commits a very scandalous, heinous sin against the other. Who's church would the sinful brother be taken to? Either church would have no jurisdictional rights over the other. As a Catholic I know that there is a canonical process for one to follow...but the RCC is the most centralized religious body in the world. Have any Protestant pastors here ever had to deal with a situation like this? <Q> If appealing to authority is necessary, then you would have to appeal to authority that the brother in the wrong is submitting himself to. <S> In this case, it would need to be someone in his congregation (or its hierarchy of authority). <S> The entire goal of the church discipline described in Mt 18 is to win him over to the truth. <S> He ought to have close ties to the people in the congregation he's a part of, and so if those people must cut him off, the hope is that he will care about those lost/damaged relationships enough to reconsider what he's doing and repent. <A> Short answer: <S> More details: <S> Baptists (in general) and other decentralized denominations tend to hold to the autonomy of the local Church. <S> This means a single local congregation, typically a group that meets in one building under the care of one pastor. <S> It precludes the very possibility of being accountable to anything other than the local Church that you are a member of. <S> References: <S> 1 <S> 2 <S> 3 <S> The membership of a particular local congregation is a voluntary thing. <S> Nobody forces anyone to recognize a Church authority, we choose to join with like-minded brothers and sisters in Christ in a local Church. <S> We voluntarily place ourselves under the authority of the Pastor of said Church, and discipline is typically handled through the deacons/Pastor/members that we have voluntarily chosen to bind ourselves to. <S> With that in mind, we recognize that if any brother or sister in Christ is in need of discipline, it is not our place to do so. <S> We will speak to them, try to point out the error of their ways, and perhaps bring more than one brother in to try to talk sense into them, but the very idea of us having authority over anyone who has not willingly chosen to subject themselves to the authority of our particular Church is simply unthinkable. <S> It makes no sense. <S> If subjecting ourselves to a Church's authority is voluntary, how can we possibly claim any authority over anyone that has not voluntarily chosen to align themselves with us? <S> It's not a matter of not recognizing that this person is a brother in Christ <S> , it's just that we don't claim any sort of authority over that brother. <A> I remember when Dr. Walter Martin, the "Bible Answer Man", met with a man regarding false doctrine and asked another member of that man's church to accompany him in accordance with this passage. <S> That's how one man handled it.	Baptists would qualify as a "decentralized" denomination, and from a baptist perceptive, the answer is "we wouldn't deal with brothers from another church/denomination in that manner".
What's the difference between 'Divine Providence' and 'Holy Spirit' in this statement? In the 22nd annual meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee , they released a statement that said: Jews and Christians share the heritage of the biblical testimony of God's relationship with the human family throughout history. Our Scriptures bear witness to both individuals and the people as a whole being called, taught, guided and protected by Divine Providence. In light of this sacred history, Catholic and Jewish participants in the meeting responded to emerging opportunities and difficulties facing religious belief and practice in today's world. Why, in the official statement above, signed by Catholic Church and Jews, is 'Divine Providence' used, and not 'Holy Spirit'? Perhaps there is an ontological difference between 'Divine Providence' and 'Holy Spirit'? If so, can anyone explain what the difference is? <Q> One Theory : It's possible that the Jews (which Jews? <S> There's not just one body of "orthodox" Jews.) <S> do not wish to endorse the Christian idea of the Trinity. <S> The Holy Spirit is not exactly described as a divine person in the OT. <S> "Spirit" and "Spirit of God" are used, but not really in the same sense as "Holy Spirit" is used in the NT. <S> Perhaps alluding to the Holy Spirit is not a concession that the Jews wish to make, and for the sake of expressing positive things in common, "Divine Providence" was something both groups could agree on. <A> God (or, if you will, the Divine Essence) is identical with His attributes—including Providence—and also with each one of the Persons. <S> (The best exposition of this idea is St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa theolgia , I, q. 3, a. 3 ; and I, q. 39, a. 1 .) <S> I expect, however, that “Holy Spirit” was not used because Jews in general do not, of course, accept the dogma of the Holy Trinity, and “Holy Spirit” in Catholic theology specifically refers to the Third Person of the Trinity. <S> In order to achieve a consensus, a term acceptable to both parties in the joint statement was used. <A> In the Christian tradition, the "Holy Spirit" refers specifically to the "advocate" Jesus promises God will send to his followers after Jesus' crucifixion, see John 14:26. <S> While it seemingly makes sense to equate the Holy Spirit with the Old Testament manifestations of God's presence, I assume the neither the Catholics nor the Jews who prepared the paper you quote wanted to make a leap of that magnitude.	To answer the O.P.’s question directly, there is no ontological difference between Divine Providence and the Holy Spirit.
What is the official Roman Catholic Bible? If I want to buy a copy of the Bible, which version does one buy that would be the official Roman Catholic version? It seems the Kings James version is the most popular, is that the one? Will this contain both the New and Old Testament? <Q> The Official Bible is the Vulgate , translated into Latin from (mainly) Greek by St. Jerome in the 4th Century after the canon was finally established. <S> The Council of Trent's Fourth Session defined the old Vulgate as authentic ( source ): <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 ages, 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> I wrote another answer here a while ago about whether Catholics can read the NIV that might be of use to you. <S> The point is, Catholics should look to the Church for official interpretation no matter what the translation is. <A> There is a list of several approved English translations published by the USCCB. <S> The Vatican has a copy of the New American Bible on it's website. <S> These translations include the New Testament and the Roman Catholic Old Testament Canon . <S> The King James Version is a popular translation for English-speaking Protestant Christians. <S> It contains the New Testament and the Protestant Old Testament Canon . <S> There is a subset of conservative English-speaking Christians that consider it to be the only authorized version of the Bible but for most English-speaking Christians <S> it is only one of many popular translations . <A> Those Bibles comprised only 66 books <S> both Old and New testament are not Catholic Bible. <S> For the Catholic believers much better to use the Catholic Bible than to use the protestant Bible which have been a lot twisted verse from the original Bible called Septuagint.	THE official Bible in the Roman Catholic Church is the Latin Vulgate Bible or it could be the Enlish version which contained 73 books.46 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New testament. If you're looking for an English translation, any Bible with an imprimatur should be good.
Are all of the red letter text the words of Jesus? To what extent can we be sure that the red letters in a KJV Bible are the actual words of Jesus? <Q> The 'red letters' are not themselves part of the KJV translation. <S> The red letters appear in many different translation of the Bible. <S> To answer the question: no, there is not universal agreement about exactly what words in the Bible were spoken by Jesus. <S> The New Testament languages did not include punctuation like quote marks. <S> Occasionally however it is hard to tell where a quote of Jesus ends and where an explanation from the Gospel author begins. <S> For example in John 3 there is some uncertainty about whether Jesus quote which begins in verse 10 continues to verse 21 or stops after verse 15, with the remainder being explanation by the author. <S> If you are asking about actual words, then Jesus probably spoke in Aramaic, and so even the original Greek is not an untranslated quote. <S> English and other modern language renditions are further translations. <A> TL;DR to the same extent we can be sure that the KJV translation is accurate at <S> all Bible translators use their understanding of ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic to study the different Biblical manuscripts that they have available to them to determine how to translate the words. <S> Since the manuscripts don't use quotation marks, the translation process includes determining which words are actually Christ's words. <S> The practice of highlighting Christ's words in red text was started by Louis Klopsch in 1899. <S> It's especially helpful in the KJV and in other translations that don't use quotation marks. <S> It's also important to know that not all of the words highlighted in red are where the author quoted Christ. <S> Some Bibles also highlight Christophanies (basically visions of Christ) in the Old Testament and the Epistles. <A> Whether the words are red or black, those are the words of Jesus. <S> Of course the words were originally written in Greek, Latin, or Hebrew. <S> But nevertheless, these are the very words of Jesus through the eyewitnesses of those people in that time. <S> Some translations are questionable.(I.E. The Message by Eugene Peterson) <S> Some versions of the Bible translate it either word for word, or thought for thought. <S> But overall, they are Inspired by God and written by Godly men.	Most of the time it is pretty clear from the text where Jesus words begin and end.
Why does John 1 say "the Word was with God" and not "scripture was with God"? Given that the Bible and Scripture is referred to as God's word, would the meaning of John 1:1 and John 1:14 be changed if the word 'scripture' was interchanged for the word 'word'? John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. <Q> In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and <S> the Word was God. <S> (John 1:1, NIV) <S> All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. <S> (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV) <S> The Greek word for ' Word ' in John 1:1 is Logos(λόγος) and ' Scripture ' in <S> 2 Timothy 3:16 is Graphey(γραφή). <S> Though 'Word' and 'Scripture' are very much related, they are necessarily not the same. <S> Scripture' in the context of the Bible mostly refers to the written words of God. <S> Scripture is a subset of the Word. <S> The Scripture may represent the Word and illustrates the picture of the Word <S> but it cannot fully explain it, because scriptures are written in human language which has limitations to describe Heavenly things. <S> We cannot say that the words we have in the Bible are the only words that God has spoken. <S> Therefore, the Scripture that we have is not equivalent to the Word, it is only part of the Word. <S> Hence, John 1:1 was written as such by the writer, using Word(λόγος), instead of Scripture(γραφή), where the Word refers to Jesus Christ, who is the source of Scripture. <A> It's because the Greek word translated as "Word" is " Logos " and it basically means" something that communicates." <S> Historically, it has a very particular philosophical meaning that may encompass "Scripture," but also exceeds it. <S> The Context of John 1:1 and John 1:14 speaks of a Person having the function of being the Logos in the sense of "revealer": John 1:18 <S> No one has ever seen God yet; The Unique One [who is] God [in nature], is in the bosom of the Father. <S> This one he did exegete . <A> There is no need to interchange words in this case, the verse stands on its own. <S> The Word was with God and the Word was God. <S> The Word is Jesus ChristAnd <S> the Word was God. <S> The word God identifies the name of a "family", the same as Human beings identify a "family". <S> Birds identify a "family", dogs and cats identify a "family"So it would make sense that if Jesus is of the "family" of God he would be called God. <S> The same that our children are called human. <S> We have different names, personalities, beliefs but we are members of the Human family, the same as Jesus is of the God family. <S> Although he has a different name he's identified as God because he is of the God family. <S> Make sense? <A> Why John used the word Logos (λόγος) is open to debate, but I think that there are two main reasons. <S> First, using logos ties back to the thought of the philosopher Philo, thus providing a transition into the gospel and the nature of Christ. <S> Philo was a Jew who lived in Alexandria and whom the Stoic philosophers there influenced. <S> He thought that God's perfection did not allow Him to have any direct contact with the world, so that He had to have a mediator. <S> Philo believed that this mediator took the form of an inferior god, the Logos, who was the link between God and man. <S> By using the word Logos in John 1:1, John indicated that Jesus is the sought-for Mediator. <S> By declaring that the Word was with God and was God, John transitioned into the true nature of Christ by showing that Jesus was not the same as Philo's conception of the Logos. <S> Second, saying that Scripture was with God and was God in the beginning is not what John was trying to convey, and is therefore insubstantial. <S> John is the only writer in the New Testament to use Logos in such a fashion, and he does so in four places: <S> John 1:1, John 1:14, 1 John 5:7, and Revelation 19:13. <S> These verses indicate that Christ is the Logos, not Scripture itself. <S> Using the word Scripture in John 1:1 obligates one to use "Scripture" in 1 John 5:7, thus "... <S> the Father, the Scripture, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." <S> and also in Revelation 19:13, thus that He who judges, makes war, whose eyes are a flame of fire, and who has many crowns, must also have the name "Scripture". <S> Rather this Person is the Logos, the Mediator between God and man and God Himself. <S> Note that Hebrews says that there is one Mediator between God and man: the man Jesus Christ. <S> Note also that John was written for the Greeks as well as the Jews, for John explains many Jewish words and concepts. <S> My sources are the several excerpts from Bible scholars including Marvin R. Vincent, Hugh R. Mackintosh, and Frederic Godet contained in the website http://www.bible-researcher.com/logos.html , as well as the Bible study on the book of John titled "Be Alive" by Warren W. Wiersbe. <A> In a sense, this is a metaphor for Jesus. <S> In the beginning was the word (Jesus) <S> the word was with God (Jesus with God) and the word was God (Jesus being a part of the "Godhead" trinity). <S> Word here in my opinion, does not reflect upon scripture itself, but it represents Jesus. <S> Thus Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us.	The 'Word' in the context of John-1 is a divine entity, which is Jesus Christ, who existed in the beginning with God. ' It doesn't say scripture was with God because it was nothing that was written, the Word is an actual being.
What is the Roman Catholic interpretation of John 3:16? For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16, NIV) What is the Roman Catholic way of interpreting John 3:16, the most popular verse in the Bible? What does the word "perish" mean? <Q> I can't answer for the Catholic interpretation of Perish in John 3:16, but I can give you the Catholic approach to reading the Bible and my opinion of that. <S> It's all pretty obvious and doesn't help, but should shed light on why this is an unanswerable (yet good) question. <S> The four senses of scripture <S> Literal John 3:16 literally means "shall not perish", the same way Jesus said to Peter later in the Book that the disciple whom He loved might live until He returns. <S> Moral John 3:16 instructs the faithful just how much God the Father loves His children. <S> If you love someone you will make the ultimate sacrifice for them. <S> To die in ones sins, would be a metaphorical interpretation of the word perish. <S> Eternal <S> Here's where perish means, suffer the fire of hell and that would be true too. <S> So, there's 4 legitimate ways of looking at the same piece of scripture neither of which negate the other, neither of which are authoritative. <A> The simplest answer, Catholic or otherwise, given the context would be that the word "perish" here means hell. <S> The Catholic Church does not usually have official interpretations of individual scripture passages, Catholics view the bible as a whole. <S> For example if you view this passage alone you can say that all you need is to believe in Jesus and you will not perish. <S> But reading on in the same chapter (verse 36) we see "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him" <S> This passage adds more meaning to John 3:16. <S> Here obedience and faith play role in salvation. <S> Of course just because the Church does not have an official interpretation of each bible passage that doesn't mean that individual Catholics can't interpret the passages by themselves. <S> As long as they stay withing the Catholic faith and using the four senses of scripture as outlined in answer by Peter Turner. <A> John 3:16 tells us that: God gave His only begotten Son, Jesus, to live for us and die for our sins on the Cross (see also Romans 5:8) <S> The word“believe” means that we must commit our life to Him and follow Him asour Lord and our God. <S> Believing in Jesus means we will not “perish,” meaning we won’t spendall of our life and all eternity separated from the presence of Godin hell. <S> When we turn our life over to Jesus by believing in Him, He gives us“everlasting life.” <S> Everlasting life begins the moment you believein Jesus and begin to follow Him, and it continues into heavenitself.	We must believe in Jesus in order to have eternal life. Metaphorical Perish could mean die a spiritual death as easily as it means die a physical death.
Would aliens invalidate Christianity as we know it? If we discover other intelligent life forms in the universe, would this change Christianity in any way or not? For the sake of the argument, let's presume we will find human-like life in a newly discovered planet in our solar system. <Q> It wouldn't change Christianity it all. <S> The Bible does not suggest that it contains all knowledge and all revelation. <S> There is a lot it does not reveal. <S> The Eternal Triune God created the universe of time, space and matter and everything in it. <S> Mankind was created in the image of God. <S> (Genesis 1:26-27) <S> Mankind sinned against God and thereby incurred God's punishment. <S> (Genesis 3) God the Son, the Third Person of the Trinity, entered into creation through the virgin birth and then received the name Jesus (Yeshua/God saves). <S> Jesus died on the Cross to take upon Himself the punishment incurred by us. <S> By faith in Jesus, Christ's work on the Cross is credited to our account, freeing us from the penalty of sin and making us sons and daughters of God. <S> There is a final judgment for every person where those who follow Christ are rewarded and those who reject Christ will pay the penalty for sin themselves. <S> This is the reality for us. <S> The reality for other intelligent life would have no impact on our reality, other than that our reality would acknowledge that there was other intelligent life. <S> Is it impossible for God to enter into His creation again? <S> No. <S> It wouldn't matter to us if He did, though. <S> So, no, Christianity would not change at all. <A> Interesting question!One that I've wondered from time to time. <S> My thought is this: Had we (human beings) not rebel against God, and instead follow His plan for us, we probably would have reached the technological advances that allow us to travel between galaxies today. <S> And yes, we probably would find other sentient beings in this vast universe that God has created for us (if not alongside with us). <S> Think about it, earth is but a speck of dust compared to the universe <S> , why did God put us here and the stars out there if He didn't mean for us to reach it? <S> I'm sorry if this answer slightly violate the StackExchange rule because it is purely my speculation, but I am excited when I think this way because it makes me look forward to the future of what we may do with Christ as our King. <S> I believe science and technology will have their place in the new Heaven and Earth. <A> NO! <S> Why? <S> The Bible never say that we are the only people in this universe. <S> The Bible was written for men on this planet Earth and Jesus came for the people on this planet Earth. <S> Man is the center of interest in the Bible. <S> God created man and when man failed to remain righteous, God came down to planet Earth to die for the people in this Earth. <S> That's all the Bible records. <S> It has no reference to any other life on other planets. <S> The Bible never say that we are the only people created in his own image nor there are others. <S> The Bible is simply silent on this. <S> Hence, the Bible can't be wrong in any case, whether aliens are discovered or not. <S> Even if aliens are discovered today, that won't change a thing. <S> Who knows if God created other human on another planet, who also failed like us and Jesus already died for them also. <S> However, it is irrelevant for us. <A> Exactly what does what else God may have created in the Universe have to do with what happened here on Earth? <S> God is sovereign he can create as many planets and people as he desires to fulfill his wants. <S> Whether or not he decides to extend his great love to multiple planets and peoples makes absolutely no difference in our relationship to him. <S> It seems to me that to even think that we are the only ones God could or even does love is sort of egotistical. <S> Looking at what I've written it may seem that I'm scolding or deriding, but that is not the case. <S> I am simply stating my point of view and do not in any way wish to cast aspersions on anyone. <A> There are Christians that have already discovered other intelligent life forms. <S> Some, like Ria Kotze ('Journey Beyond Tomorrow), believe that the angel that anounced the birth of Jesus was"the lord of Capricorn Command". <S> Jesus, they say, arrived on a "specially constructed interdimensional starship of indesceibable beauty" - the Star of Bethlehem. <S> For these Christians it was the discovery of earthlings by aliens that led to Christianity. <S> So the experts in these matters would surely agree with the mainstream Christians. <S> Discovering aliens would not change the plans in place for Christianity.	The presence of other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe would not change our own reality, which includes the following:
What is the basis for the belief that the wise men did not arrive in Bethlehem until several months after the birth of Jesus? Many depictions of the nativity have both the shepherds and the wise men at the stable on the night of Jesus' birth. However, it is commonly held that the wise men did not arrive until several months after the birth of Jesus. What specifically is the basis for this belief? <Q> Matthew chapter 2: KJV 8 <S> And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child ; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also. <S> 9 <S> When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. <S> 11 <S> And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. <S> 13 <S> And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. <S> 14 <S> When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: <S> In these Scriptures Jesus is referred to as a child and not a babe . <S> In the following scripture is where it is thought that Jesus was at least a year old and maybe as old as two when the Wise men arrived. <S> Mat 2:16 <S> KJV <S> Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men . <S> Even though this is not definitive it is a pretty strong argument that Jesus was no longer a babe. <A> If you read the account in Luke 2:1-20, you'll find no mention of Magi at the manger, just shepherds. <S> There, Jesus is born in Bethlehem. <S> In Matthew 2:1-18, we find the Magi arriving at Jerusalem, from the scribes there they find out the scripture which places the Messiah in Bethlehem (2:5-6), and follow the star, which is low enough to appear over a specific dwelling, over a house, not a manger. <S> Jesus is called a Child at that point, not a babe (1:9). <S> The Magi went home a different way and Herod, finding out, send soldiers to kill newborns 2 years old and younger. <S> So Jesus was several months to a couple years older at that point. <A> See this wikipedia article , which mentions the Bible account in Matthew. <S> Basically, the Bible refers to Jesus as being a "child" at the time. <S> Also, Herod killed the male population under 2, which is probably the upper limit on Jesus' age at the time. <S> Nothing concrete here, but enough evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion that it was some months after the birth. <A> Luke tells us that there was a time gap between Jesus' birth and the appearance of the Wise Men. <S> In Luke 2:22, he says that after Mary's days of purification were completed, they took Jesus to the Temple to present Him to the Lord, as required in Leviticus 12:2-8. <S> Purification after the birth of a male child was 40 days, so we know that the Wise Men came some time after that, since the angel ordered Joseph to flee to Egypt as soon as they left Bethlehem (Matthew 2:13). <A> In discussions in which I have been involved, the basis for this belief appears to be a need to harmonise the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. <S> Luke 2:22 has the baby Jesus being taken from Bethlehem to Jerusalem for his circumcision, a little over a month after his birth, so at this stage he had not yet been taken from Bethlehem to Egypt, as we read in Matthew chapter 2 . <S> Matthew 2:16 makes it clear that Jesus was less than two years old, but how much less we do not know: <S> Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. <S> Matthew certainly offers better prospects of referring to Jesus' departure from Bethlehem to Egypt being later than Luke's departure from Bethlehem to Nazareth in Galilee. <S> It only requires that Mary and Joseph returned from Jerusalem to Bethlehem shortly after the temple visit, instead of returning home immediately, as Luke 2:39 states: <S> And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. <A> I would like to add a verse which clearly says that Jesus was in a house and not in the manger : <S> Matthew 2:11 : <S> And when they were come into the house , they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. <S> (emphasis added) <S> So Jesus was not in the manger when the wise men visited.	That the wise men did not arrive until Jesus was a child and no longer an infant is derived from several Scriptures, particularly in Matthew.
Why can't people change their denomination? As my profile says, I don't belong to any denomination and I can't answer this question myself. Recently, there was a question from a Catholic woman having difficulty in her love relationship because her boyfriend from Jehovah's Witness can't marry her. The main problem that I suspect is that both of them are not ready to change their denomination. Here is the thing I can't understand. What is the problem with changing our denomination? Why don't people want to change their denomination? I am ready to join any denomination if required, let it be Catholic, JW, Seventh Day, Orthodox, I don't mind as long as I can read the Bible and worship Jesus. I obviously have my personal choices. I like to go to a church that uses modern instruments, good music system, good worship songs, good sermons, good Bible study programs and a good and supporting community. For now, I prefer to remain denomination-less but I think I can join any denomination and adhere to their doctrines and ordinances, if their is no other choice available. Why are people reluctant to change their denomination? What is the reason why some people cannot change their denomination? What are the major hindrances in changing the denomination? What kind of challenges are faced after changing the denomination? <Q> For instance, the Catholic Church clearly teaches that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian faith, and that without a valid transubstantial reception of the Eucharist the human soul will eventually wither away. <S> On the other hand, most Baptist camps teach and believe that the Eucharist is only a symbolic memorial of the Last Supper, and really has nothing to do with salvific Grace other than a Christ-given ordinance of worship. <S> ... <S> two totally different denominational doctrines... <S> (I chose these two denominations for no specific anti-ecclesiastical reason other than comparison of doctrine) <S> Another example is justification by Grace alone through a working faith taught by pre-Reformation churches versus justification by faith alone taught by the majority of Protestant denominations. <S> On crucially important doctrines such as these, you are either right or wrong. <S> This is why its infinitely and eternally important to find the right denomination (well...at least as close as possible). <S> Of course there are many other superfulous reasons why people stay where they are, such as familial pressure and tradition. <S> I really hate focusing on differences rather than what we all have in common, but this question seems to draw lines in the sand. <S> It must be said that there will always be overlapping areas of grey, and the Holy Spirit knows what he is doing. <A> This is especially true between different Protestant denominations. <S> I've been Anglican, Pentecostal, Mennonite and United Church. <S> In the specific case you quote, the Jehovah's Witnesses quite literally believe that all other Branches of Christianity are apostate - i.e. they are not really Christians at all. <S> Most denominations are nowhere near that exclusive. <S> The Witnesses are a Restorationist church, who believe that the entire church went off the rails and started worshipping a false God (the Trinity), and that their original leader had a specific revelation that told him to restart the true church. <S> To them, marrying a Catholic is no different from marrying a non-Christian. <S> Why are people reluctant to change denomination? <S> Many aren't, but where they are it is usually because they believe what their denomination teaches and don't want to be part of a church that teaches something different. <S> The amount of reluctance depends on how important that person perceives the differences. <S> There is also the question of leving an established community. <S> Changing church is a significant upheaval, and people rarely change without a good reason. <S> Hindrances to changing denomination. <S> Some denominations require rebaptism, or some other initiation before accepting a new member. <S> That's rarely onerous, but it can be a hindrance for some. <S> In a free country there is pretty much no reason why people cannot change denomination if they really want. <S> For people who do change denomination, there will be a time of building of a new community to replace the one left. <S> There may be a learning of new ways of doing things. <S> The difficulty of this depends on the magnitude of the transition. <A> A person embrace a denomination usually based on two things: They grew up in the denomination <S> They are discipled by people from a certain denomination <S> And neither of these are wrong, because denominations help us to create a frame of mind on how to relate to God when we started as a young Christian . <S> But here is the crux of the problem, many Christian made the denomination their source of power and knowledge for spiritual growth , instead of The Holy Spirit (ref. 1 Corinthians 2:10-16). <S> This is why we see people debate endlessly about denomination-specific doctrines. <S> Instead of letting ourselves be grown by God (ref. 1 Corinthians 3:6-7), we try to grow ourselves by choosing to adopt the beliefs of the denomination founders or teachers. <S> The Apostle Paul already warned that we should not choose any (human) sides when it comes to our growth. <S> We should have the mind of Christ, and by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, our final goal is to be Christ's image <S> ('icon' in Greek), not becoming the paragon or champion of the denomination that we belong to. <S> I do not belong to any denominations, but I learned great truths by studying those saints whose heart is solely consumed and focused towards God. <S> I learned from Saint Thomas Aquinas (Catholic), I learned from Alistair Begg (Evangelical Reformed), R.C. Sproul (Presbytarian), I learned from Eli Stanley Jones (Methodist), and many, many more. <S> How do I reconcile the points where they differ? <S> I don't <S> , I wait for the Holy Spirit to direct me towards the ones that will grow me closer to God. <S> And no, none of the denominations has all of the truths, but almost all of the denomination teachings can be used for our growth by God . <S> Not by ourselves nor by any other human beings. <S> So, can we change denominations?By all means, but don't focus on the denominations, focus on Christ, read and study the Scriptures with a submitting, and waiting heart, and God through His own Holy Spirit <S> will grow you from the inside. <S> It is a marvelous experience. <A> Someone who knows that the doctrines of his present church are true and revealed by God would commit a sin if he were to change to a church with different doctrines, which he knows to be false.	The primary reason why serious Christians cannot switch denominations is because the doctrines surrounding salvation have eternal consequences. In general people change their denominations all the time. For people changing denomination may be perceived as a slight to family or traditions.
Did Jesus have a normal childhood? We are told nothing about Jesus childhood except what is recorded in the second chapter of Luke. Luke Chapter 2 KJV 21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. 22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; 23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) 24 And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons. 39 And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. 43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. 46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. 47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. 48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? Since Jesus at age twelve was keenly aware that he was the son of God, it begs to question whether or not Jesus ran and played with the other children or not. <Q> James: Why don't you ever punish Jesus? <S> Is He your favorite? <S> Joseph: He never does anything wrong. <S> James: Jesus always knows the right answer, its not like <S> He is God or something. <S> Mary: <S> Actually He is, so go back and try again. <S> Humor aside, this is illustrative. <S> We know that He had siblings according to Mat 13:55-56 <S> “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? <S> Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? <S> Aren’t all his sisters with us? <S> Where then did this man get all these things?” <S> So He had at least 4 brothers and 3 sisters based on the grammer. <S> We also know that had emotions. <S> He often greeted His friends/disciples with "Rejoice". <S> "Rejoice and be exceeding glad" <S> (Matthew 5:12). <S> Also consider that The One enthroned in heaven laughs (Psa 2:4). <S> He also cried, see Jhn 11:35-36 <S> Jesus wept. <S> Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” <S> Jesus is fully human and fully God according to many passages; like Hbr 2:9 <S> But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, <S> so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. <S> Based on all this we can surmise that Jesus did normal childhood things, except he always obeyed and never got in trouble. <S> There is no recorded history of Him running and playing or having a dirty diaper or scraping His knee but I am reasonable sure <S> He did all of those things and more. <S> It is important, according to the Bible, that we be able to identify with Him. <A> There are fictional accounts of the life of Jesus, such as the Gnostic Infancy Gospel of Thomas which relate stories such as: <S> Jesus making sparrows out of clay on Sunday Jesus blinding Pharisees <S> Jesus resurrecting one of his playmates. <S> The problem is that this fictional account is just that - it was never recognized as anything other than a story by any of the respected church fathers. <S> These stories are inconsistent with the character of the Jesus recorded in the Gospel. <A> Exactly how normal of a childhood Jesus had is unclear. <S> The Bible is mostly silent on the matter: we never hear even hear what happened to Joseph after the incident in the temple. <S> That said, I find the passages already quoted in this question and the answers to it to be telling in their own way. <S> Consider Matthew 13:55-56, quoted in @Joshua's answer: the people who knew Jesus and his family while he was growing up still don't seem to have had any clue as to his origins. <S> It's surprising what can happen in normal-seeming families, but there are limits: there may well have been extraordinary elements to the childhood of Jesus, but at the same time, it must have been normal enough to pass for mundane in the regular society of the time.	There are simply no extant records on the life of Jesus that are recognized by scholars as having any validity.
What is the emotional appeal of the trinity? I have spoken to many who believe in the Trinity. I many times try to present the view the Jesus is the second greatest being in the universe and that he was created by his father Jehovah God. I also say that we should have faith in Jesus and his ransom sacrifice. He deserves our love and utmost respect, but that we should only worship Jehovah the God that Jesus prayed to. I understand why someone wouldn't believe this is true, but I am less sure why someone would get upset about it. I get the feeling people love the trinity. Is there something about the trinity that has an emotional appeal to it? Sometimes I try to pose a hypothetical and say "Imagine it were true that the trinity is false." Even if they consider it as a hypothetical truth, they prefer the trinity over the alternative. It is this preference that I am interested in. Why the preference? For instance, some have the preference of believing in hellfire because they want there to be punishment for evil. So if they had a choice, in a hypothetical situation, to choose hell over no hell, they choose hell. p.s. - I don't want to debate the trinity, I just want to understand more the emotion involved. <Q> The simplest answer is that denying the Trinity diminishes the person of Jesus. <S> There is an enormous gap between saying that Jesus is the Almighty God and saying that he is one of God's creations. <S> Even if Jesus was God's first and greatest creation, he would still be much less awesome than if he were God himself. <S> So, it is understandable that trinitarians would be offended by someone who degrades Jesus from God to a mere creation. <S> The person of Jesus Christ is, obviously, central to the Christian faith, so to differ in such a large way on such a central belief is, in the mind of many, the height of heresy. <S> People holding to this view would argue that salvation for the world could not be achieved by the death of a mere man, even if he was a sinless man. <S> People holding to this view would therefore be further offended by a unitarian* because, in their mind, the unitarian would be endangering the souls of anyone that he might convince with his heresy. <S> * <S> In the lower-case, historical sense of the word (i.e. non-trinitarian) <A> In addition to Steven Doggart's answer (with which I wholeheartedly agree) I suggest that there is considerable emotional appeal in the idea that God himself would voluntarily give up his position, enter this fallen world with all the frailties of a human and sacrificed all for his lost and rebellious creation. <S> As trinitarians we believe in a God who understands our situation through having experienced it for himself, whilst at the same time living in a way that exemplifies both the character of God and the depths of our fall. <S> In contrast, non-trinitarians appear to depict a God who is far more distant from his creation, a God who is willing to leave the means of our salvation in the hands of a servant, albeit a noble and worthy one. <A> Trinitarians believe that God himself is a very emotional being - an overwhelmingly joyful being in fact. <S> Eric's answer to <S> Why did God create the Heavens and the Earth? <S> gives some quotes from John Piper's book Desiring God : <S> In creation, God “went public” with the glory that reverberates joyfully between the Father and the Son. <S> There is something about the fullness of God’s joy that inclines it to overflow. <S> There is an expansive quality to His joy. <S> It wants to share itself. <S> The impulse to create the world was not from weakness, as though God were lacking in some perfection that creation could supply. <S> “It is no argument of the emptiness or deficiency of a fountain, that it is inclined to overflow.” <S> God loves to behold His glory reflected in His works. <S> So the eternal happiness of the triune God spilled over in the work of creation and redemption. <S> And since this original happiness was God’s delight in His own glory, therefore the happiness that He has in all His works of creation and redemption is nothing other than a delight in His own glory. <S> This is why God has done all things, from creation to consummation, for the preservation and display of His glory. <S> All His works are simply the spillover of His infinite exuberance for His own excellence. <S> (Desiring God, p44) <S> So we experience and share in God's joy because he is totally overflowing with joy. <S> The reason why he is so joyful is because of he is eternally happy with himself - each person in the Trinity is constantly pleasing the other two. <S> A non-trinitarian God would be very different, and his character would be very different too. <S> I won't say that there aren't any non-trinitarian explanations for God's joy, but I haven't heard any either. <S> Many trinitarian Christians would rightly get upset at the idea of a non-trinitarian God because they believe that the only source of their own joy is from God's own overflowing joy.	Secondarily, trinitarians often believe that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for our sins was only effective because he was God.
If Adam and Eve were exempt from death, why did they need to eat? Genesis 2:17 gives the implication that Adam and Eve were exempt from death prior to eating from the tree of knowledge, and indeed many literalists take this view. but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die. If Adam and Eve could not die, what would be the purpose of them eating, according to those that believe the premise? <Q> Presumably there is purpose to food other than just maintaining life. <S> Revelation describes the New Jerusalem, which is generally equated with Heaven, the place where the saved will spend eternity. <S> And according to Revelation 22:2, in this city, "In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month." So there is food in Heaven, even though everyone there is presumably living as an immortal soul. <S> Likewise at the Last Supper, Jesus said, Matthew 26:29, " <S> But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” <S> As he died the next day, he must have been talking about something that would happen after his resurrection, when he presumably did not need food and drink to live. <S> Also after his resurrection, he ate food on at least one occasion: Luke 24:40-43, "When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. <S> But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” <S> So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. <S> And He took it and ate in their presence." <S> (John 21 also describes Jesus having breakfast with the disciples after his resurrection, though I find that on reading it carefully, it doesn't explicitly say that HE ate anything.) <S> At a minimum, people enjoy eating food. <S> I certainly do. <S> If some pill was invented that would provide all our caloric and nutritional needs more cheaply and conveniently, I think it very likely that most people would still eat food frequently just for the pleasure of the taste and the feeling of fullness. <S> Beyond that I think we can only speculate. <S> Just because you won't die without something doesn't mean that it doesn't give you other benefits. <A> In addition to Jay's excellent answer , eating was also considered a sign of fellowship and therefore acceptance (see eg Mark 2:16 , Luke 5:30-32 and Galatians 2:12 ). <S> Ultimately such fellowship is meant to be had with God, as it was presumably for Adam and Eve in Genesis and as it will be: <S> Here I am! <S> I stand at the door and knock. <S> If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me . <S> Revelation 3:20 <A> It's because the death spoken about in Genesis is not physical death. <S> It's spiritual death. <S> See this answer for a complete explanation. <S> The concept that no physical death existed before the fall doesn't make any sense from a biological standpoint. <S> Although many who believe in the concept that physical death entered the world at the fall talk only about the death of animals, there's no scriptural reason to make this distinction. <S> The death of a tree, a microbe, or even a skin cell, is still death. <S> If the word "death" in Genesis meant physical death, then it ought to mean all forms of physical death of a living thing. <S> But that sense of death makes no sense, as every living thing of sufficient complexity depends on the death of other living things for survival. <S> Digestion involves the death of millions or billions of microbes in a persons gut and intestines. <S> Plant life depends on rich soil, full of organic matter--organic matter is dead material from other plants and animals (insects, bacteria, etc).	Eating (whether required or not) depends upon the death of the food (plants).
Is there a respectful way to dispose of old or worn out scriptures? I'm finding myself accumulating various copies of the scriptures, and honestly, I don't need all of them laying around. Nowadays I study, read, and mark them electronically. So now I'm looking to declutter my living space. Throwing them away feels kind of weird... donating them does too, since some are marked up from my studies, have personal notes in them, or have my name engraved on the front. I'll probably just keep one or two nice printed copies for guests or convenience. Is it bad to throw scriptures away? Is there a better way? Note: I live in a rural area and it's common to burn our own trash, since we don't have a sanitation service here. But I'm definitely open to options that don't involve burning. :) -- And actually, an option that doesn't involve burning, if there is one, would be good so that the answer applies to more people. <Q> Mary Fairchild belongs to the Calvary Chapel denomination, and she writes: <S> While God's Word is holy and to be honored <S> (Psalm 138:2) <S> , there's nothing sacred or hallowed in the physical materials: the paper, parchment, leather, and ink. <S> She suggests that, instead of discarding or disposing it, a person should consider donating it to a ministry or someone who wants one. <S> Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational people on <S> gotquestions.org <S> (I think they're Fundamentalists.) <S> write: <S> There is no "biblical" way to dispose of an old/damaged/ruined Bible, as the Bible itself does not address this question. <S> It is, therefore, a matter of personal conviction. <S> It is important to understand that it is not the paper, binding, and ink that are "sacred" or "holy. <S> " It is the Word of God that is holy, not the material it is printed on. <S> We are not to worship or idolize the Bible. <S> The purpose of the Bible is to teach us about Jesus the Savior and the salvation He provides and to point us to worship Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength. <S> The paper and ink of a Bible are merely the means through which God communicates His Word to us. <S> Like Mary Fairchild, they advise donating to the donator's descendants or others who want it. <S> Catholics agree! <S> I will let them speak for themselves. <S> There is no specifically mandated means of disposing of old Bibles. <S> Some Catholics follow a custom of disposing of religious articles that have been blessed either by burying or burning them, but even that is not mandated by law. <S> If the Bible has been blessed you might choose to follow that custom. <S> If not, dispose of it as you would any other book. <S> Jon M. Sweeney does not really mention the LDS Church, but he does have a rather strong opinion of what to do about any type of holy book -- <S> be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever -- that the asker may find helpful, for the reason that the asker belongs to the LDS denomination: <S> You don't burn them. <S> You never, ever burn them. <S> You bury them. <A> Before I lost my sight I was involved in Prison Ministry, and they are constantly in need of Bibles. <S> Also they can and do supply things such as books, periodicals, and such to Chaplains for use in their libraries. <S> Also any teaching aids you may have would be greatly appreciated. <S> You might find a Ministry through Google or if you live near a prison a call to the Chaplain <S> will give you some great guidance. <S> If your efforts add just one person to the Kingdom it is well worth your efforts. <A> I don't think I have ever thrown away a Bible in my life, but I would donate them to Goodwill or Salvation Army because the other day I bought a study edition '84 NIV bible for $5. <S> It was a steal because usually they go for $100 or so. <S> Just donate them all to Goodwill and give them the burden.	There are no specific scriptural instructions on how to dispose of an old Bible. If it’s still in fair condition, you might put it on a book donation table to benefit someone else.
Is it a blessing to live long on the earth? [Ephesians 6:2-3] "Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise;) That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Are we supposed to desire to live long on the earth? It seems to me that after someone in born again he/she is looking forward to meeting and serving and worshiping our Lord forever. All these can be done although with difficulties on this earth. I am not saying we should desire to not live and serve our Lord on this earth. It is also not about us but about Him.So is God more pleased in giving us more years, maybe because we get the chance to become more pure? <Q> Philippians 1:21-24 (NASB) <S> For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. <S> But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. <S> But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake. <S> Paul's desire was to go home to be with the Lord. <S> He was, however, content to stay for the sake of serving others. <S> Being blessed with a long life gives us more of an opportunity to glorify God, which is good for us, too. <S> Addendum : It is also possible for our desire to leave the troubles of this life behind to have selfish motivations. <S> It is better (for us) to be with the Lord, but it is better for others that we remain here. <S> What should an unselfish person choose? <A> "Is it a blessing to live long on the earth?" <S> The book of Job answers this question to a large degree. <S> He certainly didn't feel blessed when he was in torment from Satan. <S> Many can relate to this: Job <S> 3 - Job wants to die, wishes he was never born. <S> But the "Second part" of Job's life was blessed, and fruitful. <S> He was able to enjoy many aspects of a good life on earth : Job 42:12-16 <S> - Job's second part of his life blessed more than formerly. <S> Addressing your question in more depth: King Hezekiah was especially fond of worshipping in truth and purity. <S> After all of his good works, he found he was going to die. <S> But God blessed him with longer years: 2 Kings 20:4-6 <S> - Hezekiah's years extended. <S> Psalms states the righteous will live forever upon the earth: <S> Psalm <S> 37:29 - Righteous possess the earth. <S> As you probably know, Adam and Eve, as well as their immediate descendants lived a very long time (almost 1000 years), and gradually the human life span declined to 80 years/average. <S> Without naming too many verses, Christ himself as well as his followers raised people back to life on earth . <S> Back to the Example of Job, and the second part of his life - the bible implies by examples and statements that humans can expect to live a long time on earth, resurrected , enjoying beauty and prosperity they did not have formerly, in an emotionally, physically, and spiritually healed state. <S> Its a comforting thought for those who have been struck with poverty, disease, and various troubles which cripple advantages in this present world. <S> The book of Job applies to the human race in general - especially those pleasing to their creator. <S> * <S> To answer your question: <S> * Just as we wish to serve our creator, seeking his interest -- he is always taking the lead in seeking our interests, such as those he put into our hearts: <S> Ecclesiastes <S> 3:11 - Put eternity into the hearts of man. <S> Revelation <S> 21:3 - Tent of God with Mankind. <S> Its the renewed earth, not under the power of the wicked, which we will unquestionably feel blessed to live in. <A> The Gospel Age is still going. <S> Think of friends and family who haven't accepted Jesus, evaluate your own salvation. <S> Have you been reading the word daily? <S> I feel like the Lord has a lot of work left for me to do. <S> Paul could have wrapped things earlier, but he ended up going for the goal by staying on Earth as long as possible.	It is indeed a great blessing to live a long time on the earth, and its one that has been put into our hearts and instincts.
Does the New Testament have any mention of Kolob and if not, how come? Kolob is a star or planet from the Book of Abraham - originally described in an ancient egyptian scroll - translated by Joseph Smith. Kolob is near the throne of God (in outer space to my understanding). Is Kolob mentioned in the New Testament and if not, how come? <Q> It's not in the New Testament, but I would be more surprised if it was found in the New Testament. <S> The compilers of the New Testament were obviously not concerned with revealing the deepest mysteries of God ( see comment for clarification), but rather, were focused on documenting the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. <S> Most of the New Testament's purpose is to show that Jesus is the Christ . <S> This was done by the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. <S> The epistles, then, mainly declare His doctrine and document the ministry of the apostles. <S> Abraham was shown much about the sky in vision. <S> His communion with God as recorded in Abraham 3 is highly personal to him. <S> It's not something that would be written in an epistle to somebody else. <S> It's not a direct account of the life and ministry of Christ or His apostles. <S> As the Book of Abraham is more like a personal journal rather than a letter or biographical account, I don't see why, even if the compilers of the Bible had Abraham's manuscripts, they would choose to include it with the New Testament. <S> Of course, any number of answers -- mainly guesses -- could be given for why anything else isn't in the New Testament, either. <S> Or the Old Testament. <S> Mormons would say that because these things aren't revealed in the Bible, it validates the need for a restoration . <A> Non-LDS churches believe Joseph Smith was a fraud and reject the inspiration and authority of all of the Mormon scriptures, including the Book of Abraham , the book where Kolob is mentioned. <S> Joseph Smith claims he translated the Book of Abraham from Egyptian papyri known today as the Joseph Smith Papyri , but non-Mormon Egyptologists state the papyri have nothing in common with the Book of Abraham . <S> In addition most Christians believe the throne of God is a metaphorical concept rather than a physical object, and so no planet or star in the universe can be considered to be closest to God's throne, which is what is notable about Kolob. <S> Verses such as Psalm 93:2, 103:19, Isaiah 66:1 and Matthew 5:34, among others, are used to support the idea that God's throne is metaphorical. <A> Sort of. <S> This is akin to asking "Does the Old Testament have any mention of Jesus?"It does, but not by that name. <S> Similarly, the Bible implies Kolob's existence: <S> Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool <S> Acts 7:49 (see also Matthew 5:34) <S> God's throne in the heavens. <S> * <S> Of the stars in the heavens, one of them is the closest. <S> The NT doesn't happen to name that star, but Abraham does: <S> And I saw the stars, that they were very great... <S> And the Lord said unto me: <S> These are the governing ones; and the nameof the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me Abraham 3:2-3 <S> The name "Kolob" might be unique to extra-biblical texts, but its existence isn't. <S> *"Heaven" is interpreted variously by Christians as Earth's atmosphere, outer space, or something else. <S> This interpretation is closest to the outer space one...literally "the heavens". <S> It matches the juxtaposition of "earth". <A> A better question would be: Why is it there in the Book of Abraham? <S> Because really, it's not like it is very important for us to know about some star named Kolob "closest to the throne of God", whatever that exactly means. <S> In my opinion it is not even clear what "closest" really means here. <S> If you read the chapter, you see that Abraham is shown the stars, but what God really wants to show him, what he is preparing to show him, is the pre-mortal world. <S> The idea Abraham is getting from the stars that are shown to him is: If there are two things, one greater than the other, then there is a third thing that is even greater, until we get to God himself. <S> Likewise, if there are two spirits, one greater than the other, there is a third that is even greater, until we get to God. <S> This is to show that even though spirits are eternal, there are differences and some are more righteous and "great" than others. <S> And then he explains the plan that is set in place to lift his children up and help them progress. <S> Kolob is completely irrelevant in most other contexts, it is used as an example and symbol here. <S> There is no really useful doctrine that can be taken from it, except in the context that it was used in. <S> Although Abraham learned something about astronomy here, the real lesson taught is a spiritual one.	The non-LDS answer as to why Kolob isn't mentioned in the New Testament is that they believe it is a fictional idea created by Joseph Smith.
Did Jesus condemn wealth? Mathew 19 : 16 - 24 16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. 23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. This bible passage has really got me confused. Does this mean that Jesus condemns wealth and it is not good to be rich?. <Q> No, it does not mean that at all. <S> We cannot assume that everything Jesus ever said to anyone applies to all people in all times. <S> Jesus gave this specific commandment to this specific person at that time. <S> Other places in Scripture, Jesus acknowledges that there are wealthy people and gives instructions to them--not condemnations. <S> As for <S> the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. <S> 18 <S> They are to do good , to be rich in good works , to be generous and ready to share, 19 thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life. <S> 1 Timothy 6:17-18 ESV <S> The Old Testament acknowledge that God does bless with material things at times, though this is not His greatest blessings. <S> Honor the Lord with your wealth and with the firstfruits of all your produce; 10 <S> then your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will be bursting with wine . <S> Proverbs 3:9-10 ESV <S> So, no, this is not a condemnation of wealth or capitalism or anything like that. <S> It is a specific command to a specific person who perhaps had made an idol out of his wealth which needed to be removed. <A> An abundance of anything can be a strong temptation to sin, and that includes not only money, but also sex and intimacy, food and drink, work, recognition, and so much more. <S> Wealth may be particularly seductive because it makes you feel self reliant and sufficient so that you don't think you need to depend on God for your forgiveness of sins. <A> Jesus did not condemn wealth in that passage. <S> What He does condemn is what wealth can do to a person. <S> There are sins that are particular to the wealthy, including sleepless nights because of worries about theft, and so on. <S> Be careful, though, because all the issues the wealthy have can occur to those with little wealth, but who trust in their goods more than in God.	No, Jesus doesn't condemn wealth, but He does warn against having too much of it. Wealth can make a person turn away from God toward self-sufficiency, which fools him into thinking that creature comforts are enough take care of his important needs, and neglects the formation of character and faith that God wishes to form.
Is the Summa Theologia infallible to Catholics or not? Me: Ah, so the Summa Theologia IS considered infallible! (Assuming that if the Magisterium and Pope are, then their trusted sources must be through them!) Catholic: No, it isn't infallible by itself, just as an individual bishop isn't infallible by himself. I'm confused. If the Pope and the Magisterium are infallible, why aren't their trusted resources seen as such? Surely, at some point, some Pope or Magisterium must have indicated whether such a famous theological text is or is not of relevance? <Q> It was written by St. Thomas Aquinas, who though he was very good, holy, and learned, was not infallible. <S> On those occasions on which the Pope is considered infallible (that is, when he addresses the whole Church as its teacher and pastor, and defines a doctrine which must be held by the whole Church), or for that matter on occasions when any group (e.g. an ecumenical council) is held infallible, it is not the Summa or any similar work that is ultimately the source of this infallible understanding; it is the Word of God Himself. <S> That is the only possible source of infallible knowledge: <S> At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, [the Magisterium] listens to [the Word of God] <S> devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. <S> All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith. <S> ( Dei Verbum Section 10 Part 2, quoted in Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 86) <S> One example in which we see this quite clearly is in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. <S> This is a belief of the Church from ancient times, proposed as a dogma in 1854 by Pope Pius IX. <S> Yet Aquinas disagreed with the idea! <S> In his discussion of the question "Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation?", that is, before the infusion of the rational soul, which was understood at the time to take place after conception, Aquinas says: <S> In whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation, she could never have incurred the stain of original sin: and thus she would not have needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ, of whom it is written (Mat. 1:21): "He shall save His people from their sins." <S> But this is unfitting, through implying that Christ is not the "Saviour of all men," as He is called (1 Tim. <S> 4:10). <S> It remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation. <S> ( Summa Theologica , Third Part, Question 27, Article 2) Obviously St Thomas, being wrong in this respect, could not have been infallible. <S> It was quite some time before the theology of the Church's understanding caught up to the belief itself. <A> The Summa Theologica (and all other documents of this nature) are not considered infallible. <S> The reason for supposing they are indicates a misunderstanding of the Catholic concept of the Magisterium of the church, of how it is exercised, and of its specific degrees (whether "ordinary" or "apostolic"). <S> So the short answer is that the underlying premise that everything the Pope teaches is infallible is simply a flawed premise. <S> More detail can be found on this answer . <A> Vatican I defined Ex Cathedra statements are those which meet the following conditions, The Roman Pontiff speaks on a matter of faith or morals to the Universal Church. <S> St. Thomas Aquinas was never a Pope, so he never could meet these conditions. <S> Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. <S> Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. <S> So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: <S> let him be anathema.	No, the Summa Theologica/Theologiae is not infallible.
Verse that mention Jesus eating meat? My wife asked me this question last night, and I didn’t know the answer, so I thought I would ask it here. The question: Besides fish, is there any passage in the Gospels that directly mentions Jesus eating meat? My assumption is that He would have followed Jewish dietary laws, but I couldn’t think of any specific passages off of the top of my head. <Q> Jesus definitely ate lamb because lamb is eaten at the Passover festival . <S> Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. <S> Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.” <S> (Luke 22:7-8, NIV) <S> A goat could also be used instead of a sheep for the Passover. <S> The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats . <S> (Exodus 12:5, NIV) <S> Jesus was a Jew and Jews are meat eaters. <S> Except the Unclean Animals (pork,snake,shellfish etc.) , Jews eat varieties of meat and Jesus was not an exception. <A> The closest I can think of to a passage that directly talks about Jesus eating meat is where he is described as eating a Passover meal. <S> (Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22). <S> A Passover meal would have included meat. <S> That may not be direct enough for you. <S> Even if no such mention is made, it is important not to draw any excessive conclusions from this. <S> A non-vegetarian diet would absolutely have been the norm for Jews in those days, and there is certainly no indication that Jesus did not eat meat. <S> Jesus frequently ate with other Jews, with no indication of his having a 'special diet'. <S> Jesus followers clearly did eat meat, and expanded their range of meat eating early in the history of the church. <S> Mention is made of some restrictions on meat eating, which would have been unnecessary if it had been prohibited. <S> You might also look at this question . <A> The clearest reference comes in the gospel of Luke, after the resurrection of Jesus. <S> This is important to the doctrine that Jesus actually rose bodily--not just spiritually. <S> They gave him a piece of broiled fish , 43 and he took it and ate before them. <S> Luke 24:43-43 ESV <S> Of course, he also ate the Passover meal, which contained lamb. <S> (I guess you said "besides fish", but at least this references that He did eat fish. <A> It's not in the gospels, but a manifestation of God ate meat prepared by Abraham in Genesis 18. <S> I'd consider this to likely be a pre-incarnate physical manifestation of Jesus eating meat. <A> As others have noted, we are specifically told that Jesus ate fish on at least one occasion, so he clearly was not a strict vegetarian. <S> And we are told that he ate a Passover meal, which included lamb. <S> But then, nowhere are we told that he did not, and the Jewish diet routinely included a variety of meats. <S> As the instructions for the Passover meal specifically command the people to kill and eat a lamb -- Exodus 12:3 -- if Jesus had not done so, one would expect that this would have been grounds for the Pharisees to attack him, and it would likely have been mentioned. <A> Here is a direct passage of scripture in which Jesus Christ ate fish and honeycomb: 41 <S> And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?42 <S> And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.43 <S> And he took it, and did eat before them. <S> (Luke 24:41-43) <S> During his life on earth, Jesus followed the Law of Moses which required the strict dietary observance of only "clean" meat which included (among other things) lamb, fish, bovine, and fowl. <S> After his death and Resurrection, he appeared to Peter in a vision to tell him that the Law of Moses had been fulfilled and it was no longer requisite to follow the Law of Moses as it had been fulfilled by Jesus every whit. <S> (See Acts 11:7-10 and 3 Nephi 15:4-6) <S> In 1 Timothy 4:3 we learn that God does not command to abstain from meats and warns us to beware those that do.	I guess that it is barely possible that Jesus did not eat meat, as nowhere are we specifically told that he did.
In Catholicism if God is infinite love, can love always increase in intensity or does that mean quantity? According to the official facts laid out by the Pope and his Magesterium, as God is unending love and joy, does that mean that these emotions can always 'rise' in their intensity? For instance, we know the beatific vision is joyous beyond anything to be had or imagined here but in experiencing God would we be loving and happy to this degree because He is many, many, many good things or because our actual ability to enjoy is able to be increased? Can emotions increase beyond their greatest scale on Earth? Water cannot get wetter than water...are emotions the same? Can love be more loving than the best kind of love? <Q> In Catholicism if God is infinite love, can love always increase in intensity or does that mean quantity? <S> We define this by how close we are to God, the closer that we are the more intensity there will be to his presence. <S> Our humility however will decide if the quantity will be one of rejoicing or one of outrage. <S> (Romans 9:33) <S> According to the official facts laid out by the Pope and his Magesterium, as God is unending love and joy, does that mean that these emotions can always 'rise' in their intensity? <S> They can rise until we are with him (Matthew 10:24). <S> For instance, we know the beatific vision is joyous beyond anything to be had or imagined here <S> but in experiencing God would we be loving and happy to this degree because He is many, many, many good things or because our actual ability to enjoy is able to be increased? <S> It shall be beyond what is imaginable (1 Corinthians 2:9). <S> Now this is conjecture, I do not think our ability to enjoy will be increased. <S> For at what moment in your life can you say that you have felt the fullness of your ability to enjoy? <S> And so if you have then I would say that you have already received your reward ( <S> Matthew 6:1-21, 2 John 1:8). <S> Can emotions increase beyond their greatest scale on Earth? <S> No, the scale itself was determined by God, if he chooses to lift the scale to reward his son then that will be the new greatest. <S> Water cannot get wetter than water... <S> are emotions the same? <S> Yes. <S> Can love be more loving than the best kind of love? <S> No, for the best kind of Love is God. <A> The emotion of love and God's 'unending love' are different things in Catholic theology. <S> There is, however, a profound connection between the experience of God and experiencing a loving relationship: we experience 'the spirit of God' in the witness of love, and it is said that "we see God's intention" during the experience of witnessing the emotion of love (a personal experience), though 'love' as used in traditional academic catholic dogma (and theology) means something closer to 'unity' or 'marriage' between two objects, defined as 'the spirit of God' and 'the flesh'........ <S> though the idea of God as Love is extremely profound and requires real understanding to understand, if you understand... <S> I read once <S> Bishop Hopkins 'On the Lords Prayer' (the 1692 edition, page 190 - yes the 17th century) <S> In Him [GOD], omnipotence became weak; eternity, mortal; innocence itself, guilty; God, man; the Creator, a creature; the maker of all, His own workmanship. <S> Though I have stated that the 'love' (called 'God') is between the spirit and the flesh, the actual nature of the relationship ( this relationship is called GOD ) is more complex (as the passage suggests, seeming to be more about irony more than union. <S> This is what 'God is unending love' means: God is a kind of relationship. <S> The witness of God is not the witness of a loving human relationship, and so the witness of God (I think you call this a 'beatific vision') is probably 1) impossible and 2) probably more like facing death than feeling some kind of happy, dreamy loving emotion. <S> But to focus on your essential question, it is impossible to tell if there is a limit to an emotion's intensity. <S> Remember, the emotion of love is a chemical experience, so I suppose that its limit is based on what kind of brain can be constructed and how many oxytocin receptors we can max out. <S> Remember, the beatific vision is witness of 'truth', not love. <S> GOD is love, but the truth is the nature of GOD, in the person Jesus Christ ("I am the way, the truth and the life" (Jn 14:6)). <A> Your confusion begins with wrong understanding the biblical meaning of love. <S> God's Love is not an emotion. <S> Love, is not an emotion. <S> Love is a self-giving of one to another for the service of the other. <S> In this way, God is unending love - the ultimate sacrifice being the cross; sort of like a parent giving their life for a child, no matter what the child did. <S> This "world", has mixed infatuation, sexual attraction and alike with "love" in a biblical sense. <S> Love is a conscious decision to sacrifice, to give your self fully to another, motivated by many things, like God given sexual attraction and infatuation. <S> This is also why it is possible to love everyone; not that we have an loving emotions towards our enemies. <S> Joy comes out of knowing that you are loved. <S> Like a parent who experiences joy when kids return love, or indeed, when you realize it is more fulfilling or rewarding to love the be loved. <S> This world, redefined love to be an emotion, and out of this simple "mistake", a lot of confusion follows. <S> PS, personally, I do not think it was a mistake but a conscious decision <S> but we'll keep spiritual conspiracy theories out of this :)	So joy can increase, as you experience God's love more and more.
Which churches today send the most missionaries? Was the early church a missionary church? Matthew 28:19-20 leads me to believe it was: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. Can we take this to mean that if Jesus Christ's church is on the earth today that it should still be involved in missionary work (ie. teaching all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe the commandments)? If so, which churches today are the most missionary-minded (in terms of the number of missionaries they send)? <Q> All serve on a volunteer basis and are required to pay most of their expenses. <S> Financial assistance is also available for those who have limited resource. <S> See here for more info <S> Aside from full time missionary service, all members are taught to be missionary minded in their everyday lives and always look for opportunities to share the gospel of Jesus Christ. <A> Denominational Missions <S> The Pentecostal Assemblies of God (2800 cross cultural workers) and the Baptist International Missions Board (5200 cross cultural workers) <S> are among the larger denominational missions movements. <S> In denominational missions work missionaries generally function more as project managers, overseeing broader missions teams and budgets, and therefore smaller numbers reflect larger scale works. <S> Interdenominational Missions Parachurch, interdenominational (primarily evangelical), missions organizations also represent significant percentage of Christian missions. <S> Larger parachurch missions organizations include Youth With A Mission (20,000 staff) and Campus Crusade <S> For Christ (25,000 staff). <S> Note about JW and LDS Missions <S> The statistics offered here about the LDS and JW groups are a bit misleading because they are including work that is not cross cultural or pioneering in nature, which is the historical definition of missions. <S> They are including all of their evangelistic and charitable work. <S> Most churches wouldn't consider those activities as missions work, rather a function of the local church. <S> This is an issue of poor semantics. <S> It also needs to be noted that JW and LDS missions efforts are centralized with a controlled hierarchical structure, while denominational and interdenominational missions are decentralized into, literally, tens of thousands of locally or independently governed missions organizations representing an estimated 400,000 missionaries. <S> Sources: <S> The Surprising Countries <S> Most Missionaries Are Sent From and Go To - ChrisitianityToday.com General Statistics - The Traveling Team <A> Jehovah's Witnesses are very focused on preaching and teaching the good news of the kingdom, including missionary work. <S> ( Matthew 24:14 , 1 Timothy 2:4 , Acts 10:34, 35 ) <S> Here are the worldwide statistics for the preaching and teaching activity of Jehovah's Witnesses in the past servivce year according the 2014 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses (the service year is from September - August, so these stats are for September 2012 - August 2013): <S> Lands <S> 239 Publishers 7,965,954 <S> (number of people actively preaching and teaching) <S> Total hours spent in the field ministry during the past service year <S> 1,841,180,235 Bible studies during the past service year 9,254,963 . <S> That same yearbook shows this information for the website jw.org which contains lots of Bible based learning resources: 316 Languages in which the Web site is available 220,000+ Number of Web pages on the site 600 Languages in which downloadable publications are available <S> 130 Requests for Bible studies per day from over 230 countries <S> 5 million+ Videos viewed per month 1.5 million Downloads per day 900,000+ Visits per day from over 230 countries <S> Here are some statistics found in the April 2014 Watchtower magazine for the printing of each issue: 45,944,000 213 Languages <S> All of Jehovah's Witnesses are expected to have a regular, active share in preaching and teaching. <S> As far as missionary work goes, according to the lesson <S> "What Is Missionary Service?" <S> from the brochure "Who Are Doing Jehovah’s <S> Will Today?" <S> since 1943, more than 8,000 Gilead-trained missionaries have been sent out to witness in some 200 lands. <S> Unlike most people who claim to do "missionary" work, these missionaries primarily focus on preaching and teaching the Bible. <S> That number of more than 8,000 only includes those sent out after training at Gilead. <S> There are many more who make sacrifices to preach where there is a greater need than where they come from. <S> Jehovah's Witnesses imitate the greatest missionary, Jesus Christ. <S> He was willing to leave his home and life in the heavens to live as a human for a time. <S> ( John 6:38 ; Philippians 2:7 ) <S> According to Jesus own words <S> the main purpose of this was to "declare the good news of the kingdom". <S> ( Luke 4:43 ) <S> For more information please see the lesson <S> "How Can You Recognize True Worship?" <S> from that same brochure. <A> Mormons 80 000+ missionaries in serving in more than 400 missions throughout the world. <S> REF Jehovah's Witnesses Total hours spent in the field ministry during their past service year (September 2012 - August 2013) <S> 1,841,180,235 <S> REF Christian Total number of foreign missionaries 419,000 REF <S> Catholic <S> The number of lay missionaries in the world is 335,502 units, REF <S> I would find it extremely hard to find actual usable statistical data on this. <S> Just a side stat which i find relevant only because Jesus basically spend his time healing people MSF Doctors without Borders MSF provides medical care to approximately 8 million people through more than 400 projects in nearly 70 countries worldwide. <S> Although they do not baptize people, they most certainly follow a very selfless dedication to the upliftment of humans without prejudice or pride. <S> Which i kinda think jesus was ultimately teaching REF	Currently The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has over 82,000 full time proselytizing missionaries and another 10,000 service or humanitarian missionaries.
Did Adam and Eve have children in paradise? I was just reading the account of Adam and Eve in the NIV 84 and it doesn't really say they didn't. The Bible does mention when Sarah had her first boy. When Mary had her first son. But not really when Eve had her first son. Does it? I'm just wondering because I have in my mind that they had children after they got kicked out. Partly because of the common belief. What am I missing? <Q> The crux of this question is really How long was it before Adam and Eve sinned? <S> The biblical record only has the following facts: Adam and Eve's first child was Cain, and the second Abel, by virtue of Genesis 4. <S> Genesis 4 also suggests that Seth was not born until after Cain killed Abel, an act that could not have occurred in the Garden. <S> Genesis 5 says that Adam was 130 when Seth was born, so that establishes an upper limit for the length of the time on the garden. <S> (I will repeat my assertion that had I been Eve, I only would have lasted about 32 minutes before getting kicked out, nonetheless I digress.) <S> This means that the only two children who could have been born in the Garden are Cain and Abel. <S> Circumstantially, I would have to suggest that the evidence would make a much stronger case for the children being born after rather than before: <S> There is no mention of anyone other than Adam or Eve being cast out. <S> (And the Lillith thing is just Jewish legend.) <S> The fact that the narrative records the conception of Cain after Genesis 3 gives no reason to suspect it happened before. <A> No they did not, here is the timeline as I see it: <S> The commandments: Genesis 1:28 <S> And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. <S> Genesis 2:16-17 <S> And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: <S> But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. <S> Consequence for Breaking the 2nd commandment: <S> Genesis 3:23 <S> Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. <S> The children come: <S> Genesis 4:1 <S> And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. <A> They were removed from the garden before any children were born. <S> Eve named her first child to reflect his birth when she said (obviously paraphased) ' <S> I have gotten a child with the help of God'. <S> She was making reference to God's curse of her after the fall. <S> Also, it says after they were kicked out of the garden, Adam knew his wife Eve. <S> Plus, Cain killed Abel and committed sin because of his sinful nature. <S> This would not have been possible until after Adam and Eve's fall from grace. <A> My belief is this-how many times does God have to command something or for that matter even say something for it to be true? <S> Gen:1:28 God said " be fruitful and multiply" whitch was His first order to Adam and Eve. <S> The sin of disobedience that violated Gods command was the act of taking from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. <S> God told Eve He would greatly increase her pain in child birth; how do you increase something that she had never experienced? <S> Adam named his wife Eve because she was the mother of all the living: <S> Cain and Able hadn't been born yet. <S> In Luke Adam is referred to as the son of God. <S> Adam was created in Gods image and was sinless in his nature and so was Eve. <S> If children were born in the garden they would have been sinless in nature also because man had not violated Gods Law yet. <S> In Gen:6 the scripture said that the sons of God saw the daughters of men and they were beautiful and they wanted them. <S> What could be a better answer than this for Gods disgust with man kind because pure hearted children and children with a fallen sin nature had cohabited and produce an offspring that offended God.look at Gen:6:3 and 4 then Gen:5,6 and 7 make sence. <S> What kind of person would these double natured creatures have been and what would their children have been because they were the offspring of a pure hearted father and a mother with a fallen sin nature. <S> Also this answers where Cain got his wife and why God destroyed all humanity. <S> Gen.6:13 said the end of all flesh has come befour Me,and Noah found favor in the eye of The Lord, Gen.7:1 <A> The question should be hinged on the first command given to mankind (be fruitful amd multiple) and then the question is begged, how long were they in the garden being obedient. <S> Another situation that begs the question about children is: who was Cain afraid of? <S> In the curse pronounced against Eve, God said that her pain in child bearing will be multiples, you only multiple that which is known. <S> , I support this position with Romans 5:12-13 which states that all men did not sin, but rather sin spread throughout the world by he act of Adam. <S> It took nearly a thousand years for sin to reach its pinnacle at the flood, but keep in mind there were still sinless people, such as Enoch who was translated to be with he Lord. <S> In the end you have to decide what he evidence and inferences point toward.	I personally believe that child bearing was taking place in the garden for an untold amount of time
Why is the Catholic Church called "The Roman Catholic Church"? If the word " catholic ", from the Greek adjective καθολικός ( katholikos ), means " universal ", why The Catholic Church is known as "The Roman Catholic Church"? Is it possible be " universal " and " roman " at the same time? <Q> The Catholic Church does indeed usually refer to itself just as "The Catholic Church". <S> That is what it's <S> Wikipedia article calls it (Wikipedia usually names all organizations according to what they call themselves). <S> Many Catholic-related organizations just use the word "Catholic" in their names <S> - CAFOD is an example; Catholic School boards are another. <S> The term 'Roman Catholic' was originally applied by people who disagree with the Catholic church's claim to be the church (when they were not just referring to it as 'the Roman Church'). <S> Over the centuries the usage has mutated, and term has been applied for various reasons, and is used by many people as if it were the official name of the church. <S> However the history of the usage is extremely complicated. <S> Even the Catholic Church sometimes refers to itself as the "Roman Catholic Church", especially if there is any danger of confusion, or of offence. <S> This Wikipedia article gives some history of the usage of the term Catholic . <S> Those of you with way too much time on your hands can go and look through the Wikipedia debates on the correct naming of the church in the Catholic Church talk pages. <A> There are two parts for this: First part: <S> If a group isn’t in communion with the pope, it isn’t part of the Catholic Church. <S> Within the Catholic Church there are a number of individual churches, sometimes called rites. <S> One of these is the Roman rite or Roman church. <S> It includes most of the Catholics in the Western world. <S> A Roman Catholic is a Catholic who is a member of the Roman rite. <S> There are many Catholics in the East who are not Roman Catholics, such as Maronite Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, and Chaldean Catholics. <S> These are all in communion with the pope, but they are not members of the Roman rite, so they are not Roman Catholics. <S> The Roman rite is not stricter than these other rights. <S> They are equal. <S> They all teach the same faith; it is only local customs that are different among them. <S> Second part: <S> How the term Roman got attached to it? <S> It is not possible to give an exact year when the term "Roman Catholic Church," began to be called. <S> The term is assumed to originated as a reference created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. <S> They thus coined the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves. <S> From Catholic Answers: Different variants of the reference "Roman" appeared at different times. <S> The earliest form was the noun "Romanist" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. <S> The next to develop was the adjective "Romish" (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. <S> Next came the noun "Roman Catholic" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined around 1595-1605. <S> Shortly thereafter came the verb "to Romanize" (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. <S> Between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun "Romanism" (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a latecomer term about 1815-1825, <S> the noun "Roman Catholicism," a synonym for the earlier "Romanism." <A> From the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X : Q. <S> And why is the true Church called Roman? <S> A. <S> The true Church is called Roman, because the four marks of Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity and Apostolicity are found in that Church alone which acknowledges as Head the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter. <S> And The 1649 Douay Catechism : <S> Q. <S> Why do we call the church the Roman Church? <S> A. <S> Because, since the transition of St. Peter's chair from Antioch to Rome, the particular Roman Church has been head of all the churches, and to her the primacy has been affixed. <A> Why Catholic Church is called “The Roman Catholic Church”? <S> The answer is simple: <S> The Catholic Church , also known as the Roman Catholic Church , is the largest Christian church, with approximately 1.3 billion baptised Catholics worldwide as of 2017. <S> As the world's oldest continuously functioning international institution, it has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilization. <S> The church is headed by the Bishop of Rome, known as the pope . <S> Its central administration, the Holy See, is in the Vatican City, an enclave within the city of Rome in Italy. <S> - Catholic Church (Wikipedia) <S> The pope, living in Rome (Vatican) is head of the the entire Catholic Church, of both Catholics of Latin Rite and of all the Eastern Rite Catholics. <S> Of all the Cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church there are also cardinals of various Eastern Rites. <S> Confirming therefore the norm of the current Code of Canon Law (cf. <S> Canon 349), which reflects the millennial practice of the Church, I once more affirm that the College of electors of the Supreme Pontiff is composed solely of the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church . <S> In them one finds expressed in a remarkable synthesis the two aspects which characterize the figure and office of the Roman Pontiff: Roman, because identified with the Bishop of the Church in Rome and thus closely linked to the clergy of this City, represented by the Cardinals of the presbyteral and diaconal titles of Rome, and to the question Cardinal Bishops of the suburbicarian Sees; Pontiff of the universal Church, because called to represent visibly the unseen Pastor who leads his whole flock to the pastures of eternal life . <S> The universality of the Church is clearly expressed in the very composition of the College of Cardinals, whose members come from every continent. <S> - UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS <S> What more needs to be said.	The Catholic Church ('C' as capital) is that group of churches in communion with the pope.
Is it generally acceptable to attend a bible study as a non Christian? I am a bit curious about seeking out a bible study. There are several reasons for this: A friend of mine (in another country) says she finds such a study group enjoyable, and it seems to be a good way to meet new people. (I myself just moved to a new country, where Christianity seems to have a larger place in society than I am used to). It will help me understand Christianity better. However, I do not really consider myself a Christian. Will I be out of place in such a study group, or even, will people be offended? I do like to question things, and ask if something is unclear (I have a strong background in science). Is this something that might make people uneasy? <Q> The best bet is probably to talk with the leader of the group you are considering going to. <S> You don't have to be Christian to study the Bible and people <S> are unlikely to get offended in most cases. <S> They may include prayer, worship music and confessing sins among other things in addition to time studying the Bible. <S> Bible Studies do tend to form tight knit communities studying together and often result in really interesting religious and philosophical discussions. <S> If you want a safe context where you can get questions answered about the Bible, it is probably worth trying one out. <S> As for your scientific background, as long as you don't treat people like they are stupid, you are unlikely to run in to any serious issues. <S> There are, in fact, many Christians who are very scientifically minded (myself included among them). <S> It may make some people a bit uneasy at first, but if you are polite and honestly try to understand where people are coming from and express yourself clearly and respectfully, the vast majority of people will be fine with you. <S> I've been to many Bible studies where there were non-Christians, young Christians and long term Christians alike. <S> Each have something different they can add and the best groups have generally been those that have a mix of all three. <A> While A J Henderson's answer is excellent and I agree with it, I would like to add something. <S> Many churches specifically run Bible Studies aimed at 'seekers' (which means those who are not Christians ... yet). <S> Some of them are little more than a leader telling you what to think, while asking you trivial questions that can be answered by reading the passage for five second. <S> But the good ones will be everything you are looking for. <S> In general if you can find an Alpha course they tend to be the better ones. <S> However if you have a connection with a church or other group, or have found people that you like and trust, then I would recommend studying with them over going for something tailered to the outsider but by people you know nothing about. <A> I would add that the Alpha series of Bible studies is very open, and non-christian friendly. <S> It lays out the basics of the Christian belief quite well. <S> These courses are offered by varying denominations (its not denomination specific on purpose) in most cities. <S> You can see if there is one here: <S> Find an Alpha near you P.S. <S> I have nothing to do with Alpha. <S> I used to help out with one locally <S> and I was impressed with it.	Many Bible studies welcome non-Christians. Some Bible studies may be more uncomfortable for you than others depending on how they are run and what kind of spiritual things you are comfortable with though.
Visitors giving money to the church (I apologize in advance if this question isn't appropriate for Christianity S.E. .... this seems to be a trending problem. With that said, I believe the ideas of the question are appropriate and I invite anyone that thinks this question is inappropriate to edit it so it's rephrased more appropriately). From my experience, many visitors at churches feel that they need to give money and most churches (not all) do this by passing a collection plate of some sort, this method seems to even embarrass or coerce visitors into donating to the church. I feel that the people that should give their money are regular visitors that genuinely want to help the church (regardless if they are believers or not) and members. The reason I think this post is important is because I kind of find it strange when attendance balloons two days out of the year, as does the collection; plus, I think it is discouraging for the average new visitor. Specifically, I am looking for scripture that will support or refute the claim that the method by which most churches collect money is un-Biblical at worst and awkward at best. <Q> There is no New Testament directive as to the means of collecting gifts , monetary or otherwise. <S> The question is whether a means of collecting gifts fosters the Biblically directed attitude of giving. <S> 2 Corinthians 9:7 <S> Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. <S> Matthew 6:1 <S> “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. <S> If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven." <S> (Note that this is directed toward the motive of giving. <S> If you are giving for human praise, that's all you get. <S> However if you give because it is the right thing to do, you have further reward, even if somebody does see you do it. <S> After all Jesus praised the widow who gave at the Temple in the sight of many). <S> Personally, I think the current form of collecting offering is for practical fund raising purposes only. <A> It's a tradition in many churches to pass an offering plate. <S> Prior to the advent of direct deposit and such, it's how people give to their church. <S> And by passing something around, definitely, it encourages giving more than just putting a sack in the back or something. <S> I'm not sure how this places different expectations on visitors than any other aspect of that church. <S> Obviously since you're in a group setting, depending on your personal strength of character you're going to feel 'peer pressure' to sing a hymn, take part in communion, kneel to pray, respond to a call, move to Ghana to become a missionary per the sermon today, etc. <S> No one looks down on a visitor for not giving money at the offering, so perceived 'coercion' is frankly more of a personal hangup than a real thing. <S> I have a hard time envisioning fixes to this. <S> Don't pass the plate to designated "visitor rows? <S> " That has three negative impacts I can think of in 10 seconds. <S> You are never required to give at offering, and as a visitor you are totally not expected to. <S> You are, of course, welcome to, and many folks who are "twice a year churchgoers" like to take that as their opportunity to give to the church's mission without getting bound up in any further paperwork/pastor visits. <A> It seems to me that the aspect of embarrassment or coercion deplored in this question has decreased in recent years and is likely to decrease further in the near future, not for a religious reason but for a technological one. <S> Many (probably most) banks in the U.S. (and probably in other countries too) make it easy to set up regular payments, and those can include payments to churches. <S> Knowing this, if I see people put nothing in the collection basket, I cannot reasonably assume that they are not giving to the church; it's entirely possible that they've set up automatic payments rather than writing checks or remembering to bring cash. <A> From an LDS perspective the gathering of offerings should not be a public event where we flaunt our generosity to those who are in attendance. <S> Our Christ like desires should be the reason we donate to his Church, not because we feel awkward if we don't <S> or we do it to receive the praise of men. <S> We are asked to tithe 10% of our increase. <S> Our tithes are received in private by way of secret envelop handed directly to the Bishop or one of his councillors. <S> Visitors to our church are never asked to pay tithing. <S> Excommunicated members are not permitted to pay tithing as well. <S> We hold our tithes to the lord as sacred. <S> Matt 6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. <S> 2 <S> Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. <S> Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. <S> 3 <S> But when thou doest alms, let <S> not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: <S> 4 <S> That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret <S> himself shall reward thee openly.	We never pass collection plates around for donations.
Is there a difference between theology and apologetics? I've heard that it all has to do with knowing the right audience. Perhaps, if the audience be Christian, it would be labelled as "theology", and if the audience is non-Christian, it would be labelled as "apologetics". So, apologetics might be just Christian theology re-packaged to a non-Christian audience. (There is this book by R.C. Sproul, and I suspect that he is writing to a Christian audience by his usage of "we", making it sound like an ordinary textbook or handbook on theology. However, the term "we" can be re-interpreted as "the author and other orthodox Calvinists", making it sound like proselytism. Either way, it is clear that R.C. Sproul is writing with a specific purpose: to persuade the reader his own view of God, the Holy Trinity, or the Holy Spirit. And if the reader buys it, believes it, is changed by his writing, then he'd fulfill his purpose as a writer. Writing is an art. An art of persuasion.) <Q> "Theology" is the study of God, the gods, and related ideas like angels and demons and heaven and hell. <S> "Apologetics" is the defense of a theological position. <S> You could say that apologetics is a subset of theology, that part of theology concerned with proving (or at least, arguing) that the rest is true. <A> An apologist is someone who defends an argument positively. <S> By definition: a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial. <S> reasoned arguments or writings in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine. <S> Therefore, you have have apologetics of a radical theology, but the theology itself is not apologetics. <S> To non-Christians, you may need to be an apologist for Christianity - if you wish to debate and defend your theology. <S> Alternatively you could be passive in the argument and just listen to your theology <S> get trashed. <S> Even simpler: They would accept your position on the Christian Theology. <S> Should a debate start then you would use Christian Apologetics to defend your position. <A> Apologetics is derived from a Greek word meaning "speaking in defense" and involves defending a position through relevant explanations. <S> Although this is normally used in a religious sense today, the original term could have been used in presenting a legal defense. <S> So Christian Apologetics normally refers to presenting a defense of the Christian Faith, in a similar manner to what a lawyer does when he presents an argument of defense in court (these arguments are often written instead of spoken though). <S> So you could study Theology to obtain knowledge of things related to God. <S> In addition you could study other subjects such as Science to obtain further knowledge that could also assist in debunking secular "evidence" against the Christian Faith. <S> Using all of this combined knowledge you could present a defense of your faith (whether written or verbal) to those that challenge it. <S> This would be considered apologetics .	When an apologists arguments are documented or "accepted" then they are apologetics: A simple definition of Theology is "the study of things related to God".
According to Catholic teaching; how long do we go to Hell for? When people are sent to Hell, is it really for eternity, or does the amount of time spent in Hell depend on the Sins/Crimes committed on Earth? I find it difficult to accept/believe that people who do not believe in a Book (the Bible) in a World where every man lies through their teeth just to sell you something or just to manipulate you because they have their own agenda - will go to Hell for eternity . <Q> In the Catechism of the Catholic Church statement on hell , we find the following: <S> The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. <S> " The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. <S> The 'In Brief' recap summarizes this as : <S> Hell's principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. <S> So yes, Catholic teaching is the traditional view of hell, that which is described as 'eternal conscious torment'. <A> More on Hell, from the Athanasian Creed : <S> "At [Christ's] coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; and shall give account of their own works. <S> And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire." <S> This is to be believed by all Christians. <S> At the end of the Creed, it says: <S> "This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved." <S> More on Hell, from St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church: <S> "Now if it were a matter of caution that, by the edict of a king, at a certain hour, no one should set foot outside the city gates, under penalty of death by hanging, who would be found to be so negligent and heedless of his own safety that, at the forbidden hour, and in the presence of many witnesses, he would venture to set his foot outside the gate? <S> And if perchance for some reason he were to do this, would he not afterward be afraid, not only of the witnesses but also almost of the very gate itself -- as if it were somehow conscious that a crime had been committed? <S> Now all Christians have been persuaded that the Almighty and most Excellent God has decreed by an irrevocable sentence that he who departs this life guilty of having [grievously] violated God's law is bound over as a convict to eternal chains and is tortured without end by unspeakable torments [if he does not sincerely repent of his sins before death]. <S> Nevertheless, we see daily that many people, under no compulsion, unasked, and often even uninvited, offend God with their own initiative, free will and pleasure of mind. <S> Indeed, they even seek occasions of sin, rejoicing when they find them and grieving when they do not. <S> What shall we say is the cause of this?" <S> * <S> * <S> A Sermon on Hell delivered at Louvain University, Belgium, in approximately 1574 and being one of 5 sermons given by the Saint on "The Four Last Things" -- Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell. <A> It is interesting that a much higher percentage of people believe in the existence of heaven than believe in the existence of hell. <S> According to the Bible, though, hell is just as real as heaven. <S> The Bible clearly and explicitly teaches that hell is a real place to which the wicked/unbelieving are sent after death. <S> We have all sinned against God (Romans 3:23). <S> The just punishment for that sin is death (Romans 6:23). <S> Since all of our sin is ultimately against God (Psalm 51:4), and since God is an infinite and eternal Being, the punishment for sin, death, must also be infinite and eternal. <S> Hell is this infinite and eternal death which we have earned because of our sin. <S> The punishment of the wicked dead in hell is described throughout Scripture as “eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41), “unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12), “shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2), a place where “the fire is not quenched” <S> (Mark 9:44-49), a place of “torment” and “fire” (Luke 16:23-24), “everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9), a place where “the smoke of torment rises forever and ever” <S> (Revelation 14:10-11), and a “lake of burning sulfur” where the wicked are “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10). <S> The punishment of the wicked in hell is as never ending as the bliss of the righteous in heaven. <S> Jesus Himself indicates that punishment in hell is just as everlasting as life in heaven (Matthew 25:46). <S> The wicked are forever subject to the fury and the wrath of God. <S> Those in hell will acknowledge the perfect justice of God (Psalm 76:10). <S> Those who are in hell will know that their punishment is just and that they alone are to blame (Deuteronomy 32:3-5). <S> Yes, hell is real. <S> Yes, hell is a place of torment and punishment that lasts forever and ever, with no end. <S> Praise God that, through Jesus, we can escape this eternal fate (John 3:16, 18, 36).	Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire.
Does Deuteronomy 17:18 prevent bible translation copyright Many modern bible translations are published with copyright claims. However published in the work is not only permission but a command to make a copy. This can be found in. Deuteronomy 17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: You might argue that this only applies to Kings. However Revelation 5:10 makes us all kings: And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. It seems to me that if the translators wanted to copyright their translations they would have to leave Deuteronomy 17:18 out. However they all include it and it appears at least on face value to superseded their copyright notice. Is this a valid legal argument? Has this has ever been tested in a court of law? And if so what was the outcome? <Q> It's an invalid legal argument and would fail if tested. <S> Copyright subsists in the arrangement of the words themselves within the literary work. <S> The licence to copy is separate from the literary work. <S> Quite apart from copyright law, Dt 17:18 needs to read in context. <S> 17 <S> 14 <S> "When you come to the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and then say, 'I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me'; 15 <S> you may indeed set as king over you him whom the LORD your God will choose. <S> One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. <S> 16 <S> Only he must not multiply horses for himself, or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to multiply horses, since the LORD has said to you, 'You shall never return that way again.' <S> 17 <S> And he shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply for himself silver and gold. <S> 18 <S> "And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, from that which is in the charge of the Levitical priests..." <S> Note verse 15: " One from among your brethren you shall set as king over you . <S> " Even if that verse could be adduced to licence making copies, it would only apply to the king elected to rule over the people. <S> It couldn't apply to everyone who was made a king by virtue of Revelation 5:10. <A> The original manuscripts are not copyrighted. <S> It is only modern translations, constituting a "new work" in the eyes of the law that are afforded protection. <S> I may not like the idea that every modern translation is copyrighted, but it is the accepted law of the land, and if you can find access to the originals (not as hard as you might think) and translate it yourself (ala the Wikisource translation <S> , you are ok- allowing for Dt. 17:15. <S> Additionlly, the context of dt. <S> 17 clearly states, "when you enter the land." <S> The context is clearly that these laws are restricted to covenant with Israel. <S> The burden of proof on the exegete would be to show this applied outside of the land. <S> Russia has laws that say it is okay to arrest people for things we find ok in the US. <S> Doesn't mean they necessarily apply here. <A> There is a difference between copying the original text and copying someone's translation. <S> The original books of the Bible are mostly in Hebrew(OT) and Greek(NT). <S> There are also Greek Bibles where both OT and NT are in Greek. <S> There are many surviving manuscripts but they are not accessible to public. <S> Most of them are in museums and libraries. <S> You need permissions to copy from these antique books, otherwise you will need to steal them. <S> Moreover, you won't find a manuscript with all the books of the Bible in it. <S> You need to collect them from other manuscripts. <S> It's easy to get Greek Bibles for free. <S> Some are - http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx <S> http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm <S> It is the translations which have Copyrights. <S> People invested time and money to translate the Bible into English and other languages. <S> It is equivalent to stealing.	You can't just make a copy of those translations and sell it as if it is yours.
Where does the story of "the Cross on top of Adam's Skull" come from? On my trip to Church of the Holy Sepulchre , the tour guide told us that inside the church, there is a place where the Cross was located, and right beneath the Cross, there buried the Adam's ( yes, Adam our great-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand ancestor) Skull. When Jesus died, his blood filled the skull, and so on, and so on. I can't find this reference in the Bible, so I assume that it must come from somewhere, probably from Catholic tradition? But I can't be sure. Where does the story of "the Cross on top of Adam's Skull" come from? <Q> According to Emmanouela Grypeou and Helen Spurling ( The Book of Genesis in Late Antiquity , Brill 2013, p71ff ), the earliest Christian reference to this idea is Origen (c. 184-253), who traces it to Jewish tradition: Concerning the place of the skull, it came to me that Hebrews hand down <S> [the tradition that] the body of Adam has been buried there; in order that 'as in Adam all die' <S> both Adam would be raised and 'in Christ all will be made alive'. <S> (Commentary on Matthew, 27.32, original in Greek; later Latin translation here does not mention any Jewish tradition) <S> Essentially the same story is recounted by: <S> A text of c.325-350 attributed, probably falsely, to Athanasius of Alexandria (c.297-373) John Chrysostom (c.347-407) in a homily on John's gospel , 19:16, says "Some say that Adam died there, and there lies; and that Jesus in this place where death had reigned, there also set up the trophy. <S> " <S> A fifth or sixth century commentary on Isaiah, attributed, again probably falsely, to Basil the Great (329-379) <S> Epiphanius of Salamis (c.310-403) in his Panarion 46.5 , against the Tatianists, says Adam "was buried there, on the site of Golgotha. <S> This is probably the way the place, which means 'Place of a Skull', got its name, since the contour of the site bears no resemblance to a skull." <S> Basil of Seleucia (d. 458) in his Sermon 38 (Patrologia Graeca 85.409) <S> Jerome (347-420) in his commentaries on Matthew 27:33 and Ephesians 5:14, both written in 398; though he finds the story doubtful. <S> Even at this stage of Christian history, there was some doubt about the archaeological truth of the story, despite its tempting doctrinal resonance (Christ as the second Adam). <S> The location of the crucifixion was not known with any certainty; still less, the burial place of Adam, which Jerome instead located in Hebron. <S> If Adam's skull is buried under Golgotha, and if the Holy Sepulchre is indeed built on top of Golgotha, then the skull is somewhere under the church. <S> Regardless, it is still a very old story, as the examples above show. <A> It's roots lie in the legend of Seth and the oil of mercy, which is included in the Life of Adam and Eve. <S> It was elaborated in the Legend of the Rood which featured in many Medieval Mystery Plays. <S> and was part of the Golden Legend . <A> I remember the legend this way, Seth, took one of the fruits of the Tree that got his parents in such trouble,and planted nearby Eden. <S> The fruit grew to be a large tree until it was cut down to be used as Jesus' cross. <S> Quite frankly, we know with God all things are possible. <S> Thereby its not so horrible to think that it really happened just that way. <S> For those who insist on facts I say where is your Faith?	According to the legend in its widest distribution, the story is interwoven with that of the Queen of Sheba , as depicted in Piero della Francesca's series, who prophesies that the beam of wood will bear the saviour of the world.
Was Noah a Prophet? I am kinda confused about prophets. I've searched a lot, but still I can't find an appropriate answer. The Question: Was Noah a prophet? and if he was; Was Noah prophesied in the Bible or Torah? <Q> He was a prophet by the time of Peter and therefore a prophet in the Bible: 2 Peter 2:5 NIV If he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on itsungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, andseven others; <S> In the Torah, the word "נָבִיא" is used to describe him. <S> In Hebrew, the word נָבִיא (navi), "spokesperson", traditionallytranslates as "prophet". <S> Therefore: Was Noah a prophet? <S> Yes <S> Was he prophesied in the bible or Torah? <S> He was prophesied in the Torah and continued into the Bible. <S> and by clear definition: <S> proph·et <S> [prof-it] a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration. <S> a. a person chosen to speak for God and to guide the people of Israel <S> : Moses was the greatest of Old Testament prophets. <S> b. <S> ( ofteninitial capital letter ) one of the Major or Minor Prophets. <S> c. <S> one ofa band of ecstatic visionaries claiming divine inspiration and,according to popular belief, possessing magical powers. <S> d. <S> a personwho practices divination. <S> one of a class of persons in the early church, next in order after the apostles, recognized as inspired to utter special revelations andpredictions. <S> 1 <S> Cor. 12:28. <S> the Prophet, Muhammad, the founder of Islam. <S> a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or leader. <A> He was the mediator between God and people. <S> God told him about the flood that was to come. <S> He told the people, but they did not believe. <S> So Noah was definitely a prophet from God Almighty. <A> Please note that any one can be the mouthpiece of God at any giving period of time and that is called the manifestation of God;note Saul prophesied in 1Samuel and the people said "is Saul also amongst the prophets"? <S> that did not qualify Saul. <S> Note that a preacher may not be a prophet; Noah was a preacher(2pt.2:5). <S> One message for 120 years, God will send a rain, repent, and the way of escape is that you MUST get in the boot. <S> Qualification of a prophet is that: you must be call from your mother's womb by God(Jeremiah 1:5) and Apostles, Galatians 1:15. <S> Let us not add to the word, neither can we subtract from it.	Yes, Noah was a prophet.
What does the Bible teach/say about luck? Is there such a thing, do we have a measure of randomness and ability to shape our own destinies or ultimately are all things predestined. <Q> I'll give you one perpective. <S> According to the following verse: Romans 8:28 (ESV) <S> And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,fn for those who are called according to his purpose. <S> In other words, to the Christian who has grown to love and trust God implicitly, God's hand is in everything in his life, in both good and "bad" events. <S> Even the negative circumstances are taken as though from God, allowed by God to shape the believer's character, as it states in Romans 5:3-4, Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, You may be confusing luck and shaping our own destinies. <S> They are not mutually exclusive. <S> If I want to lose 10 lbs, I can trust to chance or make my own luck by eating fewer calories than I burn until I get the weight I want. <S> But when I act on it, then, according to the dictionary of English words, the event is no longer luck, but a planned event. <S> (This is not always correct though: you can intentionally make your way to a red-carpet gala to get a movie star's autograph (not luck) and either the star doesn't show up, or you're too far to get to him (bad luck.) <A> The Bible does not have any Scriptures on 'luck' per se , but does have several in which it talks about chance. <S> The difference is that chance according to Webster is: An event that happens, falls out or takes place, without being contrived, intended, expected or foreseen; the effect of an unknown cause, or the unusual or unexpected effect of a known cause; accident; casualty; fortuitous event; as, time and chance happen to all. <S> Chance and luck can sometimes be interchangeable. <S> all Scripture is quoted from the King James translation. <S> In the following Scriptures you might use luck in place of chance. <S> 1st <S> Samuel 6:8 and 9 <S> And take the ark of the LORD, and lay it upon the cart; and put the jewels of gold, which ye return him for a trespass offering, in a coffer by the side thereof; and send it away, that it may go. <S> And see, if it goeth up by the way of his own coast to Bethshemesh, then he hath done us this great evil: but if not, then we shall know that it is not his hand that smote us: it was a chance that happened to us. <S> 2nd <S> Samuel 1:6 <S> And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him. <S> Ecclesiastes 9:11 <S> I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but <S> time and chance happeneth to them all. <S> but with this verse Chance and luck have different meanings. <S> Proverbs 16:33 <S> The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD. <A> My concordance does not record the word luck as in the bible. <S> Do we have an ability to shape our destiny? <S> Yes. <S> We have choice. <S> Deuteronomy 6;21 <S> And the LORD commanded us to <S> do all the statues, to fear <S> the LORD our God, for our good, <S> that he might preserve us alive, as <S> it is at this day. <S> Proverbs 1;7 <S> The fear of <S> the LORD is <S> the beginning of knowledge,; but fools despise wisdom and instruction. <S> Proverbs 28;26 <S> He <S> that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: <S> but whoso <S> walketh wisely <S> shall be delivered.	If you plan something to happen, then it is no longer luck.
What is the significance of Luke 22:44 where Christ's sweat was as great drops of blood in the garden of Gethsemane while he prayed? Luke 22:44 talks about Jesus Christ's experience while he was in the Garden of Gethsemane. During a time when an angel visits him to strengthen him he begins to sweat blood. I would like to understand better the significance of this verse: 44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. Did he literally bleed through his pores as could be interpreted from this verse? What would cause him to sweat blood during a prayer to his Father? What is the spiritual meaning behind this sweat of blood that came from his body in the Garden of Gethsemane? Was he feeling pain that required an angel to strengthen him in order to bear what he was feeling? <Q> Did he literally bleed through his pores as could be interpreted from this verse? <S> Yes. <S> This condition is called Hematidrosis . <S> What would cause him to sweat blood during a prayer to his Father? <S> Hematidrosis may occur when a person is suffering extreme levels of stress; for example, facing his or her own death. <S> What is the spiritual meaning behind this sweat of blood that came from his body in the Garden of Gethsemane? <S> The drops of blood that Jesus sweat in the Garden of Gethsemane surely fulfilled "the anguish of His soul" that Isaiah spoke of; that is, Jesus's passion was not merely physical but also spiritual. <S> His anguish clearly demonstrated he was human and that his sufferings were real. <S> Two early heresies, Docetism and Sabellianism, denied both. <S> Was he feeling pain that required an angel to strengthen him in order to bear what he was feeling? <S> I would not call it pain, I would say intense spiritual agony. <S> Being the Son of God, he knew in detail everything that was about to happen to him. <S> He knew that he was facing physically one of the most horrible forms of capital punishment in history. <S> Since his body was human, he would feel everything at least as intensely as we would. <A> Could it be that Jesus is on his way To die there in the garden and prays to the father to save him there and then from that moment so he can go To the cross and die for the humanity. <S> Like the utter most test from the father: are the son willing To die there and go To the father without saving the humanity if that is the fathers will. <S> Obidience is better than sacrifice. <S> Are he ready To put the father before the creation just as Abraham put God before Isak and the father was ready To give his son for the humanity. <S> And then the father sees that Jesus is perfekted To save us all. <S> This harmonice With hebr 5:7-9 were it says that Jesus was saved from death as his prayers were answered <S> but he was newer saved from the death on the cross and the three night and days in grave. <S> So what he prays for in the garden To be spare from could not be the death on the cross but that he is on his way To die there in the garden. <S> And Jesus knows that if he dies there in the garden he can not save us. <S> He has longed To save us in all eternity and prays the father To save him in the garden so he can save us on the cross. <S> But is ready To obey his father even if it means not To save us. <S> This was the ultimate test for the son in flesh in order To see if the son is puts the father before us. <S> And this is the model for us, that we also has To come To the place <S> were we are tests if we are ready To put the father before our lives, ministry, family and even our own calling that God has given us. <S> Nothing is more imported for God <S> then we putting him and his will before everything in our life just as the Son did in the gethsemane garden <A> He who knew no sin, became sin for us" sin was about to seperate him from the father. <S> The father "loves a sinner but hates sin".... <S> and Christ sin for US	I think Christ feared seperation from the father for a season, "father why have you forsaken me" the thought of being seperated from the father caused emotional stress and hematidrosis. "
Does anyone have a good definition of "Evangelical"? I know the word itself means "of or related to the gospel." That's not what I'm talking about. I mean, when the term is used to refer to a subset of Christians, what are the characteristics being implied? What is the criteria used to determine what Christians are "Evangelicals" and which ones aren't? <Q> Here are some statements of beliefs from some evangelical fellowships: The Gospel Coalition , IFES , Wycliffe . <S> But not all protestants are evangelical. <S> I think the biggest distinctive is what they say about the Bible. <S> They reject those who say the Bible is flawed in some way, not relevant for today, that you need the authority of church leaders to understand it, or that God gives new relevations today that take priority over the Bible. <S> To quote from the Gospel Coalition: <S> Revelation <S> God has graciously disclosed his existence and power in the created order, and has supremely revealed himself to fallen human beings in the person of his Son, the incarnate Word. <S> Moreover, this God is a speaking God who by his Spirit has graciously disclosed himself in human words: we believe that God has inspired the words preserved in the Scriptures, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments, which are both record and means of his saving work in the world. <S> These writings alone constitute the verbally inspired Word of God, which is utterly authoritative and without error in the original writings, complete in its revelation of his will for salvation, sufficient for all that God requires us to believe and do, and final in its authority over every domain of knowledge to which it speaks. <S> We confess that both our finitude and our sinfulness preclude the possibility of knowing God’s truth exhaustively, but we affirm that, enlightened by the Spirit of God, we can know God <S> ’s revealed truth truly. <S> The Bible is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it teaches; obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; and trusted, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises. <S> As God’s people hear, believe, and do the Word, they are equipped as disciples of Christ and witnesses to the gospel. <S> Why is the movement called evangelicalism when it's primary distinctive isn't about the gospel? <S> I think because historically the people they were reacting against neglected the gospel because they neglected the Bible. <S> Promoting the authority of the Bible is a safeguard to ensure the gospel keeps first importance. <A> Evangelical is a potentially religious term. <S> It doesn't matter if others think you are Evangelical or not <S> , what matters is are <S> You testifying of the Lord or not. <S> If we are not ashamed of Him, he will not be ashamed of us. <S> So conversely, any and every believer needs to be evangelical. <A> The Barna Group is a Christian polling firm that does public opinion studies. <S> In their research, they classify people into different belief groups. <S> Rather than allow people to self identify themselves as born again or evangelical <S> , they ask people if they agree with certain statements, and classify people based on their answers. <S> The criteria for the classifications are at the end of each report that they produce. <S> (For example, here is a recent report from December 2013 titled <S> "Is Evangelism Going Out of Style?" ) <S> For the purposes of their studies, "Born again Christians" are people who have met this criteria: <S> They say they have made "a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today. <S> " <S> They believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. <S> In their studies, "Evangelical" Christians are those who meet the "born again" criteria above, plus seven other conditions: <S> saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; <S> believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; <S> asserting that the Bible is accurate in all the principles it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. <S> When classifying people in these groups, they do not ask people to describe themselves as "born again" or "evangelical," as people can have different ideas about what these terms mean. <S> The groups are also not dependent on church affiliation.	Evangelicalism is a branch of protestantism, so it involves a protestant understanding of the gospel.
What is the mark placed on Cain? "And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him." Genesis 4:15 ESV What is the mark placed on Cain? <Q> It seems to have been a mark of warning, not of protection, to those who may think to harm him. <S> Unfortunately, others warped the meaning of the sign and applied it to themselves later in the same chapter: <S> Genesis 4:23-24 <S> Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. <S> If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, <S> then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.” <S> Mankind misconstrued God's mark of mercy to be a mark of license, and had no problem killing others who bothered them. <S> To them it was a mark of "revenge" not mercy. <S> Thus, mankind grew worse and worse, since there was no fear of God in them. <S> So the Flood was necessary, and after the Flood, came God's clear command so we would not make the same mistake: Genesis 9:6 <S> “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. <S> They did not seem to see the mark as a physical mark; it appears that they just applied it to themselves as a matter of principle: "I killed a man, so I am marked by God, too. <S> " <A> The Bible doesn't say what the mark was. <S> I think the verse you quote is all that we're told about it. <S> It is puzzling. <S> I always picture some symbol on his forehead, like a tatoo. <S> But nothing in the text spells that out. <S> The whole point is that people who knew Cain was a murderer might take it upon themselves to execute him. <S> But that would require that they recognize him and know what he did. <S> So if God had commanded that Cain not be killed, why would an additional mark be necessary? <S> And if it was some sort of symbol, how would anyone know what it means? <S> Or was it words, like "Don't dare kill this man, signed, God"? <S> A teacher years ago suggested that maybe it wasn't anything like a symbol or tatoo at all, but rather, a look in his eyes. <S> It sounds to me like that could make a great ending to a story. " <S> And then he turned and looked at me, and I knew I couldn't kill him. <S> I dropped my weapon. <S> For suddenly I knew who he was. <S> That haunting, hunted, hated look in his eyes. <S> He bore the mark of Cain. <S> " I'd write that story except I can't think of anything interesting to go before that. :-) <A> Cain and Abel reprsent <S> the two classes of people at <S> the end of time. <S> Cain represents <S> the wicked, and Able represents the righteous. <S> 1 <S> John 3;12 <S> Not as Cain, who was of <S> the wicked one, and <S> slew his brother. <S> And wherefore <S> slew <S> he him? <S> Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous. <S> Matthew 13;19 <S> When anyone heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it <S> not, then cometh <S> the <S> wicked one, and catheth away that <S> which was sown in his heart. <S> This is he <S> which received seed by the way side. <S> 1 <S> John 3;8 <S> He <S> that committeth sin is of the devil; for <S> the devil sinneth from the beginning. <S> For this purpose <S> the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy <S> the works of <S> the devil. <S> Exodus <S> 33;16,17 <S> For wherein <S> shall <S> it <S> be known here <S> that, I and thy people found grace in thy sight? <S> is <S> it <S> not in that thou goest with us? <S> so shall <S> we be seperated, <S> I and thy people, from all the people <S> that are upon <S> the face of the earth. <S> And the LORD said unto Moses, <S> I will do this thing, also <S> that thou has spoken: for thou <S> has found grace in my sight, and <S> I know thee by name. <S> Isaiah 13;9,11 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel <S> both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land <S> desolate: <S> and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. <S> And I will punish the world for their evil, and <S> the <S> wicked for their iniquity; and <S> I will cause the arrogancy of <S> the proud to cease, and <S> will lay low <S> the haughtiness of <S> the terrible. <S> Revelation <S> 22;11 <S> He <S> that is unjust, <S> let him be unjust still: and <S> he <S> which is filthy, <S> let him be filthy still: and <S> he <S> that is righteous, <S> let him be righteous still: and <S> he <S> that is holy, <S> let him be holy still.	The mark was a sign of God's mercy for this murderer.
Where did the notion that Adam and Eve ate an APPLE come from? Contrary to popular belief no mention of the fruit being an apple can be found in the Book of Genesis. Jewish commentaries recorded in the Midrash Rabbah speculate that the tree might have been a species of wheat, or corn, or that the fruit might have been grapes or figs. And yet, the idea that it was an apple is widely accepted. Was it due to Classical influences (The golden apples in the Garden of the Hesperides)? Is it a legacy from the Latin 'malum' (apple/evil)? Or is there another reason? Are there any other theories that have been put forward as to what the fruit might have been? <Q> According to the Online Etymology Dictionary , the word apple has, until recently, always meant simply "fruit" in English. <S> This was certainly the case at the time of the earliest English Bible translations in the 1600s. <S> In Middle English and as late as 17c., it was a generic term for all fruit other than berries but including nuts (e.g. Old English fingeræppla "dates," literally "finger-apples;" Middle English appel of paradis "banana," c.1400). <S> Hence its grafting onto the unnamed "fruit of the forbidden tree" in Genesis. <S> (emphasis added) <A> The notion of the forbidden fruit being an apple is not something exclusive of english christianity (here in Spain is also an usual misconception), as long as I've heard is something habitual in Western European culture as a whole. <S> The main explication that I found about this is related to something that the OP already talked about: <S> the latin words <S> malum/mālum <S> which mean evil and apple and have a very similar pronunciation . <S> The reason was the following: Saint Jerome <S> was one of the most relevants scholars of his time, being depicted in a huge number of paintings. <S> He is also the autor of a translation of the Bible from the original Hebrew that started in 390 and was finished by 405. <S> This translation into Latin is what is know as a vulgate , an edition of the Bible aimed to the people, not just for the scholars. <S> St. Jerome translated the original using the word <S> malum <S> ( additional reference ) which has given rise to the notion of the fruit being a apple. <S> For instance here you can take a look at the painting called The Fall of Men by Jan Brueghel and P.P. Rubens: <S> And also the very famous Adam and Eve by Albretch Dürer <S> (link) . <A> The bible talks about a generic "fruit"; but in latin, the word from apple (malum) has the same sound of the word for evil (mālum)... <S> so, during middle age, artists started to represent the forbidden fruit as an apple.	This misconception was perpetuated in the ideas of European people mainly due to the work of the numerous painters who decided to paint this scene.
Why does Jesus say "Why have you forsaken me?" Why does Jesus say "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" This is from the ESV version. It just seems so out of character. <Q> Hence Jesus would be quoting it to sort of point that out. <S> Of particular interest is verse 16 (KJV) <S> "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: <S> they pierced my hands and my feet ." <S> Also verse 21, " <S> Save me from the lion's mouth: <S> for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. <S> " <S> Unicorns simply means a one-horned animal, maybe an extinct one-horned rhino, not the mythical unicorn. <S> Anyway, its being used figuratively. <S> Justin Martyr (around 150 AD) in his Dialogue with Trypho , in chapter 91, understood this as symbolizing the cross by the figure of intersecting unicorn horns: <S> Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an unicorn represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross. <S> For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. <S> And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns. <A> The traditional Christian answer is that at that moment, Jesus took all the sins of everyone who would ever live on himself, and the Father could not look at him in that state. <S> Then for the only time in his existence Jesus was separated from the Father. <S> Some say that by not looking at Jesus when he took on our sins, the Father thus does not see our sins. <S> If he had looked at him then, God would still see all our sins and we could not be forgiven. <S> This seems to me rather simplistic and taking a metaphor too literally, but maybe there's truth in there. <A> Sin by definition is separation from God. <S> When The Christ uttered these words, He, Who from all eternity, had known only complete "oneness" with the Father, was completely separated from the Father. <S> The sin of all the world had cast Him into total darkness and "aloneness." <S> Broken (not by The Father, not by The Son... but by sin) was the eternal union.	Its a quotation of the first verse of Psalm 22 (Read the whole Psalm), which is a Psalm about a righteous man suffering at the hands of the ungodly, and is traditionally understood within Christianity as being a graphic prophecy of the crucifixion.
Are these verses from Proverbs contradictory? Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will become just like him. Proverbs 26:4 NIV Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes..Proverbs 26:5 NIV Should you? Or, Shouldn't you? <Q> Consider the definition of a proverb : a short popular saying, usually of unknown and ancient origin, that expresses effectively some commonplace truth or useful thought; adage; <S> saw. <S> As such, each proverb (whether Biblical or otherwise) must be examined on its own, to see what it means. <S> Proverbs are very poetic, and full of imagery that should not be taken literally. <S> Take any analogy too far, and you have chaos. <S> Try to mix two analogies, and really weird things happen. <S> Consider a modern rendition of a popular chinese proverb : <S> I hear and I forget; <S> I see and I remember; <S> I do and I understand. <S> Is this saying that literally I forget everything I hear, but I remember everything I see? <S> Of course not. <S> It's speaking in hyperbole to make a point about what is often considered the most effective way of learning something. <S> Now lets look at your two Biblical proverbs: <S> Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will become just like him. <S> What point is being made here? <S> If someone does something foolish, doing something foolish in return only makes you like him. <S> That seems like good advice, and this point stands on its own. <S> Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. <S> What point is being made here? <S> This also seems like good advice, and stands on its own. <S> And in fact, both pieces of advice can be applied to the same situation, as long as they are each applied appropriately, and in context. <S> If someone does something foolish to you, you can address his folly head on , without doing something foolish in return . <S> So no, they do not contradict each other, unless they are taken out of context, and overly literally. <A> They are not contradictory. <S> You apply each one according to the situation. <S> I don't know what situations King Solomon experienced that taught these truths to him, but I can think of a couple of examples where one would apply. <S> If the person said something foolish that makes him feel smart, and you know he is teachable, then go ahead and tell him what was wrong with his saying so he won't be puffed up with pride. <S> " <S> Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes" (Proverbs 26:5 NIV). <S> On the other hand, maybe you aren't very good with words yourself, nor or a quick thinker, or he is very clever at twisting your words around to play a game. <S> You'll only look foolish in those conditions, so it's best to leave his foolish words alone. <S> "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will become just like him" (Proverbs 26:4). <A> There are some folks in this world that you cannot win with. <S> You've heard the expression, "darned if you do, darned if you don't"? <S> Fools are people that you should avoid if at all possible-- see Proverbs 14:7. <S> Avoid fools <S> ; I believe that is the correct interpretation of these verses. <S> It only contradicts if you try to take each in isolation.	They may be "contradictory" if taken in a literal sense, but proverbs are not really meant to be taken literally--whether those from the Bible, or from any other source. When someone does something foolish, to make him aware of his folly, you must address his folly head-on, otherwise he will think his folly is wisdom.
Do non-Catholics ever have the priest visit the sick parishioners and deliver them communion? Do non-Catholics ever have the priest visit sick parishioners and deliver them communion? I don't know, but I think it's pretty cool that Catholics have this sort of pastoral care built into their system, and I am wondering whether or not non-Catholics do a similar sort of thing where the priest/pastor/minister would visit the sick parishioners or congregants and give them communion because the sick individuals could not come to Mass but would nevertheless like to receive the Eucharist. What other denominations do this? <Q> The Church of England does this. <S> It's an important part of the clergy's ministry to their little bit of the country — and they will go to anyone resident in the parish who would receive communion in the Church of England but can't (so it's not restricted to actual members of the Church of England). <S> Although the Church of England is the established Church in England, and each incumbent has a statutory role within his parish, it's highly likely that any Anglican minister would operate in the same way. <A> It is common in the Christian Churches, Churches of Christ, and Disciples of Christ. <S> These are part of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. <A> Sure. <S> I would add that The Episcopal Church encourages a Lay Eucharistic Ministry by which parishioners are charged with administration of the sacrament to the homebound. <A> Sometimes it's a congregation-by-congregation thing. <S> At one time I attended a church in the URCNA denomination that followed this practice for many years; at some point a new pastor convinced the elders to cease the practice on the grounds of lack of Biblical support. <A> In some cases they will attend nursing homes and hospitals and hold a service if the numbers warrant it.	Priesthood of the LDS church certainly take the Sacrament to the sick and the elderly.
Why did Pilate insist on writing 'Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews'? From John 19 (KJV): 19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20 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. 21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. 22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written. The chief priests appear to be protesting at what Pilate has written, presumably because it appears to be affirming what they wish to deny. They ask him write instead that 'he said, I am King of the Jews' - notably they do not ask him to remove the title altogether, or to write a denial. Why does Pilate affirm what he has written? <Q> Crucifixion was more than a method of execution; it was a public execution, and a long, slow, exceptionally painful one at that. <S> Half the point was to make an example of the condemned so they could act as a deterrent. <S> Part of the process was to identify the person and their crime, which was done by putting a sign on the cross. <S> Thing is, Pilate couldn't actually identify any crime that Jesus had committed. <S> But the Jewish leaders were adamant about sending him to the cross, and when they threatened to raise complaints with Caesar--which they could have done, successfully, as he was not the best of governors--he backed down. <S> Writing <A> It was what Jesus was charged with—at least, it was the complaint that the Jewish priests took to the Romans. <S> The Romans usually placed the charge—in this case, claiming to be "King of the Jews" and thus challenging the Roman Emperor and Roman rule—on the top of the cross to show the people why a person was crucified, probably to discourage others from committing the same crime. <A> I concur with the above opinion <S> Pilate knew he was in the presence of someone extraordinary. <S> In vs 10 Pilate reminds Jesus of his power to crucify Him. <S> In vs 11 Jesus tells Pilate "You could have no power at all against Me, except it were given you from above;therefore he that delivered Me to you has the greater sin. <S> At that point I believe Pilate developed ears that hear. <S> Something resonated with Pilate when he heard what Jesus said right then. <S> He already told the Jews he had no issue with Him. <S> In vs 7 the Jews were ranting about their law saying He ought to die because He made Himself the Son of God. <S> vs 8 When Pilate heard that saying, he was more afraid. <S> I don't think it was Caesar that Pilate feared. <S> Pilate's concerns were regarding this Man. <A> He wrote that to identify the criminal, and in a way, to insult the Jews. <S> It was just a way of saying, "Here is your king. <S> This is what happens to people who proclaim themselves Jewish kings" hence "The king of the Jews".	"The King of the Jews" on his sign as the reason he was being executed appears to be one last, somewhat passive-aggressive, act of protest against their unfair execution they were forcing him into.
Why are bibles sold for profit? Christians are encouraged to give donations and free items to the needy. But why are Bibles sometimes sold for profit, instead of being sold at cost-price, at a subsidized price, or even for free? <Q> It's the same reason pastors and missionaries are paid salaries. <A> 1st Corinthians 9:11 <S> If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? <S> The famous passage about reaping what you sow comes in the same type of context, one about making sure to pay those who teach the word: <S> Galatians 6:6-7 Let him that is taught in the word communicate [i.e. Elizabethan English for "share"] unto him <S> that teacheth in all good things. <S> Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. <S> As used there, "you reap what you sow" basically means you get what you pay for. <S> If you are too stingy to pay for a Bible, then good translators shy away from the work and you only get crappy translations. <S> Or similarly, if good preachers can't make a living at it, they enter secular employment, and what are you left with? <S> That's the argument Paul is making anyway, whether you agree or not. <S> Now, of course, a key word in your question is sometimes : <S> But why are Bibles sometimes sold for profit... <S> There are organizations that give them away for free too, so what are you complaining about? <S> Not only that, <S> but I was at Lifeway Christian bookstore the other day, and although there are plenty of Bibles priced $10 and up, there were also many rather cheap, and not too bad of quality. <S> They had rows upon rows of a pocket paperback New Testament in the Holman Christian Standard translation for just 50 cents, and a paperback HCSB full Bible for $2.99 (but without the translator's footnotes). <A> I'm not extremely familiar with the bible business, but of course the scriptures are always an authority on these things. <S> I'll simply paraphrase: <S> The Apostle Paul earned his own living making tents, if I'm not mistaken. <S> He had hoped that his self-sustaining habits would make his ministry more fruitful. <S> 1 Corinthians 9:17-18 <S> However those who choose to receive some dues for their ministry are also entitled to a degree, so their time is better spent attending to the ministry, as opposed to mopping floors. <S> Then there is the other extreme, the very familiar story where Jesus had strongly condemned the money changers in the temple for turning the sacred work into a business of extortion (also prevalent in our world) <A> Anything is sold at a profit because it can be. <S> Supply and demand. <S> Also, many ministries (although not all) have international outreaches to countries very impoverished, so they use the profits they make in the USA and other developed countries to pay the costs of publishing and printing the books in other languages of impoverished countries. <S> Those international outreaches often get the book or workbooks for free, or nearly free, to spread the gospel into all the world. <S> It makes sense, and it helps me to know this when I see the rather inflated prices of many things in the Christian bookstores here in the USA. <S> I know John Bevere Ministries does this for a fact. <S> Those who have more pay more and support those who can't afford to pay at all. <A> Perhaps an viable reason for this is that there are various types of bibles for specific purposes, examples being bibles for mass, and youth study. <S> (see reference here) <S> Each of these bibles is produced by a company and may include extra hints/tips in order to live out the bible. <S> While words may vary between translations, so do the extras that are included in these bibles. <S> As Flimzy said: "publishers, like everyone else, must make a living, so they can pay their mortgages, buy groceries, and put the children through college." <S> The people who edit and help us understand the Bible more clearly deserve a salary.	Because Bible publishers, like everyone else, must make a living, so they can pay their mortgages, buy groceries, and put the children through college.
How could Jesus' audience hear Jesus without audio installation? I am wondering, today we use microphones and large sound systems to amplify someone's speaking. How did they do that 2000 years ago? Jesus spoke outside regularly before large crowds of people. I expect there were enough children, and disagreeing people, so it wasn't always quiet. Your voice won't reach very far when there are a lot of people, especially when there is a kid crying or someone having a discussion. My question is: How did the people back then hear Jesus' (or anyone else) preaching when there was a large crowd? <Q> You are right, communication before modern electronics relied more on the speaker yelling and a crowd who surrounding attentively. <S> Consider the ancient Roman coliseum for example. <S> This place could house an audience of 50,000+ and people would need to shout loud to the crowd and be heard. <S> When we imagine the crowds that Jesus spoke to a typical Jesus movie seems to portray it right. <S> Sometimes crowds followed him to a place where he could be heard well, like for the sermon on the mount. <S> Other times they pressed in on him and he even had to sort of hurry away so that it did not become too chaotic. <S> Also many would be responding and discussing among themselves what the meaning was for something he had said. <S> In these conditions many would not hear exactly what was said and only get bits and pieces. <S> There is also the repetitive second hand reiteration of what he had said. <S> For those who could not hear they would listen to the stories told by others, even late into the night throughout the towns where Jesus preached. <S> Then there is the example of the Baptist preaching by the river. <S> Have you ever yelled in a valley and heard the echo carry your voice seemingly for ever? <S> When large crowds were addressed, sometimes good places were chosen for the acoustics, and the crowd would be more aware of when to hush for the communication to be effective. <S> Even making a makeshift blow horn with your hands could have been used as ancient Greek actors already had horn shaped mouths in their masks for this purpose. <S> However, there would certainly be some, especially among noisy crowds, who could not hear and would rely on what others said. <A> Quoting from http://www.philipvickersfithian.com/2013/12/how-loud-was-george-whitefield.html <S> The great preacher George Whitefield, who lived during the life of Ben Franklin, had a booming voice. <S> Whitefield appears several times in Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography. <S> My favorite reference to Whitefield is the passage in which Franklin tries to calculate the number of people that can hear Whitefield's booming voice. <S> Here is Franklin describing Whitefield: <S> He had a loud and clear voice, and articulated his words and sentences so perfectly, that he might be heard and understood at a great distance, especially as his auditories, however numerous, observ’d the most exact silence. <S> He preach’d one evening from the top of the Court-house steps, which are in the middle of Market-street, and on the west side of Second-street, which crosses it at right angles. <S> Both streets were fill’d with his hearers to a considerable distance. <S> Being among the hindmost in Market-street, I had the curiosity to learn how far he could be heard, by retiring backwards down the street towards the river; and I found his voice distinct till I came near Front-street, when some noise in that street obscur’d it. <S> Imagining then a semi-circle, of which my distance should be the radius, and that it were fill’d with auditors, to each of whom <S> I allow’d two square feet, I computed that he might well be heard by more than thirty thousand. <S> This reconcil’d me to the newspaper accounts of his having preach’d to twenty-five thousand people in the fields, and to the antient histories of generals haranguing whole armies, of which I had sometimes doubted. <S> As this passage indicates, Franklin estimated that Whitefield could be heard, without a microphone, by 30,000 people. <A> I would also explore the fact that we are speaking of the same Jesus who walked on waters and fed the same (5000 men) crowds with 5 loaves and 2 fish. <S> So the physical laws that restrict us were not necessary a restriction for Him. ' <S> They asked among themselves, what manner of man is this that even the winds and the seas obey His voice'. <S> I imagine that when Jesus spoke, the wind carried those sound waves to reach every intended person in the audience. <S> I don't read of Jesus wearing a greek mask, but what i do read of is that He was the very one who spoke the worlds into existence <S> so i would guess that every element of sound and that which may hamper it would hush at His voice. <S> God bless	In summary, one could definitely communicate to large crowds in ancient Rome, such as for entertainment in the amphitheaters or when generals gave pre-battle speeches for example.
What is the history of the doctrine of inerrancy? Is there any reason, biblical or otherwise, not to believe that the doctrine of inerrancy is relatively new (past two hundred years). I found the following statement on Wikipedia. "It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy#History Am I understanding correctly that the idea of infallibility has been the prevalent doctrine for most of Christian history? I'm narrowing the scope to Christianity, as it's my understanding that Jewish tradition does not hold the idea of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) being inerrant. Personal Anecdote: I grew up attending church in the 60's and 70's; the idea of inerrancy wasn't considered in the churches I attended. It seems that the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" has really changed the Christian view during the past 35 years. This question is focused on the history of the doctrine of inerrancy, not the doctrine itself. <Q> The doctrine of inerrancy, a salient feature of Christian Fundamentalism, was "a creation not of the 16th century Reformation but of 19th century Princeton University theologians attempting to preserve traditional belief in divine origins. <S> " <S> 1 As you can see, there is evidence for supporting the notion that the doctrine of inerrancy is a relatively new doctrine. <S> Infallibility refers to "the divine assistance given by Christ to the Church to teach specific doctrines without error." <S> 2 <S> Whereas, Indefectibility refers to "the divine assistance given to the Church to remain fundamentally faithful to the teachings of Christ, or 'there can be no wholesale departure from the teaching of Christ' even though various leaders and/or various populations in the Church may sometimes go astray. <S> Thus, 'indefectibility' refers to the generic divine assistance that the church will remain basically faithful to the teachings of Christ over the long run, while 'infallibility' refers to the specific divine assistance for the church to teach particular fundamental doctrines without basic error." <S> 2 Biblical inspiration results in inerrancy, 2,3 which the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes as "the attribute of the books of Scripture whereby they faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to have confided through the Sacred Scripture." <S> 2 As you can see, there is support suggesting that the doctrine of inerrancy was originally a Catholic doctrine. <S> References DOYLE, R. (2003). <S> Sizing Up Evangelicals. <S> Scientific American, 288 (3), 37. <S> FORD, J. T. (2013). <S> INFALLIBILITY--TERMINOLOGY, TEXTUAL ANALYSIS, AND THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION: <S> A RESPONSE TO MARK POWELL. <S> Theological Studies , 74(1), 119-128. <S> Gigot, F. (1907). <S> The Bible. <S> In The Catholic Encyclopedia. <S> New York: Robert Appleton Company. <S> Retrieved April 26, 2014 from New Advent: <S> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm <A> 1 Thessalonians 2:13 <S> For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe. <S> They would have believed the gospels and epistles as the testimony of the apostles, and thus, not as the word of men, but the truth and the word of God John signed off his gospel with: John 21:24 <S> This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. <S> Paul testified that: 2 Timothy 3:16 <S> All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness <S> Jesus himself said of the Old Testament: <S> John 5:39 <S> these are they which testify of Me. <S> The Old Testament are the testimony of prophets. <S> Jesus frequently quoted the scriptures against the Pharisees, leaving them speechless. <S> When tempted in the wilderness, Jesus spoke not His own words, but quoted scripture; Satan in return tried to tempt Jesus using scripture. <S> Clearly, these Old Testament writings had great authority because they were the word of God. <S> The Pharisees never displayed doubt in the veracity of the scriptures, even if they did not have the Spirit to understand the meaning. <S> They sought to prove that Jesus was not the Messiah by trying to catch Him in preaching against the scriptures. <S> When Jesus justified His actions according to the word, they were speechless. <S> Isaiah wrote: Isaiah 8:20 <S> To the law and to the testimony! <S> If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. <A> For much of Christian history, the view of the inspiration and authority of the Bible outlined above held firm, and it was almost unheard of for Christians to criticize and reject the content of Scripture as erroneous. <S> The position of the greatest of the Western church fathers, Augustine of Hippo, is instructive here. <S> In his "Reply to Faustus the Manichaean" (XI.5), St. Augustine wrote: "If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood." <S> http://www.reformation21.org/articles/a-laymans-historical-guide-to-the-inerrancy-debate.php	The belief that the scriptures are without error or fault in all its teaching can be traced to the early Christians, and further.
Was Zacchaeus saved before he met Jesus? If Zacchaeus was saved when he met Jesus, then wouldn't Zacchaeus be saved by works? 8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold. 9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham. Luke 19:8-9 Is this saying Zacchaeus was saved from hell because he decided to do good deeds? I thought we were saved by grace through faith? 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 Would it be possible that Zacchaeus was already saved before he met Jesus? Because if not it looks like he gets saved by works. <Q> Zacchaeus' good works are after <S> he addresses Jesus as ' Lord ' <S> So step 1 . <S> Was encountering Jesus, step 2 . <S> Believing in Him as the Christ - which is not explicitly stated, but necessarily occurred prior to step 3 . <S> Confessing Him as Lord step 4 . <S> Good works. <S> Summary: <A> Jesus said "Today salvation has come to this house", so no, Zaccheus was not saved before he met Jesus. <S> There are many Scripture passages that indicate that being saved leads to works, but it is not the means to get saved, as the quoted Scripture indicates, lest any man should boast. <A> As the other answers have stated, genuine faith results in works, but works are not necessary for salvation. <S> This was true of Abraham who, having believed God, offered his son Isaac. <S> It was not his work that saved him, but his saving faith, which prompted works. <S> James also speaks of this: <S> But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” <S> James 2:18 NASB <S> As James asserts later, a faith that produces no works is no faith at all: <S> For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. <S> James 2:26 NASB <S> So, the faith of Zacchaeus resulted in works. <S> He seeks Jesus out, calls Him "Lord", then exhibits the fruit of repentance in his acts of righting the wrongs he had committed.	Zacchaeus' good works were a consequence of salvation, not a cause of it.
Do non-Catholic traditions ever have family altars? Catholics may have a special place in their homes designated as the family altar. This is mentioned many places: In contradistinction to the typical home which has a television set as its centerpiece, the focal point of a Catholic home should be the family altar -- a place where the family can gather to offer up their prayers to the Most Holy Trinity and to ask the Saints to pray for them. Morning Offerings, family Rosaries, prayers for special intentions, family novenas, Lectio Divina, etc., can all be made here. source emphasis added CatholicMom.com provides a list of Home Altar Ideas . And photos of such altars are easy to find on google and pinterest , such as this one: Are there any non-Catholic traditions that do a similar sort of thing? If so, what is the purpose of having a family altar, and what do they typically put on it? <Q> After some research via Google, I have found that, in general, Protestants think of the "family altar" as an act of family worship, rather than a physical place set aside for such things. <S> The previous answer dealing with Protestants generally being iconoclasts sums that up quite well. <S> Wikipedia's "home altar" article , as of this writing, provides a picture of a family altar in "a Methodist Christian household," thereby indicating that some people from non-Catholic traditions set up physical places for family worship. <S> The article also has references to Lutheran sources. <A> I'm Protestant and we don't have family altars. <S> I don't know any christian derived church where that's something common (i'm from Portugal btw). <S> I do know a lot of Catholics who have in their home <S> but it's becoming less common in the youth generation. <S> The most common form of family altars i usually see is a table at the opening of the house, a cabinet in the living room with a lot of pictures. <S> Usually they also have candles. <A> Some Catholics may have a small niche or alcove where they keep some religious devotional items, like a statue of Mary or a Bible or something. <S> But this is NOT an altar. <S> An altar is a table specifically built for the celebration of <S> Mass. A table with candles and flowers and a statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe is not an altar. <S> The exception here is that some (very large) historic households have had chapels, which would then have an altar in them. <S> But that isn't at all what you're describing, since the altar is proper to the Chapel, only incidentally to the house.	Catholic families DO NOT have altars in their homes. Unless it is part of a small chapel, no other mainstream Christian tradition which properly has altars as furnishings in their Sanctuaries, has a practice of house altars.
Sodom and Gomorrah and God's judgement in the Christian age From my understanding of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, God agrees to spare the cities even if a few righteous people live there. In the Christian age, our righteousness is imputed to us by Christ's atoning sacrifice. Does this mean that God's judgement will not come to pass as long as there a Christians living in a region? <Q> And drawing nigh he said: <S> Wilt thou destroy the just with the wicked? <S> Genesis 18:2 <S> And, if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials and to hold the unrighteous for punishment on the day of judgment 2 Peter 2:9 <S> The first passage is a reference to Abraham before Sodom, interceding with the Lord. <S> The second is also speaking of Lot and Sodom. <S> This pattern is seen may times in Scripture. <S> There are some valid considerations, however. <S> In Sodom, the judgment was total, from which Lot was saved. <S> Not all judgment is of the same degree. <S> Certainly, God preserves His elect. <S> But, no matter what it looks like, God is still just and faithful. <S> One cannot judge adequately in this life what calamities God should and should not save people from, or what calamities are acceptable, or even who His elect even are (without personal insight, that is). <S> While the general truth is valid, even if God were to destroy the whole Earth with fire today, was He unjust? <S> His righteous are with Him, whoever they are, and the wicked are consumed. <S> So, yes, as a general rule, but specific situations can be a little but tricky (e.g., whether God should or should not judge America similarly, which is how it is often raised). <A> Does this mean that God's judgement will not come to pass as long as there a Christians living in a region? <S> It seems as if there are two types of Judgment that God has. <S> Final Revelation 20:12 <S> And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. <S> Interventional Romans 1:28 <S> And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; <S> Another example of intervention is one that shows the accumulation of iniquity up to a limit that brings judgment. <S> Genesis 15:16 <S> But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. <S> It may be that iniquity in the present age has not reached the upper limit. <S> It may be that the tribulation described in Revelation chapters six through nineteen will be a judgment brought on the whole earth. <S> However, even during this time there will be Christians because they will be hunted down and executed. <S> Revelation 13:7 <S> And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and <S> power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. <S> There is a present limit on evil. <S> 2 <S> Thessalonians 2:7 <S> For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. <S> I do not see God's judgment impeded by the presence of Christians especially at the individual level. <S> However, I do see an accumulation of global iniquity judgment that will come. <A> No. <S> Believers are protected through whatever tribulation. <S> Noah and his family through the flood, Lot, his wife, and daughters from the destruction of Sodom, and the city of Nineveh from destruction. <S> Acts 1;11 <S> Which also said, ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? <S> this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go up into heaven. <S> Jesus Christ is coming back just as he promised. <S> Matthew 24;3,4,5,1, 3 Tell us, when shall these things be? <S> and what shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the world?4 <S> And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no one deceive you.5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.14 And <S> this gospel of the kingdom shall preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. <S> God's plan is already set, believers are to watch, pray and be ready, <S> Matthew 24;13 <S> But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. <A> A class of Christians who believe in a Pretrib Rapture that occurs before a 7-year tribulation period of God's wrath believe that God's judgment will not be unleashed upon the world until He takes all Christians out. <S> So for that class of believer's perspective, it's true.	In one sense, you could say that God is holding off judgment because of those who are and will be righteous because of Christ.
Why does only one person "teach" during a church meeting? Consider these scriptures: "And don’t get drunk with wine, which leads to reckless actions, but be filled by the Spirit: speaking to one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making music from your heart to the Lord, giving thanks always for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another in the fear of Christ." Ephesians 5:18-21 "Let the message about the Messiah dwell richly among you, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, and singing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, with gratitude in your hearts to God." Colossians 3:16 "What then is the conclusion, brothers? Whenever you come together, each one has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, another language, or an interpretation. All things must be done for edification." 1 Corinthians 14:26 "For you can all prophesy one by one, so that everyone may learn and everyone may be encouraged." 1 Corinthians 14:31 Why is it that only one person teaches during the meeting of the saints (the church meeting)? Isn't this contrary to what scripture is teaching? If it is not contrary to scripture, is there any evidence in the New Testament for having a "single teacher" in the church meeting? I can't seem to find any evidence for this church practice in Scripture, so I'm wondering if this is a church tradition that is perhaps against the teachings of Scripture. What I understand from the above passages (even read in context), is that everyone in the church has a responsibility to exercise the gifts that have been imparted to them by the Holy Spirit. If we are not participating in the active leadership of this meeting (by teaching, prophesying, and singing, for example), then we aren't we being passive and not fulfilling the call of the church? <Q> I attended meetings of the Vineyard for a period of a year and the members there exercised the gifts of the Spirit, with multiple people, one at a time, giving revelation and prophesying, tongues and interpretations. <S> Then they bunched together and prayed for healings for the afflicted. <S> I attended a Brethren-inspired gathering for about 8 years. <S> There, they encouraged multiple brothers to get up and speak on the same Sunday morning. <S> The one with little experience spoke for 10 minutes; those with more ability, 15-20 minutes; those with gift, 30 minutes. <S> (So when I say that I have preached for 8 years, people think I'm a pastor!) <S> In this same church, the singing was not led by a choir or worship leader, but members of the body spoke out a hymn number between individual bouts of verbal worship, and we sang that. <S> Because these settings are outside of any traditional settings I've witnessed in mainline denominations, I can only conclude that historical tradition has dictated the idea of a single speaker. <S> In a regular church service where many are present, it certainly makes for a more controlled environment when the message isn't interrupted with questions or comments (I've attended one of those, too!) <A> I believe what you cited is the intended example and would love to experience some of the things mentioned by @Steve. <S> However, there are some examples of a single speaker, including just about every time Jesus spoke publicly after a certain point: <S> And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions. <S> (Mark 12:34b) <S> The primary example of a single long monologue seems to be Acts 20:7-12, where Paul speaks all night long (and possibly all day and then all night long). <S> Fundamentalist Humor: <S> Of course when I'm talking to someone who may be preaching soon, I tell them that they're quite welcome to talk until midnight just as soon as they demonstrate that like Paul they can raise someone from the dead. <S> In my opinion the single person monologue was primarily used for special occasions when an important speaker was in town for a limited time. <A> essentially lots of people talking = <S> = <S> church split <S> There is no real Biblical basis for only one person teaching during a church service. <S> Such techniques were developed in response to problems that existed when a plurality of people are perceived as leading the church. <S> (Especially if they are old people or snobby in such a way it attracts the weak) <S> Its the Ephesians and Corinth problem that Timothy and Paul historically faced. <S> If you are unfamiliar with this problem I will provide a longer explanation. <A> The Church as with any other entity has gone through the process of evolution. <S> In its infancy the church was established by word of mouth, by that I mean that in the absence of any written directives, churches were formed on the basis of the teachings of Jesus and, the story of his sacrifice being passed around through word of mouth. <S> In its infancy Paul and Silas along with others spread the word throughout the civilized world at the time. <S> Later the Gospel was preserved in writing and Paul's guidance was slowly disseminated through his letters. <S> In the Church there was no collection of Scripture, which would give stability to church teachings, and as a result many varying ideas were slowly introduced into the concepts of the way in which the salvation of man was initiated by Jesus. <S> This resulted in many, varying and quite frankly, dangerous misconceptions. <S> Some of these were the incorporation of the concept of reincarnation, which has no basis in Jesus teachings; Gnosticism , and an array of misinterpretations. <S> The Church went through a agonizing process of sanitizing the basic concepts of Christianity, and in the council meetings at Nicene established a common canon for use in the Church, which I personally feel was God's will. <S> Under the rule of Constantine in Rome this was required for Christianity to be adopted as the state religin of the Roman Empire. <S> At that time the Roman Empire ruled most of the civilized world, and all of the Roman Empire was required to teach only this and no other ideology. <S> To this end the clergy was the path for dissemination of the standard teaching, and thus began the practice of one teacher in the Church, this responsibility was placed on the Cardinals who attended the conferences, and they in turn taught the priests. <S> At that time there was no division of the Church. <S> Even as the church grew and went through its various schisms the concept of one trained teacher was incorporated into the break away factions. <S> These break away factions, over the years have produced their separate canons, and have established their own institutes for the qualification of their ministers. <S> While the canons of various denominations differ widely, the concept of salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus has held firm, and is the basis of all Christian denominations.	Also, it makes sense for the pastor to do all the speaking because he is paid to do so and (generally) has the ability to communicate the things of God well.
Where does the Bible say that nature will speak the word if men don't? I am trying to remember a verse I've heard, and almost positive I've read, before. I do not remember the exact phrasing. It was similar to: 'If no one is there to witness, even the rocks of the field and [trees? mountains? nature?] will witness/speak the word`. I believe this is in the New Testament, possibly Jesus speaking. What is the passage that relates to what would happen if no one was around to witness? <Q> I believe you are thinking of Luke 19:40 : <S> ‘I tell you [Pharisees],’ he [Jesus] replied, ‘if they [His disciples] keep quiet, the stones will cry out.’ <A> Romans suggests that knowledge of God can be seen by the created world: <S> For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. <S> (Romans 1:20) <S> It doesn't say that nature will speak of Jesus, but it will speak of God's character <A> Maybe this is what you are thinking of: <S> Matthew 3:9"And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' <S> I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham."	Other passages that refer to the witness of creation include Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20 .
Unexpected sexual incompatibility in marriage The Bible teaches that sex should be limited to married couples. But these days many people in Western societies think that it is wise for a couple to sleep together before getting married so that they will know whether or not they are sexually compatible. Does the Bible, or any well-known Christian authors, have anything to say about the problem of sexual incompatibility which was unexpected because the couple did not sleep together before getting married? <Q> (This is not really a 'Christian' answer, but then your question isn't really a 'Christian' question.) <S> If 'sexual chemistry' is a thing, is there any guarantee that it will survive a wedding, or 7, 10, 20 years of married life and child-bearing-induced-body-morphing? <S> If not, your 'test drive' won't help much. <S> You'll need something other than 'lust' to stay the course. <A> The restrictions that God does place on sex suggest that sex fulfills its purpose when it is experienced by two people who are committed (for life) to each other. <S> Compatibility is an important issue for marriage, but even that is not absolutely essential in every area because people can change over time, especially if they each act out of selfless love for their spouse. <S> With this in mind, it makes no sense to look for a spouse based on sex (or sexual compatibility). <S> Sex is not the reason a marriage will succeed or fail. <S> It is pleasurable enough that it will always be a positive thing (over all) between two people who are committed to and have decided to love each other for the rest of their lives. <S> Pre-marital sex is dangerous because it puts the cart before the horse. <S> God says that the husband and wife will be "one flesh" ( Ge 2:24 ). <S> Though the character of this unity isn't strictly physical, physical union is included in the fundamental concept. <S> Sex comes after marriage because of the bond that it creates between the participants. <S> It seems that it serves to “glue” a husband and wife together after they’ve committed to marry. <S> To have sex with someone you’re not married to is to create a bond that may never serve any good purpose and may well serve to distract you from the person you do marry later on. <A> Your question: Does the Bible, or any well-known Christian authors, have anything to say about the problem of sexual incompatibility which was unexpected because the couple did not sleep together before getting married? <S> As you probably know, pre-marital sex is a sin according to the bible - but it does address matters of incompatibility, compatibility, and a balanced win/win approach. <S> See below: 1 Corinthians 13:5 <S> In other words, does not over-emphasize self-needs (sexually) 5 <S> It is not conceited (arrogant and inflated with pride); it is not rude (unmannerly) and does not act unbecomingly. <S> Love (God’s love in us) does not insist on its own rights or its own way , for it is not self-seeking; it is not touchy or fretful or resentful; it takes no account of the evil done to it <S> [it pays no attention to a suffered wrong]. <S> 1 <S> Corinthians 7:5 Should consider needs of mate: 5 <S> Do not refuse and deprive and defraud each other [of your due marital rights], except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, so that you may devote yourselves unhindered to prayer. <S> But afterwards resume marital relations, lest Satan tempt you [to sin] through your lack of restraint of sexual desire. <S> 1 Corinthians 7:28 Compatibility troubles (and more!) are to be expected. <S> 28 <S> But if you do marry, you do not sin [in doing so], <S> and if a virgin marries, she does not sin [in doing so]. <S> Yet those who marry will have physical and earthly troubles, and I would like to spare you that. <A> "Well known Christian writers" covers a lot of people over a couple of millenia, including over the past century and a half. <S> I don't have much familiarity with what all of them wrote, so it is possible that one or more of well known Christian writers did discuss the topic. <S> However, the notions of "love" and "marriage" have changed substantially over the same period. <S> I don't recall ever reading anything in the Bible about "sexual incompatibility" because the notion just was not considered. <S> There are so few men and women who lack the necessary parts to engage in sexual activity that I expect that a man or woman in Biblical times would have scoffed at the notion that there was such a thing as "sexual incompatibility". <S> The notion of marriage has also changed considerably, and the lives of women in general have also changed considerably. <S> In Biblical times, a woman would have gone from her father's house to her husbands, and the marriage may have been arranged years before. <A> As you know, there are no exceptions to the rule. <S> James4;17 <S> Therefore, to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, <S> to him it is sin. <S> II Peter 2;21 <S> For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than after they have known it , to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them. <S> You may want to seek advice from your pastor about compatibility in general.	The Biblical authors (and God himself) do not speak about sex in this way, as if a typical husband and wife could possibly be sexually incompatible.
Who is the comforter? Can somebody explain, who is the comforter? John 16:12-13 12 I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come But in John 16:7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." Jesus say that if I go then the comforter will come but the Holy Spirit was already there with Jesus, so how come the comforter is Holy Spirit? <Q> The comforter is the Holy Spirit according to John 14:26 <S> But the Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. <S> Q: "Jesus say that if I go then the comforter will come but the Holy Spirit was already there with Jesus, so how come the comforter is Holy Spirit?" <S> We know that Jesus was baptised in the Holy Spirit from John 3:16. <S> But, where Jesus goes, the Holy Spirit goes with him. <S> Jesus said in John 16:7 <S> " <S> Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." <S> The key words here are "come unto". <S> Come - erchomai (meaning from one place to another, to go, to followone) <S> Unto - pros (meaning to the advantage of, at, near, by, towards) <S> So essentially it means, this. <S> That the Holy Spirit is with Jesus, but when he assends to the father (after his death and resurrection) he will send the Holy Spirit to be with all believers. Or to follow all believers. <S> 1 <S> Cor 6:19 - 19 <S> What? <S> know <S> ye <S> not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? <S> Still not convinced that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit? <S> John 14:17 - " <S> Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees him not, neither knows him: but you know him; for he dwells with you, and shall be in you." <S> The only one we're told that would dwell IN us is The Holy Spirit. <S> The context of the entire passage is talking about the Holy Spirit. <S> There is none other. <S> The comforter and Jesus are very much the same character. <S> Jesus said many times if you know me, you know my father also. <S> The Holy Spirit exhibits the same character. <S> If you know Jesus you know the Holy Spirit also. <S> Do you know him? <A> The "comforter" is the Holy Spirit, also known as the "Advocate. <S> " While it can be said that the Holy Spirit was with Christ, it is important to also see the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity. <S> As such, the importance of what Christ says here is that once Christ ascends, the Holy Spirit will descend UPON ALL. <S> So while Jesus walked the hillsides and preached the Good News and healed , it was going to be through the Holy Spirit that WE ALL will take on the role modeled by Christ. <S> Think of the crippled man who needed his friends to lower him through the roof on his mat to get to Jesus for healing . <S> He needed that more direct contact; but once the Holy Spirit descended for all, the gifts of Christ are there for us even if Christ isn't present in person--and even if we struggle to claim them fully. <A> The Holy Spirit was present in Jesus <S> yes <S> but it was not present in man yet. <S> Jesus had to be resurrected and return to glory before man could have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them. <S> The disciples were all "baptized in the Holy Spirit" there in the upper room after Jesus had already ascended. <S> That's what Jesus was saying there in the verses you quoted.	The Comforter IS the Holy Spirit.
How was Moses able to speak to over 600,000 people at once? This is a followup question to the question about Jesus speaking to crowds of 5,000 people without audio installation. The book of Exodus says that Israelites had 600,000 men of fighting age. And often it has paragraphs like this: Exodus 35:4 Moses said to the whole Israelite community, "This is what the LORD has commanded: There are many, many more examples like this. Sometimes, when Moses says something, and then events happen that affect the whole community: Numbers 16:31 ( NIRV ) 31 As soon as Moses finished speaking all of those words, what he had said came true. The ground under them broke open. 32 It opened its mouth. It swallowed up those men. In fact, it swallowed up everyone who lived in their houses. It swallowed all of Korah’s men. And it swallowed up everything they owned. 33 They went down into the grave alive. Everything they owned went down with them. The ground closed over them. They died. And so they disappeared from the community. So, how was a community of at least 600,000 males able to hear Moses when he addressed them? That is 30-times more people than would fill Madison Square Garden. <Q> Most commentators follow a common Jewish understanding that the Jewish leaders immediately relayed his words to their clans or households. <S> Unto all Israel. <S> It cannot be supposed that Moses spoke to the whole multitude of the people so as to be heard by them. <S> Hence the Jewish interpreters say that he spoke to the elders of the people, who carried his words to the people at large. <S> This is just; for what was thus mediately communicated to the people might be fairly described as spoken to them; and we find from other passages in the Pentateuch that the phrase, “the elders of Israel,” in the mind of the writer, was equivalent to “the congregation of Israel” (comp. <S> e.g. Exod. <S> 12:3 with ver. <S> 21; <S> Lev. 9:1 with ver. <S> 5). <S> But through whatever medium conveyed, it was to the people that these words were addressed; this is emphatically a book for the people. <S> (The Pulpit Commentary: <S> Deuteronomy 1:1) <A> I would note that there is a set of skills and techniques, now largely lost because practice of them is largely unnecessary, by which (mainly) men in the past were able to speak to large numbers of people without artificial amplification. <S> Abraham Lincoln and Edward Everett spoke at the dedication of the national cemetery at Gettysburg on 19 November, 1863, addressing about 15,000 people outdoors, without artificial amplification. <S> I don't mean to suggest that these means would make it possible for one person to speak to a single audience of 600,000, but I do expect that Moses might have been able to address an audience much larger than a modern reader might assume. <A> My wife asked me a similar question. <S> Having Moses speak God's commands/words to the Elders, and then to smaller groups; seems a quite reasonable explanation. <S> We have a similar situation with Moses exhausting himself--settling disputes. <S> Far too many people. <S> His father-in-law gave wise counsel: Delegate! <S> No need to do it all yourself. <S> (If one a-priori rejects the supernatural; one would reject the parting of the Red Sea; etcetera.) <S> No problem with God using his own means to speak to these people in the hearing of one man. <S> Although--that does seem like a case of "special pleading. <S> " We can only infer (conclude) that God chose a supernatural means of communication. <S> (Directly to the people through Moses.) <S> As an aside; the (thoroughly disproved) " <S> Assured results of liberal 'Higher Criticism'" of the Old Testament claimed--without proof--that in Moses day; "people could not write. <S> " <S> The spade work of biblical archaeologists put that unsubstantiated claim to death. <S> As Nelson Glueck states, on the one hand It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contraverted a biblical reference”, whereas on the other “Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. <S> [4] Archaeologist William F. Albright observes: <S> The excessive scepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth-and-nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. <S> Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history. <S> [5] <S> There is much we don't know about the twelve tribes Exodus from Egypt. <S> Trust God. <S> The unbiblical claims of unregenerate men eventually fall flat. <S> The same with science. <S> Popular; sensationalized theories today may become tomorrow's relics. <S> The Bible is like an Anvil. <S> The hammers of godless men have been pounding away on the Anvil for thousands of years. <S> The hammers wear out. <S> The Bible remains. <S> [4] Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert: A History of the Negev <S> (New York: <S> Farrar, Strauss & Cudahy, 1959), p.31. <S> [5] <S> William F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine , pp.127-128, quoted by Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict <S> (Nashvile: Thomas Nelson, 1999), <S> p.61. <A> There are several ways. <S> First of all, if God told Moses to speak to all the people, He would give him the ability to do so. <S> At Pentecost, He gave the Apostles the ability to speak in tongues, and I would guess He gave Moses the ability to do something similar. <S> Also, if Moses gave an important message, people would spread it. <A> The Greeks used early variants of megaphones made from bull's horns by 600 BC. <S> It is possible that other cultures had similar tools even earlier.	Regarding the supernatural explanation--I agree; this was a time of God making his immediate presence known to the whole house of Israel.
Altars in today's Christian Churches Wonder why altars are not prevalent in Christian churches. It seems that a stage is used where all activities during the worship service take place, but there is no set aside place for the presence of GOD, this is the reason to have an altar.Please comment. <Q> Actually, more Christian Churches have altars than not. <S> They are the focal point for worship in Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, and Orthodox congregations. <S> In the Old Testament Hebrew worship, from which a number of essential elements of Christian worship derive, the Altar was a place of offering, and in the Hebrew tradition, this meant places for animal sacrifice--sin offerings, thank offerings, and other sacrifices as detailed in Mosaic Law. <S> Nearly all Christians have dispensed with animal sacrifice, seeing instead the crucifixion as the perfect sacrifice, made once for all, and all time. <S> It is true that most Protestant traditions other than Anglican and Lutheran have replaced the altar with the communion table. <S> The reason for this is that generally, those traditions, while still seeing the crucifixion as the one perfect offering, see the Last Supper, and the words of institution, as a sufficient remembrance of the perfect sacrifice. <A> The Protestant answer (excluding high-church European Reformation 1.0 churches like Anglican and Lutheran) will be simply this: Because an altar is for sacrifice, and Jesus made the once for all sacrifice. <S> So rather than offering a sacrifice ourselves on an "altar" we simply remember Jesus' sacrifice around a "table," the Lord's Table (thus Paul calls it in 1 Cor 10:21). <S> 1 <S> Cor 10:21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table , and of the table of devils. <S> Even the Catholic church, post Vatican II , is coming around to this view. <S> You can see that instead of the old "high altars" they often tend to have much simpler tables. <S> Instead of the priest standing <S> ad orientem (toward the East, the back wall of the church where the high altar was, and hence away from the congregation) <S> the priest stands in front of a simple wood table and faces the congregation while administering the Eucharist. <S> (A traditional Catholic centerpiece for the old high altars, the " tabernacle " which contains the reserved host, which Catholics believe is the body of Christ, at times when the Mass is not being celebrated, and to which the priest would bow at several points, was often not clearly visible in this setup, although Roman Catholic Canon law prescribed The tabernacle in which the blessed Eucharist is reserved should be sited in a distinguished place in a church or oratory, a place which is conspicuous, suitably adorned and conducive to prayer. <S> [Canon 938 §2 of the Code of Canon Law, 1983]) <S> It's one of the things that really riles the "traditionalist" Catholics up against the Novus Ordo mass . <S> They perceive the Novus Ordo as favoring table-language and table-orientation, while the Tridentine mass (Traditional Latin Mass [TLM], also now called Extrordinary Form [EF]) favored the ad orientem (towards a high altar) orientation. <A> I think you have a bit of a loaded question, assuming that most church buildings don't contain altars unless you have some sort of non-anecdotal stat to prove it or give credence to it. <S> But as to why a local Protestant church wouldn't have an altar, I can say that those Christians would believe that God no longer dwells in altars or in things built by human hands, but instead dwells in his church, the children of God. <S> Paul had this to say to the Corinthians: 1 <S> Cor. <S> 3:16 <S> Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? <S> 1 Cor 6:19 <S> Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? <S> Stephen, when interrogated by the High Priest, said the following: Acts 7:45-50 After receiving the tabernacle, our ancestors under Joshua brought it with them when they took the land from the nations God drove out before them. <S> It remained in the land until the time of David, who enjoyed God’s favor and asked that he might provide a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. <S> But it was Solomon who built a house for him. <S> However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. <S> As the prophet says: ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. <S> What kind of house will you build for me?says the Lord. <S> Or where will my resting place be? <S> Has not my hand made all these things?'	For those Christian churches which retain altars, they are still the focal point of offerings, not animal sacrifice, but rather offering of our selves and those things with which God has entrusted us.
Is Jesus the reincarnation of Adam? Somewhere in my travels, I read that Jesus can be considered as Adam reincarnated. Is that a possibility? "First Adam flops, second Adam triumphs" - is that an idea some of you know? <Q> No. <S> Jesus may not be considered Adam re-incarnate. <S> Yet it's not hard to figure out where somebody might have gotten that idea. <S> This is just a case of not understanding the terminology being used. <S> Somebody got some of the words cross-wired¹ without understanding the concept. <S> In Christianity Jesus is known as the " Second Adam " or " Last Adam " but the naming has nothing to do with reincarnation! <S> The title refers to a role rather than a personal ID. <S> As far as personas go they are actually quite different. <S> Adam was a man like you or me. <S> He died and stayed dead. <S> Jesus was God himself who had taken on human form. <S> God and man at the same time. <S> Adam was given specific assignments, he had a role to play in the created order. <S> He failed it. <S> Spectacularly. <S> Romans 5:12 <S> (ESV) <S> 12 <S> Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— The "Second Adam" Jesus came to set right what he first Adam messed up. <S> 1 Corinthians 15:22 <S> (ESV) <S> 22 <S> For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. <S> Jesus not only did what neither Adam nor of his descendants could do (live in perfect obedience to God) but by taking on himself Adam's guilt he also reversed the process Adam started and provided a way for those who had rebelled (Adam and all us after him) to be reconciled back to God. <S> 1 Corinthians 15:45 <S> (ESV) <S> 45 <S> Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. <S> When Christians talk about a "Second Adam" it is not a reincarnation being talked about, but this principle of reversing the curse brought by the "First Adam". <S> ¹ <S> This could be intentional or accidental. <S> History is full of deliberate miss-understandings of Christianity (e.g. the accusation of cannibalism in reference to communion) but I suspect this is simply a case of lack of knowledge. <S> Rather that actually researching what is properly meant by various expressions, it is a natural tendency to run with them out of context. <S> This tendency can not only result in very bad doctrine, it is the source of most of the worlds conspiracy theories. <A> There's nothing in scripture that supports the idea of reincarnation, meaning that the soul of a deceased person begins anew in the body of another. <S> Jesus is referred to as a "new Adam" here, which may be what you heard: 1 Corinthians 15:45 <S> The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. <S> Though this is plainly read as an allegory, especially within the context of the whole chapter, meaning that both Adam and Jesus are the beginnings of a new kind of human being. <S> The first Adam bringing forth man crushed under sin, and the second "Adam" bringing forth man given a new life through faith in Christ. <S> In fact a man/woman (and their soul) is described as something that lives only once. <S> Hebrews 9:27 <S> Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment <A> The Church Fathers referred to Jesus as the New Adam <S> And one who is very bold might venture even to come to the New Adam, <S> my God and Lord Jesus Christ, Who is counted the Seventy-seventh from the old Adam who fell under sin, in the backward genealogy according to Luke St. Gregory of Nanianzus (AD 325-389) - Oration 41 <S> So the idea has been around a long time. <S> Reincarnated is definitely not the right term for being a "new anything". <S> Jesus is "Incarnate of the Holy Spirit" as it says in the Nicene Creed. <S> Which means His human flesh was created in the womb of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, not reincarnated. <S> I think reincarnation is a Hindu dogma, definitely not one found in Christianity.	There isn't any indication anywhere that Adam was reincarnated into Jesus.
Who is the Spirit hearing from in John 16:13? I'm wondering who the Spirit is hearing from in this verse: John 16:13 (ESV) When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. Particularly the line " ...for he will not speak on his own authority, whatever he hears he will speak ". My assumption is that the Spirit of truth is the Holy Spirit, and the coming referred to here is both Pentecost and the indwelling that happens upon salvation after Pentecost. My understanding is that the Holy Spirit is God and that the Spirit is the one that speaks truth. It seems weird to me that the Spirit would be listening to someone. The Father? The son? Could this allude to something else? Not sure. <Q> Verses 12-15 make it pretty clear that the Spirit is functioning under the authority and direction of the Father and the Son. <S> What the Spirit is speaking is coming from the Son and the Father. <S> We can see this as Jesus is promising the Spirit will be his replacement, if you will, as God's primary representative on Earth. <S> The Spirit is fully God. <S> The Spirit is also subordinate to the Father and Son, not because of any distinction in power or value, but a clear distinction in roles. <A> John 16:12-15 (ESV2011) 12 <S> “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. <S> 13 <S> When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. <S> 14 <S> He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. <S> 15 <S> All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. <S> According to v.12, Jesus has more to tell his followers. <S> The Spirit of truth is clearly the Holy Spirit, fully equal in power and majesty to God the father or God the son. <S> Yet the Holy Spirit seems to be a sort of "silent partner", not in the sense that He does not speak, but He "will not speak of Himself". <S> The Holy Spirit will speak the words of Jesus and of Jesus. <S> Bob Uttley, a Baptist, comments on John chapter 16 at: http://www.freebiblecommentary.org/new_testament_studies/VOL04/VOL04_16.html "the Spirit of truth" Truth (alētheia) is used in its OT connotation of trustworthiness and only secondarily in a sense of truthfulness. <S> Jesus said that He was the truth in John 14:6. <S> This title for the Holy Spirit emphasizes His role as the revealer of Jesus. <S> "He will guide you into all the truth" "for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come" ... <S> The Spirit will receive truth from the Father, as Jesus did, and pass it on to believers, as Jesus did. <A> The Holy Spirit is God, but it is also a bit different from God, in the fact that it dwells in us and also in the fact that it is not as high as God, as far as I know. <S> If you put the Father, Son, and Spirit in a hierarchy, the Father would be at the top while the Spirit and Jesus would be underneath, at least that is my understanding. <S> So, if you think about things that way, the logical thing to think would be that the spirit is listening to the Father. <S> But that might not be true. <S> The Spirit could be listening to the Father and Jesus. <S> I guess both are true at the same time. <S> It could be either one. <S> I hope I answered your question. :)	It is suggested that the Holy Spirit's words will also be from the Father, just as Jesus stated that His words are "from the Father".
According to churches which teach Believer's Baptism, what are the consequences of not being baptized with water? Are there any direct consequences to not getting baptized? Whether this person doesn't think it's important, or just doesn't want to, or wants to but just doesn't get around to it, did Jesus or his disciples ever give an indication that if you don't get baptized then X could happen to you or you'll never achieve X ? I have some friends that are believers and love the Lord, but they just don't see baptism as an urgent thing--more of cultural thing, like baby dedications or whatnot. I feel like a heretic for agreeing, but I honestly don't see how water baptism has any power in itself, though there's certainly power in publicly proclaiming your new faith (which my friends that forego water baptism have all done). Then again, Jesus was baptized and commanded his apostles to do so. So I am conflicted with what makes sense to me and what was practiced by the early church. FYI: I was baptized as an adult believer, but mostly because it "felt" like the right thing to do because I was told it was the right thing to do. Now having read the bible it feels less and less important. The only answer I see again and again is "The early church did it" but I don't see any consequences for not doing it. Edit: For the purpose of clarity, the Perspective sought is those who hold the doctrine of Believer's baptism as per Baptist and related denominations. <Q> I agree that Baptism is an outward expression of an inward change and isn't what saves you, yet even so, it is important to be baptised for three excellent reasons: <S> It is a rite of initiation into the Christian community - <S> Although our confession before God (of our faith in Christ and his Lordship over us) is of primary importance, Public confession of our faith is important in terms of our relationship to the Christian community (the church) and our witness to non-Christians. <S> Another common community rite that we regard as good and useful <S> is a wedding ceremony <S> - it isn't what makes a marriage, but it's a good way for the community to gather, recognise, and - through their witness of sacred vows - solemnize <S> a marriage - baptism is analagous to this. <S> A refusal to be baptised implies an unwillingness to Confess Christ before men (cf. <S> Matthew 10:32-35 , 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 ). <S> In Baptism, though it is symbolic, we identify with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. <S> If we are unwilling to do this through fear of man or misunderstanding, such unwillingness testifies against a genuine identifaction with Christ as our Saviour and Lord. <S> A refusal to be baptised indicates an unwillingness to identify with Christ and his work on the cross (cf. <S> Romans 6:3-5 ). <S> While it may not be necessary for us to receive salvation, Baptism is a command of Jesus and his Apostles (cf. <S> Matthew 28:19-20 , Acts 2:38 ) - to ignore this command, even if the reason seems unnecessary to us, is an act of unbelief that may be more consequential than we realise - you are effectively saying you know better than Jesus and the Apostles about how you should live as a 'Christian' - dangerous stuff! <S> A refusal to be baptised indicates an unwillingness to trust Jesus as Lord (cf. <S> Romans 11:17-22 , Hebrews 3&4 , 2 Kings 5:1-14 ). <A> Many churches which do believe that baptism is symbolic also restrict participation in their services and church life to those who have been baptised: <S> Some churches limit communion to baptised people (and some to members too) <S> Some churches limit roles like service leading and preaching to baptised people. <S> Some churches make baptism necessary to be eligible to be appointed an elder <S> It is of course debatable whether God wants baptism to be used this way. <A> Hi Thanks for a great question. <S> Yes Baptism is essential, both Jesus and the apostles taught it was essential, <S> The believers were known as "baptised ones" those of "The way" (Acts 9:2) This "way" was the way of salvation through water baptism in Jesus name (John 3:5). <S> Jesus said, "He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name.." (John 3:18)He also said , "whosoever believes and is baptised <S> shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). <S> Jesus also commanded his disciples to go forth baptising them in my name <S> ( Mat 28:19). <S> The apostles baptised those who believed in the name for the remissions of sins. <S> (Acts 2:38) <S> So we see that salvation and the name of Jesus is synonymous, and important for salvation. <S> A man that does not believe in the name and is baptised is thereby condemned already, his unbelief condemns him. <S> However, faith in the name upon baptism remits a man from all sins.	Many churches limit church membership to baptised people
Why do Orthodox Christians baptize infants? I know that Roman Catholics baptize infants, because they believe that infants need to be cleansed of original sin, and that the denial of baptism at infancy by Christian parents is tantamount to the denial of God's grace for the child. So, why do Orthodox Christians baptize infants then? And how come they practice baptism by immersion on infants, as shown in this photograph ? These are related questions. <Q> Because it is Tradition. <S> Exactly why the Tradition started, I don't know, but here is a present-day explanation for why to do it: In the Orthodox Church when a child is baptized they are also Chrismated, which I guess is similar to a Catholic Christening. <S> It is for sealing them to protect against evil spirits and such. <S> The Baptism / Chrismation is the 2-part process of cleansing a child of anything evil and/or sinful and then sealing it to keep in the good and keep out the bad. <S> It's like <S> , you wouldn't seal something off before decontaminating it, right? <S> So then that usually begs the question about whether a child that young can actually be "contaminated". <S> Well, consider this: if an evil spirit can influence or possess someone, what makes you think they could not do so to an infant? <S> Who can know if even by the time an infant is baptized, something bad hasn't tried to attach itself already. <S> And why would you not want to do all that you can to protect your child from evil? <S> I've heard people make the argument that a child shouldn't be baptized until they are old enough to repent and understand repentance, because in Acts 2:38 Peter says "Repent and be baptized...". <S> But in context, he is addressing a group of adults - who at that age should of course repent first... <S> that does not necessarily mean that their children were not also baptized. <S> In fact the very next verse says the promise of the Holy Spirit is for them and their children. <S> Note that the Orthodox Church also practices Confession, and children don't give their first confession until a certain age. <S> So if you are at least that old and have not been baptized, you confess first... <S> if you are too young you get baptized first. <A> This tradition comes from two facts: <S> The way the verse John 3:5 'Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit' , was interpreted. <S> The fact that infant mortality was high in the generations before us. <S> The church interpreted this verse as to mean that no one who is not baptized can enter heaven. <S> They wanted the baby to go to heaven if it did not make it to adulthood. <S> So this gave birth to the practice of infant baptism, and other kinds of baptisms such as the emergency baptism (which was a baptism of the dying). <A> The editors of the English translation of Orthodox Romanian Elder Cleopas' book, The Truth of Our Faith: On the Christian Mysteries write: <S> The Orthodox Church is not ruled by intellectualism (νοησιαρχία) or rationalism, that is, that by the reason of man is the reigning organ of his being. <S> "Faith as a presupposition of Baptism is at work in infant baptism as well, abundantly bestowing the gift and grace of the Holy Spirit. <S> For by grace are ye saved by faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8-9)" <S> Lydia, the seller of purple , of Thyatira, was baptized with her whole family (Acts 16:14). <S> The prison guard who took Paul and Silas to his house was baptized along with his whole household (Acts 16:33). <S> Paul baptized the entire household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16). <S> The Apostles further taught that infant baptism was prefigured in the Old Testament. <S> Paul writes, Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1 Corinthians 10:1-2). <S> With these were all their young and old, sons and daughters (Exodus 10:9). <S> Child baptism is also prefigured in the institution of circumcision on the eighth day after birth.	That having been said, the simplest explanation for why Orthodox Christians baptize infants is because that is what the Apostles taught.
Was there a reason why God sent Jonah to Nineveh and not some other city? God sent Jonah to prophesy to the Babylonian city of Nineveh, which he did with the greatest of reluctance, thereby effecting the largest mass conversion of a city up to that time. It's possible that Nineveh was a "random" city, but that's probably not the case, given its size and strategic importance. Instead, what made Nineveh significant enough to be chosen in God's eyes? Was Nineveh the "second" city of Babylon, after the capital, in the manner of New York City versus Washington D.C.? Did Nineveh have a "Sodom and Gomorrah" reputation, making it the worst city of Babylon? Was Nineveh unusually open and "cosmopolitan," thereby making it the easiest city to convert? Or was there some other reason that I have overlooked? <Q> Jonah 1:2 says <S> "Go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before me." <S> (NIV) <S> So, we can say from there that they had sinned greatly in the eyes of God, and had they not repented <S> , they would be destroyed (Jonah 3:4 says "... <S> Nineveh will be overthrown"). <S> Of course, your question was "why Nineveh in particular? <S> " I'll elaborate on that. <S> First, a correction: Nineveh wasn't a Babylonian city, it was one of the largest cities of Assyria, another one of Israel's enemies. <S> I want to say it was also the capital during Jonah's time; at the very least there is a mention of a "king of Nineveh" (Jonah 3:6). <S> Sennacherib lived in Nineveh (see 2 Kings 19:36), though he is a little bit after Jonah's time. <S> 1 <S> Using your analogy then, I wouldn't equate Nineveh with New York City, I'd equate it with Washington, D.C., though the Bible does explicitly mention that the city is big ... <S> Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days' journey in breadth (Jonah 3:3, ESV) <S> As far as strategy goes, there's also this to consider: Assyria was the one that conquered Israel (the ten tribes) not long after Jonah went to preach to Nineveh. <S> 2 <S> In short, you could single out Nineveh since it was a very important city for one of Israel's enemies, and posed a very real threat to Israel and Judah. <S> 1 <S> My bible has a table of dates putting Jonah in 793-753 BC. <S> Sennacherib attacked Judah during Hezekiah's reign (2 Kings 18:13-19:36), which according to the same table is 727-698 BC. <S> This is also consistent with Wikipedia's pegging of Sennacherib's reign at 705-681 BC. 2 <S> The same table lists the conquering of Israel by Assyria at 722 BC. <S> See also 2 Kings 17:6. <A> One of the liveliest stories in the Bible, the Book of Jonah is a favourite of millions. <S> The book is a parable of mercy that not only has God protecting Jonah through miracles on two separate occasions, but allowing the people of Nineveh to live, when they changed their ways. <S> The book also portrays Jonah as narrow-minded and vindictive person whom God must teach his ways. <S> Jewish tradition says that the author really was Jonah, and until the nineteenth century the book was regarded almost exclusively as historical fact, but was probably written in the post-Exilic period . <S> The Mercer Dictionary of the Bible , page 465, says modern scholars generally agree for a later date, citing evidence that Assyria is only a distant memory to the author: <S> Nineveh “was” (not “is”) <S> an exceedingly great city ( Jonah 3:3 ) ; the legendary size of the city <S> the title ‘King of Nineveh’ (Jonah 3:6) was not used by contemporaries [he was known as king of Assyria]; a number of words that show late Hebrew or Aramaic influence. <S> I can add to this list that there is no evidence that the Assyrians ever worshipped the Israelite God. <S> At the time in which the story is set, Assyria was the greatest power in the Near East, with Nineveh as its capital, so there was nothing random about the choice of this city. <S> Babylon was merely a regional city under Assyrian dominion. <S> In a story written centuries after the time in which it was set, the author had a choice of cities and naturally chose Nineveh. <A> Jonah is mentioned in 2 Kings 14:23-25 as a prophet of the northern kingdom of Israel during the time of the divided kingdom. <S> (After the reign of Solomon, Israel broke up into a northern kingdom of Israel and a southern kingdom of Judah.) <S> Later, during the reign of King Hoshea of Israel, the northern kingdom was invaded by Assyria and its people (most likely only its upper, educated, and noble classes) deported, which brought the northern kingdom to an end. <S> That story is told in 2 Kings 17 , and a thumbnail version in 2 Kings 18:9-12 . <S> The king of Assyria at the time was Sennacherib. <S> At the time of the invasion and captivity of the northern kingdom, Nineveh was the capital city of Assyria, where King Sennacherib resided (see 2 Kings 19:36 ). <S> Given that Assyria was the arch-enemy of the kingdom of Israel, of which Jonah was a citizen and prophet, it is only natural that its capital city of Nineveh was seen as an exceedingly evil city. <S> All of this suggests the answer to why, in the book of Jonah, God sends Jonah to Nineveh, of all possible cities--and why Jonah immediately went in the opposite direction, intending to get as far away from Nineveh as possible (see Jonah 1:1-3 ). <S> Therefore the story of Jonah is the story of God telling a prophet of Israel to go prophesy to, and potentially save the souls of, the very people that he most hated and most wanted to see destroyed. <S> That is the drama of the book of Jonah. <S> The book of Jonah, then, is a story in the late history of ancient Israel in which God is telling the Israelites that they must be concerned even for their most hated enemies, and bring their message of repentance and salvation to them. <S> Whether this story literally took place as conservative Christians believe, or whether it was a parable written later and set in the time of Jonah, its message is the same, and the reason for the selection of Nineveh as the target city for Jonah's message of repentance was the same. <S> God sent Jonah to Nineveh because God wanted Jonah to bring a message of salvation to the capital city of his people's most hated enemies. <A> My simple thought. <S> God killed two birds with one stone. <S> To bring a city to repentance, as well as give his prophet a heart transplant. <S> He could have sent anybody!	In the minds of an Israelite of that era, Nineveh represented the most hated and most evil city possible.
What is the reasoning behind the belief that Eve was NOT created on the sixth day? I was talking with someone recently and the question was raised as to when Eve was created. I immediately replied that she was created on the sixth day, albeit later in the day than Adam. One person seemed surprised by that concept. It appears that there are two positions on this. What, then, is the basis for the belief that Eve was not created on the sixth day, but on a later day? <Q> The Biblical basis for claiming that Eve was created after the sixth day is one from inference instead of literalism. <S> The account in Genesis 1 starts with all the creatures first, then man on the sixth day. <S> Chapter two continues on describing a different time of creation, or a smaller, second creation, if you will. <S> The story in Genesis two has Adam created separately, then God places him in the garden (verse 15). <S> Then God decides that Adam should not be alone so he brings all the beasts to Adam to name them. <S> Because of the wording, some literalists say that God made separate beasts right in front of Adam to be named; Adam then names all of them (verses 19-20). <S> Adam found none of the beasts suitable for his helpmate, so God put him into a sleep then made Eve from his rib (verses 21 -22). <S> The inference is that naming all the beasts would take a good deal of time. <S> Even assuming that there were less kinds then there are today, seeing all of them, examining them, then deciding a name for all of those kinds would surely take longer than a day. <S> Unless God brought the beasts to Adam in rapid fire succession, and Adam named them just as quickly, literalists holding this position insist that the event took a long time, much longer than a day. <S> Proponents of this view must neglect a literal reading of these verses, however. <S> The final verse in Genesis 1, declaring the close of the sixth day, unmistakably puts the creation of mankind then. <S> Takers of this view simply state that they are two separate stories with two separate lessons and neither is necessarily literal or more valid than the other. <S> A random source <A> The first story says that man and female were both created on the sixth day, but does not mention Eve. <S> The second story says that Eve was created from a rib taken from Adam, but there is no mention of how many days elapsed from the creation of Adam, whose creation was the very first event in this creation story ( Genesis 2:7 ), and the creation of Eve, whose creation was the very last event in this creation story (Genesis 2:22) <S> Leon R. Kass explains, in The Beginning of Wisdom , page 56 , that we must scrupulously avoid reading into the second story any facts or notions taken from the first, and vice versa. <S> Following his advice, we can not read the creation of Eve out of Adam's rib into the first story, and we can not read the six days of creation out of the first story into the second one. <S> We do not know the time span between the creation of Adam and Eve, but it must be substantial because, in the interim, God created each of the animals out of moist earth and brought them to Adam to be given names. <A> It is more than likely that Eve was taken from Adam after the sixth day. <S> The clues can be gleaned from the Timeline: Dry land Earth <S> > <S> Man fashioned + <S> Gan Eden planted > Man borne to Gan Eden + Trees from the ground in Gan Eden <S> > <S> Man alone > living creatures as helpmate, from ground in Gan Eden <S> > <S> No suitable helpmate <S> > Eve from Man in Gan Eden . <S> God made the dry land Earth on the third day . <S> 1 <S> From that earth, he fashioned man on the sixth day . <S> 2 <S> [And] the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, on the same day or _ day? <S> The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it on the same day or _ day. <S> 3 <S> [And] from the ground in the garden of Eden , God made the trees from which man could eat from, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil . <S> 4 <S> This was on the _ day. <S> ... <S> some time elapses ... <S> After deciding to make a helper fit for him, God made from the ground in Eden , every living creature that Adam was later to name. <S> 5 <S> This was on the _ day. <S> ... <S> some time elapses ... <S> but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. <S> cf. <S> [Gn 2:20] <S> Finally God takes Eve from Man on the _ day. <S> There isn't enough information to fill in the blanks and the timeline strongly indicates that Eve was taken out of Man, in Gan Eden, after the sixth day [Adam from dry land Earth]. <S> 1. <S> [cf. <S> 1:9-13]↩ 2. <S> [cf. <S> Gn 1: 26-31 & Gn 2:7] <S> ↩ 3. <S> [cf. <S> Gn 2:8, 15]↩ 4. <S> [cf. <S> Gn 2:9] <S> ↩ 5. <S> [cf. <S> Gn 2: 18-19]↩	Many people reason that Eve was not created on the 'sixth day' because there are two quite separate creation stories in Genesis - verses 1:1-2:4a (attributed by scholars to the Priestly Source) and verses 2:4b-25 (attributed to the Yahwist).
Where did the idiom "asking Jesus into your heart" come from? Where did the idea of "asking Jesus into your heart" come from? That figure of speech is not explicitly from the bible or probably even early church history. Can anyone find its first use and maybe why it's become so pervasive? I'm looking for something like "Pastor John Smith used the saying once at a conference in 1850" or something like that. I can assume that people use the bible to come up with this phrase. I'm wondering more about the historical origin of its usage. <Q> There is a famous painting called " The Light of the World ," painted by William Hunt in 1853. <S> By his own statement, it comes from Revelation 3.20, and represents Jesus knocking at the heart of an obstaninate sinner, on a door with no handles, and which must be opened from the inside. <S> The image itself has been copied many times, and this is the version I always think of: <S> While the context of Revelation 3.20 ("Behold I stand at the Door and Knock") is not about salvation, it is often used in services as an altar call, thus identifying it with "opening your heart to Jesus." <S> Here for example, is a church using that call exactly. <A> Oh! <S> my young friends, how happy you shall be, when Christ enters into your heart! <S> I should like every little child this afternoon, to present the following beautiful petition to Christ; it is a very remarkable one; <S> but oh! <S> He loves it. <S> It is this: ' <S> Oh! <S> Jesus, enter into my heart. <S> May Thy grace enter into the soul of a little child, there to dwell for ever.' <S> ( source ) <S> The word ask does not appear, but the context makes it clear that the child is to make a "petition" to Christ using these words. <S> A similar version, this time a prayer following a sermon on Revelation 3:20 , appears in 1878: <S> Then the good gentleman told him that he had only to pray, "Lord Jesus, come into my heart," and He would come and dwell with him for ever. <S> ( source ) <S> More exact wording appears in 1931: <S> For kids, it's enough just to be a Christian, to ask Jesus into your heart. <S> ( source ) <S> More generally, however, Google Ngrams shows that the exact phrase did not gain traction, at least in print, until the second half of the 20th century: <A> Here is a good article that talks about the history of this phrase, which I think was your original question. <S> It started out with the anglo-american puritans in the 1600s - 1700s, if the article is correct. <S> It grew with the missionary movement in the 1800s, and became a staple in children's ministry in the 1900s. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2012/07/ask-jesus-into-your-heart-a-history-of-the-sinners-prayer/ <A> See eg the New Living version of Ephesians <S> 3:17a : <S> Then Christ will make his home in your hearts as you trust in him. <A> It seems that the expression was already in use at the time of the evangelist Billy Sunday . <S> The hymn "Into My Heart" was composed in 1924, about the same era. <S> In any case, the expression could be closely associated with the practice of altar call , whose history can be traced back to the 1800s.	This concept appears in a sermon for children from 1845, by Alexander Fletcher: I think it comes from Ephesians 3:17 .
Do any Christian groups sell all their possessions as it seems the Early Church did? In Luke 12:33 (NIV) Jesus says: Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. He doesn't say "all" possessions here, but that seems to be what he told the rich ruler in Luke 18:22 (NIV) : When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." In Acts 4:32-35 (NIV) it looks like that's what the Early Church did as well: All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God's grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. Are there any denominations or other groups in the world where the congregation (not monks, nuns etc.) actually does this? If so, can you please give some details on how the practical aspects work (sharing homes etc.). <Q> I don't know if there are any denominational-scale organizations that practice this, but there are certainly churches and other Christian organizations that practice this. <S> The Bruderhof may be a good example of this. <S> My family lived in a Bruderhof community for a few months when I was growing up, as my father was doing some work (writing a book) for them. <S> Later, a Mennonite church I used to attend had previously lived like this, in community, requiring all members to donate all of their earnings to the church, which in turn provided the bare essentials for living (home, groceries, etc), and gave the rest away. <S> They eventually gave up that practice for legal and tax reasons, and reverted to individual ownership, but with a spirit of giving. <S> In both cases, the church/community owned shared property, and was responsible for providing for the needs of the church members. <S> In the case of the Bruderhof, the church also owned land for growing crops, a furniture factory, and perhaps other businesses, which were then used to sell goods to the general public, and provide for the needs of the community. <S> A google search for "Intentional Christian Community" finds various resources on this type of living, and may help you further in your search. <A> If you have seen the movie The Mission , then you may have noticed a communal society lived by the natives in the various missions led by Jesuit priests. <S> Historical records corroborate that indeed they lived a Christian-based, communal life. <S> From Jesuit Reductions <S> : <S> Smaller missions had two priests, whereas larger missions had more. <S> Populations varied from 2,000 to 7,000. <S> In the morning, children's hymns were followed by Mass and breakfast, after which the workers went to their tasks. <S> " <S> The Jesuits marshaled their neophytes to the sound of music, and in procession to the fields, with a saint borne high aloft, the community each day at sunrise took its way. <S> Along the way at stated intervals were shrines of saints where they prayed, and sang hymns between shrines. <S> As the procession advanced it became gradually smaller as groups of Indians dropped off to work the various fields and finally the priest and acolyte with the musicians returned alone" (Graham, 178–9). <S> At noon each group assembled for the Angelus, after which came dinner and a siesta; work was then resumed until evening. <S> After supper came the rosary and sleep. <S> On rainy days they worked indoors. <S> Frequent festivals with sham battles, fireworks, concerts, and dances enlivened the community. <S> Aside from the main farm, each man typically had his own garden, pursuing agriculture, stock raising, and the cultivation of maté. <S> Jesuits introduced many European trades and arts to their communities. <S> Cotton weavers, tanneries, carpenters, tailors, hat makers, coopers, boat builders, silversmiths, musicians and makers of musical instruments, painters, and turners could sometimes be found. <S> They also had printers, and manuscripts were also produced by hand copying.(Graham) <S> The goods that were produced at the missions, including cattle, were sold in Buenos Aires and other markets under the supervision of the priests. <S> The proceeds earned were divided among a common fund, the workers, and dependents . <S> Note also the combination of communal and individual labor and the variety of trades pursued. <A> I agree with @Flimzy's excellent reply, but I see he didnt answer your question completely, and since I can't comment (not enough reputation) I will add this reply. <S> Regarding living arrangements. <S> They used large apartment buildings where families had their own living room and bedrooms, and then shared kitchens (sometimes private) and public restrooms (male and female separate). <S> They did NOT have everything in common, for example their wives! <S> When I visited one group in the 1980's they were struggling in how to include an African Bruderhof group, as their standard of living would be much less then they were accustomed to, and they didn't know how they could live at a lower standard of living, or how to justify having a higher standard of living than their "brothers." <S> A very difficult question <S> , I don't know how they resolved it. <S> They made group decisions by consensus of the whole community of perhaps 600 people! <S> They had a difficult time wrestling with if they should take and eat the free ice cream pies <S> that a local factory produced that were flawed, but healthy and scrumptious, but not simple. <A> Yes, the Bruderhof Communities do that, although with some practical limits such as having personal clothing and toiletries. <S> Their beliefs are outlined in this document <S> that states: <S> We are a fellowship of brothers and sisters, both single and married, who are called by Christ to follow him together in a common life in the spirit of the first church in Jerusalem. <S> We desire to remain true to this calling all our lives. <S> For its sake we gladly renounce all private property, personal claims, and worldly attachments and honors. <S> Our vocation is a life of service to God and humankind, freely giving our whole working strength and all that we have and are. <S> Bruderhof members do not live as monks and nuns but are a congregation of families, children, and single people who live on their community locations worldwide. <S> While some people confuse them with more reclusive groups such as the Amish, they run a publishing house and welcome visitors as well.	I think it won't be hard to find examples of Christian communes living in a spirit of "complete giving" in various parts of the world.
Moses' age when before the burning bush I am trying to find Moses’ age when he was standing before the Burning Bush before delivering the Israelites from slavery. Later in Scripture it says he was 80 years when he first spoke to Pharaoh. Does scripture give any idea how old he was before the Burning Bush, or he was also around 80 years old at that time? <Q> Scripture tells us Moses was 40 when the Egyptian struck the slave: <S> Acts 7:22-29 22 <S> And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds. <S> 23 <S> And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel. <S> And then...in Acts <S> 7:30 <S> And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. <S> In Exodus 7:7, we see the age at which Moses (and Aaron) when they go to Pharaoh: <S> Moses was 80 years old and Aaron 83 when they spoke to Pharaoh..." <S> So Moses was 40 when he killed the Egyptian, and 80 at both the time of the Burning Bush and the meeting with Pharaoh. <A> He was about 80 <S> The timeline would look like this: 0 <S> - [ Moses is born ] <S> 40 - Acts 7:23-24 ESV <S> When he was forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brothers, the children of Israel. <S> And seeing one of them being wronged, he defended the oppressed man and avenged him by striking down the Egyptian. <S> 80 - Acts 7:30 ESV <S> Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush . <S> 80 - Exodus 7:3 ESV <S> Now Moses was eighty years old, and Aaron eighty-three years old, when they spoke to Pharaoh. <S> >80 - Number 32:13 ESV <S> And the Lord's anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years , until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was gone. <S> 120 - [ dead ] <A> Moses 80 years old <S> Acts 7:23: <S> "When Moses was 40 years old, he decided to visit his fellow Israelites. <S> He saw one of them being mistreated by an Egyptian, so he went to his defense and avenged him by killing the Egyptian. <S> Acts 7:30 <S> : "After forty years had passed [after Moses killed the Egyptian], an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai. <S> See Exodus 2:1-25 . <S> Notice in verses 22-23 that after Moses got married to Zipporah, he had a son (Gershom), and the king of Egypt died. <S> Verse 23 says, "During that long period, the king of Egypt died. <S> The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God." <S> He was 40 years old when he killed the Egyptian, and after a long period (marriage and the king died), he saw the burning bush.	It seems to me that it would be correct to date Moses at 80 years of age when God called him (spoke to him) from the burning bush.
Is "Mary Queen of the Universe" a recognized title for the Virgin Mary in Catholicism? There is a Catholic Church near where I lived called " Mary Queen of the Universe " (Link) . It seems from their website it's a shrine for Mary. The name of this does not make much sense to me if it is a Christian church. How is she the Queen of the Universe? I have never seen this in the Bible (any translation). All I can think of is the marriage supper of the Lamb for all the believers in the end, not just Mary. Where did they come up with this title? Is the title "Queen of the Universe" something found in established Catholic teaching? Also, if it is an established title, what does it mean? <Q> Mary is the Queen of Universe because Christ is the King of Universe. <S> To understand her Queenship, one must understand how who the Queen of the Davidic Kingdom in the Old Testament Jewish monarchy was. <S> It was the Queen Mother. <S> The Kings had many wives, none of whom could be called Queen. <S> That honor was reserved for the mother of the King. <S> We see this in the role Bathsheba played with respect to King Solomon and the occasions when the Queen Mother acted as regent on behalf of juvenile successors to the throne. <S> When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. <S> He had a throne brought for the king's mother, and she sat down at his right hand. <S> - 1 Kings 2:19 <S> Hence by Jewish tradition, the Jews expected the Mother of their King to be the titular Queen. <S> The same holds true for the New Kingdom of God. <S> If Jesus is King of this new Kingdom, then Mary should by tradition be his queen. <S> In Revelation 12 <S> , the Women who brought forth a child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne was seen crowned with of twelve stars. <S> This women is traditionally identified as Mary. <S> And this image of Crown is held to be one of the evidence for her queenship. <A> The Wikipedia page about the church explains: <S> The use of the title "Mary, Queen of the Universe" is drawn from section 59 of Lumen Gentium , the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church issued in 1964 by the Second Vatican Council , which stated: "Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all guilt of original sin, on the completion of her earthly sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen of the universe , that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and the conqueror of sin and death." <S> [1] <S> This usage could reflect Orlando's connection to nearby Cape Canaveral , the liftoff point for America's manned space program, as spaceflight was likely the inspiration for the term. <S> Cape Canaveral is part of the Diocese of Orlando. <A> It does not imply that she is in any sense above, or even equal to, God. <S> Here is one thing that the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about Mary in this regard: " <S> Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." <S> The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians: <S> In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. <S> You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death. <S> By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. <S> Thus she is a "preeminent and... wholly unique member of the Church"; indeed, she is the "exemplary realization" (typus) of the Church. <S> (paragraphs 966–967) <A> Not to over simplify but isn't the mother of the "King" always a Queen? <S> God, master and creator of the universe, chose one woman in whom to sow his seed. <S> From this spiritual union came the incarnation of the God-man Jesus who is the King of kings.	This is a traditional title of Mary in respect of her Assumption into Heaven.
Why can the Catholic Church declare one person a saint but has never declared another damned? The Catholic Church has a process to canonize someone, to declare that they are a saint, that they are truly in heaven and worthy of public veneration and imitation. (Cf. Canonization - United States Catholic Catechism for Adults) . If the Church can declare that someone is "truly in heaven", why do they not also have authority to declare that someone else is likewise damned and truly in hell? <Q> That is because Jesus gave Peter the keys to heaven and earth (Matthew 16:19). <S> Not keys to hell. <S> In other words, Peter (and his successors) can bind and loose on earth and heaven <S> (Matthew 18:18) not in hell. <S> They do not have authority on beings outside of the church. <S> And people in hell are outside of the Church. <S> P.S: Christ alone has the keys to hell (Revelation 1:18) <S> PPS: One can never be certain that another is for ever damned since there is always a chance for someone to be converted, even at the last moment of their lives. <S> This is a matter between God and the dying person. <A> The Popes as successors of St. Peter hold the keys to bind and loosen things on earth as well as in heaven (Matthew 16:19 and 18:18). <S> The Popes have not even pronounced on the question as to the demise of the apostle Judas Iscariot and we all know the grave words that Jesus spoke about him shortly before the Passion: "Better for this man that he had never been born" <S> (Mark 14:21). <S> Michelangelo (1475-1564) in his Last Judgment placed the Papal Master of Ceremonies, Baigio da Cesene (1463-1544) in hell. <S> When he complained about his image being in hell, it is widely believed that Pope Paul III (1534-1549) responded: "That his jurisdiction did not extend to hell and the portrait would remain" as it is! <A> But wait, is it not that Atheists and Agnostics are going to hell ? <S> Why not declare them, once dead, officially members of Hell? <S> (a self-made rethoric question just to bring up two more reasons) <S> No, for two reasons: Declaring someone to be in Hell is equivalent to say that God's forgiveness was not sufficient enough to save that person. <S> It is ultimately God's will (view which I think does not imply universalism ). <S> A person, just before dying, could have expressed faith, repented of her/his sins, asking God for forgiveness. <S> This ultimately rests on the conscience of individuals, to which the Catholic Church has no access.	It is clear that the Catholic Church has no capacity to decide this.
Do Christian concepts of fellowship allow for a congregation to welcome atheists to participate in their community? Due to family issues, I have come to distance people from me, mainly because the family issues made me a rough person and I am not "easy" to hang around. For the same reasons, I was never close to the Church or God. Now, being an adult and understanding the world, I find it hard to believe in any kind of religious creed. I am, in fact, an atheist. My question here is: is it considered wrong (by the same religious communities) to seek the company of religious communities (for example, going to the meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses) if it's for the sole purpose of feeling less lonely? *I am not excluding that I may, with time, find that particular religion suitable for me. <Q> Do Christian concepts of fellowship allow for a congregation to welcome atheists to participate in their community? <S> In the most general terms, yes - most congregations are open to non-member participation. <S> Saying that, it is possible different congregations have a nuanced stance in this regard - some of their meetings may be closed and it is best to ask the leaders of an individual community what their stance is. <S> Another consideration is that while a particular meeting may be open to non-members, some of the practices engaged in may be restricted to member (or visiting Christian) <S> participation - e.g. taking Holy Communion - so your participation may be partial in that respect (as would be appropriate considering you would not believe all that the congregation members believe with respect to those practices). <A> From the point of view of a Seventh-Day Adventist, we welcome unbelievers, because many in the church have come from Atheism. <S> You would be welcome with open arms. <A> In the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church (C&MA) of which I am a member, you would definitely be welcome when attending almost any gathering of church members, whether large or small, plenary or small group. <S> Our church has "ministries" for almost every age group and for almost every conceivable interest or need (e.g., divorce recovery, 12-step meetings for a variety of addictions, senior citizens, college and career, single parents, grief counselling, church membership classes, growth groups, and many more). <S> Even if you are simply a disinterested observer, or are there to enhance your social life, you would be welcomed, accepted, and loved. <S> Does this mean you are therefore free to "sow seeds of discord," or to proselytize, so to speak, for atheism? <S> Of course not. <S> Honest, open, and even heated discussions are encouraged in my church, but as in most every place besides church (except the Jerry Springer show!), good manners are de rigueur . <S> Does this mean that every C&MA church will be as equally welcoming? <S> Probably not. <S> Despite a shared denominational identity, each local church within the denomination has its own culture, norms, mores, and folkways. <S> Rest assured I am not making excuses for churches in my denomination which are not as accepting of atheists (for example), but I'm just being realistic about regional and cultural differences, whether in the US or abroad. <S> By the way, I'm familiar with one local church in the Episcopalian denomination which has an Alpha Course for seekers who are interested in finding out more about the Christian faith. <S> Who knows, there you might even meet another nonbeliever of the opposite sex with whom you can strike up a friendship! <S> In conclusion, all local Christian churches should--ideally--be welcoming of strangers and non-members, but we live in a far from ideal world. <S> Nevertheless, I encourage you to seek out a local church which has an open door policy and welcomes seekers of all stripes, even atheists. <S> When you find one, however, do not expect perfection, just a bunch of imperfect Christians, all of whom are under construction. <S> In other words, be willing to show the same respect, courtesy, and patience <S> they show to you. <A> Unfortunately, as suggested elsewhere, we do not feel it is appropriate for most non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion. <S> For example, a norm developed by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (later the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) reminds its readers of the Catholic belief that "the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship", and states: <S> We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith in Jesus Christ . <S> While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers [or, if one does not believe in the efficacy of prayer, simply their hopes and thoughts] for the peace and the unity of the human family. <S> (emphasis added) <S> It is often the case, for a few possible reasons, that even a practicing Catholic attending Mass will not receive Holy Communion either; so one who is not Catholic, Christian, or even theist should not feel left out.	A Catholic Official Position Catholics absolutely welcome atheists or anyone else to attend Holy Mass.
For Jehovah's Witnesses, what are the ingredients to the bread and the wine? I am wondering what ingredients do the Jehovah's Witnesses use in the bread and the wine. I talked to one of my friends who is a active member of the Jehovah's Witness religion but was not satisfied with her answer. <Q> To find a proper answer to this good question, have a look at their 12/15 2013 Watchtower magazine . <S> The paragraphs 5-7, under the subtitle 'The Emblems' should interest you. <S> As a summary, the bread was made from wheat flour and water, without any leaven or seasoning, such as salt, being added. <S> Because it was unleavened, it would not have risen. <S> [UPDATE] <S> They recently edited a video on how to make the bread : How to Make Memorial Bread <S> For the wine , as there was no need for augmenting or fortifying the value of Jesus’ blood, the wine used is not a type fortified with brandy or spices. <S> Plain red wine should be used, a homemade wine or a commercial wine, such as Beaujolais, Burgundy, or Chianti. <A> E 1. <S> 240 grams of flour 60 ml of water <S> Mix untill the dough does not stick on the wall of the (glass) potter. <S> Take the dough on the table and with a bit dried flour mix it about 5 min. <S> Separate the dough in 2 pieces and make them into round balls and then stretch them like round plates of about 3 mm. <S> Put the dough plate in a slightly oiled Pan and perforate some holes with a fork. <S> Place the Pan in a preheated oven with 230 Celsius for about 8 Minutes. <S> Watch this video: How to Make Memorial Bread . <A> We always mix wheat flour and water and fry it in a pan. <A> It can be as simple as store-bought kosher flatbread and simple grape-based wine. <S> The emphasis is on unleavened bread and the wine being a decent comparison to what was drank at the passover.	The wine is what would have been available to them in Egypt, just a red grape wine, unadulterated thus reflecting the purity of Jesus' sacrifice.
What is the difference between a Christian and a Messianic Jew? I know that most Messianic Jews speak Hebrew, but besides that is there any difference between a Christian and a Messianic Jew? Do they have any significant differences in faith or hope! <Q> The term Messianic Jew refers to Christians who identify as Jewish, as compared to those who identify as Russian, English, Thai etc. <S> Most of them are of Jewish descent, though there are some who are not but have chosen to identify themselves as Jewish. <S> Most Messianic Jews believe there is a very strong continuity between the Hebrew scriptures and Christianity. <S> Many uphold the Mosaic Law and, for example, celebrate its festivals. <S> They believe that Jesus is the fulfilment of many of the prophesies of the Hebrew scriptures, just as Christians do. <S> In general their beliefs are likely to be largely the same as other Christians, though there's also just as much diversity among them as there is the rest of us. <S> There are also Christians who are of Jewish descent but who do call themselves Messianic Jews. <S> Jewish identity is more complex than other ethnicities as it may involve an identification with the Jewish people, their history, their culture and the religion of Judaism, or it may involve an identification with only some of those things. <S> These people may acknowledge their Jewish descent but not strongly identify with the Jewish culture or religion, perhaps because contemporary Judaism has significant differences from how it was practiced in Biblical times. <A> I was born and raised an orthodox Israeli Jew, and was an orthodox Rabbi for many years before becoming Messianic in 2008. <S> However, the way we interpret scripture, and practice our faith can be very different indeed. <S> Shabbot shalom to you all. <A> Messianic Jews are Jewish and acknowledge that Yeshua is their Messiah. <S> There are Christians that keep the Jewish traditions and may aspire toward worshiping G-d in that way <S> but they are not recognized as being Jewish in an authentic Messianic congregation. <S> One cannot attend an ethnic Church and now say they are of that ethnicity just because they feel at home in their worship. <S> One is not Jewish because they attend a Messianic Congregation. <S> Shalom,E	The main body of beliefs are the same for Christians and Messianic Jews.
Is John 3:23 contradicted by 1 John 4:5-6? Does the born again experience happen by the Holy Spirit or by both the word of God/Gospel and Holy Spirit? Is John 3:23 contradicted by 1 John 4:5-6? From this comes following: does the born again experience happen by the Holy Spirit or by both the word of God/Gospel and Holy Spirit? And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath ; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. (John 3:23, KJV, emphasis mine) They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God : he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:5-6, KJV latter) This site claims that John 3:23 refutes LDS claim of pre-existence. <Q> The most important thing when interpreting a passage is the context: <S> John 8:21-23 ESV <S> So he [ Jesus ] said to them [ Pharisees ] again, “I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. <S> Where I am going, you cannot come." <S> So the Jews said, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?” <S> He said to them, “ You are from below; I am from above. <S> You are of this world; I am not of this world . <S> 1 John 4:2-6 ESV <S> By this you <S> [ John's disciples ] know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. <S> This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. <S> Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. <S> They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world , and the world listens to them. <S> We are from God. <S> Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. <S> By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error. <S> [bracket stuff added by me] Do these passages contradict? <S> Jesus was telling the Pharisees that they were from below--from the fallen world. <S> They refused to believe in him and he was identifying that as a belief from below. <S> Contrast this with 1 John, which is saying the same thing to a different crowd. <S> John is reinforcing Jesus' words. <A> Metaphors are Rooted in Context <S> In comparing these two passages, consider the context. <S> In John 8:23, Jesus is comparing people to himself. <S> By this comparison, we are all “from beneath.” <S> Jesus was human, but he wasn’t only human. <S> We are only human. <S> In 1 John 4:5-6, John is comparing believers to false prophets and antichrists. <S> The believers are from God (because they have his spirit), but the false prophets are from the world. <S> “ World ” here means the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ <S> There is no contradiction here because two different speakers are comparing different things. <S> They use similar metaphors, but otherwise little can be made of comparing the (words of the) comparisons. <A> John 8:23 states: <S> But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. <S> You are ofthis world; I am not of this world. <S> Oh wait, what's right before that: <S> This made the Jews ask, "Will he kill himself? <S> Is that why he says,'Where <S> I go, you cannot come'?" <S> So let's grammatically simplify that: "The Jews are from below..." Even Earlier (verse 13) we get: The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your ownwitness; your testimony is not valid.” <S> So then "The Pharisees are from below..." <S> So what this is saying is that the Pharisees are from below. <S> ================================================================== <S> 1 John 4:5-6 <S> states: <S> They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of theworld, and the world listens to them. <S> We are from God, and whoeverknows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listento us. <S> This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit offalsehood. <S> Earlier we have: <S> You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because theone who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. <S> So this simplifies to: You, dear children, and I are from God... ================================================================== <S> So the two statements are taken to be: <S> You, dear children, and I are from God... <S> "The Pharisees are from below..." <S> So that would be a contradiction iff either the author was a Pharisee (known false) or the audience of 1 John <S> are both Pharisees and "dear children." <S> So I would say that's probably not a contradiction. <S> ================================================================== <S> From this follows following. <S> Does the born again experience happens by the Holy Spirit or by both the word of God/Gospel and Holy Spirit? <S> That actually is a contradiction, that doesn't follow at all. <S> And to it I would answer (since I'm fairly confident that's beyond the scope of the response you were looking for) (1 Peter 1:12): ... <S> when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by thosewho have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent fromheaven. <S> Even angels long to look into these things.	Not at all--in fact their ideas are almost identical. John is saying a belief in Jesus as the savior is a belief (spirit) from above.
What is Roman Catholic Church's official view on the nature of Christ? One question that has haunted the Catholic Church from the very beginning is about the way divine and human are related in the person of Jesus Christ. The differences in doctrines have lead to the creation of Assyrian Church of the East and Oriental Orthodox Church. The Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 has accepted Dyophysitism as the accepted Catholic doctrine. But is this the final stand made by the Catholic Church? Or did any post Chalcedonian councils further clarified this matter? This being such a sensitive topic could any one please explain the official Catholic position on the nature of Christ? <Q> Yes, there were subsequent ecumenical councils that dealt with the matter. <S> As explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church , paragraph 468 : <S> After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ’s human nature a kind of personal subject. <S> Against them, the fifth ecumenical council at Constantinople in 553 confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity." <S> Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity." <A> Modern Catholic christology describes a Hypostatic union . <S> Wikipedia discusses briefly how this is historically related to Dyophisitism : <S> Theodore of Mopsuestia [argued] that in Christ there were two natures (dyophysite) (human and divine) and two hypostases (in the sense of "essence" or "person") that co-existed. <S> However in Theodore's time the word hypostasis could be used in a sense synonymous with ousia (which clearly means "essence" rather than "person") as it had been used by Origen and Tatian. <S> So the short answer to your question appears to be that, yes, this is still the view held by Catholicism, but it has been refined over the last 1500 years. <A> The official Christological view of Catholic Church is dogmatized in her twenty one Ecumenical Councils. <S> Council of Florence in relation to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son is indispensable for Catholic. <S> In those councils, the same Apostolic faith passed down from the Apostles are kept. <S> Who has two natures: divine and human. <S> This is why we Catholic call the virgin Mary, Theotokos (Greek for Mother of God). <S> Because the one she gave birth is not merely a human nature but a divine person, the Logos. <S> Nature can't be conceived but a person does. <S> Because the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, visible ecclesial communion with the Church of Rome is important. <S> While regarding the relationship between Catholic with other separated brethren progress in ecumenical dialogues have been made significantly including the last meeting between Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to commemorate the mutual annulment of anathemas in 1054. <A> The Catechism of the Catholic Church 463 - 478. <S> Read it, meditate and pray. <S> Look up the references and citations in the scriptures. <S> Ask the Holy Spirit for understanding along with piety and fear of the Lord. <S> God has revealed his Word to us. <S> But you can't read it once and understand. <S> You have to read, pray and pursue it daily.	That the whole and only person of Christ is the Logos, a divine person.
What is the cross in the mantra "carry your own cross"? Why did Jesus carry the cross and why did he say that everyone should take up their own cross?And what is the cross anyway? <Q> I believe that we can get a definitive answer on this from the Apostle Paul. <S> He spoke of the Cross as the summation of Christ and His Mission to redeem man. <S> He stated that the Message of the Cross is the Power and Wisdom of God to those who are saved (1 Cor 1:18, 23), and emphatically stated that he would not preach or know anything other than "Christ and Him Crucified" <S> (1 Cor 2:2). <S> He taught in many places that the very life we have as Christians stems from being planted together with Christ in His Death (Gal 2:20, Romans 6:6). <S> If we compare what Paul says about the Wisdom of God from 1 Cor 1:23 and Eph 3:9-10, we see that he is wrapping up in the term "Cross" the entire, eternal mission of Christ. <S> We can confirm that with Phil 2:8-9. <S> So, when we are to take up His Cross, the Cross, our Cross, being that we are planted together with Him in the likeness of His Death, it means to take up His Redemptive Mission. <S> We are to "seek first the Kingdom of God and His Righteousness" (Matt 6:33) (also flows from Calvary [Rom 3-4]). <S> We are to live by faith in His Blood (Rom 3:25). <S> We are to look to Calvary. <S> Since Grace flows through faith (Eph 2:8-9), and Satan knows that in order for him to remove us from the Grace of God, he must destroy our faith, he knows that he must eliminate our faith in the Atoning Work of Christ that reconciles us to God. <S> Therefore, with believing properly comes a struggle of faith... a good fight of the faith. <S> (1 Tim 6:12). <S> This struggle (fight, literally "agony") to keep one's faith off of self (the world, the flesh, and the devil all fight against this faith) and unto Christ is what it means to "take up one's Cross". <S> It means to carry the Cross in your faith, which will allow Grace (Eph 2:8-9), which will allow the Holy Spirit to conform us into the Image of Christ (Rom 8:29, 2 Cor 3:18), which will enable us to build the Kingdom of God in Resurrection Power (Acts 2:8; Romans 6:5). <A> Matthew 16:24 says " Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me ". <S> Luke 9:23 says "Then he said to them all: " Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me ". <S> Luke 14:27 says " And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple ". <S> And Matthew 11:30 says " For my yoke is easy and my burden is light ". <S> In all these verses Christ is using Cross as an allegory to human suffering and sacrifice needed to carry out his responsibilities. <S> Christ is alluding to the fact that as Christians and children of God our responsibility is to fulfill our daily responsibilities without any whining. <A> When Jesus said: Luke 9:23 <S> And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. <S> it was some time prior to his actual crucifixion, and apparently he was making a reference to that crucifixion. <S> So if that was his cross to bear, what then is our cross? <S> Perhaps we find the answer to that in what Jesus charged his disciples with after he had born his cross. <S> After he had risen from the Grave he gave his disciples only one command: <S> Matthew 28:18 through 20 KJV <S> And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. <S> Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: <S> Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. <S> Amen. <S> Hope this helps.	His cross was the dying on the cross in payment; not for his sins since he had none; but for our sin.
Does human effort oppose God's grace? A pastor in my church once told me that "human effort does not oppose God's grace", I.E. to say, as long as you do your best (which is impossible to attain, but you try any way), God will indeed do the rest. Are there any biblical references that support/reject this view? <Q> Human effort consistent with the will of God, does not oppose God's Grace. <S> However, the words of Jesus to Peter (cf. <S> Matthew 16:21-23), <S> "Get behind me, Satan! <S> You are a stumbling block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things, but on human things" (NRSV) are a proclamation from God himself that human effort can, indeed, oppose God's grace. <S> The assertion that one's best is impossible to attain is a logical paradox, and a fallacy. <S> Everyone can do his or her best, so it is obviously possible to attain. <S> The issue is the extent to which the "best" of any particular individual comes close to God's objective standards. <S> But God exhorts in Genesis 4:7 <S> "If you do well, will it not be accepted? <S> And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it." <S> (NRSV) <A> Hah, well, you've got a couple ambiguous statements to begin with: <S> "Human effort does not oppose God's grace." <S> "As long as you do your best , God will indeed do the rest." <S> What do you mean by human effort? <S> Effort in what? <S> Doing your best in what? <S> And what is God gracing you with? <S> What is the "rest" that he is doing? <S> Romans 3:20,28 ESV <S> For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin ... <S> For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. <S> Galatians 2:16 ESV <S> yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. <S> In regards to salvation, the only "human effort" a person can have that doesn't oppose God's grace is faith in Jesus--though most bible scholars wouldn't categorize that as human effort. <S> In fact, they'd say it's the opposite. <S> Having faith that Jesus makes you good and clean and justified before God implies that you believe you can't do it on your own. <A> The human effort does not oppose God's grace if this effort consist in obedience to God... <S> Even more this kind of human effort will be the inevitable result of the God's grace. <S> That is called the perseverance of the saints in reformed theology. <S> "Do not err, my beloved brethren. <S> Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. <S> Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures" (KJV James 1:16-18). <S> In fact, the good works of humans (not necessarily saved humans) also is part of the God's Grace (the common grace). <S> There are two heresies related to the subject of you question: the pelagianism and the semipelagianism, both of them in oposse to the reformed theology. <S> Take a look at this documental video: <S> Click here ! <A> "human effort does not oppose God's grace" = <S> TRUE, when the effort is a result of faith in God's grace. <S> For instance, Paul the apostle repeatedly wrote about how hard he worked as a result of God's grace, that is, knowing that God would undertake for him. <S> God graciously gives us gifts and empowers us to use them according to His will: Romans 12:6 <S> Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 1 <S> Cor. <S> 3:10 <S> According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. <S> But let each one take heed how he builds on it. <S> 1 <S> Cor. <S> 15:10 <S> But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. <S> 2 <S> Cor. <S> 9:8 <S> And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. <S> So these verses show that grace (which is freely given apart from our meriting them) and human effort are not exclusive. <S> Christians freely access this grace, this giving of God, when they believe God for it, that is, act in faith. <S> The problem comes in when we labor to be found worthy of the gifts and helps ("See what I've done, Lord? <S> I'm such a good person!") <S> For instance, the Israelites resisted receiving God's graciously given righteousness because they were going about establishing their own by meritorious works (Romans 9:30-32). <S> So acting apart from faith resists God's grace.	If you're talking about salvation and about being a good person and saying that human effort can contribute towards that without opposing God's grace then scripture surely contradicts you.
Do any church writers compare or contrast Jesus and the burning bush? From the Wikipedia article on Oneness Pentecostalism , Oneness theology specifically maintains that God is absolutely and indivisibly one. It equally proclaims that God is not made of a physical body, but is an invisible spirit that can only be seen in theophanies (such as the burning bush) that he creates or manifests, or in the person of the incarnate Jesus Christ. In the person of Jesus, one sees the last, best, and complete theophany of God. Is there any existing church writings by church fathers, reformers, or Christian scholars pre-dating Oneness Pentecostalism that speak of a doctrine of Christ as a theophany , using as a comparison the burning bush or other manifestation of God's presence in a similar vein, either supporting or condemning the teaching? <Q> Following the example of St. Justin Martyr (c.100 – 165 AD) who identified the Angel of the Lord with the Logos , theophanies in the Old Testament are said to have been the preincarnate appearances of Christ. <S> Please see: Chapter 56. <S> God who appeared to Moses is distinguished from God the Father - Dialogue with Trypho \| St. Justin Martyr . <S> Chapter 13. <S> — <S> The Appearance in the Bush. <S> - On the Trinity (Book II) \| Augustine of Hippo, Saint and Doctor of the Church . <S> The Blessed Trinity \| New Advent <S> Later controversy (2) <S> Justin <S> (Dialogue with Trypho 60) <S> Irenaeus (Against Heresies IV.20.7-11) <S> , Tertullian ("C. Marc.", II, 27; Against Praxeas 15-16), Novatian (On the Trinity 18.25), Theophilus ( <S> To Autolycus II.22), are accused of teaching that the theophanies were incompatible with the essential nature of the Father, yet not incompatible with that of the Son. <S> In this case also the difficulty is largely removed if it be remembered that these writers regarded all the Divine operations as proceeding from the Three Persons as such, and not from the Godhead viewed as one. <S> Now Revelation teaches us that in the work of the creation and redemption of the world the Father effects His purpose through the Son. <S> Through Him He made the world; through Him <S> He redeemed it; through Him He will judge it. <S> Hence it was believed by these writers that, having regard to the present disposition of Providence, the theophanies could only have been the work of the Son. <S> Moreover, in Colossians 1:15, the Son is expressly termed "the image of the invisible God" (eikon tou Theou rou aoratou) . <S> This expression they seem to have taken with strict literalness. <S> The function of an eikon is to manifest what is itself hidden (cf. <S> St. John Damascene, "De imagin.", III, n. 17). <S> Hence they held that the work of revealing the Father belongs by nature to the Second Person of the Trinity, and concluded that the theophanies were His work. <A> The pre-mortal existence of Christ is a far more involved and complex issue, especially when theologians reconcile this with the doctrine of Trinity. <S> As noted in a response above, Justin Martyr seemed to think Christ alone manifested himself in the OT. <S> Martyr writes: Like a king would send his son, he also being a king, thus did God sent Him. <S> He sent him as God. <S> He sent him as to men. <S> ( Epistle to Diognetus , VII) <S> I'm having trouble finding a good English translation, but here is the Greek text: http://www.ccel.org/l/lake/fathers/diognetus.htm . <S> I'd highly recommend reading the whole chapter to get context. <S> Thomas Aquinas, on the other hand, seems to think that this manifestation is much likelier coming from the Holy Spirit, especially when in light of Summa Theologica 31:3 in combination with ' Ipse Actus Essendi subsistens ' <S> Yet [God, the Trinity] does not mean the relations themselves of the Persons, but rather the number of persons related to each other; and hence it is that the word in itself does not express regard to another. <S> ( Summa Theologica 31:3:Reply to Objection 3) - Translated as 'act of being,' the expression actus essendi refers to a fundamental metaphysical principle discovered by Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) in his Christianizing of Aristotle. <S> Aquinas saw that in any subsisting extramental thing one finds a couplet of metaphysical principles: one is the ‘essence’ which makes the thing to be what it is, the other is the actus essendi which gives to the thing and to its ‘essence’ actual existence. <S> (Wikipedia Entry, Actus Essendi) <S> In other words, Aquinas didn't buy into the fact that God was ethereal and shapeless, but a being of physical and metaphysical construct. <S> Anyway, to directly answer your question, there isn't any evidence we have to suggest that God or Jesus expressed themselves in theophanies, at least according to early Christian writers. <A> I found this interesting quote from Justin martyr here ( http://www.risenjesus.com/the-early-church-fathers-on-jesus ) referring to Watchtower statements (no offense intended to anyone): <S> Justin says that the person who appeared in the burning bush to Moses, to the prophets and patriarchs, and who is called “God” is the Son. <S> Therefore, it is striking to note that the very passage that the Watchtower (c)ites in order to support their claim that “Justin said that Jesus was inferior to God” comes immediately after Justin says that Jesus is God and is within his 21 chapters where he sets out to prove that Jesus is God!(13: It is also interesting to note that in the final of those 21 chapters (ch. 75), Justin says that the name of God is “Jesus.”) <S> Notice what else Justin says concerning Jesus: <S> For if you had understood what has been written by the prophets, you would not have denied that He was God, Son of the only, unbegotten, unutterable God.(14: Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 126, see http://www.logoslibrary.org/justin/trypho/126.html ) <S> Parenthesized "c" is corrected from the website "sites".	I'm not aware of any early Christians who wrote of Jesus manifesting himself in theophanies.
Support Material for Reading the Bible I will start by describing some methods (and what I dislike about them) for studying the Bible. Then, I will describe the method I would like to use to study the Bible. Lastly, I will ask for supporting material for my idealized Bible study method. What I have tried: reading a fixed # of pages per day: This worked well for a while (and read through the Bible a few times) based on this method -- but I ran into the problem of: Old Testament was too slow New Testament was too fast did not get as much "theology" out of it reading books / articles by reformed theologists got a lot of theology out of it (yay) did not like the fact that I was constantly jumping through verses in the Bible feels "digested" What I would like to try: read a variable # of the pages of the Bible per day, and have supporting commentary that explains the main interesting theological points I should get out of the book/chapter/verse this is something that is "like a concordance" but at a higher level. What I mean is as follows: from a concordance, I get things likes: in this particular verse, the world foo means abc in the context ; in this particular verse, in the time/culture of when it was written, bar means def in the context what I want is something like: this book contributes to developing the doctrine of predestination, verses XYZ relate to this, chapter ABC makes this point, etc ... so I'm looking for something that is "systematic theology"-ish -- but I don't want to jump through verses of the Bible, I want something that develops systematic theology based on the order of the Bible so I want something that is like: in the Book of Genesis, we develop the following theological points point 1 is developed in chapters A, B, C point 2 is developed in chapters D, E, F then, I go off and read the book of Genesis, and reference this supplementary material for the theological points What is the closest thing that exists? EDIT: This may be what I want :-) <Q> From an Evangelical perspective, I suggest googling "inductive bible study" and having a browse. <S> The reality is that any tool you choose will be 'digested' in some way. <S> The book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth , Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart looks at this issue at a meta level - there's a fair bit of useful stuff in there, but it basically in a nutshell, boils the process down to reading whole books multiple times until you can understand the micro (each verse/passage) in terms of the macro (the whole book) <S> bearing in mind that each book itself should be considered in the light of the whole of scripture. <S> Some study bibles have extensive introductions and section plans for each book that outline the structure, themes, key terms and salient background details that are very helpful in coming to terms with the meaning of the book. <S> A further step is using bible commentaries to help you understand the text at deeper level, but the theological perspective of the author will almost always come into play in a commentary. <S> It wouldn't be my cup of tea personally, but according to your 'yay' for Reformed Theology, I draw your attention to the Reformation Study Bible ESV Version (there is also a a NKJV version and NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible ). <A> Perhaps you can get a couple of books to grab the major themes of the Bible, a survey of the OT, and a survey of the NT. <S> Jot down the themes you want to study. <S> Also jot down any other themes you want to see developed, especially about Christ and His roles. <S> Then go through the bible from Genesis on and see how verses relate to the themes. <S> As you do so, write a verse-by-verse breakdown of each chapter to make sure you are reading in context <S> (Gen v1: God created, not nature. <S> v2: the Spirit moves. <S> v3-5: first day - light. <S> Etc; your notes for each verse may be longer or more detailed.) <S> After doing these breakdowns, then write your own commentary on how you see the themes develop. <S> At any rate, make verse breakdowns of every chapter even if you don't see the themes develop. <S> Jot down the continuity from chapter to chapter and not only within a chapter. <S> You don't want chapter headings and verses to tell you how the story section begins or ends. <S> This will help you in continuity of your themes. <S> What Jesus says in chapter 5 may have started when someone asked a question in chapter 3 or 4, for example. <S> So asking yourself what is the inciting incident for the passage may be helpful. <S> You should have access to the Greek and Hebrew (many sources online). <S> If you do any word studies, you need to start with the meaning in its context and not derived from a modern English dictionary. <S> To keep your studies organized, you might make a text or Word file with headings for the themes and put your notes under their heading. <S> (If you have Microsoft 2010 or later, you can highlight the heading and use the ribbon toolbar to set it to Heading1 or Heading2, then it will appear as a clickable link in Navigation at left - View > <S> Navigation Pane - and keep your notes in order.) <S> This is how I would do it. <A> Having been down that road myself, and really looking for something to help me really understand the Bible. <S> I can tell you what I have settled on. <S> I have on my computer <S> two Bible study programs, both are free downloads, and are excellent study aids. <S> The one I use the most is 'the Word' downloaded from http://www.theword.net/ <S> it is free <S> and you can also download many Bible translations, Commentaries, dictionaries, books, and other valuable study aids. <S> The other is 'e-sword' downloaded from http://www.e-sword.net/index.html <S> +It is also free and has many of the same types of additions that the Word has. <S> I have developed the following process for studying. <S> you need to determine who is talking, who they are talking to, and what were the circumstances at the time. <S> All of these help to understand the Scripture. <S> Then you need to read the commentaries on the whole book. <S> I use e-Sword for this since it is easier to navigate, <S> however I Like the Word for choices of commentaries, since there are more available on that site. <S> Then you need to read the entire book through, before you start to break the book down into chapters. <S> After you have a good understanding of the Chapters you may even decide to read the verse comments, and this will sometimes clear up some misunderstandings you have about exactly what is meant. <S> This may be a little out of what you are looking for since this is a multi year undertaking. <S> I have been using it for over a decade now and am still studying, and learning something new each day. <S> Hope this helps.	Next what I do is read each chapter by itself, then read the chapter commentaries, and when reading commentaries it is best to read several different commentaries, since it will give you a far better idea of what others get from the same Bible passages.
When did guitar led worship music become accepted? When did guitar based worship music become common and accepted in church worship, when organs used to be the standard. <Q> The acoustic (non-electric) guitar is an instrument with a very soft dynamic range relative to most other instruments, such as the organ, or wind instruments, and is not effective in leading large assemblies in worship. <S> The electric guitar was invented in 1931, but the electric signal from the guitar required amplifiers to increase the volume of the sound, s without amplification, the signal from the electric guitar has a low dynamic range, too. <S> Guitars began to be used in church when amplifiers became small enough to be portable, and became inexpensive in the late 1960's. <S> The use of guitars in worship services was also encouraged by the liturgical reform movement that enveloped many denominations in the early 1960's, perhaps partly a consequence of the social consciousness engendered by the folk movement of the late 1950's and 1960's, where such songs as "If I had a hammer", and "We shall overcome" bore witness to a sense of social justice that conformed with Jesus' teaching. <S> The electric guitar came to be used in these settings, in part because by this time it, and the associated amplifiers and speakers were inexpensive, and relatively portable when compared to the organ, and was a close match in volume to an organ for accompanying a group of people. <S> Most of those building what are today known as mega-churches adopted the guitar, and other non-traditional accompaniment styles, <S> probably in part because they wanted to differentiate themselves from congregations in traditions where the organ was still more or less widely used, because of the inflexibility imposed by the size and immobility of the organ, and I suspect, in part, because of the expense and lead time involved when purchasing an organ. <A> By "Guitar led worship", I think you mean to say a worship band that uses acoustic guitar, electric guitar, bass guitar, drum-set and keyboard, commonly known as Contemporary worship music. <S> This kind of worship style is very recent and growing, though still facing oppositions from many traditional churches. <S> It's more popular among Charismatic churches. <S> One such example is Bethel Church , where Jesus Culture ministry was formed. <S> If you listen to their music style, it's quite heavy and more like a rock song. <S> A guitar led worship is a new trend these days and it's hard to know where or when it all began. <S> First there were Christian Rock bands who sang gospel songs using rock music or contemporary styles. <S> They made albums, performed live concerts and made music videos. <S> Leading the worship with rock music instruments was still very foreign to them. <S> From the 1980s , we started seeing worship bands using modern music instruments. <S> One such example would be Hillsong from Australia. <S> Latter we have Passion Conferences <S> making tours all around the world, making this worship style more and more popular. <S> There are many examples to mention <S> but I'm just writing them down off the top of my head. <A> Over the last 20 years the Contemporary Worship movement has steadily grown pushing the organ out of church and replacing it with instruments that are actually relevant to modern culture. <S> The trend has accelerated over the last few years to the point that guitar led worship is close to dominant. <S> Use of the organ is collapsing at 1% a year. <S> http://sowhatfaith.com/2014/09/15/how-worship-is-evolving/ <A> Within the Catholic Church, it appears that this has arisen from 1) <S> a misunderstanding of actuosa participatio populi <S> (the idea of congregational participation), - which it is said was in the first place ill-defined by the Vatican II Council fathers - and 2) from the actions of the innovators. <S> Therefore answering when within the Catholic Church, it seems these have been ever on the increase after the Second Vatican Council . <S> Please note that 'accepted' is taken here to mean 'condoned' as such the music is most likely not suitable sacred music for use within the liturgy. <S> Please see the links below. <S> Please see: MUSICAE SACRAE \| Encyclical of Pope Pius XII on Sacred Music . <S> Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform <S> After Vatican II . <S> What about a polka band at Mass? <S> \| Catholic Answers . <S> Modern musical instruments in Catholic church service \| Christianity StackExchange .	Since guitar is deeply related to rock music, looking at the history of Christian rock tells us that it started after the 1960s.
What is a Pacifist interpretation of the Cleansing of the Temple? 13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” 17 His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.” - John 2:13-17 NIV This passage can easily be read to be a "violent" reaction from Jesus. Leaving aside Niebuhr and pontifical statements against Christian Pacifism, how do Christian Pacifists interpret and apply this passage of scripture? <Q> Christian Pacifism does not imply that one does not get angry. <S> It doesn't even mean that one doesn't stand up against oppression. <S> It only suggests that one eschews violence and use the least force required to achieve justice. <S> When the Pacifist Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King marched or conducted sit-ins, sometimes there were altercations. <S> People on both sides could get hurt - but comparatively speaking, the movement attempted to avoid killing and death. <S> Quaker Pacifists would object to fighting in a war with guns, but they would often serve humanitarian causes supporting the side of right. <S> Sometimes, this could even mean fisticuffs. <S> Winston Churchill, speaking of Chamberlin's capitulation to the Nazis is reported to have said: "One can always appease the lion by allowing oneself to be consumed." <S> Nonviolent pacifism seeks justice - not appeasement. <S> Other biblical justifications can be found here and here for example. <S> Ted Grimsted, following Yoder (probably the best person to consult in re: Christian Pacifism) admits that the definition is hard to pin down, but ultimately writes: “Pacifism” is the in-principled unwillingness to engage in lethal violence, including most obviously the unwillingness to participate in warfare. <S> Non-violent protest does not mean the absence of harm - it means the least amount of harm to effect justice. <S> In Jesus' case, his father's house had become a den of thieves, a place in which people were abusing other people who had come to worship. <S> Jesus used the least amount of violence needed to relieve suffering of others. <S> There is no suggestion that anybody was killed or irreparably injured. <S> Jesus just meted out the physical whoopin' that these money-changers had metaphorically been dishing out themselves. <A> There are two or three ways this question is answered. <S> The first kind of answer differentiates pacifism from non-violence. <S> Some holders of Pacifist viewpoint distinguish war from legitimate police functions. <S> For example, this article : <S> God may use state violence, [...] to achieve God’s ends. <S> Further, if God uses the violence of the state, then [Pacifists] cannot transform his instrument of wrath into a completely nonviolent entity. <S> At most, they can call it to account for its policing function. <S> [Pacifists] should therefore distinguish between war and “policing.” <S> Unlike war, policing is best understood as “protecting the good and restraining evil with a minimum amount of force.” <S> Since the police are in fact a form of peacemaking, [Pacifists] can love their enemies in police occupations. <S> The cleansing of the Temple was a legitimate action, especially given that the person doing it was God. <S> An alternative view would be that the cleansing of the temple is a special case: Jesus is explicitly using his authority as God when he does this. <S> The fact that he, as God, does something, does not automatically empower his followers to do the same, <S> Yet another view would be that Jesus cleansed the temple without violence, using the whip only on animals. <A> two things: in the account in John, it mentions that Jesus used the whip of cords (which is different from the "lead-tipped whip" used on Jesus in Pilate's courtyard) and used it on the animals to drive them out. <S> in the synoptic gospels, there is no mention of any whip or weapon used by Jesus, but He did "drive out" the bad guys in the temple. <S> even if Jesus used the whip of cords on the moneychangers (and other temple racketeers, you know, to "righteously kick a little butt"), <S> it was not a sword . <S> if Jesus came into the temple with a sword and righteously sliced these bad guys, then maybe Christian advocates of "redemptive violence" might have a case regarding the example of Jesus. <S> but that is not the case. <S> Christians believe that Jesus is "God dwelling among humans" . <S> we believe that if you want to know about the nature of God's character, you get the clearest revelation of that from the teaching, example, and character of Jesus of Nazareth who appeared on this planet some two millenia ago. <S> any distortion of the historical account to the contrary is simply that; a distortion of the historical account. <S> for the "Christian" to use a machine gun on another human being (or to launch and detonate a nuclear weapon over the heads of hundreds of thousands of human beings) is about as well justified as Jesus doing the same. <S> there is no record that Jesus used the machine gun of His day on anyone.	Jesus, while on Earth , was clearly a pacifist, acted as such, and taught that to His disciples (and to us ).
What happened to Joseph, Jesus' father? What happened to Joseph, the father of Jesus, given that the last time he was mentioned in the story of Jesus was "Jesus' finding in the temple" ( Luke 2:41-52 ) after which he is never mentioned again right up to the death of Jesus Christ? So I want to ask, was he dead before then, or did the Bible just exclude him from the whole story, because I've not found any verse in the Bible that talks about his death or anything after Jesus' finding in the temple? <Q> Scholars tend to agree that Joseph had died prior to Christ's ministry. <S> Catholic tradition represents Mary as a widow during the adult ministry of Christ. <S> Joseph is not mentioned as being present at the Wedding at Cana at the beginning of Jesus' mission, nor at Golgotha. <S> If he had been present at the Crucifixion, he would under Jewish custom have been expected to take charge of Jesus' body, but this role is instead performed by Joseph of Arimathea (see Luke 23:50-53 ). <S> Nor would Jesus have entrusted his mother to John's care had her husband been alive (see John 19:27 ). <S> One explanation given for his death is given in the apocryphal Gospel of James (written ~145AD), supposed to be authored by, or a protoevangelium of James—Jesus brother—which claims that James was actually Joseph's son from a previous marriage. <S> The canon gospels never mention Joseph's age, but this account of James presents Joseph as an old man who was called of God to look after the virgin Mary. <S> If this account is accurate, then the explanation for Joseph's absence later in in Christ's life would be attributed to him passing from old age. <S> The life of Joseph actually has its own field of study called Josephology . <S> Records of devotions to Saint Joseph go back to the year 800AD and Doctors of the Catholic Church since Saint Thomas Aquinas have written on the subject. <S> With the growth of Mariology , the theological study of Saint Joseph also grew and several centers of study were formed in the 1950s specifically for study of Joseph—Husband of Mary. <S> The modern study of the theology of Saint Joseph is one of the most recent theological disciplines. <A> He was perhaps around 80 when betrothed to the Virgin and died when he was over 100 years old. <S> Life of Joseph from Orthodox Church in America website Life of Joseph from The Prologue of Nikolai Velimirovic <A> There are three lines of thought about Joseph's end. <S> The first line was that Joseph was an old man when he was chosen more as a caretaker, rather than husband, of Mary. <S> This is the view of the Infancy Gospel of James . <S> So, being already old, it explains why Joseph is no longer mentioned in Scripture after Christ is roughly 30 years of age and returns to His own <S> and they ask is he not the carpenter's son (Joseph)? <S> See also John 6:42. <S> The second line sources to Jerome who was aghast that people would believe Joseph was a sort of adulterer. <S> Jerome instead taught that Joseph, like Mary, also remained a virgin . <S> Jerome, more interested in protecting the virginity of Joseph, however, does not explain what may have happened to Joseph. <S> The third line is simply we don't know. <S> We can guess, as do the other two sources. <S> Some guess that Joseph died for unknown reasons during Christ's 3 1/2 year ministry. <S> This guess has to do with answering why Jesus appoints John as caretaker of His mother Mary (John 19:27).	According to the tradition of the Orthodox Church, Joseph died before Jesus began his ministry.
What is the case against seeing the Medieval Catholic Church as oppressive? I have a professor who keeps mentioning a false claim regarding the Catholic Church during the Medieval Times that I know is historically untrue but I do not know how to give a concise counter-argument regarding these views. My professor basically is stating the following thing that I need help answering and correcting: The Catholic Church in the Medieval Times was oppressive and monopolized knowledge because she wanted to suppress the common man from knowing what was going on. Basically he states that the Church in the Medieval Ages prior to the printing press and the development of concepts such as Democracy wanted to keep people ignorant. How can I show him that this is not true as evidenced by the various creations of universities during the Middle Ages and the monasteries which helped preserve education and manuscripts? <Q> I think, as is often the case, that in some times and places, the Church was co-opted by the Aristocracy. <S> While the Church certainly had a vested interest in promoting learning, the Aristocracy did not. <S> After all, Scripture is a revolutionary thing, and if the working classes (peasantry) became to well versed in exactly what the Bible teaches, they might be harder to control, and indeed even revolt. <S> And given that the hierarchy of the medieval Church was often drawn from the Aristocracy, the notion that at least some elements in the Catholic church were oppressive, and attempted to keep some of the people from being educated, is at least a question worth pursuing. <S> This is not to suggest, by the way, that all members of the Hierarchy of the church felt this way, but unquestionably some did. <S> On the other hand, the church did not always side with the aristocracy. <S> In the New World, for example, the aristocracy as a whole sought from Rome a decree that the native peoples that they found here were not rational beings, as this would allow the locals to be put into slavery. <S> However, the church refused, to the consternation of some of the Aristocracy in the new world. <S> I think this is yet another instance where the answer does not lie at either extreme, but somewhere in the middle. <S> I would say, that in the long term, yes the Church did promote learning, and preserve the body of knowledge. <S> However, in some times and in some places, it was less noble in this regard than in others. <A> The Church is "the pillar and ground of truth" (1 <S> Tim. 3:15). <S> If the Church were obscurantist, then why do so many cathedrals have such beautiful artwork, which very effectively instructed illiterate and literate people alike in the truths of Holy Scripture? <S> It is also a myth that only the clergy had access to Holy Scripture. <S> Although wealthy medievals certainly had more elaborate Books of Hours , some poorer literate medievals carried around simpler ones, too, reading them throughout the day. <S> See this video and this one (and these , too) for an introduction to Books of Hours and this website for pictures of medieval Books of Hours . <S> The following is an excellent historical work which overviews the medieval university, preparatory schools, popular education, technical education, women, hospitals, law, and economics: Walsh, James Joseph. <S> The Thirteenth, Greatest of Centuries , 1907. <S> In addition to spreading truth, the printing press also made it easier to spread error, untruths, and heresy. <S> This certainly concerned the Church, and the Church's love for seeking truth and defending it prompted the establishment of the Inquisition (which did not execute a single heretic; the State, however, did). <A> The answer is Europe and the Faith by Hilaire Belloc. <S> He consistently and logically argues that the fallacy that you bring up is a result of collusion between the the North Germans who think their ideas and philosophy are better than everyone elses and the English aristocracy who found it necessary (until WWI) to have a close philosophical and spiritual alliance with the Germans to keep down popular uprisings of Catholicism within their nation <S> (It was really quite dead by then). <S> He further says that because they (the Germans, or Teutons) were so late in the game to join with the Catholic Church, that the faith had no sticking power with them and they were the first to abandon it. <S> So, because they like to claim ( falsely ) that they were the first to translate the Bible into the vernacular, and that that somehow brought forth enlightenment in to the world. <S> The truth is, the Dark ages were dark because there was a lot of reorganization going on. <S> The Middle ages, on the contrary, were not the dark ages, they may not have been pleasant, but there was a lot less slavery and a lot more feasting during that time period. <S> The dark ages were the period in which Catholicism defeated barbarism and the middle ages were when we remembered the antiquities, the renaissance, reformation and enlightenment (and all periods until the 20th century, where Plato and Aristotle are finally getting back in fashion [according to the Collected works of Aristotle]), were all reactions against the collective wisdom and tradition of mankind. <S> That, sir, is what your professor fails to profess <S> , he thinks the greatest good is progress. <S> Catholicism teaches that the greatest good is God and that God can only be truly known through Tradition.	The Catholic Church—since at least the time of Charlemagne , his tutor Alcuin of York , et al.—promoted learning, established parochial schools, and laid the foundations of the modern university.
What is meant by hot drinks in section 89 of the doctrine and covenant? I know that the LDS are against the taking of any kind of recreational drug including widely legal drugs like tobacco. However, when reading section 89 of the doctrine and covenant there appears to be an explicit ban on "hot drinks". Is this interpreted as referring to tea and coffee or is this a literal ban on warm beverages of all kinds that have no drug properties e.g. peppermint tea or even just hot water? What is meant by "hot drinks"? <Q> "Hot drinks" refers to tea and coffee . <S> The LDS Student Manual for the Doctrine and Covenants references a quote from the Prophet Joseph Smith providing this clarification: <S> “I understand that some of the people are excusing themselves in using tea and coffee, because the Lord only said ‘hot drinks’ in the revelation of the Word of Wisdom. … <S> “Tea and coffee … are what the Lord meant when He said ‘hot drinks.’” <S> (In Joel H. Johnson, Voice from the Mountains <S> [Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1881], p. 12.) <S> The church has reaffirmed the meaning of "hot drinks" in recent times. <S> For example, see Word of Wisdom on LDS.org: <S> latter-day prophets have taught that the term “hot drinks,” as written in [D&C 89:9], refers to tea and coffee While it may seem peculiar now days to single out tea and coffee as "hot drinks," during the temperance movement of the 1830s they were both seen as substitutes for alcohol . <A> In 1937, Elder John A. Widtsoe, then one of 12 apostles, published a book entitled: "The Word of Wisdom: A Modern Interpretation", in which he discussed the various chemicals and stimulants founded in coffee and tea, including caffiene, as well as those in chocolate and other beverages commonly taken hot, and offered his opinion that these were part of the reason for the prohibition in D&C 89. <S> His opinions were well and widely received, and following them, many Mormons began to refuse caffeinated beverages such as certain soft drinks. <S> However, this work was never presented to the church as doctrine or revelation and his opinion is not considered authoritative. <A> To preserve the integrity of the spirit, the body (in which the spirit dwells, during mortality) must not be reliant on psychoactive substances. <S> Reliance on these substances can impede one's ability to communicate with God. <S> It is said that the Holy Ghost accompanies us on a daily basis as long as we live according to the Word of Wisdom. <S> But the highs and lows that come along with stimulants can push the Holy Ghost away. <S> Energy Drinks: <S> The Lift That Lets You Down Caffeine—The Subtle Addiction <S> Given the withdrawal symptoms that regular caffeine consumers suffer when they abstain from caffeine (fatigue, headache,) it's clear that caffeine is a habit-forming substance. <S> Therefore, it should be avoided. <S> This is not an official position of the church, but the above articles give some idea of what LDS writers think about caffeine. <S> Originally drafted as an answer to this closed question about caffeine . <A> And this Word of Wisdom prohibits the use of hot drinks D&C 89:9 and tobacco. <S> D&C 89:8 <S> I have heard it argued that tea and coffee are not mentioned therein; that is very true; but what were the people in the habit of taking as hot drinks when that revelation was given? <S> Tea and coffee. <S> We were not in the habit of drinking water very hot, but tea and coffee—the beverages in common use. <S> And the Lord said hot drinks are not good for the body nor the belly, D&C 89:9 liquor is not good for the body nor the belly, but for the washing of the body, D&C 89:7 &c. Tobacco is not good, save for sick cattle, and for bruises and sores, its cleansing properties being then very useful. <S> D&C 89:8 <S> JD 13:274, Brigham Young, The Word of Wisdom—Spiritualism . <S> The spirit of the revelation is also in regards to doing things for the health of the body. <S> It would seem reasonable that consuming any beverage that is at a temperature which would injure the body should be avoided (let the mint tea cool a bit, don't drink boiling water), but that is not an official part of the interpretation of the phrase in the revelation.	The central message behind the commandment against hot drinks is this: Habit-forming substances are to be avoided.
Where can I find scans of original Biblical manuscripts? I want to study different translations of Bible and compare them to Bible in Hebrew and Greek. Can any one tell me where can I find the pictures of original Biblical manuscripts online? <Q> The original manuscripts are not believed to be in existence any more, and most manuscripts we do have aren't easily accessible. <S> But some important ones can be viewed online: <S> Aleppo Codex Codex Sinaiticus Codex Vaticanus <S> Because there are so many manuscripts, most scholars rely on critical texts: the editors of these texts choose which variations they think are most likely to be authentic, and then in footnotes list the alternatives and which manuscripts support each. <S> The most widely regarded critical text for the New Testament is the Nestle-Aland , whose text can be read online, but without the critical apparatus (footnotes). <S> It looks like this: <A> As others have said, the original manuscripts no longer exist. <S> But the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts is making an effort to photograph extant Greek manuscripts and make them available for study. <S> Many of the manuscripts are fragments, but some are complete books of the New Testament. <S> The photographs that are available online are high resolution. <S> Here is a sample: <A> With regards to Greek:There are many places you can find manuscripts as is mentioned in the other answers. <S> (Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, INTF) <S> BUT the best and easiest way for one person (as in less than a team of 50 people) to look at the greatest amount of manuscripts available would be to use something like the CNTTS database which is available in BibleWorks 9 and Accordance 10/11. <S> This shows all changes (as judged by the collators of course) between all the relevant manuscripts which have been collated by them at this point. <S> So it is subject to a few points though: <S> Only a smaller fraction of the 5000+ manuscripts Dates of manuscripts have been collated. <S> The dates given for manuscripts are subject to the judgment of the collators, so for instance they date the second century Peshitto much later following Wescott & Hort's theories. <S> You won't find all the evidence for the text of the Holy Scripture only in the manuscripts, you'll need to look at a vast array of testimonies, such as Church Fathers ( 1 John 5:7 ), Versions ( 1 John 2:23b ), Lectionaries ( Last twelve verses of Mark ). <S> Things like these. <S> To get a good bearing on how to approach this world of textual criticism, read Dean John William Burgon's books. <S> The Revision Revised <S> A vindication of the last twelve verses of St. Mark etc. <S> freely available at the Gutenberg Project . <A> A lot of universities have high resolution scans of manuscripts that they may let you view. <S> You may have to be a student though but it may be worthwhile to enter into conversations with your local universities Theology departments. <S> There is also museums that house ancient fragments. <S> The John Rylands Museum in Manchester comes to mind. <S> You can check that out. <A> You can look at some of the dead sea scrolls here http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/featured-scrolls <A> Firstly, when you say the Hebrew bible that can mean a few things. <S> The Tanakh? <S> The Torah? <S> The Talmud?. <S> If you mean the Christian bible (old testament+new testament) then the Codex Vaticanus (300ad) and the Codex Senauticus (350-400ad) are the Oldest. <S> As others have mentioned there are fragments that are older such as Rylands Library Papyrus P52 about 100ad, Which is a fragment of John 18:31-33 and John 18:37-38. <S> This particular fragment matches up extremely well with <S> a modern King James almost verbatim. <S> There are many other fragments as well that are Extremely old. <S> Lastly, if you mean a Hebrew bible written as the Christian bible i.e. old+New testament there may be some in existence but they won't be near as old as the ones I mentioned above. <S> Keep in mind <S> the Apostles wrote the new testament in Greek (NOT Hebrew). <S> If there are some old Hebrew versions they are unknown to scholars.	One not mentioned before and very complete, although you need special perissions to get access to most manuscripts, is Institute for New Testament Textual Research
Do modern descendants of the Levites need to be ordained with the Aaronic Priesthhood? Literal descendants of Aaron have a legal right to Aaronic priesthood: "No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant of Aaron." (D&C 107:16) If a literal descendant of Aaron were to be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints–supposing they could trace their lineage–would they need to be ordained with the Aaronic Priesthood, or would the church recognize their legal right to it? <Q> D&C 107:16 is part doctrine, part prophesy. <S> The administration of the Aaronic Priesthood doesn't operate by lineage now, <S> but it will one day. <S> Although the Aaronic Priesthood is conferred in the Church today without restriction to the lineage of Aaron, the keys of this priesthood rightly belong to the firstborn of the seed of Aaron, and in the restoration of all things the office of bishop (president of the priests) will once again be conferred on one of that lineage, as it is designated by revelation to the president of the Church (D&C 84:14–21; 107:13–17). <S> Bible Dictionary, Aaronic Priesthood <S> This is part of the more general "Restoration of the Gospel", following the apostasy of the Original Church. <S> And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. <S> Acts 3:20-21 (emphasis added) <S> While this restitution/restoration is often ascribed to events in the 1830s -- like the formation of the LDS Church -- it actually began long before then, and is not yet over. <A> There are a lot of rumors and unsupported assumption surrounding this topic. <S> Here's what we actually know. <S> The office to which a literal decendant of Aaron is entitled is that of Presiding Bishop. <S> It has nothing to do with the office of Bishop over any given Ward. <S> The calling (of Presiding Bishop) comes through the First Presidency, not through the office of Patriarch normally associated with declaring lineage. <S> The only thing that the rumors got right was that the individual need not call counsellors. <S> "Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:259." <S> He isn't born with the priesthood. <S> By birth he has the right to the priesthood, not the priesthood itself. <S> To date we have not had any such decendant of Aaron identified and set apart <S> but we believe it will happen. <A> My experience is the church does not acknowledge the literal sons of Aaron at all. <S> My husband is a literal son of Aaron and keeps his covenants with God; yet, this has not granted him his legal right (D&C107:76) so far.	As for holding the Aaronic priesthood, a decendant of Aaron would still have to be ordained.
How many apostles are there? Are there 12 apostles? Are there 70 apostles? When I was growing up and learning about Jesus, I found that he had 12 apostles. I was looking at a page about Mark the Evangelist recently and it says that he was one of 70 disciples. On that same page about the about 70 disciples there is a picture titled "Icon of the Seventy Apostles." . Are there 12 or 70? Are the 12 somehow separate from the 70 or are they part of the same group? Is there anything in the Bible I can read that deals with this? <Q> It probably depends on what the specific church calls an apostle, but at least we know that the "seventy disciples" are a distinct group of the twelve (apostles). <S> From Luke 10 <S> : <S> And after these things, the Lord did appoint also other seventy, and sent them by twos before his face, to every city and place <S> whither he himself was about to come, then said he unto them, `The harvest indeed [is] abundant, but the workmen few; beseech ye then the Lord of the harvest, that He may put forth workmen to His harvest. <S> The twelve were mostly with him, as far as I remember he was alone with them at the last supper. <S> This shows they were, somehow, special - distinct from the seventy. <S> LDS view: In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints <S> , we have a quorum of twelve apostles and quorums of seventies that assist them. <S> I would (We) see the purpose of the original seventy as similar: <S> Assisting the twelve, going out and preaching. <S> Because really, twelve people is not many. <A> Neither "apostle" nor "disciple" is an exclusive term: both are descriptive, and you will easily find examples in the New Testament of people from outside Jesus's inner circle described that way. <S> On the other hand, "the twelve" is clearly a group of twelve individuals (with one late addition replacing Judas Iscariot). <S> It has become customary to refer to that group as the Apostles (in English, we often use an initial capital like this, but this wasn't a feature of the source languages). <S> So how many Apostles? <S> Christianity down the ages will say 12. <S> How many have been apostles of the Church, or of a church figure, or of Jesus Christ? <S> Many, including those 70 who were sent. <S> As far as I know, while some Christian denominations make use of the word as badges of approved authority, no mainstream denomination confuses this with inclusion in the category of the twelve. <S> So the idea of Apostolic authority may be contested, but where used it is not a claim to membership of that group of contemporaries of Jesus in the first century. <A> There are three main views on what an apostle is/was as far as I know: Catholicism Jesus ordained 12 apostles, who then had the power to choose any number of successors to take on the title of "apostle". <S> They passed on their apostleship to others, who then passed on the apostleship to others, etc. <S> until the today, when the current Roman Catholic clergymen are the apostles. <S> Some(?) <S> Protestants Jesus ordained 12 apostles, who were the only ones to ever hold the title. <S> People today can carry out Christ's work as the apostles did through the power of the Holy Spirit. <S> Mormonism <S> The Quorum of Twelve Apostles is the second highest governing body in the Church. <S> The Quorums of the Seventy (70 disciples) are auxiliary authorities to the Presidency and the Twelve. <S> “An 'apostle' is an ordained leader in the Melchizedek Priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. <S> Apostles are chosen through inspiration by the President of the Church (Prophet), sustained by the general membership of the Church, and ordained by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles by the laying on of hands. <S> . . . <S> In addition to serving as witnesses of Jesus Christ to all the world ( D&C 107:23 ), as Jesus' apostles did, members of the current Quorum of the Twelve Apostles hold the keys of the priesthood--that is, the rights of presidency ( D&C 107:35; cf. <S> 124:128 )” <S> ( Encyclopedia of Mormonism [1992], 1:59-60, see also <S> – Bible Dictionary: Apostle ). <S> Disciples vs. Apostles <S> The term "disciple" is generally used for any follower of Jesus who is doing his work. <A> We can discuss to the world's end what is included in the title apostle. <S> However, I'd like to point out that there is a special distinction given to the 12 apostles. <S> This is shown in Revelation, where it is revealed that the twelve foundations of the new city has the names of the twelve apostles: <S> Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. <S> ~ <S> Revelation 20:14 <S> NKJV <S> Interesting <S> right? <S> I do wonder if this includes Paul, or is it Matthias (Judas' replacement), since Paul did so much for the spread of the gospel and his epistles make up so much of the NT. <A> Apostle simply means "sent one". <S> Christ chose twelve, one fell, and was replaced by Matthias. <S> These are without a doubt "the apostles", and, when referring to the Gospels, this is often what is directly referred to. <S> However, Paul was also an apostle. <S> This shows that the title was not limited to the twelve. <S> Biblically, it could mean something similar to "missionary" today. <S> In fact, by some readings of the text, upward of 25 peopke could be being referred to as apostles, "sent ones", by the Bible itself (see this article here ). <S> So, are there 12, 25, or 70 apostles? <S> The answer is a resounding, Yes! <S> It just depends on what context you are asking the question...	Certainly, there were twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.