In 1611, in the KJV, what did the words "ghost" and "spirit" mean? According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first appearance of the word "ghost" was in 1606, five years before the Authorized Version was released in 1611. The word "ghost" appears in the KJV 109 times in 108 verses. This is the first appearance:

  Gen_25:8  Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age,
  an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.
  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ghost

According to the same source the word "spirit" first appeared in 1608:

  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirit

It occurs 505 times in 456 verses. This is the first occurrence:

  Gen_1:2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
  upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face
  of the waters.

However I notice that the Wycliffe Bible, from the 1300s uses the word "Spiryt" a few times. IE:

  Gen 1:2 Forsothe the erthe was idel and voide, and derknessis weren on
  the face of depthe; and the Spiryt of the Lord was borun on the
  watris.

The word "breath" only occurs 42 times in 42 verses. Here is the first occurrence:

  Gen_2:7  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
  breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
  soul.

My question is, in 1611 when these words were coined and used in the KJV were "ghost" and" "spirit" simply synonyms of each other? IE: Are the KJV authors distinguishing "Spirit" from "Ghost" in this verse or just varying it up?:

  Joh_1:33  And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with
  water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit
  descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with
  the Holy Ghost.

And what about "breath"? They seem to be used in parallel:

  Job_27:3  All the while my breath [H5397] is in me, and the spirit
  [H7307] of God is in my nostrils;

  H5397

  נְשָׁמָה neshâmâh nesh-aw-maw' From H5395; a puff, that is, wind,
  angry or vital breath, divine inspiration, intellect or (concretely)
  an animal: - blast, (that) breath (-eth), inspiration, soul, spirit.
  Total KJV occurrences: 24

  H7307

  רוּחַ rûach roo'-akh From H7306; wind; by resemblance breath, that
  is, a sensible (or even violent) exhalation; figuratively life, anger,
  unsubstantiality; by extension a region of the sky; by resemblance
  spirit, but only of a rational being (including its expression and
  functions): - air, anger, blast, breath, X cool, courage, mind, X
  quarter, X side, spirit ([-ual]), tempest, X vain, ([whirl-]) wind
  (-y). Total KJV occurrences: 378

So what did these words mean to the KJV translators? Were they all synonyms of each other? If so, why muddy the waters? Why translate as "ghost" sometimes and "spirit" at other times? Why not just retain "breath" as all other languages seemed to do prior to English translations of the scriptures?

They seem to have been used interchangeably, with some overlapping definitions and figurative usage in the English language before and leading up to the 17th Century translation of the KJV. The meaning of each is, at least in the Greek, dictated by context. Thus, each of these words for the translators in English also had multiple meanings and connotations that were rooted in the context in which they appeared in the text.

In regards to "Spirit,” “Ghost” (and “Breath”) in the New Testament Greek

It seems that the KJV translators viewed one definition of "spirit" as synonymous with "ghost," and that "breath" is sometimes used figuratively as a synonym of "spirit," much as the Latin word for breath, spiritus, was used figuratively to refer to the soul or spirit of a human being.

  English Word Origins:

  Spirit. Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French, from Latin spiritus ‘breath, spirit,’ from spirare (‘breathe.’)

  Ghost. Old English gāst (in the sense ‘spirit, soul’), of Germanic origin; related to Dutch geest and German geist. The gh- spelling occurs first in Caxton (c. 1422 – c. 1491), probably influenced by Flemish gheest. (Oxford Dictionaries)

In Luke 24:37, when Jesus appears to the disciples, they are afraid because they think He's a ghost in the sense that we use the word today - a nebulous apparition of a dead person:

  37 But they were terrified, and afrighted, and supposed that they had seene a spirit. (1611 KJV).

In this instance, the Greek word used is pneuma, which the translators rendered as "spirit." The context of the situation makes it clear what Luke meant by pneuma. Thus, we can take one of the definitions of "spirit" in the 1611 King James to be a synonym of our current English definition or meaning for "ghost."

As Jesus dies on the cross in Luke 23:46, we see pneuma again, and once again rendered by the 1611 KJV as "spirit" in English, but in the sense that we define "soul" today (the spiritual part of a person that gives life to the body):

  46  And when Iesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: And hauing said thus, he gaue vp the ghost.

Again, the context of the usage makes it clear what Luke means by pneuma here. It's also interesting to note that "gave up the ghost" is the translators' rendering of exepneusen, or "he breathed his last." So we see "ghost" used as part of an idiomatic rendering of what appears to be an idiom in the Greek.

So, Why The Different Renderings?

As for why the KJV translators chose to vary the rendering with synonyms, we can look to the instructions and guidelines they were given by King James I. Whenever we discuss the King James, we must recognize the tradition of prior English Bibles and the influence they had on the language used in the KJV. As the translators of the KJV carried out their work, they were working under 15 “rules for revision” from the court of James I himself, most notably (in this case):

  The Bishops' Bible (1602 revision) to be followed "and as little altered as the original will permit.”
  Words of varying interpretations to be rendered in accordance with patristic tradition and the analogy of faith.
  “These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: namely, Tindal's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, the Geneva.” (Pope, Hugh. English Versions of the Bible (Westport, Ct.: Greenwood Press, Publishers), pp. 309-325).

Therefore, we have to recognize that some words may have been maintained (especially where multiple interpretations are possible) according to the tradition established by English Bibles prior to the publishing of the KJV. In fact, the KJV’s wording lines up to be quite similar to The Bishops’ Bible on many counts. Returning to the example of Luke 24:37 from above:

  37 But they were abaffled and afrayde, & supposed that they had seene a spirite. (1568 Bishops’ Bible)

It’s likely that words with multiple synonyms were kept the same as they were rendered in the Bishops’ Bible when the KJV translators were deciding on the final word choice for the King James. This wasn’t  seen as something that would “muddy the waters,” but that would maintain the language tradition that had been established in prior English translations.


What is the biblical justification for allowing only male pastors? Possible Duplicate:
  What is the biblical justification for permitting female pastors?

What is the biblical justification for allowing only male pastors?

How do churches excluding women from pastoral and teaching roles justify their stance as The Christian Way?

1Timothy 2:12-14 (NASB) says pretty clearly that women shouldn't be pastors:

  12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a
  man, but to remain quiet.

  13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

  14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being
  deceived, fell into transgression.


What is an overview of Reformed beliefs about hell? Could somebody please provide an overview of the various beliefs that the Reformed churches hold regarding hell? If possible, but not required for an accepted answer, it would be great if they could be listed in order from most popular to least.

Like most labels, Reformed theology defies clean boundaries, especially on a divisive topic like this one.  But if we consider the term broadly, we will notice that the positions tend to follow those of Protestantism more generally.  I'll divide the views into three main categories, each with an admittedly imperfect name:

Traditionalism
Universalism
Annihilationism

Traditionalism
Those in what I call the "traditionalist" bucket are those who affirm what is called "eternal conscious torment" (ECT) in some form.  This is the "orthodox" position held by the early Reformed creeds, like the Westminster Standards:

The punishments of sin in the world to come, are everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of God, and most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell-fire forever.1

Some Reformed thinkers tend to emphasize the "fire" and "burning" aspects of hell; we might call these the "literalists" within the ECT camp.  Charles Spurgeon might be placed in that category:

Could all the misery that ever startled the keepers of our hospitals be conceived, it could not convey the least idea of the pains of the spirits that are doomed to dwell in eternal fire and everlasting burning.  The woe however, will act its terrible part on the soul.  The memory aghast,—hope and fear, thoughts and imaginations, conscience and judgment, all will be racked, every one stretched on a bed of fire, every nerve strained to its utmost, every vein made a road for the hot feet of pain to travel on.2

Others, however, believe it best to interpret the graphic biblical descriptions of hell as primarily metaphorical.  Anthony Hoekema writes:

The various figures by means of which the punishment of hell is depicted are not to be taken literally.  For, when taken literally, these figures tend to contradict each other: how can hell be darkness and fire at the same time?  The imagery is to be understood symbolically, but the reality will be worse than the symbols.3

Charles Hodge agrees and makes the common argument that the sufferings of hell will not be uniformly felt:

There seems to be no more reason for supposing that the fire spoken of in Scripture is to be literal fire, than that the worm that never dies is literally a worm. The devil and his angels who are to suffer the vengeance of eternal fire, and whose doom the finally impenitent are to share, have no material bodies to be acted upon by elemental fire. As there are to be degrees in the glory and blessedness of heaven, as our Lord teaches us in the parable of the ten talents, so there will be differences as to degree in the sufferings of the lost: some will be beaten with few stripes, some with many.4

Tim Keller offers an explanation of the purpose of these images:

What, then, are the 'fire' and 'darkness' symbols for? They are vivid ways to describe what happens when we lose the presence of God. Darkness refers to the isolation, and fire to the disintegration of being separated from God. Away from the favor and face of God, we literally, horrifically, and endlessly fall apart.5

Universalism
The orthodox view of hell, though historically dominant, has been rejected or ignored more and more in recent centuries among some branches of Reformed theology, broadly considered.  The confessional statements adopted in the 20th century by the PC(USA) – the Declaration of Barmen, the Confession of 1967, and the Brief Statement (1983) – make absolutely no mention of the H-word, and many theologians have sought alternatives.   Two alternative categories prevail: Universalism and Annihilationism.
Within "Universalism" I include not only those who expressly call themselves universalists (all will be saved), but also those who hold to "continued probation" and "universal hope" theologies, as well as those whose views are commonly characterized as logically leading to universalism.
It is perhaps not completely out of line to include Friedrich Schleiermacher here as a "Reformed theologian," given his roots in the German Reformed church, though his theology came to bear little resemblance to traditional Reformed theology.  Schleiermacher was a universalist; he held that "all human souls" would be restored.6
Some in the "New School" branch of 19th century Presbyterianism adopted a view of future probation,7 in which the unsaved would receive an additional chance to accept salvation, and at least one of their number, Edward Beecher, openly advocated a doctrine of universal restoration.8  And in the 20th century, two leaders of the neo-orthodox movement from the Reformed tradition – Emil Brunner and Karl Barth – had difficulty distancing themselves from universalist label.  Karl Barth's view of the universal election of men is commonly cited as evidence of his universalism, and some of Brunner's writings seem to strongly imply it, for example:

That is the revealed Will of God and the plan for the world which He discloses, a plan of universal salvation, of gathering all things into Christ. We hear not one word in the Bible of a dual plan, a plan of salvation and its polar opposite. The Will of God has but one point, it is unambiguous and positive. It has one aim, not two.6

Annihilationism
Continuing the streak, annihilationism is a poor name for a category, since it includes both annihilationism proper (that the immortal souls of the lost are ultimately annihilated by God) and conditionalism, which holds that no soul is immortal until God grants it eternal life.
Like universalism, annihilationism is widely seen as a heterodox view by conservatives, but, interestingly, it has been adopted by some respected evangelicals, such as John Stott.  Stott, however, was an Anglican, and many prominent advocates of this view associate with non-Reformed Protestant traditions.  Those most closely associated with Reformed theology would include Lyman Abbott9 and Horace Bushnell, though Bushnell saw souls not being extinguished (as in annihilationism proper) but transformed so as to be incapable of feeling.10 I've had little success in identifying contemporary Reformed theologians who advocate annihilationism, but lay proponents are easier to find.
Summary
Historically the most common view of hell in Reformed theology has been the traditional or orthodox view, and many would consider it the only view of "true" (confessional) Reformed theology.  Within this camp there are different approaches with respect to how literal or metaphorical the scriptural imagery should be understood, with some emphasizing burning and pain and others the isolation and destruction.
Of the two remaining positions, universalism and annihilationism, both have their advocates among those associated, more or less loosely, with Reformed theology.  In most cases these views coincide with other divergences from Reformed confessional standards, such as on the theology of the atonement and the reliability of Scripture.  Of the two, it seems that universalism has historically been more closely tied to Reformed theology, whereas annihilationism, though perhaps relatively more prevalent in evangelicalism, is more closely associated with the Anglican, Lutheran, and Arminian traditions.

Westminster Larger Catechism, 29
"Woes to Come", in Storm signals, 77
The Bible and the Future, 273
Systematic Theology, 3.868
"The Importance of Hell"
Quoted in Harry Buis, The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment, chapter 6.  Buis's survey is helpful in tracing the history of the debate from a traditionalist perspective.
The Andover Review, April 1890, 441
History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution, 298
Our Day, Volume 9, 345–46
B. B. Warfield, Annihilationism, in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge


According to mainstream Christianity, who is God? This question also relates to it:
  What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity?

Growing up I've been led to believe that God is God, and Jesus is God's son. But others have also preached that Jesus was God, in a human's body.

And nearly everywhere I go online these days, I end up seeing some website that claims that Jesus is God.

So which is it? Are God and Jesus the same being? Is Jesus God's son? There are some Christian websites that claim different things, so I am confused.

What do the majority of Christians say about this topic?

What you are having difficulty grokking is a concept known as the "Trinity."  The historically correct definition of the Trinity is that God is "three persons in one."

When Jesus says, "I and the Father are One" (in John), he is claiming that he is God.  Historically, God the Father, Jesus (God the Son), and the Holy Spirit are all considered the three persons of the Trinity.  They are all equal, they are distinct, and yet they are all the same.

This link explains the relationship as well as any :)

Don't worry, its a difficult concept, but it is the basis of Nicene Christianity's understanding of how God exists.


If Orthodox Christians must repent of any act of violence, how does this not entail pacifism? I have heard from many Orthodox that one should repent of any act of violence, including violence committed in self-defense or in the service of military duties.

As I understand it, true repentance includes a genuine belief that facing the same situation again, one would act differently.

How can this be squared with the church's non-pacifism? The church plainly is not pacifistic and has recognized in several places the unfortunate need for violence in this world.

For Catholics there is no inconsistency, for one doesn't repent of just violence. But this seems to be a problem for the Orthodox, at least from my reading. How does Orthodox Theology resolve this apparent contradiction/paradox?

First, I would say that your premise:

  ... true repentance includes a genuine belief that facing the same
  situation again, one would act differently

does not accurately represent the Orthodox Christian understanding of "repentance".  This notion of repentance accords with the conventional dictionary definition of feeling remorse or regret (e.g. Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 6th ed.), but it does not agree with how repentance is viewed by Orthodox.

The Greek word in Scripture for "repentance" is metanoia.  Metanoia, explains Metropolitian Kallistos Ware, "means literally 'change of mind'."

  In approaching God, we are to change our mind, stripping ourselves of
  all our habitual ways of thinking. We are to be converted not only in
  our will but in our intellect. We need to reverse our interior
  perspective, to stand the pyramid on its head.

  The Orthodox Way (Kindle Locations 167-169)

As Metropolitan Kallistos further explains,

  Correctly understood, repentance is not negative but positive. It
  means not self-pity or remorse but conversion, the re-centering of our
  whole life upon the Trinity. It is to look not backward with regret
  but forward with hope—not downwards at our own shortcomings but
  upwards at God's love. It is to see, not what we have failed to be,
  but what by divine grace we can now become; and it is to act upon what
  we see. To repent is to open our eyes to the light. In this sense,
  repentance is not just a single act, an initial step, but a continuing
  state, an attitude of heart and will that needs to be ceaselessly
  renewed up to the end of life. In the words of St Isaias of Sketis,
  “God requires us to go on repenting until our last breath.” “This life
  has been given you for repentance”, says St Isaac the Syrian. “Do not
  waste it on other things.”

  Ibid., Kindle Locations 2053-2060

Thus, the Orthodox understanding of repentance lies not in the context of physical acts that one may or may not commit, but rather in the disposition of the heart.  Military service - especially in combat - is a great spiritual burden for Orthodox Christians because it invites spiritual warfare and calls for a passionlessness that is almost impossible to attain.  This is perhaps one reason that almost every single Orthodox service includes prayers for the country's armed forces.

There is, however, a great number of soldiers who are included in the Synaxaria of the Orthodox Church, including St. George the Victory-bearer, who served in the Roman Army under the emperor Diocletian, and Theodore the Recruit.  Among latter day saints, we might include the recent Russian martyr Yevgeny Rodionov and the recently-reposed Archimandrite Kyrill, a decorated Red Army veteran who fought at Stalingrad.

Nonetheless, your point is taken.  Basil the Great advocated for Christians to abstain from communion for a time after participating in a war:  "Our fathers did not think that killing in war was murder; yet I think it advisable for such as have been guilty of it to forbear communion three years" (First Canonical Epistle, Canon XIII).  A Question & Answer dialog on the Orthodox Church of America website suggests that pacifism is preferred, but perhaps impractical:

  But still, if a man will be perfect and give his life totally to
  Christ, he will of necessity renounce military service as well as any
  political service which always and of necessity is involved with
  relativistic values and greater and lesser evils and goods. Such a man
  will also renounce his possessions and follow Christ totally and in
  everything.

  Thus total pacifism is not only possible, it is the sign of greatest
  perfection, the perfection of the Kingdom of God. According to the
  Orthodox understanding, however, pacifism can never be a social or
  political philosophy for this world; although once again, a
  non-violent means to an end is always to be preferred in every case to
  a violent means.

  When violence must be used as a lesser evil to prevent greater evils,
  it can never be blessed as such, it must always be repented of, and it
  must never be identified with perfect Christian morality.

  Also, one final point of great importance is that Christians who are
  involved in the relativistic life of this world must resist military
  conscription when the state is evil. But when doing so they must not
  yield to anarchy, but must submit to whatever punishment is given so
  that their witness will be fruitful.

(This is offered as an opinion and not dogma by the OCA, but I thought I would include it as an item of interest)


Why is Christ often shown with long hair in Christian iconography? A friend of mine is Catholic and she has an icon or picture of Christ. It shows him with long, dark brown hair. Is there anything in the New Testament that justifies this representation? It seems to me, and I could be wrong here, that it a common representation.

If not, how far can we trace back this representation? Did it become prominent early on in Christianity?

In the interest of clarity, I should point out that I'm a Sunni Muslim and that I do realise that many forms of Islam frown on figurative representation. I'm not really interested in that debate. The question is purely a question about Christian iconography.

It is true that Our lord Jesus Christ is most often portrayed as having long hair. In the New Testament, no reference is made about the outward appearance of Jesus. St. Paul himself was not a fain of long hair as one can read in 1 Cor. 11:14-15.

  14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

Let us remember that St. Paul was a Roman citizen and the Romans had shorter hair.

The men at the time of Jesus definitely had long hair and the Jewish Encyclopedia bares this out.

  Fashion Among Men.

  From the Old Testament it may be gathered that it was customary for the men to have their hair cut from time to time. The Nazarites allowed theirs to grow uncut for religious reasons. Absalom, proud of his thick head of hair, had it cut once a year only. But generally the hair was cut oftener. It was never shaved save on special occasions; the high priests and the priests in general were expressly forbidden to have theirs shaved. They were neither to shave their hair according to heathen custom, nor to allow it to grow uncut like that of the Nazarites (comp. Ezek. xliv. 20). There is no other information in the Bible concerning the care of the hair.

Not all images of Jesus have Him with long hair, but all modern ones do. In fact the first images found in the Catacombs of Rome have Jesus portrayed with short hair.

Rome, Catacombs of Priscilla – The Good Shepherd

  The Good Shepherd in the catacombs. One of the images represented the in the art of the catacombs is the Good Shepherd. While the model is taken from pagan culture, it immediately takes on a Christological significance inspired by the parable of the lost sheep. Christ is thus represented as a humble shepherd with a lamb on his shoulders as he watches over his little flock that is sometimes made up of only two sheep placed at his sides. - THE CHRISTIAN CATACOMBS

But why did this imagery of a Christ with short hair to a Christ with long hair come about? Well, the men in Jesus' time historically had long hair. There may have also been other factures involved as to why we only see Christ having long hair in Christian iconography. Among these are the Shroud of Turin, the Veil of Veronica, the Manoppello Image and so on, all of which are seen with Jesus as having long hair.

Shroud of Turin

Veronica holding her veil, Hans Memling, c. 1470

Manoppello Image


Did Calvinism borrow its scheme of predestination from Valentinian Gnosticism? How does the Calvinist notion of predestination differ from that of the Valentinian Gnostics' predestination?  There are several sources outlining the Valentinian Gnostic system (anti-heretic "church fathers" like Ireneaus), but it basically had three classes:

materials (Greek hylics or sometimes somatics, the non-elect)
soul-lys (Greek psuchics, the partially or temporarily elect)
spirituals (Greek pneumatics, the true elect or those both elected and granted perseverance).

What further information is there on the relationship between these two systems? Is there evidence that Calvin borrowed from the Valentinian system through his study of the "church fathers"? did that borrowing come mediated through Augustine?

What was predestination according to Calvin?

  Predestination According to Calvin      According to John Calvin, predestination is God’s unchangeable decree from before the creation
  of the world that he would freely save some people (the elect),
  foreordaining them to eternal life, while the others (the reprobate)
  would be “barred from access to” salvation and sentenced to “eternal
  death".
  Source: Calvin on Predestination

What led Calvin to teach predestination?

According to this Article - John Calvin: Predestination and Justice -

  [Basing ] his conviction that the Bible is God’s beneficial and
  sufficient revelation for humanity, John Calvin felt constrained to
  teach the doctrine of predestination. To the extent that
  predestination is part of scripture, Calvin thought it should be
  taught for the benefit of God’s people.

Therefore from this and other few articles I perused online, Calvin chose to teach predestination because it was in the Bible, and to him, it ought to be taught because he was convinced the Bible was God's beneficial and sufficient revelation for humanity.


How do those who support the perpetual virginity of Mary doctrine harmonize the Protevangelium of James with the Gospel of Matthew? I have a question concerning those who support the perpetual virginity doctrine. The Protoevangelium of James is the earliest source used to demonstrate how Joseph had children from a previous marriage. How would one go about using this document when it contains conflicting information with the Gospel of Matthew?

1) Mary’s response to the angel is different than what is recorded in Scripture. “What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?” (Chapter 9:12).

2) Elizabeth fled the Bethlehem region with her son John (the Baptist) to the mountains because of Herod’s wrath when he decided to kill all the baby boys around and in Bethlehem (Chapter 16:3).

3) Jesus was born in a cave outside the city of Bethlehem (Chapters 12:11–14:31).

4) Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling cloths and hid him in a manger at the inn to keep him from the massacre by Herod’s men (Chapter 16:2).

5) Wise men came to Bethlehem and inquired of Herod where the Child was born (Chapter 21:1–2).

The harmonization would be that the Gospel of Matthew is divinely inspired Sacred Scripture, while the Protoevangelium of James is merely pious tradition. In case of nonconformity between the two, Matthew takes precedence.


What is the difference, if any, between the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives vs. the apostles lives? I think all Christian denominations will agree as fundamental doctrine that the Holy Spirit was sent to us (the invisible church) after Christ's death on the cross (John 14:16). However, it seems like there might be a difference in the way the Holy Spirit was meant to work in the apostles' lives as opposed to ours.

For example: The gospel of John says:

  But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. -John 14:26

How can the Holy Spirit remind us of things we've never heard before? It seems that this statement in particular was specifically addressing the disciples who were there in the room with Jesus at the time. This "reminder" then helped the disciples write the New Testament. We, on the other hand, aren't blessed with this specific gift, as we aren't called to write the Bible. Instead it seems the job of the Holy Spirit in our lives is to help us bear good spiritual fruit (Galatians 5:22-23).

Is this a correct conclusion? What do you all think? Are there any other differences you can think of or do you think the giving of the Holy Spirit was functionally the same in both cases?

God Bless!

The Holy Spirit can still remind us of what Christ has said to his apostles in the Gospels, as well as what through the epistles and in Revelation. You may wonder what good that may be, but the answer is: Plenty! When you are talking to people, you don't always have time to scour your Bible for answers. If you are well read in the Bible, the Holy Spirit could bring to mind verses that you have read.

I think the Holy Spirit does the same kind of works today as he did back then, to those who are open to allow Him to work in their lives with free reign.


Is it possible to be Christian but not interpret the religion as fact? There are cultural Jews.  Are there cultural Christians who do not interpret the religion as factual?  Is this possible?

Apparently it's also called a "Nominal Christian" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Christian

From the comments:

To my understanding there are people who call themselves Jewish but don't take the religion as factual. They just abide by the culture that coincides. I'm wondering if the same exists for Christians.

I am asking if someone can call themselves Christian and not believe the claims are factual but they abide by the messages as metaphors instead

Yes, it's called "cultural Christianity." It merely means that you live in a culture that has Christian habits, such as celebrating Easter and Christmas.

If you moved to India, you might - without converting to Hinduism - get into the habit of celebrating Holi or Onam or Diwali with your friends and neighbors.

If you do not believe in the tenants of the religion, however, you're not "a Christian" in the sense you mean.


What is the significance of "seventy times seven"? Twice in the bible, God makes reference to "seventy times seven" (or "seventy-seven times"). Once in Genesis 4:24 (dealing with Cain's punishment for his murder of Abel), and the other in Matthew 18:22 (in an answer to Peter's question of how many times he should forgive a brother or sister that sins against him). Is there any significance to this phrase, and if so, what?

In many ancient cultures, Hebrew included, the number seven often signifies completeness and/or perfection (for more information see either Numerical Sayings in the OT, W. Roth or IVP New Bible Dictionary, ed. Marshall, Miller, Packer, Wiseman, p834). Therefore, it is often used in an emphatic sense. This is seen in Peter's question: "should I forgive seven times?" (possibly thinking he was being a good disciple in making the point that he should always forgive) - Jesus' reply is to be emphatically emphatic! That is, seventy times seven! Jesus often uses hyperbole (overstatement to make a point) in his teaching style, such as the Camel and the eye of a needle in Matthew 19:24.

Lamech's use, again, is to show he is being emphatic. His use of seventy-seven is to make a point.

Hope this helps.

(Edit)

It's also interesting to note that Jesus' contemporary rabbis would teach that a man should forgive a sin 3 times. (See Carson's commentary on Matthew, p.405). This makes Peter's statement of "forgiving an infinite amount of times" even more impressive, though Jesus is not outdone, of course!


Why did Adam claim he was "naked" before God when he and Eve had clothed themselves with fig leaves? After sinning, Adam and Eve "sewed fig leaves together" and made clothing for themselves.  However, when God comes into the garden and calls to Adam, Adam responds by claiming that he was afraid and that his fear came from his own nakedness.

  Genesis 3:7-10 (ESV)
  7Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were
  naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves
  loincloths. 8And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the
  garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid
  themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the
  garden. 9But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where
  are you?" 10And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden,
  and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself."

Why does Adam claim he is still naked, even after clothing himself with the fig leaves?

The Nakedness was not merely physical in nature

It's important to note that this is Adam's claim--not God's.  Adam and Eve had indeed taken measures to clothe their nakedness after their sin.  Before sin, when they were both in a state of innocence, it seems they felt no need for clothing.  This is akin to a young child who experiences no shame in being unclothed, much to the chagrin of his parents.

Adam and Eve's clothing appears to have been sufficient in relation to one another.  However, as soon as God enters the picture, the insufficiency of their own efforts becomes apparent.

It seems, then, that mankind's efforts to cover over their own sin may be sufficient among others who have sinned, but it is insufficient in the presence of God.

If Adam's nakedness had merely been physical, then physical clothing would have been sufficient to cover over his shame.  The shame, however, was not merely physical and neither was his sin.  It was also a spiritual act of defiance toward God.

God's Provision

It's interesting to note that later in the chapter, God makes clothing for Adam and Eve.  We must wonder what the fig leaves were insufficient and why God considered other clothing to be superior.

The nature of the clothing provided by God is that they were from the skins of an animal.  Although this is not explicitly stated, it seems reasonable to conclude that this was the first substitutionary sacrifice.  An animal had to die to provide the animal skins for that clothing.  The death of the innocent animal was sufficient to cover the shame of sin, yet it was insufficient to atone for the guilt, since Adam and Eve were still banished from the garden.

While the sacrifice of the innocent covered over the shame of sin, it would require the sacrifice of the Righteous One (Jesus) to atone for the guilt.

The physical clothing made by God is then a picture of the spiritual clothing that would be provided through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

The New Testament speaks of a type of clothing that comes to followers of Christ:

  You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of
  you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Galatians 3:26-27

  Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have
  a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human
  hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly
  dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For
  while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do
  not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling,
  so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.  2 Corinthians
  5:1-2

So, Adam was not naked at that time in a physical sense, but he was still naked (exposed, in a state of shame) in a spiritual sense.


What is the Word of Faith teaching on "little gods" Rather than assuming Wikipedia is accurate, I thought I'd as for a better sourced answer to the question.  Wikipedia's article on the Word of Faith movement lists various controversies regarding Word of Faith teachings.  Among them is the "Little gods controversy"

  Many Word of Faith teachers have sought to emphasize the full meaning
  of the believer's status as a child of God (through Christ) by using
  phrases such as "little gods" to describe them, a practice that has
  garnered some criticism from some other segments of the Christian
  community.

And later on...

  Suffer the Children, a documentary highlighting some of the teachings
  of the Word of Faith movement, has a video clip of Creflo Dollar
  teaching the "little gods" doctrine to his congregation based on the
  notion that "everything reproduces after its own kind":[34]

  Dollar: "If horses get together, they produce what?"
  Congregation: "Horses!"
  Dollar: "If dogs get together, they produce what?"
  Congregation: "Dogs!"
  Dollar: "If cats get together, they produce what?"
  Congregation: "Cats!"
  Dollar: "So if the Godhead says 'Let us make man in our image', and everything produces after its own kind, then they produce what?"
  Congregation: "gods!"
  Dollar: "gods. Little "g" gods. You're not human. Only human part of you is this flesh you're wearing."

So what is the teaching? Do they teach that people are truly divine?  (Compared to, for example, the mainstream or the LDS definition of divinity)

I want to be very clear that I'm not interested in hearing criticisms and comparisons from the other segments of the Christian community.  I'm not interested in whether the "little gods" teaching is true.  I'm operating under the assumption that what the Word of faith movement teaching is simply misunderstood by the other segments of Christianity.  I'm just wondering what the actual teaching is, not whether it's true or heretical.

That said, it is perfectly reasonable for someone to explain why the Word of Faith adherents believe this to be true.  (In other words, inclusion of apologetic reasoning explaining the merit behind the teaching is allowed.)

Psa 8:5  For thou hast made him a little lower than the [H430], and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
H430
אלהים
'ĕlôhı̂ym
el-o-heem'
Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative: - angels, X exceeding, God (gods) (-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Heb 2:7  Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
2Co 4:3  But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4  In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

There are three main points to the little g gods idea. Adam's original place, the fallen man's place and our place in Christ.
Adam was created the first son of God made in the image of God not diety but he was the little g god of this world because God created a being in his same class as his children. This is somewhat confirmed by scripture Psa 8:5 as the word translated angels is actually the word for God himself. You can however agree with the New Testament version which in the greek does have the word angels. However that said satan did become the god little g of this world and as best we know that power was given to him through Adam's transgression. Such power is assumed to remain his until he is put underfoot when his supposed lease runs out.

Psa 82:6  I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Joh 10:30  I and my Father are one.

...

Joh 10:33  The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Joh 10:34  Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 8:44  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Now apart from those verses there are two witnesses Christ and David which call some gods lowercase g and children of the most High lowercase c. Its difficult to deny that Christ called even the children of the devil gods with a little g. Jesus used this scripture as a defense of his claim on being God in a its no big deal manner.

Hos 1:10  Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
2Co 5:17  Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
1Co 6:17  But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

Finally being in Christ (while not being the head of the body of Christ but being in Christ) makes you a part of Christ. Christ's spirit lives in us and is joined to our spirit. We are new creations new spirits fully compatible with God's Spirit. While Christ is capable of severing us from Himself he chooses not to. This does not make us part of the divine Godhead but Christ body is of type god. In like similar manner like your hand is of type human but you could live without your hand Christ's hand is of type god but Christ could live without that part. We could not live without Christ.

Rom 5:17  For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Mar 11:22  And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
Mar 11:23  For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Mar 11:24  Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
Mar 11:25  And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.
Mar 11:26  But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

In connection with being part of Christ we are taught to have the faith of God or to have faith in God and to speak believing that God will back the authority (which he has delegated to the Church on the Earth) with His power.
Also in connection with being a little g god for all men is the gift of speech and things like the random power of positive thinking.
For a better introduction to this topic you can see Kenneth E. Hagin's Reining in Life as Kings and The Authority of the Believer by John A. MacMillan and the primarily cited by Mark Hankins: Discovering the Power of Positive Thinking by Norman Vincent Peale
It's important to note that while the Blood of Jesus, the word of God as interpreted by the word of God, Faith ie "confession and possession"/"believing and receiving", the moving of the Holy Spirit are all fundamental parts of the Word of Faith movement the little g gods is definitely tertiary at best not something important to scripture and not frequently taught. We have a corresponding doctrine for nearly every scripture sometimes multiple doctrines per verse as we go to church frequently. If you disagreed with this you would still be comfortable at a Word of Faith church as few actively teach it. It is something which people commonly use to poke fun at us hence its inclusion on wikipedia. It also predates Creflo Dollar.


Calvinist perspective on Luke 18:18-30 Luke 18:18-30 (NIV) tells the story of the "rich young ruler" who asked Christ what he must do to inherit eternal life:

18A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” ...
22 ...[Jesus] 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.”

My understanding of Calvinism is that salvation (from the Calvinist perspective) is entirely a work of God, and no human can do anything, even including "accepting" the gift of salvation, to affect their salvation.  These instructions from Jesus appear to contradict this concept.  Jesus seems to be offering to the ruler some concrete actions he could take to ensure his salvation.
Granted, based on the ruler's reaction, his heart was in the wrong place, as he was unwilling to do what Christ commanded.  So really, Christ's commandment was not about the act of giving away possessions, but about the state of the man's heart.  But if the truth is that the man was powerless to affect his salvation, wasn't Christ in effect lying by suggesting the ruler could do these actions (and change his heart) in order to achieve eternal life?
What is the Calvinist interpretation of this (and other similar) stories?

On free will, Calvin says:

  "Free will does not enable any man to perform good works, unless he is assisted by
  grace; indeed, the special grace which the elect alone receive through regeneration."

For him, there is such a thing as free will, but it is not necessarily the same thing as what others mean by the term. This quotation says that our theoretical ability to choose is marred by our total depravity, and only through God's prior, irresistible grace do we gain the ability to choose well. Without that, we "cannot conceive, design or desire any thing but what is wicked, distorted, foul, impure and iniquitous."

At the same time, there is the idea of predestination, which for Calvin is primarily a matter of us being unable to frustrate God's will. The idea of "regeneration" here is that God will "guide, turn and govern our heart by his Spirit", and our free will is thereby reoriented without being destroyed. This doctrine is well-matched by the principle that salvation is not brought about by good works, or any human action for that matter: rather, it is something that God wills for us.

In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin examined this passage (and the parallel one in Matthew 19:16-22). In summary, he says that Jesus is trying to warn or reprimand the man, by directing him to his sin under the Law:

  We also distinctly declare, that if life is sought in works, the commandments are to be observed. And the knowledge of this doctrine is necessary to Christians; for how should they retake themselves to Christ, unless they perceived that they had fallen from the path of life over the precipice of death? [...]

  Wherefore, as a teacher of the law, whom our Lord knew to be
  puffed up with a vain confidence in works, was here directed by
  him to the law, that he might learn he was a sinner exposed to
  the fearful sentence of eternal death; so others, who were
  already humbled with this knowledge, he elsewhere solaces with
  the promise of grace, without making any mention of the law.

  (Book III, Chapter 18, Section 9)

and by pointing out his attachment to wealth, which indicates his hypocrisy in assuming himself to be following the Law:

  To show him how little progress he had made in that righteousness
  which he too boldly answered that he had fulfilled, it was right
  to bring before him his besetting sin. Now, while he abounded in
  riches, he had his heart set upon them. Therefore, because he did
  not feel this secret wound, it is probed by Christ - "Go," says
  he, "and sell that thou hast." Had he been as good a keeper of
  the law as he supposed, he would not have gone away sorrowful on
  hearing these words. For he who loves God with his whole heart,
  not only regards everything which wars with his love as dross,
  but hates it as destruction (Phil. 3:8). Therefore, when Christ
  orders a rich miser to leave all that he has, it is the same as
  if he had ordered the ambitious to renounce all his honours, the
  voluptuous all his luxuries, the unchaste all the instruments of
  his lust. Thus consciences, which are not reached by any general
  admonition, are to be recalled to a particular feeling of their
  particular sin.

  (Book IV, Chapter 13, Section 13)

Jesus is therefore trying to prick the man's conscience: he's not saying that salvation automatically follows from giving up material possessions. In addition, he is speaking to a wider audience (including us right now!), regardless of the status of this particular individual.

Quotations are from the 1845 translation by Henry Beveridge of the 1599 Latin edition of the Institutes, available online here


Are humans above angels? In this verse Hebrews 2:7 it says that we are a little lower than the angels.

My question is, if Jesus (God) took the human nature and this way he shared his divinity with the human nature. Doesn't this make human nature above all the angelic natures? Even equal to God nature? Jesus give us a hint in Psalm 82:6. And here Peter says how he shares his divinity with us.
 2 Peter 1:3-11

Can we imagine how the angels must have felt when Jesus decided to take the human flesh? Their God was leaving them and bringing His glory to us and not to angels...

My second question is can the fallen angels be saved if Jesus would become an angel and dies for them?

Because it's not anywhere as a teaching I'm not requiring a specific denomination point of view. If this question can only be answered hypothetically, I'm here to argue that there are scriptures that tells us something so we can avoid hypothetical answers.

Question 1: Are humans somehow above Angels?

Psalm 8 is very clear - Man is lower than Angel.

  4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
      human beings that you care for them?
  5 You have made them a little lower than the angels
      and crowned them with glory and honor.

Philippians 2 is clear that this debasement was part of God's plan:

  In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

  6 Who, being in very nature God,
      did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
  7 rather, he made himself nothing
      by taking the very nature of a servant,
      being made in human likeness.
  8 And being found in appearance as a man,
      he humbled himself
      by becoming obedient to death—
          even death on a cross!
  Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
      and gave him the name that is above every name,
  10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
      in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
  11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
      to the glory of God the Father

The thing you are adding - that somehow Jesus' incarnation is applicable to all humanity is the part that makes no sense.  The burden would be on you to prove that.

Finally, Jesus' did not "mix" the natures - Traditionally the hypostatic union says he was fully God and fully man - but there is never a suggestion that the two natures were combined into one essence.

Question 2: Ministering to Fallen Angels

As to Jesus becoming an Angel - he didn't need to.  The closest one could come to understanding this would be in 1 Peter 3:19 20:

  For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive,[d] he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

Some view this as Christ preaching to the Angels - but there is never a suggestion that Angels need atonement. This isn't to say they are perfect, nor that they aren't fallen, but we just have no biblical information about this.


Are Lucifer and Satan different beings? I have heard an interview where a Jesuit exorcist said that Lucifer and Satan were different beings. I'd always thought that they were the same.

Are both Lucifer and Satan mentioned by name in the Bible?
What is the support for considering them the same being? What is the support for considering them separate beings?

The name "Lucifer" appears only once in the Bible, in Isaiah (KJV), where he alludes to the tale (which we can assume is already known to his Jewish audience at that time) of the great Lucifer having fallen from heaven, being cast down and looked upon with contempt, in order to draw a parallel to the king of Babylon and his kingdom's impending fall.

Lucifer means "morning star", which is used various times and in various ways in the Bible, including by Christ to refer to himself at one point in Revelation.  But see Job 38 (RSVCE), where it says that when the foundations of the world were laid, "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy."  I think this is the closest we have in the Bible to a passage equating Lucifer with an angel.

It's important to note that both of these passages are highly poetic in nature, as is the third, the story of the Dragon in Revelation, who is cast out of heaven and makes war with the Church, who is equated to Satan.  If the dragon cast out of heaven is the same as Lucifer the Morning Star cast out of heaven, then he is Satan.  But it's difficult to say anything for certain, going only on Biblical authority.


Is there any theological tradition holding that soon after being born, baby Jesus was full of wisdom because this baby is God? Is there a doctrine that teaches that the baby Jesus was full of wisdom—realizing that he can do anything and doesn't need anything because he knows he is God?  If so, what theological traditions hold this doctrine?

I encountered this on a forum where some members say that this baby, soon after being born, realizes that he is God.  This human baby realizes that he knows everything (infinite knowledge), that he can do anything (infinite ability and power), that he is wise (infinite wisdom), and that he is infinitely great.

An extremely comprehensive treatment of the historical position and evolution of this issue from the Catholic Church perspective is here. It is impossible to summarise it in this space without copying from there in extenso. Some remarks:
Christology argues that Jesus has two natures, namely divine and human. Therefore, theologians have differentiated between Jesus' divine knowledge and human knowledge. While the former is assumed to be infinite, the latter does not need to be so. Several NT texts shows a Jesus either ignorant of certain things, e.g. date and hour of End of Times, Mark 13:32:

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

or learning through life, e.g. Luke 2:52, in the context of Jesus as a boy aged 12:

And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.

The conclusion from the article is that the view of Jesus's human knowledge and its relation to his divine knowledge has varied over times. In fact, in the Catholic Church, there is no explicit dogma about it (as far as I know).
The current version of the Catechism expresses the official position of the Catholic Church in the matter (not very explicit, as you can see), in numbers 472-4:

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and man", and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave".
473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God's Son expressed the divine life of his person. "The human nature of God's Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God." Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father. The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.
474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.

(see associated footnotes in catechism page)
I finish with the conclusion from the aforementioned article:

The picture that emerges from these data points is of a shift away from the medieval consensus and a return to streams of thought found among the Church Fathers.
Our own age is like theirs in that orthodox theologians are split. Some, such as von Balthasar and Ratzinger, have held Christ’s human knowledge was more restricted than the previous consensus did. Others, such as the late Father William Most, defend the more expansive understanding of Christ’s human knowledge.
The latter is still a possibility, for the Magisterium has not condemned that view. At the same time, there has been a marked shift in the way the Magisterium treats the subject, as illustrated in the Catechism, the audiences of John Paul II, and the approval of the PBC and ITC documents we’ve reviewed.
If advocates of the traditional position are still free to propose their view, they cannot count on the support of the Magisterium in the same way or advance their arguments as if nothing has changed.


Does being a Christian necessitate a belief in the supernatural? Consider a person who adheres to the scientific philosophy that the laws of nature are the same in all places and all times, and can be determined through experimentation rather than, for example, by divine revelation.

Can this person who adheres to such a philosophy ever become a Christian? As in a follower of the teachings of Jesus of Nazereth? e.g. be good to your neighbours, turn the other cheek, don't murder, etc.

If not what can you call a person who follows Christian philosophy and morals (as oppose to say Islamic philosophy) but does not believe in the possibility of the supernatural. The teachings may be so ingrained in them that they see these morals as self evident. Even though they don't base their behaviour on a desire to live on in an afterlife.

(As an example, in the Jewish tradition there is no heaven as such, and yet Jews have a strict moral code.)

Yes! It is written, “Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people.” (Revelation 14:6, NIV)

That people includes many scientists who believe as you describe. Now Jesus described what becoming a Christian means:

  After John was arrested, Jesus went to Galilee, preaching the good
  news of God:  “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come
  near. Repent and believe in the good news!” (Mark 1:14-15, HCSB)

Repenting means to change your mind, to agree with God about certain things that you did not believe before, both to agree that your behavior and morals are imperfect and need to change, as well as form new ideas about God.

Jesus promised his disciples that after he rose from the dead, he would send the Holy Spirit. This happened in the Book of Acts. A prominent emphasis in Acts is the baptism by the Holy Spirit. Just as Jesus told Nicodemus, to become a Christian, you must be born from above, aka born again. That is what the church taught and teaches still.

Jesus said that every blasphemy will be forgiven - even blasphemy against his name - but not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (See Matthew 12:31-32.)

Therefore, the proof of necessary repentance is God’s gift of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is supernatural. Thus the scientist who does not believe in the supernatural can become a Christian, but in the process, they will as a consequence of God’s activity in their life repent of their unbelief and acknowledge what God has done.

In other words, dry things can become wet if you pour water on them. Unspiritual people can become Spiritual if the Spirit is poured on them.

  “For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from
  yourselves; it is God's gift — not from works, so that no one can
  boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9, HCSB)


What internal evidence supports the historicity of Abraham? Is there any internal or small external evidence of Abraham's existence?
I have heard a claim from skeptics that Abraham is just flat out invented figure who never existed and even COULDN'T have existed.

  Not only has archaeology not proven a single event of the patriarchal traditions to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely. - Thomas L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham (BZAW 133, De Gruyter, Berlin and New York, 1974), page 328

Is this valid? Note that I am not asking for extra-biblical mentions of Abraham. I am realistic, he was unimportant nomad in illiterate world. However, I am asking, is there any evidence for events and places and customs described in Genesis? Is there any internal evidence in the text itself like criteria of embarrassment or something that must be historical? I have always seen Abraham's life as too simple and non-embellished and non-fantastical for him to be made up. Beyond that, I never saw any other evidence for his historicity.

Internal evidence from the New Testament
This is a Christian site, so a Christian defense for the historicity of Abraham can be based on what Jesus or the apostles say about Abraham.  If Jesus / the apostles implied Abraham exists, then there's your internal evidence from the New Testament.
Some examples:

Jesus's genealogy in Matt 1:17.  Christians believe that Jesus is 100% human and in His human nature He is a natural descendant of Abraham

Jesus's claim that he existed before Abraham (John 8:58)

Jesus said that many Gentiles will have a feast with Abraham in the Kingdom of God (Matt 8:11)

James used Abraham as example of faith in the sense that we can emulate a REAL person from the past (James 2:21-24)

External corroboration from Ancient Near Eastern research
While we have not found a non-Biblical text / inscription naming Abraham, there has been a lot of progress in Ancient Near Eastern research in the past 100 years fueled by new discoveries in the 20th century which both Biblical and secular scholars used to correlate elements of the Genesis story with non-Israelite texts, customs, and material remains.
To answer the claim of Thomas L. Thompson you quoted I offer this excellent essay by Martin J. Selman: "Comparative Customs and the Patriarchal Age" published by IVP in a 1980 book "Essays on the Patriarchal Narratives", listing the current (yet) uncontested correlations between ANE research and Biblical text after reviewing 3 waves of scholarship: 1) Consensus, 2) Destruction of Consensus, 3) Current Discussion.  The claim by Thomas L. Thompson was covered in section 2 (Destruction of Consensus), but the essay responded in section 3 with a review of later research that tempered his rather negative assessment.
Another value of this essay is in providing believers with a level-headed and a responsible scholarly (non-polemical) guidelines for comparison (section 3.4 to 3.6).  This quote is from section 4 (Conclusion), emphasis mine:

When the biblical and nonbiblical material is subject to proper control, the way is still open for the social customs of the patriarchal narratives to be legitimately illustrated and supported from a variety of historical contexts in the ancient Near East. The following list includes those examples which remain valid in the light of the conditions for comparison discussed above.
... (skipped: list of 12 currently uncontested correlations)
Since the large majority of these examples show that the patriarchal customs can be compared without difficulty with a wide range of material from the ancient Near East, it may be concluded that the patriarchal narratives accurately reflect a social and historical setting which belongs to the second and first millennia BC. More precise dates must of course be derived from other considerations, but neither van Seters' preference for first millennium material nor Thompson's assessment of the essentially nonhistorical character of the narratives can be supported by the evidence of the social customs. From the independent viewpoint of the historian, therefore, the social parallels make the historical existence of the patriarchs more likely.
But our conclusion also has hermeneutical and theological implications. Two examples must suffice. That Laban should conclude the details of Jacob's marriages twenty years after the marriages were agreed (Gn. 31:50), even though a marriage contract would normally have been drawn up at the beginning, is further evidence of his duplicity and of the difficulties with which Jacob had to contend. By contrast, Abraham's refusal to take a second wife or a concubine of his own in the face of Sarah's continuing infertility gives a new insight into his regard for Sarah's position as well as his faith in God's provision of the promised heir. A proper appreciation of the social and historical dimension of the patriarchal narratives thus leads to a more accurate understanding of Genesis' theological contribution, as in the specific application of Abraham's faith.


Where in the Bible does it mention that God mourns with us when we mourn? Where in the Bible does it mention that God mourns with us when we mourn? I have heard this from the philosopher Peter Kreeft, and some others as well. I would like to be pointed to the biblical source of this. Thanks.

(Or is it an extrapolation of Christ's suffering?)

I think we must start to be satisfied in the concept that 'God suffers' in some sense when we suffer, from the basic premise that he loves us.  On the other hand, God can't suffer in the sense that it takes away the endless joy and boundless relaxed tranquility of the infinite pleasure he has in his perfect will, without any shadow of turning in his own joy.  In other words, God is always rejoicing with infinite joy, therefore you will not find any scripture speaking about God as suffering within his own divinity. His suffering can only be another kind as an outflow of his love for us which can exists together with eternal infinite joy.

We are grappling with a mystery here so words are not quite good enough for the explanation. However, we must proceed upon something when grappling with the incarnate mystery of God in the flesh and how that has manifested his divine live for humans.  So we will proceed to map it out from a scriptural standpoint without trying to fully understand it. One one hand, we know that God suffers when we suffer because love can't rest when its beloved suffers. It's a fact of god given reason.  It's an essential emotional element of love that must have a spiritual equivalent in the infinite glory of God, otherwise he would not have created love to behave this way.  Furthermore, Christ being the manifestation of tue divinity with his divine love possessing a human soul and body and we see that Christ also suffered when his loved ones suffered.  Christ also proved that he suffers by literally suffering that we might not suffer. This clearly shows that God suffers in human terms, using human words to describe it.  Although the divinity can't cry or walk around moping and mourning, being eternally joyful, we see God's empathy (the ability to suffer when others suffer) when assuming human form, having compassion on us, being 'a man of sorrows' and dying for us. It's an extrapolation of redemption through the incarnation and death of God's only son.

We might not have known that God had the attribute of empathy but as manifested in the God-Man this divine quality became more than just an abstract inference from the basic assumption in the word 'love':

  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are —yet he did not sin. (Hebrews 4:15, NIV)

Of course we see the divine empathy everywhere when we read the gospels.  The way Christ speaks to individuals shows that his emotions are filled with empathy, never breaking the bruised reed, or snuffing out a smoldering wick. (Matth12:20).  Even the simple fact that Christ's emotions were tender by the direct unlimited influence of the Spirit, causing his empathetic and generous soul to 'deeply feel' for those about to be judged, indicates his suffering for the suffering of others:

  As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it. (Luke 19:41, NIV)

So although the bible does not say anywhere 'God suffers when we suffer' it must be true in a certain sense for he empathizes with us in our pain and works hard to relieve ours as a result. Even to the point of offering his only Son to greatly suffer by becoming our sin that we might be his righteousness, all to take our pain into himself, for our eternal relief. If this is not divine empathy then I do not know what it is to feel the pain of another person.


Had the Catholic Church a tradition of commemorating Abraham's sacrifice? Eid ul-Adha or Bakrid is celebtrated all over the world by Muslims to commemorate the sacrifice that Abraham  offered in obedience to God.

My question is: Had the Catholic Church any tradition of commemorating, in a significant way,  the scrifice of Abraham as the forerunner of the scrifice that God the Father would later offer at Mount Calvary through His Only Son Jesus?

The only Catholic Church tradition of commemorating the sacrifice of Abraham (Gen. 22:1-18) is at the Easter vigil with the second reading being the actual account of Abraham taking his son Isaac to the land of Moriah to be sacrificed to God.

It is not the tradition of the Church to commemorate Old Testament events in themselves, but rather to associate them in the liturgy in light of the Church's faith in her Savior Jesus Christ.

It could also be noted that the Patriarch Abraham is commemorated on October 9 in the Vicariate of St. James (Hebrew Catholics) in the Holy Land.

  Saint Abraham is remembered on a feast day of his own – in the Orthodox Church on October 11 and in the Catholic Church the feast has been transferred to October 9. The fact that the date is shared in the Eastern and the Western Church proof of the antiquity of this feast that dates back before the schism between East and West in the eleventh century. However, this is not surprising when one considers the importance of Abraham our father – who is our father in body and spirit. - Feast of Saint Abraham – October 9

Abraham offering his son Isaac to be Sacrificed

Of further interest here is a related question I asked on Mi Yodeya SE: Are there any Jewish or Hebrew traditions that hold that the Passover and the binding of Isaac were on the same day (15 Nisan)?


Were the Waldensians like a Protestant Church in the Middle Ages? I do not know anything about the Waldensians. Specifically, do we actually know what their doctrine was and why the Catholic Church opposed them?

Most information about the doctrine of first valdensians that survived till today is contained in the inquisition protocols. According to "New Advent":

  ...denial of purgatory, and of indulgences and prayers for the dead. They denounced all lying as a grievous sin, refused to take oaths and considered the shedding of human blood unlawful. They consequently condemned war and the infliction of the death penalty.

are among their doctrines that contradicted roman catholic faith, so I think, that yes, they can be view as sui specie 'protoprotestants'.

Contemporary Waldenses were 'assimilated' into reformation.


When a person is described as a Davidide, what is being said about that person? In my NABRE Bible, there are footnotes on Isaiah 11:1-9 (10) that say Isaiah is "looking forward to a new Davidide who will realize the ancient ideals (see Psalm 72). The oracle does not seem to have a particular historical person in mind." I think it might be one of David's descendants but I am not sure as I have never come across or heard this term. Psalm 72 is a prayer for the king.

Isaiah chapter 11 is about the heir to David’s throne.  It is a Messianic prophecy.  Psalm 72 reflects on the prospects of David’s royal line and on Zion.  The surpassing righteousness and domination sought in this prayer foreshadow the coming of Jesus, the Son of David.  Source: New Living Translation Study Bible notes.

Isaiah 11:1-10 describes the paradise of the Messiah’s triumph.  The reference to Jesse, the father of David indicates that this continues the theme about the coming heir of David (the Messiah).  Psalm 72 is a royal psalm, praying that the heirs of David’s line (beginning with Solomon) might have success...  Source: English Standard Version Study Bible notes.

Although the word ‘Davidide’ is not found in any of my Bibles, it apparently refers to a descendant of David:

  Ezra 8: “family accompanying Ezra, Hattush, is a descendant of David (so called "Davidide"), and he would be the fourth generation after Zerubbabel (cf. 1 Chronicles)...

  But this united monarchy—a real united monarchy—was ruled by the Omrides, not the Davidides, and its capital was Samaria, not Jerusalem.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible

As best I can establish, the word ‘Davidide’ means “son of David”:

  Not all Davids look alike: Dave, Davey, and Davi; even Dudel, Daw, Taavi and Taffy are etymologically Davidide (Yes, this actually is a word. It means “son of David”). Not to be gender exclusive, David comes in feminine forms like Davida and Davena.[1]  http://www.behindthename.com/name/david


What is the biblical basis for lifetime eldership? Some churches who appoint elders do so for a term (3 years is typical from what I have seen). Other churches ordain elders for life. Is there a Biblical basis for ordaining elders for life?

This is a follow on to my question about term eldership.

I would believed that this issues falls under church polity. The conduct of the local body of Christ is not always clear in the Bible. There are no verses, that I know of, that state how long the mandate of an elder most be. Historically, an office was hold as long as you qualify to it. A carpenter would be exercising the same profession all his life. This is why I think the Bible does not tackle the question of a term.

In today's thinking, we have the idea that power corrupts, and therefore is almost a sin to hold a position of power, and the influence of our political model might be the reason why we are considering this question.

From a Bible perceptive, as long as an elder fulfills the requirements from Titus and Timothy, I do not see a biblical recommendation on the question of time or term. This question presents another aspect of our Christian liberty.

This being said, elders have a huge responsibility. If an elder does not qualify, not merely as a result of a sin, he should give his resignation (not wait the end of the term) to protect the glory of God in the local body. (The idea I have in mind in this case, could be a young father that cannot take an adequate time with is family. A husband that is always out of the home. These are not sin, but that they are unwise may be patent.)

http://www.9marks.org is a good resource on the question of church polity. I know that I am greatly influenced by them in my thinking on this question.


Significance of different colored vestments worn by Catholic clergy What color vestments are worn by the Catholic clergy (Roman rite) during Mass, and what is their significance?

One can do no better than quote the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

  As regards the color of sacred vestments, traditional usage should be observed, namely:

  a) The color white is used in the Offices and Masses during Easter Time and Christmas Time; on the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity; and furthermore on celebrations of the Lord other than of his Passion, celebrations of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the Holy Angels, and of Saints who were not Martyrs; on the Solemnities of All Saints (November 1) and of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist (June24 ); and on the Feasts of St. John the Evangelist (December 27), of the Chair of St. Peter (February 22), and of the Conversion of St. Paul (January 25).

  b) The color red is used on Palm Sunday of the Lord’s Passion and on Friday of Holy Week (Good Friday), on Pentecost Sunday, on celebrations of the Lord’s Passion, on the “birthday” feast days of Apostles and Evangelists, and on celebrations of Martyr Saints.

  c) The color green is used in the Offices and Masses of Ordinary Time.

  d) The color violet or purple is used in Advent and Lent. It may also be worn in Offices and Masses for the Dead.

  e) Besides the color violet, the colors white or black may be used at funeral services and at other Offices and Masses for the Dead in the Dioceses of the United States of America.

  f) The color rose may be used, where it is the practice, on Gaudete Sunday (Third Sunday of Advent) and on Laetare Sunday (Fourth Sunday of Lent).

  g) On more solemn days, festive, that is, more precious, sacred vestments may be used even if not of the color of the day.

  h) The colors gold or silver may be worn on more solemn occasions in the Dioceses of the United States of America.

As regards significance,

White is the colour of holiness, of the Church, of the Sacraments [except Penance], and the saints [except martyrs]. It's the colour of rejoicing and is used throughout the Christmas and Easter seasons.
Red is the colour of blood, so it's used for celebrations of Our Lord's Passion and of martyrs; it's also the colour of fire and used on Pentecost and the feasts of the apostles who were touched by the fire of the Holy Spirit on that occasion.
Green is the colour of nature, and is used when no other colour is prescribed.
Purple is used for penitence. Advent and Lent are penitential seasons. It's used for funerals because the requiem mass is one of penitence for the sins of the departed; and it's used for the sacrament of confession [that's obviously penitential!].
Rose is a sort-of watered-down purple. It's used on the Sundays indicated above, which are named after the first words of the introits on the respective days, both normally translated as "Rejoice!" — the penitential nature of these Sundays is relaxed a little.
Cloth-of-gold may be used at any major feast, including for example, the patron saint of the church: the patronal festival is a feast of the first order.
There may be local customs like wearing blue for celebrations of Mary, Mother of the Lord. There are a few anomalies like St John the Apostle & Evangelist, who was an apostle but not a martyr and whose feast falls in Christmastide: he gets white. St John the Baptist has two feasts, and it's white for his birth and red for his death.


According to Unitarians, to whom does the word הָאָדוֹן refer in Mal. 3:1? Regarding the word אֲדֹנִי (adoni) in Psa. 110:1 (actually prefixed with -ל, i.e. לַאדֹנִי), translated as “my lord,” a self-professed Unitarian website states,1

  Trinitarian commentators frequently argue that “my Lord” in this verse is the Hebrew word adonai, another name for God, and is therefore proof of the divinity of the Messiah. But not only is this not a valid argument, this verse is actually one of the great proofs of the complete humanity of the promised Messiah. The Hebrew word translated “my lord” is adoni (pronounced “Adon nee” 1 ) in the standard Hebrew texts. This word is always used in Scripture to describe human masters and lords, but never God. (emphasis mine)

Now, the Hebrew word אֲדֹנִי is simply the lemma or base form אָדוֹן2 with a 1st person singular pronominal suffix appended (i.e., “my”). The question, then, should not be limited to whether אֲדֹנִי is ever used in reference to Yahveh (God), but rather, whether אָדוֹן and any of its suffixed forms (including אֲדֹנִי) are ever used in reference to Yahveh. After all, couldn’t “lord,” “my lord,” “his lord,” “our lord,” and “their lord” all refer to the same “lord”?

The lord said to Abraham and Sarah,...
Abraham said to his lord,...
Sarah said to her lord,...
Sarah and Abraham spoke to their lord,...
Sarah and Abraham said, “Our lord...”
Abraham said, “My lord...”

In this context, the “lord” is the same person, regardless of the pronominal suffix. Hence, limiting the discussion to “my lord” is both arbitrary and disingenuous.

I encountered the word הָאָדוֹן in Mal. 3:1. This is simply אָדוֹן prefixed with the definite article הָ, meaning “the lord” (i.e., “the master”).

The Hebrew text of Mal. 3:1 states,

  הִנְנִ֤י שֹׁלֵחַ֙ מַלְאָכִ֔י וּפִנָּה־דֶ֖רֶךְ לְפָנָ֑י וּפִתְאֹם֩ יָבֹ֨וא אֶל־הֵיכָלֹ֜ו הָאָדֹ֣ון אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּ֣ם מְבַקְשִׁ֗ים וּמַלְאַ֨ךְ הַבְּרִ֜ית אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּ֤ם חֲפֵצִים֙ הִנֵּה־בָ֔א אָמַ֖ר יְהוָ֥ה צְבָאֹֽות׃

which is translated into English as,

  Behold, I am sending My messenger, and he shall prepare a way before Me, and the lord whom you are seeking shall suddenly come to His temple, and/even the messenger of the covenant whom you delight in. Behold, he comes," said Yahveh of hosts.

We note a couple of things during exegesis of Mal. 3:1:

Yahveh of hosts is the speaker.

“I am sending My messenger” evidently refers to Yahveh sending His messenger (cp. 2 Chr. 36:15-16; Isa. 42:19).
Thus, first-person pronouns refer to Yahveh, such as “My messenger,” “before Me,” etc.

However, note the acute analysis of Carl Friedrich Keil in his commentary on Mal. 3:1:

  “The Lord” ((hâ'âdōn)) is God; this is evident both from the fact that He comes to His temple, i.e., the temple of Jehovah, and also from the relative clause “whom ye seek,” which points back to the question, “Where is the God of judgment?” (Malachi 2:17).

The question: How do Unitarians refute the assertion that הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) refers to Yahveh (God) in Mal. 3:1?

Footnotes

1 URL: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/psalm-110-1

2 meaning “master,” “lord,” “sir”

References

Keil, Carl Friedrich. Commentary on the Old Testament. 1900. Reprint. Trans. Martin, James. Vol. 10. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. (458)

You ask "How do Unitarians refute the assertion that הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) refers to Yahveh (God) in Mal. 3:1?"
The question seems to hold the hidden assumption that Unitarians need to refute the Trinitarian position in order to be a valid belief.
It also seems to hold the hidden assumption that Unitarians generally don't think that הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) refers to God in Mal. 3:1.
I think both these assumptions are wrong. And so the short answer could be: "They don't generally refute that assertion". As @Cannabijoy a Unitarian who provided the previous answer made clear.
A slightly longer answer would be that they don't need to be able to refute the Trinitarian position in order for their position to be a valid alternative position. They can just prefer it over the Trinitarian position which they might find un-intuitive and lead to unique interpretations where a person using a word that normally indicates a relationship to another is actually referring to their self. They might question how they could justify to God why they thought God would have expected them to make such novel interpretations.
Regarding the assertion that הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) refers to God in Mal. 3:1 :
They accept that it does, but reject that הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) is the messenger of the covenant. On the basis that a messenger is one that carries a message for another. They can view Jesus as the messenger of the covenant for example.
It seems to me that they could also reject that it does, but I don't understand the Hebrew grammar issues so could be mistaken here. But it seems to me they could think that those questioning where the God of Judgement in Malachi 2:17 meant it more in the sense of asking why hasn't God made himself apparent. And therefore weren't thinking it was a matter of seeking him. The Lord that the people seek הָאָדוֹן (ha-adon) in 3:1 was the Messiah, and the reason it states his temple is because the verse relates to 2:17 and the God of Judgement that hadn't seemed to make himself apparent. So that it could be read as something like "And the Lord, whom ye seek, Will suddenly come to the God of Judgement's temple".
Those not being the only interpretations of that verse that would be available to them.


Are Wednesday church services scriptural? Are Wednesday church services scriptural? I believe I have seen scriptures that relate to Wednesday services, but I can not remember where.

A church service is a gathering of believers who have an intent of glorifying God with the Word, prayer, worship, and breaking of bread, or a smaller version with just one or two of these aspects. That is allowable any day of the week. For the believer, every day is an opportunity to glorify God, with the gathering of the saints and without.

Is it scriptural? Romans 14:5 tells us, "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind."

I thank God that our church here in Costa Mesa has Bible studies every day of the week, so we may go as often as we need the refreshing breezes from off His holy hill.


The Catholic Perspective concerning the Four Horsemen Few Biblical symbols, allegories, or metaphors have fired the imagination more than the alleged Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse described all too briefly in Revelation 6:1-8.

Does the Catholic Church have an official interpretation of these verses?  And if so, how are the Horsemen interpreted by the Catholic Church?

Fr. Herman Kramer's 1956 The Book of Destiny is the most recent Catholic commentary on the Book of the Apocalypse. He covers the White, Red, Black, and Green Horses in part III, §A, chapters 1-4.

Apocalypse 6:2:

  The White Horse coming first on the scene is an allegorical figure of Conquest and of apparent victory over the Church. … the white horse was a symbol of victory won by the help of the gods … Some interpreters hold that the rider on the white horse is Christ Himself, (Iren. IV. 21/3; Victorinus and Andreas followed his opinion) and they remind us of chapter XIX. 12, where Christ appears riding on a white horse. Others hold that the white horse symbolizes the victorious Gospel, and the rider represents the preachers of the Gospel throughout the world.

3-4:

  A Red Horse, the symbol of war, appears.

5-6:

  A Black Horse appears. The description fits the personification of famine. Famine with exorbitant prices for food follows in the wake of war.

7-8:

  A horse of so strange a color appears, that the Seer calls it a "Green [or 'pale'] Horse". The color suggests to the mind a body decaying with pestilence. Death rides the horse. This personification of death presages utter depopulation or DEATH for this "FOURTH PART" of the earth.

See Fr. E. Sylvester Berry's 1921 The Apocalypse of St. John pp. 69-70 for a much briefer account than Fr. Kramer's.


When did Sarah call Abraham "lord"? Peter says that Sarah called Abraham "lord" (i.e., master) and that it was a good thing.

When did she do this? And how does Peter know this? I can't find it anywhere in scripture.

  1 Peter 3:5,6 ESV For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.

The first verse that comes to my mind is in Genesis 18:12-

  Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?

This is the only verse I can really remember in this context, and it is probably what Peter is referring to.


How many different Spirits do Biblical Unitarians believe God has sent or gifted to be in believers? There are many names given in Scripture to a Spirit or Spirits sent to live with and, most especially, live within those who have received the salvation inherent in the Gospel.  This is not an exhaustive list but a representative list only and edited additions are welcome.

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. - John 14:16-17

For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you - Matthew 10:20

And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” - Galatians 4:6

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. - Romans 8:9

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own - 1 Corinthians 6:19

Just in these five verses alone we have 7 different names or titles for this "sending":  Helper, Spirit of truth, Spirit of the Father, Spirit of his son, Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ, and Holy Spirit.
Do Biblical Unitarians understand multiple names for just one Spirit, multiple names for several different Spirits, individual names of individual Spirits, or something else?

A Biblical Unitarian appendix to Biblical commentary Appendix 6: Usages of "Spirit" lists 15 different senses for the term 'spirit' ('pneuma' in the Greek) in the Bible.
However, as Appendix 11: What is the Holy Spirit? says:

"“HOLY SPIRIT” is primarily used in two very different ways: One way
is to refer to God Himself, and the other way is referring to God’s
nature that He gives to people.

So the first sense is a synonym for God. The second sense itself has synonyms. For example, the 'Helper' mentioned above in John 14:16 is another name for this second sense, so 'holy spirit' as a gift.

"18) The gift of holy spirit as “the helper” [...] The “holy spirit”
is identified as a “helper” to believers in John 14:26. [...] The
helper (the holy spirit) is sent by the Father (John 14:16-17) and
Jesus (John 16:7). It does not speak on its own, but it speaks only
what it hears (John 16:13). Thus, the gift of holy spirit is directed
by God and Jesus, which is what we would expect since it is God’s
nature born in us."

So Biblical Unitarians would understand various uses related to the holy spirit as mapping onto either of the two senses described above, and the second sense of a gift can be directed by either God or Jesus. As examples of both instances of the second sense from your list above, 'Helper', 'Spirit of truth', 'Spirit of your Father', 'Holy Spirit' = gift from God. 'Spirit of his Son' = gift from Jesus.
However, as mentioned, sometimes uses of 'spirit' would map onto other senses as listed in Appendix 6 above.


What is or are the mechanism(s) behind the naming conventions for a church building or organization? What is or are the mechanism(s) behind the naming conventions for a church building or organization in a denomination, say Presbyterianism?

This question can be reworded as "When churches assign names to themselves in this fashion 'First Presbyterian Church; Second Presbyterian Church; Third Presbyterian Church', are they accounting for the fact that there are other Presbyterian churches in the locality (regardless of the sub-denomination or organization name, evangelical or mainline) or that there may be other churches in the EXACT same sub-denomination under Presbyterianism and that one Presbyterian church chooses to name itself as a way to distinguish this Presbyterian church from that Presbyterian church?"

Catholic Parishes are faith communities named after a Catholic Saint; a combination of Saijts whose names appear together in the Liturgy of the Mass; a title of Our Lady;  or a title of the Holy Trinity.

Examples:

St. Augustine Parish
Sts. Pepetua and Felicity Parish
Holy Mother of Consolation Parish
Divine Mercy Parish


What did Clement mean when he said: "Fasting is better than prayer, and charity than both"? In his second letter to the Corinthians (16:3), the anonymous church father, believed to be Clement of Rome, wrote:

  "Fasting is better than prayer, and charity than both".

What did he mean by that?

The line in question is from the below passage, which in turn comes from this link

  So, brothers, since we have been given no small opportunity to repent, let us take the occasion to turn to God who has called us, while we still have One to accept us. For if we renounce these pleasures and master our souls by avoiding their evil lusts, we shall share in Jesus’ mercy. Understand that "the day" of judgment is already "on its way like a furnace ablaze," and "the powers of heaven will dissolve" and the whole earth will be like lead melting in fire. Then men's secret and overt actions will be made clear. Charity, then, like repentance from sin, is a good thing. But fasting is better than prayer, and charity than both. “Love covers a multitude of sins," and prayer, arising from a good conscience, "rescues from death." Blessed is everyone who abounds in these things, for charity lightens sin.

I believe this is the full quote:

So, then, brethren, having received no small occasion to repent, while we have opportunity, let us turn to God who called us, while yet we have One to receive us. For if we renounce these indulgences and conquer the soul by not fulfilling its wicked desires, we shall be partakers of the mercy of Jesus. Know that the day of judgment draws near like a burning oven, and certain of the heavens and all the earth will melt, like lead melting in fire; and then will appear the hidden and manifest deeds of men. Good, then, is alms as repentance from sin; better is fasting than prayer, and alms than both; "charity covers a multitude of sins", and prayer out of a good conscience delivers from death. Blessed is every one that shall be found complete in these; for alms lightens the burden of sin.
2nd letter of Clement to the Cornthians

In the letter, "charity covers a multitude of sins" is quoted and that is a reference to the first letter of St. Peter

Charity covers a multitude of sins
1 Peter 4:4

There's a similar passage in Sirach that goes

Store up almsgiving in your treasury, and it will save you from every evil.
Sir 29:12

But, even though Ben Sirach was seemingly referring to temporal salvation (i.e. in time of distress or need), there's a clear anagogical reading of that which echos Jesus saying to store up your treasures in Heaven where neither moth nor worm can eat them.
There's an even clearer mandate in the Book of Tobit

For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.
Tobit 12:9

Combined, it doesn't make the quote from Clements letter (which is a spurious attribution, according to New Advent), contrary to scripture.  It is interesting that both of the scripture passages I quoth are deuterocanonical, and maybe all the more interesting if you came from a Sola Fide background and were thinking that Clement was off his rocker because you never saw this kind of talk in your Bible.

That fasting is better than prayer, should be no surprise, when the disciples attempts to drive out demons failed Jesus said

He said to them, "This kind can only come out through prayer."
Mark 9:29 NAB

Well what were they doing?  So some manuscripts also tack on "And fasting" (without saying who is doing the fasting)
Anyway, it's semi-clear that fasting + prayer is better than prayer alone. And in a way, almsgiving is better than both.  But it's the combination of them that sets you on the right path.