Why were early Mormon leaders so critical of traditional Christianity? Why have the LDS Prophets made the following statements regarding the beliefs and teachings on traditional Christians?

  "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world."

Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 270

  "...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels."

Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., The Elders Journal, v. 1, no. 4, p. 60

  “Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church, v. 1, p. xl

  "Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell. The eggs were laid in hell, hatched on its borders, and then kicked on to the earth."

Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 6, p. 176

  "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was groveling in darkness."

Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 5, p. 73

  "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world."

Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 199

  "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God"

Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 171

  "Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense...the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century."

Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 6, p. 167

  "Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom."

Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 10, p. 127

  "What! Are Christians ignorant? Yes, as ignorant of the things of God as the brute beast."

Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 225

  "What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing... Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God."

Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, v. 13, p. 225

  "Believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls."

Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, see pp. 45-46

Each of these statements expresses that Christians of their day were utterly deceived, ignorant, and unsaved. Why did they have such negative views of traditional Christian teachings?

The central piece of theology that all these revolve around can be found in the third statement cited:

  Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

This is one of the core points of LDS theology: that the apostasy spoken of by Paul, the "famine of hearing the words of the Lord" that Amos prophesied, has already occurred.  With intense persecution bringing about death of the Apostles faster than they could organize to choose new ones, eventually the unbroken line of authority was lost, and the Church began to lose its grip on the doctrine.  The historical record suggests that this happened alarmingly quickly: the second-century Christian author Iranaeus wrote a series of five books to refute the teachings of multiple different Gnostic sects that were beginning to take strong root within the church already!

Wherever the Great Apostasy began, it's hard to look at the history of the Church without seeing evidence that it was complete at some point around the conversion of Constantine, if not before it then very soon afterwards.  With the high honors the State heaped upon the Christian religion, with authority in the Church becoming one of the fastest and surest routes to political power, it's hard to say with a straight face that the organization of schemers that emerged in this period was the same one set up by He who said "my kingdom is not of this world"!  ("Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom.")

This puts another quote by Brigham Young in perspective, by the way:

  The worst fear that I have about this people is that they will get rich in this country, forget God and his people, wax fat, and kick themselves out of the Church and go to hell. This people will stand mobbing, robbing, poverty, and all manner of persecution, and be true. But my greater fear for them is that they cannot stand wealth.

  -- Brigham Young: The Man and His Work, 4th ed., p.126-129

By the sixth century, the Athanasian Creed had emerged in common worship, which defined the "necessary" faith as believing in the Trinity, "the Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible."  If we take John 17:3, which equates eternal life with knowing God and Jesus Christ, at face value, a disturbing contradiction emerges: the Church had somehow come around to a position in which it dogmatically defined as necessary for the salvation of all believers to hold a belief that would in fact disqualify them from salvation!  ("What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world")

With the true Church in apostasy, many reformers attempted to use their knowledge and scholarship to piece together the true principles of the Gospel, but without the lost line of authority, their answers could only get so far.  None of the Reformers even managed to set up the organization described by Paul in Ephesians chapter 4, and the problems he spoke of in the same passage are quite instructive:

  11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

  12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

  13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

  14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

There could really only be one solution.  If we turn the quote from Joseph Smith around, it implies what that solution is:  A complete apostasy from the Christian religion would require the establishment of the Church again, by restoration rather than reformation, which is the central message of Mormonism: that original Christianity was restored by revelation and authority from God, as it was originally founded by revelation and authority from God, with apostles and prophets to lead it as in ancient days.  The basic meaning of all the quotations cited in the question above is simply this: that the fulness of the restored gospel can only be found in one place, and that any other religion, no matter how sincere or how hard they may genuinely try to get the Gospel and the requirements for salvation right, is missing necessary details, the absence of which will hold their adherents back.


Did Paul/Saul teach Christianity with Jewish traditions to Gentiles like what we see in Messianic Judaism today? As the question clearly describes.

Did Paul/Saul, during his era, teach Christianity with Jewish traditions to Gentiles like what we see in Messianic Judaism today?

Some background for this question:

I am (or maybe was) a Catholic, but I used to come to Protestant church with my friends. One day, I wondered why there was a lot denomination in Christianity.

So I took a step back, I forgot all about denomination for a moment (Catholic, Protestant, etc). I just believed that Jesus Christ is my Messiah.
I read the bible from Genesis until Revelation and I realized that:

Jesus is Jewish
He practiced all of the Jewish traditions, including Chanukah
He is the Living Torah.

And then I was looking for a denomination that still follows what Jesus did during His era. I think the the answer is Messianic Judaism.

This is one of a lot of my questions about my struggle to find about Christianity. But at first, I want to look back about the history how Paul/Saul taught about Jesus and Christianity to Jewish people and Gentiles during his era.

For now I am practicing Messianic Judaism even though I am a Gentile. I hope someone can answer the question so I can decide if I was in the right path for my beliefs or not.

1 Corinthians 9:20-22 (KJV)

  20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to
  them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them
  that are under the law;
  21 to them that are without law, as without
  law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that
  I might gain them that are without law.
  22 To the weak became I as
  weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men,
  that I might by all means save some.

I think scripture is pretty clear on this topic. Paul did not force Torah on those that where not under it. He accommodated the culture, without compromising the truth.

Colossian 2:16-17 (KJV)

  16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect
  of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 which
  are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

This works both ways. I see many "Christians" get angry if someone decides they want to try and follow Torah, celebrate the Feast of the Lord, etc. If someone wants to use the Torah as a guide of life there is no harm in that, as long as they know that they are saved by grace through faith through Jesus Christ. The danger of observing Torah, is that people start to become self righteous, and pride can settle in their hearts. This really depends on the person, and their relationship with the Lord, however going back to the original question. Paul was very adaptive with his culture, but firm in the Truth.


Does Catholicism allow the possibility of new books being added to the Bible? The Catholic Church recognizes 73 books in the Bible (46 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament). Does the Church allow the possibility of new books being added to the Bible, perhaps in a "Newer Testament", thus giving them equal weight to other scriptures? By "new books", I mean books that were written after the writings of the currently recognized books of the Bible.

To give a concrete example, let's say that St. Joe Schmoe wrote a short book in 1900. Would it be possible for the Catholic Church to decide that the book of Joe was divinely inspired, like the currently recognized Bible books, and should be added to future copies of the Bible, thus allowing it to also be read during mass and such? I realize such an event is unlikely, but I'm wondering if it is theoretically possible to do it.

The very short answer to this question is no.

  Public revelation, or divine revelation, is God revealing himself to humanity. The Church teaches that public revelation, as revealed in salvation history, was perfected and completed in Jesus Christ.

  “The Christian economy … since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ” [see Dei Verbum 4; see also 1 Timothy 6:14; Titus 2:13]. Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries (CCC, 66).

  The Church has long taught that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, as the Apostles faithfully taught Jesus’ message. The Church carefully guards its deposit of faith, awaiting its fulfillment in the final coming of Christ. - Public versus private revelation

Any saints' writings after the death of the Apostle St. John in ca. 100 AD are to be considered "private revelation" and are not binding to be followed or believed in by any member of the Catholic Church.

  In this respect, let us listen once again to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
   "Throughout the ages, there have been so-called 'private' revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church... It is not their role to complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history" (No. 67). - Public Revelation and private revelations

Let us carefully remember that the Apostles were eyewitnesses to the events surrounding Our Lord Jesus Christ and future writers can not make this claim. St. John concludes his Gospel with the following words:

  This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things, and who has written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. - Gospel of St. John Chapter 21: 24

Catholic Bibles usually end with The Apocalypse of St. John the  Apostle and although he gives to us a warning not to change anything written in the Apocalypse, it could also be used as a word of caution not to add to public revelation.

  For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book. - The Apocalypse of St. John the  Apostle, 22: 18-19


Can a practicing Catholic who joined a Protestant church still receive communion in the Catholic church? If a person who has formerly received the sacraments in a Catholic Church now attends a Protestant church, can they still receive communion when visit a Catholic church?

Attendance at a Protestant church, even on a regular basis, does not detract from a baptized Catholic's Catholic identity in the eyes of the Church, and they are still obligated to follow the laws of the Church and the directives of their bishop and pastor:

  Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

(Code of Canon Law, canon 11)

  The Christian faithful, even in their own manner of acting, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church.

(canon 209, sec. 1)

  Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

(canon 212, sec. 1)

It is therefore not up to the person, nor up to their adopted ecclesial community, to determine whether reception of the Eucharist in a Catholic church is acceptable.

Now, in another answer, Geremia rightly points out that canon 1365 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states

  A person guilty of prohibited participation in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris) is to be punished with a just penalty.

However, as his source (New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, published in 2000 by the Canon Law Society of America) indicates, exactly what constitutes "prohibited participation" is not clarified. The Church does absolutely prohibit concelebration of the Eucharist with ministers of a religious group not in communion with the Church:

  Catholic priests are forbidden to concelebrate the Eucharist with priests or ministers of Churches or ecclesial communities which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church.

(canon 908)

as well as celebrating a marriage with such ministers:

  there is not to be a religious celebration in which the Catholic who is assisting and a non-Catholic minister together, using their own rites, ask for the consent of the parties.

(canon 1127, section 3)

But there appear to be no other specific prohibitions. (I should note that Catholics are under certain restricted circumstances allowed to receive some of the sacraments from non-Catholics; but this permission doesn't apply to Protestant churches, the validity of whose sacraments the Church doesn't recognize.)

Thus, it's not quite clear when a particular level of participation in the rites of a Protestant church is "prohibited"; but for ecumenical reasons, some level of participation may be considered acceptable for particular purposes. As an example, if a person baptized in the Catholic Church becomes a minister in a non-denominational Protestant church, their commitment to, and perhaps their understanding of, the teachings of the Church is clearly questionable; whereas a Catholic who at the invitation of some Anglican friends attends a single Anglo-Catholic Compline service may be in a different position altogether.

The pastor of this person's parish is the one who has immediate responsibility for this person's spiritual care, subject to the the authority of the bishop (or other local ordinary). It is up to these two, ultimately, to decide whether a given Catholic in a given situation has violated the law of the Church or not, and whether in any case they are in a suitable condition for reception of the Eucharist.

The decision of whether a penalty such as that anticipated in canon 1365 is to be exacted will take into account a number of considerations, most of which are articulated in canons 1321–1330 of the Code of Canon Law. Importantly, canon 1321, section 1, states:

  No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.

Canon 1323 states:

  The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept: ...  a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance.

Finally, canon 1317 states:

  Penalties are to be established only insofar as they are truly necessary to provide more suitably for ecclesiastical discipline.

Thus it is most probable, in most situations (unless, for example, the person has been repeatedly warned about this sort of behavior before), that no actual penalty will be assessed. What then will need to be done, to ensure that this person is in a fit state to receive the Eucharist?

The Eucharist is the actual physical reception of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; as such, it's (as an understatement) something very special. Geremia is quite right to quote St. Paul's statement:

  As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes. Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.

(1 Corinthians 11:26–28)

In order to receive the Eucharist in general, one must be free of any mortal sin:

  A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

(Code of Canon Law, canon 916)

It is likely that the person's pastor will want to discuss with them the reasons they had for beginning regular attendance at a Protestant service, and also their reasons for wanting to return to the sacraments of the Catholic Church; there will likely be explanation required for the person to fully understand what it meant in the eyes of the Church for them to leave off practice of Catholicism, and what it means for them to receive the Eucharist, and why the Church teaches that they have gotten something wrong somewhere.

Once the priest is satisfied that they understand these things, and has led them to be able to make a good confession, there is no further obstacle to their receiving the Eucharist. Indeed, they may not be forbidden it: Canon 912 states: "Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion." (emphasis added)


Religious Offshoots of Christianity Ranked by Population This seems like the best place to ask this question from the sites:

There seems to be a clear consensus on the religions ranked by population, with Christianity at the top with a little over a billion, then Islam, ect.

Upon looking for data on the top religion where the various offshoots are distinct instead of lumped together as their parent religion.

My question is: is there data on the ranking of Christianity including offshoots by population, and if not is there any reason there isn't other than that people didn't consider doing this? Are there any ballpark estimates about the largest groups within Christianity?

This is a post on this site that has some data, but I'm curious if there's anything more comprehensive

This is the most comprehensive survey (dated December, 2011) that I could find.  You will need to examine this lengthy report yourself for more detailed information but the following extracts may be useful:

  About half of all Christians worldwide are Catholic (50%), while more than a third are Protestant (37%). Orthodox communions comprise 12% of the world’s Christians. Other Christian groups, which make up the remaining 1%, include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Christian Science Church.   Muslims, the second-largest group, make up a little less than a quarter of the world’s population  http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-traditions/

The following link provides information on how Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and other denominations are categorised: http://www.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-traditions/#defining

Here is a brief statistical summary from the findings within this report:

  Total Christian Population Worldwide:  2.184 billion (31.7% of world population)

  Of which:  Catholic    50.1%
          Protestant  36.7%
          Orthodox    11.9%
          Other       1.3%

  Within Protestantism:
  305 million Charismatics
  279 million Pentecostals
  285 million Evangelicals

  Largest Distinct Protestant Denominational Families:
          Anglican (11%)
          Lutheran (10%)
          Baptist (9%)
          Reformed/Presbyterian (7%)

  Total Muslim Population Worldwide: 1.6 billion (23.4% of world population)

Certainly, this report gives "ballpark" estimates about the largest groups within Christianity.  It is possibly the most detailed and comprehensive survey available, even though these statistics are 8 years old.  I hope this helps you.


Which Christian traditions value the Gospels more than the Epistles? I'm wondering if there are (or were) any Christian communities or traditions that pay (or paid) more attention to the teaching of Jesus than to the teaching of apostles.

The various "New Church" denominations that follow the teachings and Bible interpretations written by Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) give much greater weight to the Gospels (and the book of Revelation) than to the Acts and the Epistles.

As explained in my answer to the question, "What writings are held as 'biblical canon' by Swedenborgians?," in the New Testament, Swedenborg viewed only the four Gospels and the book of Revelation as part of the inspired Word of God. The remaining books in the New Testament he said were "good books of the church," but inspired more in the way that the Holy Spirit inspires a preacher when preaching based on the Word of God.

Because of this belief, Swedenborg based his Christian theology primarily on the Gospels and the book of Revelation (in the New Testament), and only secondarily on the Acts and the Epistles. Swedenborgians have generally followed suit.

Having said that, both Swedenborg himself and various Swedenborgian theologians do also quote from the Acts and the Epistles in supporting and explaining their theology. Swedenborg stated that these books, when rightly understood, also support his theology.


Do Catholics believe that Mary mother of Jesus is as holy as God? Note: This question is not to prove why this is wrong rather to find out if this is an official teaching of the Catholic Church.

Do Catholics believe that Mary mother of Jesus is as holy as God?

If so:

Is there any catholic document to explain this teaching?
When was this teaching brought into the catholic church and by whom based on which source of information?

Explanation added to distinguish between Are Catholics allowed to call Mary 'perfect' by virtue of her Immaculate Conception?

This is not a duplicate of the above question already answered. However, introducing the above question by @KenGraham as possible duplicate brings into picture additional questions to be answered for the sake of clarity.

Were Adam & Eve before the first sin, and Mary as Holy like God according to the catholic church? The holiness referred here is the word qadosh as in Isaiah 6:3.
Is there any qualitative difference between the holiness of God as mentioned above in Isiah 6:3 and the holiness ascribed to Mary according to the catholic church?
Is there any qualitative difference between the holiness of Mary and the holiness ascribed to other catholic saints such as St Jude according to the catholic church?
Is there any qualitative difference between the holiness of Mary and the holiness of the Hebrew brethren as mentioned in Hebrews 3:1 according to the catholic church?

Do Catholics believe that Mary mother of Jesus is as holy as God?

The short answer is no.

  It is obvious, that as a result of her Immaculate Conception, her fullness of grace and her holiness, the Blessed Virgin Mary never committed any personal mortal sins. But what about venial sins? We all commit venial sins, even the saints. A venial sin is committed if one transgresses the law of God which does not oblige seriously, such as telling a lie of convenience or stealing something of small value; one also sins venially if he violates a law that obliges gravely, but for one reason or another lacks perfect knowledge and consent. In this sense, did the Blessed Virgin Mary ever commit any deliberate or semi-deliberate venial sins.

  The answer of the Church to this question is a firm no. From the fifth to the sixteenth centuries the teaching of the Fathers and the theologians was almost unanimous on this point. How Mary was sinless was explained in different ways, but the fact of her sinlessness was rarely denied. In the sixteenth century, the Council of Trent made the teaching official: “No justified person can for his whole life avoid all sins, even venial sins, except on the grounds of a special privilege from God such as the Church holds was given to the Blessed Virgin. Pope Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus taught that God’s grace was bestowed on Our Lady “in such a wonderful manner that she would always be free from absolutely every stain of sin, and that, all beautiful and perfect that under God none greater would be known.” Pope Pius XII said of the Virgin Mary in his encyclical Mystici Corporis that “she was immune
  from all sin personal and inherited.”

  In light of these statements, which in turn are based on Scripture and the tradition of the Church, Catholics believe that in consequence of a special privilege of grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. Therefore, she is totally pure, the immaculate one, the sinless one.

  Theologians were unanimous in holding that from the first moment of her creation Mary possessed a greater degree of sanctity than any angel or other merely human being. Also, many theologians have gone further and claimed that Mary’s holiness surpasses the combined holiness of all the angels and saints. Such a statement will perhaps shock some of us, but reflection on the mystery of Mary will show that it is plausible. The Church does not teach this, but it is a pious opinion, held by many respected theologians, which is not forbidden by Church authority.

  We must always remember that Mary is a creature; therefore she is limited and her holiness remains finite. So her fullness of grace is not comparable to the fullness of grace of Jesus her Son. He is the very source of grace - for us and for Mary. Since he is God, and by reason of the Hypostatic Union, from his conception Our Lord possessed the infinite fullness of grace. So he was not able to increase in grace, but she was. As her life progressed she learned more and more about her Son and his mission to redeem mankind on the Cross. She also united herself ever more closely with him and so grew in grace. Therefore, when we say that Mary was “full of grace” the expression is meant as a relative, not an absolute sense. - Fundamentals of Catholicism, by Fr. Kenneth Baker (pages 331-335)

Just as Mary’s fullness of grace was finite in comparison to Our Lord’s fullness of grace which remains eternally infinite; so to Mary’s sinlessness was by a Divine privilege, it was finite. God’s sinlessness remains totally superior and infinite.

God was the author of Our Lady’s privilege of her Immaculate Conception and by consequence her sinlessness and fullness of grace.

Mary needed to be saved like the rest of mankind.

  The fullest development of the Immaculate Conception, as formulated by Duns Scotus in the 13th century, was careful to state that the Immaculate Conception does not somehow rule out the need for redemption for the Blessed Virgin Mary. She was saved just like the rest of us, and she calls God her Savior in the Magnificat (as St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out). - Was Mary's Immaculate Conception Absolutely Necessary?

God is all sinless and holiness by Divine Essenes. Mary is sinless and holy by a Divine privilege and her own personal struggles to save her soul while one earth. Thus Mary’s sinlessness does not equal God’s Infinite sinlessness or holiness. Mary in all her sinlessness and holiness remains finite.

Article(s) of interest:

Immaculate Conception: Why was it necessary for our Salvation?

Was Jesus immaculately conceived?


Are there books that are included in the Protestant Bible that were disputed as canonical? The topic of how the Bible was compiled, including the determining factors for which books are included is well-documented.  There were some basic criteria as listed at http://gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/how-was-the-bible-compiled/

Were the authors either eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about or at least directly taught about them by the Apostles?
Was each book’s teachings consistent with church practice and tradition?
Was each book already in general use by the church, and accepted as the Divine Word of God?

We've also had several questions on the site about why [Name an apocryphal book] was not included in Scripture.  However, I've never seen the question asked:

Are there books that are included in Canon that were once disputed or questioned, that remain in the Bible.  If so, why were they disputed, and why did they "pass the test"?

According to When Skeptics Ask (Normal L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, 1990 Baker Books):

The following books were in question at one point or another:

Hebrews because the author is unknown.  However, it was accepted as having apostolic authority, if not apostolic authorship.
James because of conflict with Pauls teaching about salvation by faith alone.  Conflict resolved by seeing works as an outgrowth of faith.
2 Peter because the style differs from 1 Peter.  But Peter used a scribe to write 1 Peter (See 5:12), who may have helped him smooth out his Greek.
2 and 3 John because the author is called "elder" not apostle. However, Peter called himself an elder, too (1 Peter 5:1).  They are also cited in earlier lists of canon.
Jude because he refers to the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses.  However, he doesn't call them Scripture, and this is seen to be like Paul quoting pagan poets (such as in Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12).  It also had wide early acceptance.
Revelation because it teaches a thousand year reign of Christ, which was taught by a certain cult.  However, it was accepted by the earliest Church fathers.

This is somewhat of a side note, but it is worth noting that the thought that some of the books now considered canon were ever disputed might cause some confusion over whether the right books are in Scripture.  That is a common question both from the faithful and from skeptics.

My intention here is not to raise the question again.  In order to head those questions and comments off, I'll just point out that it's been answered time and time again, as it is here:  http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=1701

Excerpt:

  The question which invariably arises when speaking of the Scriptures
  is, "How does one know which books in today's Bible are the right
  ones?" It is important to note at this point that a group of men did
  not just arbitrarily select a group of books to be used in compiling
  the Bible. They only officially "recognized" which books had always
  been upheld as being scriptural.

...

some details removed.  Check the link if you care to see what's missing.  Conclusion from the article below:

...

  A crisis in the fourth century caused the Church to give a formal
  statement on which books were canonical. In A.D. 397, a Church Council
  was held in Carthage which endorsed the exact 27 books of the New
  Testament we now regard as canonical. These 27 books were all
  apostolic in origin, authoritative in spiritual content, and accepted
  universally among the orthodox churches. These tests were used at the
  council to eliminate the spurious gospels and epistles written by
  heretical groups. This process of canonization has ensured that
  today's Bible contains only the books which were attested as being
  inspired by God.


Is creationism falsifiable? Falsifiability of a theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false. Which is a requirement in the field of scientific methodology for a theory to be regarded valuable. As by Karl Popper's "falsificationism", there is a problem of demarcation (distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific), which he solves exactly by introducing falsifiability as the demarcation criterion. So, anything not falsifiable can not be proven, and is therefore not even (scientifically) worth examining, and thus has no scientific value. As far as I can recall at the moment, creationism is NOT falsifiable??

A similar matter is Occam's Razor; which actually does seem to work in favor of creationism.

Does anyone have an answer on this?

Thoughtbox (Possibly second question): I'd say that God is prevailing through nature (i.e. it's creations) and thus all science or governing laws (thermodynamics, gravity, magnetism etc.) should lead us to learn about His Excellence. So, I'd say that we learn about Him, but to what extent does nature show His existence? That is, once his Existence is accepted, nature plays a very different role so as to reflect what God does and how He acts. But if not accepted, would nature lead to Him??

You're right, creationism, of whatever variety, is not scientifically falsifiable.

Creationists do not think this is a problem. In fact, they would say that all alternatives to creationism are equally unfalsifiable. The scientific method cannot test the past; it may be able to tell us what is possible, what is likely and what is unlikely, but it ultimately cannot confirm any theory about the past. This is especially the case for unique or miraculous events, such as the creation of the universe or Noah's flood.


Were exactly three people crucified on Golgotha the night Jesus was crucified? We know for certain that Jesus and two other men who were convicted of crimes were crucified on the same hill. Is there any basis for believing that there may have been other convicts?

It is recorded in all four gospels that there were two, and only two, other men crucified with our Lord Jesus:
At that time two rebels were being crucified with Him, one on the right and one on the left. (Matthew 27:38)
And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. (Mark 15:27)
Two others, who were criminals, were also led away to be executed with Jesus.  (Luke 23:32)
So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. (John 19:32)
I don't know how it could be any clearer.


What is the historical and theological basis for Protestant anti-Catholicism? I am under the impression that Scripture teaches tolerance, not resentment.  However it seems there has been some tension between Catholics and Protestants over the centuries – to the point of war in some cases – take the Thirty Years War for example.  On a personal note, when I was going through Catechism classes, I found it a little irritating that the Catholic Church says it’s the only true Christian Church.  Yet, even amongst the Protestants, there seems be derision between each denomination and in today’s world, within a single denomination.

All in all, I was under the impression that Scripture teaches tolerance.

  Ephesians 4:30-32 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with
  whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all
  bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every
  form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving
  each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

I could even go as far as to add this from Corinthians as well:

  1 Corinthians 12:12-14 12 Just as a body, though one, has many parts,
  but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.13 For we
  were all baptized by[a] one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews
  or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to
  drink. 14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many.

So what gives with the grief - then and now?

This is a curiosity question that is both looking at things historically and psychologically, I don't mean to offend anyone (and if I have, I am sorry).  I know that things are more amicable these days, but it seems that there can still be some issues (take the IRA for example, so glad they've decided to put their weapons down!).

Tolerance is my main theme here however.  Thank you.

The Thirty Years War was a really bad time, and in many ways may be responsible for the grief between Catholics and Protestants.  While I would argue this animosity is way, way less bad than it was in the past, in the past it could be very bad.

In Pilgrim's Progress, for example, the Protestant John Bunyan (who was in jail for preaching!), compared the Pope to a Pagan heretic, and calls him dying but not yet dead:

  In this light, therefore, he came to the end of the valley. Now I saw in my dream, that at the end of the valley lay blood, bones, ashes, and mangled bodies of men, even of pilgrims that had gone this way formerly; and while I was musing what should be the reason, I espied a little before me a cave, where two giants, Pope and Pagan, dwelt in old times; by whose power and tyranny the men whose bones, blood, ashes, etc., lay there, were cruelly put to death. But by this place Christian went without much danger, whereat I somewhat wondered; but I have learnt since, that Pagan has been dead many a day; and as for the other, though he be yet alive, he is, by reason of age, and also of the many shrewd brushes that he met with in his younger days, grown so crazy and stiff in his joints that he can now do little more than sit in his cave’s mouth, grinning at pilgrims as they go by, and biting his nails because he cannot come at them

No less a luminary than Charles Spurgeon warned against letting down the guard against "Popishness", saying in his sermon The Attractions of Popistry:

  Now, all this has mainly passed away, and we are relaxing our resistance against the dreaded foe just in proportion as he grows more formidable. It has become the fashion to condemn controversy and to affect the widest charity for this and all other foes of Christ and of souls. High Presbyterian authority even is quoted as saying, that henceforth our concern with Romanism should be chiefly ironical!

And, this book On the Evils of Popery calls on protestants to "resist the evil aggressions of Rome" in its very first paragraph.

From a Protestant perspective, there is an historical case and a theological case.

In brief, historically, many good Christians died at the hands of the Roman church. Whether it be Hugenots, Waldensians, and many of the Reformers themselves, there is no doubt the church persecuted its theological enemies.  That said, there is no doubt the Protestant church in England did the same to its adversaries, and the pattern is not unique to either Catholicism in particular or Christianity in general.  (Indeed, one only need examine the Shia-Sunni wars in Islam to see this is a human tendency, not a Christian one.)

Theologically, there are differences between Catholics and Protestants - chiefly:

Governance.  In general, Protestants have a disdain not for any particular Pope, but for the idea of a Pope in general.
Marian Devotion. In general, Catholics have a regard for Mary that strikes many Protestants as worship
Latria. What Catholics view as honoring Saints and their icons, many Protestants view as idol worship
Purgatory, Indulgences, and other Accretions. Many Protestants view Catholics as having added a lot to Scripture - Purgatory being one example of a concept not really known to Scripture.

Issues like these contributed to a situation in which Protestants had legitimate grievances against a church. Indeed, in much the same was as Anti-Semitism was considered proper for a long time, so too Anti-Catholicism was as American as Apple Pie, leading to the formation of the Freemasons, the KKK, and the Know-Nothings, and derailing the Presidential ambitions of Al Smith in 1928 and nearly costing JFK the Presidency in 1960. (Only by declaring independence from the Pope could he diffuse the issue.)

From a Roman Catholic perspective, Protestants were schismatics - Christians who were denying the authority of the church. This is treason at best and apostasy at worst - serious stuff.

Now, in fairness, I would argue most enlightened Christians on either side now view many of thee issues as secondary, and most of the fighting as historic hurt and not present issues - but to gloss over it is to forget a important divide.  These are rarely first order concerns however.  We both believe in Jesus as being divine, fully god-fully man, all of the creeds and all that stuff. Indeed, much like Common law, the Protestant position is to accept Catholic dogma, unless if there is a modern precedent to overturn it.

To say there are no grievances between the churches is thus wrong - but it is really easy to overemphasize them too.  Christians are still humans. Humans always have something to fight about.  So, the answer to your question, Why do Protestants not like Catholics is this:

We're still human.


Why do people have different chances of becoming Christian? First of all, let me say that I'm Christian, and I regularly volunteer at Church. However, I have a question that I'd like some light shed on:

Christianity seems to value fairness and justness, but this question seems to oppose this, as, say in Muslim cultures, there is a much lower chance of becoming Christian than in more Christian environments.  Why would God put some people in a culture where the Gospel is readily available, and allow others to live in areas where it's harder, or impossible to hear?

It seems unfair for someone to not be able to get to heaven because of the culture they grew up in.  If they can't hear the Gospel message, and salvation is only applied to those that hear the Gospel message, that seems like an unfair situation.

Is there a doctrinal teaching, or a standard apologetic answer to the question of the salvation of those that don't get the same chance to hear the gospel as others?  I'm looking primarily for a Protestant perspective, specifically.

The Reformed take on the answer is that no one becomes a believer by chance, but rather by divine election whereby God utilizes someone to preach the gospel to sinners, and causes the sinner to be regenerated (born-again), such that they receive the gospel as good news and believe in Jesus, and thus receive forgiveness of sins on account of Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection.


Did Jesus have wealth and mansion's? Did Jesus have many mansion while on earth? I heard a teaching from T.V that he preached from his many mansion? It just does not sound right,am I wrong?

I would suggest that you are thinking of :

  ... in my Father's house are many mansions ... John 14:2 KJV.

This is quite clearly a spiritual expression, not a material one, for Jesus clarifies the expression by saying that he is 'going to prepare a place for you', that being evidently after his death and resurrection, not an earthly situation.

As to his personal possessions and property, Jesus left only his garments when he died. Soldiers divided them and then gambled for the cloak, woven without seam, John 19:23 -24.

By so doing, these soldiers unknowingly fulfilled the prophecy spoken by David in the psalms, written about 1,000 years before the event took place :

  They part my garments among them and cast lots for my vesture. Psalm 22:18 KJV.

As has been supplied in comment by @L1R, Jesus says of himself :

  Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. Luke 9:58, KJV.


(Catholic perspective) Why was the Jesus body consumed at the Last Supper due to transsubstantiation was not mentioned to Thomas? My question is inspired by the top answer to this question, according to which transubstantiation (that the bread and the wine literally became the flesh and blood of Jesus) also occurred on the last supper.

I take this means that they ate of Jesus body before his crucifixion(?)

Later, after this death, he appeared to the disciples while Thomas was present, as explained in John 20:24-27:

  24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not
  with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told
  him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the
  nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and
  put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” 26 A week later his
  disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though
  the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said,
  “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here;
  see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop
  doubting and believe.”

This passage only mentions the marks from the nails and the spear wound on his side.

Question:

Would the consuming of his flesh not have left some kind of marks that he could then have been identified on?

No, one cannot change anything about Christ's body in the Holy Eucharist.
St. Thomas Aquinas addresses the question of "Whether Christ's body is in this sacrament changeably?" in Summa Theologica III q. 76 a. 6. By "changeably" ("movably"/mobiliter) he means not only locomotively (i.e., able to change from one position or place to another), but also that none of His body's accidents (properties, e.g., his color, stature, etc.) change. He writes (ibid. c., with a few of my modifications and parenthetical additions of the Latin):

When any thing is one, as to subject, and manifold in being, there is nothing to hinder it from being changed (moveri) in one respect, and yet to remain unchanged (immobile permanere) in another, just as it is one thing for a body to be white and another thing for it to be large; hence, it can be changed as to its whiteness and yet remain unchanged as to its magnitude. But in Christ, being in Himself (esse secundum se) and being under the sacrament (esse sub sacramento) are not the same thing, because when we say that He is under this sacrament, we express a kind of relationship to this sacrament. According to this being [i.e., according to His esse sub sacramento], then, Christ is not moved locally [i.e., from one position or place to another] of Himself, but only accidentally (per accidens, i.e., "not per se"), because Christ is not in this sacrament as in a place, as stated above (a. 5). But what is not in a place is not moved of itself locally, but only according to the motion of the subject in which it is.
In the same way neither is it moved (moveri) of itself according to the being which it has in this sacrament, nor by any other change (mutatione) whatever, as for instance, that it ceases to be under this sacrament: because whatever possesses unfailing existence of itself cannot be the principle of failing; but when something else fails, then it ceases to be in it; just as God, Whose existence is unfailing and immortal, ceases to be in some corruptible creature because such corruptible creature ceases to exist. And in this way, since Christ has unfailing and incorruptible being, He ceases to be under this sacrament, not because He ceases to be, nor yet by local movement of His own, as is clear from what has been said, but only by the fact that the sacramental species cease to exist.
Hence it is clear that Christ, strictly speaking is immovably (immobiliter or "unchangeably") in this sacrament.


Do reformed theologians call "God the Father" Jehovah? "God the Son" is generally agreed to be Jesus.

Do reformed theologians agree that "God the Father" is Jehovah, or is this only something claimed by the denomination calling themselves Jehovah's Witnesses?

Jehovah is an English rendition of the proper name of God from the Hebrew Bible, also rendered "Yahweh" or YHWH, which means I AM and is referred to as "The Tetragrammaton". It isn't specific to Jehovah's Witnesses, and can be found in many older English translations of the Bible.

In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) the doctrine of the Trinity isn't really formulated (Jews would say it isn't there at all) so there is no concept that the name for "God" applies to only one person of the Trinity. It is usually thought that the name(s) refer to "God as a whole".

Jesus in fact equates himself with Yahweh (Jehovah) when he says "Before Abraham was, I AM" (John 8:58).


What happens to those saved during the millennial reign that die? (Premillennialist perspective) From what I understand of premillenial eschatology, during the millennial reign, people who survived the tribulation will have their longevity returned like before the flood, but they will still die. What happens to those that die, but are saved? Jesus is already on earth with the saints, the people saved before the tribulation; but what about those saved after? Would they just get their glorified bodies immediately?

The passage you link to is Isaiah 65:20:

Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

Your assumption is that this is referring to Christians. However, we know that during the Millenium there will be Christians and non-Christians (either those that come out of the Tribulation or perhaps people born during these 1000 years):

Revelation 20:7-8
 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.

So my understanding is that Christians will all have their resurrected, immortal bodies during the Millenium, and non-Christians will not.
Unfortunately, this theory does not address what happens to people who become Christians during this time!


How does OEC explain the existence of pre-fall death? To make things clear for everyone, OEC=old earth creationist (i.e. God used evolution to make his creation over billions of years). Most people arguing against OEC pose the seemingly irrefutable claim:

Life couldn't have evolved because this implies the death and suffering of millions of organisms, and death and suffering were introduced into this world at the same time that sin was introduced, and sin was introduced only when Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden apple.

I am not an OEC myself, but I have tried to think of a possible answer to this without success. My best shot was that Adam, Eve, and the tree of knowledge were fictional too, but I believe God makes it clear that sin entered the world at a specific time. So What is the typical OEC answer to this claim? Thanks.

I'd encourage you to give a listen to William Lane Craigs 'Defenders' podcast series on Creation and Evolution, specifically episode 14 which touches on this (but the prior 13 episodes provide background info). This is probably the most erudite, methodical, and approachable analysis that I've ever come across on this subject.

There are several issues touched on here. What does it mean for a non-human animal to suffer? Do non sentient beings suffer in the same sense that we do? What about animals that have some self awareness? There is a lot philosophical/ethical writing on this topic. The answer is, is that although animal undoubtedly feel pain, fear and anxiety, you do not necessarily have to hold that animals suffer in the same way that humans do (having a self awareness of their own suffering).

Also, it is hard to believe that many of the creatures that exist today would have been able to exist in an environment where no death or suffering was intended. Predators come to mind; parasites and virus as well.

Finally and most importantly, how you define death? When death enters into the world does it mean death in the physical sense? Or does death mean corruption and in the spiritual sense, that humans and creatures are not living to their true potential in harmony and communion with God? Indeed, when Adam and Eve sinned, they did not immediately die in any physical sense which is evident in the text itself, but they were immediately separated from God. In other words does sin=death=physical death for humans and all creatures? The answer if you hold to evolutionary theism is that the author of Geneses, and Paul (or anyone else) when he references these things in the NT, is that they mean spiritual death. If you read 1 John closely, he is using death and sin interchangeably, and the meaning is extremely spiritual in its use.

So an OEC could believe that although the account of creation is primary metaphorical and doesn't describe a physical mechanism by which creation occurred, they can believe that Adam and Eve where historical characters (as you mention) and that they were in communion with God but when they sinned, death in the spiritual sense entered into the world, separating humans from God.


Exorcisms: effective remedy or historical curiosity? Are exorcisms considered, in the various Christian Professions, an effective remedy for possession?

I thought they were just a curiosity from the past, but here's what I found on Wikipedia:

  Gabriele Amorth (born 1 May 1925) is an Italian Roman Catholic priest and an exorcist of the Diocese of Rome.

Gabriele Amorth (Wikipedia)

Are exorcisms actually supported, encouraged, and, well, considered official catechism by the various Christian religions?

This answer wants to be objective and won't give a plaidoyer pro or contra exorcism.
First some words about the biblical foundation of exorcism.
OT
The idea of an evil power didn't actually play a role in ancient Israel because of the sole and universal power of JHWH – except for two pericopes:

1 Sam 16:14-23: Talks of the expulsion of a demonic power that tortures King Saul
1 Tob 8:1-9: Talks of a ritual expulsion of demons

The evil doesn't lay in any demonic power but rather in the weakness of man … until in the postexilic period a belief in demonic power develops (but still they don't have any dualistic principle which assumes an equivalent power beside God).
Biblical passages are:

Ijob 1:6 – 2:7: Describes Satan as a man at the court of God
Sach 3:1-7: Satan as an adversary and accuser of God
1 Chr 21,1: The Hebraic word for Satan evolves to a name which represents God's wrath but is not God himself
Wis 2:24: Satan as the adversary of Israel

But nevertheless – the appearance of Satan in the OT is a marginal phenomenon.
Today's image of Satan as a spirit being of divine power is later developed in the non-biblical Jewish literature.
NT
Things are different in the NT – e.g. in the Gospel of Mark: Here we find four exorcistic traditions:

1,23–27
5:1-20
7:24-30
9:14-27

They all say: Jesus had the ability to heal from illness and possession. Similar passages can also be found in the other synoptic Gospels (of Matthew and Luke).
From the three summaries in Mark's Gospel 1:34, 1:39 and 3:11 we know that Jesus did perform exorcism and gave this ability the twelve apostles.
Alright, enough Biblical evidence – what about exorcism today? What do say …
… Catholics?
Catholic authors (Dr. Holböck, Pater Rodewyk, J.M. Hartmann, Corrado Balducci, a Bishop of Trier (Franz Rudolf Bornewasser), Pope Benedict XVI.) emphasize that there are cases of real possession that cannot be explained by medical doctors and psychologists.
I quote Joseph Ratzinger:

The evil is not only a psychic component, it's rather an oncoming, independent power that accrues humans. [...] Where HE [God] is, appears he [the devil] as void.

Exorcism is still an official doctrine of the Catholic church.
And what do say …
… Protestants?
Luther developed – as part of his Christology – a massive idea of the devil.
But nevertheless an idea of exorcism is practically not present1 in the Protestant Church – there's also no ritual like the Catholic "Rituale Romanum".
There are even some who want to erase an idea of an evil demonic power saying it's superstition, like Rudolf Bultmann:2

The church shall hurry up to exterminate it [the idea of demons]

1: With some exceptions, e.g. Christoph Blumhardt
2: Rudolf Bultmann, ''Kerygma und Mythos'' (1948), p.150


Historical evidence for a separate Jewish branch of Christianity? I've met some non-Hebrew people who have come from a Protestant background, become fed up with their faith, changed churches, etc and now call themselves Messianic Jews. This comes with some claims of things like

They are the true church.
Messianic Judaism developed in parallel with Christianity.
Messianic Judaism is somehow "more authentic" than the Christian church.

What I'm interested to know is this: what type of historical evidence is there to support the claim that the church of the Holy Apostle James in Jerusalem was populated only by gentiles and the "Messianic Jews" maintained their own, separate congregation? Or that this happened anywhere else?

I know Scripture records that the Apostle Peter started doing something like this to a small degree and was rebuked by St. Paul but that seems to support the opposite conclusion.

After Paul's death, Christianity emerged as a separate religion, and Pauline Christianity emerged as the dominant form of Christianity, especially after Paul, James and the other apostles agreed on a compromise set of requirements.[Acts 15] Some Christians continued to adhere to aspects of Jewish law, but they were few in number and often considered heretics by the Church. One example is the Ebionites, who seem to have denied the virgin birth of Jesus, the physical Resurrection of Jesus, and most of the books that were later canonized as the New Testament. For example, the Ethiopian Orthodox still continue Old Testament practices such as the Sabbath. As late as the 4th century Church Father John Chrysostom complained that some Christians were still attending Jewish synagogues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism

I also remember reading a work of Augustine which mentioned that Christians were still meeting in the synagogue with Jews on the Sabbath. There would be groups like the Ebionites (which may have been heretical) or Nazarenes/Netzrim which were Jewish converts who still kept the law. I would say this separation didn't become definitive until Judaism enacted a curse against them in the liturgy.

Eusebius relates a tradition, probably based on Aristo of Pella, that the early Christians left Jerusalem just prior to the war and fled to Pella beyond the Jordan River, but does not connect this with Ebionites.[11][13] They were led by Simeon of Jerusalem (d. 107) and during the Second Jewish-Roman War of 115–117, they were persecuted by the Jewish followers of Bar Kochba for refusing to recognize his messianic claims.[28]

The 12th-century Muslim historian Muhammad al-Shahrastani mentions Jews living in nearby Medina and Hejaz who accepted Jesus as a prophetic figure and followed traditional Judaism, rejecting mainstream Christian views.[34] Some scholars argue that they contributed to the development of the Islamic view of Jesus due to exchanges of Ebionite remnants with the first Muslims.[13][35]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites


Does Catholicism teach that Jesus was a theistic evolutionist? If evolution is true, then the Bible’s account of the creation of the first man, Adam (Genesis 1:26–27; 2:18–24), would be, at best, a story meant to teach a moral lesson but not intended to be taken literally.

Given that the Catholic Church appears to take a "theistic evolution" position, does it (and if it does, where does it) formally teach that Jesus in fact held that belief?

There's certainly no reason Jesus couldn't have used the story of Creation for teaching purposes even if He had been a theistic evolutionist—that's why everything in the Bible is there. But there's nothing in Catholic teaching even insisting that theistic evolution is correct, let alone stating what Jesus' belief on the subject was. The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifically states that Jesus did not know anything that did not directly relate to his relationship with the Father and the Spirit, and the Divine plan of salvation, except what a human being of his time and location would be able to know, and what he could gain in knowledge of others by his ability to read their hearts:

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 favor 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."
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.
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.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 472–74)
It would thus appear that the Catholic Church believes that Jesus did not know the truth of theistic evolution. What he believed about it, if indeed he held a belief about it, is not stated anywhere; but it appears likely from the phrasing of these paragraphs that even if Jesus ever thought about it, he was probably (as others of that time and background were probably) less likely to believe it true than to believe that the Genesis story, taken literally, was true.


What is a Christian's justification for a legal prohibition of homosexual marriage? Today President Obama came out as the first U.S. president to support gay marriage.  In his address, he even quoted scripture to support his change of view.

Love him or hate him, it seems clear that he has struggled personally over the issue, which leads me to think that Obama probably personally opposes homosexual behavior, but has come to the conclusion that permitting homosexual marriage is the right thing, and even the Christian thing to do.

This question is not about Obama's motives or his personal feelings. I simply bring this up as context, and to help explain the same intellectual struggle I'm dealing with personally.

I suspect many Christians find themselves in a similar situation of opposing homosexual behavior, but feeling caught in the debate over whether their moral/personal objection to homosexuality ought to have the force of law.

So for this question, I am seeking answers from the view point that homosexual behavior is a sin (there are many other questions that deal with this issue already, so please don't debate this issue here).

My question, then, is:

Given that homosexual behavior is considered a sin, what is a Christian's justification for the legal prohibition against homosexual marriage?

I'm hoping for answers that cite Biblical principles, or at minimum theological and doctrinal principles.  I'm not interested in "slippery slope" arguments.

Strictly "social" justifications ("I don't want my kids growing up in that sort of society," "Legal marriage benefits exist because traditional marriage helps society in ways that homosexual marriage does not," etc), may be valid reasons to have such a view, but I don't consider them Christian justification, so I would ask that such answers be omitted here (unless they can some how be tied specifically into Christian doctrine).

I'm also curious what, if anything, makes the homosexual marriage issue distinct among other moral issues that are legal, but not condoned by Christian teaching.  Adultery, sex outside of marriage, pornography, strip clubs, gambling, smoking, etc.  Should a Christian oppose the legality of all of these things as well?

From Romans 1, we understand that homosexual activity is a result of a people who know God, but choose not to glorify Him as God. In other words, it is a symptom of a society that has rejected God.

From a theological point of view, a Christian could oppose gay marriage on the grounds that his government is, acting on his behalf, calling "evil good and good evil," directly rejecting the prescribed order. It is tantamount to the society as a whole rejecting God. As one who has a vested interest in not rejecting God, I do not want my government, acting on my behalf, endorsing that which I detest.

This is an active endorsement of a sin, as opposed to mere toleration as would be the case with merely allowing activities that are otherwise sinful.  Indeed, all of what is listed could be considered adiaphora - it is clearly not good stuff, and is actively discouraged amongst those who choose to follow "The Way," but there is no justification for legal compulsion to the contrary.  In contrast, a government explicitly deriving its power from the consent of the governed is making a explicit endorsement of the normative nature of same-sex relationships in declaring marriage "equal" to heterosexual relationships.

(For the non Christians, a quick disclaimer. I understand we live in a pluralistic society. I realize I would be "imposing my beliefs" on others with this argument. I am simply answering the question, not even taking a stand - though today's news did greatly sadden me. Please vote on the theological justification, do not impose your "tolerance" and pluralism on me. You will note, I am not calling for the pitchforks. I'm just choosing to exercise my rights as a citizen to voice my disapproval, and to show that contrary to what people say, it does affect me.  )

Additionally, a Christian would argue that marriage is an institution ordained by God, not a function of the state. When Jesus said, "for this reason a man shall leave his mother and cling to his wife," it is because that is the order which God prescribed. A Christian response would ask why the state gets to (re-)define that which God has defined and put together.

Fundamentally, the real question has less to do with homosexuality itself, and far more to do with the question of whether marriage is a secular or a theological institution. As one who sees marriage as predating governments, I tend to think its none of the government's business.


Why did Paul want God to repay Alexander the metalworker? In II Timothy 4:14-15, Paul writes:

  Alexander the metalworker did me a great deal of harm. The Lord
  will repay him for what he has done. You too should be on your
  guard against him, because he strongly opposed our message.

Paul wants God to repay Alexander the metalworker. In other words Paul wants him to be punished. Why Paul wants a man he hates to suffer? Paul very well knows what a "Christian Love" is, and What Jesus did to those who treated him enemies.

Is there any specific reason why he did so?

In asking this question, you have added a layer of interpretation onto the text that I do not see there. You introduce the word "want" which does not exist in the text.

In fact I don't see any indication in the text that Paul has a desire for personal vengeance or that he wants Alaxander to get what's coming to him. In fact is is quite likely based on what we know of Paul's responses to other people and his consistent teachings on related subjects that he would actually want the opposite for him.

However Paul is under a charge and has a responsibility here.

He must warn the congregation about a real danger to its health. We are sent out as lambs among wolves, but we are also told to be wise as serpents. That includes identifying the wolves. By name if need be. As a shepherd Paul had to guard the congregation against somebody who would damage it.
He must also warn Alexander that the consequences of his actions are eternal. People must be informed that while they may not experience punishment in this live, that does not excuse their actions and they stand under God's judgement. In phrasing his warning this way, he also makes it clear that it is not he (Paul) who will seek or meter out justice while still making it clear that justice will be served.

This seems consistent with everything else we know from Scripture -- that vengeance is God's and that those who oppose his work on this earth will find themselves opposed by God. Paul can at once long for ultimate justice to be done and God's people set free from their persecutions and even rejoice in the knowledge that the wrong will be set right -- while not having a personal desire to see somebody punished and not raising a finger against them.

Protecting the church and warning those in the world that they will be judged by God is not the same thing as what you imply. There is nothing here to indicate that Paul "hates a man" or "wants him to suffer" and his response is not outside the bounds of Christian Love.

Particularly in the West, we often compromise truth in the name of something we call "love", yet it is no love that does not proclaim the truth including making clear the severity of God's anger against those who oppose him.


Does it state ANYWHERE in the Bible that pets can or can not go to heaven? I've heard it both ways , but can't seem to find it.  Some have told me dogs have no soul so they can't go, but I am sure my dog feels guilt when he steals food from the cat.  Is that not a sign of a soul?

I understand that the question of whether or not they do go to heaven has been addressed in Do animals go to heaven/hell? but this is a different question.  The answers there deal don't directly state whether or not there is a direct Biblical statement on this.

Can anyone tell me, all personal interpretation or doctrinal extrapolation aside, is there any clear, unambiguous, direct statement in Scripture that tells whether or not animals/pets can go to heaven?

"...is there any clear, unambiguous, direct statement in Scripture that tells whether or not animals/pets can go to heaven?"

No. The topic isn't addressed in scripture anywhere.


1 John 5:3 — What are "his commandments?" and how are they "not heavy?" (Protestantism) 1 John 5:3 (DRB) For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy.

Cf. Mt. 11:30.

Question

According to Protestantism, to what commandments does "his commandments" refer, and what does St. John mean by they "are not heavy?"

"Protestantism" is rather broad, but generally "his commandments" would be all of God's commandments for Man that weren't given as part of a specific covenent.

For instance, prohibitions against drinking wine or cutting hair were binding only on Nazarites.

Similarly, circumcision was commanded of the Israelites as part of the Old Covenant, as a physical symbol of the special relationship between Israel and God.

That God had extended his relationship to all of mankind under the New Covenant, and that Gentiles were not expected to receive circumcision was a concept that took the new Christians a while to understand.  Acts 15 describes some of this process.

On the other hand, many of God's commandments apply to all mankind, and for all time.  They are often presented as being related to God in some manner (e.g. sacred to God, or and abomination to God), and not a specific directive to a specific group of people.  E.g. the Sabbath was declared a holy day during the first week of the Creation.

Deciding which commandments are for everyone, and which were for specific times and people, is one of the reasons there are so many denominations.  The Adventist Churches say that Christians much obey the seventh day sabbath and clean meat laws, while on the other extreme some denominations say that Christians are no longer bound by the Ten Commandments.

As I said, "Protestantism" is rather broad.

As for God's commandments not being "heavy", John is pointing out that for a Christian, obeying God should be a natural thing, something that gives one pleasure, not something that could be considered a burden.

I once wrote something describing how the Ten Commandments could be seen in a totally different light, viewing them instead as Ten Freedoms.
I think that is the message that John is trying to convey.


What was Jesus' view on the authority of Scripture? What was Jesus' own personal view on the nature of the Scripture as far as the divine authority of the OT? Can his view on this issue be determined through his own use of it?

My own personal answer would be no different than the one found here:

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/reasons_skeptics/ch_06/default.htm

Here are some excerpts.

He considered it to be divinely inspired:

  Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John
  10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew
  15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that
  it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the
  smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is
  accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words
  and letters!

Since He considered it to be inspired by God, He considered it authoritative.

  When dealing with the people of His day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old
  Testament: "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?"
  (Matthew 22:31); "Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of
  infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?"
  (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and "Have you not read what David
  did?" (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that
  Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted
  from it often and He trusted it totally.

  When confronted by Satan, Jesus appealed to the Old Testament as a
  source of authority by stating, "It is written," (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

  Jesus appealed to Scripture when correcting false doctrine stating,
  "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of
  God," (NASB, Matt. 22:29).


Was Luke, the author of the Gospel and Acts, a slave? "It is possible that Paul’s “relative” Lucius is Luke, the author of
  the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. On his second missionary
  journey, Paul may have gone to Troas (where Luke lived—or at least
  where he joined Paul) because he knew a relative he could stay with
  there (Acts 16:8, 11)." -
  http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/1995/issue47/4702.html

I know a related question is this: Who was Luke in the Bible? But I find the answer lacking. I recently heard teaching on slavery in the New Testament by Michael Card, and he presented Luke as a slave, and physicians in general as slaves in the time of the New Testament.

  The 'doctors' in ancient Rome were not nearly as highly regarded as
  the doctors in Greece. The profession itself, outside of the legions,
  was considered a low social position, fit for slaves, freedmen and
  non-latin citizens, mainly Greeks. unrv.com

He also taught that slaves in that time were named one of two way, 1) by the master's desired characteristic for the slave (the most common slave name, philokurios - loving of the master, and Philemon - dear one), or 2) by a nickname of the master (i.e. Michael would name his slave Mike).

Paul mentions a relative, Lucius. Lucius would name his slave Luke. As a physician, he would have been given to Paul to care for his ailment, (or thorn?). That would explain why Luke traveled so extensively with Paul.

Michael Card does have a book on both slavery and Luke, and I will be getting to those, but how come I've never heard this before? Is there substantial evidence pointing to a definitive yes or no?

Michael Card's hypothesis is interesting, and certainly not outside the realm of possibility.  It is quite true that skilled Greeks were enslaved and brought to Italy during times of conquest and revolt, and perhaps even during times of peace between Greece and Rome, such as was the case when Luke was living.  But it seems to me that Card's main argument needs evidence to support it.  He claims that (1) Luke is a hypocorism based on the name Lucius; and (2) slaves were commonly named according to hypocirisms.  Both of these claims are plausible---but plausible isn't good enough.  He needs to give some evidence that this was actually the case.

Unfortunately, even then, the case wouldn't be made.  Card himself understands this, when he writes:  "I admit that this idea is quite a stretch, and my scholarly friends have told me this theory would never wash in the halls of academia."  Then he continues, "let us put forth, not as a fact but as a distinct possibility: Luke might have been a slave" (emphasis original).  And that's fine---I agree, it is a reasonable hypothesis.  But it just doesn't have any good evidence behind it, at present.

Let me also say something about Dick Harfield's answer.  He is correct that Luke-Acts is anonymous, and unlikely to have been written by Luke the companion of Paul---although I disagree that this is relevant to your question.  But he makes a good point that the tradition about Luke being a physician is not well-established, since it comes from an epistle (Colossians) which is likely to be pseudepigraphical.  On the other hand, whether Colossians was written by Paul or not, it is certainly very ancient, and so we have reason to trust it when it affirms Luke as a physician.  And I think Harfield has a decent point about Luke being referred to as among his "fellowlabourers."  It is, as DJClayworth has pointed out, quite plausible that a slave might be referred to as such.  But it seems more likely to me that Paul considered Luke to be closer to his own social standing.


What did the early Christian twice weekly fasts consist of? Other than what is mentioned in the Didache regarding the days for fasting, what did early Christian "twice weekly fasts" consist of?  What I'd like to know more about is what they fasted from. For example:

Was it a total fast?
Water only?
Fasting from wine and food?

I would be grateful for any references that could be provided on this.

The Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity on this topic points us to The Shepherd of Hermas.  This work is dated to about the same time as the Didache (last first or early second century) and bears some similarities with it, and describes more specifically how a Christian is to fast:

  First of all, be on your guard against every evil word, and every evil desire, and purify your heart from all the vanities of this world. If you guard against these things, your fasting will be perfect. And you will do also as follows. Having fulfilled what is written, in the day on which you fast you will taste nothing but bread and water; and having reckoned up the price of the dishes of that day which you intended to have eaten, you will give it to a widow, or an orphan, or to some person in want. (Similtude 5, ch. 3)

We quickly notice the limitation to only bread and water, but the fast is not merely self-denial with respect to food, but an emphasis on purifying oneself spiritually and showing generosity to the needy.


Did most of the people that Jesus heal believe he was God? If so, why does the Bible not record them asking for salvation? 1) Most of the people that Jesus healed — did they believe Jesus was God?

2) If so, why did they ask for temporary things (let me walk; let me see; get rid of my diseases; heal my son/daughter) rather than "Tell me I'm saved"?

In this sense, the repentant thief was an absolute genius. He could have probably just as easily asked, "Please, let it be that after I die of crucifixion and be buried, you'll resurrect me a few days later like Lazarus," but instead, he said:

Luke 23:42

  42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

Question re-iterated: why is that in the Bible there's numerous records of people asking Jesus for earthly deliverance (thus believing that he had great power) — yet no record of asking him for eternal life?

Did their belief in Jesus's ability to heal them count as faith towards believing in Jesus and receiving eternal life?

You are right to point this out (sort of). If you read Mark's Gospel closely, you'll notice that the question of "who" Jesus is is of central concern. You'll further notice that whenever someone does get healed, Jesus will often tell them not to tell anyone. The only characters who know who Jesus is, are the demons that he exorcises, and, the centurion (aka John Wayne), and as you observed, one of the theieves. Scholars refer to this as the "Messianic Secret" For example:

  and he shouted at the top of his voice, ‘What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? – Mark 5:7

In the above, oddly enough, Jesus does tell the demoniac to tell his friends what happened--but that is a matter for another question

  After sternly warning him he sent him away at once, saying to him, ‘See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.’ – Mark 1:43–44

Mark's version of Peter's Confession follows this trend:

  He asked them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Peter answered him, ‘You are the Messiah.’ And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him. – Mark 8:29–30

Now, even these passages don't really say that Jesus was "God"—there existed many miracle workers in ancient times, and the claim to be Messiah was only to claim "anointed" status, like that of a king or priest.

Finally, in Greek, the word often used of Jesus' healings is sōzō, which actually has the connotation of "to save from harm." The idea is that Jesus not only "heals" physical ailments (perhaps using the word theropeuō), but heals the whole person—body and soul. Note in the Mark 1 passage that Jesus not only "fixes" a physical problem, but makes the leper ceremonially "clean," hence allowing him to worship in the temple. This is a common theme in Luke's Gospel too.

So, the long-and-short of it is this: did they "know" that Jesus was God? I don't think so. But that doesn't mean that they were "only" physically healed or that being physically healed is entirely separate from spiritually saved. Mainline Christians have been saying this for decades; it is the basis for the so called "Social Gospel."

Don't over-spiritualize this stuff, we aren't gnostics.


Do Jehovah's Witnesses worship Two Gods? It is well known that Jehovah's Witnesses exalt Jehovah as the only God.  This is (correctly) supported by texts such as Deut 4:35, Isa 44:6, 45:5, 6 that declare Jehovah as the ONLY God; or besides me there is no God, etc.  See also Deut 6:4.

Because Jehovah is God Almighty, only He is worthy of worship (Ex 20:3, 34:14, Deut 8:19, 2 Kings 17:35-38, etc).

However, JWs also say that Jesus is "a god" (John 1:1 NWT), and "my Lord and my God" (John 20:28), and "with us is God" (Matt 1:23 NWT), etc.

Further, their NWT also says that Jesus is worthy of obeisance and worship (Matt 28:17, Luke 24:52, John 9:38, Heb 1:6, Phil 2:10, etc.)

Does this mean that JWs actually worship two gods?  That is, either Jesus is God or not.  If Jesus is God and worthy of worship then they have two Gods.  If Jesus is NOT worthy of worship then he is not a god and the Bible texts saying he is are wrong.  So what is the JW position?

This question is made the more interesting by JWs' claim that Jesus is an angel on the one hand; but on the other obeisance is forbidden to angels in Rev 19:10, 22:8, 9.  Further, the distinction JWs make between obeisance and worship (which both translate the same word) is not made in the NT.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses worship Two Gods?  Absolutely not!  They worship only Jehovah God and they pray only to Jehovah God (in the name of Jesus Christ).  That is because they see the pre-mortal Jesus as a created being who is lower than Jehovah God, his Father.  Also, they say before Jesus came to earth to be born of a woman he was known as Michael the Archangel and since his spirit returned to heaven, is still known as Michael the Archangel (What Doe the Bible Really Teach, Appendix page 218).

Obviously, it would be utterly wrong for anybody to worship a created angel (Revelation 19:10).  Jehovah’s Witnesses say Jehovah is God (the only God to be worshipped) and Jesus is “a god” (who must not be worshipped).

  “Reverent adoration should be expressed only to God. To render worship to anyone or anything else would be a form of idolatry, which is condemned in both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Accordingly, true Christians do well to direct their worship only to Jehovah God, the Almighty."  (8 April 2000 Awake pp 26-27)

The conclusion drawn is that when anyone worships Jesus, it is idolatry.  This would be consistent with what the 1 November 1964 Watchtower (page 671) said:

  “Jehovah's Witnesses say that it is unscriptural for worshipers of the living and true God to render worship to the Son of God, Jesus Christ."

However, it was not until 1 January 1954 that this view was first adopted (on page 31 of that Watchtower issue).  The inconsistency is that from 1914 up until 1954, it had never been defined that worship of Jesus was idolatry.  Here is one example:

  “Jehovah God commands all to worship Christ Jesus because Christ Jesus is the express image of his Father, Jehovah, and because he is the Executive Officer of Jehovah always carrying out Jehovah's purpose (Heb.:3-6)." 15 November 1939 Watchtower (p 339)

The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was first published in 1950 (if follows the text of Westcot & Hort). The complete NWT was published in 1961 then revised in 1970 and 1984.  Since then, another revision has been published, but I don’t have access to it.  One thing is clear – at some point after 1954 the NWT replaced “worship” with “obeisance” every time it applies to Jesus, but every time the word applies to Jehovah God, they render it as worship.  That is because they refuse to worship Jesus Christ.


Why did Moses have the sons of Levi run about with swords slaying family and friends? Today's OT Reading for CoE Common Worship was Exodus 32:15-34.  Although to the modern ear it appears indiscriminate no doubt it wasn't.

Please could someone explain why the Levites as the Priestly tribe were the only ones told to run about with swords slaughtering their brothers, friends and neighbours?  Was this somehow an act of atonement through the shedding of blood?

Also how does by so doing ordain them for the LORD's service?

Best I can fathom is that,

That judgement had to be dispensed on the people for their stubborn idolatry.
That as the Priestly tribe the Levites having had the greater responsibility for leading the other tribes in righteousness, were required to dispense the judgement both as a punishment for having failed to lead the people, as well as priests conducting a redeeming blood sacrifice of atonement.

However if that is the case then why would the LORD further punish the people at a later date?  How are two punishments just?

The answer to the first part of your question, appears to lie in the fact that only the Levites responded to Moses call for all who were on the Lord's side to come to him.

It is also good to understand that not all who rebelled against God on that day were killed, which may answer your, second question about the added punishment which was meted out to all the offenders. The estimates of the number of Israelites leaving Egypt has been numbered in the Millions, but only about three thousand were killed.

All Scripture is quoted from the New Revised King James Version.

  Exodus 32:25 through 29  And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:) Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on יהוה's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. And he said unto them, Thus saith יהוה Elohim of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to day to יהוה, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.

We also have to consider that the Levites had been taken by God in place of the first born of Israel when he killed all the first born of Egypt, but spared the first born of Israel. The Levites were specifically chosen to be the servants of God, and were set aside from the other tribes to that purpose alone.

God could just as easily sent angels to vent his ire upon the Israelites, however, considering that the Levites were also dedicated to God's service as are the angels, what God may done was to test the Levites to see if they were as dedicated to him as are the Angels. That is not Scripturally based is my own observance.

We are not told whether or not the Levites took part in the revelry and worship of the 'Golden Calf ' or not, but logic tells us that not all Israelites took part in the rebellion, however the fact that both Aaron and Merriam survived the slaughter says that God did not punish everyone taking part since Aaron was the one who formed the Calf to start with.

We also need to remember this;

  Rom 9:15 and 16 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of יהוה that sheweth mercy.

Finally do we deserve God's mercy any more than those who rebelled against God?


Can I get some help understanding the exact definition of an Idol, and Worshiping an Idol? My definition of and Idol is hyper sensitive. Because at the moment I see it as a thing. Like this laptop for example. I have a great fear of Worshiping Idols. Like for example I am under the understanding that if I say "This is a great laptop" then I have just worshiped my idol. Not that I think that the laptop has anything to do with my creation or that God is in any way my laptop.

I come to this conclusion because:
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water below. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God... (Exodus 20:4-5)

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. (1 John 2:15)

Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. (Col 3:5)

For you can be confident of this one thing: that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. (Ephesians 5:5)

It is for this reason that a woman ought to have power of choice over her self, because of the angels. (1 Corinthians 11:10)

Why I need the Help:
My understanding has made it very difficult to shop with my wife. I feel a guilt if I choose for her what to get. Or if I point out the advantages of one product over another I feel somehow that I am raising it (not to the level of God).

I have a lot of experience with the same forms of questions. Like the time we where picking out yarn. Truthfully I don't care what colors of yarn my wife picks out. I just trust that it will turn out fine. But a question will come like "Autumn needs a new scarf, and I don't know what colors to get her. What do you think?" I feel that if I make any choice at all then I'm wrong and stupid for the selection that I picked. Like "Oh those colors are horrible." Doesn't the very nature that my being wrong or feeling wrong in what I have done a version of sin. And then I'm receiving judgment, and I feel that I'm not in the spirit.

Seriously, I just need to really understand the correct perspective that God has on Idols. And If my saying "That looks like a cool shirt" is not idolatry, I need biblical proof that it is not, because it needs to come from Gods word, and not from Man. Because I don't want to worship Idols, and I don't want to become an Idol worshiper because some guy told me that wasn't what he was talking about.

Also bending over servicing Idols. I feel affected if I have to fix something under the sink, because I had to bend over. I fight the stress with faith in Jesus. Still I want to know, and Gods word says that if it something that he wants for me to understand. That his word will show me. So the answer has to be in their.

Your question has many parts, and its obvious you take the matter seriously.

Highly esteeming objects in general is not idolatry:

Luke 15:9 - Woman and Drachma coin.

Matthew 13:45-46 - Merchant and pearl.

Objects seemingly valuable from man's standpoint can be used for good things:

Luke 7:46 - Woman washes Jesus' feet with expensive oil.

Your already quite versed in the subject, so it doesn't appear you require much explanation -- and the verses you point out have a common denominator:

Anything - person, object, idea, lifestyle --- that is put above devotion to God is an idol.

Compare:

Genesis 25:34 - Esau trades birthright for bowl of stew.

Luke 14:18 - Man finds excuse not to follow Christ, goes back to his newly purchased field.

Philippians 3:19 - Self indulgent people idolize their own bellies/flesh.

EDIT: And as the verses you cite mention, bowing down to idols, making a likeness of anything to be revered -- also idolatry.

Put simply:  Worship the creator. Not the creation.

On that note, I love Linux way more than Windows!


What does it mean by "Selling one’s soul to Devil"? I became very interested (by it means, curious) about the selling soul to devil in past few weeks? You probably had heard the most popular example of this: Robert Johnson, Paganini etc.  I researched alot about this and someone tells the method to do,  someone said it can be done in pieces and one question I found on Stackexchange and answer says that it cannot be done at all as we are not owner of our soul but God himself.
So what's this actually means? And if somehow somebody able to did this,  what consequences he has to suffer? How could the myth of Robert Johnson or Paganini be explained? If selling the soul stuff is absurd then why does this concept even exists?
PS: I am not Christian (so sorry if I wrote something wrong)  but believe in God and the spiritual war with the Devil.

'Selling one's soul to the Devil' is an idiomatic English expression but it does not occur in the bible.

Jesus says :

what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? [Mark 8:36 KJV]

That is to say, in pursuing worldly things, one neglects the salvation of one's own soul.
James the apostle says :

Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. [James 4:7 KJV]

He urges submission to the mighty hand of God and to resist devilish temptation.
Of Judas, who betrayed Jesus, it is written :

And after the sop Satan entered into him [John 13:27 KJV]

After Jesus passed him some bread for dipping, Satan entered into Judas and he went out and betrayed Jesus.
But I am not aware of any biblical text that would support the idea of a pact being made between a human spirit and the spiritual Entity called Diabolos, Satan and Dragon and Serpent, regarding the soul.

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.  [Ezekiel 18:4 KJV]

Souls do not belong to the Devil, nor can he be negotiated with in regard to them. That is a superstition and not a fact.
Souls belong to God, as Ezekiel tells us. And God, alone, is the possessor of them. And God alone shall recall them, at a time of his own choosing. And God alone shall judge them.
For he, alone, is God.