According to Christianity, is only the Christian faith a gift from God? At least in the Catholic Church (with which I am most familiar), it is stated that Faith is a gift from God. Point 179 in the Catechism reads:

  Faith is a supernatural gift from God. In order to believe, man needs the interior helps of the Holy Spirit.

A related question has an accepted answer on the same lines.

Now, we know that people from other (even extinct) religions also have faith in their particular god(s). Within those religions, some have more faith than others, and there is also a group which have lost their faith, perhaps because of conversion to a different faith.

According to Christianity, is their faith also a gift from God? Why would God give to some a partial/incorrect gift and a complete/correct gift to others? What is the Catholic (and other Christian) teaching on this respect?

P.S. This question emerged in the context of a conversation with a Muslim friend. Some of them also believe that faith is a blessing from God (e.g. here). Hence the question of the many but different gifts.

Most of Christianity –including Catholicism and Protestantism¹– makes a distinction between saving faith vs. generic faith. One can have faith in your toaster's ability to evenly heat your toast or faith in the laws of physics but these kinds of faith don't make you right with God. As you pointed out even other religions have things they call "faith", and even godless religions such as humanism or atheism have their own kinds of faith.

What Christianity says is that saving faith in Christ that is our only path to being reconciled with God cannot come through our own impetus but must come through God's Spirit acting in us.

As such all other "faith" is empty — no other "faith" saves us. Neither faith in any specific religious system or generic faith not placed in anything specific will be instrumental in saving men from their sins. Hence nearly all Christians would say that these other "faiths" are not gifts from God.

How exactly they are described varies some between traditions: some blame the Devil, others say it's just man's sinful nature conjuring up counterfeits. But the result is largely the same — saving faith in Christ is a gift from God, not any other kind of faith.

Where different Christian traditions differ on this issue is on how much of the responsibility for this faith lies on man and how much on God. As an example contrasting Catholicism and Reformed Protestantism, the former would say that God gives the gift of faith rather broadly making it available to men but men have to pick up the ball and run with it while the latter would say that saving faith can only ever be exercised by a heart that has been regenerated by God and that living out that faith is the inevitable consequence of having been granted such a faith.

It probably also bears mentioning that faith in the Christian sense is not some nebulous abstract. It is concrete in that we know exactly what we hope for (eternal communion in the presence of God), by what means we expect to realize that hope (Christ's sacrifice for sins reconciling us to God and adopting us as his own children), and have been given concrete evidence that what is promised will be delivered (the history of redemption through the OT, the resurrection of Christ in the NT, the Holy Spirit with us now).

Virtually all other kinds of so called "faith" are much more abstract — either nebulous or blind. You mention Islam for one. I live in the Middle East and am quite familiar with Islam's version of faith and it is not so different from a humanists hope in humanity. To a Muslim faith is a tenuous hope against hope that if they do enough of the right things Allah might  "mercifully" overlook their faults when the time comes. There is no assurance that he will, much less a guarantee that he has (as in Christianity) only a vague hope that he might forgive them. To a deist or agnostic who has "faith", its just so nebulous that it hardly means anything: faith to my friends in this category is a tenuous prayer into the void hoping everything will all work out in the end, but they haven't a clue how or why it would. Christianity, on the other hand, is very definite about how things will work out, who they will work out for, and why it will be that way. Faith for a Christian is foreknowledge of a certain outcome based on reliable proof in the past.

¹ Orthodoxy is a little harder to pin down on this issue because it downplays the role of faith in salvation at all. Some liberal mainline Protestant denominations would also soft peddle this issue as they are not firm on Salvation being found in Christ alone.


Where does the Bible say that nature will speak the word if men don't? I am trying to remember a verse I've heard, and almost positive I've read, before.

I do not remember the exact phrasing.

It was similar to: 'If no one is there to witness, even the rocks of the field and [trees? mountains? nature?] will witness/speak the word`. I believe this is in the New Testament, possibly Jesus speaking.

What is the passage that relates to what would happen if no one was around to witness?

I believe you are thinking of Luke 19:40:

  ‘I tell you [Pharisees],’ he [Jesus] replied, ‘if they [His disciples] keep quiet, the stones will cry out.’

Other passages that refer to the witness of creation include Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20.


What are the six OT quotes in the NT, which are not from the Septuagint? What are the six OT quotes in the NT, which are not from the Septuagint? I was aware that some of them were not, but it's surprising to learn (see below) that there are only six of them. And, an associated question (which may be a duplicate, sorry) is, where might I find a list of all these 200 OT quotes in the NT?

  “The Septuagint was a good strong anchor for theologians and scholars to determine, what the Bible was really like in apostolic times” the Rev. Dr. Gordon Walker, an emeritus priest at St. Ignatius Antiochian Orthodox Church in Madison, Tenn. said in a telephone interview. “In the New Testament, all but six of the Old Testament quotes that were used, came from the Septuagint.” New Testament writers quoted Scripture more than 200 times, he said. The other six references were taken from Aramaic and Hebrew texts available at the time. (Vicksburg Post - Vicksburg,
   MS)

Note: Looking among the many related posts, I found this information from a participant called "Zenon." Below is my attempt to link you to the site where Zenon says "This website" ... hopefully, this works

  http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm

  This website provides an exhaustive list of instances where the NT quotes the OT. It gives the passages side-by-side from the NT, the Septuagint, and the Masoretic. Some are virtually identical between the texts; others vary rather significantly.

Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).
https://www.catholic.com/qa/in-which-passages-does-jesus-quote-the-septuagint-and-where-does-the-new-testament-allude-to-the


How do Catholics reconcile Christ's intercessory prayer with the doctrine of the Trinity? John 10:30 (KJV)  is often quoted to support the doctrine of the Trinity:

  30 I and my Father are one.

But during the great intercessory prayer, Christ asks God for his disciples to also be one with them:

  John 17:20-21 (KJV)

  20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
  21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Non-trinitarians often quote that scripture to show how John 10:30 (and other scriptures like it) is being misinterpreted. They say, "If God and Christ are literally one, then is Christ praying for us to become part of their nature too?"

Tons has been written about the Trinity, so surely a reasonable explanation for this exists.

How can John 17:20-21 be reconciled with the doctrine of the Trinity?

The fundamental thing you have to remember about the Trinity is that God is both One and Three. It's really easy to find quotes that support Jesus and the Father as separate, and the response of the Christian is "yes, they are". It's also really easy to find verses that completely support the idea that God is One, and that Jesus is God. And the response of the Christian is "yes, they are". It is precisely the combination of those that gave rise to the doctrine of the Trinity.

A good reference for this is the Athenasian Creed:

  The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible.


In Catholicism, what distinguishes a priestly blessing from a lay blessing? Lay Catholics are encouraged to bless their children [and homes?] using particular formulas or patterns. As I understand it, these ought to differ in "manner" and formula from blessings performed by a priest.

What are the differences in formula and manner? Is there a difference in effect or efficacy?

All baptized persons may bless, even non-Catholics. But not all blessings may be given by all people.

As a vague rule, blessings involve things and persons over which one has been granted spiritual authority by God. For this reason, parents can appropriately bless their children, persons their homes, and those with appropriate Holy Orders can bless water, which furthermore serves to consecrate it: it becomes holy water. For a lay person to attempt to give certain blessings would not be in the proper order of things. People have different vocations: some acts are only appropriate to those who have been called by God into the priesthood, and very inappropriate to others.

Specific blessings differ in form in much the same way that specific prayers differ in form. As the solemnity of the act increases, so too does its formality. Very important blessings will have certain strict forms.

So one difference is that priestly blessings tend to be more formalized. The other differences, already mentioned, are that particular priestly blessings are restricted to priests, and that some such blessings serve to consecrate.

From the Catechism:

  1668 Sacramentals are instituted for the sanctification of certain ministries of the Church, certain states of life, a great variety of circumstances in Christian life, and the use of many things helpful to man. In accordance with bishops' pastoral decisions, they can also respond to the needs, culture, and special history of the Christian people of a particular region or time. They always include a prayer, often accompanied by a specific sign, such as the laying on of hands, the sign of the cross, or the sprinkling of holy water (which recalls Baptism).

  1669 Sacramentals derive from the baptismal priesthood: every baptized person is called to be a "blessing," and to bless. Hence lay people may preside at certain blessings; the more a blessing concerns ecclesial and sacramental life, the more is its administration reserved to the ordained ministry (bishops, priests, or deacons).

  1670 Sacramentals do not confer the grace of the Holy Spirit in the way that the sacraments do, but by the Church's prayer, they prepare us to receive grace and dispose us to cooperate with it. "For well-disposed members of the faithful, the liturgy of the sacraments and sacramentals sanctifies almost every event of their lives with the divine grace which flows from the Paschal mystery of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ. From this source all sacraments and sacramentals draw their power. There is scarcely any proper use of material things which cannot be thus directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God."

  1672 Certain blessings have a lasting importance because they consecrate persons to God, or reserve objects and places for liturgical use.

(A blessing is a sacramental. A sacramental is not the same as a sacrament.)

Attempting to perform certain blessings as a lay person is a bad idea. For example, this canon lawyer's blog is emphatically opposed to lay ministers attempting to confer a blessing using the Holy Eucharist:

  Blessing the faithful with the Most August Sacrament is expressly reserved to the ordained. Lay persons may not confer any blessings with the Host (Eucharistic worship outside of Mass nn. 91, 97-99, and 1983 CIC 1168). This practice should therefore be immediately halted wherever it has cropped up.

Generally, things that you see only priests doing are things that only priests should do.

(And if you're unsure, it's best to find out - ask the priest.)

A couple concrete examples of formulaic differences from http://forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?t=14564 (all from the first post)

  In the blessing of a table or meal: when the blessing prayer is said,
  the classic prayer, "Bless us, O Lord, and these thy gifts...." the
  layman who does it makes the sign of the Cross on himself, as usual,
  while the deacon or priest makes the sign over the food.

And for the priestly version of blessings:

  In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

  Response: Amen.

  Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus
  Christ.

  Response: And with your spirit (Et cum spiritu tuo.

Versus the lay version:

  The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with us all.

  Response: Amen.


What oil was used at the time of James? James 5:14-17 discusses healing through the anointing of oil. Surely these days we have plenty of different types of oils but what oil was used at the time of this scripture being written?

The base was almost certainly olive oil, since that was the most readily available vegetable oil in the Mediterranean area (at least in the ancient world).

The Wikipedia article (which references various scholarly Bible commentaries) regarding anointing with oil in the Old Testament states tha for the anointing of priests, olive oil was used, mixed with myrrh, cinnamon, and an obscure herb not identified today called kaneh bosm.

Olive oil continues to be the base for all of the oils used in a Christian context nowadays: most notably the oil of chrism (also called myron in the Eastern churches), used in Baptism, Confirmation (Chrismation), and Holy Orders. A different oil, called the oil of the sick—also based on olive oil—is used for the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick.*

Since James is almost certainly writing in the Middle East, in a context heavily influenced by Jewish culture (indeed, probably to an audience of Jewish Christians), the oil in question is almost certainly olive oil.

In the Catholic Church, if olive oil is not available, especially in an emergency, any vegetable oil may be used as the oil of the sick instead of olive oil. However, the oil distributed to parishes by the diocese will nearly always be olive oil.


According to Reformed Theology do non-trinitarians go to hell? According to Reformed theology, if one believes that Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah and the son of God (but they deny that he is God and the second person of a triune god), is this person sent to an eternal hell where they will have their flesh burned forever and ever in agonizing pain?

Reformed theology has indeed, generally speaking, affirmed that those who reject the doctrine of the Trinity are not saved and therefore go to hell.1  Birdie's answer to this question mentions the Belgic Confession, a highly regarded reformed confession, which reads:

This doctrine of the holy Trinity has always been maintained in the true church, from the time of the apostles until the present, against Jews, Muslims, and certain false Christians and heretics, such as Marcion, Mani, Praxeas, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Arius, and others like them, who were rightly condemned by the holy fathers. And so, in this matter we willingly accept the three ecumenical creeds—the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian—as well as what the ancient fathers decided in agreement with them.2

One of the more infamous portions of the Athanasian Creed is particularly relevant:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity [...] the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Though direct affirmation of the Athanasian Creed is not found in other reformed creeds, like the Westminster Standards or the Baptist Confession of Faith, many Reformed theologians have expressed their agreement with the Athanasian Creed, including the "damnatory clauses."3
However, it's nonetheless important to note the care with which many Reformed thinkers apply the language of the creed.  Philip Schaff expresses general discomfort with damnatory clauses in creeds, and argues for a distinction between those who lack full knowledge of the Trinity and those who reject the truth of it:

This threefold anathema, in its natural historical sense, is not merely a solemn warning against the great danger of heresy, nor, on the other hand, does it demand, as a condition of salvation, a full knowledge of, and assent to, the logical statement of the doctrines set forth (for this would condemn the great mass even of Christian believers); but it does mean to exclude from heaven all who reject the divine truth therein taught. It requires every one who would be saved to believe in the only true and living God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one in essence, three in persons, and in one Jesus Christ, very God and very Man in one person.4

John Newton approaches the language similarly, suggesting that imperfect knowledge does not damn:

I believe with you, that a man may be saved who never heard of the creed, who never read any book but the New Testament, or perhaps a single evangelist; but he must be taught of God the things that accompany salvation, or I do not think he can be saved.5

Finally, some express even more caution, such as Ra McLaughlin, while still affirming the general point:

I would hope to see great tolerance for those ignorant/agnostic in these areas. A lack of understanding of these doctrines deprives one of rich opportunities for growth and worship, but it does not threaten souls. However, there can be great danger in holding to misconceived ideas about these matters. For example, those who reject the deity and/or humanity of Christ cannot be saved (John 20:30-31; 1 John 2:22; 4:2-3; 2 John 7). In this regard I differentiate rather significantly between passive ignorance and active rejection.6

Summary
Reformed thinkers widely accept the content of the "damnatory clauses" of the Athanasian Creed, either explicitly or implicitly (by not rejecting or qualifying it while discussing the Athanasian creed).  This should not be taken to mean, however, that they believe that only those who affirm and understand the creed (and fully understand the doctrine of the Trinity) can be saved.  Many explicitly indicate that those with imperfect knowledge of the doctrine can still be saved, while regarding those who actively reject the Trinity as worshiping the wrong God.  As Michael Reeves writes:

Which God we worship: that is the article of faith that stands before all others.  The bedrock of our faith is nothing less than God himself, and every aspect of the gospel—creation, revelation, salvation—is only Christian insofar as it is the creation, revelation and salvation of this God, the triune God.  I could believe in the death of a man called Jesus, I could believe in his bodily resurrection, I could even believe in a salvation by grace alone; but if I do not believe in this God, then, quite simply, I am not a Christian.7

References and notes:

Note: Dealing with the exact definition of hell held by each of the theologians quoted here would be excessively complex and would distract from the main point.  However, it's important to note that the long-standing majority view in Reformed theology is that hell is a place of eternal torment.  The "flesh burning" aspect will often be rejected as figurative language for severe suffering more generally (including spiritual suffering).  And some associated with Reformed theology hold to universalism and annihilationism.
Belgic Confession
See Joshua Wilson, English Presbyterian Chapels, 7ff. Wilson quotes a number of historical Reformed theologians who accepted at least the theological content of the damnatory clauses, if not their historical connection to the Athanasian Creed.  But many of the quotes indicate a concurrence with the other authors quoted here—Richard Baxter, for example, writes that "faith in the three articles of the baptismal covenant makes us Christians" (8) – a very simple test that does not require an extensive knowledge of the doctrine of the Trinity nor of the Athanasian Creed's language.
Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I
Newton, Letter 1 to Rev. Mr. S., June 23, 1775, in Works
McLaughlin, Does the Doctrine of the Trinity Matter?
Reeves, Delighting in the Trinity, 15–16


What are the natures of the different "priesthoods" mentioned in the old testament In the old testament, there are three (maybe more?) references to a priesthood.

  Genesis 14:18 Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (Now he was the priest of the Most High God.) 19 He blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by the Most High God, Creator of heaven and earth.

This was also referenced in reference to Jesus:

  Hebrews 7:17 For it is declared: You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

The second is of Jethro, Moses' father-in-law:

  Exodus 2:16 Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters; and they came to draw water and filled the troughs to water their father’s flock.

And finally the priesthood of Aaron ordained by God through Moses.

Are these all referring to the same priesthood? If they're different, what sets them apart from each other? Are they all priests in some fashion for God? The first two intrigue me the most as I know next to nothing about them.

Thank you!

The first order, the order of Melchizedek, is controversial. You can search this site, and especially see this question.

The Hebrews 7:17 reference is actually quoting from Psalm 110:4, which is a prophecy about Jesus, that he would be a priest in the order of Melchizedek.

I liked Mason Wheeler's answer on that question, which in part stated (emphasis mine):

  [T]he Order of Melchizedek is a higher order of priesthood than the order of Aaron, which the Levites operated under. It had the power of administering the "schoolmaster law," but not the full power and authority of the higher ordinances of the Gospel, and so by the Aaronic order alone, nothing could be made perfect. But the order of Melchezidek, which predates the Aaronic order, is the priesthood order of Christ himself.

Also, from Wikipedia:

  Abraham's transfer of goods to Melchizedek is seen to imply that Melchizedek is superior to Abraham, in that Abraham is tithing to him. Thus, Melchizedek's (Jesus') priesthood is superior to the Aaronic priesthood (who are descended from Abraham), and the Temple in Jerusalem is now unnecessary.

Whether you believe that Melchizedek was Jesus, or merely a "picture of" or a foreshadowing of Jesus, he is named as a priest, and clearly a highly ordered priest.

As to the priesthood of Jethro, the picture is not as clear. This article makes the argument that he was indeed a follower of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. After providing the background, it states that:

  Jethro was the priest of deity El, whose name was isolated and new name, taken up as Yahweh by Moses. Jethro is not a pagan priest, but the priest of the deity whose ancestors of Moses worshipped. This patron deity is now revealed to Moses as Yahweh, He is who He is, He was who he was and He is who He is to be.

However, two Jewish sources (here and here) state that he was a Pagan priest, who later renounced his Pagan gods. Evidence of this is given in Exodus 18:11, when Jethro says:

  Now I know that the Lord is greater than all other gods, for he did this to those who had treated Israel arrogantly.

The second article addresses this by explaining the situations surrounding Moses' meeting his future wife:

  Those who are certain that he really was a priest say that having realised that idol-worship was foolish, he resolved to abandon it. He was punished for this heresy; no-one would now keep his flocks, and this is why his daughters were tending the sheep and why the shepherds tried to drive them away.

Maybe the reason you know next to nothing on these two priesthoods is that there are two different views for both of them, and neither can be decisevely stated from scripture which view is correct.

As to the priesthood of Aaron, called the Aaronic priesthood by the LDS Church, and the Levitical priesthood by most others, this is the priest most people think about when they hear the word "priest" in a Bible context. Descendents of Levi, these priests were responsible for sacrifices, teaching, liturgical duties, everything pertaining to the tabernacle and later, the temple, and various other duties within the Israelite/Hebrew people. These two sources (src1, src2) provide an excellent history and summary of the Levitical priesthood.

As to a discussion from an LDS point of view on the differences of the priesthoods of Melchizedek and Aaron, see this question & answer.


What is the Biblical basis the for Immutable Nature of God? Dei Filius sayeth this:

  God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

and the Catechism quoteth it and sayeth this:

  "because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived"

Which is something I heardeth a priest say a few days ago in reference to 4th graders asking whether God can make a rock so big he can't lift it.  The Catholic answer is actually no, because God can't change His nature.

So, I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the Catholic Church's teaching on this is indeed based in Scripture.  But, since the references in the Catechism point to a Vatican I document, I'm not entirely sure which scripture (sounds like something St. Paul would say) or if it is just a teaching that is consistent with scripture.

This is asked in regards to the documents (Dei Filius and CCC 156) and Catholic or Catholic leaning answers would be most appreciated.

Here are a few verses that support this:

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  Hebrews 13:8 NIV
Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the
work of your hands.  They will perish, but you will remain; they will
all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and
they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end.
Psalm 102:25-27 NIV
For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. Malachi 3:6
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.  James 1:17


What Charities Did Jesus Contribute To? We know from John 12:6 that Jesus' ministry had a treasurer, and from Luke 8:3 that his ministry accepted financial contributions.

What did they spend it on? Luke 8 indicates that they sometimes donated to the poor. The disciples behavior in Mark 8:4 suggests that sometimes the ministry fed those who came to see Jesus speak. And Matthew 17:24-27 suggests that he might even have covered the taxes of some followers, although that seems unclear.

What did Jesus' ministry do with it's charity?

Jesus said :

  But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.  [Matthew 6:3,4 KJV]

So even if one managed to get the right hand and the left hand in a room together, there could be no corroboration for neither one was cognizant of the whole story.

In answer to your question : we will never know !


How do Biblical Unitarians understand verses that appear to identify God (the Father) and the Holy Spirit as different beings/entities? Here are a few notable passages (the list is probably not exhaustive - edits are welcome):

13 So if you, despite being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” (Luke 11:13 NASB)

14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. (2 Corinthians 13:14 NASB)

26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and remind you of all that I said to you. (John 14:26 NASB)

22 and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came from heaven: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22 NASB)

33 Therefore, since He has been exalted at the right hand of God, and has received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, He has poured out this which you both see and hear. (Acts 2:33 NASB)

10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among people knows the thoughts of a person except the spirit of the person that is in him? So also the thoughts of God no one knows, except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God. 13 We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. (1 Corinthians 2:10-13 NASB)

At face value, these verses appear to be addressing God (the Father) and the Holy Spirit as two separate beings/entities. How do Biblical Unitarians make sense of these and similar passages?

The issue of the Holy Spirit with Biblical Unitarianism is a bit different from Jesus.

"Every use of “the Holy Spirit” and “holy spirit” can either be
explained as being a name for God or the name of the gift of God."
Appendix 6: Usages of "Spirit"

In some cases, then, for Biblical Unitarians, references to the 'holy spirit' are synonyms for 'God'. If it's the latter, though (the 'gift of God'), it is in some sense a different 'entity'.
For a more detailed discussion of this, see "2) The “holy spirit” (lower case “h” and “s”) is the gift of God’s nature" in Appendix 11: What is the Holy Spirit?.
I believe all the verses you reference are dealt with as this second sense - the gift of God's nature which transforms the recipient. For example, as pertains to Luke 3:22,

"Jesus himself needed God’s gift of holy spirit to have supernatural
power, just as the leaders and prophets of the Old Testament did;
which is why God put holy spirit upon Jesus. God put holy spirit upon
Jesus immediately after he was baptized by John the Baptist (Matt.
3:16; Mark 1:9-10; Luke 3:21-22). This fulfilled the Old Testament
prophecies that God would put holy spirit upon the Messiah, enabling
him in his ministry (Isa. 11:2; 42:1; 61:1)." (ibid.)

So the answer is yes, Biblical Unitarians would view the holy spirit as in some cases conceptually distinct from God ('the Father'), but in this sense the holy spirit isn't technically speaking God himself.


Is the Church both the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ? Some believe the Church is the Bride of Christ. Yet that term is never used in the New Testament. In Revelation the bride who is the wife of the Lamb is used (DRA):

  And there came one of the seven angels, who had the vials full of the seven last plagues, and spoke with me, saying: Come, and I will shew thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb. (Rev 21:9)

Obviously Jesus Christ is the Lamb, but John's calling of Him as "The Lamb" seems to be referring to Him as John the Baptist did and is looking at the day when Israel is married to Christ. This would explain why John also refers to the bride as "the wife." 1

Paul states the Church is the Body of Christ (Romans 7:4, 12:5, 1 Corinthians 12:27) and in Ephesians seems to make the same statement using the analogy of marriage:

  Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ. Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. (Ephesians 5:21-24)

According to Roman Catholicism is Paul's example of marriage in Ephesians the basis for the Bride of Christ and if so is the Church both the Body and the Bride of Christ?

1. If Revelation is used as the basis for the term "Bride of Christ" it is incomplete. If Christ replaces the Lamb, the correct term would be "The Bride, the Wife of the Lamb." Since John is purposeful to include both terms, his purpose should be preserved.

I think the big 3 (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism) generally teach that both the images of the Church as the bride and body of Christ are both valid and instructive. Here is a statement from a Greek Orthodox church (The Church: Procedures for Becoming a Member of the Orthodox Christian Church):

  The close association between Christ and His Church is reflected in
  the images from the Scriptures which declare that Christ is the Head
  and the Church is His Body, and that Christ is the Bridegroom and the
  Church is His bride. These images express the reality that the Church
  does not exist independently from Christ.

The image of the Church as the body of Christ is fulfilled as the Church does the will of Christ in the world. The Church carries out the instructions of Our Lord as the members of a body do what the head commands (at least this is what is supposed to happen).

The reality of the Church as the bride of Christ is fulfilled in the Eucharist as the members assemble and partake of the body and blood of the Lord.


What is the significance of dead saints being resurrected to life at the crucifixion of Jesus? Matthew records that immediately after the death of Jesus, many Old Testament saints who had died came back to life, went into Jerusalem, and appeared to many people.

  51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.  Matthew 27:51-53 NASB

I think it is interesting that this occurred at the death of Jesus and not the resurrection, and I'm not sure what the reason for this could be.  My main question though is what the significance was of the Old Testament saints coming back to life physically at this time.  This appears to be a sort of "Zeroth" resurrection (borrowing from the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, that was asserted after there was already a first and second).

If we read the words carefully one interpretation has it that the graves were opened at his death but they were not raised out of them appearing to many people until ‘after Jesus’ resurrection’.

  At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people. (NIV, The New International Version. (2011). Mt 27:51–53)

This is how Lange takes it:

  The rising was the result, not the immediate accompaniment of the opening of the graves, and is mentioned here by Matthew in anticipation, but with the qualifying insertion: after His resurrection, to preven misunderstanding. Christ’s death opened their tombs. His resurrection raised them to life again, that He might be the first-born from the dead (Lange, J. P., & Schaff, P. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Matthew ,p. 528)

If we follow this logic is seems to fit well. There is an earthquake; it strikes the temple curtain symbolizing the breaking of the death that separated man from God and subjected him to the separation and curse under God’s holy laws. Removed the curse of law and death is opening a way to a new heaven and a new earth. The earthquake comes across the earth, including rocks and tombs, shattering the death that bound us. After his resurrection, whereby he presented the merits of his death and righteousness to God as our high priest, some sample saints come from out of the tombs, to symbolize the guarantee of our future bodily resurrection into life forever and ever.


Has anyone heard of or seen anything that Angels can be redeemed? Has anyone heard of or seen anything that Angels can be redeemed as My boyfriend prayed that he could save the angel and offered to give himself to the lake of fire.
Can someone please help?

First, I agree with DJClayworth's comment:

Because this is a real situation with real consequences, I strongly recommend that you consult a Christian leader or a physician personally about this. There are issues here that are far beyond the question of whether angels can be redeemed. Your boyfriend's physical and spiritual health may be at stake.

Now for a short explanation, which I answer from mainstream Christian traditions (Catholic, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox).  You are asking:

Whether angels can be redeemed (I assume this is referring to fallen angels)
If #1 is a yes, whether humans can help with the redemption, and
If #2 is a yes, whether the way a human person can help with the redemption is by vicarious substitution offering to take the place of a fallen's angel destiny (lake of fire).

The answers are:

We don't know for sure since God didn't reveal it to us in the Bible.  From the little that the Bible implies, and from medieval theology (as in Aquinas), fallen angels made their decision before humans were created and it's a done deal, irreversible.

No, because the scope of redemption that Jesus provided as revealed in the Bible is limited to human beings.  Jesus may have done more to save the fallen angels, but we are not told in the Bible.

No, since nowhere in the Bible a human person can even sacrifice one's destiny to save another person, let alone an angel!  The only way a human person can assist in another person's redemption is through prayer, NOT through sacrifice.  Only Jesus saves human beings through sacrifice on the cross !!  Remember that the sacrifice has to be acceptable to God, and the Bible is explicit in saying that only Jesus's sacrifice is acceptable, and that the Old Testament offerings (which involved killing a clean animal) has been superseded after Jesus.


What is the meaning of "let the dead bury their dead"? Matthew 8:21-23 says

  And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, "Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead."
  And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him. (KJV)

What is the meaning of the dead burying their dead?

To me, this is a very offensive direction that Jesus gives.  And that isn't a bad thing -- frequently the Bible gives directions that are offensive to what we are accustomed to believing.  We should always take them seriously.

In this case, I think the message is that we must put following Christ above everything, even our most important worldly concerns.  In Hebrew culture, it is a son's duty to bury his father -- an important duty -- but Jesus is telling him to forget about that, to put following him first.  The options are "bury your father, and get around to following me in a bit" or "follow me".  As far as Jesus is concerned, there's only one choice.  It's quite similar to Matthew 19:29:

  And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and will inherit eternal life.

As to the specific wording, I would suggest that "follow me" is contrasted to death.  So following Jesus is life, tarrying about with worldly duties is death.  So the dead in spirit are left to bury the dead in body: the living are following Jesus along the way.


How does Sacrifice work 2 Kings 3:27 says:

  Then the king of Moab took his oldest son, who would have been the next king, and sacrificed him as a burnt offering on the wall. So there was great anger against Israel, and the Israelites withdrew and returned to their own land.

My question is did God honour this sacrifice or there is another principle at work?

1st: God and Sacrifice

God's opinion about human sacrifice.
A quick google search for references about Human sacrifice show this.
Deuteronomy 18:10, 2 Kings 21:6

Also sacrifice in general is 2nd to the heart condition to the sacrificer.  (Hosea 6:6, 1 Samuel 15:22)

2nd: Sovereign

I am a calvinist.  Since that is the case i believe in God's sovereign power over all principalities and powers.  So the reason for Israel's defeat was in His providence.  He also only gave the Moabites into the hands of the kings during the battle, i do not believe it specified city destruction.

3rd:  The Ark

In I Samuel it describes a story where the Ark of the LORD is brought into the camp of Israel.  The Israelites shout with confidence!  But the Philistines hear this and it actually encourages them to such a degree that they go and conquer Israel.  But the reasoning for the defeat was the 'Lucky rabbit's foot' instead of holy fear and honor of God, His law, and His Ark.

--- The reasoning ---
God did not honor the kings (read a few verses before) and they went to battle further than God's hand of providence allowed.  I believe He, God, used the sacrifice to encourage the enemy troops to drive Israel from the city they were attempting to capture.  I believe God just used it as a turning point (its an emotional experience.  Try to imagine seeing your king sacrifice his son, the one to take the place of him.  This would be fuel for the fire.  Even if it was demonic powered, it is still within God's providence).

Obviously i am just a laymen, so my answer is to evidently needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  Please feel free to critique.

Sorry if this was a runon.  I did this in a work meeting :)


Are Christians called to forgive Unbelievers? In Matthew 18:21-22, we are asked to forgive not just seven, but "seventy times seven" (unlimited) times our brother.

However, is there any verse concerning how we are to forgive non believers ?

Mathew 18:21-22
This verse says we should forgive seven times seventy "Period!"
It doesn't say we should forgive seven times seventy,
-asterisk-
except for non- believers.
Christians are called to
(Love) even our "Enemies!"
Mathew 5:44
But i tell you, Love your enemies an pray for those who persecutes you.
(NIV)
I'm pretty sure that conveys forgiving non-believers.


What is a special sign of predestination? (Catholic) One of the promises given by Mary to the people who pray the rosary is

  Devotion to my Rosary is a special sign of predestination.

Reference

I read many things on predestination and can't really find a proper description of what it means in regards to this message.

It's something that highlights we were predestined by God. We were predestined to receive his grace but not predestined, as Calvinists believe, to obtain his salvation after we die.

Is there any explanation what it means to obtain a special sign of predestination according to the Catholic Church?

Part II, §4 "Synthesis," ch. IV "On the Certainly of Predestination," § "Signs of Predestination" of Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s Predestination: The Meaning of Predestination in Scripture and the Church says:

  Signs of Predestination

  Can we be certain in this life that we are predestined? In answer to this question the Council of Trent says: "No one, so long as he is in this mortal life, ought so far to presume as regards the secret mystery of divine predestination as to determine for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; as if it were true that he who is justified either cannot sin any more, or, if he do sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance. For, except by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God hath chosen unto Himself."14 The reason for this is because, without a special revelation, we cannot know for certain what depends solely upon God's free will. Not one of the just, unless it is specially revealed, knows whether he will persevere in the performance of good works and in prayer. We shall be, says St. Paul, "heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ; yet so, if we suffer [perseveringly] with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him."15

  Are there, however, any signs of predestination such as to give one a sort of moral certainty of perseverance? The Fathers, especially John Chrysostom, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Bernard, and Anselm, according to certain statements of Holy Scripture, pointed out several signs of predestination often enumerated by the theologians as follows:

  a good life;
  the testimony of a conscience that is free from serious sins and prepared rather to die than offend God grievously;
  patience in adversities endured for the love of God;
  readiness to hear the word of God;
  compassion for the poor;
  love of one's enemies;
  humility;
  a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin whom we ask every day to pray for us at the hour of our death.

  Among these signs, certain ones, such as Christian patience in adversity, are proof that the inequality of natural conditions is at times more than compensated by divine grace. This is borne out by the beatitudes as recorded in the Gospel: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, the meek, they that mourn, they that hunger and thirst after justice, the merciful, the clean of heart, the peacemakers, they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."16 These are the predestined. St. Thomas points out especially in his teaching that to bear patiently a heavy cross and for a long time is a sign of predestination.

  Notes14. Denz., no. 805 [=Council of Trent session 6, ch. 11]; cf. no. 826 [=Council of Trent session 6, canon 16].15. Rom. 8: 17.16. Matt. 5: 3–10.


What are the major Catholic academic journals? Here's a question for the community wiki. What are the top 10 Catholic academic journals in English? I can think of a few (The Thomist, Nova et Vetera, Catholic Biblical Quarterly), but I haven't been able to find a list anywhere. I'm looking for the top ten scholarly journals, sorted roughly by readership or some other criterion.

What are the major Catholic academic journals in English?

The following list is some of the major Catholic academic journals. One can not establish which ones are the most major ones with any established certitude!

General

American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly
Communio
Horizons: The Journal of the College Theology Society
Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture
Lumen Veritatis
Newman Studies Journal
Nova et Vetera
Philosophy and Theology
The New Scholasticism
The Thomist
Theological Studies
Thought: Fordham University Quarterly

Scripture

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

Bioethics

National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly
Linacre Quarterly
Catholic Medical Quarterly


How can the Son not know what the Father knows? Matthew 24:36    (NLT)
  Mark 13:32 (NLT)

  36 “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.”

Now hold on a minute here... in according to the doctrine of the Trinity, God the Father and God the Son are the same God, yet the Father knows something the Son doesn't? What's going on here?

The theological term here is kenosis

From Phillipians 2:6-7

  though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself ...

In short, Jesus gave up the perks of being God in order to identify with humanity.


How to understand the paradox of 1John 5:3 and Mathew 5:29 What is the harmonious view that reconciles these seemingly contradictory verses?

  1John 5:3  In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And
  his commands are not burdensome.

  Mathew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body
  than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

1 John 5:3 teaches us that if we love God we have to obey his commandments and goes on to say that his commands are not burdensome. However Mathew 5:29 seems to be a burdensome commandment.

Edit: Specifically what is the Catholic view on this.

Well, it would indeed be burdensome if it was taken in a way not intended by the words, namely, literally. Jesus uses hyperbole a lot in His teaching, so that it would be very memorable to his disciples, who were chosen to convey His teaching to the nations—and even to their audience.
The meaning of 'cut off rather than' is a hyperbolic way of teaching us to avoid occasions of sin. If [x] causes you to sin, and sin leads to death, avoid x. More than anything else, it's common sense crystalized in a hyperbolic littel packet which is easy to remember and hard to forget.
The question assumes that Christians have no more help for overcoming sin than unbelievers, which is not true: they have the Spirit of God in them. And "if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you shall live." (Rom 8:13)—St. Paul's version of the same teaching.

John 15:5 (DRB)
I am the vine; you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.

Something could also be said of the difference between the Law of the letter, and the Law of grace, the latter of which doesn't change the moral requirements, but involves as a constituional part of the Covenant, the grace won for us on the Cross, of which we are made beneficiaries when we confess to God our sins: that is, mercy.

John 1:17(DRB) For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.


How were Jewish sacrifice different? When reading the Old Testament there are many references to sacrifice being required as atonement for sin. I find that today, we commonly nod along to all the detailed instructions and remind ourselves that Jesus made it so we don't need to do that anymore.

I can't help but feel like we are seriously missing some context. In many of the things Christians (and Jewish people before us) do, we are being set apart from those around us.

In what way were the sacrifices being offered in the Old Testament "set apart" from what was going on in other contemporary religions and cultural practices?

For example:

Did others not remove the organs? Thus, Jewish people doing this would be an outward sign that they were not sacrificing to the local gods?

Were the organs and fat prized as food for others?

Was the method of sacrifice significantly different than preparing food, so that fellow Jewish people would clearly know the animal was for sacrifice, and not regular food?
Was the value of what was sacrificed by others significantly more or less?

I will answer as much of your questions as I can, some of them need be asked on other sites. For instance I do not know what ritualistic sacrifices were in other religions at the time, and most Historic questions will be better answered on Biblical Hermeneutics.
Some things to keep in mind are:
These sacrifices; given to the Hebrew nation were given prior to Jesus time on Earth. Therefore, there had been no sacrifice of human life which is indicated in the following Scripture:

Genesis 2:17 KJV But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

It is significant that this command was only given to one person that being Adam. Man was the only creature that was made in the image of God himself, and his life was therefore, more significant than God's other animalistic creations.

Genesis 1:27 KJV So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The reason this is significant lies in the fact that Man had become a living Soul.
The Soul is an eternal being, So man has an eternal part, and yet God said that if Man disobeyed him he would have to taste death.

Genesis 2:17 KJV But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The Hebrews had just left Egypt, where they had served other gods, and although it is spelled out, it seems that they would also make unholy sacrifices to those gods.
They had also taken many riches from the Egyptians, God did ask for the sacrifice of those riches. What he did ask for was a sacrifice of life, and it must be remembered that God had saved the cattle of the Hebrews, when he killed Egyptians cattle along with the first born of the Egyptians.

Exodus 12:12 and 13 KJV For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. 12:13  And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

Cattle were at the time a measure of wealth. So God's sacrifice was not only a sacrifice of wealth but also a sacrifice of life, as was demanded for disobeying God's commands.
The sacrifice ritual was so different from food preparation, in that it required actions not normal in the normal killing of livestock, and only certain parts of animals, not sacrificed for a sin offering could be eaten, and then only by a chosen few.

Exodus 29:10 thru 14 KJV  And thou shalt cause a bullock to be brought before the tabernacle of the congregation: and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the bullock. 11  And thou shalt kill the bullock before the LORD, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 12  And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger, and pour all the blood beside the bottom of the altar. 13  And thou shalt take all the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul that is above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and burn them upon the altar. 14  But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering.
 Exodus 29:27 and 28 KJV  And thou shalt sanctify the breast of the wave offering, and the shoulder of the heave offering, which is waved, and which is heaved up, of the ram of the consecration, even of that which is for Aaron, and of that which is for his sons:
Exo 29:28  And it shall be Aaron's and his sons' by a statute for ever from the children of Israel: for it is an heave offering: and it shall be an heave offering from the children of Israel of the sacrifice of their peace offerings, even their heave offering unto the LORD.

These sacrifices were a precursor to the one true sacrifice, which is Jesus. Even though man has an eternal soul that Soul will not necessarily spend its eternity with God in Heaven. This is because life is necessarily sacrificed to God in exchange for our disobedience. That requirement is not possible because we have inherited the knowledge of good and evil, and unfortunately, we appear to have only enough knowledge to more often ignore God's requirements in favor of our own desires.
Christianity is the knowledge that:

John 3:16 and 17 KJV  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

All sacrifices both in the Old Testament and the New Testament serve to bring the world back into the good graces of God.
Hope this helps.


What is the biblical basis for All Saint's Day? As an Evangelical Christian, I recently had a debate about why I do not celebrate Halloween. Their response was that the origins of Halloween come from the Christian "All Saint's Day" (which is actually the day after Halloween).

I would like to know if there is any mention of All Saint's Day in the bible, and if not, is there any biblical basis for the tradition of All Saint's Day in the bible?

No, there are not references to All Saints Day in the Bible.

The tradition of All Saints Day originated long after the books of the Bible were written.

From Catholic Online

  The origin of the festival of All Saints celebrated in the West dates
  to May 13, 609 or 610, when Pope Boniface IV consecrated the Pantheon
  at Rome to the Blessed Virgin and all the martyrs; the feast of the
  dedicatio Sanctae Mariae ad Martyres has been celebrated at Rome ever
  since. There is evidence that from the fifth through the seventh
  centuries there existed in certain places and at sporadic intervals a
  feast date 13 May to celebrate the holy martyrs.[4] The origin of All
  Saints' Day cannot be traced with certainty, and it has been observed
  on various days in different places. However, there are some who
  maintain the belief that it has origins in the pagan observation of 13
  May, the Feast of the Lemures, in which the malevolent and restless
  spirits of the dead were propitiated. Liturgiologists base the idea
  that this Lemuria festival was the origin of that of All Saints on
  their identical dates and on the similar theme of "all the dead".[5]

  The feast of All Saints, on its current date, is traced to the
  foundation by Pope Gregory III (731.741) of an oratory in St. Peter's
  for the relics "of the holy apostles and of all saints, martyrs and
  confessors, of all the just made perfect who are at rest throughout
  the world", with the day moved to 1 November and the 13 May feast
  suppressed.[6]


How does Reformed Theology reconcile Jesus' meaningful temptation and impeccability? According to Reformed Theology (the predominant view or an overview of slight variations within), how is the impeccability of Jesus reconciled with the idea that his temptations were authentic to the point he can sympathize with our own (sinful) human temptations?

There would seem to be a contradiction that if he was unable to sin then how was he legitimately tempted to sin? And yet we are told he has in Hebrews 4:15,

  For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. [ESV]

And James could be understood as saying it is our fallen heart that allows us to be tempted:

  But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. (James 1:14)

If Jesus is sinless and cannot sin then in what way is his temptation comparable to our own?

"This is not a duplicate" Disclaimer:

While a good answer may discuss the exact nature of Jesus' temptation and impeccability, the focus of the question is in the context of their interaction with Hebrews 4:15 and how the tension between the two is resolved.

Assumptions:

Reformed Protestant perspective.
Jesus is and was impeccable.
Impeccability is the inability to sin.
Jesus experienced temptation in a way that is meaningful to us.

Related:

What is the basis for the argument that Jesus DID have the ability to give in to temptation?

What is temptation?

This is admittedly a difficult problem that Reformed theologians have addressed in several different, though related, ways.  Louis Berkhof mentions several approches to reconcile the "reality of the temptations of Jesus" with the idea that he could not sin:

  that in the human nature of Christ, as in that of the first Adam, there was the nuda possibilitas peccandi, the bare abstract possibility of sinning (Kuyper);
  that Jesus' holiness was an ethical holiness, which had to come to high development through, and maintain itself in, temptation (Bavinck);
  and that the things with which Christ was tempted were in themselves
  perfectly lawful, and appealed to perfectly natural instincts and
  appetites (Vos).

Unfortunately, Kuyper's work does not appear to be available in English (in either complete or summary form); the reference Berkhof gives is "Dict. Dogm., De Christo, II, pp. 59–108."  So in the brief examination of several views that follows, we'll refer to John Frame, Herman Bavinck, and Wayne Grudem (who follows Geerhardus Vos).

Different types of possibility and ability

John Frame addresses the temptation and impeccability of Jesus in the context of a larger discussion on the nature of possibility and ability in his Systematic Theology.  It is too simplistic, he says, to insist that any particular thing is either "possible" or "impossible," and mentions several categories of possibility.  Something might be logically possible, such as the statement, "John read the entire Bible in 30 seconds," but not physically possible.  And though it was physically possible for Jesus's bones to have been broken, since they were human bones, it was metaphysically impossible, because God's decree prevented it in order to fulfill prophecy (John 19:36).

On the question of the temptation of Jesus, then, Frame says:

  Could Jesus sin?  Perhaps the best short answer is that, yes, he was physically and mentally capable of sinning, but no, he was morally incapable, since he was perfectly holy.  Could he struggle with temptation?  He could struggle against physical obstacles; why not against mental and spiritual ones as well?  As a man, and therefore as a divine-human person, he could struggle mentally with Satan's proposals, growing in his understanding of their nature and consequences, maturing in his ability to relate these to the will of his Father (Luke 2:40, 52).  He understood, surely, how evil tempts a man, what pleasures, however fleeting, are to be found in sin.  Yet he saw all of these in their true perspective and rejected them.

Development of ethical holiness

Herman Bavinck sees the temptation of Jesus as a means of manifesting his innate holiness.  The holiness of his human nature was not like the holiness of his divine nature:

  The goodness or holiness of Christ according to his human nature is not a divine and original holiness but one that has been given, infused, and for that reason it must also—in the way of struggle and temptation—reveal, maintain, and confirm itself.  Infused goodness does not rule out acquired goodness.

Good fruit, Bavinck says, must come from a good tree, but the goodness of the tree is demonstrated by the goodness of the fruit.  "Similarly," he argues:

  Christ had to manifest his innate holiness through temptation and struggle; this struggle is not made redundant or vain by virtue of the inability to sin.  For although real temptation could not come to Jesus from within but only from without, he nevertheless possessed a human nature, which dreaded suffering and death. [...] And in those temptations he was bound, fighting as he went, to remain faithful; the inability to sin was not a matter of coercion but ethical in nature and therefore had to be manifested in an ethical manner.

Facing temptation without relying on the divine nature

Wayne Grudem, following Geerhardus Vos, argues that Jesus faced and conquered temptation in his human nature alone.  Grudem contextualizes the difficulty in our understanding of the hypostatic union, and concludes that thanks to his divine nature, it was indeed impossible for Jesus to sin – but that, as the second Adam, Jesus had to rely on his human nature to defeat temptation, just as Adam did:

  Jesus met every temptation to sin, not by his divine power, but on the strength of his human nature alone [...].  The moral strength of his divine nature was there as a sort of "backstop" that would have prevented him from sinning in any case (and therefore we can say that it was not possible for him to sin), but he did not rely on the strength of his divine nature to make it easier for him to face temptations.

Grudem cites the example of the temptation to turn stones into bread – he had the ability, thanks to his divine nature, to do this, but by relying on that ability to conquer the temptation, he would have failed the same test that Adam had failed and could not have earned salvation for us.

As for James 1, Grudem argues that this is similar to other distinctions we must make with respect to the hypostatic union:

  His divine nature could not be tempted with evil, but his human nature could be tempted and was clearly tempted.  How these two natures united in one person in facing temptations, Scripture does not clearly explain to us.

Summary

After his summary of attempts to deal with this difficulty, Berkhof writes:

  But in spite of all this the problem remains, How was it possible that one who in concreto, that is, as He was actually constituted, could not sin nor even have an inclination to sin, nevertheless be subject to real temptation?

So ultimately Reformed thinkers admit that there is a mystery here – the explanations they provide are ultimately inadequate to fully explain the scriptural teaching that Jesus was both tempted and unable to sin.

Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, III, §372
Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 3.2.1.B.2.e
Frame, Systematic Theology, 820–822
Grudem, Systematic Theology, 538–539
Vos, Biblical Theology, 339–42


Are Followers of Christianity Allowed to Love Whomever They Choose? I'm new to this site and hoping to understand more about Christianity. I was taught some about Christianity in my younger years and try to leverage that to understand more about Christianity sometimes, but sometimes it leaves gaping holes in my knowledge and understanding. I think this may be one of those instances. I may be incorporating some misunderstandings from what I've heard so hopefully you can forgive me if I misspeak.

While talking with one of my friends about her future as a Christian, eventually the topic turned to her future family. She explained that since she was little she had always dreamed of falling in love and getting married to essentially prince charming. I feel like this is a pretty common dream among young girls. As her thoughts poured out though, she continued to share that perhaps that wasn't a possibility. Not only might it not happen like in a fairytale, but there were more complications. What if she fell in love with somebody who wasn't a Christian? What if she fell in love with somebody that wasn't going to live where God called her to live? I could go on, but you can imagine the flavor of these suppositions.

This made me really sad. I'd like to see my friend happy. That didn't seem to align with my understanding of a Christian God. My question is hard to ask, but I guess. Is that a possibility? She can't be the first person to ever face this, in fact I would bet it's frequent. So is it possible that God would ask his followers to walk away from love in interest of his plan? I understand it could be swept under as that "not really being love", but if that's going to be the answer, I don't think I can just settle for only that. I would hope for at least some context of why things had to be that way.

I realize that me disliking something doesn't change whether or not it's correct from a Christian standpoint, but I've found that understanding and learning more can help with these situations. I know you may not be able to give me a full answer, but I have no idea where to even begin looking for answers to this. I'm also not just asking for an answer to this without any work, but this is important to me and I feel completely lost.

So I guess to sum it all up:

are followers of Christianity allowed to love whomever they choose?

If not, are they called by God to leave those that they love?

EDIT

While I feel those are my questions I want answered, I see they are strongly opinion and interpretation driven (potentially). With that in mind, I guess I would redone my question to this:

I believe that people have likely struggled with the choices associated with love. What scripture (or other helpful insight) can I reference for guidance in answering these questions?

Thanks in advance, I really look forward to finding answers.

Christians are called to love everybody – even those that people would not normally love. This is modelled best by Jesus Christ himself, who loved outcasts, sinners and failures like myself.

This is fraternal love that all of us must have for our common man. When it comes to romantic love, there's slightly more to it.

Christians are asked/commanded earliest in Deuteronomy to not marry unbelievers because they could potentially be read astray. Elsewhere, the bible is riddled with literature about being "unequally yoked" or married to an unbeliever.

That said, we all have free will and can marry or date whomever we want. The question that usually will be on a Christian's mind though, is "Will this please God and be an act of worship to Him?". We also know that being unequally yoked wouldn't please God. Because of this, we choose to seek romantic relationships with Christians only, despite having free will. Why? Because we love God. Why do we love God? Because he loved us.

What happens if a Christian is married to an unbeliever? Are they to leave them?

Pretty much the only time divorce is allowed biblically is when adultery has occured. No adultery, no grounds for divorce, even if it's an interfaith marriage. The Christian party is asked to love and serve and lead a holy, God-pleasing, God-glorifying life as an example to their spouse.

What about dating? Can my Christian girlfriend dump me because I'm not a Christian?

Yes, she can. She can become aware of how the relationship may be getting serious, leading toward marriage, thinking about if the marriage will please God, realizing it won't, and then ending it.

The thing about Christianity is, God comes first, no matter what, no matter how hard it can be. Why? Because to him, we come first.

I hope that was helpful!


Book of revelation what is wormwood? Revelation 8:11 And the name of the star is called WORMWOOD: and the third part of the waters became WORMWOOD; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.

Deuteronomy 29:18 So that there will not be among you a man or woman, or family or tribe, whose HEART turns away today from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of those nations; that there will not be among you a root bearing poisonous fruit and WORMWOOD.

I suppose what I am asking is are we the waters stated in revelation 8:11?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqcIYFamnrc there is a link to the video I watched about wormwood.  Something else too Matthew 13:8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. Bring forth Fruit.  hope this makes sense. Something else too Matthew 13:8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. So if Jesus is talking about fruit then that must mean us (people) right. Hope i am wording this right.

Wormwood is an angel/star from the book of Revelation. The name wormwood is a pun on a Hebrew saying: the name means curse or cursed (and can arguably be traced back to a bitter-tasting plant) and so Wormwood enacts curses in the book of Revelation however, where this occurs in the Old Testament it is almost certainly referring to a curse or to a "cursed" plant with a bitter taste.


What happened to the two trees in the Garden of Eden? In Genesis 2, we are told that there were two named trees in the Garden of Eden--the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life.

When Adam and Eve ate fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, this was a sin against God, since He had commanded them not to do so.

After this, God indicates that they should not be allowed to eat again from the Tree of Life, since doing so would allow them to live forever, presumably in a state of separation from God.  Consequently, God placed an angel to guard the way to the Tree of Life.

So, what happened to these two trees--and the Garden itself for that matter?  Did these trees eventually die as well, perhaps at the time of the flood?

  Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  Genesis 2:9 NASB

  15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”  Genesis 2:15-17 NASB

  Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.  Genesis 3:22-24 NASB

I assumed that everyone knows what happened to Torah, so here is the answer more simply put. This is the teaching of Judaism, but surely is important to Christianity. The Christian OT is taken from Judaism.

The tree of Life in the Garden of Eden, is a metaphor for the Torah in Judaism - which after all is where the Tree of Life comes from. In Torah, the Tree of Life is God's blueprint for his creation, and in Orthodox Judaism it existed prior to the creation. God is seen as the Architect working from His blueprint, Torah.

“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.” Genesis 3:22, 23, KJV.

God gave Torah to Moses at Sinai. Torah has been handed down to the present day, and is in every synagogue (that can afford it.) And it is in the Christian OT (the Hebrew version, not the Greek, of course, since the Hebrews consider that to be in error.)

So, the tree of life is alive and well. I have a Jewish Book containing the five books of Moses (plus) and  whose cover title is ETZ HAYIM which means Tree of Life.


Is there anyone in heaven? (Catholicism) In Catholicism people pray to the saints, angels and the Virgin Mary. Is then, in Catholicism, heaven filled, besides angels, with the saints and the Virgin Mother?

Yes, there are people in heaven.

Some, who were born before Christ's resurrection are:

Elijah

  2 Kings 2:1-12
  “And it came to pass, when the Lord would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind…And fifty men of the sons of the prophets went, and stood to view afar off: and they two stood by Jordan….And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven….And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more…”

Enoch

  Hebrews 11:5
  “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”

The Blessed Virgin Mary

  CCC 966
  "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians...

And probably many others.

It is a point of mild contention whether canonisation is infallible, but most theologians agree that a papal canonisation is infallible.
Most notably St Thomas Aquinas (Quodlib. IX, a. 16):

  Since the honor we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the saints, we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.

So, I would say Heaven is 'full' (although it is an immaterial place) of saints. Although not as full as Hell.

Here are some helpful resources.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm - Infallibility section
https://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/is-assumption-of-mary-in-bible.html
https://www.catholic.com/qa/are-canonizations-infallible


According to Catholicism, are Popes expected to receive power by the Holy Spirit to operate in the miraculous as Peter did? The Bible records many instances where Peter operated in the supernatural by the power of the Holy Spirit. For example:
Peter was among the disciples that were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost:

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly a noise like a violent rushing wind came from heaven, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And tongues that looked like fire appeared to them, distributing themselves, and a tongue rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with different tongues, as the Spirit was giving them the ability to speak out. [Acts 2:1-4 NASB]

Peter received words of knowledge from the Holy Spirit:

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, 2 and kept back some of the proceeds for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.”

Peter had the power to heal the sick with his shadow:

14 And increasingly believers in the Lord, large numbers of men and women, were being added to their number, 15 to such an extent that they even carried the sick out into the streets and laid them on cots and pallets, so that when Peter came by at least his shadow might fall on any of them. 16 The people from the cities in the vicinity of Jerusalem were coming together as well, bringing people who were sick or tormented with unclean spirits, and they were all being healed. [Acts 5:14-16 NASB]

Peter had the authority to lay hands on new believers so they may receive the Holy Spirit:

14 Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they would receive the Holy Spirit. 16 (For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then they began laying their hands on them, and they were receiving the Holy Spirit. [Acts 8:14-17 NASB]

Peter had supernatural visions:

9 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 But he became hungry and wanted to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11 and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12 and on it were all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the sky. 13 A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” 15 Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” 16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky. [Acts 10:9-16 NASB]

Peter heard direct instructions from the voice of the Holy Spirit:

19 While Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you. 20 But get up, go downstairs and accompany them without misgivings, for I have sent them Myself.” [Acts 10:19-20 NASB]

According to Catholicism, are Popes expected to be empowered by the Holy Spirit to operate in the miraculous during their ministry, just like Peter (the first Pope) did?

According to Catholicism, are Popes expected to receive power by the Holy Spirit to operate in the miraculous as Peter did?
The short answer is no.
However, if one is asking in reference to the administration of the sacraments then the answer is yes. I believe the OP is asking more so as in miraculous events having taken place.
Historically there have been popes that were saints, while others who were sinners. The Holy Spirit can chose whom he desires to operate the miraculous.
The Church has been given the gift of infallibility by the Holy Spirit when the pope pronounces on doctrine ”ex cathedra” on the points of faith and morals.
The Holy Spirit is free to chose whomever he desires to for doing his Divine Will. Caiaphas prophesied about Christ’s death, yet I do not believe many hold him as particularly worthy of working the miraculous.

49 But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing.
50 Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation. - John 11:49-51

Generally speaking working the miraculous goes hand in hand with one’s particular holiness, than with the office of the papacy. Even then, the real saints of God do not like to advertise such gifts given to them from the Holy Spirit. Even pope’s should strive to remain humble. The gifts they may receive in this life as pope are for the benefit of the Church and not their personal glory.
There are always a **Ridleys Believe It or Not moments in everything. Nevertheless, occasionally the miraculous has happened in the lives of some popes:

Pope Fabian I
Miracle: Was made pope when a dove landed on his head
Fabian was a layman—a Roman soldier—but when he attended the synod that was meeting, in the year 236, to elect a new pope, a dove flew into the room and landed on his head, a miraculous sign that this otherwise unknown man should be elected the next pope.
Pope Urban I
Miracle: Knocked down an idol that killed 22 people
Towards the end of his life, in 230, Urban and his followers had been imprisoned and brought before an idol, to pray. Instead, Urban prayed to the Christian God, and the idol fell down, killing 22 priests.
Pope Pius V
Miracle: Beat the Ottomans, and knew it
In October of 1571, the Vatican, along with its European allies, went into battle against the Ottoman navy, which was aiming to take over more of the continent, starting with Italy. The Pope led prayers for Christian victory—and when the European forces did triumph, he announced it before the news had returned from the battlefield.
Pope Alexander I
Miracle: Escaped a well-guarded prison cell
Early in the second century A.D., after Alexander had converted a Roman governor, Hermes, and his 1,500 person household, the emperor sent an official to investigate. The official put Alexander in jail and Hermes in the custody of another high-ranking official, Quirinus. Hermes asserted that Alexander could escape jail, with the help of Jesus Christ, and Quirinus accepted the challenge, doubling the guard. When he came back, Alexander was in the same room with Hermes.
Agapetus I
Miracle: Made a paralyzed man walk
In the early 6th century, a paralyzed man was brought to pope; after Mass, the pope took the man by the hand, and he was able to stand up.
John XXIII
Miracle: Cured a dying 23-year-old nun
In 1966, an Italian nun was on the verge of death, from a gastric hemorrhage, when another nun took a relic of the recently deceased pope and put it on the stomach of her suffering sister. Within days, the director of the hospital says, she saw Pope John in a vision and the suffering nun’s condition disappeared.
John Paul II
Miracle: Cured Parkinson’s and a brain aneurysm
Pope John Paul II died in 2005 of Parkinson’s, and three months later, Sister Marie Simon Pierre, who suffered from the same disease, prayed to him; one day, she woke up able to move again. Later, doctors told a woman in Costa Rica, Floribeth Mora Diaz, that she would die within days, of a brain aneurysm; she prayed to the pope, heard his voice tell her not to be afraid, and was healed, with no medical explanation.
Pope Celestine V
Miracle: Sheer number (7 dubious miracles, 11 real ones)
Celestine V, a monk and hermit, was pope for just five months of 1294, before abdicating the office. In his 1313 canonization hearing, a panel considered 18 miracles; they only approved 11. One allegedly miraculous cure might have actually been a medical success; others had too few or contradictory witness. Still, 11 miracles isn’t bad.
Pope Pius X
Miracle: Cured a paralyzed child, etc.
After Pius X became pope in 1903, he was credited with many healing miracles. He returned a man’s paralyzed arm to life and cured an Irish girl covered with sores. His sock cured another girl’s foot disease. A nun with abdominal cancer was cured after she swallowed a bit of his clothing. Another was curid of a hip disease after one of her young students asked the pope to pray for her.  He blessed two ailing nuns who were so restored that the driver who took them to see the pope didn’t believe they were the same people when they came out.  One of his most dramatic healing miracles, though, was curing a child who had been paralyzed since birth. He sat on the pope’s lap and within a few minutes started running around the room.
Pope Cornelius I
Miracle: His statue blessed the marriage of an unlikely couple
In medieval Germany, a lord’s daughter fell in love with an artist hired to decorate a chapel dedicated to Cornelius, a third-century pope. The lord said he would not give his blessing to the marriage unless the pope did; a devotional statue of Cornelius bowed from the altar and blessed the couple.
Pope Gregory II
Miracle: Made Christian soldiers immune to Muslim enemies
In 720, when the Duke of Aquitaine was heading into battle against a Muslim army, he fed his soldiers bits of three pieces of bread that Pope Gregory II had blessed, and everyone who ate that bread survived the battle with a wound.
Pope Clement I
Miracle: Underwater tomb revealed by ebbing sea
After he was martyred and thrown into the Black Sea in 101 A.D., the waters of the sea receded until they revealed a marble tomb, where Clement’s body was found in a stone coffin. Every year after, once a year, the sea would recede and reveal the shrine.
12 Papal Miracles: An Unscientific Ranking

"Peter had the authority to lay hands on new believers so they may receive the Holy Spirit". The Popes have this same ability also along with many others within the Catholic Church when administrating the sacraments of ordination and confirmation.
Both bishops and popes lay their hands on ordinands and confirmands so they can receive  the Holy Spirit as in Acts 8:14-17.

14 Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John.
15 Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost.
16 For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
17 Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost. - Acts 8:14-17


In Catholicism if God is infinite love, can love always increase in intensity or does that mean quantity? According to the official facts laid out by the Pope and his Magesterium, as God is unending love and joy, does that mean that these emotions can always 'rise' in their intensity? For instance, we know the beatific vision is joyous beyond anything to be had or imagined here but in experiencing God would we be loving and happy to this degree because He is many, many, many good things or because our actual ability to enjoy is able to be increased? Can emotions increase beyond their greatest scale on Earth? Water cannot get wetter than water...are emotions the same? Can love be more loving than the best kind of love?

In Catholicism if God is infinite love, can love always increase in intensity or does that mean quantity? We define this by how close we are to God, the closer that we are the more intensity there will be to his presence. Our humility however will decide if the quantity will be one of rejoicing or one of outrage. (Romans 9:33)

According to the official facts laid out by the Pope and his Magesterium, as God is unending love and joy, does that mean that these emotions can always 'rise' in their intensity? They can rise until we are with him (Matthew 10:24).

For instance, we know the beatific vision is joyous beyond anything to be had or imagined here but in experiencing God would we be loving and happy to this degree because He is many, many, many good things or because our actual ability to enjoy is able to be increased? It shall be beyond what is imaginable (1 Corinthians 2:9).

Now this is conjecture, I do not think our ability to enjoy will be increased. For at what moment in your life can you say that you have felt the fullness of your ability to enjoy? And so if you have then I would say that you have already received your reward (Matthew 6:1-21, 2 John 1:8).

Can emotions increase beyond their greatest scale on Earth? No, the scale itself was determined by God, if he chooses to lift the scale to reward his son then that will be the new greatest.

Water cannot get wetter than water...are emotions the same? Yes.

Can love be more loving than the best kind of love? No, for the best kind of Love is God.


Was it common in Biblical and Early Church times to use sports for illustrating sermons and lessons (as Pope Francis and Paul did)? The Ancient Olympic Games were a very famous event in ancient times. Taking advantage of their popularity, Paul used them (specifically, the Stadion/200 metres and boxing games) in 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 to illustrate his teachings (maybe in the same way Pope Francis does with football?) by comparing the race to life, the prize to salvation, the fighting to Christian life:

  Don't you know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run like that, that you may win. Every man who strives in the games exercises self-control in all things. Now they do it to receive a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. I therefore run like that, as not uncertainly. I fight like that, as not beating the air, but I beat my body and bring it into submission, lest by any means, after I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected.

Was the usage of sports to illustrate religious teachings (in the same way Paul and Francis did) or to comment a church statement (by analogy, etc) a common thing in ancient times? Do it occur in other places of the Bible, and did other popes do it?

One other in NT is this:

  And if also a man contend in the games, he is not crowned, except he have contended lawfully.  - 2 Timothy 2:5 (ASV).

Paul's point to Timothy is that he must be disciplined and willing to suffer hardship in order to please God and obtain the reward.

Hebrews 12:1:

  Therefore let us also, seeing we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us


How can an all powerful supreme being be either good or evil? In order to be Omnipotent, or all knowing, as well as Omnipresent and all powerful wouldn't a supreme being have to be so far removed from concepts of "Good" and "Evil"?  Those are just terms and ideas that Man created, therefore how can something that is literally the sum total of everything be one or the other?

If you're asking for an answer from a Christian perspective, which implies that you will accept, for the purposes of the answer, the presuppositions inherent in a "Christian answer" such as that God is who the Bible claims he is...

You're making a false assumption in the question.  Good or evil are not concepts that man made up and applied to God.  Good and evil are concepts defined by God, and understood by us, his creation.  As the Creator of the universe, it is He who defines what anything is.  He created things as he saw fit, and if He says something is this, or something is that, it is so.

We, as His creations merely understand, through the senses and ability to reason that he created in us, or through his revealed word to us.

Therefore God defines what good and evil is.  Being God, it makes sense that "Good" is defined as according to His word,in line with His character, and as revealed to us by Him.

It is only from an atheistic mindset that one could claim that "good and evil are traits we made up and applied to God".  The ability to say that cannot exist without the presupposition that God is imaginary, and a creation of man.  From the Christan perspective, this is exactly the opposite of the truth.