What is "apostolic authority"? Some Christian traditions use the term "apostolic authority". What is meant by this phrase? Does it have more than one meaning depending on which doctrinal tradition it is coming from? Are there any traditions that don't hold it has a meaning at all?

Do groups that hold such a view think that some things can only be carried out by apostles with specifically granted authority?

In broad terms there are two schools of thought on this. One concerns apostolic succession - the idea that the authority of the original 12 apostles has been passed down through the generations, relay-race style. For those who follow the doctrine of apostolic succession, apostolic authority belongs only to those who have inherited it from a predecessor, which in theory can be traced back to the original twelve.

The second notion of apostolic authority is that anyone can be ordained (I use the word in a very loose sense here) by God to have an apostolic ministry. In it's broadest interpretation it could include all Christians, because we're all called to act the way apostles do - but more often than not it's applied to individuals who demonstrate the characteristics of an apostle in a very clear way that is recognised by their peers and others.

Dr. Martin Schmaltz provides this succinct definition:

  Apostolic Authority is being sent by Jesus Christ with an
  authorization to use His inherent power to fulfill His purpose. This
  apostolic sending has four parts:

  First, the source of authority comes from outside the one operating in authority.
  Second, authority has a specific area or place to operate.
  Third, there is usually a specific mission or purpose for the use of authority.
  Finally, it requires obedience and complete follow-through for authority to be effective

  Apostolic Authority is acting as Jesus' representative to this world
  to accomplish His purpose.

while Dr Steven Lambert offers a much more lengthy answer to the question, which also deals with people who self-identify as having apostolic authority. He points out that different churches will recognise different people as having apostolic authority.


How do adherents of soul-sleep interpret the parable of Rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19–31)? Doesn't this parable indicate that people have some kind of soul or spirit that is conscious even after death?

Luke 16:19-31 is perhaps a difficulty for proponents of the soul sleep theory, but it is not an outright contradiction of the theory for a number of reasons.

Scripture, in both old and new testament, makes frequent use of literary personification. The 'blood of Abel' cries out in Gen 4:10. A prophecy in Ezek 32 uses the visual of leaders speaking from the realm of the dead (Ezek 32:21.) Floods clap their hands and hills sing together for joy in Psalm 98:8. Thistles talk in II Chron 25:18, etc. A parable in Judges 9 begins, "Once upon a time the trees decided to choose a king. First they said to the olive tree, 'Be our king!' But the olive tree said to them, 'Shall I leave my fatness with which God and men are honored, and go to wave over the trees?'…'"

While the use of personification in some places does not mandate that it is being used in all possible places, that it can be used is important to keep in mind when facing scriptures that seem to 'contradict' on the surface. Just as the tree parable shows trees discussing a monarchy (when all would agree that trees do not speak) it is possible that the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich man show the dead speaking figuratively, not literally.

Proponents of soul sleep will likely point to many verses on death that seem to concretely say that the dead have no thought or consciousness:

"For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten." Ecc 9:5

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Dan 12:2

John 5:28-29 "...An hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment."

Etc. Any theory (not just soul sleep) is faced with reconciling verses that seem to imply that there is no conscious thought in death with verses that imply the spirit is conscious.

No one verse or passage, such as Luke 16:19-31, is going to 'prove' the case definitively one way or another on its own.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the story of Lazarus and the Rich man is a parable - a moral story using elements from life or culture that would be readily understood on the surface, but hid a deeper spiritual meaning. With parables, the story itself was not necessarily always based on a true occurrence. Did a good Samaritan help a man beset by thieves? Did a specific woman really lose one of her coins? We don't know.

The main spiritual point of the Lazarus parable is that there is no second chance for salvation after death, and that some won't be convinced even if someone rises from the dead (like Lazarus or Christ). The state of the dead is a setting - but not the main spiritual point. As such, it is hard to be 100% dogmatic that the setting is speaking of an actual occurence vs. pulling from imagery that would be understandable to the culture.

Beyond the possible use of personification and the literary style of the parable, there is a third reason that the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man would not directly contradict the theory of soul sleep. Note that the rich man is in 'Hades,' but is in fiery torment. Yet usually,'Gehenna' is used in the new testament when describing fiery torment (such as Mk 9:47-48.) Hades is equivalent to the OT term 'Sheol' and simply means the grave, or abstractly, the realm of the dead. Yet here, in this one instance, Hades is described as a place of fire.

This discrepancy seems unusual, but not perhaps in light of Rev 20:14, "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death."

Hades will be thrown into the Lake of Fire at the judgment. As such, it is possible, even probable, that the Parable is presenting Lazarus and the Rich man as having already faced the judgement. (Lk 16:26 also hints at the two having already been judged.)

This would not conflict with the soul sleep theory and actually supports it.

[My personal opinion is that both the soul sleep and concious-between-death-and-judgment theory have seeming support from scripture as well as difficult passages to reconcile. However, Luke 16:19-31 is not a direct impediment to the soul sleep theory.]


"I will lift Your Name" Lots of Christian Rock songs have a curious metaphor about "Lifting Your Name".  Is this a direct reference to the words of St. Paul, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend (Phil 2:10)?

If so, is it said in reference to the previous line, that Jesus died on the cross and because of that God exalted him?  I'm thinking since exalted = "lift" and the next line mentions Jesus's Holy Name, so put 'em together and you have a nice exhortation for all believers.

Furthermore, is "Lifting Your Name" a prayer of blessing to God?

In history, a name has far more significance than in modern western culture, where it has been relegated to simple a "handle" by which you identify someone.  It used to be significant of the person, and their character.

The idea of lifting someone's name is to exalt that person.  So when we lift the name of Jesus, we are exalting him.

Consider also, the idea of acting in someone else's name - that is acting with their authority by proxy, as if that other person were actually present.  "Open up, in the name of the King!"

Also, consider too, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".


Would a JW be disfellowshipped if they join a military (and are unrepentant about it)? On my reading of a Anton Gill's 1989 book "The journey back from hell", he speaks briefly about JWs in the concentration camps. According to Gill, one of the issues the Nazis had with this group was their unwillingness to do military service.

Videos like this and this by Amnesty International indicates that they still rather suffer the consequences of prison and difficulties in finding employment than do military service, at least in South Korea.

What would the consequences be for a Jehovah's Witness, from their religious organization, if they join a military? Would the person be excommunicated or disfellowshipped if this is found out?

(In case it makes a difference, I am asking about a scenario where the person is unrepentant.)

For one of Jehovah's Witnesses to be disfellowshipped, there must be evidence of two things:

They have committed a serious sin (1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Gal. 5:19-21)
They are unrepentant about it (Acts 26:20; Deut. 21:20, 21)

In the case of joining the military, the person would be putting themselves in a situation where they're much more likely to commit the serious sin of manslaughter or even murder, as well as the serious sins of "hostility," "brazen conduct," or "strife."
However, there's a much bigger issue with joining the military. It's a direct violation of the vow which all Jehovah's Witnesses make before baptism to give exclusive devotion to God's Kingdom (Deut. 6:15), not any of mankind's kingdoms. (Luke 4:5-8)
A person who chooses to join the military would be betraying God's Kingdom, and therefore it would be a resignation as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This person would be considered "disassociated" rather than disfellowshipped, and at this point must be shunned by the congregation for the benefit of everyone. (1 Cor. 5:11; 1 John 2:19)
The reason that joining the military is such a big issue is because the military has objectives that are contrary to Bible teachings. These are the Bible teachings which apply most:

John 17:16 (NWT)
They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.

Isaiah 2:4 (NWT)
4 He will render judgment among the nations
And set matters straight respecting many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
And their spears into pruning shears.
Nation will not lift up sword against nation,
Nor will they learn war anymore.

Revelation 19:17-21 (NWT)
17 I saw also an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice and said to all the birds that fly in midheaven: “Come here, be gathered together to the great evening meal of God, 18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of military commanders and the flesh of strong men and the flesh of horses and of those seated on them, and the flesh of all, of freemen as well as of slaves and of small ones and great.”
19 And I saw the wild beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the one seated on the horse and against his army. 20 And the wild beast was caught, and along with it the false prophet that performed in front of it the signs with which he misled those who received the mark of the wild beast and those who worship its image. While still alive, they both were hurled into the fiery lake that burns with sulfur. 21 But the rest were killed off with the long sword that proceeded out of the mouth of the one seated on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.


Why were the Pharisees trying to trap Jesus? What were they trying to achieve? I would like to know why were the Pharisees trying to trap Jesus (in his words) and what were they trying to achieve by it?

Why were the Pharisees trying to trap Jesus? What were they trying to achieve?

For the Pharisees, Jesus posed a threat to their intellectual security and leadership.

The Pharisees were:

  An active, vociferous religious Jewish sect in the centuries before and after Christ appeared on earth. They represented by and large the intellectual sector of their people, because they were avid, contentious students and teachers of Jewish religious law. Their intensity and single-mindedness resulted in a harsh and uncharitable emphasis on the legal aspects of religion at the expense of charity and loving concern. Jesus represented a threat to their intellectual security and leadership. They baited him at every opportunity. they tried to trap him into wrong answers (Matthew 22:15-22). They proposed questions, hoping to prove contradictions (Matthew 23:34-40). They deplored the company he kept. They objected to his Sabbath activities (Mark 2:15-17; Mark 2:23-26). They even plotted against his life (John 11:45-54). Indeed they worked together with the priests and the Sadducees until their plotting culminated in his arrest and crucifixion (John 18:3). Their hostility, of course, was aggravated by the accusations that Jesus leveled at the Pharisees. He called them hypocrites (Matthew 15:7). He deplored their legalisms as rendering God's word null and void (Mark 7:13). Their self-righteousness he exposed in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican (Luke 18:9-14). The entire Chapter 23 of Matthew is a lengthy, detailed indictment of Pharisee mentality. Needless to say, all Pharisees were not fanatics. Gamaliel and Nicodemus were men who kept a sense of balance and were open to the development of Judaism (John 3:1-21; Acts 5:34-39). It is likely that many Pharisees became Christians. - Pharisees

They were to say the least, jealous of Christ's popularity. In trapping Our Lord in his own words, they could achieve that the Jewish people would not honor him as a holy rabbi or even worse get him executed by the Romans, which in fact they achieved when he was so horribly crucified. Hatred knows no bounds!


How do credo-baptists explain baptism in the Nicene Creed? How do credo-baptists explain "baptism for the remission of sins" in the Nicene Creed? Is this phrase interpreted in some way as being symbolic?

The Credo-baptists that affirm the Nicene creed, would argue that "baptism for the remission of sins" need not be interpreted as "baptism accomplishes the remission of sins", but more along the lines of "baptism witnesses the remission of sins" eg:

  ... The phrase, “We confess one baptism for the remission of sins,” does not mean that baptism leads to forgiveness of sins but that the Christian gospel depicted by baptism is the only gospel that truly saves. This creed was an appropriate response to false teaching of the past, and it remains a useful means to guard against false teaching that might occur in the future. - (Delray Baptist Church, Alexandria VA, "in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention")

Further background information on varying Baptist responses to creeds can be found at  Baptist Theologian (Gardner-Webb University, NC) Stephen Harmon's post "Do real Baptists recite creeds?".


The soul's progression through purgatory Does anyone know of any folklore in Christian mythology about what happens to the soul as it progresses through purgatory and into heaven? (Plus, of course, for systems that hold universal reconciliation to be true, the soul's progression through hell.)

Please note that I'm specifically asking about folklore and mythology rather than doctrine; the kind of symbolic stories that get carried alongside Christianity rather than being part of it. Although if anyone has any useful references to appropriate bits of doctrine I'd be fascinated to read them.

I'm really looking for anything old, but I'd be happy with anything. I suspect there's not much, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't something...

(And yes, I know about Bunyan --- which doesn't count, because Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory of the soul's progression through life, not death; and I know about Dante --- which also doesn't count because his narrator is a tourist, and not one of the souls themselves.)

The post Bl. John Paul the Great conception of purgatory was that it is a 'state' and not a place. So whatever, private revelation I allude to in the following sentences are not indiciative of universal Catholic doctrine (if you find any please report it to the dept. of redundancy dept)

It would seem that Purgatory is For the soul's purification in the fires of God's love.  The souls in Purgatory are referred to as the Church Suffering and the suffering experienced in Purgatory will take place for a predetermined length (until the last penny is paid). The only way out of Purgatory is up to heaven. The souls in Purgatory do not haunt the living. But the intercessory prayers of the living may reduce the time spent of a soul in Purgatory.  Such Indulgences may be applied either to the person seeking the indulgence, or purposes of lessening their own time in Purgatory or for a soul in Purgatory. A partial indulgence is what one gets when making the sign of the cross or praying a certain prayer or doing a spiritual or corporal work of mercy.

Prayers for souls in purgatory

A plenary indulgence is complete removal of the time spent in purgatory and it can be applied to a soul in purgatory. But it requires a confession with perfect contrition, which is no easy task. Nevertheless an imperfectly attained plenary indulgence is in effect a pretty good partial indulgence.

some more info about saints and others who saw souls in purgatroy

You might also want to check out St Catherine's Treatise on Purgatory I believe it was her who saw souls leaving Purgatory whenever "Lord Have Mercy" was said at Mass.

Someone else'll probably mention it if I don't, but C.S. Lewis' Great Divorce certainly seemed like a souls progression through Purgatory. Even though he denied it was supposed to be that exactly.

Likewise,  The Man Who Was Thursday by G.K. Chesterton is pretty Purgatorial. A lot of folks who suffer quite a bit in this world might also be likely to tell you that they're offering up their suffering so as to spend their Purgatory on Earth.

I'd love to read more old Catholic fiction on the subject, but so I hope someone else answers.
One thing you could do to further your studies is to search the Golden Legend for hints at Purgatory.

One last word, since a soul in Purgatory is not a ghost don't try to talk to them, you're more than likely talking to a demon.


What do Protestants think about canon laws given by the Church Fathers? In the seven ecumenical councils, and throughout early Christian history, various Church Fathers gave certain canon laws, or rules that the clergy and laity had to follow.

What do Protestants think about these canon laws? How do they treat them?
If they reject them, on what basis do they do so?

In general, Protestants don't think about the early church canon laws much at all! Protestants endorse the ecumenical creeds, and they accept the councils' judgements of heretics, but that's about the extent of our engagement with the ecumenical councils. In my four year MDiv degree I don't think we discussed the canons at all, even in the early church history subject. We discussed early church hagiography more than the canons.
Protestantism sees itself as a descendent of the early church, but its relationship to the early church is a critical one. Protestants uphold the Trinitarian theology of the early church, but they challenge many other aspects of early church theology and practice. Most Protestants would align themselves with the Antiochene school of interpretation and be highly critical of Alexandrian allegorical interpretations. So Augustine, who is highly respected in Protestantism for his theology, is evaluated critically in his exegesis when he strays too far into allegory. Some other aspects of early church thinking which are not well regarded in Protestantism include its growing Mariology, and its strange (almost creepy) focus on female virginity.

The canons themselves (they can be read here, although there are different lists on different sites) focus mostly on church polity and church discipline. Most Protestant denominations are not episcopal (ie, hierarchical with bishops), and have developed their church polities based on the Biblical passages of qualifications of elders independently from these canons (or at least they'd think of themselves as doing it independently, though some ideas could surely be traced back.) Some canons would be flatly rejected as being out of touch with general Biblical teaching and wisdom:

10: All those of the faithful that enter into the holy church of God, and hear the sacred Scriptures, but do not stay during prayer and the holy communion, must be suspended, as causing disorder in the church.
27: Of those who come into the clergy unmarried, we permit only the readers and singers, if they have a mind, to marry afterward.
50: If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the three immersions of the one admission, but one immersion, which is given into the death of Christ, let him be deprived; for the Lord did not say, “Baptize into my death,” but, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Do ye, therefore, O bishops, baptize thrice into one Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the will of Christ, and our constitution by the Spirit.
54: If any one of the clergy be taken eating in a tavern, let him be suspended, excepting when he is forced to bait at an inn upon the road.
69: If any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or reader, or singer, does not fast the fast of forty days, or the fourth day of the week, and the day of the Preparation, let him be deprived, except he be hindered by weakness of body. But if he be one of the laity, let him be suspended

But some canons are seen the practices of other denominations, such as this one by the Brethren, though they would likely say they are following Biblical examples rather than the canon:

34: Do not ye receive any stranger, whether bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, without commendatory letters; and when such are offered, let them be examined. And if they be preachers of piety, let them be received; but if not, supply their wants, but do not receive them to communion: for many things are done by surprise.

Now the exception are the Anglicans, whose polity is inherited from the Catholic Church. As such, they have maintained the relevance and authority of many of the canons, including such ones as bankruptcy being cause for immediate disqualification of the clergy. (I am not sure whether the Lutheran churches, who also have episcopal polities, have kept the canons as well.) Many of the canons concerning bishops and clergy still rule the Anglican churches, although their formal authority comes from being included in the current Anglican church canon law, not their ancient pedigree.
Some ancient canons have been seen to be directly relevant to current issues, such as when conservative GAFCON bishops gathered in the US in 2017 to ordain Andy Lines as a missionary bishop to England. In response Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, and others, said that this action contravened these canons from the Council of Nicaea:

6: Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
15: On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter.
16: Neither presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among the clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the ecclesiastical Canon, shall recklessly remove from their own church, ought by any means to be received by another church; but every constraint should be applied to restore them to their own parishes; and, if they will not go, they must be excommunicated. And if anyone shall dare surreptitiously to carry off and in his own Church ordain a man belonging to another, without the consent of his own proper bishop, from whom although he was enrolled in the clergy list he has seceded, let the ordination be void.

Each Anglican province is formally independent, and sometimes ordinations are recognised by those who decide to recognise them rather than it being a matter of rules. Even so, these early church canons are still recognised in the Anglican churches, and appeals can be made to them, even if not all of them are legally binding. Those in favour of the missionary bishops do not completely disregard these canons but argue that they are not directly applicable to the current situation, such as this response by Australian Rob Smith.
And one final sad note, it is possible that canons such as these were part of how prior generations of church leaders justified themselves for not seriously investigating allegations of clergy sexual abuse.

75: Do not ye receive an heretic in a testimony against a bishop; nor a Christian if he be single. For the law says, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.”


Who has the authority to change the wording of the Lord's Prayer in the Catholic Church in the United States? A couple days ago the pope called for a change in wording of the Lord's Prayer (or Our Father)

The current wording that says "lead us not into temptation" is not a good translation because God does not lead humans to sin, he says.
His suggestion is to use "do not let us fall into temptation" instead, he told Italian TV on Wednesday night. (BBC)

According to the article, the Catholic Church in some countries has already changed the wording, such as in France, garnering the pope's approval, but it appears that other countries (like the US) continue to use the current version.
I would have thought that it was the pope's prerogative to make such changes, but maybe it is each country's church?  Or perhaps an international group is responsible for English?  More specifically, here's what I'm wondering:

Can the pope mandate such a change, worldwide?
Can the pope mandate a specific change in wording to all English versions, regardless of country?
Barring a direct mandate from the pope, who would take action to modify the wording for the United States?  A group within the US, or a broader group?

To answer your three questions concisely:

• Can the pope mandate such a change, worldwide?

He can, based on what was done with the significant changes to the English language versions of the Liturgy in 2011.  Be aware that it usually takes a lot of staff effort by the various bishops, cardinals, et al in the Vatican.

  In 2002, Saint John Paul II introduced a new edition of the Missale
  Romanum (editio typica tertia, the "third typical edition" [since the
  Second Vatican Council]) for use in the Church. Soon after, the
  complex work of translating the text into English began.

  As the Church in the United States introduced the new edition of the
  Missal in late 2011, so too did much of the English-speaking world.

Most changes like this involve consultation as a preliminary step.  One thing I've noticed about the Catholic Church is that the movement rate of change is "slow" to "slower."

• Can the pope mandate a specific change in wording to all English versions, regardless of country?

The answer to that is the same as the first question, which brings us to ...

• Barring a direct mandate from the pope, who would take action to modify the wording for the United States?  A group within the US, or a broader group?

The group who need to be on board with and implement any change is the USCCB: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  It is hard to envision the USCCB acting in such a way without first getting instructions or guidance from the Pope.

It is well to recall that the organization chart for the Catholic Church is pretty flat: the pope is at the top, and the next rung down is "all of the Catholic Bishops in the world." (Over 2000 last I checked).


Where in the Bible does it say that God is creating a new earth? I've heard from my parents/grandparents that God is in the process of building a new Earth. Where in the Bible does it say God is creating a new Earth? Why would God build a new Earth? I know it says in the Bible that God loves all of man kind, but didn't he also regret creating man once he saw what they did? Why would he do this?

John, I am providing a fairly 'long answer' as you seem genuinely interested. You have tapped into a long historical theme in the Bible with your question. The first occurrence of the actual words ‘new earth’ occurs here at around 700 BC:

  "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. (Isaiah 65:17).

This prophecy was made by Isaiah to Judah who would be fallen into captivity by the Babylonian Kingdom (roughly around 500 BC) but would again be saved, just as Moses had delivered them from Egypt. So by what might appear on face-value as a hyperbole, this was a promise to Judah that after they became captive they would also again return to Jerusalem. This return would be like a ‘new world’. At least it would be better than the life in Babylon.

However, the language goes far beyond what one might expect from such deliverance and seems ‘heavenly’ so within old Rabbinic interpretation before Christ these verses were taken to apply to the times of the future Messiah who would restore Israel.  For example this does not seem like something normal on earth:

  he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed. (Isaiah 65:20).

Here is an example of an Old Rabbi’s view from an ancient Midrash before Christ:

  But a still more strange application of the verse occurs in the same Midrash (Par. 95, ed. Warsh. p. 170 a), where the opening clauses of it are quoted with this remark: Come and see all that the Holy One, blessed be His Name, has smitten in this world, He will heal in the latter days. Upon which a curious disquisition follows, to prove that every man would appear after death exactly as he had been in life, whether blind, dumb, or halting, nay, even in the same dress, as in the case of Samuel when Saul saw him - but that afterward
  God would heal the diseased. (Life and Times of Jesus, Alfred Edresheim, Appendix X, P1255).

So this Messianic expectation surrounding a ‘new world’ was that the Messiah would bring all Israelites back to Jerusalem and heal everybody in a sort of utopian society.  This is how they would interpret the next verse:

  25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox (Isaiah 65:25).

You can feel the heavenly impression of this peaceful image. This added to a Messianic expectation of a truly ‘new world’. Besides the life after their return from Babylon was not really so exalted, they did not even have their own independent King, but were vassals of other Kings. Therefore this only increased the Messianic expectation leading up to the time of Jesus from Bethlehem.  The Jews were subject to the Romans at that time.

With this Messianic expectation that a ‘new’ world would be created, the New Testament picks up on the theme in fulfillment and in prediction of another future fulfillment. First, in the current fulfillment a ‘new’ world was already created by Christ’s death, resurrection and ‘coming in power’ by his sending the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. This was a ‘creation of a new world’, or His ‘kingdom’ and so we call it the new covenant. Those who believe in God are called members of this kingdom and are born again into it, having a ‘new life’ in this ‘new world’. This was like God ‘shaking the whole heavens and earth’, so that a new heaven and new earth would result from what ‘could not be shaken’ (See Haggai 2:6).

Second the New Testament also indicates that this ‘shaking’ is not yet fully accomplished:

  10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. 11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. c That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. (2 Peter 3:10-13)

So your answer your questions: Jesus has made a new world and is still building it, all are welcome to join by placing their faith in Him. Also there will come a time when the whole world will be destroyed by fire at the second coming of Christ to ‘judge the living and the dead’.

Regarding why God regretted that he made man after the world had become so filled with sin, it is a anthropomorphism, or personification, of God as though he was a man, in order that we can understand what would otherwise be incomprehensible. In other words God has his own reasons for making man, even knowing they would sin and fall, but as we cannot fully comprehend them, He just wanted us to understand that sinful man is far beyond what his purpose was. Yet no worries, now God has shown us how He planned to kill sin, and kill, death, it was in Christ so that:

  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

This is both, how God made a new world, and how we can enter into it today.


What Christian denominations do not require belief in mainstream Christian core doctrines? I grew up in a non-denominational church and was heavily involved until a few years ago.  Some of my personal beliefs don't agree with the commonly accepted "core doctrines" of Christianity (which is a separate issue here), and I've found it hard to feel accepted in a church.

For reference, here are some of the doctrines that I don't accept as infallible:

Doctrine of the Trinity
Deity of Jesus
Millenialism
Predestination
Dispensationalism

I don't see that any of these are core to Jesus' teachings. Accordingly, I don't know whether I would even ascribe myself as a Christian, though I believe in God and very much believe in the lifestyle that Jesus portrayed.  I'm almost certain that most Christians would not consider me part of the "in-group."

However I miss the sense of community that I once had, which leads to the question: Do you have any suggestions for how to find a community in which to belong, one that centers around Jesus's teachings and a love for God, yet doesn't require you to proclaim belief in the core doctrines of Christianity to gain acceptance? Are there a denominations / communities that hold these as core doctrines, but don't require you to subscribe to them to be considered 'Christian'?

The "coreness" of your stated doctrines should really be divided into two groups:
Group 1 (Requires Explanation - See Below)

Doctrine of the Trinity
Deity of Jesus

Group 2 (A Lot! see Methodists in particular)

Predestination
Millenialism
Dispensationalism

The doctrines in Group 2 are actually rather narrow in scope and are rarely considered requirements outside of certain Bible Church cultures. Indeed, finding all three together would be difficult in many places.
Dispensationalism, for example, pretty much didn't exist until Darby Ryrie in the 1800s. Outside of hardcore fundamentalist Baptist or evangelical Bible churches, the actual scheme of different salvations for different time periods is fairly rare.
Millenialism, popularized by the Left Behind books and Hal Lindsay is a 20th Century thing. (Ok, we can see its roots in the 1800s with Millerism, etc... too.  But the point is, it doesn't have the same tenure as say Trinitarianism.) The Roman Catholic Church explicitly rejects Millennialism, for example.
Predestination typically is reserved for Calvinistic movements. Methodists, for example, completely reject the notion.  Even "Free Will Baptists" reject Calvinistic notions.
As such, to find a church that doesn't consider anything in Group 2 to be "core" you have a whole lot of latitude - Everything from Orthodox to Roman Catholic to Methodist to Episcopalian to even liberal Baptist. These are issues that are more likely to be selectors for a church rather than against.
Group 1 Options
Group 1 is harder because the formulations are much, much more ancient.
The Doctrine of the Trinity was most famously formulated in the Nicene Creed of 325 AD - one of the most fundamental tenant of what most of the world assumes you are talking about when you say "Christian."  Likewise, Jesus' Deity is something that I, as an Evangelical, would say is fundamental to Scripture, but objectively can be seen to permeate the writings of Paul, John, and other 1st Century Christians. In rejecting those, I suspect one would naturally hold a much "looser" understanding of Scripture than again what most would consider "Mainstream."
As such, those are the core doctrines that would make you uncomfortable in a Roman Catholic Church, for example.  (Some more liberal churches like certain Methodist or Episcopalian ones might let you pass, but that's at the congregational level, not the denomination.)
Mormons (LDS)
For rejection of the Trinity and the creeds, the LDS (Mormon) Church is in agreement with you. Likewise, Jesus' divinity is more nuanced. Additionally, their emphasis on feeling doctrine would make you feel at home - but make no mistake, there is a very definite Mormon Orthodoxy that might rear its head on other issues you haven't listed.  Subjectively, I consider them to be highly orthopractic, meaning they are highly concerned with "right action," although not to the level of a Holiness movement church.
As a movement, however, Mormons are quite large and growing rapidly - and thus easy to find.  It would be a church that would make your consideration list.
Jehovah's Witness
Additionally, Jehovah's Witness reject the Trinity and the notion that Jesus is God.  Famously their "New World Translation" says that Jesus is a God, not the God. Again there, however, the rejection of these doctrines does not mean that they do not hold very rigidly to others.
Likewise, JW's are characterized by a radical rejection of racism, and are one of the most integrated 'churches' out there. This leads many to understand JW's as very 'tolerant,' but again, fidelity to core doctrines is rigid, and excommunication happens with some regularity if there is a perceived lack of fidelity to core teachings. Being thrown out of the very tight-knit community is a highly charged thing for JWs.
And, speaking as one who grew up in a Bible Church, I suspect you would find JW's treatment of Scripture to be downright maddening.  While they do not have their own Scriptures that add to the Bible (like, say, the Mormons, and bearing in mind that the WatchTower comes closes), their translation of the Bible is considered authoritative, and certain peculiar translations that are authoritative may drive you nuts.  ("I and the Father are One in Unity" I'm looking at you!)
Unitarian Universalists
If you are looking for a denomination that is most at home holding doctrines in general loosely, your "best" bet would probably be Unitarianism.  Tom Lehrer famously joked in the 60s, "How do you get a Unitarian out of your neighborhood? Burn a Question Mark on his lawn."  Unitarians explicitly reject the Trinity (hence their name) and like the Ba'hai understand all religions to have Divine Truth.  Most famously Ralph Waldo Emerson was a Unitarian - and since he grew up "Christian," Unitarians are often lumped together with Christians by scholars.
That said, most Nicene Christians would reject the idea that Unitarians are Christian at all.  Their rejection of such fundamental doctrines and what they would view as out and out syncretism makes them suspect to the eye of one grounded in the Scriptures. I say this not as condemnation but again, to place them in a mental model.
The 'Emerging Church' ala Brian McLaren
Here, you might also find some traction, as these seeker-friendly churches seek, in almost Agile-like Manifesto.  From Brian McLaren:

An awareness of and attempt to reach those in the changing postmodern culture.
An attempt to use technology, i.e., video, slide shows, internet.
A broader approach to worship using candles, icons, images, sounds, smells, etc.
An inclusive approach to various, sometimes contradictory belief systems.1
An emphasis on experience and feelings over absolutes.
Concentration on relationship-building over proclamation of the gospel.
Shunning stale traditionalism in worship, church seating, music, etc.
A de-emphasis on absolutes and doctrinal creeds
A re-evaluation of the place of the Christian church in society.
A re-examination of the Bible and its teachings.
A re-evaluation of traditionally-held doctrines.
A re-evaluation of the place of Christianity in the world.

Like Unitarians (only with a more modern bent), the rap is the same - they stand for so much change, so much 'people over process' that it is tempting for some Christians to ask if they stand for anything at all.


Is it sinful to prophesy using the Bible? My pastor correlates any event going on in the world as a sign of getting closer to the return of Christ, using all different quotes from the book of Revelation.

I remember Jesus saying something about looking for signs is a sin.

Is it sinful to prophesy what will happen in the future by looking for world events that match some scripture?

There are two important aspects to this:
1) We are not allowed to attribute meaning to a Biblical prophecy that is different from God's intended meaning:

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. -2 Peter 1:20-21

2) We are supposed to pay attention to prophecy, understand it, and recognize it when it begins to be fulfilled:

Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near. -Revelation 1:3
But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance.  -Mark 13:23
Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. -Mark 13:29

Conclusion: Every prophecy of Scripture originated with God, who had a specific meaning in mind when He gave it.  The only appropriate interpretation is the one which retains His original intent.  If a prophecy is truly being fulfilled, we would do well to recognize it.  However, it is inappropriate to make guesses about the meaning based on current life circumstances and then teach it as if it were God's original intent.


Does Eucharistic Adoration fulfill the Obligation of Penance required of all Catholics on Fridays throughout the year? While giving a presentation on the Blessed Sacrament, I was informed that Eucharistic Adoration does not fulfill our requirement to do penance on Fridays during the year.

After a brief disagreement with the objection to my insistence that it did fulfill the requirement. I humbled myself and let the person objection stand.

Determined to find the answer, I can find no indication that Eucharistic Adoration cannot be a form of Penance satisfying the Catholics obligation to unite themselves to Christ Passion.

The Penance that a Catholic should perform on Fridays can come in many forms, including Prayer, Attending mass and acts of Piety.

It is my opinion that Eucharistic adoration is an act fo Piety.

I am looking for a source that indicates that Eucharistic Adoration satisfies the Friday obligation to do Penance.  Knowing full well that the preferred method is fasting, especially with abstinence from Meat.

This question I believe would be for Catholics under the authority of Catholic Bishops, and may not be uniform outside the USA.

It seems to me that there is nothing preventing Eucharistic adoration from fulfilling the obligation of penance.
Let's have a look at the document that regulates the Friday obligation in the United States: the 1966 Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence. It remarks on the history of the Friday abstinence from meat and explains why it may not be appropriate in the modern age as the best way to unite ourselves with Christ's passion. For example, in paragraph 20, the bishops say

Accordingly, since the spirit of penance primarily suggests that we discipline ourselves in that which we enjoy most, to many in our day abstinence from meat no longer implies penance, while renunciation of other things would be more penitential.

They go on to say that the obligation is altered in the following way (22 and 23):

Friday itself remains a special day of penitential observance throughout the year, a time when those who seek perfection will be mindful of their personal sins and the sins of mankind which they are called upon to help expiate in union with Christ Crucified.
Friday should be in each week something of what Lent is in the entire year. For this reason we urge all to prepare for that weekly Easter that comes with each Sunday by freely making of every Friday a day of self-denial and mortification in prayerful remembrance of the passion of Jesus Christ.

Finally, in urging people not to criticize others for not abstaining from meat, they say (paragraph 26)

We should warn those who decide to keep the Friday abstinence for reasons of personal piety and special love that they must not pass judgment on those who elect to substitute other penitential observances. Friday, please God, will acquire among us other forms of penitential witness which may become as much a part of the devout way of life in the future as Friday abstinence from meat.

So the key points are that it should preserve a sense of penitential witness, that it should be elected by the individual, that it should be an act of self-denial and mortification, that it should be a prayerful remembrance of Christ's passion, and that people should not pass judgment on people who observe the Friday penance in ways that differ from their own.
I would argue that Eucharistic adoration would be a worthy way to follow these observances, as long as they fulfill the individual requirements. It should be a free devotional act, so there are unlikely to be a strict list of options.
In the document Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist Outside Mass (PDF), we can see the following about Eucharistic adoration (Supplementary Appendix, paragraph 3):

Eucharistic devotion fosters a deeper participation in the paschal mystery. The faithful are more closely associated with the grace of salvation effected by Christ in his death and resurrection.

This seems to me very much to fulfill the requirement of "remembrance of Christ's passion", and if it fulfills the other criteria, it is satisfactory.


Was Zwingli the first to preach lectio continua? On January 1, 1519, Zwingli preached from Matthew 1:1, beginning the Reformation in Switzerland.* Thereafter he continued to preach linearly through Matthew. This manner of preaching (or reading) Scripture is known in Latin as lectio continua, and from what I know it seems to be the dominant approach to preaching in Protestant Christianity. It is also sometimes known as systematic expository preaching.

The Wikipedia article on lectio continua mentions that as a practice of reading it has early church precedence. I'm wondering, though, whether there was also the precedence of preaching in this manner? In other words, was Zwingli going back to something that had previously been done, or was it something new to him?

Erskine Theological Seminary professor Hughes Oliphant Old says no. In volume 7 of his history of preaching, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, he lists Chrysostom, Augustine, and Origen as having done it previously. He also implies that many others had probably done so given the ubiquity and appropriateness of expository preaching in general, going back to the apostles. The discussion can be found on page 172.


What is the Catholic stance on creation science? Does the Roman Catholic Church have an official position on creation science, like it has a position regarding evolution?

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).

The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).

The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.


What is the basis for saying "God bless you" when a person sneezes? It is common among many Christians to say "God bless you" (or simply "bless you," which implies the former) to a person when they sneeze. I have heard that this may have originated with an old belief that evil spirits were coming out of a person when they sneezed.

Is there any basis (scriptural or otherwise) within Christianity for saying "God bless you" when a person sneezes?

This is an ancient custom which predates Christianity. Pliny (Natural History 28.5) records a custom among the Romans of greeting someone who sneezes:

  Why is it that we salute a person when he sneezes, an observance which Tiberius Caesar, they say, the most unsociable of men, as we all know, used to exact, when riding in his chariot even? Some there are, too, who think it a point religiously to be observed to mention the name as well of the person whom they salute. [...] These usages have been established by persons who entertained a belief that the gods are ever present, in all our affairs and at all hours, and who have therefore found the means of appeasing them by our vices even.1

So he says that superstitions of this kind are attributable to the belief that certain apparently meaningless events are actually "signs" from some spiritual power. Homer also gives an account of a sneeze-omen in the Odyssey 17.528-550, where Penelope predicts that Odysseus will kill her suitors if he returns: at this point, Telemachus sneezes (Τηλέμαχος δὲ μέγ' ἔπταρεν), and Penelope interprets that as a sign that her prediction is true.

The fact that sneezing is involuntary might make it more likely for people to see a hidden hand at work. Augustine (On Doctrine 2.20) writes about "the most frivolous practices" of superstitious observances when "any part of the body should jump", or "to go back to bed if any one should sneeze when you are putting on your slippers". 2 In this case, the sneeze is interpreted as a divine warning that today is a bad day to do anything important.

Because a sneeze comes from the head, the seat of reason, it may be regarded as being of divine origin, according to the school of Aristotle; and moreover, it was seen as a sign of good health and vitality, unlike coughing, which was more commonly associated with disease (Problems chapter 33, "Concerning the nose"). The only Biblical sneeze is in 2 Kings 4, where Elisha restores a dead boy to life, demonstrating a perceived link with the breath of life:

  When Elisha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed. So he went in and closed the door on the two of them, and prayed to the Lord. Then he got up on the bed and lay upon the child, putting his mouth upon his mouth, his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands; and while he lay bent over him, the flesh of the child became warm. He got down, walked once to and fro in the room, then got up again and bent over him; the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes. 2 Kings 4:32-35 (NRSV)

Just from these examples, we can see that sneeze customs are a bit ambiguous when it comes to the sneeze being "good" or "bad". "God bless you!" could be an appropriate response either way. But Scripture also often speaks against the interpretation of omens - or at least encourages people to seek actual divine guidance - so we could say that a "get well soon" kind of "bless you" is acceptable, but the "ooh, that's unlucky" kind is not.

I have heard the evil nasal demon explanation many times but I have never seen a source which endorsed the theory. (It's not hard to find people sneering at the silly mediaevals, but this may be yet another case where they weren't so silly.)

1. Original: cur sternuentes salutamus? quod etiam Tiberium Caesarem, tristissimum, ut constat, hominum, in vehiculo exegisse tradunt, et aliqui nomine quoque consalutare religiosius putant? [...] haec instituere illi, qui omnibus negotiis horisque interesse credebant deos et ideo placatos etiam vitiis nostris reliquerunt. English translation above by John Bostock and H. T. Riley (Taylor and Francis, 1855).
2. Original phrases: inanissimarum observationum; si membrum aliquod salierit; redire ad lectum si quis dum se calceat sternutaverit.


Refuting British Israelism I am looking for materials and/or sources and answers to aid in my research of refuting the belief of British Israelism. Someone at my church is a believer in this and has provided me with materials by the late E. Raymond Capt, who was a proponent of this. After reading these materials, I am completely unconvinced of the claims of B.I. and its supporters. B.I. is the belief that the English, Scots and certain European peoples are descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel.

Any assistance would be appreciated. If this is the wrong forum to ask this question, I apologize.

A great deal of this move to identify a group of people as the lost tribes of Israel stems from a misunderstanding of prophesy from the OT.  They use scriptures such as Isa. 45:17,

  " But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end."  (KJV)

without understanding the definition of Israel under the new covenant of the gospel of Christ. Some analysis is required.

Under the old covenant, the Israelites were identified by their blood line to be children of Abraham, or proselytes to the faith.

Under the new covenant of the gospel of Christ, all those that are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, and are counted for the seed of Abraham.

Matt. 3:9,

  "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."  (KJV)

The blood line was not important any longer, and truly was not important even under the old covenant, as anyone whose faith brought them to a knowledge of the laws of God could become a proselyte, and counted in the congregation.

It was always the faithful of God who were the true Israelites.

Rom.4:16-148,

  "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,  17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.  18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.”  (KJV)

Today, the house of Israel which is saved with an everlasting salvation are all those of the saved under the old covenant, along with all who are in Christ under the new covenant.  If we have been baptized (immersed) into Christ, then we are counted for the seed of Abraham, and we are Israel (Gal. 3:26-29).

Those who seek a DNA strand of the blood line have become confused, and are seeking after the old covenant which has passed away.

I have more material that you can use to support your arguments at my blog at ShreddingTheVeil. My posts titled God's Definitions, Part I: The House of Israel, and Part II: The House of God show how these changed under the gospel of Christ.


What do Calvinists teach about the Election of mankind? Is it before or after the Creation? From this link:

  Calvin also reminds us that Paul states that the love God had for us
  before the creation of the world had always been founded in Christ

From this link:

  Calvinists believe that God picked those who he will save and bring
  with him to Heaven before the world was created

From this link:

  Election is an act of God before creation

From this link:

  Reprobation is the sovereign decision of God before creation

From the sentences of the quotes above lead me to think that Calvinist teach that the U (from Unconditional Election) is before the creation

but because in my other question, there is a comment like this :
Neither scripture nor Calvin make any statements about mankind before it is created. It would be illogical to do so.

That's why I ask the question.

Since virtually it's formation as a school of thought, Calvinism has disagreed about the logical order of God's divine decrees. Generally there have been two schools with the minority (5% according to wikipedia) espousing the pre-lapsarian (lit. pre-fall) view that God elects to save and condemn prior to even create or allow sin. The majority view is the post-lapsarian (lit. after-fall) perspective which holds that Gods election to save and condemn follows the creation and sin of humanity.

Note that given the determinism of the Calvinist view of the world, and the a-temporal nature of God, it is, strictly speaking, improper to think of time before creation but these have been the commonly espoused views about the logical order in which God's commands about how the world would be made, occurred. This means in a temporal sense God elected before creating, but disagreement exists about whether he logically decreed election before or after decreeing creation and the fall.

This is why the majority of reformed theologians and statements of faith can simultaneously claim that God elected to salvation and punishment (temporally) before creating even while almost none of them have been pre-lapsarian. Therefore, the majority have held that at the very least election is logically subsequent to human sin, even while God's plan was established before the act of salvation.


Did Baptist and Methodists ever believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel? I recently found references that suggest both Baptists and Methodists used to believe that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are one and the same.  This surprised me because both Baptists and Methodists are Trinitarian and understand Jesus to be the eternal Word of God who was never created.  The Bible says that angels are created beings, hence my confusion.  Here are some of the references I found:

From my Morning and Evening devotionals of Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) I found this quote (morning October 3) regarding angels, based on Hebrews 1:14, and speaking of the Lord Jesus Christ:

  “He it is whose camp is round about them that fear Him; He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon.  All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah’s presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows.”

From a Spurgeon sermon ‘The Angelic Life’ (22 November 1868) comes this partial quote:

  “Our Lord is called an angel. He is the angel of the covenant...  We read that Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, and the dragon was cast down. The fight is going on every day. Michael is the Lord Jesus, the only Archangel.”

John Gill, a Baptist pastor (circa 1750) wrote this about Michael the Archangel based on Jude 1:9:

  "Yet Michael the Archangel.... By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ;”

I know that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus, as the Word of God, was created by Jehovah as the mighty spirit creature who was known in heaven as Michael before he came to earth, and that he is still known in heaven as Michael since his resurrection.  However, this question is not about the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, although I welcome any modern, up to date insights they might have about the beliefs of Baptists and Methodists regarding Jesus and Michael.

This question is specifically about the beliefs of Baptists and Methodists NOW, as to whether they believe that Jesus and Michael are one and the same, and, if so, how can this be explained in light of the Trinity doctrine.  I’m not looking for more old quotes, but for up to date information about Baptist and Methodist beliefs on the person of Jesus and if he is also Michael the archangel.

The article 'Who do mainline Protestants believe an “archangel” (such as Michael) to be?' is not specific with regard to what Baptists and Methodists believe about Jesus being Michael the Archangel (or not).

Baptists in the main are part of the Reformed Protestant church, subscribing to the Westminster Confession of Faith, and you quote what C.H. Spurgeon said in 1866: “You remember how our Lord, who is the true Michael, the only great Archangel, said at the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel, ‘I beheld Satan as lightning falling from Heaven.’” (Our Lord’s Transcendent Greatness, Dec. 2, 1866) In 1868 he said: “We read that Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, and the dragon was cast down. . . Michael is the Lord Jesus, the only Archangel.” (The Angelic Life, Nov. 22, 1868) Spurgeon also said: “We rejoice in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Michael of the angels, the Redeemer of men. For by Him we see Satan cast out and all the powers of evil hurled from their places of power and eminence.” (The Blood of the Lamb, The Conquering Weapon, Sept. 9, 1888) Source: three of his published sermons.

Well, does that mean he believed the pre-incarnate Christ to be a created angel? Give  the Reformed Protestant position he took, the answer has to be “No” and here is the evidence for that. John Gill, a Baptist pastor (circa 1750) wrote this about Michael the Archangel based on Jude 1:9:

  "Yet Michael the Archangel.... By whom is meant, not a created angel,
  but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ;”

Going further back to Reformed Protestant beliefs in the 16th century, John Calvin's comment regarding "Michael" and Christ are revealing. They come only in reference to Daniel 12:1. It is significant that in this passage (and previously in chapter 10), Michael is not explicitly called an "angel," but rather the "mighty prince." If we consider Calvin's comments in context, it is clear that he is NOT saying the ANGEL Michael is Christ.

  John Calvin: "Michael may mean an angel; but I embrace the opinion of
  those who refer this to the person of Christ because it suits the
  subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of
  his elect people....The angel...calls Michael the mighty prince, as if
  he had said Michael should be the guardian and protector of the elect
  people." Source: Calvin, Commentary on Daniel 12:1, Lecture 65 John
  Calvin, COMMENTARIES ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL, 12:1, Lecture
  65, trans. T. Myers vol. 2 p. 369 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
  1979)

Most non-Trinitarians who quote this passage leave out the first 5 or 6 words, and thus make it appear that Calvin believes that the Angel Michael is Christ. However, the first clause, and the tell-tale "but", signal that this is not the case. Calvin believes that Michael, in the book of Daniel, is not necessarily the archangel (though he admits this possibility). If not, Michael prefigures Christ in His role as Head of the church. Calvin implies a strict dichotomy: If Michael is an angel, he's not Christ; if not an angel, Christ makes the most sense, given the context.

Elsewhere in his commentary on Daniel, Calvin says that the identification of Michael is open to question. In another work, he warns against too much speculation about angels in general, and specifically of trying to "ascertain gradations of honor" among them (Institutes, I, xiv, 8). He admits that some angels, including Michael, may seem to be placed in positions over their peers, but Calvin enjoins us to refrain from drawing any conclusions from this. His commentary on Jude 9 identifies "Michael the Archangel" as one of many angels ready to do service to God, not as the pre-Incarnate Son. His commentary on Hebrews makes it clear that Calvin views Scripture teaching that Christ is "above the angels" (Commentary on Hebrews 1:6). (1)

Extracts from post by Robert Hommel (October 2006) http://forananswer.blogspot.co.uk/2006/10/did-john-calvin-really-teach-that.html][1]

As for Methodists, here is John Wesley’s position [2]:

  “Daniel 10:13 Withstood me – God suffered the wicked counsels of
  Cambyses to take place awhile; but Daniel by his prayers, and the
  angel by his power, overcame him at last: and this very thing laid a
  foundation of the ruin of the Persian monarchies. Michael – Michael
  here is commonly supposed to mean Christ. I remained – To counter –
  work their designs against the people of God. Daniel 10:21 – Michael –
  Christ alone is the protector of his church, when all the princes of
  the earth desert or oppose it.”

  https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/daniel/daniel-10.html
  [2]

  Daniel 12:1 –“ For the children – The meaning seems to be, as after
  the death of Antiochus the Jews had some deliverance, so there will be
  yet a greater deliverance to the people of God, when Michael your
  prince, the Messiah shall appear for your salvation.”

  https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/wesleys-explanatory-notes/daniel/daniel-12.html
  [3]

This means that even though Baptists and Methodists have noted a connection between Michael, the Archangel, and Jesus Christ as deliverer of the nation of Israel, they are careful to acknowledge that he is The Mighty One of Isaiah 9:6 (whereas all angels are ‘mighty ones’- note the difference) so that his superiority over all created angels (Hebrews chapter 1) demands a difference of status that is unique. All Baptists and Methodists agree with the ancient creeds that state Jesus, the Word of God, is uncreated. Angels are created. Jesus, as the uncreated Word of God, created all the angels (John 1:1-3), and their comments about Michael (the Prince of his peculiar, i.e. particular, people Israel, accord with the key point that, in Daniel 10:1, Michael is the unique ‘protector of his church’ which, in the time of Daniel, meant the nation of Israel. That has, by Christ’s incarnation, expanded into the Christian congregation which includes both believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Any comments Baptists and Methodists have made about Jesus in relation to the Archangel must be viewed in context of them unambiguously declaring Christ to be the uncreated, eternal Word of God, who is God, not a created angel.


Was any early martyr of the Church sawn in two, as mentioned in Hebrews? In Hebrews 11:35–37 the author writes:

  ...Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, in order to obtain a better resurrection. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment.  They were stoned to death, they were sawn in two, they were killed by the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, persecuted, tormented—  of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

The narrative "sawn in two" sounds too cruel a punishment to be meted out to a human being. Does the Catholic tradition speak of any martyr who was given that punishment? Or, was St Paul using a figurative expression in order to suggest something else? What is the Catholic Church's view on the punishment of 'sawn in two' as used by the writer of Hebrews?

Was any martyr of the Church sawn in two, as mentioned in Hebrews?

The short answer is yes.

  The term "death by sawing" indicates the act of sawing a living person in half, either sagitally (usually midsagitally), or transversely. Thus, decapitation by sawing or dismemberment by sawing are tangential sub-themes, though some ambiguous cases might be included. Death by sawing was a method of execution reportedly used in different parts of the world. Some of the reviewed examples are legendary. - Death by sawing

Some believe that the Prophet Isaiah was sawn in half: The Martyrdom of Isaiah.

  Several early Christians are credited with being martyred by means of a saw. The earliest, and most famous, is the obscure apostle of Jesus, Simon the Zealot. He is said to have been martyred in Persia, and that the express mode by which he was executed was to be hanged up by the feet, as in the woodcut illustration. - Death by sawing

Illustration by Lucas Cranach the Elder of St. Simon sawn in two.

St. Tarbula

  Virgin and martyr, also listed as:, Tarba or Tarbo. The sister of St. Simeon, the Persiar" bishop and martyr, she was consecrated a virgin and met her own martyrdom soon after the death of he"' brother. Accused of practicing witchcraft and of causing sickness to befall the wife of the ardently anti-Christian Persian king Shapur, she was condemned and executed by being sawed in half.

Believe there are more examples.

What is the Catholic Church's view on the punishment of 'sawn in two' as used by the writer of Hebrews?

It is a cruel martyrdom.


Why were both criminals that were crucified with Jesus abusing him in Mark, and not in Luke? Two thing stick out to me in the gospel accounts of Jesus on the Cross:

Mark 15:27-32
They crucified two rebels with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!” In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
Luke 23:39-43 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Were those that were crucified with him 'rebels' or 'criminals'?

Why does Mark mention that there were two rebels, both of whom were presumably insulting him "Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him", whereas Luke has one criminal insulting him and the other recognizing his innocence and mission?

This potential discrepancy is addressed in Apologetics Press' question: Did Both Thieves Revile Christ?

Possible resolutions to the discrepancies between the accounts:

Possibility #1: Initially, both thieves reviled Christ, but then one of them repented.

  After hearing Jesus’ words on the cross, and seeing His forgiving
  attitude, the one thief may have been driven to acknowledge that Jesus
  was indeed the Messiah. How many times have we made a statement about
  someone or something, but then retracted the statement only a short
  while later after receiving more information?

Possibility #2: The discrepancy could be due to a figure of speech called a synecdoche

Merriam-Webster definition: a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (as society for high society)…or the name of the material for the thing made (as boards for stage)
Note that the doctrine of plenary inspiration does allow for figures of speech, even as it applies to inerrancy.

Also, from the article in the portion relating to the possibility that this is a synecdoche:

  It is feasible that Matthew and Mark were using the plural in place of
  the singular in their accounts of the thieves reviling Christ on the
  cross. Lest you think that such might be an isolated case, notice two
  other places in Scripture where the same form of synecdoche is used.

  Genesis 8:4 indicates that Noah’s ark rested “on the mountains of Ararat.” Question: Did the ark rest on one of the mountains of Ararat,
  or did it rest on all of them at the same time? Although the ark was a
  huge vessel, it obviously did not rest on the many mountains of
  Ararat; rather, it rested on one.
  In Genesis 21:7 Sarah asked, “Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? For I have borne him a son in his old
  age.” Anyone who knows much about the Bible will remember that Sarah
  had but one child. In certain contexts, however, one might use a
  synecdoche and speak of one child (as did Sarah) by using the word
  children.


How was Queen Keran, wife of Leo II of Armenia, able to become a nun? Queen Keran (or Kir-Ann, d.1285) bore her husband Leo II (d.1289) fifteen or sixteen children. By all accounts, she was a loyal and devoted wife. This article on http://enacademic.com/ states:

  Many words of praise were made about Queen Keran by her contemporaries. Her son Hethum claimed that "she had a wonderful soul and a beautiful body." The chronicler and scribe Avetis, described her as "a good friend to her husband in trouble and joy."

However, after the birth of her last child in 1283 or 1284, she became a nun at the Drazark monastery (Armenian Apostolic Church). I haven't been able to find any information on this relating to the medieval period.

Were married women able to become nuns in the Armenian Apostolic Church in medieval times?

While not specific to Queen Keran's situation, this section from Medievel English Nunneries 1 may provide some clues.

Motives for taking the veil: a refuge for widows and occasionally for wives.

  The occasional cases in which wives left their husbands to enter a
  convent were less likely to provoke discord. Such women as left
  husband and children to take the veil must have been moved by a very
  strong vocation for religion, or else by excessive weariness.

After fifteen or sixteen children (three pairs of twins!), who could fault Queen Keran for claiming excessive weariness?

  It was necessary for a wife to obtain her husband’s permission before
  she could take the veil, since her action entailed celibacy on his
  part also, during her lifetime. Sometimes a husband would endow his
  wife liberally on her entry into the house which she had selected.

1. Medieval English Nunneries c. 1275 to 1535 by Eileen Edna Power, Section 5b (Cambridge At The University Press, 1922)


What evidence is there to support the position that the Bible is truly the Word of God to mankind? Christianity generally accepts the Bible to be the Word of God, and the Bible itself makes this claim (i.e. 2 Peter 1:16-21).

  16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to
  you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were
  eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory
  from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic
  Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[i] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we
  ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with
  him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully
  confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp
  shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star
  rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy
  of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no
  prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God
  as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Yet, just because the Bible claims to be a revelation from God does not make it so, as other holy books of other religions claim to be the same.

What, then, are the primary lines of evidence that demonstrate that the Bible is, indeed, the Word of God to mankind (outside of its own claims)?

First, like @Harmen, I'd like to clarify what I mean when I say the Bible is God's word.  From there, I can get to a better answer to your question.
What does the statement "The Bible is God's Word" mean?
The traditional Evangelical view in the Scripture as God's word is that it was inspired by God.  The actual term used is "God-Breathed".  Further clarification on this statement is taken from truthnet.org.

The Bible was written under “Inspiration” from the Holy Spirit.  The
word inspire is dervived from the latin word “inspirare” meaning  “To
breathe upon or into something”.  God revealed Himself through
individuals to speak to a much larger audience.  In the same way some
one would pick up a pen.  The pen would becomes the tool in the hand
of the writer, the prophet is God’s pen in revelation.
The Bible is a collection of books.  As the prophets received
revelation the books were colleceted in manuscript1 form.  The
orginal manuscript, written by the prophet is known as the autograph.
The autograph is inspired by God from the first generation.  The
autograph is then copied to additional manuscripts.  As the
manuscripts wear out over time from use and enviroment the manuscript
is again copied onto a new scroll. This process of copying the old
manuscript  to a new manuscript is known as manuscript transmission.
Over a period of time the manuscripts from accepted prophets were
collected.  This collection of manuscripts is known to us as the
Bible.

What evidence exists to support the statement that the Bible is God's Word?
In the book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Josh Mc Dowell notes that if God created man with a desire to know Him, we would expect His message to have some unique properties:

It would be widely distributed so man could attain it easily
It would be preserved through time without corruption
It would be completely accurate historically.
It would not be prone to scientific error or false beliefs held by the people of that time.
It would present true, unified answers to the difficult questions of life.

The Bible stands alone as the only religious text that can claim it meets all the above criteria.
Test 1:
The first qualification listed above is any message from the Creator would have to distribute His message to a wide audience. The Bible is next to none in this test. It is the most published book in history, with the widest distribution of any published work. It has been translated into more languages than any other book. It is the most sold book in history. It was the first book published with moveable type. It is still the #1 best seller of any book. Now, none of these feats prove that the Bible was inspired. They are, however, consistent with what we would expect of God's message if He were trying to let us know about Himself and His plan for us. In other words, one cannot disqualify the Bible on this point. Many other ancient writings fall short, but it behaves as we would expect.
Test 2:
The Bible has orders of magnitude more manuscript evidence, supporting the fact that it has been preserved though history, than any other book in antiquity. More can be found here.
Test 3:
Extra-Biblical accounts of history and supporting archaeological discovers confirm a great deal of what's in the Bible.  More can be found here.
Test 4:
Of course, there's little agreement on one of the big issues - Young-Earth Creation vs. Old-Earth Creation vs. Evolution, so I won't even both trying to use that.  The evidence that exists can be used to support any view if you twist it enough.  However, aside from that, the Bible does outline medical wisdom that is far ahead of it's time.
Again, from here:

When Genesis was written, The Greeks were beginning to tell of
Apollos' flight across the sky in a flaming chariot. The Egyptians
were worshipping the sun as Ra, deifying it. The Mesopotamians
referred to the sun as "Shamosh" and called it the god of justice.
Genesis, however, calls the sun "a light in the expanse of the
heavens" and views it as a thing, one created by God. That the Bible
does not follow the naiveté of those ancient religions is often
overlooked, since modern man is much more knowledgeable in the
mechanics of nature. We take for granted that someone touching an
infectious person or a corpse should practice good hygiene and wash
thoroughly in running water before proceeding to anything else, but
this "discovery" has only been a medical reality for 150 years. The
book of Leviticus, though, requires this same procedure.
One cannot
find ideas as arcane as blood-letting or consuming ram's horn for
fertility, or all the other mythical cures for ills that were thought
to be science in those days. The Bible is not a science book. It does
not focus on scientific facts about the creation, but where it
mentions those things, it is accurate in its representation. This is
exactly what we'd expect if the Bible had its origin in the One who
created the universe and its scientific laws.

There's also a neat little chart showing Biblical teachings compared to the "science" of the time here.
Test 5, from the same source as above:

Thus far we have examined several evidences of the accuracy and the
reliability of the Bible by comparing it to outside sources and what
we know is true. Now, I'd like to turn our attention to the text of
the Bible itself to show how it validates itself as the word of God.
Again, I remind you that we have a collection of different documents
that were written over one and a half millennium, that are devoted to
discussing the most controversial and emotionally charged topics man
has known. The incredible thing is that they all agree. Taken
together, the Bible presents a single, unified message of actions and
attitudes by which man can live. This is an unprecedented feat.
To have sixty six books written by about forty authors, from kings and
nobles to fishermen and soldiers, in three languages and on three
continents, be of the same mind is just not humanly possible. Why, the
editorial writers in our newspapers can't even agree when they come
from the same culture and similar educational backgrounds.
To demonstrate the remarkability of this accomplishment, we can
propose an experiment. Imagine a classroom of thirty students at the
high-school level. The teacher has decided on the class writing a
novel for a class project. Each student will be assigned one chapter
and they will then gather the papers together to assemble the finished
work. The topic chosen is "Why God is important in man's life," but
there is no outline and there are no rules as to what that statement
means. Because the students are all the same age and live in the same
area at the same point in time, they have a tremendous advantage over
the Biblical writers, but to expect a congruent work is ridiculous.
The fact that the Bible is a unified message shows that its origin
comes from beyond man.
Because the Bible claims it is the word of God, it requires of itself
a stricter assessment. The Old Testament is filled with the
authoritative phrase "Thus sayeth the LORD" . The fact that men
recognized it from the time it was first penned as authoritative gives
it a measure of strength. The laws that were required of the Jews were
very arduous. Because they chose to accept them as commandments from
God before any significant length of time had elapsed to mythicalize
them shows that the people believed with their lives that these
documents were from God. Jesus Himself validates the Old Testament by
regarding it as the word of God and authoritative in all things

Also, not mentioned in the tests from Josh McDowell, there's the test of prophecy.
The Bible contains many prophecies, some made hundreds of years before they were fulfilled.  Many of these are very specific, not vague statements like the ones you see from Nostradamus, for example.
A few, with probability calculations are presented here.

Finally, none of this constitutes absolute proof, and atheists and non-Judeo-Christians have been arguing against all of this evidence for years.  The idea that there would be people that scoff at the Biblical account of creation and the flood, for example, is even predicted in 2 Peter 3.

2 Peter 3:3-7 (KJV)
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying,
Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep,
all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the
heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in
the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with
water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the
same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of
judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

This, of course, is perfectly in harmony with Jesus' teaching in the book of John 3 (Also KJV).

16 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. 18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not
is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the
only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light
is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,
because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth
the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be
reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his
deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

In short, no amount of evidence is going to be enough to prove the Bible's truth, that it's God's Word, or even the existence of God to those that simply don't want to believe.  The evidence is there, it's up to each of us to determine whether we're convinced by it, and how we want to respond to it.


Is the Roman Catholic church condemning Protestants? In the early church the apostles often use the term 'let them be anathema'.

  But even if we, or an angel from heaven, were to preach any other
  gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
  anathema.
  Galatians 1:8

  If any man does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.
  Our Lord has come.
  1 Corinthians 16:22

It is also obvious that the Roman Catholic Church continued to use this expression in regards to believing in the Eucharist and issued similar statements as the apostles used.

  If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are
  contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together
  with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently
  the whole Christ,[42] but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or
  figure or force, let him be anathema.
  Council of Trent - Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon I

My question is: Who does the Catholic Church address here to be condemned for not believing in the real presence of Christ in Eucharist? Is it meant for Catholics who reject the idea of Christ present in the Holy Eucharist or is it meant for Protestants and other churches that don't believe it?

If it's all the people, does it mean there is no salvation outside the Catholic church once they recognized their truth?

The language of the Council of Trent you quoted is clear and answers your question: "If anyone denies…" etc. Thus, that proposition clearly applies to anyone, Catholic or Protestant, Jew, pagan, etc.

One must profess the Catholic Faith to be a member of the Catholic Church. "Anathema sit" ("let him be anathema") simply professes the heretic's non-membership in the Catholic Church.


What is the purpose if the feast of visitation and on what day of the year is it celebrated? Recently read a little mention of feasts the Catholic Church commemorate regarding events in Mary's life. Does the feast of visitation refer to the conception of Jesus?

The Visitation commemorates the event described in Luke 1:35-56, in which Mary goes in haste to her relative Elizabeth:

  39 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, 40 and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord” (English Standard Version; the Magnificat immediately follows).

In the Catholic Church, it is celebrated on May 31. It is liturgically a feast, hence one notch below (so to speak) a solemnity. Since it is not feast of our Lord, it is not celebrated if it falls on a Sunday.


What's the difference between 'Divine Providence' and 'Holy Spirit' in this statement? In the 22nd annual meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, they released a statement that said:

  Jews and Christians share the heritage of the biblical testimony of God's relationship with the human family throughout history. Our Scriptures bear witness to both individuals and the people as a whole being called, taught, guided and protected by Divine Providence. In light of this sacred history, Catholic and Jewish participants in the meeting responded to emerging opportunities and difficulties facing religious belief and practice in today's world.

Why, in the official statement above, signed by Catholic Church and Jews, is 'Divine Providence' used, and not 'Holy Spirit'?

Perhaps there is an ontological difference between 'Divine Providence' and 'Holy Spirit'? If so, can anyone explain what the difference is?

One Theory: It's possible that the Jews (which Jews? There's not just one body of "orthodox" Jews.) do not wish to endorse the Christian idea of the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not exactly described as a divine person in the OT. "Spirit" and "Spirit of God" are used, but not really in the same sense as "Holy Spirit" is used in the NT.

Perhaps alluding to the Holy Spirit is not a concession that the Jews wish to make, and for the sake of expressing positive things in common, "Divine Providence" was something both groups could agree on.


What happens to people outside Earth on the second coming? When Jesus returns, or the rapture,etc, and we having the events surrounding it, the bible says the whole earth will see it, day or night. Does the bible mention what happens to humans not on Earth, from space stations to the Moon and Mars (as current plans want to see humans on the Moon and on Mars before 2050.

Reference: Luke 31:35 (ESV) "For it will come upon all who dwell on the face of the whole earth."

Don't worry you aren't going too miss it even if you are on Mars! "The whole earth" here refers to all of creation. The one who created those places is hardly going to forget to check for inhabitants. He knows the hairs on our head by number and every star by name.


Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise What does this mean? “Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise”

From the SDA perspective this is a problematic text, as we believe (according to the Bible) that when people die they don't immediately go to hell or heaven. This text seems to contradict many Scriptures in the Bible:

Ecclesiastes 9:5, The dead don't know anything
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, The righteous dead are sleeping, awaiting resurrection at the return of Christ.
John 5:28-29, Some shall be raised in the resurrection of life and some shall be raised in the resurrection of damnation.
John 11:1-16, Jesus calls Lazarus death a "sleep", and his resurrection "waking him up".

There are many more, but this suffices to show why this verse is at odds with the text you are referring to:

  And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in
  Paradise.”

  Luke 23:43

1. The verse numbers and punctuation are not inspired

In the original Greek, the verse numbers and punctuation were not present, so these were added later by translators to make sense of the text. This means that the verse could be:

a. And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

b. And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise.”

This single comma changes the meaning of the verse dramatically. But which is correct? There are two reasons why I believe the second is correct, but first we must understand where Jesus was referring to as 'Paradise'.

2. Paradise is heaven, where the Father is

Paradise of God is where the Tree of Life is.

  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the
  churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of
  life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

  Revelation 2:7

In 1 Corinthians 12:1-4 Paul also refers to this Paradise.

The Tree of Life is where the very throne of the Father and the
Lamb(Christ) are:

  And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal,
  proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of
  the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree
  of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit
  every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the
  nations.

  Revelation 22:1-2

3. Were they in Paradise that day?

In order for the normal reading of Luke 23:43 to be true 2 things MUST be true:
1. The thief was in Paradise that very day (Friday).
2. Jesus was in Paradise that very day (Friday).

IF EITHER OF THESE WAS NOT TRUE, THEN THIS STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE

It is likely that the thief did not die on Friday as the Sabbath was drawing near and the thieves were still not dead, prompting the Jews to ask for their legs to be broken to finish them off.

  Therefore, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should
  not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high
  day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that
  they might be taken away. Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of
  the first and of the other who was crucified with Him. But when they
  came to Jesus and saw that He was already dead, they did not break His
  legs.

  John 19:31-33

I concede that it is possible the thief could have died on Friday though but what about Jesus?

4. Jesus did not go to Paradise of Friday

Jesus died on Friday, was in the grave on Sabbath, and resurrected on Sunday. On Sunday morning, Jesus said the following to Mary:

  Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended
  to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending
  to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ”

  John 20:17

Jesus said He had not ascended to the Father, which means He was NOT in Paradise on Friday, since He had not gone on Sunday yet. Because of this I believe the correct reading of Luke 23:43 is

  And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be
  with Me in Paradise.”