If you are a cardinal, does that mean that you are an immediate successor to a dead or resigned pope? Being a cardinal means that you are one of the "Princes of the Catholic Church". If a pope resigned or died while in reign, the College of Cardinals is in-charged of the Catholic Church during the Sede Vacante period. If you are a cardinal during that time, are you an acting pope or the College of Cardinals is leaidng the Church as one and not divided group?

During the Sede Vacante period the College of Cardinals have no real powers and thus can not be the immediate successor(s) of a pope, but simply maintain that the everyday affairs are kept going. At the moment of a pontiffs death all cardinals who are head of a dicastery loose their positions until the election of a new pope, at which time the new pontiff may or may not return them to their former positions.

The cardinals simply maintain that things move along as they should.

  THE POWERS OF THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS DURING THE VACANCY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE

  During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the College of Cardinals has no power or jurisdiction in matters which pertain to the Supreme Pontiff during his lifetime or in the exercise of his office; such matters are to be reserved completely and exclusively to the future Pope. I therefore declare null and void any act of power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff during his lifetime or in the exercise of his office which the College of Cardinals might see fit to exercise, beyond the limits expressly permitted in this Constitution.
  During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the government of the Church is entrusted to the College of Cardinals solely for the dispatch of ordinary business and of matters which cannot be postponed (cf. No. 6), and for the preparation of everything necessary for the election of the new Pope. This task must be carried out in the ways and within the limits set down by this Constitution: consequently, those matters are to be absolutely excluded which, whether by law or by practice, come under the power of the Roman Pontiff alone or concern the norms for the election of the new Pope laid down in the present Constitution.
  I further establish that the College of Cardinals may make no dispositions whatsoever concerning the rights of the Apostolic See and of the Roman Church, much less allow any of these rights to lapse, either directly or indirectly, even though it be to resolve disputes or to prosecute actions perpetrated against these same rights after the death or valid resignation of the Pope.12 All the Cardinals are obliged to defend these rights.
  During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, laws issued by the Roman Pontiffs can in no way be corrected or modified, nor can anything be added or subtracted, nor a dispensation be given even from a part of them, especially with regard to the procedures governing the election of the Supreme Pontiff. Indeed, should anything be done or even attempted against this prescription, by my supreme authority I declare it null and void.
  Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect, I decree that all power of issuing a judgment in this regard belongs to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points. I also establish that should it be necessary to discuss these or other similar questions, except the act of election, it suffices that the majority of the Cardinals present should concur in the same opinion.
  In the same way, should there be a problem which, in the view of the majority of the assembled Cardinals, cannot be postponed until another time, the College of Cardinals may act according to the majority opinion. - UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS


Do Jehovah's Witnesses object to praying with other Christians? After receiving divergent comments on my question Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not pray with people of other faith?, I feel I need to ask the follow-up question that really should have been the first one:

Do Jehovah's Witnesses object to joining in prayer with other Christians?

Reading “Prayer—To Whom?” in The Watchtower, October 2010, gives me the impression that prayer is generally condemned if not directed explicitly to Jehovah. Does this, in extension, mean that prayer without a proper understanding of who God is is considered not praying to Jehovah?

And in “Prayer—Does It Matter Where and When?”, The Watchtwer, October 2010, it says

  When servants of God assemble and pray together, their petitions can
  be effective. If the group is united in spirit and the prayer offered
  in their behalf reflects Scriptural principles, God is pleased.

Is “Scriptural principles” here supposed to mean a proper understanding of God’s nature?

Is there a general guideline how to behave in the following situations:

What should a Witness do when meeting Mormon missionaries who ask to have a prayer together?
Would prayer be an option (or recommended) when meeting a Mormon in his home to teach him?
Would prayer be an option (or recommended) when meeting a Catholic (or other Trinitarian Christian) in his home?
When meeting with a Jew, can/will they pray together?
When meeting with a Muslim, can/will they pray together?

Summary

In essence, is there an official objection to praying with people who have a different understanding of who God is?

Your questions 1 to 5 are all about praying with people of other faiths. Jehovah’s Witnesses would not distinguish between Mormons, Catholics, Jews, or Muslims here: all are equally “other faiths”. As such, these all collapse to one question*: Do Jehovah’s Witnesses pray with non-Witnesses? The answer is No, they don’t.

Praying with members of other religions is practising a form of interfaith, which the Witnesses strongly condemn:

“How Do Jehovah’s Witnesses View Interfaith?”, The Watchtower, June 1st, 2010.
“Interfaith—Is It God’s Way?”, The Watchtower, March 1st, 2014.

A clearer deliniation of what does and what does not count as interfaith activity from a Witness perspective is in the article “Would it be a form of interfaith to purchase a building from another religious group and convert it into a Kingdom Hall?” in The Watchtower, October 15th, 2002. While the article is specifically about the situation described in the title, the content does actually clarify their definition of interfaith activity better than anything else I can find from them. (There is no article on Interfaith in the Insight book, for example.)

Certainly, prayer with another religious group would count as interfaith activity, and would therefore be condemned. See also, Why do Jehovah's Witnesses not pray with people of other faith?

* There is one possible exception:

  Would prayer be an option (or recommended) when meeting a Mormon in his home to teach him?

It’s the last few words which give this one a slightly different flavour. Witnesses spread their message to strangers, both on the streets and by working from door-to-door (and in sundry other ways from time to time, but those are the main two). This is initial contact. However, once someone has expressed interest, Witnesses will probably call back. If someone wants to learn, they will establish a “Bible study”. This is a semi-formal arrangement, in which the Witness will regularly (weekly, perhaps, or whatever suits everyone’s schedules) call back to the person and work through some material explaining Witness doctrine.

In the eyes of the Witnesses, at least, this is a one-on-one educational programme. (Well, usually. Sometimes a couple or even a whole family will study together. Often, the Witness will bring another Witness along, but that might be a different person each time, while there’ll be one regular conductor of the study.)

The “interested person” may or may not see themselves in the role of a student. They might see themselves as an opponent in a debate, or merely someone interested in discussing alternative worldviews. Whatever.

Once such a study has progressed a certain amount, the Witness is likely to open it by praying aloud. So once a regular educational arrangement is set up, yes, a Witness would pray in this situation. At this point, though, they’re seeing the person as a prospective convert, not a firm Mormon, so they wouldn’t see it as praying with a Mormon. Furthermore, it’s unlikely they’d be comfortable with the other person leading such prayers, though doubtless they’d encourage them to pray privately (and with their minor children).

That was a long footnote, but I have one further elaboration. There’s a difference, a big difference, between praying with someone and praying for someone. If someone asks a Witness to pray for them, they probably will, maybe even aloud and right there and then. I have heard of Witnesses doing their general door-to-door work, and having the door opened by a distressed person who saw someone religious and asked immediately for a prayer. In that situation, the Witness will probably pray. And if the other person joins in (who knows how a stranger will react? and people praying aloud together, talking over each other, is the norm in some religions, so the person might do that), then that means that, technically, the Witness is praying with someone of another faith.

I don’t know exactly what the theological reasoning is which says that this is acceptable. I do know that I’ve seen anecdotes including such spontaneous prayer on demand described approvingly in Witness publications. If someone asks a Witness to pray, in a private situation, they’ll pray.

Summary

Organised interfaith event: No.
Bible study with someone who’s not a Witness but may be heading that way: Yes, with caveats (the Witness would offer the prayer, generally speaking).
When asked by someone who seems distressed: Sort of (this is praying for, not praying with, but if the other person joined in and converted it into praying with, then the Witness is unlikely to complain (especially if the person is distressed)).


What does 1 Corinthian 2:15 mean? Is this verse saying that spiritual people are above the judgment of those who are not spiritual?

  Those who are spiritual can evaluate all things, but they themselves cannot be evaluated by others. (1 Corinthians 2:15, NLT)

You appear to be misreading the Scripture, in order to understand a verse of Scripture we must also read and understand the other verses before and after the one we want to understand, and sometimes we even have to read and understand the Chapters before and after the one containing our verse. Sometimes we even have to understand what the entire book is about, this is true of this verse.

The Church at Corinth was begun by Paul on his first tour. It was a wealthy city and a large trading center. The Church itself had been going through some confusion due to the fact that there had been several different theologies taught by a diverse group of people.

Paul's letter was sent to help them to discern the true course of following Christ. In 1st Corinthians 2:1-16. Paul’s subject is, Christ crucified, not in worldly, but in heavenly, wisdom among the perfect.

So let's take a look at some verses and see if we can determine just what Paul is saying.

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation, unless otherwise noted.

  1st Corinthians 2:9 through 16 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
  But the natural man Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Lets break this down and analyze what Paul is telling them.

save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Here Paul is saying that mere man in his material state can never know the things that are Spiritual.

God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

What Paul is saying here is that the Holy Spirit converses with our spirit, and even makes us aware of the deep things of God.

what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

He goes on to say that man doesn't even know himself, but his Spirit knows, and no man knows the ways of God, only the Holy Spirit knows.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Now Paul is no longer speaking in general terms he is speaking of himself.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Here Paul is saying in effect listen to me and not those who are not teaching the same things I teach, because what I'm telling you is what the Holy Spirit has taught me.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

So now we get to the verse you asked about, and Paul is no longer talking about himself or any other man. He is talking about God! actually it is the third part of the Trinity which is the Holy Ghost.

For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Finally what Paul is saying is has any man understood the mind of God so that he is able to judge The Holy Spirit. And he ends by saying that he has come to see things as Christ does.


Does "Lithium" have any meaning in Christianity? I was surfing around and found the following from this link:

Erin from Tulsa, Ok: It is said that Kurt got inspired to this song,
during the time he lived at his friend Jesse Reed's family. Jesse's
parents was born-again Christians, and apparently they are reflected
in Lithium as the person who 'found God'.

My question is that Does the word "Lithium" mean something in Christianity?
I did a research and found out that the word "Lithium" is coming from the Greek word lithos meaning stone, but I can't find any connection between lithium and Christianity and "a person who found God".

Does “Lithium” have any meaning in Christianity?
Lithium has no direct meaning in Christianity.
Lithium is the lightest of all metals and is named from the Greek work for stone (lithos). It is the first member of the Alkali Metal family. It is less dense than water (with which it reacts) and forms a black oxide in contact with air.
The Greek Lithos is thus defined as a stone. It could metaphorically refer to Christ.
The Nirvana song Lithium is about a man who turns to religion amid thoughts of suicide. Nirvana first recorded "Lithium" in 1990 but then re-recorded the song the following year for Nevermind.

"Lithium" is a song by American rock band Nirvana. It appears as the fifth track and third single from their second album Nevermind (1991). Written by frontman Kurt Cobain, the song is about a man who turns to religion amid thoughts of suicide. Nirvana first recorded "Lithium" in 1990 but then re-recorded the song the following year for Nevermind.
Released as the third single from Nevermind in July 1992, "Lithium" peaked at number 64 on the US Billboard Hot 100 and number 11 on the UK Singles Chart. It was also a number 1 hit in Finland and a top 5 hit in Ireland and Portugal. The accompanying music video, directed by Kevin Kerslake, is a montage of concert footage.

Interesting that Nirvana chose this name do a song. Nirvana is often associated with Buddhist spirituality and not Christianity. And lithium salts, are primarily used as a psychiatric medication, making as sort of interior nirvana so to speak.

Lithium compounds, also known as lithium salts, are primarily used as a psychiatric medication. They are primarily used to treat bipolar disorder and treat major depressive disorder that does not improve following the use of antidepressants. In these disorders, it reduces the risk of suicide. Lithium is taken orally. - Lithium


Did Adam and Eve ever practice animal sacrifice? Genesis 8:20 (NIV) Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking
  some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt
  offerings on it.

Noah sacrificed burnt offerings. What about Adam and Eve? Did they ever perform animal sacrifice?

Premise

We cannot conclusively say that Adam and Eve performed the any sacrifices, but the evidence is very heavy that they did and it was ordained by God and likely that He instructed them in it or even did the first one Himself.

It is definitely clear that sacrifice was instituted very early.

Abel and Cain apparently performed sacrifices, Abel bringing animal material and Cain bringing plant material. The ensuing rivalry between the two led to the infamous 'first murder'. It has been argued that Cain knew animal material and animal life was the requirement and his obvious 'cannot be wrong' attitude and jealousy was what led him to murder his own brother.

But did Adam and Eve sacrifice?

One should think that Cain and Abel were told by someone that it was necessary. It is possible that God Himself told them to do so, considering they were also on the same plain speaking terms, demonstrated when God questions and subsequently curses Cain. However, Genesis 3:21 is curious stating just after God declared punishments for the fall:

  The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

God Himself made the garments for Adam and Eve. Depending on your views of whether there was death before the fall this may or may not be significant. Since you do not specify a tradition I will stick to literal Bible interpretation, in which this view, that there was no death mentioned until this verse, therefore, no death before the fall, is well supported.

So many have hypothesized that God Himself actually performed the very first sacrifice for Adam's and Eve's sins. This site argues that for example. Always leading by example, Adam and Eve then mimicked God's righteous actions and began performing sacrifice. Whether you take this view or not it is indisputable that God approved of the animal's killing so that would leave only Adam or Eve to actually perform the sacrifice. It really does not matter, though, who did it first because just one generation later Cain and Able are sacrificing as if it is a regular thing, showing that it was already instituted and the most likely time was Genesis 3:21. Also, if God did this first sacrifice, He did not do any others, again leaving the task to Adam and Eve.

Now it is not until the reveling of the Law that frequency and reasons for sacrifice were known to us at least. This is more than 1000 years later. It is clear that there were thanksgiving reasons, as Noah did in your example, and it is implied that Cain and Able were performing a possibly annual or other time frame sacrifice as required by God. There are also a few examples of reasons for sacrifice in the story of Abraham. The most notable being told to do so by an angel of God when Abraham was told to sacrifice his own son Isaac. So there may have been very well understood reasons by the ancient persons for sacrifice that may have even been started with Adam and Eve shortly after the fall, but the only indication of those 'rules' becoming written is Leviticus with Moses. It is entirely possible that those sections in Leviticus were only parroting what had been done since the beginning.

Conclusion

So we cannot conclusively say that Adam and Eve started the sacrifice rituals, but the evidence is very heavy that they did and it was ordained by God and likely that He instructed them in it or even did the first one Himself.


Is "the observer on earth" view common among Creationists? According to these sources, source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4, the Genesis account was narrated from the viewpoint of an observer on the earth's surface.

  from source 1:
  As in any scientific experiment, you make observations of what is
  occurring.  It is extremely important to consider your “frame of
  reference” when interpreting any observation.  In other words, where
  are you observing these events from.  For the entire creation event,
  the key to this is in verse 2.  To an observer, standing on the
  surface of the earth, God was hovering over the earth.  The rest of
  the creation events must be interpreted as if the observer were
  standing on the surface of the earth.  Only with this “frame of
  reference” will you reach the right conclusions.

  from source 2: It is narrated from the viewpoint of an observer on the earth's surface. This is the most important key to understanding
  Genesis 1. Most people view the creation account from the opposite
  direction: of someone in outer space looking down on the earth.
  Misunderstanding the proper frame of reference causes most of the
  confusion over this portion of Scripture.

As per this view, the sun was not created on the fourth day but rather was created prior to it (Day 1 or before) and became clearly visible from that day on wards. This can solve the problem of the sun, moon and stars seem to have been created after the earth, which is not in harmony with science facts.

In this question and here and here also, it looks like most of the people agree that the sun was created only on the fourth day.

  Genesis 1:16-19 (NIV) God made two great lights—the greater light to
  govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made
  the stars. God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the
  earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from
  darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and
  there was morning—the fourth day.

Looking closely at this passage, there is no mention of sun and moon explicitly but many readers conclude it as implicitly mentioned. source 1 says, "Here the atmosphere is finally clear enough for the observer on the surface of earth to observe the sun and the moon".

Question: Is it a common view among Creationists(OEC & YEC), to assume that Genesis account was narrated as if the observer were standing on the surface of the earth? Or, this view is not common at all?

No, it is not common.  The "observer on earth" perspective is common and key to OEC, while it is tangential to the YEC interpretation.

In the Old Earth Creationist view of Hugh Ross, the Spirit's vantage point is key to a literal interpretation of the passage.  The cosmos was created in verse one, which would include sun, moon, stars, earth.  Now you have the Spirit hovering over the waters of an formless, empty, dark, earth which is experiencing accretion of dust . First the Spirit will say, "cause there to appear" light, then later as more dust settles will the sun appear as a distinct object in the sky.

YEC, in contrast has no need to pay special attention to the vantage point of the author.


How is a Christian supposed to fear God when "there is no fear in love" (1 John 4:18)? In both the Old and New Testaments, we are commanded to "fear the Lord".

Fear the Lord your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name.  Deuteronomy 10:20 ESV
Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.  1 Peter 2:17 ESV

However, in the first epistle of John, we are told that there is no fear in love, and that love drives out fear.

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.  1 John 4:18 ESV

So, in what sense are we to fear God, and in what sense are we not to fear God?

I heard it once said that the word fear in the bible has more senses and meanings than almost any other word.  Sometimes we think a word can only mean one thing, but even common words that we use every day, mean slightly different things depending on the context.

Takes this verse for example:

  Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28, NIV)

Afraid is the Greek word φοβηθητε which is based on the primary verb 'to flee' which developed in the idea 'being startled' and 'running away'.  You may have heard the phrase 'fight' or 'flight'.  When we get nervous, human response either puts our fists up, or we become afraid and we flee.  Therefore, the word can also be fright, panic, terror, depending on degree. As we extend the idea to God it is really as a small human encounters a strong force.

Now to the question. When a sinner under the Law, encounters a force infinitely opposed to him in holy wrath and vindictive justice, it is natural to be very afraid. It is in this context that in Christ we are no longer to fear, for we are no longer condemned.  However, even when such fear 'that has torment' is removed there is still a fear of humanity encountering a great force, now working for our good. A more joyful fear.

Imagine a neutral force. If we were to stand at Niagara Falls we would stand in reverent awe at the power.  If we walked along the grand canyon we would be in awe, and would not walk to close to the edge, as we would have a reverent majestic awe of the power of the situation.  In the same sense to approach and all powerful God who has moved the universe on the cross, to reach us with an undying love and rescue us from eternal torments, if we were not to stand in great fear, under such a wonderful power, we must not have a clue about who God is. If we were to abandon a great salvation like that it would be like stumbling into a canyon as a fool.

Fear as a result of faith makes us run to God, and under the gospel with the boldness and confidence of a child running to the strong arms of his father, with great respect, reverence, joy and love.


Why did the KJV translate Jeremiah 29:11 as "to give you an expected end"? I ran across the KJV translation of Jeremiah 29:11 on Facebook today and was struck by a seeming contradiction in the way the last part was translated. Here is the verse alongside other modern translations for comparison:

Jeremiah 29:11
KJV: For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.
NIV: For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
NLT: For I know the plans I have for you,” says the Lord. “They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope.
ESV: For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.
NKJV: For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope.

What I found odd was that the KJV translates the last few words as "an expected end" which, to me, implies an actual end, not a non-end as the other translations imply. Especially notable is how the KJV and NKJV have near-identical phrasings except for that last bit. Thus, my question is: why is it translated that way in the King James Version?

This may not be the best answer, but, as @warrend pointed out, I don't think that there's any definitive reasoning.

However, looking at the original Hebrew for the passage, we see:

(from the Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible)

The original Hebrew here for that phrase "expected end" is achrith uthque.  The original wording appears to have two words associated with the one concept.

I found some margin notes in the Geneva Bible (1611) that shows that the translators had some trouble interpreting this.  They decided on "expected end", however they realized that the Hebrew would be better translated as "ende and expadation" (in King James English).

Unfortunately, we don't know why they chose "expected end" over "end and expectations".

[pure speculation] I suspect that in English at that time "to give an end" and "to give a future" were probably similar in meaning.

In light of modern translations, it seems pretty clear that "a future and hope" is a much better translation then "an end and expectation" (or even "expected end").

Ultimately, we won't be able to know the minds of the translators and, without serious historical searching, we probably won't understand their usage of these words.  However, there's some idea of where it might have come from.


Did Jesus and the repentant thief reunite in heaven on the very day they died?(Catholic view) The reading of Luke 23:43 differs depending on how we punctuate it:

  And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Or

  And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in paradise.

It seems that in fact the repentant thief was granted salvation by Jesus Christ but does not seem possible that before sundown on Nisan 14 both Jesus and the thief were together in heaven since after Jesus resurection he told Mary Magdalene "I have not yet ascended...."

Does the Catholic Church teach that Jesus and the repentant thief were resurrected to heaven on the same day they died?

The Catholic Church certainly teaches that the good thief—often traditionally called St. Dismas—did in fact merit and receive salvation:

  The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul—a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1021; emphasis added)

As for when this occurred:

  Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven—through a purification or immediately,—or immediate and everlasting damnation.

(Catechism paragraph 1022; emphasis added)

Of course, after death, it's arguable that time doesn't have much meaning; so asking whether after death someone was "in heaven" on the 14th of the month or not until later, or asking how long someone spends in Purgatory, probably doesn't make sense. That being the case, Catholic commentators seem to have argued that it is best to believe that indeed the thief was in Heaven as soon as Jesus died. Richard Challoner, who revised and edited the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, stated in a footnote to the passage:

  Christ was pleased, by a special privilege, to reward the faith and confession of the penitent thief, with a full discharge of all his sins, both as to the guilt and punishment; and to introduce him immediately after death into the happy society of the saints, whose limbo, that is, the place of their confinement, was now made a paradise by our Lord's going thither.


Are there any tenets of Gnosticism that are still present in the church today? Towards the end of the New Testament writing, the heresy of gnosticism was one of the chief "false teachings" against which Paul and the other writers were contesting.  Could someone present some of the chief teachings of the Gnostics that were "false teachings," and for extra credit, identify any of these beliefs that may be present in certain denominations today.

Gnosticism was a movement that sprung up as an attempt to fill a major knowledge vacuum in the Scriptural record.  The Gospels record that even the Apostles, Jesus's highest and most trusted disciples, were spiritually weak and deemed by the Lord as unready for the true doctrines of the Kingdom.

For example, witness Peter, who boasted of his fearlessness and readiness to follow the Lord to any tribulation, only hours before being reduced to fearful lying to disassociate himself from Christ when the actual tribulation came.  The "fearless" apostle, the one who Jesus had named the Rock, was reduced to cowering before a serving girl, one of the lowest social positions in Jewish society!

But all that changed once they began their ministry.  Acts describes Peter as a preacher of true fearlessness, ready to face prison and beatings and all manner of tribulations for the Lord's sake.  And as for what happened to change him and the Apostles, we are left with a void.  The Scriptural record glosses over the events that occurred after the resurrection.

We are told that the resurrected Christ talked with two disciples on the way to Emmaus,

  And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in
  all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

but only the first few sentences of this wondrous sermon are preserved for our knowledge.  Likewise, Luke records that "also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:3) but the record is silent on the contents of this teaching.  Any understanding of Gnosticism has to take this into account, for it is the root of Gnosticism.  Dr. Hugh Nibley wrote:

  All the 40-day teaching is described as very secret, delivered to a
  closed cult group. There is no desire to intrigue and mystify,
  however, as with the Gnostics, but rather the clearly stated policy
  that knowledge should be given always but only to those who ask for
  it, with the corollary that the higher and holier a teaching the
  more carefully it should be guarded. As "the last and highest
  revelation," the teaching of the 40 days was top secret, and has not
  come down to us. Since Irenaeus, churchmen have strenuously denied
  that there ever was a secret teaching or that anything really
  important has ever been lost. To profess otherwise would be
  perilously close to an admission of bankruptcy; yet Christian scholars
  do concede that the Apostles had information that we do not have,
  allow the existence of an unwritten Apostolic tradition in the
  church, and grant that there was a policy of secrecy in the early
  church—though insisting that it began with the catechetical schools.
  The catechists, however, appeal to a much earlier tradition of
  secrecy, and when the Fathers attempt to reproduce the unwritten
  tradition which they claim for the church they have nothing to offer
  but the commonplaces of the schools. Plainly things have been lost.

  After the alarming gap in the record following the fall of Jerusalem,
  the curtain rises on a second-century church seething with conflict
  and split into factions hotly debating the reality of the
  Resurrection. The Gnostic exploited both the ignorance and the
  knowledge of the time—the knowledge that the answers to the great
  questions of existence were known and treasured by "the Elders" of
  another day, and the ignorance of just what that knowledge was. The
  oldest definition of the Gnosis specifies that it was the knowledge
  imparted secretly by the Lord to the Apostles after the Resurrection.
  The Gnostics claimed to have that very knowledge, and their
  tremendous initial success shows how hungry the Christian world was
  for it—the "main church," in fact, had to invent a counter-Gnosis of
  its own to meet the threat and ended up with a compromise that has
  left a Gnostic stamp on Christian thinking ever since. The Gnostics
  did not invent the 40-day situation, as has been claimed, for they
  were the last people in the world to imagine a return of the Savior in
  the flesh, and any tinkering would have been readily exposed in a
  quarreling and hyper-critical society; but they did exploit it because
  it was there and they had to: at a time when everything else was being
  questioned, it is one of the few things that is never challenged.

With this knowledge unavailable to the church in general, but its existence unquestioned, false teachers sprung up to fill the void, bringing a new doctrine inspired heavily by Greek philosophy.  The idea was that physical matter was somehow corrupt and evil, and that God's plan involved freeing Mankind from the bonds of the flesh.

If you're looking for Gnostic influence in modern Christianity, you need look no further than this basic concept.  A lot of the more "out there" Gnostic teachings have been stamped out, but shades of the core ideas can be found even today in the common understanding of God as a being of pure spirit, without any physical form. The Christ of the Bible, and of the early Christian church, was a resurrected being who went out of his way to prove and demonstrate that he had a fully real body of flesh and bones!


How do you "Convert" somebody to Christianity? A highly debated topic I know. There are hundreds of answers for this, but I would personally like to know what the Bible says about this.

If somebody was interested in being saved, what is my responsibility as a disciple of Christ to do?

I don't wish to sound flippant but you don't convert anyone. God does. Having said that, our responsibility is:

To explain the hope we have, and be ready to do this, with gentleness and respect. 1 Peter 3v15

Then we can explain the theology, if people want to know. It comes down to this:

God is perfect (Deuteronomy 32:4, Matthew 5:48). That's His standard and His requirement to be with Him forever.
No human however is perfect (Romans 3:23).
Jesus is God become man (John 1:14). Therefore, He is a (and the only) perfect human.
Jesus offers to swap His righteousness for our sins (2 Corinthians 5:21). This is possible because He sacrificed Himself for us on the cross (Philippians 2:8).
Therefore we can immediately, on turning to Jesus, been declared perfect (forgiven) in the eyes of God (Acts 10:43).

As one of my friends once said, summarising the whole Gospel in seven words, "We don't reach Him, He reaches us."


Did Churches plant a tree at their entrance in 13th century Christian Spain? Nahmanides (in his commentary to Deut. 16:22) writes that the Christians in his time had a custom of planting a tree at the entrance of their Churches.

Is there any corroboration validating the claim of such a custom at all, especially in Nahmanides' time and place (13th century Christian Spain)?

Her is the original Hebrew:

  פסוק כב (כל הפסוק)

  "ולא תקים לך מצבה" - מצבת אבן אחת להקריב עליה אפילו לשמים אשר שנא מזבח אדמה ומזבח אבנים צוה לעשות ואת זו שנא כי חוק היתה לכנענים ואע"פ שהיתה אהובה לו בימי האבות עכשיו שנאה מאחר שעשאוה אלו חוק לע"ז לשון רש"י ואם כן אסר הכתוב האשרה ואסר כל נוטע בהר הבית אע"פ שכוונתו לשמים ואסר המצבה לשמים ושניהם מפני חוקת הכנעניים אבל לא הבינותי החק הזה שהרי הכנעניים גם במזבחות גם במצבות היו נוהגים שהכתוב אומר ונתצתם את מזבחותם ושברתם את מצבותם (לעיל יב ג) כי את מזבחותם תתצון ואת מצבותם תשברון (שמות לד יג) וכן בכל מקום ואולי נאמר שהחזיקו הכנענים במצבות ולא היה להם בית ע"ז שאין שם מצבה להקטיר עליה ולצוק שמן על ראשה וכענין שנאמר בבעל (מלכים ב י כו) ויוציאו את מצבות בית הבעל אבל המזבחות היו במקצתן להקריב גם בהם והנראה בעיני כי היו הכנענים השטופים בע"ז עושים בכל בתי אלהיהם מזבח להקריב עליו הקרבנות ואבן גדולה מוצבת על פתח הבית לעמוד עליה הכומרים ואילן נטוע חוצה לה לאשר דרך הבאים שם וגם היום הנוצרים עושים כן והנה השם הנכבד שנא ומאס כל מעשיהם ואסר המצבה והאשרה ולא השאיר רק המזבח שהוא צורך הקרבנות אשר הוא יתברך צוה בהם והיו נחת רוח לפניו שאמר ונעשה רצונו מאז קודם היות ע"ז בעולם וטעם אשר שנא ביאור כי השם צוה (שמות כ כד כה) מזבח אדמה תעשה לי ואם מזבח אבנים תעשה לי וביאר משה כי באלה יחפוץ להוציא המצבה כי שנאה כי כל מעשיהם שנואין לפניו וצוה את ישראל שלא יעשו כמעשיהם אבל בימי יעקב לא נאמר עדיין ובחקותיהם לא תלכו (ויקרא יח ג) ולכך היה משתמש במצבה לשם שמים כמנהג העובדים והנה זו מצוה מבוארת מן ואם מזבח אבנים תעשה לי אבל מה שאמר בתורה (שם כו א) ופסל ומצבה לא תקימו לכם הם פסל ומצבה להושיב הפסל על המצבה לע"ז כי שם בענין ע"ז דיבר הכתוב אבל יאמר (שם) ואבן משכית לא תתנו בארצכם להשתחוות עליה אפילו לשמים מפני שהוא נראה כעובד לשכיות ההם כטעם האשרה שהיא מחוקות העמים ודע כי מזבח הוא בנין אבנים גבוה ולו קרנות ארבע ולו יסוד סובב יעלו על יסודו ומקריבים בין קרנותיו והמצבה אבן אחת גדולה ירימוה להקטיר או להקריב עליה או להיות הכומרים עומדים עליה והבמה כענין הר ועושים אותה מעפר מקובץ ועליה מזבח בנוי להקריב בו כי כל דבר רם וגבוה יקראו כן אעלה על במתי עב (ישעיהו יד יד) על במותי ארץ (דברים לב יג) גם גב האדם יקרא במה על במותימו תדרך (שם לג כט) וכן אמר הכתוב (מלכים א ג ד) וילך המלך גבעונה לזבוח שם כי היא הבמה הגדולה אלף עולות יעלה שלמה על המזבח ההוא

Did Churches plant a tree at their entrance in 13th century Christian Spain?

The short answer would seems that it was quite possible, but it was never a universal practice or tradition in Spain or any other European country for that matter. It is not unheard of as a way of beautifying the grounds around a church, monastery or cathedral. It was definitely not a local custom, but it probably existed here and there, as the the desire of the local clergy and religious authorities wished.

This type of landscape design exists in here and there in modern days. Westminster Abbey (Mission, BC) in an example of such an existing custom. The Abbey Church was was consecrated in 1982 by Cardinal Basil Hume.

Westminster Abbey (British Columbia)

Moving a little closer to Spain, we can see St Edward's Church, Stow-on-the-Wold, England has trees in front of the church in such a way that even JR Tolkien would be in awe.

At least this church takes us to the 13th century.

  This medieval sanctuary's tree-framed door looks like a portal to a mythical realm.

  Bound by two ancient yew trees, this door looks more like a portal to a fairy realm than a church entrance. The arched wooden opening, capped by colorful stained glass windows, beckons visitors to unleash their imaginations and fantasize about the magical worlds that may be hiding on the other side.

  Given the entry’s enchanting appearance, there’s little wonder why local lore says it inspired J.R.R. Tolkien’s Doors of Durin. Like this door, those elven entrances were flanked by two magnificent trees.

  People speculate the writer came across the door during one of his many visits to the Cotswolds. But as exciting as the legendary connection is, there’s no proof that the link between the English church and Tolkien’s creations is true, making the theory just as fantastical as the author’s stories.

  Even without a concrete Tolkien connection, St Edward’s Church is well worth visiting. The structure was built in the Middle Ages and is now a medley of fixtures from various centuries. Explore the building and you’ll find fragments dating from the 1000s through the 1600s, as well as pieces installed during Victorian-era restorations. Its tree-framed north door was constructed during the 13th century.

St Edward's Church, Stow-on-the-Wold

Now if other countries in the 13th century had trees in front of their churches, logic dictates that in the same time frame, there must have been some Catholic Churches in Spain with trees planted in front of their facades.

  The yew (tree) is traditionally and regularly found in churchyards in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Northern France (particularly Normandy). Some examples can be found in La Haye-de-Routot or La Lande-Patry. - Taxus baccata (Wikipedia)

To finish the question off, let us that a little walk down memory lane and look at the Cathedral of Seville with its orange tree courtyard!

  Not just a pretty face, Seville’s orange trees are more than just a form of natural decor for the city centre.

  From the intoxicating smell of the azahar, or orange blossoms, in springtime, to the practical use of the fruit in marmalade fit for a queen (literally!), the orange trees of Seville form a unique part of the city’s history.

  This naranja amarga, or bitter orange, was later introduced to Europe by Genovese sailors, who brought it over from Asia. Rumored to bring happiness to whoever possessed it, the Moorish dynasty that reigned at the time decided to plant these bitter orange trees all over Spain, with a high concentration of them in Andalusia.

  By the 12th century, everyone was a firm believer of the happiness-inducing qualities of the bitter orange. They began to plant them along the streets, and by the end of the century, even went so far as to construct the Patio de los Naranjos at the Cathedral of Seville.

The serene orange tree courtyard offers a perfect spot to relax outside the cathedral.


In Jeremiah 12:7, who is the "Beloved of my Heart"? I have forsaken My house, I have abandoned My inheritance; I have given the beloved of My soul Into the hand of her enemies. - Jeremiah 12:7

This Scripture portion is one of Jeremiah's confessions to the Lord. He mentions a Beloved. On reading through a reference Bible, it was suggested that it might mean Benjamin, as mentioned in Moses' prayer about the tribes of Israel.

Who or what exactly is the Beloved of my Soul Prophet Jeremiah mentions?

Contra your assertion that "This Scripture portion is one of Jeremiah's confessions to the Lord", most conservative commentators interpret a switch in voice starting from verse 5 (The NIV even inserts a section heading to that effect) - the prophet is recording the words of the Lord:

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers -

  ...The speaker is clearly Jehovah...

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges -

  ...Jehovah’s heritage has turned as a savage beast against Him. Therefore He has given her over to be the prey of neighbouring nations...

The Pulpit commentary -

  ...Jehovah, not the prophet, is evidently the speaker...

In harmony with this perspective, the Beloved is generally identified as God's chosen people, the children of Israel, but which (particularly in immediate context), could be more specifically focused as the remnant of them extant at the time, ie Judah:

Matthew Henry -

  ...God's people had been the dearly-beloved of his soul, precious in his sight, but they acted so, that he gave them up to their enemies...

Matthew Poole -

  ...God by his house here understandeth the temple, which God is said here to have forsaken with respect to his gracious manifestations in it to the people that came thither to worship him. By his heritage he means the whole body of the Israelites..."I have given the dearly beloved of my soul into the hands of her enemies"; that is, he had given that nation which was once his dearly beloved into the hands or power of their enemies...

The Pulpit commentary -

  ..."I have forsaken mine house." The "house" is here not the temple, but the people of Israel, as the parallel clause shows...


How are eschatological beliefs distinguished in the Evangelical churches? "Pre-tribulation," "post-tribulation," "millennial," and "dispensationalist" are all terms that I've heard used to describe certain eschatological beliefs held by groups of mainstream Evangelicals (among other denominations). The problem is, I don't know what most of these terms mean, or how those who name, develop, or study them categorize these different beliefs about the end-times.

What is an overview of common ways in which eschatological beliefs are distinguished within the Evangelical churches?

You've placed a tall order, to be sure!
Having grown up in Evangelicalism, I am more than a little familiar with the various eschatological schemes embraced and taught by more-conservative Evangelicals. When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s, Dispensational theology was taken for granted among the Plymouth Brethren, a movement of anti-Church-of-England Christians in the British Isles in the early 19th century. (The Plymouth Brethren, by the way, is the "non-denominational" denomination with which I identify.)
A Bit of History
One of the early leaders of my denomination was John Nelson Darby. He is credited with making Dispensationalism the go-to eschatology of the Plymouth Brethren. I guess you could say that dispensational theology birthed a renewed interest in eschatology in the last 200 years and made such terms as rapture, millennium, the Great Tribulation, pre-trib, post-trib (even mid-trib!) and the Day of the Lord important buzzwords in any discussion of eschatology in many conservative Evangelical churches around the world.
Darby, by the way, was a summa cum laude graduate (actually a "Classical Medalist") of Trinity College in Dublin at the age of 18. According to Larry V. Crutchfield,

Brilliant, gifted, and with all the right connections, Darby had been groomed for and was practically assured a successful career in law. But a deep spiritual struggle gripped the budding young barrister in his eighteenth year and caused him to abandon that profession after only one year of practice between 1822 and 1823. Darby's spiritual odyssey lasted until 1825 when he received ordination as deacon in the Church of England. The following year, he was elevated to the priesthood and assigned a curacy in remote County Wicklow, Ireland.

Darby was a brilliant linguist, and his eponymous version of the Bible (viz., The Darby Translation) is universally respected to this day (the complete Bible being published in 1890, eight years after his death). Darby also was a respected leader and pastor who planted churches in Germany and France. He influenced the theology of many American churchmen, whose names are perhaps more familiar to Evangelicals than Darby! Men such as James Hall Brookes, Adoniram Judson Gordon (namesake of Gordon College and Gordon Conwell Seminary) Arno C. Gaebelein, William E. Blackstone, Cyrus I. Scofield (to whom Blackstone introduced dispensational theology shortly after Scofield was converted). Scofield, of course, is remembered fondly by millions of Christians as the editor of the Scofield Reference Bible. I suggest that virtually every study Bible published ever since Scofield's first came on the scene in 1909 (published by Oxford University Press--citation) owes a debt of gratitude to C. I. Scofield!
Although Darby is credited with being "the father of Dispensationalism," the concept of biblical dispensations (or ages, or eras, or differing economies in the outworking of God's plans and purposes for Planet Earth), goes back to the writings and teachings of some of the early Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Turtullian (citation). Moreover, according to Charles C. Ryrie, author of Dispensationalism Today and emeritus professor of theology at a bastion of dispensational thought, Dallas Theological Seminary, in the approximately 150 years before Darby came on the scene,

an increasing number of theologians were articulating dispensational schemes of Biblical history (pp.71-74; cited here by Dr. Thomas Ice).

The key terms pre-tribulation, post-tribulation, rapture, millennium, pre-mil, post-mil, not to mention the names for the seven dispensations into which salvation history is divided within the dispensational scheme (e.g., Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, and Law) and the interpretation (often labeled pejoratively--and unfairly--"literal" interpretation) of the Bible's doctrine of eschatology (i.e., the study of future things, such as the return of Christ, both "in the air" and "to the earth") are part and parcel of the dispensational mode of "rightly dividing [or accurately handling] the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Let's pause here to address a heart-felt concern of mine and--I hope--many other believers worldwide. Some Christians today ridicule the dispensational approach to Scripture. They find the notion of a "secret rapture" risible, and they slough it off as if it came from a fairy tale. I find this sort of behavior troubling and inappropriate. Just because some of our brothers and sisters in Christ happen not to espouse all the tenets of covenant theology and of the Reformed Christian faith does not automatically make them dummkopfs.  I've read articles online, written by Christians,  which could fairly be labeled invective. These diatribes include strident railing against such defenders of the faith as C. I. Scofield! Clearly, these things ought not to be! Since when are ad hominem arguments and cheap shots appropriate when discussing other Christians' heartfelt beliefs or comparing their beliefs to yours?
While there are undoubtedly and inappropriately vociferous critics on both sides of the aisle, eschatologically speaking, my concern is that some Christians seem to have become unwilling and/orunable to agree to disagree agreeably with their fellow Christians? If so, then I believe we fail to show love and to demonstrate grace to our fellow believers whose interpretations of Scripture (particularly regarding eschatology) just happen to be different from ours.
It's not as though the two camps are at odds vis a vis the "Big Five":  the deity of Christ, his miraculous conception and virgin birth, his resurrection and promised return, and the sufficiency of Christ's atonement as the basis for salvation by God's grace alone through faith alone.
If, then, we are agreed on the major, essential doctrines of Scripture, I suggest that eschatology, which in my opinion is not even in the "Big Ten," allows for a good bit of wiggle room and can tolerate at least a soupçon of compromise. The only aspect of eschatology on which I am not willing to compromise is the promised return of Jesus Christ (John 14:1-4). I have a feeling most Christians feel similarly.
In short, I believe that sincere Christians of every stripe and tradition are all interested in "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). No Christians worthy of the name set out deliberately to botch their task of being unashamed workers in the way they construct their heuristic devices, schemas, and paradigms in order to interpret the Scriptures. This is not to say that every interpretation is just as good as any other interpretation. Nevertheless, for some Christians to engage in character assassination simply because some other Christians do not agree with them on doctrinal issues which are not even in the top five, or ten, or twenty. Enough said.
A Quick Overview of Evangelical Eschatology
What follows is a quick and dirty overview of some of the high points of eschatology from the perspective of a somewhat typical, middle-of-the-road dispensationalist.

The default method of interpretation in Dispensationalism is a literal reading of the biblical text. This is not a wooden literalism which ignores figures of speech, poetic language, symbols, types, and anti-types, but a literalism which assumes, for example, that three-and-a-half years is literally three-and-a-half years in duration. The prophetic book of Daniel includes such segments of time within its unique eschatology.

Dispensationalists believe there is a difference between God’s plan for the church universal and his plan for Israel. This may sound glib, but I imagine that Christians of the Reformed faith think the church universal started in Abraham’s tent, whereas dispensationalists believe the church started on the day of Pentecost. Notice I did not just say “the church universal started on the day of Pentecost.” I draw your attention to the omission of the word universal because dispensationalists believe that God’s saints who lived and died prior to Jesus Christ’s atoning death at Calvary are just that: saints of God. They are as much children of God as are those folks who receive and believe in Jesus Christ on this side of Calvary.

As for the two different plans—one for Israel and one for the Church, the basis for this belief, in part, is Israel’s having rejected Jesus as their Messiah. (And no, the Jews didn't kill Jesus, any more than the Romans did. Jesus laid down his life on his own accord and with the approval of his Father in accordance with the Scripture.) John tells us in Chapter One of his Gospel, that Jesus "came unto that which was his own, but his own did not receive him” (v.11). The central question in the minds of many non-dispensationalists at this point might be, "Just how serious was Jesus in his proclamation of the Kingdom of God (or Heaven) to 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel'?" Another question might be, "Had his people largely embraced Jesus' offer of a kingdom here on earth, would he have set up his kingdom on earth then and there in first century Palestine?" Interestingly, even after Jesus' resurrection his disciples expected him to restore the kingdom to Israel (see Acts 1:6). How did Jesus answer their inquiry? He said, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority, but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you . . .." Even at that point, the disciples were thinking of the power associated with an earthly kingdom. Jesus assured them of a different kind of power, however, a power which resulted in his disciples turning the world upside down through a kingdom of the Spirit in the hearts of people worldwide!

The term rapture, which captures in a single word the phrase "caught up together" as found in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, signals to dispensationalists the end of the "church era." The rapture features the Lord Jesus descending from heaven, the dead in Christ rising from their graves, and the living saints being caught up together with the resurrected saints "in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so [, Paul concluded,] we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words"

Following the rapture, the world will for a time be without the leavening influence of the church universal (leavening in the sense of a diverse and enlivening influence of the saints in the world, whom Jesus called both "salt" and "light"). Without the sanctifying presence of the people of God and the Spirit of God, the world will begin to experience a time of great tribulation, lasting perhaps seven years. This time of unprecedented distress among the peoples of the world, to which Daniel referred in Daniel Chapter 12, and to which Jesus referred in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, surpasses by far the tribulation which Jesus and others in the New Testament promised to those believers who lived godly lives in an ungodly world (see, for example, Jesus' words in John 16:33, and Paul's words in 2 Timothy 3:12). Persecution, in general, is a given during the church age, and it has been a part of the history of the church from the very beginning. The Great Tribulation, however, is worldwide and catastrophic on an unheard of scale. In John's Revelation of Jesus Christ, we read of God's bowls of judgments being poured out on the unbelieving world, and they beggar description in their scope and severity.

The "Day of the Lord" is another way of describing the time when God pours out his judgments on humanity during the Great Tribulation. That oft-repeated phrase in the prophetic books of the Old Testament, as in Zechariah 12-14, indicates whose day it is and to whom the Day belongs: the Lord God. In dispensational thought, the Day of the Lord extends from the beginning of the Great Tribulation to the Battle of Armageddon (Revelation 20:7-10) and beyond. The Day of the Lord ends with the great white throne judgment of Revelation 20:11-15, which is the Last Great Judgment, or assize, after which God ushers in "a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth [have] passed away . . . " (Revelation 21:1).

The Millennium is a literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth, which precedes Satan's last gasp at the Plain of Megiddo in Israel as he battles the forces of God in the battle to end all battles (Revelation 16:14 and 16). During the Millennium, however, with Christ on his throne in Jerusalem, the the world will experience a time of unprecedented peace, in large part because during Christ's thousand-year reign, Satan will have been bound and cast in the abyss, or "bottomless pit." After ten centuries of unrivaled peace, Satan will have been loosed from the pit and evidently will lead an insurrection against the King of kings, the Lord Jesus. Satan and all those who join with him in his revolt will be defeated once and for all. Like the people who remain on earth after the plagues described in the earlier chapters of Revelation, who refused to "repent of the works of their hands" (9:20 ff.) despite the horrors they have witnessed and survived, those who align themselves with Satan during his last gasp will also refuse to repent and will suffer the consequences; namely, being thrown, along with death and Hades, into the lake of fire, where they will be in torment forever (Revelation 20:7-10, 14, and 15).

Time will not permit me to get into the finer points of dispensational eschatology, such as the differences between a "pre-trib" rapture and a "post-trib" rapture; the reasons why dispensationalists believe in a literal, thousand-year reign of Christ on earth whereas "amillennialists" do not; how to characterize the various resurrections spoken of in Revelation alone; the difference between Christ's coming in the clouds, on the one hand, and coming to earth a second time, on the other hand; and finally, how Christians can wade through the often symbolic language of the descriptions of the end times, differentiating between what is symbolic and what is literal, and yet do so in a hermeneutically and exegetically responsible, consistent way.

Concluding Thought
In conclusion, about the only thing all Christians can agree upon is that Jesus Christ has promised to return to take his children to his Father's house, which he promised to prepare (John 14:1 ff.). All that is involved in that return, the stages in which it will unfold, and the details of each stage are subject to interpretation. Every interpretation, however, will inevitably be informed by presuppositions, schemas, and paradigms which once embraced by their adherents, can and often do become points of contention among Christians.
I think I am safe in saying that even wildly divergent theories of how the end times will play out  should not make a scintilla of difference in how Christians are to live their lives in the present church-age, or "time of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24). A unifying theme is, and should be, that Christ is coming again, and in light of his imminent return we all should be striving to keep the main thing the main thing; namely, living holy lives before God, living as salt and light before a watching world, and being fruitful in the work of the Lord by seeking to advance his kingdom and the expansion, both numerically and qualitatively, of the church universal, which despite our doctrinal differences the Holy Spirit unites into one body, the body of Christ.


Can you be a Christian and serve in the Military? Can you serve in a military service and not violate the will of God?

This is a question on which Christians are divided. The vast majority adhere to the belief that fighting in a war is entirely justifiable for a Christian. They draw on several biblical sources for this, including Paul's writings in Romans that the State is a legitimate authority charged with preserving order, that Christians should submit to; and also the fact that Jesus interacted with several soldiers and yet never commanded them to leave their profession. Most Christians would place limits on what kind of war is allowable, and what conduct is allowable within war, gathered together under the Just War theory.

A significant minority of Christians believe that fighting and killing are entirely incompatible with Christianity. Their basis is that commands such as "love your neighbour as yourself" and "turn the other cheek" cannot be compatible with attempting to kill your neighbour. While acknowleging that the State has the right and power to defend itself, they would say that Christians should play no part in such a war. Denominations that espouse this belief includes the Quakers and the Mennonites. Many of these have refused the draft and gone to jail for their beliefs; others have volunteered for non-combatant (but often still dangerous) war tasks such as stretcher bearers.


What is the support or arguments to indicate the age of the Virgin Mary? On many occasions I have seen that the Virgin Mary is described as a 13 or 15 year old girl when she had Jesus Christ.
The main argument I have heard is based on the fact that in the culture of Israel girls were married as soon as they were 13 or 14 years old. I feel that with this argument are confusing the Hebrew culture of biblical times with the customs of India, China and Africa. In the whole Bible we do not find that such a custom existed in Israel, on the contrary, we see episodes in which one realizes that the marriageable women were 20 years or more.
In fact, if a man was not considered an adult until 20, a woman would not be considered an adult before that age either. In the Old Testament we see that men who had already reached the age of 20 were called to contribute to the offering (Ex 30:14; 38:26), to go to war (Nm 1:3, 20) or responsible and fit for punishment for their sins (Nm 32:11)
So what argument, apart from the one indicated (If I am wrong in this argument, you could also indicate why), is applied to designate the age of the Virgin Mary as an adolescent?

What is the support or arguments to indicate the age of the Virgin Mary at Jesus’ birth?
It is slim pickings to find any support or arguments to indicate the age of Mary at the birth of Jesus. But slim, does not mean there are none.

According to the apocryphal Gospel of James, Mary was the daughter of Saint Joachim and Saint Anne. Before Mary's conception, Anne had been barren and was far advanced in years. Mary was given to service as a consecrated virgin in the Temple in Jerusalem when she was three years old, much like Hannah took Samuel to the Tabernacle as recorded in the Old Testament.

Pertinent quote (emphasis added):

And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, test perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: Thou standest by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto thee, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran.

And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them; and when they had assembled, they went away to the high priest, taking with them their rods. And he, taking the rods of all of them, entered into the temple, and prayed; and having ended his prayer, he took the rods and came out, and gave them to them: but there was no sign in them, and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph's head. And the priest said to Joseph, Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl.

Some apocryphal accounts state that at the time of her betrothal to Joseph, Mary was 12–14 years old. According to ancient Jewish custom, Mary could have been betrothed at about 12. Hyppolitus of Thebes says that Mary lived for 11 years after the death of her son Jesus, dying in 41 AD.
The earliest extant biographical writing on Mary is Life of the Virgin attributed to the 7th-century saint, Maximus the Confessor, which portrays her as a key element of the early Christian Church after the death of Jesus.
In the 19th century, a house near Ephesus in Turkey was found, based on the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich, an Augustinian nun in Germany. It has since been visited as the House of the Virgin Mary by Roman Catholic pilgrims who consider it the place where Mary lived until her assumption. The Gospel of John states that Mary went to live with the Disciple whom Jesus loved,[Jn 19:27] identified as John the Evangelist.[Jn 21:20-24] Irenaeus and Eusebius of Caesarea wrote in their histories that John later went to Ephesus, which may provide the basis for the early belief that Mary also lived in Ephesus with John. - Mary, mother of Jesus

The Catholic Encyclopedia has the following to say on this subject:

It is probably at Nazareth that Joseph betrothed and married her who was to become the Mother of God. When the marriage took place, whether before or after the Incarnation, is no easy matter to settle, and on this point the masters of exegesis have at all times been at variance. Most modern commentators, following the footsteps of St. Thomas, understand that, at the epoch of the Annunciation, the Blessed Virgin was only affianced to Joseph; as St. Thomas notices, this interpretation suits better all the evangelical data.
It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place. These dreams, as St. Jerome styles them, from which many a Christian artist has drawn his inspiration (see, for instance, Raphael's "Espousals of the Virgin"), are void of authority; they nevertheless acquired in the course of ages some popularity; in them some ecclesiastical writers sought the answer to the well-known difficulty arising from the mention in the Gospel of "the Lord's brothers"; from them also popular credulity has, contrary to all probability, as well as to the tradition witnessed by old works of art, retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God. -
St. Joseph
Her betrothal to Joseph
The apocryphal writings to which we referred in the last paragraph state that Mary remained in the Temple after her presentation in order to be educated with other Jewish children. There she enjoyed ecstatic visions and daily visits of the holy angels.
When she was fourteen, the high priest wished to send her home for marriage. Mary reminded him of her vow of virginity, and in his embarrassment the high priest consulted the Lord. Then he called all the young men of the family of David, and promised Mary in marriage to him whose rod should sprout and become the resting place of the Holy Ghost in form of a dove. It was Joseph who was privileged in this extraordinary way.
Although we may never know for sure how old Mary was at that time, there are a few hints of possibility here and there.
We have already seen that St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Germanus of Constantinople, and pseudo-Gregory Nazianzen seem to adopt these legends. Besides, the emperor Justinian allowed a basilica to be built on the platform of the former Temple in memory of Our Lady's stay in the sanctuary; the church was called the New St. Mary's so as to distinguish it from the Church of the Nativity. It seems to be the modern mosque el-Aksa. - The Blessed Virgin Mary

Most scholars accept that marriage of first century maidens in Palestine was possible after the age of twelve (12).

Jewish betrothal is not like the Gentile concept of engagement, which is only a promise of marriage. The betrothal stage was also called kiddushin, "sanctification," and meant that from that point the woman belonged to the man. The word kiddushin comes from the same root word as kadosh ("holy"). Just as kodesh (holy things) are forbidden to all but those for whom they are designated, so too does this woman become forbidden to all men but to whom she has now been designated. Betrothal made the woman a legal wife and her status could only be changed by divorce or death. Betrothal was usually accomplished by the groom giving a coin or ring to the prospective bride and her acceptance of the token accomplished kiddushin.
Scripture provides no information on the typical age for formal betrothal. The classification of "virgin" does not denote age. A girl did become accountable to the Torah (Heb. bat mitzvah, "daughter of the commandment") and thus treated as an adult when she became twelve years and a day old (B.K. 87b; Ket. 39a; Kidd. 63b; Nidd. 5:6; Yom. 8:3). Adulthood for a girl was not only determined by age but also by her having passed through puberty, that is possessing breasts and pubic hair (Kidd. 81b; Ezek 16:7-8; cf. SS 8:8). Once a girl had passed through puberty she would be eligible for marriage (Nidd. 45a). Since marriages were often arranged by parents a girl could be selected for her future husband before bat mitzvah. Talmudic literature does speak of the typical age of marriage for males as 18 (Avot 5:21), but marriage might also take place anywhere from 16-24 years of age (Kidd. 29b-30a). - Marriage in Ancient Israel

Further information may be gleaned from the following articles:

Bible: 12 year old Mary married 90 Year old Joseph
Apocryphal Writings on the Life of Mary
Gospel of James (Wikipedia): The second chapter starts when she is twelve years old, and through the direction of an angel, Joseph is selected to become her husband.


According to Reformed Theology, how is Compatibilism different than Hard Determinism? This question is related to What is the difference between hard determinism and compatibilism, under the assumption of physicalism?, but I'm looking for the Reformed/Calvinism understanding of this topic.

From what I understand, both Compatibilism and Hard Determinism deny freewill. Although Compatibilism is an attempt to reconcile freewill with determinism, it completely denies the idea that the will is free. Rather, as Arthur Schopenhauer said, "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills."

According to ReformationTheology.com:

  Compatibilism is a form of determinism and it should be noted that this position is no less deterministic than hard determinism. It simply means that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. Our choices are not coerced ...i.e. we do not choose against what we want or desire, yet we never make choices contrary to God's sovereign decree. What God determines will always come to pass (Eph 1:11)...

According to Reformed Theology, how is Compatibilism different than Hard Determinism?

Definitions:

Libertarianism= everything free will.
Hard determinism= no free will at all.
Compatibilism combines these and says they are compatible
with each other.

Your question assumes that Reformed Theology has a view of compatibilism. My reason for agreeing that it does is that A.W. Pink, W. Grudem, D.A. Carson, J. MacArthur and J.I. Packer for example would all agree with D.A. Carson's explanation of compatibilism:    I'm sure of this but I only mention their names so that others can check out the details for themselves. If I included quotes from all of these then this answer would be over long, I guess.

Carson:

God is absolutely sovereign, but his sovereignty never functions in such a way that human responsibility [ and freedom] is curtailed, minimized,or maligned.
Human beings are morally responsible creatures- they significantly choose, rebel, obey, believe, defy, make decisions, and so forth, and they are rightly  held accountable for such actions; but this characteristic never functions so as to make God absolutely contingent.

A. W. Pink in "The sovereignty of God" puts that more simply [P9], "God is sovereign, man is responsible".Pink continues on page 9 to say:" To emphasize the sovereignty of God, without also maintaining the accountability of the creature, tends to fatalism".

"Fatalism" then, is something Pink is trying to avoid. I am confident that Pink's "Fatalism" just about = your "hard determinism". Let's try and look at- Reasons against Fatalism. It just reduces man to being a puppet. We are free to choose. [ But what if we are puppets and God holds all the strings, doesn't John 3v35 say, all things are in His hand]. Hard determinism is, man is what he is, sinful, fallen, in need of redemption if he is going to go to heaven, but everything that occurs is dictated by God and man's fate depends upon God's will alone. Can puppets love God? "Yes they can if that is the way their strings are pulled. Or, in Bible terms, if the Holy Spirit chooses to come upon them to make them born from above". This is, I think, the reply of the hard determinist. ["born from above" is literal translation of "anothen" John3 v7 and emphasises initiative taken in heaven rather than "born again" which might be result of human initiative]. Why translate it as born again unless one is trying to keep compatibilism alive? That last sentence is my own comment but the fact that I made it at all shows how important this question is.

In reformed theology compatibilism reigns and hard determinism is not usually thought about. But that does not mean that hard determinism has nothing to say. "The lives we give back, apodo 1 Pet 4v5, an account of, are first given to us. We first give to God nothing, for from Him are all things Rom 11v35/36", is as I understand it, the cry of the hard determinist.


How did Martin Luther justify the separation from the Catholic Church? Even though Luther found great abuses in the  Church of his time, there is the clear idea in the Bible that the Church is one, Jesus even prays that his followers be in unity. ("I pray that they will all be one [...] " John 17:21)

So how did Luther justify separating from Rome?

Martin Luther had not intended to separate from the Catholic Church. His 95 theses, and his conduct immediately after he posted them, were intended to achieve reform in the Catholic Church. When he was excommunicated by Rome, he had to either give up his quest for reform or continue to pursue it outside the Catholic Church.

Bear in mind that there may never have been a single Christian Church, and there certainly was not just one Church in the time of Luther. We know from Paul's epistles that there were already divisions even in his own time, and of course we now know of the Gnostic Christians. Luther would have known of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church and possibly even the Nestorian Church. Perhaps Matthew 16:18, in which Jesus says "... I will build my church", suggests that there should only be one church, although others may say that this is not the only possible interpretation of the passage when read in context.

Martin Luther justified his actions because he believed they were right, in the context of the Church in western Europe at the time he took those actions. If at any time in the future the  Catholic Church wishes to reunite with the Protestant Churches, it is open to the Church to initiate dialogue with those Churches, but for this to succeed it must accept the possibility of genuine change both within and outside the Roman Catholic Church. Martin Luther would have welcomed any such action by the Catholic Church.


What are the R numbers in the eSword NASB? Psalm 103:14 (NASB)
(14)  For He Himself knows our frame; He is mindful that we are but dust.

Here, He is R2 and but is R3. What do those R numbers that mean? Are they still Hebrew words?

The screenshot was taken from my NASB package in eSword.

Found an answer from a forum question (post #2 by Bradley S. Cobb): NASB + marking's what are they for

  the N stands for footnote. the R stands for cross-reference. the notes/references are in the NASB commentary file.


The sacrificial perogative of the kings of Israel Why was the sacrifice offered by Saul at Gilgal rejected by God while obviously the sacrifices of David and Solomon at a later time were evidently accepted? Did it have anything to do with the death of Samuel?

I would add to the above explanation that Saul was offering a sacrifice while being in rebellion to the command to kill everyone and destroy the spoil.
1Sa 15:3  Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
This should be a warning to us that we can't offer sacrifice while in rebellion and expect it to be accepted.


How can anointing the sick confer forgiveness of sins in Catholicism? In Catholicism, there are 7 sacraments. One of these is anointing of the sick or extreme unction. It is meant to provide comfort to the sick, peace and courage. In the event that the individual cannot make confession it is also said to be able to confer the forgiveness of sins.

How can this last point be the case? Why is confession not required for absolution?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in its discussion of this sacrament, quotes the Letter of James:

  Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the Church and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

(James 5:14–15, emphasis added; quoted in the Catechism paragraph 1510)

The healing of Christ was not restricted to physical ailments; in fact, one of my favorite Gospel stories is the healing of the paralytic:

  People brought to him a paralytic lying on a stretcher. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Courage, child, your sins are forgiven." At that, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming." Jesus knew what they were thinking, and said, "Why do you harbor evil thoughts? Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he then said to the paralytic, "Rise, pick up your stretcher, and go home." He rose and went home. When the crowds saw this they were struck with awe and glorified God who had given such authority to human beings.

(Matthew 9:2–8; New American Bible, Revised Edition)

The  Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick is a sacrament of healing in this sense, in which we ask God to send down his Holy Spirit,

  who renews trust and faith in God and strengthens against the temptations of the evil one, the temptation to discouragement and anguish in the face of death. This assistance from the Lord by the power of his Spirit is meant to lead the sick person to healing of the soul, but also of the body if such is God’s will.

(Catechism paragraph 1520)

Of course, someone who is specifically impenitent will not be absolved of sin any more than they would be if they went to Confession without penitence. Thus, if the sick person is able, they are encouraged to prepare for and cooperate in the sacrament to the extent that they can:

  The sick should prepare themselves to receive it with good dispositions, assisted by their pastor and the whole ecclesial community, which is invited to surround the sick in a special way through their prayers and fraternal attention.

(Catechism paragraph 1516)

But someone who receives the sacrament in good grace will receive "a particular gift of the Holy Spirit" (paragraph 1520). It is for these reasons that the Church believes that the Anointing of the Sick can confer forgiveness of sins.


Was it a miracle of God that the Jews incriminated themselves and their children in the blood of Jesus? The Bible said that the Jews as a whole accepted the guilt of killing Jesus and declared guilty themselves and their descendants:

  "When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a
  riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the
  crowd, saying, 'I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that
  yourselves.' And all the people said, 'His blood shall be on us and on
  our children!'" -Matt. 27:24-25

It seems highly incredible that a single person (not to say the whole people) would take responsibility of the lawful execution of somebody they perceived as blasphemist, not to say accept responsibility to their own children.

Do Christians perceive this episode as a God's miracle?

This is not seen as a miracle - but rather an acceptance of the choice they were asked to make.  The Torah specifically disallows children to be punished for the sins of the father - Dt 24:16, so this is nothing but bravado.  In responding "his blood be upon us," they are, in actuality just saying, "there will be no consequence."

When he is being martyred (in Acts 7), however, Stephen picks up on the theme.  He says:

  You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

In other words, even if the vocalizations were not "His blood be upon our children," the sentiment is still the same - Everybody calling for Jesus' execution is acting the same from generation to generation.  They didn't believe the prophets, they didn't believe Jesus.  This is true in every generation, and the sentiment is that in calling for Jesus' death, they expected no different.


What does the Catholic Church think John the Baptist was referring when making the statement on greatness of Jesus? John 3:30 (NIV) presents John the Baptist as saying about Jesus: " He must become greater; I must become less.”

My question is: What exactly is  the Baptist referring to (for example, public acceptance)  while wishing that Jesus becomes greater than he himself is ? Could he not anticipate a win-win situation in which the both of them grew in greatness ?  Are there any teachings available from the side of Catholic Church on the said statement of John the Baptist ?

St. John the Baptist, in John 3:30, demonstrates his profound humility as the Precursor to Christ. Another example demonstrating St. John the Baptist's profound humility is Mt. 3:11:

  …he that shall come after me, is stronger then I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear…

The Catholic Haydock Commentary has this to say about John 3:30:

  Ver. 30. He (Christ) must increase, not in virtue and perfection, with which he is replenished, but in the opinion of the world, when they begin to know him, and believe in him: and in like manner, I must be diminished, when they know how much he is above me. (Witham)

St. Thomas Aquinas's Catena Aurea (Golden Chain), a collection of excerpts from the Fathers' commentaries on the Gospels, says:

  St. CHRYSOSTOM. He next dismisses the motions of envy, not only as regards the present, but also the future, saying, He must increase, but I must decrease: as if he said, My office has ceased, and is ended; but His advances.

  St. AUGUSTINE. What means this, He must increase? God neither increases, nor decreases. And John and Jesus, according to the flesh, were of the same age: for the six months’ difference between them is of no consequence. This is a great mystery. Before our Lord came, men gloried in themselves; He came in no man’s nature, that the glory of man might be diminished, and the glory of God exalted. For He came to remit sins upon man’s confession: a man’s confession, a man’s humility, is God’s pity, God’s exaltation. This truth Christ and John proved, even by their modes of suffering: John was beheaded, Christ was lifted up on the cross. Then Christ was born, when the days begin to lengthen; John, when they begin to shorten. Let God’s glory then increase in us, and our own decrease, that ours also may increase in God. But it is because you understand God more and more, that He seems to increase in you: for in His own nature He increases not, but is ever perfect: even as to a man cured of blindness, who begins to see a little, and daily sees more, the light seems to increase, whereas it is in reality always at the fall, whether he sees it or not. In like manner the inner man makes advancement in God, and it seems as if God were increasing in Him; but it is He Himself that decreases, falling from the height of His own glory, and rising in the glory of God.

  St. THEOPHYLACT. Or thus; As, on the sun rising, the light of the other heavenly bodies seems to be extinguished, though in reality it is only obscured by the greater light: thus the forerunner is said to decrease; as if he were a star hidden by the sun. Christ increases in proportion as he gradually discloses Himself by miracles; not in the sense of increase, or advancement in virtue, (the opinion of Nestorius,) but only as regards the manifestation of His divinity.


What does the letters 'JHS' mean? Can you tell me what the letters JHS mean? You can see them on the picture below. I am from Slovakia (East Europe) and we speak Slovak and these letters are from Catholic church. I saw these letters on many pantings in Slovak churches. But I do not know their meaning.

Thanks for explanation.

It's one of many shorthand names for "Jesus"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram

In the Latin-speaking Christianity of medieval Western Europe (and so among Catholics and many Protestants today), the most common Christogram became "IHS" or "IHC", denoting the first three letters of the Greek name of Jesus, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ, iota-eta-sigma, or ΙΗΣ.
The Greek letter iota is represented by I, and the eta by H, while the Greek letter sigma is either in its lunate form, represented by C, or its final form, represented by S. Because the Latin-alphabet letters I and J were not systematically distinguished until the 17th century, "JHS" and "JHC" are equivalent to "IHS" and "IHC".


What is the basis for understanding commandments to be anything other than compulsory? People come with the impression that everybody has a choice to do something or not (choices all around everybody), but where in the bible do we as people get the right of choices?

In the Bible I can give a list of commandments and what is expected/what we should do, and if it is done any different it is seen as sin. So where does society come of that we have free of will to make our own decisions as we already were given commandments?

Legally, as God's creation, it could be expected that His created creatures are required to follow His laws.  Yet, in Scripture, there are many cases in which the wicked seem to prosper, and people in foreign lands are allowed to worship their own gods without retribution.  Why is this the case?  What is it in God's nature that affords a tolerance for those who do not keep God's commandments?

1. Bilateral Covenants afford rights

After the conquest of Canaan, Joshua has an interesting proposition for the Children of Israel.  Reflecting on their tendencies to fall into idolatry and syncretism, he says in Joshua 24:

  “Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Non-unilateral Covenants - and this was a reiteration of the Covenant - are legal agreements in which each party surrenders certain things to the other in exchange for certain privileges.  The 10 Commandments with which you are familiar is such a covenant - often formulated as "You shall be my people, and I shall be your God."

Regardless of whether or not as the Creator God already has a legal right over his people, God chooses to enter into a covenant with His people, thus affording them simple privileges.

2. Love is the desired thing - not obedience

Historically, theologians have attributed this to a problem of power disparity.  As God, God has ultimate power to demand reverence and devotion, but in practice, this tends to overwhelm the less powerful party. Instead, God chooses to woo those whom he would have love Him - and requisite to taht would be both free choice and the ability to reject the suitor.

Jesus makes this explict in John 14:15 where he says:

  "If you love me, keep my commandments."

As such, God phrases these as choices, in order to get what he wants - which is that sincere faithfulness which only comes from a free exchange.

Indeed, Jesus is often quoted against the Pharisses, but in one of his most damning indictments of disobedience, he tells them:

  "Go and learn this saying - I desire mercy and not sacrifice."

Jesus is pointing them back to Hosea, wherein God reveals that his character is to love and to woo, not to overwhelm.  In making such a god of the law, the Pharisees have perverted its purpose.

3.  Judgement is coming, but love delays it

The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares in Matthew 13 is probably the best biblical support for tolerance.  In the story, the enemy comes and sows weeds amongst good grain.  When the farmhands discover this, they ask the master if they should tear up the weeds.  The Master declines, saying:

  ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

Note that judgement will come to those who are not following the commandments - but the love that the Master has for his chosen compels him to afford all the opportunity to grow in love.  Waiting until their fruits are fully known affords a time for everyone to come to love of the One who came "too seek and save the lost."  Affording a chance to repent necessarily means affording a chance not to - thus allowing for some to reject God, but having the choice to do so in the first place.


What is the "Israel Mandate"? I've heard a little bit about this passed around from our fellowship as well as a few of my friends. They explanations were hard to follow, and trying a Google search just got me a bunch of information about Britain and Palestine mandates, which appear to not be related whatsoever. From what I understand though, it's about praying for Israel and it's Messianic believers.

Is this all it is? Or is there more? I'd love some articles on it to read up on, so if the answer could source some that'd be great!

As per dictionary.com, here are two of the definitions of "mandate":

a command from a superior court or official to a lower one.
an authoritative order or command: a royal mandate.

Keep that in mind. Now, as david brainerd mentioned, the International House Of Prayer (IHOP) has a page named "Israel Mandate". As there are only a couple paragraphs, I'm going to go ahead and copy-paste the whole thing here.
IHOP

Our mission is to mobilize intercessors in the Church to pray for Israel, and to stand with and encourage Messianic believers in Israel.
The International House of Prayer is committed to seeing the nation of Israel walking in their full destiny at the end of the age. Our primary role is to pray for and partner with Messianic Jews who are living in Israel. The operation and visitation of the Spirit in Israel is a vital part of releasing the great end-time harvest among the nations (Ezek. 36:23–36). However, this full release will only come as a result of a body of believers who are committed to a life of night-and-day prayer and fasting.

The "Messianic Jews" part tipped me off, so I made a Google search with those terms included. Most of the results that came up had to do with IHOP, though they were different branches. Here are a couple of them along with selected quotes:
IHOP: Eastern Gate

The International House of Prayer: Eastern Gate's Israel Mandate is being set in place to mobilize to pray and stand with the Jewish people regionally, nationally and spiritually.
Our confidence is that believers being filled with the Spirit of the L-rd will stir Israel to embrace Yeshua/Jesus as her Messiah. In return, God will use Israel as the instrument to bring restoration to the earth at the end of the age.
The strategy of this reality is in the building up of a network of prayer and partnership with the local Messianic Jewish communities and churches in the region. The key to this network will be Messianic prayer sets geared towards specifically praying for the salvation of the Jewish people and the restoration of Israel.

Cincinnati House of Prayer

One of our specific assignments at the Cincinnati House of Prayer is to partner with and stand for Jesus’ purposes concerning Israel and the Jewish people in our region and beyond. We do this by praying, mobilizing and teaching on Israel and standing with and encouraging Messianic believers in our region and throughout the earth.
Ways we Stand at the Cincinnati House of Prayer for the Purposes of God Concerning the Jewish People and the Nation of Israel

We intercede with prophetic acts of prayer, worship, love and justice

We partner with our Messianic Jewish brothers & sisters for God’s purposes and glory in the Tri-state region and on earth

We reject Anti-Semitism, Replacement Theology and other false teachings concerning Israel and God’s purposes for the Jewish people

We encourage the release of resources (time, talents and treasures) unto the purposes of God concerning the Messianic Jewish people, the nation of Israel and those desiring to return to Israel.

We strive to nurture and build-up our Messianic Jewish brothers & sisters in the Body of Christ

Finally, if you really want to learn a lot more, IHOP has a Israel Mandate Resources page that has many audio files from their Israel Mandate Conferences.

So, to sum up, the Israel Mandate seems to be the belief that we Gentile Christians are commanded by God to pray for Israel and to work with Messianic Jews. The goal is to bring more Jews to Christ, which continues Jesus' and Peter's work as well as honors the position that the Jews have as the chosen people of God. There seem to be other attached beliefs, but so far as I can tell, that is the core of the Israel Mandate: pray for and reach out to the Jews in Israel.