How do Trinitarians explain the Athanasian Creed saying that the "one God" is the Trinity rather than the Father as in the Nicene Creed? In Scripture and the early Creeds, "one God" is used primarily to refer to God the Father:

1 Cor 8:6 (NIV): yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

But the Athanasian Creed differs by using the phrase "one God" to refer to the whole of the godhead or Trinity:

And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; ... The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. They are not three Gods but one God.

What explains this shift from thinking first of the Father as God and then to the Son and Spirit as co-equal with the Father, to describing the Trinity as the first and main way we should understand "one God"?

Divinity & unity appropriated to God the Father
As is evident in many of the Trinitarian verses listed below, the names "God the Father" and "God" simply are often used synonymously. This is because the Father is the principle of the divinity of the other Divine Persons, Who proceed from Him; He communicates to them the one divinity.
Holy Scripture and the Fathers appropriate certain attributes to each Person. Appropriation is

A manner of speaking in which the properties and activities of God, though common to the three divine persons, are attributed to an individual person. The purpose of appropriation is to manifest the differences in the divine properties and persons. Four kinds of appropriations are known from Scripture and sacred tradition:

substantive names of God (Theos), applied to the Father, and of Lord (Kurios), applied to the Son;

absolute attributes of God, namely power, unity, and eternity applied to the Father; wisdom, equality, and beauty applied to the Son; goodness, harmony, and happiness applied to the Holy Spirit;

works of God, namely efficient cause (Father), exemplary cause (Son), and final cause (Holy Spirit);

worship of God, with the Father as recipient of adoration and sacrifice, and the Son and Holy Spirit as mediators between God and man.

(Etym. Latin appropriatio, ascribing, the attributing of a special characteristic.)

See also Whether the essential attributes are appropriated to the persons in a fitting manner by the holy doctors?, where St. Augustine is quoted as saying (De Doctr. Christ. i, 5):

In the Father is unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the harmony of unity and equality; and these three attributes are all one because of the Father, all equal because of the Son, and all harmonious because of the Holy Spirit.

Trinitarian verses
The New Testament not only mentions the Divine Persons of the Trinity

individually, but also frequently, more than forty times, they are mentioned
together or at the same time. The main Trinitarian texts are:

Gospels:

Matt. 3:16-17 (Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:22), the theophany at the baptism of Christ.And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven [God the Father], saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Matt. 28:19, the command to baptize. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 1:35, the annunciation of the Incarnation.And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High [God the Father] shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

John 14:16, 17, 23; 15:26; 16:7-11, 12-15, the promise of the Holy Spirit at the Last Supper.And I [God the Son] will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete [Holy Ghost], that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth [Holy Ghost], whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. […] Jesus answered, and said to him: If any one love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we [with the Holy Ghost] will come to him, and will make our abode with him.[…]But when the Paraclete [Holy Ghost] cometh, whom I [God the Son] will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth [Holy Ghost], who proceedeth from the Father, he [Holy Ghost] shall give testimony of me.[…]But I [God the Son] tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete [Holy Ghost] will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he is come, he will convict the world of sin, and of justice, and of judgment. Of sin: because they believed not in me. And of justice: because I go to the Father; and you shall see me no longer. And of judgment: because the prince of this world is already judged. I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth [Holy Ghost], is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. He shall glorify me; because he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine. Therefore I said, that he [Holy Ghost] shall receive of mine, and shew it to you.

St. Peter:

Acts 2:33, 38-39; 5:31-32, Peter’s first sermons.Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he [God the Son] hath poured forth this which you see and hear. […] But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God [the Father] shall call.[…]Him [God the Son] hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him.

St. Paul:

Rom. 8:9-11, 14-17; 1 Cor. 2:10-16; Eph. 1:17; 2:17-22, the divine action in the heart of the just.But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the [Holy] Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead, because of sin; but the spirit liveth, because of justification. And if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you; he that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his [Holy] Spirit that dwelleth in you. […] For whosoever are led by the [Holy] Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father). For the [Holy] Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.[…]But to us God hath revealed them, by this [Holy] Spirit. For the [Holy] Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the [Holy] Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the [Holy] Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God. Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the [Holy] Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the [Holy] Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that we may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.[…]That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and of revelation, in the knowledge of him:[…]And coming, he [Jesus] preached peace to you that were afar off, and peace to them that were nigh. For by him we have access both in one [Holy] Spirit to the Father. Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the [Holy] Spirit.

1 Cor. 6:15-20, Christians as the temple of God.Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. Or know you not, that he who is joined to a harlot, is made one body? For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh. But he who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit. Fly fornication. Every sin that a man doth, is without the body; but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body. Or know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price. Glorify and bear God in your body.

1 Cor. 12:3-6, the distribution of charisms.Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man, speaking by the [Holy] Spirit of God, saith Anathema to Jesus. And no man can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are diversities of graces, but the same [Holy] Spirit; And there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord; And there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all in all.

2 Cor. 13:13, benediction and greeting.The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God [the Father], and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen.

Gal. 4:4-9,14, the mission of Christ.But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent his Son, made of a woman, made under the law: That he might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because you are sons, God hath sent the [Holy] Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father. Therefore now he is not a servant, but a son. And if a son, an heir also through God. But then indeed, not knowing God, you served them, who, by nature, are not gods. But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known by God: how turn you again to the weak and needy elements, which you desire to serve again? […] You despised not, nor rejected: but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

Eph. 3:14-19, the prayer of Paul.For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named, That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened by his [Holy] Spirit with might unto the inward man,That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts; that being rooted and founded in charity, You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth: To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge, that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God.

Eph. 4:4-6, the unity of the Church.One body and one [Holy] Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.

Tit. 3:4-6, our regeneration.But when the goodness and kindness of God our Saviour [Jesus] appeared: Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost; Whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour:

Hebr. 9:14, the sacrifice of Christ.How much more shall the blood of Christ, who by the Holy Ghost offered himself unspotted unto God, cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God?

Hebr. 10:29-31, the evil of apostasy.How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the [Holy] Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

St. Peter:

1 Pet. 1:1-2, greeting and benediction.Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect, According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, unto the sanctification of the [Holy] Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you and peace be multiplied.

1 Pet. 4:14, reproach in the name of Christ.If you be reproached for the name of Christ, you shall be blessed: for that which is of the honour, glory, and power of God, and that which is his [Holy] Spirit, resteth upon you.

St. John:

1 John 4:11-16, charity.My dearest, if God hath so loved us; we also ought to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abideth in us, and his charity is perfected in us. In this we know that we abide in him, and he in us: because he hath given us of his [Holy] spirit. And we have seen, and do testify, that the Father hath sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God. And we have known, and have believed the charity, which God hath to us. God is charity: and he that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him.

source: Sacræ Theologiæ Summa IIA: One & Triune God p. 250


How are prayer and asking the saints to intercede distinguished? The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches encourage us to ask the dead saints to intercede for us. To quote from Software Monkey's answer to another question:

  First off, it's useful to understand that Catholics (and that's Roman or Eastern Catholic, and, for that matter Eastern Orthodox) do not pray to the saints, so much as ask the faithful departed to pray for them to God.

Distinguishing between prayer and asking the saints to intercede on their behalf removes the problem with verses like Deuteronomy 18:11 which forbid 'inquiring of the dead'.

But my understanding is that pray is essentially synonymous to ask. Many of the Greek words translated pray seem to have that meaning: δέησις, δέομαι, ἔντευξις, ἐρωτάω, παρακαλέω. I have read a book which even says that prayer should be distinguished from thanking God, and should be used strictly to refer to asking God. If pray and ask are synonyms, then clearly distinguishing between them doesn't help anyone escape the Bible's prohibitions.

Is this analysis of the meaning of pray correct? Or is there a way in which pray and ask can legitimately be distinguished?

A Catholic answer to your question would be to say that "pray" has more than one sense.

First, it means simply "ask", as you suggest. This is very obvious if we look at older styles of English. For example, from Hamlet:

  Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you (Act 3, Scene 2)

Here, "pray" means "ask". "I pray you" ends up basically meaning "please". This is the sense used when referring to the intercession of the saints.

Then it has a deeper meaning. Some quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  Prayer is the raising of one's mind and heart to God ... Whether we realize it or not, prayer is the encounter of God's thirst with ours. ... Prayer is the response of faith to the free promise of salvation and also a response of love to the thirst of the only Son of God. ... Christian prayer is a covenant relationship between God and man in Christ. It is the action of God and of man, springing forth from both the Holy Spirit and ourselves, wholly directed to the Father, in union with the human will of the Son of God made man. (CCC, ¶¶2559ff.)

This is a deeper meaning, referring to the covenant, communion relationship between human beings and God. Intercession, worship, penitence, and joy (and much else!) are part of the life of prayer. It is the expression and mode of the relationship between the human being and God, and in that way it is exclusive to God.

But the key point about the Catholic idea of prayer is that it isn't primarily individual as in more Protestant understandings. Rather, it is an ecclesial task, a task in which the whole Church participates together. This is seen supremely in the offering of the Mass:

  To the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also those already in the glory of heaven. In communion with and commemorating the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. In the Eucharist the Church is as it were at the foot of the cross with Mary, united with the offering and intercession of Christ. (CCC, ¶1370)

The saints are part of the Church. (The traditional "parts" of the Church are the Church Militant here on earth, the Church Suffering in purgatory, and the Church Triumphant in Heaven.(CCC, ¶962)) So we join in the prayer of the whole Church to God. In this context, we are brothers and sisters with those making their prayer in Heaven. And what could be more natural than asking their prayer for us?

Prayer is a lot more than asking, yet "pray" also means "ask". It has a different sense when referring to God to what it means in referring to God.

As to the verse in Deuteronomy, to my mind this is a completely different matter to intercession to the saints. Let's look at the passage in its context:

  No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, or who practises divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or one who casts spells, or who consults ghosts or spirits, or who seeks oracles from the dead. (Deuteronomy 18.10f., NRSV)

The context of the prohibition clearly refers to sorcery and magic, asking the dead about the future. This is the behaviour of Saul in consulting the Witch of Endor, for example. Catholics do not say, "Mary, who should I marry?" and expect a lightning bolt answer. Instead, they would say, "Mary, by your intercession help me to determine who I should marry." They are very different things.

Moreover, there is a significant difference between the time of Deuteronomy and the modern day. The idea of an afterlife was very different in ancient Judaism to the beliefs held today. (Remember that the distinction between Pharisees and Sadducees in Jesus' time was the former's belief in a resurrection.) According to the Catholic tradition, until the Resurrection of Christ the dead were trapped in Hell, and by his Resurrection he has led them to Heaven (the Harrowing of Hell). It is precisely the saints in Heaven of whom Catholics ask prayer. Before the Resurrection there were none, so prayer to the dead was prayer to souls in Hell.(See CCC, ¶¶631ff.)


Did Christians stop the practice of Berith (Brith, Bris?) immediately? Did Christians stop the practice of Berith (Brith, Bris?) immediately and based on which scripture?

This was a topic of dispute in early Christianity, between believers who had come from the Jewish faith, and gentiles. The issue relates to whether Christianity is part of Judaism - which would mean that converts had to be circumcised - or whether it is an independent faith. If it is not needed for adult converts, then it would not be applicable for children either.
Acts 15:1-21 records a council, held in Jerusalem, to decide. This probably took place in 50 or 51AD. Peter said (v7-11, NIV):

Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.

and the council agreed to write to Gentile believers, saying (v28-29):

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

That did not entirely settle the issue, since it says nothing about whether Jewish converts could or should observe the law of Moses, and in addition there continued to be many "Judaizing" Christians that required converts to be circumcised and follow the Torah. Historically speaking, the destruction of the Temple in 70AD, and the Roman slaughter and dispersal of Jews, dramatically reduced their numbers and influence. Though groups such as the Ebionites continued to exist for several centuries after that, "mainstream" Christianity no longer required circumcision at all.
Paul writes about circumcision at great length in his letters, especially in Galatians but also in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and elsewhere. For example, Romans 2:25-29 says:

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person's praise is not from other people, but from God.

His theological case is that circumcision is a sign of faith, but it is not the same as actually having faith. For Paul, the outward symbol is unnecessary. More generally, one of his major themes is that adherence to the Law does not guarantee salvation (see Galatians 5, for example).


Why do Christians in India eat meat in church? Why do Christians in India eat non-vegetarian/meat in church, while Hindus don't eat non-vegetarian in temples?

I love Christians because they won't commit violence and they don't kill people to convert them to their religion.  But, why do they kill animals inside the temple-like church?

There might be some confusion here, because killing animals in the church would probably not be done by most Christians.

If, however, you mean "why to Christians kill and eat animals, in general?" then I can answer that.

Christianity inherited its beliefs about food and animals from Judaism. Animals are perceived differently to Christians. They are not equal with humans and their lives are precious, but not as valuable as human lives. From the creation story in Genesis, Christians are taught that animals, and even all of Creation, is under man's dominion and stewardship. Consider this comment below for some further thoughts.

Further, consuming animal meat is a large part of the culture Christians inherited from Judaism. There are Christians that advocate vegetarianism, but they are very few in number. Most Christians think that neither is a sin, to eat or not eat animal meat, so if you personally do not want to eat you do not have to, but you should also not judge what others eat. Consider 1 Corinthians 10:31 (NIV):

  So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

Most Christians today interpret this as it being acceptable to eat or drink whatever you like so long as you glorify God when you do (i.e. avoid drunkenness and gluttony).

Reference: What does the Bible say about vegetarian diets?


Is the philosophy of René Girard compatible with mainline Christianity? Rene Girard is a French historian and philosopher. The premise of his works is summarized by Wikipedia:

  mimetic desire: all of our desires are borrowed from other people;
  mimetic rivalry: all conflict originates in mimetic desire;
  the scapegoat mechanism is the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion was necessary in human
  evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry;
  the Bible reveals the three previous ideas and denounces the scapegoat mechanism.

Now, that is a super high level overview of his thoughts. I realize you can go down the rabbit hole with the third point as far evolution and origin of religion goes. However, I am more interest in his work as it relates to Gospels. If anyone has any more in depth knowledge of his work, I'd like to know how orthodox his theories are in relationship with what is taught in most mainline seminaries or theology programs today (or even if his work taught or touched on at all).

Mainline Seminaries
I went to a very conservative seminary and read Girard's Scapegoat, though the overall position of the school disagreed with it. However, that we read it indicates its prevalence in academic institutions. Others I know who went to mainline seminaries, however, are very well versed in Girard.

In Rowan Williams' (former archbishop of Canterbury) stunning book, Resurrection, he writes in the forward to the revised edition, "At the time of writing, I had no knowledge of the writings of Rene Girard on the scapegoat theme; and it was not for a few years after the publication of the book that Girard's ideas began to circulate widely... The first chapter in particular needs to be read alongside Girard..." Given Williams' position as the then-head of the Anglican communion, I would say Girard is pointing toward something important.

Orthodox
This is tricky and depends on where you are coming from. Conservatives will probably disagree. Liberals and moderates may often embrace it. (I can't back that up, though) But I'll point you toward some starting points. First, it strikes at the heart of your working understanding of Soteriology.

(1) Penal Substitution - Crudely defined in legal terms: A crime was committed, a judgement was rendered, Jesus became the saving substitute in the verdict. Adherents to this form of Soteriology are more conservative and will have nothing in common with Girard.

(2) Christus Victor - Jesus conquered sin, or death, or even the Devil with his work on the cross. This view doesn't directly address Girards claims. The beauty of Christus Victor is that it can often compliment other views. Therefore, many who identify very strongly with Girard's work may also hold some form of Christus Victor.

(3) Moral Transformation - Jesus was an example of how we ought to live. This definitely has tracking throughout the Church's history, but its more recent proponents have been fairly liberal. I would argue that proponents of this view feel very at home with Girard. In fact, the weaknesses of the view (apolitical, denies importance of death, etc.) are bolstered with the scapegoat theme.


How much did the Cross of Jesus weigh? Catholic tradition tells us that Jesus fell three times under the weight of the cross on His way to Calvary.  I wish to know if any studies based on historical evidence have been conducted  by Catholic Church on the dimensions and weight of the cross that Jesus bore. For instance, was the cross made of dry wood or out of freshly felled tree ?

How much did the Cross of Jesus weigh?

  30At that time ‘they will say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!”’ 31For if men do these things while the tree is green, what will happen when it is dry?” 32Two others, who were criminals, were also led away to be executed with Jesus.… - Luke 23:30-32

The Cross on which Our Savior was crucified seems to be made of pine:

  A microscopic examination of the fragments of the Cross scattered through the world in the form of relics reveals the fact that it was made from a pine-tree (Rohault de Fleury, "Mémoire sur les instruments de la Passion", Paris, 1870, 63). According to an ancient, but somewhat dubious, tradition the Cross of Jesus Christ measured in length very nearly 189 inches (4.80 metres), from 90½ to 102½ inches (2.30 to 2.60 metres). As noted by the Evangelists, two thieves were crucified, one on either side of Christ. Their crosses must have resembled the one on which He suffered; in Christian art and tradition they generally appear lower (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. i, xxvi, on I Cor.; on Rom., v, 5). A large portion of the cross of the good thief (traditionally known as Dismas) is preserved at Rome in the altar of the Chapel of the Relics at Santa Croce in Gerusalemme. - The crucifixion of Jesus Christ (Catholic Encyclopedia)

There are no exact figures available as to what the Cross truly weighed, but tradition is that Jesus only carried the heavy patibulum, the crossbar to the place of crucifixion.

  In John 19:17, John says Jesus carried the cross while in Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21 and Luke 23:26 we are informed that Simon of Cyrene helped Jesus to carry the cross. There are no exact figures on the weight of the cross. It is believed to have been made of solid wood , so the whole cross is estimated to be over 300 pounds (136 kilograms) while the crossbar is estimated to be around 70-90 pounds (32-41 kilograms). - What is the weight of the cross that Jesus carried?

This article puts the weight of Christ’s crossbar from 75-125 lbs or 34-57kgs); 5-6 ft long (or 1.5-1.8 m long).
Jesus probably only carried the patibulum portion of the Cross:

  The episode is mentioned, without much detail, in all the canonical Gospels: Matthew 27:31–33, Mark 15:20–22, Luke 23:26–32 and John 19:16–18. Only John specifically says Jesus carried his cross, and all but John include Simon of Cyrene, who was recruited by the soldiers from the crowd to carry or help carry the cross. Modern scholars, following descriptions of criminals carrying crossbars by Plautus and Plutarch, often take the Gospel description as meaning Jesus, then Simon, carried only a heavy patibulum, the crossbar, to a pole, stipes, which was permanently driven into the ground at Golgotha. However, in Christian imagery Jesus, and Simon, carry the complete cross—both patibulum and stipes. - Christ Carrying the Cross

Christ at the Cross by Carl Bloch, painting c. 1870

Many Catholics hold that Our Lord's Cross was low to the ground as the above painting suggests and that He was pierced with a lance and not a spear as is commonly displayed in many Crucifixion scenes.

  Biblical references:

  The lance (Greek: λόγχη, lonkhē) is mentioned in the Gospel of John (19:31–37), but not the Synoptic Gospels. The gospel states that the Romans planned to break Jesus' legs, a practice known as crurifragium, which was a method of hastening death during a crucifixion. Just before they did so, they realized that Jesus was already dead and that there was no reason to break his legs. To make sure that he was dead, a Roman soldier (named in extra-Biblical tradition as Longinus) stabbed him in the side.

    One of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance (λόγχη), and immediately there came out blood and water. — John 19:34

  Holy Lance (Wikipedia)

Three types of crosses commonly used by the Roman army

  Pictured are three types of crosses commonly used by the Roman army in the first century A.D. Each carried an inscription stating the victim's capital offense and a seat-like projection, not designed for the victim's comfort, but to prolong their agony. Nails and ropes held the victim's legs and arms in place.

  The cross on the left was called a “high tau” cross because it was shaped like the capital Greek letter tau (“T”). The middle cross was known as a “low tau” cross, shaped like the lower case tau (“t”). In both cases the central post was generally set permanently in the ground while the cross bar was carried to the site by the victim. The cross on the right was an actual tree still in the ground (dead or alive) with its limbs serving as the cross bar. Jesus was probably crucified on a “low tau” type cross. - What kind of cross was Jesus crucified on?

I would like to recommend the following books:

A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon by Pierre Barbet M.D. to those who genuinely desire what the physical sufferings Our Lord went through in his Crucifixion. It is not for the squeamish.

Another Doctor at Calvary What does medicine tell us about the Passion of Our Lord?
Thomas McGovern, MD


How was sin not counted before the law? How was sin not counted before the law, like Paul says in Romans 5? What does that practically mean? I'm not looking for hermeneutics only, but a scriptural/historical/real world example of someone's sin not counting, whatever that means.

  Romans 5:12-14 ESV Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

People before the law were still certainly guilty of wrongdoing and God held them to that, like when God told Abimelech he would be wrong for sleeping with a man's wife, or when God cursed Cain to be a wanderer for killing Abel.

In answer to your related question "How did people know right from wrong before the law?", I included the following:

  There was always a 'law' before it was written on tablets of stone and given to Moses: God sets the standard of righteousness by what remains in accord to His nature and unrighteousness by what constitutes rebellion against His nature. (emphasis added)

That was supported by citing the commandment (i.e. a law) of God to not eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Elsewhere (Rom 8:2) Paul refers to the 'law of sin and death' which has been in effect as a priniciple since at least the fall but arguably derives from the first commandment given.

When Paul refers to 'before the law was given' he is of course referring to the Mosaic law, but the phrase 'sin is not counted where there is no law' is somewhat hypothetical (there has always been 'law') and must be viewed in the sense of specifics rather than generalisations - '(specific) sin is not counted where there is no (specific) law' not 'sin (in general) is not counted where there is no law (at all)'.

Althought there has always been 'law' to some degree, there were certain levels of depravity that people were initially innocent about - the depths of wickedness were discovered progressively (although the progression from wilful disobedience to fratricide only took one generation). Some things (e.g. drunkenness) only became problematic after other conditions were fulfilled (discovering the fermentation process and later fortification/distillation).

A specific example is the law of incest:

  9 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether brought up in the family or in another home. - Leviticus 18:9 ESV

Which Abraham at least (but almost certainly many, if not most, of the early patriarchs) was 'guilty' of according to the later law, but actually innocent because the conditions that necessitated that law had not yet arisen.


Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses cite William Barclay as to the identity of the speaker in Revelation 22:13 knowing he believed it is Jesus? This is according to the article, Who or What Is “the Alpha and the Omega”? which also says, "This term occurs three times in the Bible. Revelation 1:8; Revelation 21:6; and here at Revelation 22:13."
They then say at the end of the article, "Does Revelation 22:13 prove that Jesus is "the Alpha and the Omega?" The answer they give is "no," followed by this explanation.

The speaker at Revelation 22:13 is not specifically identified, and there are various speakers in this chapter.

This begs the question? Why were they so "dogmatic" when they clearly stated, "The Alpha and Omega" refers to Jehovah God, the Almighty?"
So to prove their contention that the speaker is not specifically identified they quote Professor William Barclay:

"Things are set down without any apparent order; ...and it is often very difficult to be sure who is the actual speaker." (The Revelation of John, Volume 2, Revised Edition, page 223)

Then the article continues to say

Thus, "the Alpha and the Omega" at Revelation 22:13 can be identified as the same Person given this title elsewhere in Revelation-Jehovah God."

So being a good Berean according to Acts 17:11 I checked out what Professor Barclay really said under the title,

THE CLAIMS OF CHRIST (Revelation 22:12-13)
22:12,13 Behold, I am coming soon, and I have my reward with me, to render to each man, as his work is. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. You can read his complete analysis at the following site.
Bible Commentaries: William Barclay's Daily Study Bible Revelation 22
The Risen Christ once again announces his speedy coming; and he makes two great claims.

Now, one of the reasons the Jehovah Witnesses deny that this is Jesus Christ is included in their own article.

The term "the First and the Last" occurs at Revelation 1:17, 18 and 2:8. In these verses, the context show that the one referred to died and later returned to life. Thus, these verses cannot refer to God because never died.

However, Jesus died and was resurrected.
The short answer is that the one person of Jesus Christ has two natures, one human and one divine. It was the human nature that died, not His divine nature. One cannot help notice the obvious contradictions.
So here's the question: Why do the Jehovah Witnesses quote Professor William Barclay saying "it is difficult to be sure who is the actual speaker?" Clearly his words are taken out of context in that he identifies the speaker as being Jesus Christ in his commentary on Revelation 22:12-13.
The quote by Barclay was used by the JW's to demonstrate that Jesus Christ is "NOT" the speaker at Revelation 22:12-13. I then showed proof from Barclay himself that the speaker is Jesus Christ. This is according to the context which includes Revelation 22:16, "I, Jesus have sent My angel to (not Michael the arc angel) to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star."
"The bright and morning star." Please read (Psalm 84:11, Malachi 4:2; Matthew 17:2; Revelation 1:16; 2 Peter 1:19.) Finally, Revelation 22:20:20-21, "He who testifies to these things (what things?) says, Yes, I am coming quickly. Amen. Come Lord Jesus. Verse 21, "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all/the saints. Amen."

First, let me answer your question near the end of your comments, and then I will be able to give a swift, simple answer to your question in the heading. You asked near the end, “Why do the Jehovah Witnesses quote Professor William Barclay saying "it is difficult to be sure who is the actual speaker?"
The first point to make is that establishing who the actual speaker is in verse 13 is not clear-cut. More than one speaker speaks in chapter 22, from when the epilogue starts (verse 6) to the last verse (21).

Verse 6 starts, “And he said unto me…” (unto John, that is. I won’t
include John’s comments in these verses, as those are clearly
identified.) Verses 7 and 12 say, “Behold, I come quickly…”.  Verse 13
says, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and
the last.”

It is legitimate to ask whether there are two, or three heavenly speakers here, because there were no inverted commas in koine Greek, to help distinguish one speaker from another. This is where translations like the Authorised Version openly show the nature of the difficulty, not having inverted commas. But some translations, like the Jehovah’s Witness New World Translation, do insert inverted commas, which demonstrate their belief that a third heavenly speaker breaks into the dialogue – they would say that the new speaker from verse 12 through to the end of verse 15 is Jehovah God.
But trying to identify various speakers in the epilogue, without reference to the preamble (chapter 1 verses 1 to 3) and everything from there to the epilogue is ridiculous and, thankfully, you do not ask us to make any identifications of speakers in chapter 22. However, anyone who has studied the whole book of the Revelation will know that it is neither chronological nor literal. And chapter 22 deals with future events. Therefore, anyone who claims that it is difficult to be sure who the speaker is in chapter 22 verse 13 is being honest. As was William Barclay in that partial quote by the Watchtower Society.
The reason why they gave that partial quote was because they hoped it would substantiate their argument for claiming the speaker there to be Jehovah God. Unfortunately for them (as you proved in your comments) Barclay came to the conclusion that it was Jesus speaking, so all that can be claimed from Barclay’s quote is that he found it difficult to state who the speaker was in verse 13 even though, on balance, he came down on the side of it being the resurrected Christ.
Now the answer to your main question: "Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses cite William Barclay as to the identity of the speaker in Revelation 22:13 knowing he believed it is Jesus?" To be charitable, we cannot state that the anonymous writer who incorporated that partial quote of Barclay knew that Barclay believed it to be Jesus.  He may not have done any research into Barclay’s other comments about what Jesus said in the book of the Revelation. Perhaps he was under instructions to pick quotes from various theologians that could pad out the Watchtower article, to encourage readers to think that ones such as Barclay concluded the same as the Watchtower Society (when he did not.) Certainly, the wording immediately following Barclay’s partial quote easily lends itself to the erroneous idea that “Thus, ‘the Alpha and the Omega’ at Revelation 22:13 can be identified as the same Person given this title elsewhere in Revelation—Jehovah God.”
At risk of sounding uncharitable now, I would say that from my experience of the amount of checking up on Watchtower quotes that rank and file Jehovah’s Witnesses do, very few of them would even try to get hold of Barclay’s writings, to see if he had been quoted out of context or not. Indeed, it has only been in comparatively recent years that the Watchtower Society has ensured that full citation references are given when it quotes others, to enable their readers to check, should they so wish. I have a considerable library of their books, and hundreds of their magazines (up till the turn of the century) and I was almost never able to chase up quotes purely via their literature. Even with the advent of the Internet, it still remains a hugely time-consuming task to get a full quote without a precise source and page number given. But as the full citation for Barclay's partial quote was given in that Watchtower article, any diligent Jehovah’s Witness can do a check and discover for themselves what appears to be a somewhat misleading misconstruction of Barclay, to make it seem as if he agreed with the Watchtower Society re. Rev. 22:13, when he actually disagreed. And if anyone thinks I am being uncharitable here, please just check out for yourself by researching Barclay, as I have done on such matters. He is now dead, so cannot defend himself from misleading applications of his work, which I think this is an example of. But Jehovah’s Witnesses will disagree, which they are entitled to do. After all, this is a matter of interpretation of one of the most profoundly symbolic and prophetic parts of the Bible. Nevertheless, scholastic integrity requires honest representation of those quoted, and not partial quotes that are not balanced by more quotes that would lead to a different conclusion.


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that life begins at conception? Possible Duplicate:
  What is the biblical basis for the claim that abortion is immoral?

Related to some recent questions, what is the Biblical basis for believing that life begins at conception?

Once we know when life begins, then it makes sense that killing that life is wrong.  But I always hear the verse about "before I formed you in the womb, I knew you" and that is talking about God's knowledge of us, which exists long before conception.  It is quite obvious that human life begins before birth, but why is it so sure that conception is the beginning point?  And, is there a biblical basis for that belief, or only a historical basis?

I'll reference the previous (nearly identical) question's answers:

Exodus 21:22-25

  "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Psalm 139:5

  For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb.

If man chooses to define when life begins at any point later than conception, then it is logically viable to choose to define life "beginning" at any arbitrary age. For example, if the definition is "viability", then it is reasonably arguable that someone is not "viable" until they are old enough to provide for themselves - therefore, a 6 year old is not "viable" since it would die on its own.

By accepting conception as the moment life begins, you accept the plain, simple reading of God's word over a 'nuanced' reading as being correct. Reading nuance into the verse is not good exegesis, but is rather eisegesis - a dangerous path to be on when considering the Bible is God's word, and not man's!

If you want to look at the medical technology and knowledge of the day in which the Bible was written (and, really, until very recently), it could not be known that a woman was with child until weeks or months into the pregnancy - except by inference of potential symptoms (lack of menses, morning sickness, etc). The law issued to the Israelites regarding what would happen to a man if he struck a pregnant woman and harm came to the baby should show clarity into God's view of how important life is - and how 'early' He considers it to exist!

sidebar: at conception the new person is already a multi-celled organism - amoebae are single-celled organisms, and no one would deny they are alive


According to Scripture, is sacrifice a requirement for salvation? Regarding salvation, I was always under the impression a sacrifice had to be made (and as Christians we know Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for all sins), but looking through the Bible I see instances of God forgiving sins without requiring a sacrifice..

2 Chronicles 7:14 God forgave without a sacrifice. In Matthew 9:5 Jesus forgave without a sacrifice.

I'm used to hearing the judge analogy which states "A good judge can't dismiss sin, there has to be a punishment". According to Scripture, if God is righteous/a good judge, how can he forgive sins without a punishment/sacrifice?

What is salvation according to Scripture?

The OP has the right understanding. People are saved from their sins by Jesus

  Matt 1:21 (RSVCE) 21 she will bear a son, and you shall call
  his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Why is a sacrifice required?

Again OP has a right understanding. God is good, merciful and just. In justice, atonement for sin needs to be made, in his mercy, he has provided for forgiveness of sin. He has required sacrifice to achieve both ends. Saint Paul explains in Roman 5:1-10

  5 For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for
  sins. 2 He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he
  himself is beset with weakness. 3 Because of this he is bound to offer
  sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people. 4 And
  one does not take the honor upon himself, but he is called by God,
  just as Aaron was.

  5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but
  was appointed by him who said to him,

  “Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee”;[a] 6 as he
  says also in another place,

  “Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchiz′edek.” 7 In
  the days of his flesh, Jesus[b] offered up prayers and
  supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save
  him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. 8 Although he was
  a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; 9 and being made
  perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,
  10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of
  Melchiz′edek.

  a. If Jesus was to be mediator, he had to have a human nature
  like ours, and, moreover, he could not appoint himself, but had to be
  appointed by God.
  b. Greek he

What is sacrifice?

  SACRIFICE The highest form of adoration, in which a duly authorized
  priest in the name of the people offers a victim in acknowledgment of
  God's supreme dominion and of total human dependence on God. The
  victim is at least partially removed from human use and to that extent
  more or less destroyed as an act of submission to the divine majesty.
  Thus a sacrifice is not only an oblation. Where an oblation offers
  something to God, a sacrifice immolates or gives up what is offered.
  In sacrifice the gift offered is something precious completely
  surrendered by the one making the sacrifice as a token of humble
  recognition of God's sovereignty. (Etym. Latin sacrum, holy, sacred
  + facere, to make, do.) - Dictionary: SACRIFICE | Catholic Culture

All the acceptable sacrifices in the Old testament were a type of Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus' sacrifice is the one that actually effects forgiveness of sins past, present and future.

  Matt (RSVCE) 28 for this is my blood of the [new] covenant,
  which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.


Universe made of water? Genesis 1:1-2 accounts what was before God gave form to the Earth, and that is water:

  1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.  — Genesis 1:1-2

Now that might be interpreted as a metaphor for "vastness", maybe, but other verses in Genesis also seem to assert the same thing:

  6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.  — Genesis 1:6-8

In those verses it is described how God separates water. The separation is called "sky" (this will be relevant later, that's why I made it bold). It also says there is water both under the sky (on Earth) and also above the sky (in space?).

Furthermore, in the account of Noah's Flood, it is described how God opened up the "sky" (among other means of flooding the planet).

  11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.  — Genesis 7:11-12

The question:
Obviously it makes no sense to say the universe is full of water. What does the word mean then, in those passages? What is it used as a metaphor for?

See my answer to the question about the firmament.  Calling it a "vault" is a bad translation of the Hebrew word, which connotes something thin and stretched out to cover a wide area.  God placed an expanse between the waters that were on the Earth (rivers, oceans, lakes, etc) and the waters that were above the earth (clouds).

When the Flood came, all we know is that all the water that was necessary to do the job was employed to flood the Earth.  we aren't told where it came from. I've heard speculation that, as this was a miraculous and unique event, God could have brought in extra water that doesn't ordinarily belong to Earth and then sent it away again. But that's just speculation, and we don't really have any way of knowing for sure.


What is chronologically the last mention of redemption in the Bible? What is chronologically the last mention of redemption in the Bible?

The last mention of the English noun 'redemption' in the English bible (I am quoting from the KJV and using the list of words compiled by Robert Young in his Analytical Concordance) is in Hebrews 9:12.
The last mention of the English verb 'redeem' in the English bible is in Revelation 14:4. John the Apostle lived (and wrote) until approximately the year 100 and was (I assume without dispute) the last to write recorded scripture.
So this might be the definitive answer to your question ... but ...
There are two groups of words in Greek which are translated 'redeem' and 'redemption' in English.
The 'agora' group is based on the word relating to the place of public concourse and there are two main words agora and agorazo which feature in the bible.
The 'lutron' group is based on the word luo meaning 'to dispossess' and several words are involved - lutron, lutrosis and apolutrosis.
So it would be more complicated if you were asking about the original manuscripts in Greek ... and ... the Greek words are not consistently translated in the English bible, sometimes being translated into such words as 'purchase'.
The whole subject of redemption is an important one in the bible in both the Hebrew scriptures and the Greek scriptures. The two groups of Greek words mirror two words in Hebrew gaal (used many times in the Book of Ruth and elsewhere) and padah (never used in Ruth but used otherwise).
The question is a little more complicated to answer than it, at first, appears.


What is the dominant theory of atonement in Catholic theology? Having a little trouble phrasing the question due to my own ignorance.
I grew up celebrating Christmas and Hanukah as basically family gift giving events, as many others do, and I'm trying in adulthood to have at least a basic understanding of actual religious doctrine.

In general I'm trying to receive an answer from someone who can explain why Catholicism follows a particular theory of atonement over others, and in doing so elucidate as to how these theories differ at least to the degree that one is more favourable for Catholics over another or others.

Looking for a simple explanation, hopefully.

From my (limited) understanding there are the following broad theories:
Satisfaction theory of atonement, substitutionary atonement, penal substitution, ransom theory, maybe more.

There is no single theory of atonement in Catholicism, but rather the doctrine has developed over time due to speculation from various theologians. Though out of the four you've provided, satisfaction theory is the only one I think you will find an orthodox catholic espousing. The Catholic Encyclopedia entry on atonement is helpful.

it may be noted that in this instance the development is chiefly due to Catholic speculation on the mystery, and not, as in the case of other doctrines, to controversy with heretics. At first we have the central fact made known in the Apostolic preaching, that mankind was fallen and was raised up and redeemed from sin by the blood of Christ. But it remained for the pious speculation of Fathers and theologians to enter into the meaning of this great truth, to inquire into the state of fallen man, and to ask how Christ accomplished His work of Redemption (emphasis mine). By whatever names or figures it may be described, that work is the reversal of the Fall, the blotting out of sin, the deliverance from bondage, the reconciliation of mankind with God. And it is brought to pass by the Incarnation, by the life, the sufferings, and the death of the Divine Redeemer. All this may be summed up in the word Atonement. This, is so to say, the starting point. And herein all are indeed at one. But, when it was attempted to give a more precise account of the nature of the Redemption and the manner of its accomplishment, theological speculation took different courses, some of which were suggested by the various names and figures under which this ineffable mystery is adumbrated in Holy Scripture. Without pretending to give a full history of the discussions, we may briefly indicate some of the main lines on which the doctrine was developed, and touch on the more important theories put forward in explanation of the Atonement.

The page explains that substitutionary theories of atonement (and here I include as well penal substitution) are a product of post-reformation protestantism. So we don't follow those theories because our theologians never put them forward.

And in their explanation of the merit of Christ's sufferings and death we may see the influence of St. Thomas and the other great Schoolmen. But, as might be expected from the isolation of the doctrine and the loss of other portions of Catholic teaching, the truth thus preserved was sometimes insensibly obscured or distorted. It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies.

The first is indicated in the above words of Pattison in which the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God's merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.

The second mistake is the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment (emphasis mine). This is at best a distorted view of the truth that His Atoning Sacrifice took the place of our punishment, and that He took upon Himself the sufferings and death that were due to our sins.

Any sort of ransom theory also seems unreasonable and has been met with unanswerable arguments from Anselm and others:

But however useful and illuminating in their proper place, figures of this kind are perilous in the hands of those who press them too far, and forget that they are figures. This is what happened here. When a captive is ransomed the price is naturally paid to the conqueror by whom he is held in bondage. Hence, if this figure were taken and interpreted literally in all its details, it would seem that the price of man's ransom must be paid to Satan. The notion is certainly startling, if not revolting. Even if brave reasons pointed in this direction, we might well shrink from drawing the conclusion. And this is in fact so far from being the case that it seems hard to find any rational explanation of such a payment, or any right on which it could be founded... This curious notion, apparently first mooted by St. Irenæus, was taken up by Origen in the next century, and for about a thousand years it played a conspicuous part in the history of theology... A protest was raised by St. Gregory of Nazianzus in the fourth century, as might be expected from that most accurate of the patristic theologians. But it was not till St. Anselm and Abelard had met it with unanswerable arguments that its power was finally broken. It makes a belated appearance in the pages of Peter Lombard.


How do Roman Catholics reconcile the apocalyptic sayings of Jesus with his not having returned? There are verses in the earlier Gospels that fairly explicitly say that Jesus will return:

"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:62, NIV)
"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16:28, NIV)

From what I understand, this immediate coming that the earlier Gospels speak about, and Paul's understanding of the imminent return of Jesus, were later ignored by John's gospel.
Since Jesus has not returned, and he has not come with his kingdom, nor has he "come on the clouds of heaven," how are these verses interpreted in Roman Catholicism?

Although it's true that the first Christians did believe that the Second Coming was imminent, Christ also taught that "you do not know the hour".

  Mt 24:44 — Therefore you also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

  Mk 13:32–33 — But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time will come.

  Lk 12:40 — You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

As the question recognises, this hasn't happened yet. Thus it's easy to see that the belief that the Second Coming was imminent was a misunderstanding — not that it's a bad thing to live each day as if it were your last because you might face the final judgement tomorrow. That's still the case (cf Jas 4:13–15).

So the question becomes one of interpreting Mt 16:28: "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom," which is also recorded in Mk 9:1: "And he said to them, 'Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.'"

If we are to believe that Christ did not lie to his hearers, or was mistaken himself, then a plain reading of these verses as referring to the Second Coming is obviously wrong: those standing there have certainly died by now.

There are two potential interpretations.

One is that "seeing the kingdom of God come with power" refers to Jesus' own death, when "the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised" (Mt 27:51–52). This is by far the easiest interpretation, as it admits a plain reading of the scripture. The kingdom of God had shown its power, and they would have seen it.

The second, deeper, interpretation is that the death Jesus was referring to was the everlasting damnation to Hell.

  Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgement that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven—through a purification592 or immediately,593—or immediate and everlasting damnation.594

    At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.595

  Catechism of the Catholic Church

In this interpretation, experiencing death before seeing the power of God needs explanation.

Jesus' use of before was to remind his hearers that the judgement could come at any time, and they should live each day as if it were their last. For if the Second Coming were tomorrow, they would not die before seeing it: they might see it and die tomorrow, and they would be judged tomorrow. In order that the judgement tomorrow would not condemn them, they needed to conform their lives to his teachings.

  The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."616

    Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."617

  CCC

This interpretation takes Jesus' teaching out of his own time and its narrow application to just his own contemporaries, and allows the Eternal God to apply it to all time, including to hearers today.

592: Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 857-858; Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304- 1306; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820
593: Cf. Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000-1001; John XXII, Ne
   super his (1334): DS 990
594: Cf. Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1002
595 St. John of the Cross, Dichos 64
616: Mt 7:13-14
617: Lumen Gentium 48 # 3; Mt 22:13; cf. Heb 9:27; Mt 25:13, 26, 30, 31 46


Do 'Bible Christians' find paraphrasing the Bible distasteful? This might be a meta question, but I really mean it in a scholarly way.  Does paraphrasing the Bible for conversational use make Sola Scriptura folks cringe?

I'm not even sure what my Church thinks about it, other than improperly quoting the New American Bible too much is a copyright violation. But as for Bible Only Christians who believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and are of the mentality that the Bible is the Mother of the Church rather than the other way around, should I take the extra effort and state what the Bible says correctly, or is it OK to paraphrase or change words around to draw out a particular meaning or just make it more readable or conversational?

For instance, not that there are a lot of Protestants in my Catechism class, but if I were to just say, without a bible open to the chapter and verse, "Jesus says, Love one another as I have loved you".  I've got no idea if that's exactly what Jesus said, but I know he said something like that.  So, if in conversation with a Bible Christian, if I don't have the Bible open, can I say anything to them without pointing out the chapter and verse?

I don't believe there is a problem with paraphrasing the Bible in conversational, or even teaching use.  The important thing is that what is being paraphrased can be verified against the Bible.

A lot of a pastor's message is likely to be paraphrasing or expounding on a Bible verse.  There is nothing wrong with this, as long as it is being verified against the original Bible.

This is why there are so many different translations.  Why are there so many translations of the Bible?  There are a lot of ways to convey a message in English, and some may understand one method versus another better.  Even then, when using 1 or more translations as the verification, these translations can be further verified against the original Hebrew or Greek, such as with an interlinear Bible.

As far as it applies to this site, I think it'd be nice to provide the base scripture for any direct paraphrasing, either directly quoted or just as a link.  This would make it easier for those who are new to the Bible or who would like to read more into what you are saying to access the scripture.  For a comparison, would you ever expect to have a church leader teaching on the Bible without actually being able to reference it directly?


Where are the LDS revelations published? I understood from a previous question (How does LDS handle doctrine changes?) that in the LDS church changes (including doctrine changes) are based on revelations from the prophets. Those are shared in the churches and eventually at the General Conferences.

For example, as mentioned in one of the answers, in 1978, a revelation came to the President Spencer W. Kimball which removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood. This is published as the Official Declaration 2.

However, I can find only two such Official Declarations. I assume there should be other revelations which led to changing some things, including but not limited to doctrine.

Is there a place where one can see the archive of those documents? When they appeared and what they contain?

I expect such a list would be public. If they are not published online, how can one request such an archive and from whom (and eventually pay shipping etc)?

While related to What works do the LDS Church recognize as Scripture?, this question is more from the organizational point of view (policy changes etc).

As members of the Church we believe there is revelation that can be shared, and revelation that is so personal it cannot. Each member of the church can receive personal revelation. It is not restricted to the leadership. As with the individual, so it is with the leadership of the church.  They receive revelation that is strictly for them, and others that can be shared with the general population.

For my answer, I will go with the latter, the revelation that is allowed to be shared as a whole.

I do not know, nor do I think there could be a single list of the revelations of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  There are too many. We believe the Heavens are open and revelation comes to those who seek and are worthy to receive.

The church is becoming more transparent in its history and other aspects.  You will find many previously unpublished revelations (and more) of Joseph Smith by viewing the Joseph Smith Papers. Many historical accounts can be found at the LDS History website.

If you care more about more recent revelations. General Conference is a good place to start. Every 6 months the church meets as a whole and the sermons are recorded and posted for all to review and study. Within the General Conference addresses, new temples are announced, policy changes are announced (Missionary age change), etc.

There is also the Mormon Newsroom, which publishes church statements which often clarify a position the church takes, or releases new statements.

The First Presidency will send letters to the Bishops to read to the general congregations. These contain direction, policy change, and so forth. They are only accessible if you are a member of the church and have an LDS Account and the accessibility is limited by church calling as well as membership. Occasionally they are published on the LDS Church News Website

In summary, there is no "one list to rule them all" but the revelations are not held in secret.


Introduction to Greek Texts; Byzantine vs. Alexandrian I'm trying to learn more about the process by which our current Bibles came to be. In doing so I'm wanting to learn more about the Greek Manuscripts from which they are derived, from my current (and very limited) knowledge I believe there to be primarily 2 families of texts; Byzantine and Alexandrian. I've heard that Older Bibles favour Byzantine whilst contemporary Bibles favour Alexandrian

Where could I find a history and discussion on these families of texts? Are these texts the basis for our current Bibles?

The above resources are indeed excellent surveys of the issues surrounding textual criticism of the bible. A couple of extra points are worth noting:
(1) The question asks about the textual history of the Bible. The Greek manuscript families relate specifically to the New Testament. If the question includes the Old Testament that would need to be looked at as a separate question.
(2) It is true that modern translations give greater weight to the Alexandrian family of texts. But a more accurate description would be to say that modern translations use an eclectic text. The leading scholarly Greek NT text is that published by the United Bible Societies. This text is the best current scholarly recreation of the original text. It is based on the study of many manuscripts, lectionaries, commentaries and ancient translations. Where there are variant readings the translators make their best call on a case by case basis as to which reading is right.  The resources already mentioned in the above comments will set out the principles involved. No one manuscript source is considered perfectly reliable, so the UBS Greek text will not match any specific manuscript or family of manuscripts.
(3) As regards the text used by particular translations, the introduction to most modern translations will include a statement on which text they have used and why. For instance the 2011 edition of the NIV includes these paragraphs:

For the Old Testament the standard Hebrew text, the Masoretic Text as published in the latest edition of Biblia Hebraica, has been used throughout. The Masoretic Text tradition contains marginal notations that offer variant readings. These have sometimes been followed instead of the text itself. Because such instances involve variants within the Masoretic tradition, they have not been indicated in the textual notes. In a few cases, words in the basic consonantal text have been divided differently than in the Masoretic Text. Such cases are usually indicated in the textual footnotes. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain biblical texts that represent an earlier stage of the transmission of the Hebrew text. They have been consulted, as have been the Samaritan Pentateuch and the ancient scribal traditions concerning deliberate textual changes. The translators also consulted the more important early versions — the Greek Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Aramaic Targums, and for the Psalms, the Juxta Hebraica of Jerome. Readings from these versions, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the scribal traditions were occasionally followed where the Masoretic Text seemed doubtful and where accepted principles of textual criticism showed that one or more of these textual witnesses appeared to provide the correct reading. In rare cases, the committee has emended the Hebrew text where it appears to have become corrupted at an even earlier stage of its transmission. These departures from the Masoretic Text are also indicated in the textual footnotes. Sometimes the vowel indicators (which are later additions to the basic consonantal text) found in the Masoretic Text did not, in the judgment of the committee, represent the correct vowels for the original text. Accordingly, some words have been read with a different set of vowels. These instances are usually not indicated in the footnotes.
The Greek text used in translating the New Testament is an eclectic one, based on the latest editions of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. The committee has made its choices among the variant readings in accordance with widely accepted principles of New Testament textual criticism. Footnotes call attention to places where uncertainty remains. 2


Why did Satan tempt Jesus in the desert? In Matthew 4:1-13 and Luke 4:1-11, Jesus was in the desert for 40 days and tempted by Satan. Of particular interest is the first temptation.

  Luke 4:3-4 (NLT)

  3 Then the devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, tell this stone to become a loaf of bread.”
  4 But Jesus told him, “No! The Scriptures say, ‘People do not live by bread alone.’”

Satan full well knew who Jesus was! There couldn't have been any doubt in Satan's mind as to Jesus' identity, as opposed to the Pharisees and Sadducees, who simply refused to believe. No, Satan isn't really asking Jesus to prove Himself. Rather, he has some other motive...

What was Satan's motive in asking Jesus for a sign of His identity?

I consider myself non-denominational, but I grew up Wesleyan, so the closer answers are to that, the better. I won't turn away Catholic or Orthodox answers though.

The recorded three temptations of Christ mirror the steps Satan used to bring sin into the world in the first place:

  If you are the Son of God ...

vs Genesis 3

  Did God actually say ...

Also, like with the first sin, it is related to food.

Second:

  If you are the Son of God, jump off ...

vs

  You will not surely die

God didn't mean what He said ("I even quoted a passage to prove it!")

And lastly:

  if you will worship me ...

vs

  you will be like God ...

Questioning God's authority.

Satan is questioning whether Jesus was who He said He was (and whom His Father had just attested to at the baptism) - He was trying to get Jesus to fail in His earthly life so He couldn't be our perfect sacrificial substitute.


Using the Hebrew calendar is there a way to determine when the seventy seven's starts and ends? Using the Hebrew calendar is there a way to determine the start and end of the seventy seven's. Will it end on a jubilee year, and how will that date translate to our current calendar, for example what year? Or will this require to much speculation and be outside the scope of this site?

Further to your first question, “Is there a way to determine?”  I will now attempt an answer to your second question, “Will it end on a jubilee year, and how will that date translate to our current calendar?”

There are about four Jubilee examples in the Bible and they all link together in a grid of 49’s.  The best known ones include the case where Isaiah told King Hezekiah,

  “This shall be the sign for you: this year eat what grows of itself,
  and in the second year what springs of the same. Then in the third
  year sow and reap and plant vineyards, and eat their fruit.” (2 Kings
  19:29)

His example is significant, because, as a Jubilee Sabbath, it shows how the land lay fallow for two years in a row, and God expected his people to trust him for their sustenance until planting and reaping in the third year.  A ‘seven’ is indicated by the fact that sowing and reaping were not permitted that year. (Leviticus 25:3-7) A ‘forty-nine’ is indicated by the fact that no sowing and reaping was permitted the next year either.  (Leviticus 25:11-12)  God promised the people there would be enough fruit growing wild to feed them for two.  So the sign describes a 49th year Sabbath followed by a Jubilee.

The last identified case described in the Bible, occurred on the switch-point of Daniels 69th and 70th sevens and coincided with the manifestation of Messiah at his first coming.  Daniels ‘weeks’ began on the 1st Nisan 457 BC, when the Persian Emperor, Artaxerxes, issued a decree.  (Dan 9:25, Ezra 7:7-26)

Now, when we count forward 69 sevens (483 years) from 1 Nisan 457 BC, it comes out at 1 Nisan AD AD 27 - the time Jesus began his public ministry.  Here is what he said about that year:

  “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to
  proclaim good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim liberty to
  the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty
  those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.”
  (Luke 4:16-21)

As we can see, it describes a Jubilee year, and it does in fact fit a series of 49-year spans from the anniversary of the Hebrew calendar on the year of the Exodus.  (Exodus 12:2)

When one considers how Daniel first predicts the decree nearly a century before it happened, then proceeds to telescope another 69 weeks further, we find a supernatural fulfillment of the ‘times’ in Jesus of Nazareth.  Add that to the unlikely chance of a decree occurring on the cusp of a grand Jubilee cycle, and it cannot be brushed aside.  These ‘coincidences’ defy the odds and provide powerful testimony to the identity of the Christ.

So, in answer to your last question, no, the 70 sevens do not end on the Jubilee; it is the 69th seven that reaches the Jubilee.  This raises a much debated theory as to whether the 70th week is disconnected from the others and projected into the future.  I do not believe that it is. Here is a simple diagram of the 70 ‘weeks’, and below are my calendar dates for the key events in Daniel’s prophecy.

1st Nisan (26 March) 457 BC - 70 weeks cycle begin
October-November 26 AD      - Jesus baptised
1st Nisan (27 March) 27 AD  - 70th week begins
15th Nisan (7 April) 30 AD - Sacrifice abolished (Christs atonement)
29th Adar (9 March)  34 AD - 70 weeks cycle end


What personal possessions did Pope John Paul II have at the time of death? The pope recieves no salary, but from what I understand, popes do have some personal possessions. A personal possesion is something that you own. For example, Pope Benedict XVI, I believe, had a substantial library of books that he brought with him into the Papal Apartments.

Of course, enumerating everything a certain pope has ever owned is impossible and not very useful. But presumably we can know what sort of personal possessions a typical pope has at a typical point in time. This would shed some light on the daily life of the pope, and might clear up some misconceptions regarding the personal wealth of popes.

Pope John Paul II is the most recent deceased pope, and served as pope for a comparatively long time. The time of death is a unique and definite point, and there are probably objective records of these remaining possessions. Some of those personal possessions might eventually be "relics", and these are important to Catholics.

What personal possessions did Pope John Paul II have at the time of death?

In his last will and testament he wrote:

  I leave no possessions of which it will be necessary to dispose

However, he seems to have an "estate" in poland, which has been given for use as low income housing:

  Osiedle administracyjne IV im. Jana Pawła II w Ostrowie Wielkopolskim – osiedle administracyjne położone we wschodniej części miasta. Liczy ok. 18 tys. mieszkańców. Obejmuje południową część Krępy oraz północne rubieże dawnego folwarku Stare Kamienice.

through which I roughly translated w/ Google

  The administrative settlement of Pope John Paul II in Ostrow Wielkopolski - Administrative estate located in the eastern part of the city. There are about 18,000 residents. It covers the southern part and the northern reaches of former old tenement farm.

Hopefully, I'm not spreading misinformation with a hasty Google search/translation.  But it appears as if Pope John Paul II's estate was bequeathed to the needy prior to his passing into greater glory.

Feel free to go roll around in the mud on his farm and make of yourself a 3rd degree relic.


How do Protestants interpret "baptized for the dead" in 1 Corinthians 15:29? 1 Corinthians 15:29 (KJV)
  Else what shall they do which are baptized
  for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?  Why are they then baptized
  for the dead?

I know that the LDS Church interprets that verse literally. How do other Protestant traditions interpret this passage? What specific doctrines are derived from or reference this verse?

There are a few interpretations that I have come across regarding the specific meaning of this verse, but all agree that this is a small argument in a wider context, not a change of direction from the verses before and after it:

John Stevenson (a Presbyterian theologian) argues that "for" in this case means "in the place of". This was a time when Chrisitans were heavily persecuted and frequently killed, yet the gospel message was spreading and more believers were being baptised. So Stevenson asserts that this verse is asking (rhetorically), "why, when so many Christians are being killed for their faith, are people still becoming Christians and being baptised, replacing those who were killed?"

Meanwhile, Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry concentrates on the meaning of the word "they" as opposed to "we". He asserts that Paul is talking not about Christians, but about a pagan religion from Eleusis, north of Corinth, who believed that baptising in the sea guaranteed a good afterlife. Slick's interpretation is that Paul is saying "if even the pagans believe in the resurrection and the importance of baptism, why can't you?"

The Restored Church of God teaches that the word "for" should be translated as "in the hope of" and asserts that the meaning is much more straightforward: if there is no bodily resurrection, we have no hope after we die. We therefore believe and are baptised because we do have hope that the dead will rise again.

While these interpretations vary in their conclusions regarding what Paul was specifically referring to, they all make the point that the verse must be taken in context. Stevenson explains,

  The context of this passage is one in which Paul is arguing on behalf
  of the doctrine of the bodily resurrection. The Greeks as a rule did
  not hold to a bodily resurrection. It was a new concept to them. Their
  religion taught that the afterlife consisted of a disembodied
  existence. Throughout this chapter, Paul gives one argument after
  another showing that Christians legitimately believe in a
  resurrection.

So the verse itself doesn't result in specific doctrines in protestant churches outside of LDS, because the verse is part of a much wider set of arguments for the doctrines of baptism and the bodily resurrection.

I've picked on a few particular resources that address this issue but there are several others that also support the argument that the verse should be taken in the context described above and not as an indication of support for baptism on behalf of those that have already died. In addition, here's a specific rebuttal of the Mormon view from David Pratte's gospelway.com website.


Did the city of Nazareth exist in the time of Jesus? The question stems from this video. Additionally, I would like to know any books, articles and other credible sources that deals with this question for further reading*. Thank you for your time.

* History is not my field. I am not experienced in discerning whether a source is credible or not.

It's very easy to look back thousands of years, once time has had plenty of time to change things, and say that there's no evidence for something and so it must be false.  But it's a very different matter when there aren't thousands of years in the way.

The Gospels were written in the first century AD, by people who experienced it personally, to their contemporaries, and they were believed.  Now, miracles are one thing--believing in them takes faith, of course.  But miracles aren't the only things in the Gospels.

If I wrote a supposedly non-fiction account about my own experiences living in the city of Blargsenberg, New Jersey, it wouldn't take long before someone looked at it and said "hey, there's no such city! This is a made-up story!"  But the interesting thing is, there's no evidence of contemporaries rejecting the Gospels on the basis of them contradicting easily verifiable facts on non-miraculous claims.

In the video, the speaker suggests that if there was no such city as Nazareth, the entire Gospel narrative falls apart.  But he does not seem to understand that if there was no such city as Nazareth, it would not have taken people 2000 years to realize that!

Occam's Razor cuts his argument to ribbons.  Now, if no evidence for an ancient town matching the Biblical narrative exists on the present-day site known as Nazareth, a much more plausible explanation is that the present-day site is located in the wrong place.


What is the relationship between YEC and rapture theology? I'm curious about the relationship between those who adhere to young-earth creationism, and those who adhere to Rapture theology (as expressed in the Left Behind series, for example, and similar related belief systems most commonly associated with fundamentalism and dispensationalism).  Are these, generally, the same people?  Or is there a large divergence between these two groups?

I know a good many Christians who believe in both.  I know a few who reject both.  I don't know specifically of anyone who accepts one view, but rejects the other, although they may exist and I just don't know because the discussion topic hasn't come up.

And at least superficially, they both appear to have their roots in fundamentalism.  But I wonder how substantial this similarity is.

To be a bit more specific,

Are there any theological foundations on which both views are built?  Or does one view depend in any way on the other? (Does Rapture theology depend on an literal Adam, for instance.)
What is the cultural relationship between the two theologies?  If we were to, for example, draw a Venn diagram of these two theologies, what would it look like?

Have any polls or studies been done on this topic?

I am unfamiliar with any polls or studies on this topic but I do think the two are related though not necessarily by theological foundations. The link appears to be an extremely literal interpretation of the Bible biased toward recent history.

For example, young earth creationism interprets the Genesis account of creation strictly literally despite being fairly unfounded although I'm sure some would disagree. For example,

There is no clear consensus either way by modern science.
Obvious problems with literal interpretations like days before the sun and moon and God's speaking despite speech requiring a mouth, a spoken language, and a medium to transmit it
Jewish tradition treats Genesis 1 as a poem [1] (also see the torah and commentary).

Similarly, the belief in the rapture was 'discovered' relatively recently and results from an extremely literal interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:17:

  After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up
  together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so
  we will be with the Lord forever.

NT Wright in Surprised by Hope says this was a figurative expression which would have been easily understood by the readers of the letter as referring to a real event. When Caesar would pass through the city, it was customary to ride out to meet him in order to escort him with celebration back into the city.

Instead of suggesting being whisked away into some ethereal heavenly realm, it alludes to the return of Christ in the manner in which he left and our escorting our Ruler to his Kingdom with celebration.


We might find Judas in Heaven? We all know how Judas sold Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. The thing is he hanged himself before Jesus died on the cross so he went to (supposedly) hell.

But after Jesus died on the cross he went to the underworld and preached there. Is it possible that Judas might have been redeemed there, or is it safe to presume that the only ones that Jesus preached to in the underworld were those who hadn't heard the gospel in their lifetime?

What church doctrines/beliefs are there on these issues? Are they even related?

There is good reason to believe that we will not see Judas in heaven.  Jesus spoke of His betrayer with these words:

  The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”  Matthew 26:24 ESV

As @Paul A Clayton noted in this comment, John 17:12 is more emphatic:

  None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.  John 17:12b NIV

If Jesus said that it would have been better for Judas had he never been born, then it is hard to imagine that he is in heaven now.  Since Jesus is omniscient, if Judas were to have another opportunity to respond to the gospel after his death--which I don't believe he did--then Jesus would have also known the outcome of that and would not have said what He did.

Judas did, however, feel remorse, but there is a significant, even eternal difference between remorse and repentance.  He certainly could have repented of what he did and returned to Jesus, but it appears he felt remorse and probably shame.  His suicide appears to be a result of that and not of biblical repentance.


What things did John the Baptist say that the elders and priests did not believe? In Matthew 21:25 we see priests and elders reasoning within themselves:

  The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they
  reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he
  will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

My question here is how did they not believe him? What exactly did they do that showed that they did not believe him? What things exactly (of what John the baptist was saying) did they not believe? Was it something like they had refused to be baptized from John?

(Answers supported by the verses from the Gospel of Matthew are most preferable)

Well, in the preceding verses, they were questioning Jesus about his authority.  Jesus answered by asking them about John the Baptist's authority, to draw an analogy.  So the obvious answer would be that they didn't believe John's testimony of Jesus:

  John 1:19-34

  19 And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and
  Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

  20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the
  Christ.

  21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am
  not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

  22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer
  to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?

  23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make
  straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.

  24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.

  25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if
  thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

  26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there
  standeth one among you, whom ye know not;

  27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's
  latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

  28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was
  baptizing.

  29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold
  the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

  30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred
  before me: for he was before me.

  31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel,
  therefore am I come baptizing with water.

  32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from
  heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

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

  34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.


Is sacred music still sacred if performed by non-believers? Whilst listening to Wednesday Morning 3AM and enjoying the Benedictus, I found myself pondering the question of whether or not this could be considered sacred music as neither the performers were Christian nor had the arrangement been made by a Christian.

As an Anglican, I thought it would be interesting to think about my own church's thoughts on the matter. Have any churches in the Anglican Communion made statements on whether music which is sacred (i.e. dedicated to religious purposes) is still considered sacred if performed by non-believers?

This is similar to a perennial question raised on a couple of Email lists devoted to Anglican and Catholic church music to which I subscribe, and ultimately comes down to the definition of "sacred music". In the email lists, it was found impossible to agree on a rigorous definition, but it was generally agreed that we could identify it when we heard it. One view posted there was that music which a person believed served to enhance the connection between him or herself and the Almighty was "sacred", and that the beliefs of the lyricist, translator, composer, orchestrators or performers, were of little or no consequence if the work led to a closer relationship with the Almighty. The consensus was that whether someone involved in a "sacred" composition was not Christian was similar to the production of other items used in meditation and worship. Would it matter if the pews in the church, or the furniture used in meditation at home is manufactured by a machine, a Buddhist, or a Christian?

Some famous pieces of 20th century sacred music, in fact, were composed by people who were not particularly religious. And yet, they are masterworks, included in Cathedral music lists on a regular basis, and have brought many people closer to God. Examples include the Peter Warlock ("Bethlehem Down"), and Ralph Vaughan Williams ("Mass / Communion Service in g"; "Blest is the Man"), among others.

There is another issue here, too. Both Old Testament and New Testaments contain examples of where the Almighty chose to use people who did not know they had a relationship with him as agents of his will. In my view, "Christian" music by non-Christian is an exact parallel to this.