Why did God create us so that it is in our nature to sin? There are many questions that circle around the following question but the exact wording is important - therefore it is, to the best of my knowledge, not a duplicate!

In many of the answers given to similar questions the following is stated:

  God has perfect free will but He will never sin because it is not in
  His nature.

My question
Obviously we haven't defined our nature ourselves but we were created with a certain nature. Obviously it is in our nature to sin. When God created us in His image why did He take the free will-part but not the it is not in our nature to sin-part? The catastrophic consequences were clear to Him being omnipotent.

NB
I am not looking for speculative answers but answers that are firmly based on scripture.

NB 2
This question is being asked from a Protestant Christian perspective (sola scriptura).

"When God created us in His image" is in your question. Maybe "His image" means:
We have spirits, consciousness, emotions and use language, but does not mean we are uncreated, all knowing, or have any moral strength of our own separate from God. One can disagree with this definition but I suggest your question implies we all agree on some obvious meaning. Also the question does not, I think, show awareness of the following:

God made Adam.

God is perfect. Adam was made perfectly to fit God's purposes.

God's purpose was that only Jesus would fulfil the law.Mat 5v17 I did not come to destroy but to fulfil. [the Law].

Adam was not made capable of fulfilling the Law.

At first Adam had peace with God. In Gen 2v16 Adam is not ashamed to be in God's presence. But nothing had been required of him so far. [A car in a showroom with no brakes is not perfect but it only becomes a problem when it is driven]. Temptation exposed Adam's inability.

Rom 11v32 God has committed them all to disobedience that He might have mercy on all. [might=subjunctive=a possibility]. The possibility of having mercy on all, or any, is created by the necessary condition of all being trapped, or
committed to disobedience. The Greek word for trapped used here is the same as used in Luke 5v6 for fish enclosed. It is something done to fish, or men, and not something they initiate.

To blame [blame implies fault] God is not the way out of sin even though we have been made incapable of the holiness necessary to fulfil the Law. Admitting to God we are sinners and turning to Him for forgiveness is the way out of sin.


Did Jonah die and rise from the dead? I've heard from a friend a theory claiming Jonah died in the whale's belly and then he was raised from the dead to preach to the Ninevites.
He told me it is based on those verses:

  "He said: “In my distress I called to the Lord,
      and he answered me. From deep in the realm of the dead I called for help,
      and you listened to my cry."
  (Jonah 2:2, NIV)

  "He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But
  none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as
  Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so
  the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the
  earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this
  generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of
  Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here."
  (Matthew 12:39:41, NIV)

I told him I don't agree with his theory because Jonah prayed inside the whale, but he was inflexible.

Also, here is an answer to raise this issue: Jonah and the Whale - Is there any scientific proof that it is possible to survive in the belly of whale?

I would especially like to hear answers from a Pentecostal perspective.

It is possible that Jonah died in the belly of the fish, based on the language used in Jonah 2, but I think most probable that he did not. Notice Jonah 2:5 (2:6 in Hebrew) says "the waters encompassed me up to my neck." That same Hebrew phrase "up to my neck" was used by David in Ps 69:1, “Save me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck.” The phrase signifies near-death, not actual death. In 2:7, he says Jonah says "my soul was failing me," which again suggests near-death, but not actual death.

Only in 2:6 do you get language that could be taken to mean that Jonah died. It says "To the bottom of the mountains, I went down.  The land, its bars were behind me forever.  You brought up my life from the pit, O LORD, my God." The first phrase is simply a metaphor for the danger he was in, being dragged to the bottom of the sea. The second phrase is a bit obscure, since the word I have translated "land" is the Hebrew word "erets," which usually means "land, earth," but which some translations have here rendered "underworld." If it were underworld, it could possibly suggest he was momentarily on the other side of the underworld, i.e., dead. However, it is so poetic that, when surrounded by the near-death language on either side, it seems best to take it as a poetic description of the fact that he was on the very verge of death. Besides, I think the usual translation of "land" is more appropriate, since there is no adjective modifying "erets" to suggest it's the "land of the dead" or something like that. It was from this state of near-death that God brought up Jonah's life from the pit.

A former Hebrew professor of mine held the view that Jonah died, so I can appreciate the argument. But I think the argument is based on a misunderstanding of Matthew's comparison of Jonah with Jesus. Jesus only says that the comparison is between the "three days and three nights in the belly of the whale." He does not say the comparison extends to death. I think those who want to say Jonah died are trying to make the two stories of Jonah and Jesus align more than they need to for Jesus' comparison to be valid.


How does Catholic Church explain John 1:31? At John 1:30-31  (NRSVCE) we see John the Baptist introducing Jesus to the crowd:

  "This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’  I myself did not know him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel."

John's mother Elizabeth was a relative of Mary, mother of Jesus (Lk 1:36) . As such, both John and Jesus would have known each other from childhood. Apparently, John's saying "I myself did not know him.."has a deeper meaning. My question therefore, is: How does the Catholic Church explain the statement of John the Baptist that he did not know Jesus ?

Commenting on John 1:31, St. Thomas Aquinas explains "the statement of John the Baptist that he did not know Jesus" by saying that he

  […] precludes an erroneous conjecture from his testimony. For someone might say that John bore witness to Christ because of his affection for him, coming from a special friendship. And so, excluding this, John says, And I did not know him!; for John had lived in the desert from boyhood. And although many miracles happened during the birth of Christ, such as the Magi and the star and so on, they were not known to John: both because he was an infant at the time, and because, after withdrawing to the desert, he had no association with Christ. In the interim between his birth and baptism, Christ did not perform any miracles, but led a life similar to any other person, and his power remained unknown to all.


What roles are women allowed to play in LDS Sunday services? On a Sunday when a Latter-day Saints congregation meets, what roles are women allowed or not allowed to play in the service?

Well, so the big hidden question here is "what comprises an LDS sunday service?".  A related question covers some of this, so I'll just summarize.  In your average "Sacrament meeting", you'll typically have:

1 who presides at the meeting
1 who conducts the meeting (may be the same as the one presiding)
1 who leads the music
1 who plays the piano/organ
2+ who bless the Sacrament (Eucharist)
several who pass the Sacrament to the congregation
2 who say the opening and closing prayers
several who give short talks or sermons

Of these, the only thing women may not do is preside at the meeting, bless the Sacrament, or pass the Sacrament.  Those are duties of people who hold the Priesthood, and only men hold the Priesthood.

It would be very unusual to see a woman conduct the meeting, since that is usually done by the presiding person or one of his counselors.  However, there are some meetings of the Church where women conduct the meetings (for example, the General Relief Society Meeting).  There are also meetings where women preside (again, most meetings of the Relief Society), but that does not happen in a Sacrament meeting.


Did Jesus wear premium clothes? In John 19:23,  it is said that Jesus clothes were not ripped because they were seamless and woven in one piece from top to bottom. Does that mean Jesus used to wear premium clothes? Since the soldiers refuse to rip up such a nice cloth I assume it is somehow valuable or special. Can someone please elaborate on the topic?

Psalm 22:16-18 reads as follows:

For dogs have surrounded me;
A band of evildoers has encompassed me;
They pierced my hands and my feet.
I can count all my bones.
They look, they stare at me;
They divide my garments among them,
And for my clothing they cast lots.

Here is the New Testament fulfillment of the prophecy in Psalm 22:

Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took His outer garments and made four parts, a part to every soldier and also the tunic [Gk chiton]; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece. So they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be”; this was to fulfill the Scripture:
“They divided My outer garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots” [John evidently quoted the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint, or LXX].
Therefore the soldiers did these things.

According to a number of sources, the chiton (χιτών, citwn), which was a long garment worn next to the skin and under the outer cloak, was more expensive to make than an undergarment of several pieces sewn together. Perhaps a seamless chiton looked more presentable than one which was made from piecework. The salient fact in the crucifixion narrative, however, is that since the chiton was seamless, the quaternion of soldiers was reluctant to rip the garment into four pieces (which would spoil the garment) but chose rather to "cast lots" (our equivalent today of throwing dice) to see which soldier would get it whole.
As the writer of the article "The Seamless Tunic" observed:

This prophecy […] declares the commonness of divine prophecy. It shows the characteristic of earthliness that is sometimes present in the fulfillment of God’s predictions. Often He chooses the everyday deeds, the unplanned and common activities of people, as the setting and events through which His prophecies come to pass. These soldiers—having no idea that they were part of God’s designs—went about their normal work of implementing an execution. What they did was routine to them. Perhaps they joked about who got what as they divided the outer garments. When they came to the seamless undergarment, they paused to recognize its beauty; beyond that, it was business as usual. After deciding on what to do with the tunic, they gambled over it and gave it to the winner. These men were unaware that they were fulfilling a prophecy made perhaps a thousand years before. They did not know that their actions had been written into the divine record by David or that they were proving that God overrules in all things to fulfill His will.

While the seamless tunic could be considered a "luxury item" in Jesus's day, Jesus did not possess any other luxury items, particularly toward the end of his public ministry. Here is what he said to a wannabe follower:

"The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head" (Matthew 8:20; cf. Luke 19:28 KJV).

Perhaps earlier in his life, Jesus may actually have owned a house in Capernaum. Here is what Gospel writer Mark tells us,

καὶ γίνεται κατακεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ καὶ πολλοὶ τελῶναι καὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ συνανέκειντο τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ἦσαν γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ ἠκολούθουν αὐτῷ
And it happened that he was reclining in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who were following him . . ..

As his public ministry became more and more itinerate, however, he may simply have divested himself of all earthly goods, save for the "clothes on his back," so he could travel light, as it were.
And from Professor Mark Goodacre's blog comes the following,

This may be an example of . . . accidental information, or material given away in passing, where a piece of data (here: Jesus had a house in Capernaum) is assumed and not narrated.

Furthermore, Jesus' basic needs were provided for out of the common pot, of which Judas Iscariot was in charge (see John 12:6), and a number of prominent women contributed to his support as well (Luke 8:2-3).
The apostle Paul also reminds us:

For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich (2 Corinthians 8:9 KJV).

All the above is to say: While Jesus may have owned a tailor-made tunic, it may have been made by his mother or by another talented (perhaps wealthy) seamstress who may have been a follower of our Lord. Obviously, Jesus did not live in the lap of luxury. Moreover, he was content to entrust the moneybag to a thief, which as writer Jon Bloom observes,

Of all the disciples, Jesus chose Judas to be treasurer of his itinerant nonprofit. One is tempted to offer the Lord some consulting on good stewardship. Donors were financially supporting this ministry (Luke 8:3) and the one guy who Jesus knew was a “devil” (John 6:70) was made CFO.
Now, Jesus was not ignorant of Judas’s pilfering. So why did he let him manage the money?
I believe Jesus was putting his money where his mouth was.
He said, “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where. . . thieves break in and steal” (Matthew 6:19-20). So he showed us by example what he meant.


Jewish traditions regarding the Sabbath at the time of Jesus? What are some of the Jewish (mishnaic) traditions regarding keeping the Sabbath, that were not specified in Torah? I am interested in knowing the traditions especially prevalent during the time of Jesus. Kindly cite either the scripture or authentic Jewish sources.

An example would be the "Sabbath Day's Journey":

  KJV Acts 1:12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.

I have heard that this is a tradition described by the Jews as a lawful distance that can be traveled on Sabbath. But don't have any Jewish sources.

Edit 1: By Mishnaic I meant the traditions that were in existence during the time of Jesus. I gather that Mishna is a compiled written form of these traditions that were created during the time intervening between Malachi and Jesus.

Further clarification:

This question is particularly relevant here at Christianity, as I am interested in traditions that the Jews accused Jesus of breaking, especially regarding those on Sabbath.
I am not interested in just Sabbath Day's Journey - but others like it. So it is not a duplicate.

Jewish traditions regarding the Sabbath at the time of Jesus?

  Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey. - Acts 1:12 KJV

Josephus makes the Mount of Olives to be about six stadia from Jerusalem and it is thus the acceptable distance between these two places which in Acts 1:12 is given as a Sabbath day's journey.

  The Jewish scruple to go more than 2000 paces from his city on the Sabbath is referred to by Origen (περὶ ἀρχων, 4, 2), by Jerome (Ad Algasiam, qu. 10), and by Oecumenius — with some apparent difference between them as to the measurement. Jerome gives Akiba, Simeon, and Hillel as the authorities for the lawful distance.

  Another reason for fixing the distance of a Sabbath day's walk or journey at 2000 yards is that the fields of the suburbs for the pasture of the flocks and herds belonging to the Levites measured 2000 cubits or yards, and that in Ex 21:13 it is said, "I will appoint thee a place (מקו ם) whither he shall flee" — i.e. the Levitical suburbs or cities. Now, it is argued, if one who committed murder accidentally was allowed to undertake this journey of 2000 yards on a Sabbath without violating the sanctity of the day, innocent people may do the same. Besides, the place of refuge is termed מקו ם, which is the same word employed in Ex 16:29. As the one מקו ם, place, was 2000 yards distant, it is inferred, according to the rule the analogy of ideas or words (גזרה שוה) that the command, "Let no man go out of his place (ממקמו) on the seventh day" (Ex 16:29) means not to exceed the distance of the place 2000 yards off (Hillel I, rule 2, in Erubin, 51 a; Maccoth, 12 b; Zebachim, 117 a). Josephus (War, 5, 2, 3) makes the Mount of Olives to be about six stadia from Jerusalem; and it is the distance between these two places which in Ac 1; Ac 12 is given as a Sabbath day's journey. Josephus elsewhere determines the same distance as five stadia (Ant. 20, 8, 6); but both were probably loose statements rather than measured distances; and both are below the ordinary estimate of 2000 cubits. Taking all circumstances into account, it seems likely that the ordinary Sabbath day's journey was a somewhat loosely determined distance, seldom more than the whole and seldom less than three quarters of a geographical mile. See Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gent. 3, 9; Frischmuth, Dissert. de Itin. Sabbat. (1670); Walther, Dissert. de Itin. Sabbat.; both in Thesaurus Theolog. Philog. (Amsterd. 1720). - Sabbath Days Journey (McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia)


Did the Second Council of Orange deny the "certain efficacy" of grace? B. B. Warfield says in The Plan of Salvation [PDF]:

  Into the place of Pelagianism there stepped at once Semipelagianism; and when the controversy with Semi-pelagianism had been fought and won, into the place of Semi-pelagianism there stepped that semi-semi-pelagianism which the Council of Orange betrayed the Church into. ... The necessity of grace had been acknowledged as the result of the Pelagian controversy: its preveniency, as the result of the Semi-pelagian controversy: but its certain efficacy, its "irresistibility" men call it, was by the fatal compromise of Orange denied. ...  [After Orange it was not] any longer legally possible to ascribe salvation so entirely to the grace of God that it could complete itself without the aid of the discredited human will—its aid only as empowered and moved by prevenient grace indeed, but not effectually moved, so that it could not hold back and defeat the operations of saving grace.

But I've read through the canons of the Council of Orange and I don't see how he concludes that. Is he right?

Resistible grace in the Council of Orange

The conclusion to the council's canons says:

  After grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul.

This was the wording that I missed earlier. In other words, while God provides the initial impetus for salvation through grace, man is only saved thereafter "if they desire." This is clearly not consistent with "irresistible grace," or what Warfield terms "certain efficacy" of grace. Dialogist's answer is therefore more or less correct to say that what "troubled Warfield was that the Council of Orange ascribed any importance at all to man's free will," though Warfield, as a Calvinist, would affirm "free will" in a certain compatibilist sense.

Reformed objections to the Council of Orange

John Leith says in Creeds of the Churches, page 37:

  At the Council of Orange ... double predestination is repudiated and irresistible grace is omitted.

Similarly, Charles R. Biggs says in an article that the council "failed to articulate Augustine's teaching on predestination and irresistible grace." Biggs says in another article that "problems with the Synod of Orange" are the following:

  (1) The irresistibility of grace is not affirmed. (2) Predestination to evil is condemned. (3) The reception of grace is so bound to baptism that the sacramental quality of grace and the merit of good works are put in the foreground.

Herman Bavinck says in Reformed Dogmatics: Vol 1:

  The Synod of Orange ... accepted prevenient grace but did not decisively adopt irresistible grace and particular predestination. In the years following, not much Augustinianism was left intact."

So we can summarize the reformed objections to the council as follows:

Irresistible grace is omitted or denied (this is what the question was about)
Double predestination, which goes hand in hand with irresistible grace, is denied
Augustinian soteriology was weakened as a result and later diminished within the church until it was restored in the Reformation


What is the name of the belief that each of us is guilty for the sins of our neighbors? What is the name of for the doctrine that each of us is individually guilty of all sin; that our own spiritual failures and lack of love are the cause of our neighbor's shortcomings?

I do not mean the belief that we are each guilty of every different kind of sin despite not having personally committed many of them or the Catholic belief that, through the reproduction of the human race, we have all 'inherited' guilt.

For example, Elder Zossima in The Brothers Karamazov says

  "But when he knows that he is not only worse than all those in the
  world, but is also guilty before all people, on behalf of all and for
  all, for all human sins, the world's and each person's, only then will
  the goal of our unity be achieved. [...] Only then will our hearts be
  moved to a love that is infinite, universal, and knows no satiety."

Orthodoxwiki.org describes St. Paisos the Hagiorite as having

  dwelt deeply on the thought that his own spiritual failures and lack
  of love were the cause of his neighbor's shortcomings, as well as of
  the world's ills.

Here is another quote from Elder Zossima who is reported to be speaking the words which Dostoevsky heard from the mouth of St. Ambrose of Optina.

  Because we have come here and shut ourselves within these walls, we
  are no holier than those that are outside, but on the contrary, from
  the very fact of coming here, each of us has confessed to himself that
  he is worse than others, than all men on earth.... And the longer the
  monk lives in his seclusion, the more keenly he must recognize that.
  Else he would have had no reason to come here. When he realizes that
  he is not only worse than others, but that he is responsible to all
  men for all and everything, for all human sins, national and
  individual, only then the aim of our seclusion is attained. For know,
  dear ones, that every one of us is undoubtedly responsible for all men
  -- and everything on earth, not merely through the general sinfulness of creation, but each one personally for all mankind and every
  individual man. This knowledge is the crown of life for the monk and
  for every man. For monks are not a special sort of men, but only what
  all men ought to be.

I believe this is a uniquely Orthodox notion and I do not know the name for it. It is not total depravity. I do not have any examples of homilies expounding this topic. I suspect this is because I do not know its name or how to search for it.

I can't name the doctrine exactly, but I can confirm that in Orthodox Christianity, there is a belief that "our own spiritual failures and lack of love are the cause of our neighbor's shortcomings."

"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea." (Mark 9:42 NKJV)

"This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." (I Timothy 1:15 NKJV)
During the Divine Liturgy, all the people repeat that saying, each one identifying ourselves as the chief of sinners.

During the Divine Liturgy, we also pray for the salvation of all mankind. St. Seraphim of Sarov said "Find peace in your own heart, and a thousand around you will be saved." It works both ways.


Does The Book of Mormon contain Jewish literary techniques? According to Latter-day Saints, The Book of Mormon was written by ancient prophets who originated from Jerusalem (contemporaries with Jeremiah, in fact), then later traveled to the Americas.

As far as we have it today, the Bible is replete with Jewish (and Greek) characteristics directly in its language and writing. It contains poetry/songs, chiastic structure, acrostics, etc.

Does The Book of Mormon similarly contain literary styles and techniques common among Jews? Are there complex lingual devices in The Book of Mormon?

The Book of Mormon is rich with chiasmus, which is a symmetric structure that looks something like ABCDCBA, fairly unique to Hebrew culture. That article outlines several instances of chiastic structure.

Additionally, there are more Hebraisms scattered throughout.

Repetition of possessive pronoun: Possessive pronoun prefixed to each list item, for example, 1 Nephi 2:4, 1 Nephi 2:11, 1 Nephi 3:22 (first quote), Mosiah 4:6 (second quote)...

  22 And it came to pass that we went down to the land of our inheritance, and we did gather together our gold, and our silver, and our precious things.

In English, we would typically omit these extra pronouns.

  6 I say unto you, if ye have come to a knowledge of the goodness of God, and his matchless power, and his wisdom, and his patience, and his long-suffering towards the children of men; and also, the atonement which has been prepared from the foundation of the world, that thereby salvation might come to him that should put his trust in the Lord, and should be diligent in keeping his commandments, and continue in the faith even unto the end of his life, I mean the life of the mortal body—

Repetition of preposition: Similar as above, but needlessly repeating the preposition or prepositional phrase in a list. For some examples, see 1 Nephi 19:11, 2 Nephi 5:15, Jarom 1:8, Alma 31:24, Alma 44:5 (quoted), Helaman 10:5...

  5 And now, Zerahemnah, I command you, in the name of that all-powerful God, who has strengthened our arms that we have gained power over you, by our faith, by our religion, and by our rites of worship, and by our church, and by the sacred support which we owe to our wives and our children, by that liberty which binds us to our lands and our country; yea, and also by the maintenance of the sacred word of God, to which we owe all our happiness; and by all that is most dear unto us—

Cognate accusative: Verbs and related nouns are often built from the same root. You can see this in 1 Nephi 14:7 (first quote), 2 Nephi 3:18 (second quote), Enos 1:13, Alma 1:1, among many others.

  7 For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other—either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.

Again, in English, this construct is unusual.

  18 And the Lord said unto me also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it.

Suffixed possessive pronoun: The pronoun is suffixed to the thing possessed. For instance 1 Nephi 22:14, 2 Nephi 9:25 (first quote), 2 Nephi 10:8, Moroni 8:20 (second quote).

  25 Wherefore, he has given a law; and where there is no law given there is no punishment; and where there is no punishment there is no condemnation; and where there is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement; for they are delivered by the power of him.

In English, we would use a different word to rephrase it ("his power" or, for below, "his atonement").

  20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.

Construct states (basic/material/possession): In Hebrew, there's two nouns with an implied of, but English uses an adjective and a noun. The basic construct state is seen, for example, in 2 Nephi 25:2 (first quote), or Helaman 5:28 (second quote):

  2 For I, Nephi, have not taught them many things concerning the manner of the Jews; for their works were works of darkness, and their doings were doings of abominations.

To satisfy this first construct state in English, we would say "dark works" or "their works were dark," and "their doings were abominable" (noun and adjective).

  28 And it came to pass that they were overshadowed with a cloud of darkness, and an awful solemn fear came upon them.

We might say "dark cloud."

It's also common to see this with materials, for example 1 Nephi 3:3...

  3 For behold, Laban hath the record of the Jews and also a genealogy of my forefathers, and they are engraven upon plates of brass.

We would say "brass plates." This appears in several verses including 1 Nephi 8:19, Mosiah 21:27, and Helaman 2:7, to name a few. Compare with Genesis 35:14 (KJV).

The third construct state, then, is possessive, where the word "of" is implied instead of the use of a possessive noun in English. Seen in 1 Nephi 7:4, 2 Nephi 5:14 (first quote), Words of Mormon 1:13, Mosiah 12:33 (second quote), and Helaman 7:10. Compare to Genesis 24:47 (KJV).

  14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords, ...

In English we'd say "Laban's sword."

  33 But now Abinadi said unto them: I know if ye keep the commandments of God ye shall be saved; yea, if ye keep the commandments which the Lord delivered unto Moses in the mount of Sinai, saying:...

Compare this one to Biblical references, for example Leviticus 7:38 which uses both forms, "mount Sinai" and "wilderness of Sinai." In English we might say it as "Sinai's mount" or "Sinai's wilderness."

Remember: Mormons will be quick to remind anyone that these scholarly topics, though interesting, have little significance in the LDS Church, which is primarily focused on the spiritual teachings in The Book of Mormon, and that seekers of truth—which we on this site are not—should pursue spiritual, not scholarly, evidence.


Why is Ephesians after Galatians? It's pretty well-known that the Pauline epistles in modern copies of the New Testament are generally ordered according to length.1  Of the epistles written to churches, Romans is longest and first, while 2 Thessalonians is shortest and last.  Here's a table of the number of lines of Greek in the originals:2

Romans             979 stichoi
1 Corinthians      908 stichoi
2 Corinthians      607 stichoi
Galatians          311 stichoi
Ephesians          331 stichoi
Philippians        221 stichoi
Colossians         215 stichoi
1 Thessalonians    207 stichoi
2 Thessalonians    111 stichoi

Notice, however, that Ephesians is longer than Galatians, and yet it comes after it, unlike every other book in the list.

I'm aware that there is variation in book order among the different extant manuscripts and early lists of canonical works.  I also understand that the order of books in our modern New Testament is largely a matter of tradition.

But that leaves the question: what is the source of the tradition that Ephesians, despite its length, should follow Galatians?  Were there any particularly influential manuscripts/canons that established this?  And more importantly, do scholars know why Galatians was placed first?

1. Metzger, Bruce, The Canon of the New Testament, 299
2. Metzger, 298

I've been able to find exactly two explanations:

The anomaly is because two separate Pauline letter collections were merged, one of which ended with Galatians and the other of which began with Ephesians.
The canonical order was modified from pure length order to emphasize the imprisonment theme common to Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians.

The truth could be one of these two explanations, or a third option. The evidence, in my opinion, is not conclusive.

Option 1 is put forward by David Trobisch, in Paul's Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins (read chapter 1 here), as part of his broader theory of the development of the Pauline canon. Basically, he believes that there were three independent or semi-independent collections of Paul's letters circulating: one collection consisted of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians; another consisted of the other nine epistles traditionally attributed to Paul; and another (if you can even call it a "collection")  consisted only of Hebrews, which in the early days was commonly attributed to Paul.

According to the theory, these three collections were later merged into one. There is no direct evidence of their separate circulation, but Trobisch's theory comes from analysis of the earliest extant collections of New Testament books (starting with the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). Among the manuscripts which contain the Pauline letters, there is remarkable uniformity in the ordering of the books. The order is substantially the same for all 14 letters (including having Galatians before Ephesians), with the following exceptions: Hebrews sometimes is between Romans and 1 Corinthians, sometimes between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy, and sometimes at the end, and one outlier manuscript swaps Philippians and Colossians.

I found option 2 in the introduction to Christopher Seitz's commentary on Colossians. It's fairly self-explanatory.

One thing to note is that even if Ephesians came before Galatians, the Pauline letters would still not strictly be in order of length. In our modern Bibles, there are two (or three if you count Hebrews) divisions of Paul's letters: 1) his letters to churches, arranged in descending order of length with the exception of Galatians/Ephesians; 2) his letters to individuals (note here that the letters to Timothy are longer than the letters to the Thessalonians); 3) the probably-not-Pauline letter to the Hebrews.

So take your pick. Either there were multiple letter collections circulating, and the Galatians-Ephesians order is an artifact of the collections' merger, or someone decided early on that the imprisonment theme was worth emphasizing. Either way, I strongly suspect that the reason the books have remained in the same order has more to do with inertia than with any scribe's particular preference.


Do I have to attend church every Sunday? I used to be an avid church-goer, but as of late I haven't had the chance. This is primarily because of my scouting activities, which take place Sunday mornings (the same time the church service takes place).

I know it's been stated in the bible that we as Christians should come together, but I am getting a chance to do that elsewhere, specifically at my youth group.

Would this lack of church attendance be unfaithful in the eyes of God?

After watching "What is the Church?" , I posed myself a question: "What happens if my Church (the building) was taken down? Or my cell group being taken away? Would there still be Church?"

Answer is simply Yes. For the Church exists in each and everyone who believes, trusts, and acknowledges our Saviour - simply because each of us is a part of Christ's body. Even if the building is gone, even if our cell group is taken away, even if there is no hymns or Sunday services, Church still exists.

The reason why Church attendance is important is to

To meet and affirm our faiths together
To study more about God's Word (through sermons and Bible studies)
To participate in healthy activities.

Quoting from the one of the comments on the video written by Tom Smith, Pastor at Mt. View Southern Baptist:

  I have a friend that has gone though the same problem as Stan. He say's he will never find a church to attend, so why try. However, every Sunday Morning he and his wife play a round of golf with the same group of people, and then retire to their home for a brunch and fellowship, which eventually comes around to studying The Bible. I recently told him that even though he doesn't realize it, he has a Home Church, and he is it's Pastor. All this time he thought they were just getting together to enlighten each other about God, Jesus, and The Bible. Don't look now, but that is what a church is.


Seeking a graphic or flowchart of the history of the formation of Christian denominations I'm hoping someone can refer me to a graphic, flowchart or even a list of when various Christian denominations formed. For example, a biggie is the Lutheran church breaking off from the Catholic church.  Or the Anglican church splitting off from the Catholic one.  Will appreciate any help, thank you.

Wikipedia's article on Christian denominations appears to have what you are looking for.  The major branches are listed in one graphic:

Branches of Protestantism are best shown separately, for ease of viewing:

Note that these are simple representations of complex movements, so lines connecting one tradition with another won't provide the whole picture.  But this should help get you started in seeing the big picture of Christian traditions.


Why Jews are the chosen people? Are the Jewish people the chosen and if so why?...My uneducated Grandmother always said the the Jewish people were the chosen because they were the only people who kept God's laws at that time..such as, feast of the tabernacle, fest of unlevened bread..etc..I am confused. If not born Jewish, are the rest Gentiles? And if the Jewish are the chosen people why are they blinded to the first coming of Christ?

You really have to define "chosen" here. The Jewish people were "chosen" by God to reveal His Law to, an to have the Tanakh-primised Christ come out of. But as of the time Christ came, the "chosen" are those who have believed that Jesus is the promised Messiah and who have kept His commandments (it's a different topic as to what these are and what defines the keeping):

  "Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he
  gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12), "'Abraham is
  our father,' they answered. 'If you were Abraham's children,' said
  Jesus, 'then you would do what Abraham did" (John 8:39).

Jesus Christ said that those who keep the Law, besides His commandments, and teaches others so (at least the parts of the Law that were not directly abolished by the New Testament like having to sacrifice animals for atonement from sins - Christ became the ultimate sacrifice once and for all time, see Hebrews 10:12), would be called the greatest in heaven, while those who don't and teach others so, would be called the least in Heaven:

  "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the
  smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means
  disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore
  anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches
  others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but
  whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in
  the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:18-19).

The reason many Jewish people are blinded as to the coming of Christ is because it is written in the prophets that it would eventually be so, see Isaiah 53:3:

  "He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and
  familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was
  despised, and we held him in low esteem".


What is the difference between Consubstantiation and Impanation? I think I'm familiar with Consubstantiation. It is the belief that

  the fundamental "substance" of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present.

Impanation is a new one for me. I learned it earlier today when reading about John Huss, where it was ascribed to John Wycliffe (oddly, Wikipedia on Wycliffe has no mention of Impanation. Apparently, according to Wikipedia, Impanation is the belief of the

  the real presence of the body of Jesus Christ in the consecrated bread of the Eucharist that does not imply a change in the substance of either the bread or the body ... This view is similar but not identical to the theory of consubstantiation.

It seems that both descriptions say the same thing. The substance of Christ is present in the bread, but the substance of neither is changed. The only hint I have that they are different is the Impanation definition used "real presence" which is a distinctly Catholic term, and then further insists they are different without explanation.

How are they different? And since I'm unfamiliar with Impanation, what Christian groups are said to believe it?

Impanation is the opposite of Transubstantiation.

Transubstantiation: No Bread. Only Christ.

Consubstantiation: Christ is present along with the bread

Impanation: Christ is present as the substance of bread. That is "Christ has become bread".

The following table might help you understand:

Substance of        |   Bread   |   Christ      | End Result
--------------------------------------------------------------
Transubstantiation  |   ✘       |   ✔           | Bread becomes Christ
Consubstantiation   |   ✔       |   ✔           | Christ is "in, with and under the bread"
Impanation          |   ✔       |   ☑ as bread  | Christ becomes bread

The proponents of Impanation believe that it occurs in the same way God (a different type of being) became man. That is, God took humanity and raised it to the level of his divinity. There by sharing his divine attributes with his humanity (like getting into a locked room with his physical body). In the same way Christ's divine attributes are shared by the Eucharistic bread via his body.

Sources:

"Impanation". Catholic Encyclopedia
... impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically.... From The Doctrine of Transubstantiation in the Orthodox Church


Why was St. Joseph given instructions in dreams? (Roman Catholic perspective) We see that St. Joseph was given instruction by the Lord in dreams, as follows:

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:20 - NIV)
When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” (Matthew 2:13)
After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt. (Matthew 2:19)

But then we also see that St.Mary was directly met by the Angel of the Lord during the Annunciation.
One might argue that the role that Joseph was assigned with, as both the foster father and the guardian of infant Jesus, was no less important than the role that was given to Mary. Given that, I wonder why Joseph was not given instructions in person by an angel. Do the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church mention anything to explain the difference?

I am the Eastern Orthodox. But as both we and Catholics honor John Chrysostom as Saint and Doctor of the Church, I think his answer to the original question could be considered as the both Eastern Orthodox and Catholic view:

  And why not openly, as to the shepherds, and to Zacharias, and to the Virgin? The man was exceedingly full of faith, and needed not this vision. Whereas the Virgin, as having declared to her very exceeding good tidings, greater than to Zacharias, and this before the event, needed also a marvellous vision; and the shepherds, as being by disposition rather dull and clownish. But this man, after the conception, and wide the interval between the two men; wherefore neither was there need of rebuke.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200104.htm

Sorry for the bad English.


Veracity of Carte Blanche in The Three Muskateers In the book The Three Muskateers a character is given a note from the Cardinal Duke saying that

  By My word and for the good of the state, The bearer has done what has been done.

Was the Cardinal who did exist able to do this as the Highest religious official in the country, or as a person in great power during a time of war?

Or is this just a total fabrication of Dumas, with respect to princes secular or religious?

If not, this doesn't also qualify as absolution does it?

The concept of carte blanche goes back at least to Roman law, from which it was received into early medieval European civil and canon law. 1, 2 The basic idea is that someone with authority (A) can choose a delegate (B) to represent them, with "full powers" meaning that A agrees in advance to be bound by whatever B decides to do. B may well be given more specific instructions, and in any case the grant of authority does not mean that B is allowed to harm A's interests with impunity. B is only meant to do what A would have done, had A been present. The concept was known in the jurisprudence of France, as well as in the Roman Catholic Church, so Richelieu is certainly covered either way. In our days, we encounter the concept when ambassadors are described as "plenipotentiary", with the same sense of them being delegates of their head of state. But note that in the religious context, such delegation is still only ever intended to mean that B represents A's interests. If A is a bishop, B does not gain any episcopal powers; Papal legates are not Popes themselves; etc.
In his time, the term in French was usually applied to military orders, and indeed Richelieu himself granted carte blanche to his generals (or relayed that of the king) on several occasions.

We see nothing to do other than to give you carte blanche; the king leaves you free to attack anywhere that seems good to you. [...] For I repeat once more to you that the King leaves you carte blanche.
Nous ne voyons de loin autre chose à faire qu'à vous donner la carte blanche; le roy vous laisse libre d'attaquer telle place que bon vous semblera. [...] Car je vous redis encore une fois que le roy vous laisse la carte blanche. 3

Within the context of the novel, it is Richelieu's civil power which is being invoked. When he gives the letter to Milady (chapter 44), the idea is to give her immunity from the criminal law, although it is written in more general terms. Their conversation mentions the Bastille prison, but not purgatory. It's true that when our heroes come into possession of the letter (chapter 47), Aramis describes it as an "absolution" from all rules. This is an echo of his "confession" conversation with d'Artagnan in chapter 26, where the latter had joked "I'll give you absolution in advance" (i.e., before hearing the story), and Aramis responded "Don't joke about holy things, my friend". 4 Although Aramis instinctively uses religious language, there's no real sense that the letter involves Richelieu's religious authority, in the way that the musketeers make use of it.
If the cardinal had intended to write a letter granting absolution (or remittance of temporal punishment) to the bearer, he was exceeding his powers in several ways. It is true that as a bishop, he had the right to issue indulgences to people under his authority or in his diocese, just as the Pope could do so for people anywhere. We could argue that Milady and the musketeers all count as such, even if the letter itself is written in a more general way. But this document does not meet the well-established criteria for the validity of indulgences, or for penitence in general. Principally, you can't be absolved from a sin that you are intending to commit, but haven't done yet; you are not free from "attachment to sin". Compare Dante in Inferno 27.118-120 (Longfellow's translation of 1867):

For who repents not cannot be absolved,
Nor can one both repent and will at once,
Because of the contradiction which consents not.5

In the specific instance, Richelieu could never absolve Milady of murder before she actually did it, no matter what he wrote down in relation to her temporal punishment. Finally, sacramental absolution (for the other "bearers") cannot happen by means of a letter, as the priest and penitent are required to be in the same place for confession.

1. Consent, Coercion, and Limit: The Medieval Origins of Parliamentary Democracy, Arthur P. Monahan (McGill-Queen's University Press, 1987); section 3.1.C, p121ff on plena potestas.
2. Studies in Medieval legal thought: Public law and the state, 1100-1322, Gaines Post (Princeton University Press, 1964).
3. Lettres, instructions diplomatiques et papiers d'Etat du Cardinal de Richelieu, Avenel (Imprimerie nationale de Paris, 1853). Letter to Richelieu's nephew La Meilleraye, 17 May 1639: Volume 6, pp354-356. Found from a citation in Richelieu's Army: War, Government and Society in France, 1624-1642, David Parrott (Cambridge University Press, 2004), p136
4. My translation; original dialogue is "Et moi, je vois donne l'absolution d'avance, vous voyez que je suis bon homme. / Ne plaisantez pas avec les choses saintes, mon ami."
5. Ch'assolver non si può chi non si pente, / né pentere e volere insieme puossi / per la contradizion che nol consente.


Do people of different denominations think that the others are going to go to hell for holding false views? Obviously, there are people who are on both sides of this issue, within and without the various denominations, and some denominations which might be more exclusive than others. But when it comes down to it, the fact that two there are two different denominations under the same heading of "Christianity" suggests that—at some point—there was some serious conflict. My question is two-fold:

Whether some people of a particular denomination belief that those of other denominations will go to hell, why some people don't agree, and why there is a split there.
Whether the split between denominations always occurs because of a differing opinion on some interpretation of the Bible, or could have occurred simply because of a power struggle. For example, I view the split of Protestantism from Catholicism as one of viewpoint difference (sola scriptura/sola fide) as opposed to a desire for power by some group of people. On the other hand, I see other denominations as having formed because of a desire for separation and recognition, as well as status/power. I won't name any particular denominations, but I can use the outside (non-Christian) example of Scientology as such a case.

Any information on this would be great. Thanks!

I currently belong to an Independent Baptist church, and my answer is one that my Pastor would echo.

We do not believe that Christians from other denominations are going to Hell because of their denominational affiliation.  We do not believe that all Baptists will go to heaven, either.

What we believe is what the Bible teaches, which is that ANYONE who does not receive Christ and accept His free gift of salvation are going to hell. Not because of what they believe, but because of their rejection of the free gift. (John 3:18)

The split between denominations primarily appears to be differences in interpretation of the Bible.  The book Handbook of Denominations in the United States does a fair and unbiased job of examining the differences.

However, of course, there are splits that are caused by a struggle for power.  The Church of England comes to mind.  (Quote from this article below:)

  Prompted by a dispute over the annulment of the marriage of Henry
  VIII, the Church of England separated from the Roman Catholic Church
  in 1534 with the Act of Supremacy, beginning a series of events known
  as the English Reformation.


Do Anglicans believe the decision on the 66 book canon was infallible? Do Anglicans believe that the decision taken on the 66 book canon was an infallible decision? (like the attitude the Catholic Church has to the definition of the Canon in the Council of Trent).

If so, then do they still call to these people, organization(s) or decision-making process for more infallible decisions?

If not, how can we know the inspiration of a book isn't just an inappropriately high opinion of scholars and early Christians?

Disclaimer: this answer is based on my speculation from rudimentary knowledge of Anglicanism, but hopefully backed by sources.
TL;DR
No, because the canon has never being infallibly defined by the Church. Such definition requires a General Council, and to define truths that are held as such by all. No General Council (last one being in 680 AD) defined the canon. It follows that the decision of considering a particular canon is indeed the opinion of scholars/theologians.

Your question requires an understanding of what infallibility is according to Anglicanism. I found an excellent analysis of this in this book by the Anglican Bishop A.N. Littlejohn. It's a book from 1892, but still very insightful.
In essence, he states that the Catholic (i.e Universal) Church is infallible when it has declared in a General Council truths that had been accepted "always, everywhere and by all" (semper, ubique, et ab omnibus). Quoting in extenso from Chapter 1:

But whatever this authority in kind or in degree, in accordance with a fundamental rule of Catholic practice, it has always been exercised through General Councils. It is important, therefore, to have clear views not only of the authority itself, but also of the organ through which it has spoken. Now though in the strict sense of the terms general, universal, (Ecumenical are the same, yet the term (Ecumenical has been declared by usage to mean a General Council, lawful, approved, and received by all the Church." A council may be general without being lawful; to be general, all the bishops of the world should be summoned to it, and no one excluded save the heretical and ex- communicated. This rule was absolutely observed in none of the so-called General Councils, and only a minority of bishops sat in most of them. To be lawful and truly Oecumenical it is necessary that all that occurs should be done regularly (which was not the case with some of the General Councils), and that the Church at large should accept its decrees, as was done with those of the Councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon. That a General Council be accepted, it is not required that all the faithful individually considered acquiesce in its action. It suffices for the purpose that all branches of the Church do so in their corporate capacity. ... It has always been held that it is the duty of a Council to declare what has been the faith from the beginning, not to put forth new objects of belief. It might, on any given matter, develop implicit into explicit faith; but it was required to show that the matter so developed was a portion of the original deposit and revelation. But it is a fact, of which ecclesiastical history furnishes abundant evidence, that General Councils may err and sometimes have erred in things pertaining to God. "The inerrancy of a council can never be guaranteed at the moment. The value of a council is tested by its after reception by the Church."

Thus, for Anglicanism, only the four ecumenical councils listed above are regarded as infallible (according to Anglicanism, the last General Council was that of 680; see page 27 of book). It follows then that the 397 AD Council of Carthage, which (as guest37 said) was the first council to define the canon of the Bible (canon that included the apocrypha), is not considered infallible in Anglicanism (not the least because it was not a General Council). Neither of the four councils above defined the canon.
So, first conclusion is "the canon with apocrypha was not infallibly defined by the Church".
The second part of the argument follows through. The same author of the book above states:

The last undisputed General Council was held at the close of the seventh century (680). Is it true, then, that the Church's only duly accredited organ for defining and formulating truth has been in abeyance for 1200 years, or since the great schism between the East and West? If it be true, the consequences are not so grave as some would have us think. The suspended exercise of one form of the Church's authority does not involve the suspension of her authority in other forms. In spite of this she may still do her work as the ecclesia docens, and in various ways enjoy the benefits of the Spirit's guidance into all truth necessary to salvation; still it is, indeed, a startling fact that her plenary power for deciding controversies should have been for so many centuries powerless. What inward lesions and outward assaults may have come upon her, because of this dormant function only her own eternal Head can surely know. Certain it is that, while schism continues to do its will upon the torn body, the power of inerrancy inherent only in the united whole cannot be set in motion. All that has been decreed in any one of the hundred parts is liable to revision, and the guidance so freely promised to the Universal Episcopate must be greatly narrowed as to its present use.

It then follows that, for Anglicanism, the canon of the Bible has not been infallibly defined by the Church. This is all the more obvious from the very fact that infallibility requires acceptance semper, ubique, et ab omnibus. It is evident that such is not the case by the canon. Hence, it is not possible for the 66 book canon to be defined as infallible.
Beside this, the Anglican Church has its own position on the subject, which is however fallible. Articles II and III in Chapter I of the Westminster Confession of Faith states:

II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.
III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings

In conclusion, and assuming the position by the Anglican Bishop in the book is that of the Anglican Church, the answer to your question is no. From here it follows that the decision of considering a particular canon is indeed the particular opinion of Anglican scholars/theologians.


From a Catholic perspective, why does Wisdom merely "infer" the things to come? I'm confused about Wisdom 8:8:

  Or again, if one yearns for wide experience,
  she knows the things of old, and infers the things to come.
  She understands the turns of phrases and the solutions of riddles;
  signs and wonders she knows in advance
  and the outcome of times and ages.

If I understand correctly, Wisdom is to be identified with Jesus' divine nature. Why, then, would she know the things of old but merely infer the things to come? Doesn't she fully know the things to come?

The issue reminds me of Mark 13:32:

  But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

If I understand correctly, the correct interpretation of Mark 13:32 is that Jesus' human nature did not know the day or hour. But his divine nature is omniscient, right? So this doesn't help resolve Wisdom 8:8.

The original Greek word which has been translated as "infers" is εἰκάζειν; the root word is εἰκάζω. The LSJ lists three meanings for εἰκάζω: represent by an image, compare, and infer. Only the last seems to fit at all. Of course the text doesn't specifically say that Wisdom does not know the things to come, but it seems to seriously suggest it. What is the correct interpretation of this verse, from a Catholic perspective?

Undoubtedly we can say that Jesus' divine nature is omniscient, but your confusion could result from identifying Wisdom too closely with Jesus. In Luke 11:31-35, Jesus speaks of John the Baptist, himself and then Wisdom, but only in the third person and such terms that it would be difficult for us to think of her as his divine nature:

  Luke 11:31-35: "Then to what shall I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? They are like children who sit in the marketplace and call to one another, 'We played the flute for you, but you did not dance. We sang a dirge, but you did not weep.' For John the Baptist came neither eating food nor drinking wine, and you said, 'He is possessed by a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking and you said, 'Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.' But wisdom is vindicated by all her children."

Jesus again refers to Wisdom in Luke 11:49, and again as if she is a distinct entity:

  Luke 11:49: Therefore, the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles; some of them they will kill and persecute'

We know that Jesus is equated with the Logos (Word) in John's Gospel. Burton L. Mack says in Who Wrote the New Testament, page 264, that according to Philo, a Jew of the Alexandrian diaspora, Logos was God's son, through whom the world was created as a rational and ordered universe.  Philo taught that the Logos was born of mother Wisdom and, appearing in the world,  was the agent through whom the great leaders of Israel learned what God expected of them.

Based on the evidence of Philo and Luke, among others, it is not inconceivable that Jesus is omniscient whereas Wisdom was not, and only judges or infers things to come (Wisdom 8:8).

A further discussion on Wisdom is also provided by the Catholic Encyclopedia, which says (among other things) of Wisdom:

  In direct relation to God, Wisdom is personified, and her nature, attributes, and operation are no less than Divine. She is with God from eternity, the partner of His throne, and the sharer of His thoughts.


If we're not specifically instructed to do something, can we? My question is spawned from the Church of Christ doctrine. I go to a Church of Christ university and our chapel is fully a Capella. However I've been raised baptist and music was always a part of every service. My school has tried to teach that since we are not instructed to use instruments, we CANNOT use instruments. Although not pastors or anything, I've heard some Church of Christ disciples say that the only instrument God ever made is the human voice.

From what I've read around the internet, some say it's tradition, others say that since God hasn't told us we can then we can't (I've heard this called the "null argument").

Personally I believe God is more about "Do Nots" instead of focusing on "Dos" when it comes to how we live our lives. According to this table at Wikipedia, there are 12 important facts conveyed in the 10 commandments (no matter how you group them together). Of those 12 facts, 9 of them are "Do Nots."

Am I wrong to believe that if we're not specifically told to do something, it's allowed? I'm not trying to be overly literal, I understand there are blanket statements that do affect many things we are not specifically told not to do.

If the Bible is God's Word, and it is to be read and understood in its entirety, then a dogmatic doctrine of vocal-only worship would seem to place large swaths of the Psalms (eg 150) in peril.

It is true that in the New Testament we are given no specific direction as to how we are to worship (only "in spirit and in truth").

A lack of both pre-scription and pro-scription would seem to leave this issue up to a matter of conscience and Christian liberty. (1 Corinthians 6:12 & 10:23)


How do Catholics reconcile a metaphorical Adam and Eve with Original Sin It is known that many Catholics believe that Adam and Eve is a story better left to the metaphorical imagination, rather than literal interpretation (though other denominations may feel differently). Going off of this belief, wouldn't that imply that since it is just a metaphor, and not literal, that it never really happened, and if it never really happened, then there is no REAL original sin?

If it is a metaphor and there is no original sin, then why did Jesus come to earth? Why did he have to repent us of this non-existent sin?

Catholics cannot believe in a "metaphorical Adam and Eve" for at least these reasons:

The Fathers of the Church all taught that Adam and Eve were two, real people, the first parents of the entire human race (monogenism, contra polygenism, which says humanity has more than two first parents), and Catholics must interpret scripture according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers (cf. Council of Trent Session IV, the Decree concerning the Canonical Scriptures, or the First Vatican Council's Dei Filius).
The 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission decided:

  The first three Chapters of Genesis contain the stories of events
  which really happened, i.e., which correspond with objective reality
  and historical truth (rerum vere gestarum narrationes quae scilicet
  obiectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant); no myths, no
  mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends. D 2122.


Could December 25 as the birthday of Jesus have come from Pagan influences? Could December 25 as the birthday of Jesus have come from Pagan influences?

I am asking this due to the information in the following sources:

“NIMROD” – The LORD of
Christmas
Church of Satan Holiday FAQ

This question is asked for information to engage in solid & meaningful apologetics with pantheists & satanists and not to bash Roman Catholics.The comments to Caleb gives more info.

From the Bible, we can be pretty sure that Jesus was not born on December 25.

Late September or early October, perhaps even on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles, is the most likely time.

Here is an part of an essay written elsewhere, in which I summarized the birth date:

  Though it seldom snows there, December in Jerusalem is a cold and wet time.
  From early Spring to late Fall, it was common for sheep, goats, and cattle to graze on the grassy lands in the area. But after the Fall harvest, animals would be kept close to home where they could eat hay and be sheltered at night.

  That any shepherds would be out in the fields, tending flocks at night in late December is very unlikely.

  The Bible

  While not explicitly condemning the practice, the Bible hardly encourages the celebration of birthdays. The few times that birthdays are mentioned, they are unpleasant events such as the presentation of John the Baptist's head as a birthday present.

  The Bible records the date and time of Jesus's death, but not of his birth. There are sufficient clues that one can make a reasonable estimate though.

  Elisabeth conceived (John the Baptist) immediately after Zacharias finished his Abia priestly duties (Luke 1):

  [5] ... priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia ... [8] ... he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course [23] ... as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house. [24] And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived ...

  Her cousin Mary conceived (Jesus) six months later:

  [26] And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth [27] To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
  [36] And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. [40] And [Mary] entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. [56] And Mary abode with her about three months ...

  The "course of Abia" is defined in the First book of Chronicles:

  [24:10] The seventh to Hakkoz, the eighth to Abijah
  [24:19] These were the orderings of them in their service ...

  Each priest served for a week, with the cycle beginning on the 1st day of Nisan. But during the week of Passover (Nisan 14) and Pentecost (7 weeks later) all priests served together, so Zacharias, being of the 8th course, would have finished his first course after the 10th week of the year.
  Six months after that (Jesus's conception) would have been around what the Romans called late December, and nine months after that (Jesus's birth) would have been late September or early October.

  That would be around the time of Sukkot (the Feast of Tabernacles).
  Sukkot is one of three times each year when people made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem.
  In addition to the normal tithe given to support the priesthood, people were encouraged to save a second tithe to use for their own expenses and celebrations during these times
  (Deuteronomy 14:26): "And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household".

  Even today, most people that observe this fall festival travel away from home, or if they can't, they arrange to sleep in a tent or some other location different from their normal home.

  It's by no means a certainty that this is when Jesus was born, but if Jesus had been born during the Feast of Tabernacles, it then confirms why his parents stayed in their family's home town of Bethlehem, just south of Jerusalem.

  Why

  Roman Christianity was developed during the first few centuries after Jesus, and was largely canonicalized during the reign of Emperor Constantine.
  Though he was largely responsible for defining Roman Christianity, throughout this process Constantine remained a Sun worshipper, and didn't formally convert to Christianity until shortly before his death.

  One way for the official Roman religion to subsume the many existing religions and cults, both in Rome and throughout the Empire, was for it to incorporate their more popular practices while requiring nothing more than that the names be changed.
  A single universal religion, regardless of what it believed, would make the Empire stronger and easier to control.

  If people wanted to continue to celebrate December 25, whether in honour of Mithras or of the Sun God Apollo, they could continue to do so, just so long as they now call him Jesus.


Why Does Luther Translate "Alpha and Omega", in the Book of Revelation, as "A und O" (A and O)? In Rev. 22:13, "I am the Alpha and the Omega", Alpha being the first Greek letter and Omega the last, thus meaning "I am the first and the last."

I don't understand Greek, but in the Greek version it says "Alpha and Omega".

Luther's Bible, however, translates this as "A und O", (A and O). This is like saying "the First and the Middle." Why doesn't he say "Alpha and Omega", or at least "A and Z"?

Yup, Luther is Spot On

Technically, Luther's A und O (= English "A and O") is quite correct or as directly literal of a translation as one could get rendering the text into German (or English) without spelling out the two letters in view.

There are different Ancient Greek manuscripts and editions of the Apokalypsis Ioannou, "Apocalypse of John" (or the Book of Revelation), from which Luther could have been working, and, rather interestingly for the purposes of your Question, not a single one of them ever spells out the letter omega in this verse. Nor do they do so in the other couple of occurrences of the "alpha and omega" expression found in the Apokalypsis (such as 1:8 & 21:6) either. (At least of the manuscripts/editions that I have encountered; perhaps there are others that I don't know about. But even if any of them do or did [spell it out] it still changes none of my points here.)

The Greek

For example, for the idiom in question in the verse you are looking at, a number of Westcott & Hort editions of the Greek, as well as the Nestle Greek New Testament (1904) and the Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine Majority Text each have

  τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ

(to Álpha kai to Ὦ), "the Alpha and the Ὦ".

The Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550), Scrivener's Textus Receptus (1894), the 1904 Greek Orthodox Church text, and the Tischendorf 8th Edition each have

  τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω

(to Α kai to Ω), "the A and the Ω".

The name of the Greek letter omega actually means something like "Capital O," i.e. O-Mega, literally the "Great/Big O." It is so named to distinguish it from the other O in the same alphabet, the letter omikron (Latinised as omicron), "small O," from O-Mikron, the "little O." The Greek alphabet originally did not have the O-Mega, which was introduced in the 600s BC, and when it was added thereto, it was simply tacked onto the end of the alphabet, which is how it comes to be the last letter therein. Both letters are generally transliterated into German and English as O, o, essentially the same letter in all the three alphabets (German and English ultimately deriving theirs from the Greek one). Omega is sometimes transcribed as Ō, ō.

The German

Up until recently all German Bibles, not just Luther's, have translated this expression as [das] A und [das] O, "[the] A and [the] O". The earliest one I've found which changes this up at all is the 1951 Schlachter translation, which seems to do so only hesitantly by spelling out the words in parentheses like so: das A(lpha) und das O(mega).

The Wiktionary article on A und O elaborates further on the topic and quotes one of the newer translations, saying that:

  The biblical expression is not usually translated with these words
  now. For example, in the Einheitsübersetzung verse 22:13 runs: “Ich
  bin das Alpha und das Omega, der Erste und der Letzte, der Anfang und
  das Ende.”

Many recent translations have this rendition of the idiom, but the older A und O, from what I can see, appears to be a fairly common expression in German speech, just like "alpha and omega" is in English, meaning the same thing, and perhaps each deriving from translations of the Bible into their respective languages.

The same Wiktionary article defines A und O as a colloquialism for "that which is important; that which matters; a sine qua non" and renders an example:

  Gute Kohle ist das A und O beim Grillen.
  Good charcoal is the most important part of barbecuing. [Emphases in original.]

Redensarten.net also has an article on the topic, "Das A und O sein", offering several other such examples, of which here are a few, each with what GoogleTranslate automatically (and interestingly, I think) translated them to, further suggesting that, in common usage today, German A und O is simply equivalent to English "alpha and omega".

Gerade bei Allergien ist Sauberkeit im Haushalt das A und O.
Especially with allergies, cleanliness in the household is the alpha and omega.

Um die Sicherheit in deutschen Stadien zu erhöhen, ist Deeskalation das A und O.
To increase security in German stadiums, de-escalation is the be-all and end-all.

Doch so mancher Selbstdarsteller hat vergessen, dass die Wünsche der Kunden das A und O sein sollten.
But many a showman has forgotten that the wishes of the customers should be the alpha and omega.

The First and the... Last-ish

"A and Z" (or A und Z) is indeed sort of generally and roughly equivalent in meaning to Α καὶ Ω, in both English and German, because English and German have the same basic alphabet. (Strictly speaking, at least since more recent times, German has a few additional special characters after Z.) While there is no German Bible I know of which translates the expression this way, at least two English ones do, namely, GOD'S WORD® Translation: "I am the A and the Z", and—perhaps the most colloquial mainstream English Bible translation of them all—Eugene Peterson's The Message: "I’m A to Z".

This might be too colloquial for some tastes, and to speak more strictly, to translate it this way is what would render it—based on the original meaning or the original alphabet in view—into saying something like the First and the Middle, because the Greek letter Z (zeta) is only the sixth letter in its own (24-letter) alphabet.

An English Afterword

By the way, in the 1380s-1390s, John Wycliffe published the first English translation of the entire Bible, roughly 130 years before Luther published his own German New Testament. This is how he rendered the portion of the verse you are quoting:

Y am alpha & oo, "I am alpha and oo".


The land of bread and honey or just a diversion? Was God holding back on the Israelites when it came to the promised land?

For example, they were promised fertile land, creating lots of food, bread and honey, beautiful landscape, a place of their own....etc.

However, we see lands like in Austria and I scratch my head when the Isrealites were wandering in circles for 40 years in a desert, just to eventually reach another slightly better desert.

Other lands were 1000X's the promise of the Promised Land - why didn't God bring them to those places?

(and then what does that mean for the people who were already living in paradise? and if people are still fighting over the Holy Land what will they get when they own it? Will it transform?)

The question seems to be based on a false premise.  Most of Israel is not a desert.

The Institute for Creation Research has an article discussing the ideal climate that exists in Jerusalem.

A few excerpts:

  An Ideal Combination of Sun and Rain

  Most people think of Israel as a desert. They have seen pictures and
  drawings of caravans of camels tramping through the sand of the Sahara
  Desert and translate that image to Israel. They have read Bible
  stories about Jesus and His disciples walking across Israel in their
  sandals and the need for foot washing, the lack of water, and famine.
  They have seen Hollywood movies depicting the time of Moses and the
  Exodus in the deserts of Egypt and the lower Sinai. All these images
  give an impression of extremely hot, sunny conditions and very little,
  if any, rain.

  It is true that very dry conditions exist in southern Israel in the
  Negev and eastward of the Jordan River Valley. However, along the
  central and northern coast in northern Israel near the Sea of Galilee,
  and along the highlands on which Jerusalem sits, temperatures are much
  cooler and bountiful rainfall occurs. The average annual rainfall in
  northern Israel and along the highlands typically exceeds 15 inches.
  These portions of Israel produce plentiful crops of citrus, olives,
  figs, and grain. Far from being a desert, this part of Israel is
  highly productive.

In addition, there is Scriptural evidence that the climate was different then.

  And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that
  it was well watered everywhere, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and
  Gomorrah, even as the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as
  thou comest unto Zoar (Genesis 13:10).

The linked article goes into more depth than I will here, discussing the fact that a similar change occurred in the climate in Northern Africa.

The idea of a more lush historical Israel, describable as a land flowing with milk and honey, is not that far-fetched.  Based on that, and in the tradition of not second-guessing God,  I'm going to say that He put them in exactly the land He promised and intended.


What is the basis for Theonomy? From Wikipedia,

  Theonomy, from theos (god) and nomos (law), is the state of being
  governed by God or in accord with divine law.

It's also essentially the view that all types of government should adhere to, use, and operate on the Bible and biblical principles. See the Goals of the wiki page for some practical applications of that.

What is the biblical basis for this?

Direct biblical support?
Logical deduction from passages or reasonable reasons for it?
Traditional view of theonomy by church?

Creator and Lord

I suppose the Biblical basis for Theonomy begins with the fact that God created everything and everyone, and is therefore Lord of all creation.

  "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  (Genesis 1:1, NASB)

  "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created.”  (Revelation 4:11, NASB)

Indeed, all creation is charged with acknowledging Him as Lord and praising Him.

  "Praise the LORD!  Praise the LORD... all His angels... all His hosts... For He commanded and they were created... Praise the LORD from the earth... Kings of the earth and all peoples; Princes and all judges of the earth"  (from Psalm 148:1-11, NASB)

Authority to Rule

As Lord, He has the authority to "call the shots."  The proper response to His Lordship is submission to His will.  These roles become immediately apparent when He takes His newly formed creature (man) and begins informing him of His requirements.

  "Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.  The Lord God commanded the man, saying,..."  (from Genesis 2:15-16, NASB)

After "the fall" of Genesis 3, God began the process of redemption.  After some time of working with men on an individual basis, He chose to work through His friend Abraham, and set apart a nation of his descendents (Israel) who could serve as a light to the rest of the world.

  "Now the LORD said to Abram,'Go forth from your country... To the land which I will show you; And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you,... And so you shall be a blessing... And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.'"  (from Genesis 12:1-3, NASB)

  "Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens... gives breath to the people... And spirit to those who walk in it, 'I am the LORD... I will appoint You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations... I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another...'"  (from Isaiah 42:5-8, NASB)

  "'O LORD, the God of our fathers, are You not God in the heavens? And are You not ruler over all the kingdoms of the nations? Power and might are in Your hand so that no one can stand against You. 7 Did You not, O our God, drive out the inhabitants of this land before Your people Israel and give it to the descendants of Abraham Your friend forever?'"  (2 Chronicles 20:6-7, NASB)

God's Law

As part of the establishment of His new nation, God gave them a "law" - but not just any law - the most righteous law ever given.

  "...what great nation is there that has statutes and judgments as righteous as this whole law which I am setting before you today?"  (from Deuteronomy 4:8, NASB)

Although this law was given to Israel, it is important to remember that Israel was supposed to be an example for the other nations.  This law was not just for Israel - it was for all mankind, and even Gentiles will be judged by their intuitive knowledge of its precepts.  The law is important for all of mankind, because it is only by this law that we have an awareness of sin, and so the law is what shows us our need for Christ.

  "...when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law,... [they] are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts,... their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them..."  (from Romans 2:14-16, NASB)

  "...I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, 'You shall not covet.' But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind..."  (from Romans 7:7-8, NASB)

  "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ..." (from Galatians 3:24, NASB)

Intended Government

It is important to understand that God's original intent was that He be King of all creation.  After mankind turned away, part of His redemptive plan was to be King over Israel, as an example to the other nations.  Sadly, even Israel rejected Him from being their King.  They demanded a human king, and became like "all the other nations" (with human-run government.)

  "...Israel gathered together... and they said to [Samuel], '...Behold, you have grown old... Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.' ...The LORD said to Samuel, 'Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.  Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day—in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods...'"  (from 1 Samuel 8:4-8, NASB)

Consequences

Of course, the vast majority of nations throughout history have rejected God and His law (as have the vast majority of people.)  This has led to various treatments throughout history ranging from complete destruction of all inhabitants to displacement or some other form of judgement.

  "'Now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant... All the nations shall serve him... It will be, that the nation or the kingdom which will not serve him... I will punish that nation with the sword, with famine and with pestilence,' declares the LORD, 'until I have destroyed it...'" (from Jeremiah 27:6-8, NASB)

Justice and Restoration

Inevitably, Jesus, the Lord of Creation (John 1:1-3,14) will be given His rightful place as King over all the earth and will rule all of the nations.

  "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven
  One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom,
  That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed."  (Daniel 7:13-14, NASB)

  "And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war... He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God... From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron... And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, “KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.”  (from Revelation 19:11-16, NASB)

  "then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.  For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet... For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET."  (from 1 Corinthians 15:24-27, NASB)

Justice will finally be served.  The original divine order (which we are presently failing at upholding) will finally be restored by the power of God.


How do Protestants counteract the Witnesses stance on Blood Transfusions? As discussed in Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions for reasons in scripture.  I have trouble with the idea. What about the sanctity of life with scriptures such as:

Deuteronomy 30:19 (ESV)

  I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live

How do Protestants (Church of England for example) counteract the Witnesses stance on Blood Transfusions?

The Jehovah’s Witness publication ‘What Does the Bible Really Teach?’ discusses the issue of blood transfusions in Chapter 13.  Paragraph 11 reads:

We show respect for blood by not eating it...  Jehovah’s view was clear: His servants could eat animal meat but not the blood. They were to pour the blood on the ground—in effect, returning the creature’s life to God.

They quote Leviticus 17:13-14 to support this. It’s a pity they don’t quote verse 15 as well then they would see the context:

“Anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening then he will be clean. But if he does not wash his clothes and bathe himself he will held responsible.”

Why is this verse even there? Because in times of distress, for example in war, it might become necessary to eat an animal that had not been slaughtered the kosher-way. Why? To save lives! Although it was against the law to eat un-clean animals at times it was necessary.  Paragraphs 12 to 15 in Chapter 13 of the ‘Bible Teach’ book continues:

So we must ‘keep abstaining from blood.’ In God’s eyes, our doing that is as important as our avoiding idolatry and sexual immorality. Does the command to abstain from blood include blood transfusions? Yes. To illustrate: Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins? Of course not! Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins.
14 What if a Christian is badly injured or is in need of major surgery? Suppose doctors say that he must have a blood transfusion or he will die. Of course, the Christian would not want to die. In an effort to preserve God’s precious gift of life, he would accept other kinds of treatment that do not involve the misuse of blood. Hence, he would seek such medical attention if that is available and would accept a variety of alternatives to blood.
15 Would a Christian break God’s law just to stay alive a little longer in this system of things? Jesus said: “Whoever wants to save his soul [or, life] will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:25) We do not want to die. But if we tried to save our present life by breaking God’s law, we would be in danger of losing everlasting life. We are wise, then, to put our trust in the rightness of God’s law, with full confidence that if we die from any cause, our Life-Giver will remember us in the resurrection and restore to us the precious gift of life.

They use Acts 15 to support their claim that true Christians should not have a blood transfusion – is that right? No. The issue in Acts 15 is that the Jews and Gentiles had been saved through the grace of Jesus. The Jews however where trying to get the Gentiles to uphold the Mosaic Law. When the Gentiles refused to, this caused a problem. James is trying sort it out by asking the Gentiles to abstain from these things so as to not upset their Jewish brothers. We see in other chapters in Acts and Romans that our salvation has nothing to with circumcision or food, or blood, but for the sake of the Jewish brothers of the time they were to abstain from these things in order not to stumble them. Of course this has nothing to do with blood transfusions in spite what the Watchtower teaches in the 'Bible Teach' book.
Paragraph 18 declares that true Christians are not under the Mosaic Law and it is only by means of faith in the merit of Jesus’ shed blood that we can gain salvation.  Amen to that.  So why do the preceding paragraphs in chapter 13 claim that true Christians gain everlasting life through upholding the laws of the Watchtower, which include refusing to have a blood transfusion?
Jesus said: “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24).  No need to obey man-made laws.  No need to twist Scripture in an attempt to uphold man-made laws.  Jesus said nothing about refusing to accept a blood transfusion.  That is how this Protestant Christian counteracts the Jehovah’s Witness stance on blood transfusions.


Does Exodus Ministries' about-face on "pray away the gay" signal a theological change? Among those who have a conviction that the Bible frowns on same-sex sexual activity, there is nonetheless a diversity of opinion on issues like whether there is an unchosen orientation, and whether Scripture calls folks with the orientation to achieve a "re-wiring" through some sort of therapy.

The organization Exodus Ministries recently received attention in the news for changing its approach to reparative / re-orientation therapies.  Once an advocate of "pray away the gay," the founder of Exodus Ministries has now publically said that reparative therapy does not change orientation and apologized for the "trauma" inflicted on those who tried to seek re-orientation through it.

Q: Does this mean that there were any changes in their consensus on the theology of orientation.

Exodus International, and its founder, Alan Chambers, recently made news by very publicly changing its methodology of helping to change homosexual orientations. Once derisively called "pray away the gay," Exodus' insistence that homosexual orientation can be changed through prayer has been abandoned.  Futhermore, on June 19, 2013,  Exodus International willingly ceased all operations.  This caused a situation in which Chambers said:

It is also strange to be an outcast from powerful portions of both the gay community and the Christian community.  Because I do not completely agree with the vocal majorities in either group and am forging a new place of peaceful service in and through both, I will likely continue to be an outsider to some degree.

In his apology letter here, Alan Chambers writes:

And then there is the trauma that I have caused. There were several years that I conveniently omitted my ongoing same-sex attractions. I was afraid to share them as readily and easily as I do today. They brought me tremendous shame and I hid them in the hopes they would go away. Looking back, it seems so odd that I thought I could do something to make them stop. Today, however, I accept these feelings as parts of my life that will likely always be there. The days of feeling shame over being human in that way are long over, and I feel free simply accepting myself as my wife and family does. As my friends do. As God does.

He is apologizing for not for doctrine, but implementation. He apologizes for what he considers to be an ommission, not a doctrine.  He explictly states:

More than anything, I am sorry that so many have interpreted this religious rejection by Christians as God’s rejection.  I am profoundly sorry that many have walked away from their faith and that some have chosen to end their lives. For the rest of my life I will proclaim nothing but the whole truth of the Gospel, one of grace, mercy and open invitation to all to enter into an inseverable relationship with almighty God.
I cannot apologize for my deeply held biblical beliefs about the boundaries I see in scripture surrounding sex, but I will exercise my beliefs with great care and respect for those who do not share them.  I cannot apologize for my beliefs about marriage. But I do not have any desire to fight you on your beliefs or the rights that you seek. My beliefs about these things will never again interfere with God’s command to love my neighbor as I love myself.

In making this very public about face, he is clear that he writes this out of a desire for radical alignment with Christ:

My desire is to completely align with Christ, his Good News for all and his offer of peace amidst the storms of life. My wife Leslie and my beliefs center around grace, the finished work of Christ on the cross and his offer of eternal relationship to any and all that believe. Our beliefs do not center on “sin” because “sin” isn’t at the center of our faith. Our journey hasn’t been about denying the power of Christ to do anything – obviously he is God and can do anything

In short, he saying, "I was wrong about the how, not the what."  As such, this is clearly not theological change, but rather a tactical one.