Why did Christianity survive at all? I was reading about ... hold on, what was I reading about? Nevermind, I was URL surfing. Jumping around from one link to another I somehow got to this -

  He [Nero] was known for having captured Christians burned in his garden at
  night for a source of light. (Source)

I rubbed my eyes and squinted at the monitor. I wasn't hallucinating. I would never have believed such an outrageous statement had I not read it on wikipedia. :P

And it gets progressively worse -

  In the words of Tacitus, Christians showed "hatred of the human race"
  (odium generis humani). Christians were thought to use black magic in
  pursuit of revolutionary aims, and to practice incest and cannibalism.

  "The Christians are to blame for every public disaster and every
  misfortune that befalls the people. If the Tiber rises to the walls,
  if the Nile fails to rise and flood the fields, if the sky withholds
  its rain, if there is earthquake or famine or plague, straightway the
  cry arises: 'The Christians to the lions!'"

I tried to visualize and think just why would a belief system grow in such an environment. It seems counter intuitive. Let's look at the points -

Open persecution. In modern times most of the countries have laws against religious violence. Persecutions are done by violent mobs but aren't state sponsored (exceptions apply). But with open support of government it would've been much worse.
Small population. Hundreds of Christians are martyred nowadays. But since the population is already so large it doesn't have much effect.
No written Bibles. Imagine hearing sermons from a traveling missionary and then hanging onto that for the rest of your life. Repeated readings of the Bible makes it easier to learn your religion and not forget basic tenets of your faith.
Underground churches. No fellowship and support of other people to let you hang on when times are tough.
Hard to earn your bread. Economic system was organized in a way to favor certain people. In modern times corporate culture has
removed religion and other personal factors from economy. Christians
would've found themselves at the bottom of this socioeconomic system.
And whenever you did catch a fish or log some timber, your house is
open to robbery. Law enforcement doesn't give a rat.

  The Persecution in Lyon was preceded by mob violence, including
  assaults, robberies and stonings.
  Cultural isolation. Marriages, funerals and family life in general were difficult. You can imagine the difficulty by hearing the complaints of minorities in modern society and multiplying that many times over.
  Impracticality. There's little incentive to listen to that Babbling missionary when you've just returned from a Saturday night carnage show at the neighborhood Colosseum. You surely wouldn't want yourself to be cast in the next show, do you?

  It astounds my mind; just why would a religion sprout in such an environment?

Note: Please don't say that it was God's will. And please no quoting Acts 5:39.

The clear and correct answer is simply: God's will. God ensured that it happened.
Now, suppose one rephrased the question as: how could one explain the survival of Christianity in purely athiest terms -- with no mention of God whatsoever -- what is the closest approximation one could do?
Measuring love in units of sacrifice.
There's something fundamentally inspiring about someone willing to die for their beliefs. The following two quotes:

When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.
He is no fool who gives up what he can not keep in exchange for what he cannot lose.

has inspired me infinitely more than all the Prosperity "Gospel's":

Want health / wealth / happiness in this world and heaven in the next? Follow me in praying this little prayer.

The willingness of the Christians to die for their beliefs had the following effects:

it inspired their fellow Christians. If Bob and Alex who I talked to last month decided to be lion's fodder rather than reject Christ -- how can I reject Christ?

it drew the curiosity of not-yet-converted. Their sacrifice / martyrdom could not be explained by the selfish desires of humankind. Thus, their actions must have come from some other source -- and they must have really really believed it, in order to sacrifice their life for it. The more Christians that died -- the more gruesome their death -- the more it drew the curiosity of others to wonder "What did these Christians have that I do not have -- that gave them such a purpose in their life?"

No Written Bibles
We're spoiled in the modern age. I have at least 5 physical copies of the Bible in my room, and quite a few more digital copies. I've only read one copy cover to cover. And when I do read it, I feel it's more of an obligation than an intense desire. Those without the Bible probably had a better understanding of the Bible than I do -- because the verses were precious to them -- they memorized it -- they pondered it -- rather than read it for 15 minutes in a morning quiet time, and forget about it through out the day.
Underground Churches
In personal experiences, I've found it much easier to perceive theological truths during times of solitude + depression ... than times of social happiness. I think the reason is as follows: almost everything in the world exists for one purpose -- to keep us so busy and occupied from birth to death -- that we lack the time to ponder on God.
Because the early Christians had nothing (will I get into university XYZ, who much will company XYZ pay me / year ...), they had no distractions, and this allowed them to a higher understanding of God.
Cultural Isolation / Complaints
I don't think the early Christians complained. Why would they? A perfect Christ died on the cross -- they were instructed to pick up their cross and follow him -- they likely viewed persecution as an honor (to be considered worthy enough) and death to be glorious (yay Heaven!).
Overall Analysis
I think the fundamental problem is that the question looks at "Biblical Christianity" with a modern view of Christianity (i.e. that somehow this life should somehow be enjoyable).
In this sense, I believe that Biblical Christianity -- because it was so heavily persecuted, is a type of Christianity where "conversion = I'm literally ready to be tortured + die for Christ ... because that's what happens to most of the people who convert"
Modern Christianity, is much like "Yeah, these Christians people are pretty nice; they don't drink or do drugs; they hang out every Saturday to sing songs; I'd like to hang out to them."
And because of this, it's hard to us to understand how the Biblical Christians achieved so much ... much like how we struggle to understand how the 300 at thermopylae did what they did.
In summary:
It was really God's work. But if we must attribute it to help qualities, it's because the early Christians actually believed in Christ and were willing to die for Christ, rather than be luke warm christians.


How did Baptists in the southern US justify slavery as compatible with Christianity? The wikipedia article on Slavery in the US states:

  Over the decades and with the growth of slavery throughout the South, Baptist and Methodist ministers gradually changed their messages to accommodate the institution. After 1830, white Southerners argued for the compatibility of Christianity and slavery, with a multitude of both Old and New Testament citations.

What verses, or other arguments, were made, particularly by Baptists at the time (to narrow the question), to support slavery, particularly as practices in the US, as an institution compatible with and/or condoned by Christianity?

I don't need an exhaustive list--I'm sure that would take tomes.  An overview of the matter is sufficient.

I have not been able to find evidence of a Baptist argument for slavery that differs from other pro-slavery denominations. Baptist minister Richard Furman (for whom Furman University was named) published a philosophical defense of slavery that alluded to biblical support but did not elaborate on it. The proof texts would have been well known to his readers.

The starting point for Christian justification of slavery is Genesis 9:24-27.

  When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done
  to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to
  his brothers." He also said, "Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and
  let Canaan be his slave. May God make space for Japheth, and let him
  live in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave."

From this a tradition arose that the curse gave Canaan black skin, and that he subsequently migrated to Africa. Although these ideas can't be found in the Bible, they dovetailed with a pro-slavery narrative. Author Anthony Pagden explains:

  This reading of the Book of Genesis merged easily into a medieval
  iconographic tradition in which devils were always depicted as black.
  Later pseudo-scientific theories would be built around African skull
  shapes, dental structure, and body postures, in an attempt to find an
  unassailable argument--rooted in whatever the most persuasive
  contemporary idiom happened to be: law, theology, genealogy, or
  natural science -- why one part of the human race should live in
  perpetual indebtedness to another.

Exodus 21 contains rules and regulations for slave owners. A male Hebrew sold into slavery had to be released after six years, but females and children born into slavery could be held for life under certain conditions. A male slave could choose to remain a slave in order to stay with his family.

Deuteronomy 15:12-14 liberalizes some of the rules for Hebrew slaves, especially concerning who can be freed and what type of severance a freed slave should be given.

  If a member of your community, whether a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman,
  is sold to you and works for you six years, in the seventh year you
  shall set that person free. And when you send a male slave out from
  you a free person, you shall not send him out empty-handed. Provide
  liberally out of your flock, your threshing floor, and your wine
  press, thus giving to him some of the bounty with which the Lord your
  God has blessed you.

Rules for foreigners sold into slavery can be found in Leviticus 25:44-46. Regardless of age or gender, they could be held for life and could be inherited as property.

  As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the
  nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You
  may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and
  from their families that are with you, who have been born in your
  land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession
  for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These
  you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one
  shall rule over the other with harshness.

That's probably the closest biblical match to slavery as it was practiced in the United States and Britain.

Slavery is taken for granted in many New Testament passages too. For example, in Ephesians 6:5-6 Paul1 says:

  Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in
  singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched,
  and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will
  of God from the heart.

This is followed a few verses later (Ephesians 6:9) with:

  And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.

The phrase "both of you have the same Master" can be--and has been--interpreted to mean Paul is giving instructions to Christian masters of Christian slaves.

Similar instructions appear in Colossians 3:22-4:1.

Titus 2:9-10 states:

  Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction
  in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to
  show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be
  an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior.

Finally, 1 Peter 2:18-21 commands slaves to accept whatever harsh treatment their masters deal out.

  Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not
  only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For
  it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while
  suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong,
  what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer
  for it, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called,
  because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that
  you should follow in his steps.

These last two passages have no corresponding instructions for slaveholders.

In conclusion, the Bible contains many passages--in both the Old and New Testaments--that have been used to justify slavery.

1 Many modern scholars do not believe Paul wrote Titus, Ephesians, or Colossians, in part because they doubt the man who had said, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus," (Galatians 3:28), and who urged Philemon to free Onesimus and accept him as a brother (Philemon 1:15-16), would have been so accommodating to slavery.


What does being lukewarm mean in contrast with being hot or cold for the church of Laodicea? From Rev. 3:14-22(ESV)

  14 “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of
  the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's
  creation.

  15 “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you
  were either cold or hot! 16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither
  hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. 17 For you say, I am
  rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are
  wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. 18 I counsel you to buy
  from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white
  garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your
  nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you
  may see. 19 Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous
  and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears
  my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him,
  and he with me. 21 The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with
  me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on
  his throne. 22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to
  the churches.’”

Basically, Jesus Christ wanted the church to be either hot or cold, but never lukewarm. So my question is what does hot, cold, and lukewarm represent for this verse?

In addition to what was said before hot and cold being opposites one a passionate for God and another being cool. Both hot and warm water were considered luxuries during the days in which the epistles were written and both had positive qualities. Stagnant lukewarm water however had a special meaning to the Laodicean's as is related in the following explanation from March 5 2013 Sparking Gem From the Greek by Rick Renner:

The city of Laodicea was built in a region that was full of seismic activity and had experienced many earthquakes. As often happens in a seismic area, vents came up from the depths of the earth, allowing boiling hot water to reach the surface. In the nearby city of Hierapolis, these hot springs were famous. People came from great distances to bathe in those waters, believing they had medicinal powers. An experience in those waters was viewed to be therapeutic and effective in improving one's health.
Another city named Colosse was not too far away. As Hierapolis was known for its hot springs, Colosse was known for its cold waters. Just as people journeyed to Hierapolis to bathe in the hot springs for health purposes, people would travel great distances to vacation in Colosse, where they could invigorate themselves by taking frequent dips into the famous, refreshing, cool-to-freezing waters of that city.
Laodicea may have been the biggest and richest city in the area, but it had neither hot nor cold water. Therefore, the people of Laodicea had to leave their luxurious homes and travel to Colosse if they wanted to enjoy fresh, cool water. On the other hand, those who desired to soak in the hot springs had to travel six miles to Hierapolis.
Once in an attempt to bring the hot water from Hierapolis to Laodicea, a huge construction project was commenced. The goal of those who initiated the project was to build pipes that would channel the hot water six miles from Hierapolis to the city of Laodicea. The pipes effectively delivered the water - a real feat of construction at that time. Sadly, however, the water lost its heat along the way. By the time the water reached Laodicea, it was not only lukewarm, but it had developed a sickening, nauseating taste. The taste was so revolting that no one wanted to drink it!


In Luke 18:8, does the Geek word translated “quickly” mean “suddenly” in this instance? We know that in our lives on planet earth the Lord does not always quickly protect those who are suffering injustice. Definitely, he will on the day of his visitation correct injustices and he will rule with perfect justice during the millennium. But it seems that many people, while living on planet earth, undergo major and continuous injustice even though they pray frequently for God to relieve the injustice.
I do not have sufficient knowledge of the Greek to understand how verse eight is true if I understand it to be translated “quickly.“

The word is τάχος Strong 5034 which Thayer (see the link for Strong) renders as 'quickness' or 'speed'.
So in the construction used in verse 8, ἐν τάχει, Thayer tells us that the meaning is quickly or shortly (as in Acts 12:7; Acts 22:18; Romans 16:20) or it may mean speedily or soon (as in Luke 18:8; 1 Timothy 3:14 ; Revelation 1:1; Revelation 22:6).
Thus the execution of judgment is speedy, when the time comes to execute that judgment.  However the verse is not stating that there will not be a delay, ere the time of execution will occur.
It is only stating the rapidity of executed judgment, when the time for judgment to be appropriate arrives.
We know, from many other scriptures (such as the entire book of Job, or the forty years that Moses spent in  Midian, or the hundreds of years during which God waited before flooding the whole earth) that there may well be reasons, in God's purposes, for time to pass, until it is the right time for a reconciliation to occur.
But once that period of time has elapsed, the judgment falls swiftly, as exampled in the days of the Flood during Noah's lifetime, or as exampled in the judgment upon Sodom and the cities of the plain in the days of Abraham and Lot.


Why did God create man? Genesis 2:7 KJV reads,

  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
  into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Why do this?

There must be a very good reason. I read the Bible but don't know it well enough make anything out of this main premise (man).

Any supporting references are helpful (articles, Bible references, etc.)

P.S. Please do not confuse with: Why did God create such complexity in man?

From the Westminister Shorter Catechism Question 1:

  Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.

Supporting verses:

Psalm 86:9 (ESV)

  All the nations you have made shall come
      and worship before you, O Lord,
      and shall glorify your name.

Isaiah 60:21 (ESV)

  Your people shall all be righteous;
       they shall possess the land forever,
  the branch of my planting, the work of my hands,
      that I might be glorified.

Romans 11:36 (ESV)

  For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

1 Corinthians 6:20 (ESV)

  for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

1 Corinthians 10:31 (ESV)

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

Revelation 4:11 (ESV)

  “Worthy are you, our Lord and God,
      to receive glory and honor and power,
  for you created all things,
      and by your will they existed and were created.”

Psalm 16:11 (ESV)

  You make known to me the path of life;
      in your presence there is fullness of joy;
      at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

Philippians 4:4 (ESV)

  Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, rejoice.

There are numerous other verses cited, but these are the majority of the verses that support this answer.


Confusing argument from GotQuestion (Calvinist) about 24 Elders I read from this link:

  A. Some people believe these twenty-four elders represent Israel,
  but at the time of this vision, Israel as a whole nation had not yet been redeemed.

  B. The elders cannot represent tribulation saints for the same reason
   not all had yet been converted at the time of John’s vision.

  C. The most likely option is that the elders represent the raptured
  Church which sings songs of redemption (Revelation 5:8-10).

What made me confuse is because on point-C, I can also say :
but at the time of John’s vision, there is no raptured Church yet.

So, the question is :
Did Calvinist say (in point-C) that at the time of John’s vision there is already raptured Church?

On the other hand,
If what Calvinist meant (in point-C) is at the time of the "End Time",
Then why the argument in point-A and point-B use at the time of John’s vision ?

You seem to be asking how the non-occurence of certain events are said to rule out certain interpretations of Revelation 4:4 and not others. I think this confusion can be cleared up if we recognize the difference between 'historical' non-occurence and 'narrative' non-ccurence from within John's vision.

The pre-tribulation and dispensational pre-millenial perspective that the author(s) of the article on GotQuestions seem to be writing from (see the beliefs of the author, Paul Benware who is cited at the bottom of the article) fits with points A and B that you summarize above. While it is true that for a dispensationalist neither A, B, nor C have occurred in a 'historical' sense from the time of John's writing, there is a 'narrative' time and order of events that seem to undermine pre-tribulation dispensational pre-millenialism if the 24 elders refer to either the elders of Israel or Tribulation saints.

The author(s) seem to feel that Revelation 4 takes places (within the narrative of the vision) sometime before the tribulation, but after the rapture. If A were true, then the narrative would be off because Israel has not been redeemed yet within the narrative and so there would be no 24 elders, but if B were true the narrative would still be off because tribulation saints do not appear yet within the narrative. Both A and B are not possible because the author(s) believe that at the 'narrative' time of John's vision the tribulation not considered to have occurred.

The challenge then becomes discovering who the elders are if they are not either A or B. The author(s) of the article then seem to assume that while the tribulation has not occurred, end-times events have nevertheless been kicked off and saints have been raptured. It is then from these raptured saints that the 24 elders must come. The confusion arises from not understanding the radical distinction held by dispensationalists between Israel and the Church and the fact that at the time of John's 'writing' within the narrative the tribulation has not occurred (or been completed).


What is the biblical basis for the idea that the Bible cannot be understood without aid from God? I have heard this claim often in discussions and also read it several times on this site:

  The Bible cannot be properly understood without God's help.

Is there a scriptural basis for this claim?

Thank you

Jesus said in Matthew 11:25, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children." By these words we know that God has knowledge to share that we can't get anywhere but from Him. This is reinforced by Jesus saying in Matthew 11:27, "All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

In addition, Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:9-13: that we cannot comprehend the things of God unless His Spirit reveal them to us, and that is exactly what He has done to those who love Him:

  But, as it is written, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the
  heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—

  these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit
  searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s
  thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no
  one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we
  have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from
  God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And
  we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the
  Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

In Galatians 1:12, Paul tells us how he came by the gospel: "For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." This is an amazing admission by a man who was a master of his religion and of its holy book. He who sought to kill the disciples of Christ asserts that God had to reveal information not available to his natural mind in order to grasp its truths.

These are some of the arguments that we need God in order to apprehend spiritual truths, such as those in the Bible.


Is celibacy essential to the Catholic priesthood? Question: What are the theological (not practical) reasons for Catholic priests being celibate? In other words, is celibacy (or at least perpetual continence) essential to the Catholic priesthood?

Note that I am not seeking for practical reasons like "If priests were not celibate they would have a harder time keeping a secret known trough confessions," etc. I am seeking for theological reasons (if they exist) that make celibacy fitting from the very notion of priesthood or something like that.

Essence of priestly celibacy

Celibacy = unmarried, although in this context it can also mean perpetual continence, as priests can be married (and unmarried priests have never been permitted to marry).

Besides the practical reasons (which can apply to non-priests, too) of

being freed from the solicitudes of married life, not being so tied to worldly matters, or having a heart divided between wife/husband/family and pastoral duties (1 Cor. 7:33-34*);

*"But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband."

or

the spiritual reasons of being able to attain a higher degree of charity/holiness/perfection (Trent sess. 24 can. 10; Mt. 19:29*; Apoc. 14:4†) by following the evangelical counsels and not just the precepts;

*"And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting."
†"These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb"

ritual purity is probably the strongest argument for priestly celibacy because it pertains to the essence of the priesthood, which is to offer sacrifice (sacerdos = "giver of the sacred"; sacer = "sacred", dare = "to give").

Ritual purity

On ritual purity in the Old and New Testaments, see Priestly Celibacy: Theological Foundations by Fr. Gary Selin, pp. 139-144.

Ch. 3 goes over the threefold dimension of priestly celibacy: christological (conforming to Christ), ecclesiastical (under which he classes ritual purity), and eschatological (because celibacy points to the life to come, where "they shall neither marry nor be married", Mt. 22:30).

Separation/distinction honors the sacred.

Magisterial Teaching

Pope Pius XII, 1954 encyclical Sacra Virginitas §23:

  Consider again that sacred ministers do not renounce marriage solely on account of their apostolic ministry, but also by reason of their service at the altar. For, if even the priests of the Old Testament had to abstain from the use of marriage during the period of their service in the Temple, for fear of being declared impure by the Law just as other men,42 is it not much more fitting that the ministers of Jesus Christ, who offer every day the Eucharistic Sacrifice, possess perfect chastity? St. Peter Damian, exhorting priests to perfect continence, asks: "If Our Redeemer so loved the flower of unimpaired modesty that not only was He born from a virginal womb, but was also cared for by a virgin nurse even when He was still an infant crying in the cradle, by whom, I ask, does He wish His body to be handled now that He reigns, limitless, in heaven?"43

  42. Cf. Lev. XV, 16-17 XXII, 4; I Sam. XXI, 5-7; cf. S. Siric. Papa, Ep. ad Himer. 7; PL LVI, 558-559.43. S. Petrus Dam., De coelibatu sacerdotum, c. 3; PL CXLV, 384 [English transl.].

Old Testament

Ibid. ch. 3 §"Ritual Purity in the Judaic Law", pp. 139-141:

  tahor (clean, pure) or tame (unclean, impure). […] Separation  is the concrete, visible expression of the exalted holiness of God, and the ritual purity laws maintained this protective system of separation. […] To come into contact with blood was to come into contact with the divine and thus one contracted a ritual impurity, “a holy contamination,” rather than a moral impurity. […] In certain rabbinic texts, the liturgical objects themselves were understood to “pollute,” for example, the handling of a sacred scroll would soil the hands of the rabbi, and he was required to wash his hands after reading it. [fn. 103: "[…] Even today, the liturgical vessels used at Mass are said to be purified when elements of the sacred species are removed."]

New Testament

Ibid. ch. 3 §"Ritual Purity in the Patristic Tradition" p. 144 quotes Ambrosiaster's Questiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti, 127, in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 50, 415:

  Compared to the stars, the light of a lamp is but fog; while compared to the sun, the stars are obscure; and compared to the radiance of God, the sun is but night. Thus are the things which, in relationship to us, are licit and pure, and are as if illicit and impure with respect to the dignity of God; indeed, no matter how good they are, they are not appropriate to the person of God.

This is the same reason for why women and other are sacred vessels are veiled in church.

Abstaining from conjugal relations

before sacrificing

So as not to confuse two different sacreds, similar reasons are given for abstaining from conjugal relations before offering sacrifice.

1 Samuel 21:2-6:

  And David said to Achimelech, the priest: The king hath commanded me a business, and said: Let no man know the thing for which thou art sent by me, and what manner of commands I have given thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place. Now therefore if thou have any thing at hand, though it were but five loaves, give me, or whatsoever thou canst find. And the priest answered David, saying: I have no common bread at hand, but only holy bread [for sacrifice], if the young men be clean, especially from women? And David answered the priest, and said to him: Truly, as to what concerneth women, we have refrained ourselves from yesterday and the day before, when we came out, and the vessels of the young men were holy. Now this way is defiled, but it shall also be sanctified this day in the vessels. The priest therefore gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there, but only the loaves of proposition, which had been taken away from before the face of the Lord, that hot loaves might be set up.

Daniel G. Van Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of the Body of Christ: A Brief History,” Antiphon 20, no. 2 (2016): 151–72.:

  This passage indicates two situations in which men and presumably their wives abstained from sexual relations during David's time. First, David's soldiers abstained in order to be consecrated at arms or prepared for battle. Second, the priests abstained when serving before the Lord in the Tabernacle and partaking of the holy shew-bread. On this exceptional instance in which non-priests partook of the holy bread, those non-priests could do so only upon affirming that they had abstained from sexual relations.

before receiving Holy Communion

Innocent XI's Cum ad aures (February 12, 1679) on frequent communion (DZ 1147):

  In the case of married persons, however, let them seriously consider this, since the blessed Apostle does not wish them to "defraud one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that they may give themselves to prayer" [cf. 1 Cor. 7:5], let them advise these seriously that they should give themselves more to continence, because of reverence for the most holy Eucharist, and that they should come together for communion in the heavenly banquet with a purer mind.

  In coniugatis autem hoc amplius animadvertant, cum beatus Apostolus nolit eos ‘invicem fraudari, nisi forte ex consensu ad tempus, ut vacent orationi’ (cf. 1 cor 7, 5), eos serio admoneant, tanto magis ob sacratissimae Eucharistiae reverentiam continentiae vacandum purioreque mente ad caelestium epularum communionem esse conveniendum.

(Pope St. Pius X cited (but did not quote) this in his Sacra Tridentina on daily Communion.)


Anglican apostolic succession Isnt the fact that Thomas Cranmer (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cranmer)
was validly ordained by the Roman Catholic Church certain proof that the Anglican Church holds valid apostolic succession?

Why Then is it denied by the Roman Catholic Church?

One concept of Apostolic Succession, sometimes called "tactile succession", is that bishops derive their position by being consecrated by other bishops, who were themselves consecrated by earlier bishops, and so on right back to the apostles, and so to Christ Himself. A valid bishop is someone in this chain. A valid priest is someone appointed by a valid bishop. A priest, who is not a bishop, cannot pass on his priestly status to others, whereas a bishop can pass on priestly status to others, and can also pass on episcopal status to others.

The weakest link in the Anglican chain of succession was seen as Matthew Parker  appointed by Elizabeth I after the death of Queen Mary. Cranmer and other Protestant-minded bishops had been burned at the stake under Mary. The Catholic-minded bishops appointed by Mary resigned or were deprived and refused to consecrate Parker. Cardinal Pole, Archbishop of Canterbury between Cranmer and Parker, died the same day as Mary. By ancient tradition three bishops, at least, participate in the consecration of a new bishop.

Parker's consecration was delayed for months, but eventually 4 bishops were found: Barlow, Coverdale, Scory and Hodgskin.  Of these Barlow and Hodgskin had been consecrated in the Roman rite in the time of Henry VIII; and Coverdale and Scory had been consecrated by Cranmer in his own rite under Edward VI (son of Henry,  brother of Mary and Elizabeth). All Anglican bishops were, and are, "descended" from Parker, and through him from Cranmer and from the Roman Catholic Church of  which the Church of England was once part.

Allegations that Parker had never been formally consecrated, but merely taken part in an unofficial ribald ceremony in a London pub, the Nag's Head , were made by Jesuits, though these are not accepted by historians, and have never been officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. There are also legal issues, but these have no bearing on validity.

So, why does the Roman Catholic Church regard Anglican orders as invalid?

In 1896 Pope Leo XIII issued a bull, Apostolicae Curae, in which he declared Anglican orders to be absolutely null and utterly void.

There were several reasons. One concerned the form, the form of words in the consecration rite, in the Edwardine Ordinal used from 1551 until 1662 (except for Mary's five-year reign when the Roman rite was restored,  and the Cromwellian Period when bishops were abolished). Following the words "Receive the Holy Ghost" the word "bishop" was not mentioned, nor anything definite to say what a bishop is. Although this was fixed, so to speak, in the 1662 Book, Leo said the defect of form meant there were no valid consecrations in England for over 100 years and so the hierarchy had died out. Even if the form was acceptable after 1662, there were no valid bishops to use it. The Anglican line had died out.

Since the 1930s it has been standard practice for bishops from the Old Catholic churches to co-consecrate Church of England bishops. Old Catholic Churches split from Rome, mostly over Vatican One and Papal infallibility, and their bishops are accepted by Rome as valid. Most, perhaps all, Anglican bishops worldwide can now trace their "descent" from Old Catholic,  as well as Anglican and Lutheran,  bishops. Most Old Catholic Churches are members of the Utrecht Union, after the town of Utrecht in Holland. For this reason the participation of Old Catholic co-consecrators  is known colloquially as the "Dutch Touch".

However the Dutch Touch does not deal with Leo's principle objection to Anglican orders which is not about form, but intention. Anglican ordinations of priests, and consecration of bishops, are invalid because there is no intention, in the Anglican churches, that they should be valid. An ordination using an Anglican rite, in an Anglican church, must be assumed to have the public intention of accomplishing what the Anglican church says it is intended to accomplish, and that is fundamentally not to make priests or bishops in the Catholic sense of those terms.

The Archbisops of Canterbury and York issued a response to the bull from Leo, and the Roman Catholic bishops of England and Wales issued a Vindication of the bull, in the form of a reply to Canterbury and York. The Vindication is perhaps clearer than the bull. It describes Catholic doctrine.

  Priest and Sacrifice are correlative terms -with us at all events, and indeed with all nations, except in so far as your own Communion may be an exception. A priest is one who offers sacrifice;  and as is the sacrifice,  so is the priest. Since, then, our sacrifice is the Sacrifice of the Mass, our priest is one appointed and empowered to offer up that sacrifice;  one, therefore, who has received from God the power, by means of the words of consecration, to cause the Body and Blood of Christ to become present under the appearance of bread and wine, and to offer them up sacrificially.

Having explained the Catholic understanding of the word "priest", it goes on to document the Church of England position based on her Articles of Religion, her liturgy and the statements of her reformers and prominent theologians. The Church of England rejects the Roman Catholic understanding of the sacrifice of the mass as a blasphemous fable.

  The true Sacrifice and Priesthood ..... your Church has in the most stringent terms repudiated altogether.

So , although Anglicans use the words "priest" and "bishop" they do not mean what Catholics mean, but something else. When Anglicans "ordain a priest" they have no intention of doing what Catholics do when they "ordain a priest". That, rather than tactile succesion, is why the Roman Church deems Anglican orders invalid.


Are things commonly blessed by priests at certain times of the year appropriate to bring to a priest for a special blessing? Is it appropriate to ask priests to bless things like oil, salt and water that you bring to them for a blessing? I was reading this answer and was wondering if it made sense for a layperson to bring things like salt and oil for a blessing.  Would a priest be responsible for making sure that the thing they're blessing really is salt, oil and water?

Are things commonly blessed by priests at certain times of the year appropriate to bring to a priest for a special blessing?

The short answer is yes.

But before doing so make arrangements with your pastor or priest before doing so.

This is something I do, not on a regular basis, but now and again.

As far as I am aware table salt and saltpetre are considered salt and both are edible; thus either one may be used in the blessing of salt. Normally, only table salt is employed.

Some blessings in the Roman Ritual are reserved to one particular feast in the year. Therefore, please make arrangements with your pastor or priest beforehand. Over the years I have had the occasion of getting many diverse these objects specially blessed by the Church with the help of her sacred ministers.

According to the ancient Rituale Romanum several blessing are reserved to specific feasts and/or bishops or even the pope such as the following:

Blessing of Water (Magi Water) on Eve of the Feast of the Epiphany (January 5). In the Extraordinary Form, the permission of the local ordinary (bishop) is required for this blessing because it contains a major exorcism prayer within it.
Blessing of Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh on the Feast Epiphany
Blessing of Chalk on the Feast of the Epiphany
Blessing of (Domesticated/Farm) Animals on the Eve of the Feast of St. Anthony of the Desert (January 16)
Blessing of Throats on the Feast of St. Blaise
Blessing of Herbs on the Feast of the Assumption
Blessing of Seeds on the Feast of the Nativity of the Most Holy Virgin Mary
Blessing of Basil on the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross
Blessing of animals (pets) on the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi (October 4)
Blessing of Hunting Hounds on the Feast of St. Hubert (November 3)
Blessing of Water, Salt and Bread on the Feast of St. Hubert (Page 466) See: Buns for Saint Hubert
Blessing of the Sword and Hat on Christmas Eve  (December 24) This blessing is reserved to the pope and has not been done in modern times.
Blessing of wine on the Feast of St John the Apostle (December 27)

This is not an exhaustive list. Some dioceses and Religious Orders have the privilege or  reserved right of blessing certain religious items or sacramentals.

Some of these blessings are simple blessings. A few are known as containing a minor exorcism. One is actually a major exorcism and the bishop’s permission is required to confer the required blessing.

  According to Catholic belief demons or fallen angels retain their natural power, as intelligent beings, of acting on the material universe, and using material objects and directing material forces for their own wicked ends; and this power, which is in itself limited, and is subject, of course, to the control of Divine providence, is believed to have been allowed a wider scope for its activity in the consequence of the sin of mankind. Hence places and things as well as persons are naturally liable to diabolical infestation, within limits permitted by God, and exorcism in regard to them is nothing more that a prayer to God, in the name of His Church, to restrain this diabolical power supernaturally, and a profession of faith in His willingness to do so on behalf of His servants on earth.

  The chief things formally exorcised in blessing are water, salt, oil, and these in turn are used in personal exorcisms, and in blessing or consecrating places (e.g. churches) and objects (e.g. altars, sacred vessels, church bells) connected with public worship, or intended for private devotion. Holy water, the sacramental with which the ordinary faithful are most familiar, is a mixture of exorcised water and exorcised salt; and in the prayer of blessing, God is besought to endow these material elements with a supernatural power of protecting those who use them with faith against all the attacks of the devil. This kind of indirect exorcism by means of exorcised objects is an extension of the original idea; but it introduces no new principle, and it has been used in the Church from the earliest ages.  - Exorcism (Catholic Encyclopaedia)

I get a priest to bless olive oil during Eastertide when possible. Like I said above, I ask the pastor a week or two before so he is not taken by surprise. Unlike most of the faithful I bring along holy water (aqua benedicta) and a copy of the prayer I desire the priest to employ.


How do Jehovah's Witnesses understand Galatians 1:11-12? The Apostle Paul stated at Galatians 1:11-12 the following:

Galatians 1:11-12: For I would have you know, brethern, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Also, Galatians 1:1:

Paul an apostle  (not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead.

Then there is one more verse declaring the gospel of Jesus Christ at Mark 1:1:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

So Paul is informing us that the origin of the gospel he shared with them/the Galatians went back directly to a revelation of Jesus Christ Himself. It is the book of Acts that records what happened to Paul at Acts 9:3-19.
So the question is how Jehovah's Witnesses, who teach that Jesus Christ was only a human man and not God, reconcile the Apostle Paul saying he did not receive the gospel from any man nor did any man teach him the
gospel?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was a man during his time on earth, but not just any ordinary man. He was the Christ, he was God's Son, and he was perfect. What Jesus taught was not of his own originality but was from God, his Father. (John 8:28; John 14:10)
Before Jesus came to earth and after he was resurrected, he was a mighty spirit creature. The Apostle Paul received his gospel after Jesus was resurrected, so Jesus was no longer a man then.

1 Peter 3:18 (NWT)
For Christ died once for all time for sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, in order to lead you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.

Acts 13:34 (NWT)
And the fact that He resurrected him from the dead never again to return to corruption, He has stated in this way: ‘I will give you the expressions of loyal love promised to David, which are faithful.’

1 Corinthians 15:45 (NWT)
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living person.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

2 Corinthians 5:16 (NWT)
So from now on we know no man from a fleshly viewpoint. Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we certainly no longer know him in that way.

Sources:
jw.org > Bible Questions Answered > After Jesus’ Resurrection, Was His Body Flesh or Spirit?
What Can the Bible Teach Us? > Chapter 4: "Who Is Jesus Christ?"


Why does 1 John say Christians are unable to sin? The verse in question, 1 John 3:4 (HCSB)

Everyone who commits sin also breaks the law; sin is the breaking of law. You know that He was revealed so that He might take away sins, and there is no sin in Him. Everyone who remains in Him does not sin; everyone who sins has not seen Him or known Him.
Little children, let no one deceive you! The one who does what is right is righteous, just as He is righteous. The one who commits sin is of the Devil, for the Devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God was revealed for this purpose: to destroy the Devil’s works. Everyone who has been born of God does not sin, because His seed remains in him; he is not able to sin, because he has been born of God. This is how God’s children — and the Devil’s children — are made evident.

but earlier, in 1 John 1:10, he seemingly says the opposite

If we say, “We don’t have any sin,” we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.

In many other places, it is made clear that Christians are not made righteous by their own works and that we are not without sin, rather we are forgiven of sin and are made righteous by God's grace and Jesus' salvation. Why does 1st John 3:4 say otherwise? Am I missing the point?

Why does 1 John say Christians are unable to sin?

  1 John 3:6  Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth
  hath not seen him, neither known him.

  1 John 3:9  Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed
  remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

One of the problems in translating something between languages is that if a word in one language carries more information in it than the other language can handle in one word, information can be lost.

For example in 1 John 3:9 the word "commit" is "poieō" in Greek which can mean commit, cause, perform, continue. However the word also carries with it additional information in that the verb is present, active, indicative.

Other translators would say something like "Whoever is born of God does not habitually commit sin."

The word "sinneth" in verse six is "hamartanō" and has the same "present, active, indicative" verb construction and can also be rendered, "Whosoever abideth in him does not habitually sin".

While there are many good English translations, it is sometimes necessary to go to the original language to find information that may not have been brought fully into the English.


List of old heresies condemned by the Catholic Church now present in Lutheranism and Calvinism The title says it all, I'd like a list of all heresies condemned by the Catholic Church before the Reformation. This time specifically those identified in Lutheranism and 5 point Calvinism.

At the outset it should be noted that Lutherans and Calvinists agree with the Creed of Nicaea (325 A.D.) and affirm the early church's consensus concerning the nature of Christ and the Trinitarian faith which is foundational to Christianity.
The start of the Reformation is attributed to Martin Luther when he posted his 95 Theses on the door of Wittenberg Church on October 31, 1517.  However, 100 years before other Christians had stood up for reform and paid for it with their lives.  John Wycliffe, an English theologian and Oxford professor (who had died in 1384), was condemned as a heretic by the Council of Constance on 4 May 1415. His crime was to defy the Pope by translating the New Testament into English.  His writings were banned and his corpse exhumed from consecrated ground and burned.
Jan Hus, a priest from Bohemia, who rejected indulgences and adopted a doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone, was condemned by the Catholic Church and executed by burning in 1415 for his opposition to the Church of Rome.
Girolamo Savonarola, a Dominican friar, was hanged and burned in 1498.  He had disobeyed and defied the pope by preaching under a ban, highlighting his campaign for reform.
The Council of Trent convened in the mid 1500’s to settle issues regarding the Lutheran Protestant Reformation.  The Protestant Reformation formulated five “solas” or key teachings that defined the biblical basis of Protestant theology:

Sola scriptura: “Scripture alone”
Sola fide: “faith alone”
Sola gratia: “grace alone”
Solo Christo: “Christ alone”
Soli Deo gloria: “to the glory of God alone”

At the heart of the Protestant Reformation are four basic questions: How is a person saved? Where does religious authority lie? What is the church? What is the essence of Christian living?  The “Five Solas” express five essential points of biblical doctrine that clearly separate Protestantism from Roman Catholicism.
Salvation by grace alone through faith alone, one of the Reformers’ rallying cries, was rejected  in favour of sacramental grace and righteousness based on a mixture of grace and works.
The Council of Trent instituted seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, communion, penance, unction, orders, and marriage. The council condemned anyone who said the sacraments were not necessary for salvation or that man can be justified through faith alone without any sacrament.  The council also confirmed the belief in transubstantiation, which is rejected by Protestants.  However, it is the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith alone that that is the primary heresy, and the rejection of Papal authority is a close second.
Information drawn from a variety of sources:
Protestant beliefs declared to be heretical by the Roman Catholic Church - Luther and the Five Solas condemned by the Council of Trent, held in Trento, Italy from 1545 to 1563:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_heresies
Protestant Reformation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation
Five solae: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solae
Edit for clarification: From the Wiki article in the first link above, which lists the pre-Protestant Reformation heresies, there does not appear to be anything there that can be identified with what followers of Luther or Calvin believe. The heresy of refusing to submit to Papal authority and/or of rejecting apostolic succession from Peter via the Catholic Church could be laid at the door of ALL Protestant denominations.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines the doctrine of Transubstantiation in section 1376:

"The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: ‘Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.’"
"The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit."  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366)

According to paragraph 1367 the sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist are one single sacrifice:

"The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner . . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."

The passage pointed to most frequently in support of the doctrine of transubstantiation is John 6:32-58 and especially verses 53-57:

“Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life … For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him … so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.’”

Roman Catholics interpret this passage literally and apply its message to the “Eucharist” or “Mass.” Protestants who reject the idea of transubstantiation interpret Jesus’ words in John 6:53-57 figuratively or symbolically.  They base their rejection of literally eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ Jesus on Hebrews 7:27:

"Unlike the other high priests, He (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered Himself."

I found an article from a Christian website that gives the Protestant view of the Catholic Eucharist and Transubstantiation, parts of which have been incorporated in my answer above: https://www.gotquestions.org/Holy-Eucharist.html


According to Catholicism, is repeatedly visiting a Protestant church a mortal sin? I am Catholic and have been visiting a Protestant church for the last 2 months. According to Catholicism, did I commit a mortal sin by visiting this church?

According to Catholicism, is repeatedly visiting a Protestant church a mortal sin?

The short answer is: No. Providing that one assists at the sacrifice of the Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.

  Sunday Mass and Holy Day Obligation

  It is both a precept of the Church and Church law that Catholics must worship God on Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation by participating in the Holy Mass. This follows from the fact that in the Mass it is Christ Himself who worships the Father, joining our worship to His. In no other way is it possible to adequately give thanks (eucharistia) to God for the blessings of creation, redemption and our sanctification than by uniting our offerings to that of Jesus Christ Himself. Following the example of the Old Covenant the Church does this weekly, on the day of the Lord's Resurrection.

    Canon 1247

    On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass; they are also to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord's Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body.

    Canon 1248

    The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day.
    If because of lack of a sacred minister or for other grave cause participation in the celebration of the Eucharist is impossible, it is specially recommended that the faithful take part in the liturgy of the word if it is celebrated in the parish church or in another sacred place according to the prescriptions of the diocesan bishop, or engage in prayer for an appropriate amount of time personally or in a family or, as occasion offers, in groups of families.

  Since a "grave cause" is needed to excuse one from this obligation it would be a serious or mortal sin to willfully skip Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation, as the Church has always taught. Reasons such as the necessity to work to support one's family, child care, personal sickness or the care of the sick, necessary travel etc. would excuse a person on a particular occasions. Those who have continuing reason to be excused should consult their pastor.

  If a priest is not available in an area and only a Liturgy of the Word or a Communion Service is offered the Mass obligation does not "transfer" to such services. As canon 1248 notes, participation is recommended for the spiritual value, especially if Communion is distributed.

The reason for "visiting" another church may because of several causes. One may be helping a non-Catholic family member to get to their church. One may be doing this for many, many reasons. But the obligation to participate in the sacrifice of the Mass takes precedence and must be fulfilled.

If in doubt, one should seek advice for competent authority such as a deacon, priest or bishop.

I know the case of a deaf woman who after attending a Catholic Mass, she goes to a Protestant service because their services have sign language and no one at her Church (Mass) does sign language. This is done with permission from the diocese where she lives.

Catholics could also be hired by a Protestant Churches to play an organ at their services because of their expertise. Our Catholic parish actually hired a Protestant to play the organ at Mass because of her expertise in playing the organ.

"Visiting" a non-Catholic church is not a mortal sin, providing it remains just that:"visiting". If it is done habitually, one should clarify the situation with one's local pastor or priest.


How to go about learning about Christianity for someone from a non-Christian background? Christianity has a huge influence on our culture and references to it come up in many literary and philosophical texts. Not to mention I really enjoy a lot of the stories like David and Golaith, Adam and Eve, Abraham and his Son for their philosophical merits.
I grew up in a non-Christian home and didn't have any real exposure to Christianity. Also I am an atheist so I am not really looking for literature "preaches but explains to me about the history and teaching of the religion.

What texts can you recommend for someone starting out to learn about Christianity from an academic perspective? Also there are many bibles out there can you give me flavor of the "core" bibles and what they focus on and the style and context in which they are written? Thanks in advance.

A very readable overview of Christian history may be found in Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley.

A deeper dive into more recent history is Eerdman's Handbook to Christianity in America.

For a good overview of the common beliefs shared by a majority of Christian groups, try Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

For a somewhat polemical take on the contributions of the Catholic church, try How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods.

The last book I will cite I have not read, but comes well-reviewed:

David Daniell. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003. xx + 899 pp. $40.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-300-09930-0. The following review should make it clear how comprehensive is the author's study of the impact of the English Bible on English culture: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=9709


How does one discern a calling to the vocation of priesthood? Approaching this from a Catholic perspective, what are good signs that God is calling you to the vocation of priesthood, in other words, what must one look for to know whether you are called to the priesthood?

My own pastor has shared stories that he knew at a young age that he was called to the priesthood. As a young boy of 8 or 9 he says he "just knew" which is in keeping with a seed planted by God for the vocation. Oftentimes, young boys who are part of church-going families will mimic the parts of Mass and that is something that shows their interest. Of course discernment is an on-going process and once such a boy becomes a teen, it is best for him to be able to further his discernment through connections with a seminary professor etc. In the meantime it is always important for Catholic families to help their children know about consecrated vocations. They can do this through wonderful books and positive conversations meant to show all the ways that God might be calling.

Other times a young man or grown man will feel a tug at his heart to become a priest. Again it seems to be God initiating the process but it is important for all people to be open to "hearing" God which is why studying Scripture and spending time with at least some like-minded friends will help each of us be able to see and follow the movements of God.

There was a time when discernment wasn't really part of the process to become a priest--when just about every Catholic family had a priest from its members; but times have changed and it is being seen more as a "call" and the depths of the vocation are better understood for today's men pursuing the priesthood.


Who is God in the Old Testament? (Trinity) I had always thought the Entity of the Trinity that appears in the Old Testament was God the Father. However, upon re-reading several passages, I am beginning to think it might be Jesus Christ.
The Referenced Verses, John 6:46 and John 14:6 - Which say 'Not that anyone has seen the father, except he who is from God (Jesus Christ)' and 'Nobody can come to the father except through me(Jesus Christ)' (ESV)
From these Statements from Christ, I am inclined to believe the 'LORD' in the old testament was actually Jesus Christ, and not the Father - as I've always assumed. If Nobody has ever come to the Father, or seen the Father except through Christ - Moses must not have been interacting with the Father, Right?
Please let me know what you think of this. Did the Old Testament ever make specific reference that God was God the Father?
Thank you

Whoever sees Jesus sees God (John 14:9).

John 1:18 (ESV)
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

No one has seen God. Jesus , who is God (by nature), is the One who reveals God (the Father) to us.
In the Old Testament, God said that no one can see him and live yet other accounts said that people did see him and they lived. The one whom they saw was the angel of the Lord, who was the pre incarnate Christ. This is not to say that Jesus was ontologically an angel. The word 'angel' (ανγγελος - messenger) refers to function.
Justin Martyr in the second century identified the angel of the Lord as the pre incarnate Christ.

"Moreover, I consider it necessary to repeat to you the words which narrate how He who is both Angel and God and Lord, and who appeared as a man to Abraham, and who wrestled in human form with Jacob, was seen by him when he fled from his brother Esau." (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr)

The Lord Jesus in the New Testament revealed was described as the following which consistently identifies him with the God whom ancient Israelites saw in the Old Testament:
(a) Christ is the image of the invisible God. (Col 1:15)
(b) whoever sees Christ sees God (John 14:9)
(b) Christ himself is God by nature (John 1:1, 1:18 cf. Col 2:9).
(c) Those who has seen Christ actually lived (John 6:40).

John 6:40 7(ESV)
For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Conclusion
Based on the New Testament and Ante-Nicene father, the Second Person of the Trinity is the Lord God who appeared in the form of a man to the Jewish patriarchs.


Where did St. Jerome say this quote about the manger of the nativity? I have seen on multiple websites, mostly websites about seeing the Holy Land or otherwise pilgrimage-focused sites, that St. Jerome said:

  If I could only see that manger in which the Lord lay! Now, as if to honour the Christ, we have removed the poor one and placed there a silver one; however, for me the one which was removed is more precious . . . .

The site typically prefaces it similar to the link above saying that St. Jerome, whose cave was nearby (since Jerome lived in Bethlehem at this time), did not approve of the 4th century replacement of the marble manger with the silver manger. Also quoted around the same point in the article is a "biblical scholar" who similarly disapproves of the "men's devotions" around the cave of the nativity.

I have yet to find a basis for this quote by Jerome. Do we have any record of this statement anywhere?

My search found a somewhat contradictory quote in letter 108, to Eustochium, dated AD 404:

  I too, miserable sinner though I am, have been accounted worthy to kiss the manger in which the Lord cried as a babe, and to pray in the cave in which the travailing virgin gave birth to the infant Lord.

This quote suggests that he, at least some point in the past up to AD 404, was able to access the original manger. Perhaps the manger replacement came at a later point before his death in AD 420.

I could not find the original quote on either New Advent or Christian Classics Ethereal Library. If anyone could find a basis for this quote attributed to Jerome, that would be great.

I was a bit skeptical, but the quote appears to be legitimate.  It's from one of Jerome's homilies.  Merely searching for jerome manger silver, I found this page in The Homilies of Saint Jerome, Volume 2.

Here's a more complete quotation:

  O, if only I were permitted to look upon that manger in which the Lord lay!  Now, as an honor to Christ, we have taken away the manger of clay and have replaced it with crib [sic] of silver, but more precious to me is the one that has been removed.  Silver and gold are proper to heathendom; Christian faith is worthy of the manger that is made of clay.  He who was born in that manger cared nothing for gold and silver.  I do not find fault with those who made the change in the cause of honor (nor do I look with disfavor upon those in the Temple who made vessels of gold), but I wonder at the Lord, the Creator of the universe, who is born, not surrounded by gold and silver, but by mud and clay.


What is the significance of the phrase "Sic Transit Gloria Mundi"? The phrase is used during the ceremony of assigning a new pope, and can be interpreted in many ways.

A translation would be: "So pass the worldly glories."

How would you interpret its meaning, think of its context being used in Christianity and, possibly, some esoteric circles as well?

To clarify, I know the translation and the instance in which it is used. What I'm looking for is if there is some contextual knowledge that would add to the symbolic, historical or ethical meaning of it.

I've also answered the cross-posted version of this question on the Latin Language Stack Exchange.
One common attribution for this phrase is Thomas à Kempis's Imitation of Christ (~1420), which reads:

Tell me, where now are all the masters and teachers whom you knew so well in life and who were famous for their learning? Others have already taken their places and I know not whether they ever think of their predecessors. During life they seemed to be something; now they are seldom remembered. How quickly the glory of the world passes away! If only their lives had kept pace with their learning, then their study and reading would have been worth while. (Part 1, Chapter 3)

The phrase bolded above in the original Latin is o quam cito transit gloria mundi, so it's not an exact match, but the similarity is notable.
As the context indicates, Kempis is pointing out how fame and renown are fleeting: the acclaim that was showered on scholars during their lives has, following their deaths, been transferred to their successors.  Kempis recommends, instead, that Christians ensure that "their lives [keep] pace with their learning," that is, that they live godly lives instead of seeking fame.
This message is by no means foreign to the Bible.  Similar examples abound:

For the sun rises with its scorching heat and withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beauty perishes. So also will the rich man fade away in the midst of his pursuits. (James 1:11; ESV)
“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. (Matthew 6:19–20; ESV)
And he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man produced plentifully, 17 and he thought to himself, 'What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?' 18 And he said, 'I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.”' 20 But God said to him, 'Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?' 21 So is the one who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God.” (Luke 12:16–21; ESV)
For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (1 John 2:16–17; ESV)

The phrase is, as you mention, closely associated with the coronation of new popes.  Janos M. Bak describes the process, writing that the words are spoken to the pope as a cloth is burned in front of him.  The visual of a cloth being consumed in fire provides stark context for the phrase: it emphasizes the fleeting nature of worldy glory, and, by extension, the permanence of service to God.
In fact, the wording in Latin resembles that of Satan when tempting Jesus in the desert:

iterum adsumit eum diabolus in montem excelsum valde et ostendit ei omnia regna mundi et gloriam eorum (Matthew 4:8; Vulgate)
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. (ESV)

In response, Christ spurns worldly glory to serve God:

Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’” (4:10; ESV)

That's the attitude all followers of Christ need to have, but the reminder is especially relevant for those in positions of great power and prestige, like popes.


What is the LDS stance on John 14:9-10? The LDS church teaches Jesus, Father and Holy Ghost are three separate beings. What is the LDS perspective on the following piece of scripture?

  9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
  - John 14:9-10

The LDS interpret that scripture the same way we interpret these Book of Mormon Scriptures:

3 Nephi 11:27

27 And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold,
verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the
Father and I are one.
Mosiah 15:4

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of
earth.
3 Nephi 20:35

35 The Father hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the
nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of the
Father; and the Father and I are one.
3 Nephi 11:36

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will
bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and
the Holy Ghost are one.
Mormon 7:7

7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he
that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given
unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing
ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the
Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of
happiness which hath no end.

The Father sent His Son to help us to know, love, and obey our Father in Heaven. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are indeed separate and distinct beings, but they are perfectly united in purpose; to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
Christ said in John 6:38:

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will
of him that sent me.

In all that Jesus came to say and do, including and especially in His atoning suffering and sacrifice, He was showing us who and what God our Eternal Father is like, how completely devoted He is to His children in every age and nation. In word and in deed Jesus was trying to reveal and make personal to us the true nature of His Father, our Father in Heaven.1
By seeing how the Father is, we can learn how to experience pure joy. That is why Christ said that if you have seen him, you have seen the Father, because Christ lived a perfect life, he showed us what the Father was like, and how we could have joy.

3 Nephi 28:10

10 And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit
down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as
the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;

Note in the above scripture, "...ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father, and the Father and I are one."
Christ was speaking to three of his disciples when he spoke these words, he told them that they would be one with Him and the Father.
This was a sure promise that they would be Exalted, like Christ, and the Father. If we choose to live the life Christ showed us to live, the life he showed us was like unto what the Father would live, then we too can be Exalted, we too can be one with the Father and have a fulness of joy.

1 Jeffery R Holland, He That Hath Seen Me Hath Seen The Father, Ensign, 2003


Did early Chinese Protestant actually call God "(old) Gentleman of Fiery Magnificence", as Wikipedia says? The Wikipedia article on 'Chinese names for the God of Abrahamic religions' claims that:

  Protestants originally rendered [the Tetragrammaton] as Yéhuǒhuá (爺火華, literally "(old) Gentleman of Fiery Magnificence," cf. English "Jehovah").

I would love to know if this were true, because it sounds quite strange and funny at the same time.  However, there are no specific citations for this claim, and I can't find from basic googling any English language information backing up this claim. (I don't speak a word of Chinese, so it's possible there's ample evidence on the Sinophone internet that I haven't seen)  Is this actually  true?

In the Chinese translation of the Bible, L-RD is called “耶和華”, pronounced from "Ye He Hua", it's directly derived from the Hebrew word יהוה"YHWH"
Just the literal meaning of characters, 耶 has not much meaning, while 和 means peace, 華 means Chinese.

But most of the time when a foreign word is translated to Chinese, the characters don't have significant meanings. While negative characters are avoided, neutral characters are popular in the translation of names.
In the translation of Hebrew and Greek Bible to Chinese, as much as I know, the Chinese version of names are preferably transliterated from Hebrew.

For example,

Moses - 摩西 "mo shi" - משה "moshe"
Jesus - 耶穌 "ye su" - ישוע "yeshua"
John - 約翰 "yue han" - יוחנן "yokhanan"
Joshua - 約書亞 "yue shu ya" =    יהושע "yohushua"

The "J" in Biblical English names are usually "׳" (yod) in Hebrew, pronounced as "i".


What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about other Bible translations? I was communing with a group of six JWs and one of them brought out an app which compared the NWT with other translations and claimed that there is not much difference between them.

Do Jehovah's Witnesses believe any translations apart from the New World Translation are good for teaching? Do they believe that there is any possibility of translation error in the NWT?

The app you're referring to is JW Library.

Jehovah's Witnesses prefer using the New World Translation in general for several reasons, however that feature of the app is there because the full sense of some scriptures can often be better understood by cross-referencing with the wording of other Bibles. We use many translations in our personal study of the Bible. Upon request, Jehovah's Witnesses are happy to use another preferred translation when teaching.

Prior to 1950, Jehovah's Witnesses used and printed various other Bible translations. Even today, there are many languages which the NWT has not been translated into (there are currently over 130 languages which have the NWT available in whole or in part), and so JWs who preach in those other languages must use other available Bible translations.

Jehovah's Witnesses also research and treasure the history of Bible translation. At the world headquarters in Warwick, NY, there is a large exhibit of various historical and rare Bible translations. The exhibit primarily focuses on how God's name (Jehovah or Yahweh in English) appears in various Bibles through history.

As with most Bible translations, the translators have done their best to translate the Bible accurately. Scriptures which are difficult to translate are usually accompanied with footnotes with alternate renderings. In special cases where a certain scripture is controversial, there is usually an article about that scripture. One especially useful tool for finding JW publications on specific scriptures is the Scripture Index.


Did Ellen G White say Israel will never become a nation I have been searching high and low for an accredited source that says Ellen G White  said Israel will never become a nation.  Not surprisingly, such a prophetic word would not be easy to find.

I need this information for an assignment I've been given.  It has nothing to do with right or wrong, or "truth", but is simply a genuine request for help with my research.

Any insights/references would be most helpful.  Thank you.

I went to this official, accredited SDA web-site for this information, where SDA officials respond to more difficult questions about their founder, Mrs. Ellen G. White, that are not generally tackled in other official web-sites. https://whiteestate.org/legacy/issues-faq-unus-html/#unusual-section-d2 There was a question, “Jerusalem Never to be Rebuilt?” that seemed a potential source of information, and so it was.  This is, indeed, directly related to whether she said Israel would never become a nation. She wrote in 1851 that

  “old Jerusalem never would be built up.” [1]

The site responded to this by saying:

  “…we find Mrs. White counseling the growing Adventist group that both
  time-setting [2] and the "age-to-come" notion [3] were incompatible
  with Biblical truth. She emphasized that the Old Testament prophecies
  regarding the establishment of a Jewish kingdom in Palestine were
  conditional on obedience and forfeited by disobedience. Unfulfilled
  prophecies would be fulfilled to "true Israel" as unfolded in the New
  Testament text. Thus the popular movement of the 1840s and 1850s to
  promote a Zionist state in Palestine was not a fulfillment of Biblical
  prophecy and not a quest in which Adventists should become involved.
  Her warnings and instruction were designed to turn the interest away
  from Palestine and toward the work God had opened up before them. In a
  September 1850 vision she saw that it was a "great error" to believe
  that "it is their duty to go to Old Jerusalem, and think they have a
  work to do there before the Lord comes. . . ; for those who think that
  they are yet to go to Jerusalem will have their minds there, and their
  means will be withheld from the cause of present truth to get
  themselves and others there." [4] Less than a year later, August 1851,
  she wrote with greater emphasis "that Old Jerusalem never would be
  built up; and that Satan was doing his utmost to lead the minds of the
  children of the Lord into these things now, in the gathering time, to
  keep them from throwing their whole interest into the present work of
  the Lord, and to cause them to neglect the necessary preparation for
  the day of the Lord." [5]

  [1] Early Writings, p. 75. This sentence appears in the chapter, "The
  Gathering Time," which combined two visions and some additional lines.
  The first vision, Sept. 23, 1850,  dealt with the "gathering time" of
  "Israel," the dates on the Millerite 1843 chart, the "daily,"
  timesetting, and the error of going to Old Jerusalem. The second
  vision, June 21, 1851, focused on the third angel's message,
  time-setting, and Old Jerusalem's not being built up.

  [2] Many former Millerites were setting various dates for the return
  of Jesus, with 1850 and 1851 being the latest dates for the end of the
  2300-day/year prophecy. Although Sabbatarian Adventists generally were
  immune from time-setting, Hiram Edson and Joseph Bates advocated 1850
  and 1851, respectively. James White kept their views out of Present
  Truth, the Advent Review, and the Review and Herald.

  [3] With several variations, age-to-come exponents, led by Joseph
  Marsh, O. R. L. Crosier, and George Storrs, believed that the Second
  Advent would usher in the millennial kingdom on earth during which
  time the world would be converted under the reign of Christ, with the
  Jews playing a leading role. This group closely related to the
  Literalists (British Adventists) who had believed that in the 1840s
  the literal Jews would welcome their Messiah (Christ) in Palestine,
  thus fulfilling Old Testament prophecies with Jerusalem becoming
  Christ's capital during the millennium. The majority of the Millerites
  had rejected this aspect of their Adventist theology, calling it
  Judaism. (See Josiah Litch, "The Rise and Progress of Adventism," The
  Advent Shield and Review, May 1844, p. 92, cited in Seventh-day
  Adventist Bible Students' Source Book, p. 513. The first defectors
  from early Seventh-day Adventists were H. S. Case and C. P. Russell
  who had, among other concepts, embraced the "age-to-come" theory. See
  The Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, s.v. "Messenger Party."

  [4] Early Writings, p. 75. [5] Early Writings, pp. 75, 76

(I have included the footnotes as they are important for a full understanding.)

From this it can be seen that SDA “Restorationist” doctrine accounts for the view that God was now dealing with ‘spiritual Israel’ (the Christian Church – themselves) and all the prophecies would be fulfilled in them, not literal Israel, which had forfeited its right to be established in the land. It appears that, due to these two visions of Mrs White, she discouraged SDAs from looking for a re-establishment of Israel because God was now dealing with them. Thus, “old Jerusalem never would be built up”, the SDAs claiming to be “new Jerusalem”. This equates with the idea that old Israel was not going to figure in God’s future plans for a nation like it had been before. The SDAs were the “new Israel” now.


Does worship bring joy to God? What is the biblical basis for the idea that worship brings joy to God?

After several searches through various translations, I was unable to find any verse that specifically states that our worship brings God "joy". However, this doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't bring Him joy. The overwhelming weight of Scripture implies that our worship (more specifically, our proper worship) pleases Him.

Whether this indicates "joy" specifically is up for interpretation.  I personally believe it does, based on many things, but at least partially because He is angered when we worship anything else. He is "a jealous God"

  Exodus 20:2-5 (KJV)

  2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of
  Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

  3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

  4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
  any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or
  that is in the water under the earth:

  5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the
  LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
  upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that
  hate me;

  6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my
  commandments.

I may be guilty of anthropomorphism here, but the fact that worshiping other gods seems to imply that God wants (and deserves) all our worship. That tells me that our worship pleases Him.

In fact, idolatry angers God, again and again in  Scripture we see this. The opposite of anger is joy, so, it seems to me that our proper worship must bring him joy. Even if that's not specifically stated, it seems strongly implied.

On the other hand, worship and sacrifice do not please Him if offered with the wrong motivation, heart, and love. He is more interested in our love, obedience, and faith than in the "things" we give.  Offerings are meaningless in and of themselves.

  Psalm 51: 15-19 (KJV)

  15 O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy
  praise.

  16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou
  delightest not in burnt offering.

  17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite
  heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

  18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of
  Jerusalem.

  19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness,
  with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer
  bullocks upon thine altar.

The same goes with phony worship.

  Matthew 15:18 (KJV)

  This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me
  with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

So I'd put forth that, proper worship, from a contrite heart, one that truly loves and is honoring God brings Him joy, while empty, meaningless worship (just going through the motions, or doing so in an attempt to please Him, rather than simply because you love Him so much that you want to worship out of an expression of the love in your heart) does not.


Were Adam and Eve the first? Question:

Reading Genesis, there seem to be quite a few references to some 'other' humans. How do scholars interpret those passages (and more importantly, why do they interpret them a certain way)? Are Biblical scholars sure Adam and Eve were the first humans?

Details:

In Genesis 1:26-29 it is first described how God created man and woman, without giving specific details: no mention of them being named Adam or Eve, for example, or if there were only two humans that he created.
Genesis 2 starts by describing the seventh day, which suggests the events are a continuation of those in Genesis 1. However, Genesis 2:4-7 describes how the plants were not growing because there was no man to work the ground, which suggests that Genesis 2 is a retelling in greater detail of the events in Genesis 1.However, that to me is unclear if it's a right interpretation since the events are described in a different order.
In Genesis 4:14, Cain fears that if he leaves the presence of God, "whoever" finds him will kill him. Who?
Genesis 4:17-18 lists descendants of Cain. Now, Cain might have had kids with his own mother, but it's interesting to note that all named descendants are male. In Genesis 4:19, Lameh (the last descendant of Cain) is said to marry two wives: Ada and Zillah. Where did these come from? Are the the descendants of Cain as well? Why are they not mentioned in Genesis 4:17-18, then?
And one last interesting bit, Genesis 6:2 mentions how the "sons of God" found the "daughters of humans" attractive. Who are the sons of God? Who are the daughters of humans? Why the distinction? My own uneducated interpretation would be that the 'sons of God' are the descendants of Adam and Eve, while the 'humans' are the others.

It's true that Genesis 1 does not name Adam and Eve, but Genesis 2 does.  Genesis 5 mentions Adam as the first man as well, and the New Testament confirms this.  Genesis 3 ends with Eve being names as such because she would become the mother of all the living.

Genesis 5 starts with God creating man "in the image of God" and then states that Adam had a son "in his own likeness".  So, Adam was created in the image of God, then the image was a bit marred in Genesis 3, and then Adam had a son in his own likeness.

So, the Bible is in pretty strong agreement that Adam and Eve were the first people created.

The first son of Adam mentioned in Genesis 5, however, is Seth.  We are told that Cain and Abel were sons earlier than that.  The Bible does not explicitly mention any other sons or daughters of Adam and Eve, although we are told in Genesis 5 that they had other sons and daughters.  The question is, "how many did they have?"

Recalling that their command was to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth, it seems reasonable to conclude that they had a large family.  It is also reasonable to assume that by the time Cain killed Abel, they had already had other sons and daughters.  We don't know how old Cain and Abel were when the first murder occurred, but if they were 16, then there could have been quite a few other children around.  After Abel's death, Adam and Eve have Seth, so it seems they are still having children that many years later.

The ages given for those who lived before the flood are quite large, so many conclude that the earth was better suited to life prior to the flood.  Indeed, a cataclysmic flood would certainly have a dire impact.

So, when the Bible mentions Cain's fear of other people, it is referring to other sons and daughters of Adam and Eve and perhaps their grandchildren if Cain and Abel were older.  Adam and Eve were 130 years old when Seth was born, so it's possible that they had been having children for quite a long time (100 years).  This could allow for not only grandchildren, but great grandchildren and even more generations.

The "sons of God" could refer to the line of Seth or others who lived righteously, and the daughters of men could refer to the line of Cain and Lamech, although we can't know for sure.

It is interesting that a genealogy is given from Adam through Noah, Abraham, David and on down 4,000 years or so to Jesus.  This is more evidence that Adam is a real person, because fictitious characters don't have lineages that trace to real people.  So, the Bible presents Adam as a real person who existed in time and to whom all lineages trace back.


Positional and Relational Forgiveness, what is the Biblical Basis? My question spawns from an explanation of 1 John 1:9 provided by the very popular protestant resource GotQuesitons.org.

It seems to me that the answer given has holes in it, which I would like, filled.  I assume, I hope not incorrectly, that the article is based on a “once saved, always saved” (OSAS) position and the answer to my question should be from those who adhere to that position.

The web site gives the fallowing definitions in this article:

  “Positional” forgiveness, or judicial forgiveness, is that which is obtained by every believer in Christ.

This positional forgiveness is achieved when “Jesus has been accepted as your personal Lord and savior”  Correct me if I am wrong and I will adjust my understanding.

  “relational,” or “familial,” forgiveness—like that of a father and a son. For example, if a son does something wrong to his father—falling short of his expectations or rules—the son has hindered his fellowship with his father. He remains the son of his father, but the relationship suffers. Their fellowship will be hindered until the son admits to his father that he has done wrong. It works the same way with God; our fellowship with Him is hindered until we confess our sin. When we confess our sin to God, the fellowship is restored. This is relational forgiveness.

Relational Forgiveness, seems to:

Have no consequences towards salvation which is already achieved by personal forgiveness.
Fellowship seems to be a empty of any meaning regarding salvation.

The possibility of entering into fellowship and out of it seems shadowy without consequence and meaningless.

When reading these explanations, they seem on the surface to address the issue but when you look deeper, for a scholarly biblical understanding, that being scripture citations explaining the position,  little explanation is provided.

What is the Biblical basis for the two concepts of forgiveness? Specifically the understanding that being separated from fellowship with God, does not in any way interfere with a person's final dispensation.

Here is what Jesus said regarding fellowship:

  Luke 15:11-32 King James Version (KJV)
  11 And he said, A certain man had two sons:

  12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of >goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.

  13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his >journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

  14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he >began to be in want.

  15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him >into his fields to feed swine.

  16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did >eat: and no man gave unto him.

  17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's >have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

  18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have >sinned against heaven, and before thee,

  19 And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired >servants.

  20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, >his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and >kissed him.

  21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy >sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.

  22 But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on >him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:

  23 And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:

  24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And >they began to be merry.

  25 Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the >house, he heard musick and dancing.

  26 And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.

  27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the >fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.

  28 And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and >intreated him.

  29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, >neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me >a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:

  30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with >harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.

  31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is >thine.

  32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was >dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Notice that positionally, both sons are always in good standing. The Father (God) never revokes what He has granted to both sons.

But the problem comes as each of them mistrusts the Father (God). Mistrust means to not believe. Each of them did not believe that God is good. And when they mistrust their Father (God), they began to find others to be the substitute god. That substitute god is usually self.

The younger son began to believe that in his own strength that he is going to make it somewhere far from His Father.

The older son began to believe that His Father is not good enough to throw a party for him. So he work hard (his god) but cannot enjoy the fellowship with His Father (God) who is physically very near.

Both fellowship could be restored and joy in the Holy Spirit is guaranteed as both of the sons began to "listen" to His Father (God) calling each one of them to draw near to Himself and begin again to trust Him as the "good" Father (God).