Based on Luke 3:22 & 1:39-41, Genesis 1:2, the 'Holy Spirit' was already here, so who does John 16:7, 16:13-14, John 14:26 talk about? I have seen some similar questions, however, this is slightly different.  The passages in John cannot be referring to the 'Holy Spirit' as it was here already, Jesus in John is talking about someone to come after him.

Luke 3:22 2 and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form like a dove. And a voice came from heaven:

Luke chapter 1 verses 39-41:
And Mary rose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.

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

"But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Paraclete (advocate) shall not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." John 16:7 also John 16: 12-14 and a number of other passages.

Jesus also mentioned as parakletos
1 John 2:1 Jesus is a parakletos (advocate), serving as a heavenly intercessor with the Father.

"And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, ["Paraclete" (Parakletos, Advocate, Comforter, Helper)] that he may abide with you into the age (to come)."John 14:16

John 1:20-24
20He did not refuse to confess, but openly declared, “I am not the Christ.” 21“Then who are you?” they inquired. “Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” 22So they said to him, “Who are you? We need an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” 23John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet: “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’” 24Then the Pharisees who had been sent 25asked him, “Why then do you baptize, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”…
"2 Peter 1:21" - For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit;
“John 15:26" - When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me”.
“Ephesians 4:30"  - And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. “Acts 4:31" - After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
"John 16:13" Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but what so ever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come."
John chapter 16: verses 7-8:
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.”

Welcome to Stack Exchange Christianity. Enjoy your stay with us.

The Holy Spirit. along with the Father and Son, possesses every attribute of God. He, like them, is omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, immutable, and so much more.

As with the Son, however, the role of the Holy Spirit in salvation history has changed. He has not changed, but his role changed, ever since God chose to involve himself in the affairs of his creatures, particularly the human species, who bear his image. That is because prior to God's creative work, there was no such thing as history. God's plan of salvation existed from eternity in the eternal counsels of God.

Once the infinite and eternal God chose to enact salvation's plan (which was in God's mind a fait accompli!), he identified with his creatures in their finitude and their history over time, from the beginning to the very end, from

  "In the beginning God" (Genesis 1:1)

to

  "a new heaven and a new earth” (Revelation 21:1);

from an eternal kingdom which appeared in time to a kingdom which will extend into eternity; when

  "the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever" (Revelation 11:15).

All this to say, Christians should not be surprised that the Holy Spirit's involvement in the outworking of God's plan of salvation is a bit mysterious.

Prior to his coming in power on the day of Pentecost, when

  Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting [, and t]hey saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them [, and a]ll of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them (Acts 2:2-4),

the Holy Spirit's presence and power were manifest primarily through a chosen few who were temporally led and filled by the Spirit primarily in their roles as prophets, priests, and kings. Moreover, through a group even fewer in number, God's Spirit breathed out God's eternal written word (see 2 Peter 1:20-21, and 2 Timothy 3:16).

Only with the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost did he thereafter come to indwell God's chosen ones forever. Heretofore, the Spirit came upon people intermittently to accomplish what they could not accomplish in their own strength.

Often, that manifestation of the Holy Spirit involved miracles: from making a donkey able to talk (Numbers 22:18), to raising people from the dead (e.g., 1 Kings 17:17 ff.); from forth-telling God's word with exactitude (e.g., 1 Kings 17:14--"thus saith the LORD"), to foretelling God's word in exquisite detail (e.g., Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; and 53:1 ff.)

With his coming on Pentecost, true believers in Jesus Christ were regenerated and then baptized into the body of Christ (see Titus 3:4b-7). Jesus foretold of this recurring phenomenon to his disciples during Passion Week as a way to prepare them for his imminent--yet temporary--departure from Earth (John 14 and 16, passim).

In conclusion, the personhood of the Holy Spirit has been and will be the same from eternity past to eternity future. In helping to bring to pass the will of God, he adapted his methodology to temporal situations, but always according to an unchanging theology. Christians for centuries have taken their cues from the Holy Spirit as they are led by him to change and adapt their methodology in performing God's kingdom work here on earth. They also need, however, regardless of methods, to be in agreement with the Holy Spirit's goal of magnifying the person and work of their God and Savior, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God (e.g., John 16:15).


Jesus's genealogy: 28 generations or 41 since David? These questions keep me wondering:

Firstly, how is it possible that Matthew and Luke came up with completely different genealogies of Jesus's ancestors, if they are both following the masculine line?

And more importantly, if I'm overlooking something and both Matthew and Luke were right, how can this 13-generatons gap be justified?

Added later:

Matthew 1   | Luke 3
------------+-------
David       | David
Solomon     | Nathan
Rehoboam    | Mattatha
Abijah      | Menna
Asa         | Melea
Jehoshaphat | Eliakim
Jehoram     | Jonam
Uzziah      | Joseph
Jotham      | Judah
Ahaz        | Simeon
Hezekiah    | Levi
Manasseh    | Matthat
Amon        | Jorim
Josiah      | Eliezer
            | Joshua
            | Er
            | Elmadam
            | Cosam
            | Addi
            | Melchi
            | Neri
Jehoiachin  |            <-- According to Matthew the exile started here
Shealtiel   | Shealtiel  <-- Same names
Zerubbabel  | Zerubbabel <-- Same names
Abiud       | Rhesa
Eliakim     | Joanan
Azor        | Joda
Zadok       | Josech
Achim       | Semein
Eliud       | Mattathias
Eleazar     | Maath
Matthan     | Naggai
Jacob       | Esli
            | Nahum
            | Amos
            | Mattathias
            | Joseph
            | Jannai
            | Melchi
            | Levi
            | Matthat
            | Heli
Joseph      | Joseph
Jesus       | Jesus

Matthew and Luke had different purposes for their genealogies. Matthew wrote his gospel to present Jesus as King of the Jews. Therefore, his genealogy traces Jesus' descent from Abraham (father of the Hebrew nation) through the royal line of David and Solomon. Luke presented Jesus as the Son of Man and showed his descent from Adam (the first man).

The difference in purpose explains the answer to both of your questions. The genealogies are different because Matthew gave Joseph's genealogy and Luke gave Mary's. Physically, Jesus was Mary's son, not Joseph's, so it makes sense that Luke, who stressed Jesus' humanity, would show Jesus' physical line in his genealogy. Matthew, presenting Jesus as a Jew and of the kingly line, shows Jesus' adopted father Joseph's genealogy. Wikipedia lists some possible explanations for why Luke says Joseph was the son of Heli.

The gaps are because Matthew only selectively chose noteworthy names for his genealogy; that's how we get exactly fourteen generations between Abraham and David, David and the Captivity, and the Captivity and Christ. Luke lists close to twice as many names in his genealogy because he wanted to show Jesus' humanity by specifically listing all or most of his ancestors.


Did Judas Iscariot participate in the First Holy Eucharist? At John 13:1-30 we see the narrative of the last Passover meal that Jesus partook with his disciples, in which  Judas is identified as the one who would betray him :

  .... After saying this Jesus was troubled in spirit, and declared, “Very truly, I tell you, one of you will betray me.” ....  So while reclining next to Jesus, he (John )  asked him, “Lord, who is it?” .  Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas son of Simon Iscariot. After he received the piece of bread, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “Do quickly what you are going to do.” ... So, after receiving the piece of bread, he immediately went out. And it was night

Now, the Gospel according John does not contain an explcit narration of the Institution of Holy Eucharist . Reading that with I Corinthians 11:25 which says  that the supper had been ended as Jesus took the cup calling it  the new covenant of His Blood, one is inclined to believe that Judas had left the venue even before the Eucharist was constituted.

My question therefore, is: Does the Catholic Church categorically teach that Judas Iscariot  participated in the First Eucharist instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper ? If it does not, why do the images of Last Supper that we have,  contain the picture of twelve Apostles ?

Did Judas Iscariot participate in the First Holy Eucharist?

The short answer seems to be yes.

Does the Catholic Church categorically teach that Judas Iscariot participated in the First Eucharist instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper?

The short answer is that there is room to doubt, but the Church tends to think that Judas Iscariot was present, St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John Chrysostom both say yes to this question.

Dr. Taylor Marshall explain it this way:

  Did Our Lord give the Holy Eucharist to Judas Iscariot at the Last Supper and First Mass? Saint John Chrysostom explains the Apostolic Tradition that Christ did indeed give the Holy Eucharist to Judas Iscariot:

    Judas was not converted while partaking of the sacred mysteries. Hence on both sides his crime becomes the more heinous, both because imbued with such a purpose he approached the mysteries, and because he became none the better for approaching, neither from fear, nor from the benefit received, nor from the honor conferred on him.” – Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 82 on Matthew

  Saint Dionysius* says (Eccl. Hier. iii) and Saint Augustine (Tract. lxii in Joan.) also confirm that Judas received the Holy Eucharist.

  What is the theological significance? Saint Thomas Aquinas explains:

    And this would have been quite proper [to refuse Judas the Eucharist], if the malice of Judas be considered. But since Christ was to serve us as a pattern of justice, it was not in keeping with His teaching authority to sever Judas, a hidden sinner, from Communion with the others without an accuser and evident proof. lest the Church’s prelates might have an example for doing the like, and lest Judas himself being exasperated might take occasion of sinning.
    This reveals that secret sinners continue to receive the Holy Eucharist. But this begs the question. What about public sinners? The Chruch Fathers and Saint Thomas Aquinas say that public sinners should not be allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist. For Saint Augustine’s take, see Summa theologiae III q. 80, a. 6.

  Did Judas Iscariot Receive the Holy Eucharist?


What is the biblical basis for carrying out social justice in opposition to the justice system? What is the Biblical basis for seeking social justice when such actions are considered illegal, or in opposition to the justice system?

The Bible has many examples of carrying out God's commands despite opposition from secular, or even religious authorities.

For example, Daniel and his fellow exiles were ordered not to worship God by those in authority, but continued to do so. In Acts 4, Peter and John were forbidden to preach and heal, yet continued to do so. They specifically said:

  “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the
  judges! As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and
  heard.” (Acts 4:19-20)

Later in response to further orders to stop, Peter says:

  “We must obey God rather than human beings! (Acts 5:29)

In a wider context, Christians have frequently disobeyed laws that are unjust, from hiding Jews from the Nazi regime to harbouring runaway slaves in nineteenth century America.


Has the Catholic Church ever opposed interracial marriage? A fun refutation of gay marriage supporters who say on Facebook:

  Not too long ago cross-racial marriages were not allowed, supposedly by God.

would be to say, well that's not my church so what do I care, they should have been Catholic to begin with.

However, before I bite off more than is worth chewing and get my apologetic handed back to me in the form of an L on my forehead.  Has it ever been the position of the Universal Church, (not just the Honorable Rev. Bigotus) that people from different races should not marry or that racial purity in humans is an end worth pursuing?

The answer, in essence, is “no.”

In principle, there is no obstacle to the marriage of any baptized Catholic man to any baptized Catholic woman, regardless of race.

This is a principle at least as old as St. Paul:

  For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:27-28).

Evidently, St. Paul is addressing baptized Jews and Greeks here, and Baptism removes all of the barriers to communion that man commonly places: race, social status, and sex.

(Since the O.P. mentions the homosexual marriage issue, please note that St. Paul is by no means downplaying the complementarity of the sexes in this passage; he is simply saying that neither men nor women are prevented from enjoying full communion in Christ. All too often—especially in the ancient world—women have endured a status as second-class citizens; St. Paul is saying that there are no second-class citizens in the Church.)

I was unable to find any official Church document that addresses the issue of interracial marriage directly, but Canon Law places no restriction whatsoever on race (neither the current code nor the older code issued in 1917).

There have doubtless been individual parishes that have refused marriages to interracial couples, but in general the Church has never refused such marriages.

Regarding interracial marriage as an argument for homosexual marriage: it is true that many states in the Jim Crow era prohibited interracial marriage (what the Catholic Church would call civil marriage, which is simply the legal contract established by spouses, not the Sacrament of Matrimony). Doubtless many Christian denominations followed suit (however, not the Catholic Church as a body).

However, it is a logical fallacy—a classic non sequitur—to deduce from this fact that therefore opposition to same-sex marriage is based on prejudices similar to those of the Jim Crow era.

In reality, “race” is an artificial concept that has no true basis in human nature. (It is true that human beings from different ethnic origins often have slightly different external characteristics, but these differences are quite superficial.) On the other hand, the complementarity of the sexes is indeed based on reality. Hence, there is no comparison between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage.


What happened to Ananias and Sapphira after death? Acts 5:1-11 (NIV)

  1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.  3Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

  5When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

  7About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

  “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

  9Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

  10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

This is the only passage that I know of in the New Testament that tells us of Christians being put to death. As far as I understand, it was God that put them to death for lying to the Holy Spirit.

My question is what might have happened to them after their sudden death. Did they go directly to hell, or did they go to heaven? Was their death a kind of instant judgement that sent them away from God and directly to hell?

We don't know
The Bible doesn't tell us.  The only answer I can give is a tautology - if they were saved, then they went to heaven.  But the Bible doesn't tell us whether they were saved.
However, it should be noted that the nature of their punishment does not rule out the possibility of their salvation.  Consider 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 (NASB):

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst.
For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present. In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus, I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Although the meaning of "destruction of his flesh" is debated, one possible interpretation is that this person was being sentenced to death.  Yet it is made clear that, despite the severity of the punishment, the man himself was saved.
But the question remains of whether Ananias and Sapphira were saved in the first place, as nothing in the text rules out their salvation, or indicates their possession of it.


According to the Church of England, if humans have free will, why do we ask for things in prayer? How does the Church of England reconcile these three things, which seem at odds with each other:

The bible tells us to ask for things in prayer (ask for what we want / ask for bad things not to happen).
Humans have free will.
The universe operates according to physical laws (ignoring miracles reported in the Bible).

I don't know why it took me 30 years to realise that these three don't make sense when you consider them together. If I pray that my children won't get kidnapped or crushed in a landslide, how could God possibly grant that request without denying the kidnapper's free will, or altering the natural state of a cliff face? These might not be great examples; what about asking for someone to be healed, asking for people to survive an earthquake you've just heard about, asking for world leaders to make the right decisions? How can God grant those wishes?

Is there a single thing you can ask for, without violating the 'rules' of free will and nature? Ask for courage/patience for yourself perhaps, that might work.

To my (limited) brain it seems like this one aspect of prayer is pointless. I feel a bit stupid about all those fervent prayers I made for world peace. Why do we ever ask for anything, if it is pointless?

I understand that there are other aspects to prayer (asking forgiveness, expressing love/worship, thanking) so it is just the one aspect (making requests) that seriously troubles me. I must have got it wrong somewhere...

I don't think there's any official C of E doctrine about this.

I think it's worth remembering that prayer is not any kind of magic spell, and that the Almighty is not bound by space and time. Conversing with the Lord about what you'd like to happen is one thing; being disgruntled when you don't get what you asked for, as if the Lord were a genie from a lamp, is another. And your question makes a distinction between the natural laws of the universe and the action of God, as if they were separate things. They aren't, any more than God's work of sanctification in you is a separate thing from you trying to do good works.


Which scripture was Paul quoting in 1 Corinthians 15:45? Paul says while teaching about resurrection of the dead  and resurrected body:

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

It is clear reference from some scripture to Jesus which Paul is referring. Which book or writings Paul was referring here?

The phrase is a direct quotation from Genesis 2.7. There is some difference in the wording in most modern bibles. This is because Paul was quoting from the Greek text of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint or LXX, whereas our modern bibles are translated from the Hebrew text from which the Greek was originally translated.

The LXX text of Genesis 2.7:

  ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν

The Greek text of 1 Corinthians 15.45:

  ἐγένετο ὁ πρωτος ανθρωπος αδαμ εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν

So Paul uses the exact same words, but adds the words in bold (πρωτος meaning "first" and "αδαμ" meaning "Adam") to add clarity to the meaning.

If we followed the conventions of modern writing, we'd add quotation marks and square brackets to indicate a direct quotation and an interpolation, but obviously that wasn't the custom in the ancient world.


What Scriptural basis has been used in Christianity to support the idea that a fetus posseses the soul? Possible Duplicate:
  Do Fetuses have souls? Is the aquisition of a soul instantenous or continuous?

What Scriptural basis has been used in Christianity to support the idea that the soul is already in the fetus before the fetus starts breathing, i.e. before it is delivered?

Jeremiah 1:5

  "Before you were formed in the womb, I knew you."

This conflicts with Exodus 21:22

  22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.

(The implication here is that a fetus is treated as property, not life)


What is the biblical basis for Christ living on earth during the Millennial Reign? I can't find any passages that prove the Premillennialist viewpoint that Christ lives here on earth during the Millennial Reign.  I'm a Protestant, and have been taught that he reigns during the millennia, but couldn't that be done from Heaven?    I also realize in Revelation that he sets foot down on Mt. Olive, but it doesn't say he stays here.  I know he lives on earth when Heaven is established here on earth after the Millennial Reign, so I know he lives here after the Millennia.

What is the biblical basis for the belief that Jesus will physically live on earth during the Millennial Reign?

The Bible contains many prophecies about the future, with the New Testament speaking about the return of Jesus to earth. Matthew 24, much of the book of Revelation, and 1 Thessalonians 4:16–18 are the more salient references to the second coming.

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then tall the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (Matthew 24:29-31).
For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. (1 Thessalonians 4:16).

Historic premillennialism was held by a large majority of Christians during the first three centuries of the Christian era. Many of the church fathers such as Ireneaus, Papias, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and others taught that there would be a visible kingdom of God upon the earth after the return of Christ. Historic premillennialism taught that the Antichrist would appear on earth and the seven-year tribulation would begin. Next would be the rapture, and then Jesus and His church would return to earth to rule for a thousand years. The faithful spend eternity in the New Jerusalem.
When Christianity became the official religion of Rome in the fourth century, many things began to change, including acceptance of historic premillennialism. Amillennialism soon became the prevailing doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.
One of the most influential historic premillennialists was George Eldon Ladd, an evangelical New Testament scholar and professor of New Testament exegesis and theology at Fuller Theological Seminary. It was through Ladd’s work that historic premillennialism gained scholarly respect and popularity among evangelical and Reformed theologians of the twentieth century. Other well-known historic premillennialists include Walter Martin; John Warwick Montgomery; J. Barton Payne; Henry Alford, a noted Greek scholar; and Theodor Zahn, a German New Testament scholar.
Historic premillennialism is one system of eschatology that has support in the Protestant community. Generally, all of the premillennialist beliefs teach that the tribulation is followed by 1,000 years of peace when all live under the authority of Christ. Afterwards, in a brief, final battle, Satan is permanently conquered. The placement of the rapture in relation to the other events is one of the main differences between historic premillennialism and premillennial dispensationalism.


Any biblical passages, traditions or historical record of Virgin Mary's baptism? Jesus was already thirty years old when He said to St. John the Baptist that it is the Will of the Father that He received baptism thru his anointed hands.

St. John was baptizing Jews before Jesus came in the Jordan River. The Blessed Virgin Mary on the other hand possibly knew what was St.John the Baptist was doing, it seems the bible was silent that Mary ever approaches St.John the Baptist.

Jesus Christ fully God and fully man is willed by God to seek St.John the Baptist. How come the Blessed Virgin Mary who is a creature although Catholicism teaches she does not need to be baptize by virtue of immaculate conception. However, if Jesus who is a God-Man had to seek St. John why would Mary be exempt?

Is there a passages or teachings that Mary receive baptism or a similar ordination, so that like Jesus although not needed but it is still the Will of Father.

St. Peter teaches the importance of baptism as it will make a believer heir in the priestly office of Jesus Christ. And this will make a believer able to perform the priestly role of offering a sacrifice.

  "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light." (1Peter2:9)

And St.Paul teaches that every believer or baptized person as member of the body of Christ the Church can offer their sacrifices united to Christ;

  "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, which is the church." (Collosians1:24)

If Mary did not receive baptism or some ordination from St. John the Baptist, it would mean She did not receive an anointing like what happen to Jesus Christ.

In the Old Testament only a priest can offer a sacrifice to God, if Mary did not receive baptism or ordination how can Her offering of fiat or her "body & blood" be acceptable God?

The only close passages is before Mary can utter Her Fiat, She must already receive a baptism or ordination in order for Her Fiat, like the priest in the old testament be acceptable God.

Is there any biblical passages, traditions or historical record of Virgin Mary's baptism?

Was the Blessed Virgin Mary Baptized?

Scripture does not speak of it. There is not historical document or record of this ever happening. However, Catholic tradition holds that the Virgin Mary did in fact receive baptism and thus set an example for all the faithful to follow.

  According to tradition going back to the second century (documented by renowned Scripture scholar Cornelius a Lapide), Christ baptized the Blessed Virgin Mary.

  It is true that Blessed Mary was without original sin, and full of grace. However, she had yet received the baptismal character, which is an indelible feature of the baptized. Also, the sacrament of baptism linked her even more closely with the Church of her beloved Son.

  If she humbly submitted to Old Law precepts out of humility (e.g. the purification after birth), then she no doubt would also have received the sacraments of the New Law. Moreover, Mary wanted to be like Christ her Savior in all ways. Christ didn’t need baptism but He received baptism. No doubt, she desire the same. Mary didn’t need to die, but she desired to die in order to be perfectly conformed to Christ. This is a feature of all the ancient Dormition accounts.

  Did the Immaculate Mary need to be baptized. No, of course not.

  Did the Immaculate Mary want to be baptized. Yes, of course.

  Was the Blessed Virgin Mary Baptized?

Would Cornelius a Lapide’s words himself suffice to prove the tradition.

Cornelius a Lapide’s commentary

  I have need to be baptized, &c. That is, to be spiritually washed from my sins, and perfected by the Spirit of Thy grace. Have need here does not signify an obligation of precept, as though the Baptist was obliged to receive the baptism of Christ. For this precept of baptism was given and promulged by S. Peter on the Day of Pentecost, and therefore after John’s death. Some gather from this place that John was soon afterwards baptized by Christ Himself, as were also the Blessed Virgin Mary, SS. Peter, James, and John, and the rest of the Apostles. This is stated by S. Evodius, who succeeded S. Peter in the Chair of Antioch, in an Epistle of his, entitled τὸ φώς.

  In favour of this idea are also Nazian. (Orat. 39 towards the end); “Christ knew,” he says, “that He would Himself shortly afterwards baptize the Baptist;” also S. Chrysostom, who says, “John baptized Christ with water, but Christ baptized John with the Spirit.” Whence the author of the Imperfect Comment. says, “It is plainly written in apocryphal writings, that John baptized Christ with water, but He baptized John with the Spirit.”

  Abulensis thinks, on the other hand, that John was not baptized by Christ. And he proves it by the marvelling of John’s disciples, who soon afterwards told John that Christ, whom he had baptized, was Himself baptizing, and that all men were coming unto Him. For this would have been needlessly told to John if he had been baptized by Christ, and he would have given this reply to his disciples. So that it is a doubtful point whether John was baptized by Christ or not.


How are penances decided? In the Catholic tradition, are penances after confession predefined? For example would lying equate to a standard set of penances that are applied universally by all priests, or are penances set at the discretion of the priest who is hearing confession?

Penances are set at the discretion of the priest. I think there are some very general guidelines, to prevent penances that are wildly disproportionate to the sins, but there's plenty of room for discretion within the guidelines.  One could get different penances for the same sins, not only from different priests, but even from the same priest on different occasions.

The priest can take into account not only the sins that one confesses but also other information that he happens to know, e.g., has this person confessed essentially the same sins to me before? He can also make the penance fit the time of the confession, e.g., giving a different penance during Lent than at Easter or Christmas, or even adapting the penance to a particular feast.


According to Calvinism, why does God give mercy to some and not to others? So according to Calvinism as I understand it...

  ...God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those he has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen. Those chosen receive salvation through Christ alone. Those not chosen receive the just wrath that is warranted for their sins against God.

So if everyone is equally deserving of wrath and equally undeserving of grace, why then does God unequally extend mercy to some and not to others?

How does this affect the Calvinist's perspective of the identity of God as being merciful and loving? If the love of God is the motivation for his mercy, what is the motivation for his alleged lack of mercy?

Because he wants to, and certainly not because of anything they've done or will do.

One of the central tenants of this concept for Calvinists is that it's not what you do (or have done, or even will do) that merits you salvation. It is wholly and completely the grace of God, not just that you were chosen, but that you were then called, and then compelled to respond, and then saved and once saved you are secured for eternity.

This article has a much better summary of this concept than I can hope to provide, but I'll provide some selected quotes and summary from it. First from Calvin:

  We shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to be that our salvation flows from the wellspring of God’s free mercy until we come to know his eternal election, which illumines God’s grace by this contrast: that he does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to others (Institutes, III.21.1).

In other words, this very concept is something that even Calvinists struggle quite dearly with. How do we deal with a God who gives to some and denies others?

But the question the Calvinist asks (as the article does). What does God owe us? Eternal Damnation is the proper answer. That he chooses to save any at all is an insane act of love and judgement. The author of this article discusses how the use of the word "denies" can be used to portray God as unjust or unloving. But then he gets to the money quote:

  His point is that none deserve or are owed anything by God except eternal death. No one can claim God as his or her debtor. Therefore, when God “gives to one what he denies” to another, we are to understand that neither deserves eternal life, but in sovereign mercy God grants eternal life to some but not all. Some receive mercy, the others receive justice, but no one is treated unfairly.

Ultimately though, election is not something we can determine other than to know that God calls to himself those that he elects. It's a tool of explanation rather than of determination for those of us here on earth. One more quote from teh same article I've quoted, again from the author:

  In the final analysis, Calvin believes we should study divine election primarily for its ability to tell us why one person who hears the gospel comes to saving faith in Jesus Christ and why another does not. To whom or what, ultimately, do we attribute the distinction? When all is said and done, how do you explain why one person believes unto eternal life and another does not? Who makes one person to differ from another: the person or God? That question can only be answered by looking more closely at the “how” and “why” of God’s sovereign choice. I’ll take that up in the next lesson.

The answer to your question, is, ultimately, we don't know. We do know that God has chosen to call some people and not others and that there is no criteria but the will of God for that selection.


What is the basis of God's Goodness/Righteousness? I would like an Answer from a Reformed/Calvinist Perspective.

There are many instances in scripture that affirm GOD is good (Psalm 119:68, 1 Tim 4:4).

And that God is Righteous (Psalm 48:10, Jeremiah 12:1).

I was considering God's Sovereignty - that all things move according to his will. Which means, earthquakes, disease, death etc... And he has the right to - for example, Kill a person, because all people are his possessions.

So a person sins if he kills another person because he has no right to the lives of other people. But if a person were to kill a character in his/her books - is is not a sin, since the author has the right to do whatever he wants in his book.

Because God owns all the earth, he has all rights to do whatever he wants. And cannot be guilty of sin- since there are no bounds for him to overstep.

This is the only way I have thought of to reconcile 'God is Good' and 'God caused the earthquake'.

However, If I was an author who killed a character in my book - you would not necessarily regard it as a 'good' action, just that the author cannot be condemned for it.

So is the Righteousness of God based on the nature of his position over the world? or is God just defined as Righteous.

Thanks.

Christian theologians have been divided on the issue of balancing God's sovereignty and man's freedom. If we construct a strict sovereignty then we fall in the danger of determinism and fatalism, that inevitably raises the question on God's moral nature and his sincerity. If we overemphasis on man's freedom then we might diminish God's sovereignty. The Reformed and Calvinistic theology has often been accused as determinism which makes man into puppets in the hands of God. The other prominent branch is "Molinism" after the name of a Spanish Jesuit of the Counter-Reformation Luis Molina (1535-1600) which is  considered to be the root of "Arminianism" after the name of Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609). Here is an excerpt by Dr. Craig's article  from ReasonableFaith:

  Everyone acknowledges that we have at least the illusion of free will.
  I take it that my sense of freely choosing is not mere appearance
  only, since if it were, nothing I think or do is of any significance
  whatsoever. Even the decision to believe in determinism would be
  meaningless, no more significant than having a toothache. Since
  freedom of the will is a necessary condition of the meaningfulness of
  my life, I may as well assume that I do have it. After all, if I do
  not have free will and my life is meaningless, who cares?

  So I think that determinism is incompatible with free will, but that
  determinism has not been demonstrated to be true. So what does it mean
  to have free will? Some thinkers have said that it is the ability in
  causally identical situations to choose either A or not-A. It seems to
  me, however, that this so-called Principle of Alternative
  Possibilities is not a necessary condition of willing freely. I’m
  persuaded by illustrations like that given by Harry Frankfurt to show
  that freedom does not require the ability to choose other than as one
  does. Imagine a man whose brain has been secretly implanted with
  electrodes by a mad scientist. The scientist, being an Obama
  supporter, decides that he will activate the electrodes to make the
  man vote for Obama if the man goes into the polling booth to vote for
  Romney. On the other hand, if the man chooses to vote for Obama, then
  the scientist will not activate the electrodes. Suppose, then, the man
  goes into the polling booth and presses the button to vote for Obama.
  In such a case it seems that the man freely votes for Obama. Yet it
  was not within his power to do anything different!

  Such thought experiments have been criticized on the grounds that no
  one could know what the man was going to do before he actually
  attempted to do so; hence, his free decision must be aborted by the
  activation of the electrodes. But while this objection seems cogent
  against human examples of prevention or intervention, it occurs to me
  that if God has middle knowledge and so knows what a person would
  freely do in any set of circumstances God might place him in, then the
  objection has no force. Suppose, for example, that had God known that
  Pontius Pilate would not send Jesus to the cross, He would not have
  placed Pilate in such circumstances. In that case, Pilate did not
  under the circumstances have the ability to let Jesus go. Yet he
  freely sent Jesus to the cross, since nothing determined him to do so.

  This suggests that what is critical to free will is not the ability to
  choose differently in identical circumstances but rather not being
  caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me
  how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. Sometimes philosophers
  call this agent causation. The agent himself is the cause of his
  actions. His decisions are differentiated from random events by being
  done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind.

  This understanding of free will has relevance to the case of God
  Himself. Jesus, being divine, was impeccable (could not sin).
  Therefore, there was no possibility of his yielding to Satan’s
  temptations in the wilderness. Yet he resisted sin freely because
  nothing external to him determined his choices. Like the man with the
  electrodes implanted in his brain, Jesus could not have chosen to sin,
  but he freely resisted sin. Again, God cannot choose to do evil, yet
  He freely does the Good because nothing outside Him determines Him to
  do so.

  So, to return to the case of human agents, certainly a free choice
  influences physical events, most obviously in the case of basic
  actions in my own body, like freely lifting my arm. We are not
  causally determined to make all the choices we make; rather many
  choices are up to us and are therefore free choices. We are held
  accountable for such choices because they are not the result of random
  brain events but are undertaken for reasons which we weigh and act
  upon.

  I’m not sure what you mean by “some ethereal and unintelligible
  source,” but if you are referring to God, I agree that if God secretly
  determines my every thought and action, then I am but a puppet whose
  actions are meaningless. But a God endowed with middle knowledge of
  what persons would freely do in any set of circumstances God might
  place them in can be provident over human affairs without infringing
  on human freedom.

also read a concise comparison of Molinism and Calvinism.


Which are the parts of the Old Testament that point to Jesus? I'm aware of the prophecy in Genesis about someone who will crush the serpent's head, as well as the parts of Isaiah, especially the Suffering Servant. Which other parts of the Old Testament point to Jesus?

Prototypes of Jesus can be thought of as falling into the following categories:

Prophecies

In these kinds of references, a man of God delivered a message which would be fulfilled in Jesus.  Isaiah 53, to quote one famous example, speaks of a suffering servant who would be "beaten for our iniquities and wounded for our transgressions." "By his stripes, we would be healed."  Isaiah 7 speaks of a virgin* who would conceive. (The asterix b/c I know the issues involved in that.) Jonah foreshadows Christ in that a man who was (bascially) dead for three days ("in the belly of the whale") comes to preach repentance. As Yul Brenner would say, 'etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.'  Hosea marries a prostitute who keeps leaving him, prefiguring Jesus coming to his own, and his own receive him not.

The primarily prophetic books would be: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Minor Prophets
Ceremonial / Law Fufilment

The Torah - aka the Pentetuch - and especially the latter half of Exodus and all of Leviticus and Deuteronomy - record the sacrifices, rules, and details about worship collectively called "the Law."  Jesus said that he came "not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."  He came as the sin offering.  He came as the Jubilee.  He came to "cleanse people from their sins," and so on. When Jesus' parents "redeem" him at the Temple, bringing the sacrifice the poor person is supposed to offer, Jesus identifies with the lowly. In these parts of the Old Testament, the types of Christ are ceremonialily pre-figurative. This is made explicit in Matthew, when John initially refuses to baptize Jesus, but Jesus insists, saying, "this is necessary to fulfill all righteousness."
Literary Allusion / Symbolism

In the "Ketuvi'im" or the Writings (Joshua - Song of Solomon), Jesus is most often seen as the target of an allusion.  In Song of Solomon, a woman is erotically charged as she comes to greet her lover - and for years the church has insisted this is typical of the relationship between Jesus and his bride.  In Psalm 22, a forsaken man cries out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" the same words that Jesus cries from the cross.
Historical Parallel

The Book of Exodus, of course, is God rescuing and redeeming his people. As just one example, the Passover meal is later used by Jesus to prefigure his death, and is later appropriated as what is now called "Communion" or the "Eucharist."  In 1 Samuel - 2 Chronicles, a kingdom is established through David, over which Jesus would rule forever.  The idea is that the grand sweep of history is often summarized as "Creation. Fall, Redemption" and is seen as the "story of God"

In all of these things, Jesus is said to be the one prefigured, because the book is about Him.  Scholars disagree over the exact numbers of references, but most agree that Jesus is prefigured in every book of the Old Testament. (The more liberal ones would say that there are symbols to which Jesu appropriates or s at least alludes when he comes.)  To list them all, however, would be a book.

One final little allusion, however, that bears some consideration, is the story commonly called "the Transfiguration."  Jesus goes up to a mountaintop, whereupon Elijah and Moses greet him.  Now, you should know that Jews refer to the Old Testament in two categories - "the Law" and "the Prophets."  Moses, as the "lawgiver" who brings the 10 commandments off of Mount Sinai.  Elijah was the most famous of the prophets, working miracles and boldly declaring God's truth to a wicked King.  In standing between and amongst these two, Jesus himself declares himself to be "the Law and the Prophets," a nice little picture saying that indeed, Jesus is the Word this Old Testament has been preaching all along.


What is the standard length of assignments for Catholic priests in parishes? A priest at my parish is leaving next year. It seems that six years may be somewhat standard. Is six years a local, national (American), or worldwide time frame for any given priest in any given Catholic parish? Excluding the bishops and deacons. Our pastor is there for 12 years; I would guess this "double-term" is particular for pastors in larger parishes but again I am not sure.

Canon Law permits a particular conference of bishops to establish guidelines for the length of pastor appointments. But being guidelines, a bishop may make adjustments according to the needs of a particular diocese, parish or even the  priest in question.

  Do priests have term limits?

  Not exactly. Canon (church) law permits a conference of bishops to establish guidelines for the length of pastor appointments. In the United States, that term is six years, renewable for another six years. A pastor may be moved prior to that time, or may be kept on longer, depending on the bishop’s assessment of the pastoral needs within the parish and diocesan-wide. - Clergy Appointments


Was there doctrinal difference between Lollards and Waldenses? Lollards and Waldenses are two historical movements that spread out of Catholic church, in England and France, respectively. I know they had similar views such as opposing the corruption of the wealthy church, advocating lay service, focusing on the scripture instead of ritual traditions and translating scripture so people could study the Gospel in their native language.

Were these two movements separated by anything but time and geography? Was there any significant difference in doctrine, belief or politics between Waldenses and the Lollards?

According to each of their own "statements of Faith" they  actually do contradict each other in big issues. before I lay it out, however, here are my citations:

Waldensian beliefs
Lollard beliefs

The first issue on which they contradict each other is purgatory. Waldensians say there is no purgatory. They say people will go either two ways “(the) good to glory, wicked to torment” which leaves room for purgatory, but then later in their statement they say “For you shall be damned without remedy.” No purgatorial redemption.

They Lollards say that yes, there is purgatory. “(acts)...will have needful purgation or worse.”

The next issue is celibacy. the Waldensians say "That he might likewise keep firm the marriage tie, that noble accord and contract."

In the issue of celibacy, the Lollards say yes, do participate in celibacy.

And the last difference I will talk about is Confession (to priests). Waldensians say "Then he desires the Priest to confess him:
But according to the Scriptures he has delayed too long, for that commands us
To repent while we have time, and not to put it off till the last." They then go on expound on this topic.

The Lollards, however, say confession is necessary to the salvation of man.

Lollards and Waldensians contradict each other in purgatory, celibacy, and confession. Some say that one's view of purgatory and confession will, either positively or negatively, affect their eternal destiny.


How do Pre-Millennial Dispensationalists reconcile Hebrews 8:13? Pre-Millennial Dispensationalists believe God has two covenants: one with the Christians and one with the Jews but that appears to be going against the grain of what Hebrews 8:13 says.

  "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." (NIV)

In brief: only some dispensationalists believe that Jews and Gentiles are currently under two completely separate covenants – most instead believe that there is one New Covenant that is applied differently to Jews and Gentiles.
However, either way, the "old covenant" of Hebrews 8:13 is seen to be the Mosaic Covenant, as distinguished from the Abrahamic Covenant (which the New Covenant is based on).

Now for the details and some sources.  Dispensationalists like the authors of the Moody Bible Commentary and Thomas Constable understand the "obsolete" covenant of Hebrews 8:13 to be the Mosaic Covenant.  This is indicated by the references to the priestly and sacrificial system in Hebrews 8:1–5 which does literally "disappear" in the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.
The Mosaic Covenant (obsolete, disappearing) is thus distinguished from the Abrahamic Covenant, as Thomas Constable writes:

The New Covenant is a branch of the Abrahamic Covenant. In the Abrahamic Covenant, God promised Abraham a piece of real estate for his descendants, an incalculable number of descendants, and blessing for his descendants and for all people through his descendants (Gen. 12:1-7; et al.). [...] The Davidic Covenant gave more information about God's promises regarding descendants (2 Sam. 7). The New Covenant revealed the particulars of the promised blessing (Jer. 31).
Each of these later covenants relates to the Abrahamic Covenant organically; they were outgrowths of it. In contrast, the Mosaic (Old) Covenant does not relate organically but "was added" (Gal. 3:19), as an appendage. It explained how the Israelites could maximize the benefits God had promised in the Abrahamic Covenant. Consequently, when God terminated the Old Covenant, it did not eliminate anything He had promised Abraham. (source; bold added)

Thus the Abrahamic Covenant reaches its fulfillment in the New Covenant.  Most dispensationalists, as Constable writes, believe that there is only one New Covenant, though it is applied differently to Jews and to Gentiles.  But he does note that a few dispensationalists believe that there are two new covenants, one for Jews and one for Gentiles:

Dispensational commentators have taken various positions on the relationship of the New Covenant, promised in Jeremiah 31, to the New Testament references to the New Covenant. Was it the same covenant, or is a second New Covenant in view? Some believe there are two new covenants: one with Israel and one with the church. This position rests on the fact that the New Covenant, promised in Jeremiah 31, was specifically "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" (Jer. 31:31). Those who hold this view take the New Covenant, under which Christians live, as a different "New Covenant" (2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8; 9:15). They regard Jesus' references to the "New Covenant" as to a New Covenant with the church (Luke 22:20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:25). (source)

This is not the view that Constable prefers, however, and he indicates that "few writers today" take this position.


Are Matthew, Mark and Luke the same book in different version? I always thought Matthew, Mark and Luke are different books originally were written by different people. But recently I was told that Matthew, Mark and Luke are originally the same book but in different versions. At the beginning there was one book only and then it was edited or adjusted by different people so at the end we left with three versions of the same book. Is it true?

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, aka the Synoptic Gospels, share common elements and parallels and were written by different people for different audiences. Your question has been (and still is) debated among Biblical scholars. My answer is, at best, a brief summary with some pointers to references that may be helpful and some encouragement for you.

Mark is believed by most scholars to be the earliest written account. There is evidence to suggest that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark. There is also evidence for a lost book of Jesus' sayings, known as Q, that influenced Matthew and Luke.

To say that they are different versions of the same original book does not address the historical origins of ancient manuscripts, oral traditions, the historical contexts for which they were written, and the editorial practices that created the manuscripts from which our modern translations were (and are) derived.

What you were told--that there was one original book--may be an attempt to support Biblical literalism and inerrancy and to say that there once was one original and perfect manuscript. This view is more commonly held within American evangelicalism.

Each Gospel stands on its own and has profound lessons for Christians. The study of scripture can be a rich and fulfilling activity.

A useful reference in studying the Synoptic Gospels, specifically the parallels among them, is "Gospel Parallels: a Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels" by Burton H. Throckmorton.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0840774842/

Another book that covers the doctrines of Christian scripture is "Inspiration and Authority: Nature and Function of Christian Scripture" by Paul Achtemeier.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801045428/

For deeper study, the "New Interpreter's Bible Commentary" in 10 volumes is an excellent resource.
https://www.amazon.com//dp/1426739125/


Are there any followers of Catharism today? I'm interested by Catharism. Is there anywhere in Christendom where this faith has reappeared since being suppressed in the Middle Ages?

I know that today some people in France, near Spain, are called Cathars, because they are living on the territory where the Cathars lived.  But, from what I know, there are no believers in Catharism there.

Full followers of Catharism were known as 'Perfects'. They would commit to a specific ascetic lifestyle, and would on their death ascend to heaven. Other lesser followers of Catharism would be reincarnated to get another chance.

Unfortunately to be a Perfect, you need to be inducted by another Perfect. Since there are no more Perfects, no-one can become one. The last leader of the Cathar movement fully admitted that he was not a full Perfect, because no Perfects remained to induct him. Therefore Catharism has effectively died out.

The Perfect Heresy by Stephan O'Shea is a good book for those wanting to know more.


Is promotion of contraception a reason to excommunicate? Melinda Gates (wife of Bill Gates) promotes contraception such as condoms and sterilization among many other things. This is against the Catholic teaching. She also claims to be a practicing catholic.

My question is: Could public promotion of something that is against the teaching of the Catholic Church be used to excommunicate? If yes, why doesn't the Catholic Church excommunicate her? Or who/where can claim the case for excommunication?

Canon 915 states:

  Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Those who publicly promote contraception are "persevering in manifest grave sin". It's manifest because it's public; it's grave because sexual sins are always grave matter.

  Could public promotion of something that is against the teaching of the Catholic Church be used to excommunicate?

Yes

  If yes, why doesn't the Catholic Church excommunicate her?

Cowardly bishops

  Or who/where can claim the case for excommunication?

Bishops can excommunicate.


How do Catholics explain Hebrews 13:10 and John 6:54? We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have
  no right to eat.

  Hebrews 13:10 (NIV)

Catholics interpret Hebrews 13:10 as talking about the Eucharist (source).

  Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will
  raise them up at the last day.

  John 6:54 (NIV)

Catholics interpret John 6:54 as talking about the Eucharist.

Hebrews 13:10 and John 6:54 seemed to be contradictory in Catholic interpretation.

Some people have no right to eat the Eucharist.
Anyone who eats the Eucharist has eternal life.
Some people have no right to have eternal life (per Heb. 13:10)

How do Catholics explain Hebrews 13:10 and John 6:54?

According the Catholic interpretation of the passages in the O.P.'s question, there is no contradiction between them.

To see this, it is helpful to look at the broader context of Hebrews 13:10. Chapter 13 is essentially an exhortation to live Christian charity, and in general living the Christian life, in its various aspects:

  Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are mistreated, since you also are in the body (Heb. 13:1-3, ESV).

Part of living the Christian life is adhering to the true doctrine and not being led astray by heresy:

  Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them.

It is not certain what “foods” the author is referring to here, but it seems likely that he is referring to the meat that is sacrificed, either in the Jewish temple or at pagan temples. (In both cases, the priests would often eat a portion of the sacrificed meat.)

If we assume that the author is referring to the Levitic priests of the Old Testament (as he did in Hebrews 10), then verse 10 seems easier to interpret:

  We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.

“Those who serve at the tent” (οἱ τῇ σκηνῇ λατρεύοντες) would, then, be the Levitic priests. The “tent” would, therefore, refer to the Tent of the Meeting or “Tabernacle” that was used in Israel from the time of Exodus to the construction of the Temple.

In any case, whether it is the Levitic priests or pagan priests, what the author of Hebrews appears to be saying is that we Christians have an “altar” that those priests—since they are unbaptized—do not have a right to serve at (and hence cannot partake of the sacrificial banquet).

Hence, the “altar” mentioned could indeed be taken to represent the place where the Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered; but the author is saying, in essence, that the non-Baptized, even if they are priests in their own religion, are not to partake of it (and cannot benefit from it if they attempt to do so).

There is no contradiction, therefore, with John 6:54, in which Jesus tells his followers that his flesh (interpreted by Catholic exegetes to mean the Eucharist) is the means par excellence to obtain eternal life:

  Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:54, ESV).

In other words, argues the author of Hebrews, despite the fact that they make many sacrifices of animals, until they are baptized, even the priests of the pagan and Jewish religions will be excluded from the heavenly banquet (the Eucharist) that brings them eternal life.

(Source for these reflections: the Ignatius Study Bible: New Testament.)


Can someone point to a prophecy about the 3 days between the cross and resurrection? Can someone point me to a OT prophecy about the Messiah being in the tomb for 3 days? As general or specific as you can think of. I think I have one, and it seems pretty obvious to me, but a lot of Bible commentators don't mention it.

Old Testament prophecies are sometimes 'thematic', by 'type' or 'metaphor' as in the case of these three days. There are various places in the Old Testament that give special meaning to three days.  The gospels however only refer to the prophecy of Jonah. Christ said that Jonah would be the 'sign' that God would give the Jews, as a rebuke for their obstinacy. (Math 12:39-40). As Jonah was buried in a watery death for three days, then spit out and believed upon by Gentiles, so would Christ be buried in the belly of the earth and spit out miraculously to be believed on by the Romans and Greeks.

Beyond this single prophecy, there does seem to be more in the Bible and in rabbinic history that enshrines a three-day significance. The main idea seems to stem from Abraham arriving at Mount Moriah to sacrifice his son, on the third-day (Gen 22:4). This is another resurrection image no doubt. The idea is that Isaac was good for dead all three days until God provided a ram in his place.  From this the third day, there seems to have become some concepts of a third day resurrection, further supported by Hosea 6:2. Notice though that Rabbi's often differed among themselves, just as we do with Revelation, so the three days in Hosea 6:2 was interpreted by some as 3000 years.

Despite the differing historical interpretations by the Rabbis, it cannot be denied that this three-day-theme existed before Christ. Still the bottom line is that in the New Testament Christ's reference to Jonah is enough to fully satisfy the statement that Chris was raised on the third day 'according to the scriptures' (I Cor 15:3-4) The Old Testament three day theme is mostly of supplemental interest.

For a deeper analysis on the three day theme, there is an excellent little article by Michael Brown at JewishRoots.net here.


Is salvation in the name "Jesus", or in the person Jesus Are we saved because we believed in "Jesus" (the name) or Jesus (the person)?
Because other languages have other names for Jesus. If they call upon that name for salvation would they be saved?

I'm interested in an overview of what different denominations have to say this issue, as well as what the Bible has to say on the matter.

Is Salvation only through Christ?
The biblical answer is YES!

"Jesus answered, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (John14:6)

Is salvation exclusive to Christianity?
The biblical answer is No!.,why? There are a lot of people who lives before Jesus Christ came, and even after Jesus Christ founded His Church, after His ascension to Heaven, the Church had not yet proclaim the gospel of Christ to all people in the four corners of this world.
A good reading of Vatican II Council Documents will enlighten as about the Catholic Church teachings on Inter-religious dialogue;

DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS
NOSTRA AETATE
PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

What is the fate of the people who never heard the gospel of Christ thru no fault of their own?
The Catholic Church teaches that this people can be save by the mysterious wisdom of God.

Is There Really "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church?"
The Catholic Church teaches infallibly, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” or, “outside the Church there is no salvation.” But as with all dogmas of the Faith, this has to be qualified and understood properly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out the truth of the matter succinctly in paragraphs 846-848, but I would recommend backing up to CCC 830 for a context that will help in understanding these three essential points concerning this teaching:

There is no salvation apart from Christ and his One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Again, this is an infallible teaching and not up for debate among Catholics.

Those who are “invincibly” ignorant concerning the truth of #1 above will not be culpable for this lack of knowledge before God.

Those in the category of #2 have the real possibility of salvation even if they never come to an explicit knowledge of Christ and/or his Church.

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation” (quoting, Lumen Gentium, 16).
“Although in ways known to himself God can lead those, who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men” (quoting Ad Gentes, 7, another document from Vatican II).

Is salvation only through the name and person of Jesus?
In the recent famous statement of Pope Francis in the signing of Fraternal Agreement with the Muslims, the statement goes like this;

Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;

Justice based on mercy is the path to follow in order to achieve a dignified life to which every human being has a right;

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS
TO THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
(3-5 FEBRUARY 2019)
http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/travels/2019/outside/documents/papa-francesco_20190204_documento-fratellanza-umana.html

As you can see Pope Francis did not condemn other religions, but working on fraternal agreement that people of different faith can live together in peace, harmony and love.
God greatest commandment is to love one another and to love even our enemies. It means loving our neighbor as we love ourselves ,and our love is rooted in the love that we received from God.
Again, is salvation only through Christ? YES!
Proof, all the people in the Old Testament, pre-messianic time of Jesus Christ who had died in friendship with God are in the Abraham bosom's, these righteous people cannot enter Heaven without Christ opening the gate of the Kingdom of God for them.

Bosom of Abraham ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosom_of_Abraham

Is salvation exclusive to Christianity? The answer is NO!
Is salvation only through the name and person of Jesus? The answer is Yes!.

Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name above all names, 10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but now even more in my absence, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.For it is God who works in you to will and to act on behalf of His good purpose… (Philippians2:10-14)


Who are the "Sons of Israel" mentioned in Numbers 28 This verse sounds like God is telling Moses to tell the Israelites what they should do, but from what needs to be done it sounds like he is really going to be telling the priests what God wants done.
Therefore the question of who are the "sons of Israel.",
Numbers 28:1-3

1 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
2 “Command the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘You shall [a]be careful to present My offering, My food for My offerings by fire, of a soothing aroma to Me, at their appointed time.’
3 You shall say to them, ‘This is the offering by fire which you shall offer to the Lord: two male lambs one year old without defect as a continual burnt offering every day.

As has been said above, "Sons of Israel" refers to, literally, the 12 sons of the man Israel. However, It also refers to their children, etc. - and thus is another name for the Israelites. (Note that this manner of naming was a common practice - Jos 15:14 for example)

I did not search to determine what translation you are using, but in the KJV and NIV84 the verse definitely seems more clear than that which you are reading from - however, in answer to your question, from the context of the end of chapter 27 of the book, the phrase for children/sons of Israel, does seem to be referring to all of them. There is no indication of anything else occurring, and there is no theological nor practical prevention of this being the case. I understand why you ask the question, as it does seem like rather technical information being passed on here - but there's no reason to think that those to whom it is being spoken are only the levites, priests, or some specific group.

One could certainly speculate as to why God had this spoken to all of Israel, but I think in knowing the purpose of the law and commandments, the purpose of this telling-forth of the required sacrifices is more clear.


Is the sermon on the mount intended for unbelievers? I'd like to know if Jesus' sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7) is directed at an unbelieving audience or an audience of believers. I'd argue its for unbelievers. At this point in time the disciples weren't truly believers (they wanted Jesus for political reasons, this was made clear when they left him during his final hour). The climax of the sermon Matt 5:48 "Be perfect as I am perfect" denotes condemnation since its impossible for anyone to achieve perfection without Christ.

I'm under the impression it's geared towards unbelievers, to show them they are incapable of receiving salvation outside of Christ.

Any problems with my thinking?

If you set up that kind of a false dichotomy -- that the disciples left Jesus at the end, and thus they were not believers here -- then none of the teachings of Jesus were given to believers. In the mind of Jesus, the disciples were believers in training. These were those which he had personally selected and through whom he was going to build and establish his church. In 5:13, Jesus says, "You are the salt of the earth." In 14, he says, "You are the light of the world." Verse 16, "Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father in heaven."

Verse 11 goes in here also, "Blessed are you when they revile you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you." Here Jesus forms a dichotomy between the disciples and "they." The same "they" are those who persecuted the prophets. This "they" -- we know from Matthew 23 -- would include the unbelieving Jews who persecuted the prophets; and contextually, it specifically included the Pharisees, who are said to be the murderers of the prophets, as Jesus charges that all of the blood of all of the prophets would be charged against that unbelieving generation.

But in Jesus' statement of verse 11, he is also linking the disciples up with the prophets. The disciples would enjoy the same persecution which had previously come to the prophets. The prophets were the messengers of God who existed before you; Jesus is saying the you are the messengers of God in the now.

Jesus is, in the Sermon on the Mount, laying the foundation for the new morality of the kingdom of God, with an internal righteousness which will exceed the external righteousness of the Pharisees (5:20). It will be the reconciled kingdom who desires to be reconciled to their brothers (5:23-24). It will be the kingdom the eschews lust (27-30), and that upholds the covenant of marriage (31-32). It will be the kingdom that lives by its word, that does not return evil for evil, that loves and gives to even those who are abusive, and who does good to those who hate them, and prays for those who despitefully use them.

In this way, I believe, we become perfect even as our Father in heaven in perfect. We become a people that reflects the righteousness of God. We have Christ's image contained in vessels of clay (2 Corinthians 4:7ff) and we reflect and we image the very glory of God. And, by the way, the Sermon on the Mount does not end here, but it continues on through chapter 6, and does not end until 7:27. In these chapters we find many instructions given to believers, such as how to pray, how to give discreetly, how to fast, how to lay up treasures in heaven, etc. There is the constant dichotomy here again between us and the hypocrites -- and there is constant reference to the fact that God is our Father in heaven. So, no, I have to disagree: the Sermon is written to Christians; and its standards are not unreachable, but are the reflect the life of the called out, redeemed and sanctified communion.


Biblical literalness and the speed of light How do  biblical literalists defend that if a star is 10 million light years away and we can see the light from it, therefore the Earth would have to be at least 10 million years old?  That is, because one of the laws that God set is that matter cannot be created or destroyed.  All matter would have to have been created at the same time, when God spoke and all was created (secularly known as the Big Bang).

"God is not controlled by laws of science" I don't know whether you can share this idea with me or not. The truth is, science cannot explain everything. Simple things like dreams, thoughts, feelings and emotions cannot be explained by science. Science can only understand the things that human can see, touch, feel and hear. I don't think the law of science as we have here on earth or this universe will still apply in Heaven. The place where God dwells will surely have a different science. For instance, I don't think the light in heaven will consists of only seven colors, it might have more. I also don't think gravitational force will have any effect on God or heavenly beings while even light can be attracted by gravitational force, according to Einstein. For example, in the movie "The Matrix", everything inside the Matrix was programmed using advance computer languages; the gravity, the taste of food etc. were all designed but it was different from the real world in many ways, it was incomplete. While you can bend the laws of science in the Matrix, it's not the same in the real world.

"God created science"  If we can believe that God created this universe out of nothing, we should also believe that everything, and literally everything in this universe came into existence by the mere words of God. That would include the laws of science which governs this very universe; the speed of light, law of gravity, law of refraction, planetary motions, rotations and revolutions, birth and death of stars, etc...

God said, "Let there be light" and lo and behold, there was light! God created the light with a single sentence from His mouth. Creating the light means creating the very nature of it, it's speed, it's power, the substance through which it can pass, the energy that it carries, its behavior and so on. For instance, when a car is designed, it's speed, it's size, etc. are decided. In the same manner, God designed the speed of light, the speed of sound, the mass of every particles.

"God is bigger than you can imagine" It doesn't matter you believe in Old Earth or Young Earth, the most important thing is how big can you imagine God to be? How powerful do you think God is? How far can you put your faith in God. If the Bible says God created the whole universe within 6 days, do you have a problem in believing it?

  I am the Lord, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?
  (Jeremiah 32:27, NIV)


Did the early church believe that the damned would be eternally punished in a literal hell of fire? I recently asked a question on the hermeneutics site with the intention of letting people share their exegetical takes on the words of Jesus found in Mark 9:47-49, where he said:

47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ 49 For everyone will be salted with fire. [ESV]

As I imagined would be the case, the topic turned out to be quite controversial: some people understand Jesus' description to be literal and others to be figurative. I would like to know if this controversy also existed in the early days of the church. What were the early church's views regarding the eternal fate of the damned? Did early Christians believe in a literal hell of fire to which the damned would be cast to receive the eternal punishment for their sins?

Cold Case Christianity has a post detailing the statements on hell by a number of ante-Nicene fathers--it is a valuable resource in considering this questions; I discovered several of the quotations below from their research.
Perhaps the most graphic of these statements is that by Lactantius in the early 4th century:

For because they have committed sins in their bodies, they will again
be clothed with flesh, that they may make atonement in their bodies;
and yet it will not be that flesh with which God clothed man, like
this our earthly body, but indestructible, and abiding forever, that
it may be able to hold out against tortures and everlasting fire…The
same divine fire, therefore, with one and the same force and power,
will both burn the wicked and will form them again, and will replace
as much as it shall consume of their bodies, and will supply itself
with eternal nourishment (Divine Institutes 7:21)

In fairness, this is a statement made hundreds of years after the apostles. Some earlier sources are worth citing as well:
Ignatius of Antioch (a disciple of John, writing early 2nd century)

Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if
they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death. how much
more if a man corrupt by evil reaching the faith of God. for the sake
of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart
into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him. (Letter
to the Ephesians 16:1-2)

Irenaeus of Lyons (writing late 2nd century)

the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are
judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth (Against heresies 3.4.2)

Irenaeus didn't really mince words. Relevant to the discussion of Irenaeus, you may find this article by Brad Kelly interesting: Did the early church believe in a literal hell of eternal punishment
Annihilationism
The earliest clear source for annihilationism (essentially that the wicked are annihilated rather than existing eternally) would be Arnobius of Sicca in the 4th century; the idea is discussed in detail by Talbot here. Talbot points out that Arnobius' ideas were repeatedly opposed by his contemporaries and later generations.
Conclusion
In general, it appears to me that the writings grew more extreme (and grotesque!) over time, but that in the earliest sources we find comments pretty similar to those in the New Testament. By the 4th century we see departure at both extremes (annihilation and...regeneration??).
But the early sources don't seem to be focused so much on the nature of the fire. They could be read to indicate either literal fire or as a metaphor of agony.
J. Warner Wallace summed it up as follows:

The Early Church Fathers, with very few exceptions, agree with
traditional views descriptions of Hell as a place of eternal,
conscious torment:

Hell is a place of judgment for those who have rejected God and denied Jesus as their Savior
Hell is a place of separation from God
Hell is a place of torment in which the rebellious are in anguish and pain
Hell is a place where the rebellious are tormented forever and are conscious of this torment for all eternity (In fact, the eternal
duration of their torment is often compared to the eternal duration of
the reward of the saved)

At the same time, the earliest Church Fathers are ambiguous on those
areas where the Bible is ALSO ambiguous.

The exact nature of the torment of the rebellious is unknown
The manner in which the rebellious are kept alive in spite of ‘deathly’ anguish is also un-described


Do any church fathers interpret Luke 18:17 as teaching the necessity of infant baptism? Luke 18:15-17 (DRB) And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child, shall not enter into it.

I'm aware of course that this most likely means:

  Not only must you allow them to partake in the Kingdom of God, but unless you become innocent and simple like these infants, you yourselves cannot enter the Kingdom.

Question

However, has Luke 18:17 ever been interpreted by the Fathers of the Church as a direct teaching of infant baptism (i.e. the impossibility of the inheritance of heaven for the unbaptized)?

That is, interpreted it as having the meaning:

  Let the infants come to Me: the Kingdom of God is for them also [and they, too, are in need of it as sons of Adam]. Indeed, unless a child is born again in baptism, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God [i.e. a potential tragedy to be avoided by the above teaching].

Thanks in advance.

Yes – in a letter to Augustine, Pope Innocent I interprets this passage as supporting the teaching that the baptism of infants is necessary for their salvation.  He writes:

  That other doctrine which your Fraternity claims that [Pelagius and other heretics] preach, that little children can attain the reward of eternal life without the grace of baptism, is very foolish.  [...] Those who claim this for them without regeneration seem to me to wish to nullify baptism, since they teach that these children have what they believe is not to be bestowed on them in baptism even by themselves.  If, then, they do not wish anything to stand in their way, let them confess that there is no need of rebirth and that the sacred stream of regeneration has no effect.  But in order to disarm the vicious doctrine of vain men by the swift reasoning of truth, the Lord proclaims this in the Gospel by saying: "Suffer the little children and forbid them not to come to me." (Letter 182, January 27, 417)


How old will we be in heaven? William Lane Craig has argued that after the end of this world our bodies will literally be resurrected in a physical sense. We will then be united with our physical bodies.

My question then is which physical body will I receive: My 5 year old body, 45 year old body, ...?

Having been raised Catholic, I'd be curious to know how Catholicism interprets this question.

Please provide a passage(s) from the bible to support your explanation.

No one knows for sure. The Bible doesn't speak directly to this issue, no Pope has spoken ex cathedra about it, and no ecumenical council has addressed it.

The "angelic doctor" Thomas Aquinas wrote in his catechism:

  All will rise in the condition of perfect age, which is of thirty-two
  or thirty-three years. This is because all who were not yet arrived at
  this age, did not possess this perfect age, and the old had already
  lost it. Hence, youths and children will be given what they lack, and
  what the aged once had will be restored to them.

Aquinas cites Ephesians 4:13 for support:

  until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of
  God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ

However, the connection to the teaching he gives is tenuous. Read it in its full context.

Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft said in a discourse on heaven:

  What age will we be in Heaven?

  Medieval philosophers usually thought we would all be 33, the ideal
  age, the age of maturity, as of Christ's earthly maturity. I take it
  this is symbolically accurate: we will all be fully mature. Infants
  who die prematurely will be given, by God (perhaps through the
  mediation of their own parents!), all the maturing they missed on
  Earth. Geneticists say that the aging process is not inevitable; that
  a live organism could theoretically be immortal, never age, never die.
  Cancer cells do not die unless they are killed or their host dies. The
  aging and dying process began at a certain time in our history, after
  the Fall. God did not make death, but he unmakes it. In Heaven no one
  will be old. Yet in a sense everyone will be both old and young, as a
  reflection of the God who is the Alpha and Omega, oldest and youngest,
  "beauty ancient yet ever new." Even now we sometimes see the wisdom of
  old age in the musing face of a baby or the eternal freshness of youth
  in the twinkling eyes of the very old. These are hints of Heaven.

Though nobody knows the answer, Kreeft affirms that Aquinas' answer is "symbolically accurate." That is, though we may not know the details, we do know that we will have perfect bodies.

There's a related question on the Catholic view of heaven which may interest you.


What is the difference between classical and revised dispensationalism? I understand from Wikipedia and elsewhere that dispensationalism can be broken into three main categories:

Classical (Scofield, Chafer)
Traditional, revised, or normative (Ryrie, Walvoord)
Progressive (Bock, Saucy)

From what I gather, classical dispensationalism has largely disappeared, while traditional/revised remains strong despite the growth of the more recent progressive position.

Here I'm interested in the main differences between the first two categories.  Obviously there are going to be distinctives in the thought of each of these theologians, but, broadly speaking, what is an overview of the differences between classical and revised/traditional dispensationalism?

Put another way, what is an overview of the theological distinctives between classical and revised/traditional dispensationalism that make it fruitful to treat them as separate categories?

This is from my limited understanding of dispensationalists after debates with them.
Majority of them are of the traditional branch, which is a slightly developed version of the classical.

It seems that Classical beliefs eternal separation between New covenant Church and Israelite Saints even in heaven. Two brides or two wives of God. The saved groups have separated compartments even in heaven eternally. The teachings of Christ and epistle to Hebrew do not apply to us new covenant Christians or Church. The Church is a new mystery entity founded by Paul, and mainly his and other apostles' teachings apply to us.

Traditionalists only add slight harmony and reduce eternal separation among dispensations; but still there are two brides of God; Israeli Christians have a confused identity not exactly same as the NC Church. Wacky end times charts and clocks are rejected. There may be vague line of distinction between classical and traditionalists. Christ's teachings or commands in the gospels still remain broadly irrelevant to the Church.

Progressive differs a lot from the above that most of them do not consider this to be a part or branch of dispensationalism. This acts mainly as Historic premillennialism (HP). What distinguish this as a branch of dispensationalism is the literal millennial reign; otherwise it could be hardly identified under dispensationalism. Jesus rules as Davidic throne immediately after ascension formally but not physically in an "already but not yet" sense. The Church is not a new invention created by Paul but by Jesus; and the OT believers comprises in the Church itself. There is great harmony of covenants and dispensations.
Distinct structures within a unified Kingdom and salvation program of God. The reason Israel and the church are distinct is because they are structurally distinct and the kingdom program is bigger than either of them. Israel is a nation and race. The church is the body of Christ, representing him as he is present in heaven. When the consummation comes with the kingdom completed, Jesus will be present on earth and Israel will again be a part of the kingdom program blessing in the consummated kingdom which arrives in stages- provision now, consummation to come matching the two comings of Messiah.

Behold, your house will be abandoned ... you will not see me until  you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" (Matt 23:38-39; Luke 13:35).

See Romans 16:25-27, Eph 2:11-22 for how the program is unified, plus too many OT texts are used of current realities to see separate programs. Even promised NC elements, forgiveness and the Spirit are in the mix as the benefits are present now in line with promises made with OT hope (Luke 3:15-17; 24:49- Father's promise; Acts 1:4-8).


Daniel's timeline - Yom Kippur dates 2024 Hello,

I have been working on a hypothetical Daniel’s timeline for the final “week” of 7 years prophecy (using dispensational/literal interpretation of days in the timeline) described in Daniel/Revelation.  I am using the Hebrew feast days, holidays, and other possible prophetic events as guidelines for the spacing of literal days.  I was able to put together this figure for educational purposes. However, I found a discrepancy between the Yom Kippur feast day dates given at Hebcal.com vs. Torahcalendar.com in 2024.  The dates differ by one whole month – roughly YK Oct 12, 2024 vs. YK Sept 12, 2024.  I can’t find any real explanation about this discrepancy.  Hebcal.com seems to be correct with the Hebrew leap years.  The differences in how the sites make calculations does not seem to account for a whole month difference in dates.  Does anyone have an explanation for the date differences in this case?

P.S. Torahcalendar.com is not used by Jews for the most part.  I believe it is Messianic Christian in origin.  They don't give contact information.  I do not think this question asked from a Christian perspective would be appreciated on the Judaism stack exchange.

Thanks

The Biblical calendar is a "bound lunar" calendar. This means it consists of an exact number of lunar months, but the number of months in any particular year is 12 or 13. This ensures that Passover and other festivals  are always about the same time of year, but not exactly. This differs from the Islamic calendar,  which is "fixed lunar", in which a year is always 12 lunar months, and so Ramadan, and other Islamic observations drift earlier each year.

The question then arises as to whether any particular year in calendars with a Biblical basis should be 12 months or 13. The governing principle is that the Passover, in the month of Nisan, must be after the vernal equinox. If 12 months after the last Passover takes us to a full moon prior to the vernal equinox,  then an extra month must be added before Nisan, and so Passover will be  thirteen months later, not twelve.

12 full moons after Passover 2023 brings us to 25th March 2024. Since this is after the vernal equinox there is no need to add a thirteenth month. Passover is, according to the Biblical principle, March 25th, and Yom Kippur is , as always,  a lttle under 6 months later. That is what Torahcalendar does,  by directly applying astronmical facts to Biblical principles.

Modern Jews, like Catholic,  Protestant and Orthodox Christians, use mathematical models of the sun and moon when calculating Passover/Easter.  In this method a thirteenth month is added on a regular basis 7 times every 19 years. However this has drifted somewhat. The result is that a thirteenth month is added before Nisan 2024. This makes Passover April 23rd 2024, with Yom Kippur a little under 6 months later, October 12.

The month discrepancy is accounted for by the fact that the Rabinic Calendar wrongly (from the astronomical perspective) adds a thirteenth month in 2024 although it is not required or needed to ensure Passover is in the Spring. This will also occur in 2043, 2062 etc.


Why have Christians often had in their possession the Book of John as opposed to other books of the Bible? A few examples:

I have been offered The Book of John in booklet form from time to time by Christians preaching on the main street in Auckland.

In the TV series Vikings the Viking leader and hero Ragnar Lothbrok raids the Lindisfarne Monastery in the year 793 and asks a Christian monk named Athelstan what is the book he has in his possession. Athelstan replies "The Book of St John", and when questioned why he says "Because without it there is only darkness".

Is the Book of John significant for one reason or another?

There are at least a couple of differnt levels here.

Why are the Gospels different?

The Gospels, Matthew, Mark Luke and John are core to the Christian faith.

Without the life and person of Jesus it is pretty certain that there would be no such thing as Christianity, either in name or in character. For those of us living after the Biblical age the four gospels are the only record we have of that, and it makes them collectively exceptionally important - foundational - to Christianity. If we had never had certain other books of the Bible , Christianity would probably be very different. If we had never had the Gospels (or their equivalent) it would never have happened.

Why is John different?

Three of the Gospels (Matthew, Mark Luke) are called 'Synoptic'. They present a similar view of Jesus, and most of the stories in them are found in at least two of those Gospels. It's reasonable to argue that the picture we have of Jesus would be only somewhat changed, if we lacked any one of them. John, on the other hand, presents a very different (not contradictory) picture. If it was missing we would have a significantly different view of Jesus. It also presents an unashamedly 'evangelistic' view of Jesus, presenting not just the story but making explicit statements about his significance. For example it contains the famous "John 3:16" verse.

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

Your experiences

In my experience Christians often give out Gospels because they contain the core of the Christian message. They are also very readable and relatable. You can read one of the gospels in around an hour, and at the end of it you will have a pretty clear picture of the main points of Christianity. John probably gets used more often than others for the reasons above, but not exclusively.

At the time of the Vikings, any written copy of a Gospel was rare, and so considered precious by Christians (for its content, not its monetary value, though that was substantial) and it is that that makes Athelstan value it. It is entirely possible that John was the only Gospel Athelstan owned, and that he would have been equally attached to any of the other Gospels. When Athelstan says "Because without it there is only darkness" he is not referring to the physical book, but to the message written in it.